Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!wanttaja
From: wanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ronald J Wanttaja)
Newsgroups: net.aviation,net.politics
Subject: Re: "A Design Proposal That Would Make Passenger Planes Safe"
Message-ID: <452@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 11-Jan-86 17:08:34 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.452
Posted: Sat Jan 11 17:08:34 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Jan-86 00:43:31 EST
References: <196@hropus.UUCP> <118@r2d2.UUCP> <27@hplabsc.UUCP>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 25
Xref: lsuc net.aviation:665 net.politics:2865


 >          I have sat in rear-facing seats on military aircraft.  It's easy
 > to get used to, and obviously (excuse me, apparently since I've not actually
 > seen results in tests) much more safe. 

 Hmmmfff.  This argument comes up occasionally.  Rear-facing seats are not
 safer in an accide:

 1.  Extensive testing has shown little difference, and;

 2.  Seat-related injuries in accidents are not due to the pressure of the belt around the passenger's gut; neither are they due to noggins impacting the back 
of the foam-covered seat in front.  When seats contribute to injuries, it
is due to the entire seat assembly breaking free... with passengers still
in their seats.  If I remember right, the seats are only required to
withstand 9 Gs... in a *single* axis.  When this rule was written, 9 Gs was
believed to be the limit the human body could stand, which tells you how
old this rule is.  Read the accident reports in Aviation Leak, they usually
give the cause of death of the occupants.

					Ron Wanttaja
					(ssc-vax!wanttaja)

My views are not necessarily those of the Boeing Aerospace
Company.  Besides, BAC doesn't even build airplanes,
so there!