A330 Business Sash Belt

[samh004]

I realise this question has probably come up before, so perhaps someone can simply direct me to the thread/article explaining it... but why do the new Qantas A330 (and soon 787) Business seats have a sash belt when they don't rotate like the A380 First seats do? I understand the role in the First class seats if you're not facing in the direction of travel, though that's only when the seatbelt sign is off right? It just seems like a feature they don't need considering every Economy passenger is also facing forwards. What am I missing?

 

[Comoman]

I realise this question has probably come up before, so perhaps someone can simply direct me to the thread/article explaining it... but why do the new Qantas A330 (and soon 787) Business seats have a sash belt when they don't rotate like the A380 First seats do? I understand the role in the First class seats if you're not facing in the direction of travel, though that's only when the seatbelt sign is off right? It just seems like a feature they don't need considering every Economy passenger is also facing forwards. What am I missing?

Because the seats are certified for take off/landing not fully upright. Qantas shouted from the rooftops that it was a world first to be able to stay in semi-recline for Take off/landing (which was totally incorrect).

I personally hate the sash belt and take it off at the first opportunity. Seems crazy having to have a sash belt even when your seat is fully upright.

 

[madrooster]

Because the seats are certified for take off/landing not fully upright. Qantas shouted from the rooftops that it was a world first to be able to stay in semi-recline for Take off/landing (which was totally incorrect).

I personally hate the sash belt and take it off at the first opportunity. Seems crazy having to have a sash belt even when your seat is fully upright.

By that logic, you would want to do away with sash belts in cars too.

You can be perfectly upright in a car and still want the sash belt for sudden stopping, eg. slamming the brakes. The same applies if the pilot has to abort a take off.

 

[Comoman]

By that logic, you would want to do away with sash belts in cars too.

You can be perfectly upright in a car and still want the sash belt for sudden stopping, eg. slamming the brakes. The same applies if the pilot has to abort a take off.

The instantaneous deceleration/distance your body can travel in a car crash is very different to an aborted high speed take off. Hence the requirement for a sash belt in a car. Have experienced both so speaking from experience.

If your theory was correct then all aircraft seats would have a sash belt!

Anyway, it's my opinion only.

 

[oz_mark]

In economy you generally have a seat in front of you that helps cushion in the event of an impact survivable accident.

Where you don't have such thing (e.g. bulkheads, business, first), extra restraints are needed, which can be air bags, or sash belts.


There are pretty significant certification standards for seats on aircraft.

The shoulder harness is intended to make sure these passengers in business/first will not sustain head injuries beyond the certification standard. This cannot be achieved without the additional restraints.

In economy, a similar restraint is unnecessary since those seats meet the criteria by the proximity of the seat backs in front. There are some exceptions at bulkheads, and you will note that some aircraft have air bags to help meet the standard.

 

[Ansett]

My memory was that it was due to the ability to have the seat semi reclined during take off and landing.

Like others I am not fan of the sash and take it off as soon as possible. I find it painful the mattress is fitted as the mattress does not have a slot to facilitate the sash.

Not sure what others find but the lap side of the seat belt never seems to be tight and needs constantly needs tightening. Seriously hoping that they make big improvements to the belt and mattress in the next generation.

 

[Himeno]

I realise this question has probably come up before, so perhaps someone can simply direct me to the thread/article explaining it... but why do the new Qantas A330 (and soon 787) Business seats have a sash belt when they don't rotate like the A380 First seats do? I understand the role in the First class seats if you're not facing in the direction of travel, though that's only when the seatbelt sign is off right? It just seems like a feature they don't need considering every Economy passenger is also facing forwards. What am I missing?

Because you can have them (partly) relined for take off/landing.
The seats have a preset recline setting which can be used during take off/landing. Of course, the first flight I had these seats (a few months after roll out started), I used that preset and the cabin crew forced it back to full upright for take off.

 

[codash1099]

The instantaneous deceleration/distance your body can travel in a car crash is very different to an aborted high speed take off. Hence the requirement for a sash belt in a car. Have experienced both so speaking from experience.

If your theory was correct then all aircraft seats would have a sash belt!

Anyway, it's my opinion only.

Business passengers are, by definition, more valuable than economy passengers and therefore more worthy of being saved from injury.

 

[Daver6]

My understanding is this.

In Y in a crash, the seat back in front will move forwards. So with just the lap belt, your upper body moves forward and you already have your head on the seat in front (brace position). During a rapid declaration the seat in front folds forward.

Due to the nature of these J seats, that are solid and immovable. Hence the need for a sash belt.

Similar reason in Y that sometimes you'll notice the seatbelts have inbuilt air bags. This will be in a bulkhead seat or Y seats like the old CX ones that didn't actually recline, but were in a hard shell and the bum bit of the seat just slid forward.

 

[Pleb Status]

Other airlines operate similar J seat arrangements and they do not need a sash belt (EY for example).

Is it as simple as QF not wanting to pay to purchase and/or maintain airbags for these J seats?

I think the partial recline during take off issue is the main reason however.

The Y comparisons are off the mark as exit row seats do not have sash belts and no seats exist in front of these seats.

 

[Daver6]

The Y comparisons are off the mark as exit row seats do not have sash belts and no seats exist in front of these seats.

I disagree. If there is no seat in front of you then no need for an air bag/sash belt. Nothing to hit your head on in that case.

 

[bsb]

Why would anyone complain about added safety? Safety measures change over time and this new one is not that big a deal.

Undo the sash after takeoff. First world problem.

 

[Pleb Status]

I disagree. If there is no seat in front of you then no need for an air bag/sash belt. Nothing to hit your head on in that case.

It is generally the seats with nothing in front which have the airbags.... For example, exit row Y seats in some widebodies.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

my understanding is the same as oz_mark's. If there is nothing in front of you to brace for impact, airlines will provide either a sash or airbag. I think the latter two are interchangeable.

I'm not sure 'being able to recline' during take-off and landing is a determining factor... VS and NZ both allow recline during those phases of flight and have an airbag rather than sash. Conversely, TG's 77Ws require pax to be fully upright, but still have a sash.

I've noticed some airlines introducing airbags for bulkhead rows in economy... but I haven't seen them at emergency exits? Perhaps they don't want deflated airbags in the case of emergency?

I spoke to a friend of mine who is an expert in transport safety about sash belts rather than airbags. He assured me the sash would do an equally good job... it is designed to stop your torso flailing around. Your head, which remains unsupported, is something like 4kg. Your body is much heavier than that, and is where the momentum comes from. Apparently

 

[Daver6]

It is generally the seats with nothing in front which have the airbags.... For example, exit row Y seats in some widebodies.

Fair call. I wasn't aware of that.

 

[kpro]

Other airlines with off the shelf Vantage XL (SAS) have the sash belts as well. Even airlines with the standard Vantage seat (Malaysia Air) have the sash belts. I would have thought that only Qantas' version has the pre-recline for take-off feature? Hence there must be another reason it's required.

I actually prefer having a sash belt only for take-off and landing compared to a bulky airbag belt for the whole flight. Either way though, it's not a huge concern for me.

 

[samh004]

Thanks for all the interesting responses. I certainly see there are a number of factors.

I personally don't have a problem with the sash and agree with kpro that it's certainly less bulky than the airbag lapbelts... thus preferred.

 

[JohnPhelan]

The instantaneous deceleration/distance your body can travel in a car crash is very different to an aborted high speed take off. Hence the requirement for a sash belt in a car. Have experienced both so speaking from experience.

If your theory was correct then all aircraft seats would have a sash belt!

Back in the 1960s, Australian cars only had lap belts. Come the 1970s, they introduced sash belts as well, saying they provided added safety.

In my view, there should be sash belts on all airline seats too. (With the passenger having the option of whether or not to have the sash portion used while in cruise, but with sash required for take off and landing.)