Michael O'Leary - seatbelts useless

kingtiger · 09-11-2012 01:04PM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

When you consider the hundreds of millions that are flying each year 60 is a very low figure.

even if it only one, its a safety risk

from the same article

"Last December, a United flight from Tokyo to Honolulu hit what is known as "clear turbulence" -- rough air encountered with no warning in otherwise clear skies -- leaving 83 passengers injured and one dead."

I for one always wear by belt after being hit by turbulence a few years ago over Paris, one woman in front of me hit the overhead rack when the plane lost altitude suddenly, and guess what she didn't have a seatbelt

anyway Mickey is only trolling looking for publicity

09-11-2012 01:04PM

ballsymchugh wrote: »

actually, crash position won't save you. it will preserve your face in a way that will make identification by dental records easier though :eek:

Actually, the brace position does help. Mythbusters done a segment on it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClX2yldxZPw

asherbassad · 09-11-2012 01:05PM

davet82 wrote: »

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4634019/Ryanair-boss-says-you-dont-need-seatbelts-on-planes.html

I don't like him but he's probably right on this one, i wonder is there any evidence to suggest he is right?

as for putting your head between your legs before impact of a 200 mile an hour aerplane hitting the ground, seems more likely so that you can kiss your arse good-bye than saftey measures me thinks :pac:

You crash a car at 40 mph and you're not wearing a seatbelt, you're going to be fcuked up. That plane that emergency landed in the Hudson River in NY was going faster than 40mph. Nobody was badly injured because they were all ordered to secure their seatbelts. O'Leary's a friggin' nutter.

bbam · 09-11-2012 01:11PM

Wibbs wrote: »

If you're ever in a bit of heavy turbulence you'll be grateful you have them.

Dead right.
It would also depend on the severity of the crash. Once again he's being a sensationalist,, it's all about exposure to him. No such thing as bad publicity and all that.

Auldloon · 09-11-2012 01:17PM

In the late 90's I worked as a rep for a major Aircraft seat manufacturer. I was told then that waist seat belts are as likely to cut you in half as save you in the event of a serious crash.
Five point harnesses and rear faced seating like on military transporters is much safer but it was found that that commercial passengers didn't like this and would not travel in many cases.
For turbulence, heavy landings and the like the waist seat belt is adequate.

jessiejam · 09-11-2012 01:18PM

If MO'L deems the seatbelts on airplanes unnecessary or an "extra" on flights, it will justify him charging for their use in the future. Just like the toilets.

keithclancy · 09-11-2012 01:20PM

Was on a flight to Spain,

Out of nowhere the plane dropped a few thousand feet out of the sky.

Everyone that had a seatbelt on just ended up with their hands in the air.

Everyone without one ended up blowing their head off the roof .

God help the fella taking a scuttery shíte in the jax.

Rasmus · 09-11-2012 01:22PM

How stupid. If I put on my seatbelt I am not expecting it to save my life, but to protect my head from hitting the ceiling or other passengers during turbulence. More promo for Ryanair with his whacky outbursts.

CruelCoin · 09-11-2012 01:34PM

davet82 wrote: »

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4634019/Ryanair-boss-says-you-dont-need-seatbelts-on-planes.html

I don't like him but he's probably right on this one, i wonder is there any evidence to suggest he is right?

as for putting your head between your legs before impact of a 500 mile an hour aerplane hitting the ground, seems more likely so that you can kiss your arse good-bye than saftey measures me thinks :pac:

FYP

09-11-2012 01:36PM

realies wrote: »

I would have thought the seatbelts are for the purpose of stopping the bodies being thrown around the plane,You might survive the plane crash and get hit from a flying body.

Too right. A few years ago I was at a gig near the front of the stage when, to everyone's surprise, Pavarotti - in the middle of 'Nessun Dorma' - decided to leap into the 'mosh pit', 17 people including myself are still wearing orthopaedic shirts.
One can only imagine the carnage if 'Pav' - unencumbered by seatbelt - started 'flying' inside the fuselage of a passenger aircraft.

Sadly the 'big fella' now sings in that great opera house in the sky, otherwise I'd definitely be keeping an eye out for him in the queue of the next Ryanair flight from Dublin to Alicante.

smash · 09-11-2012 01:38PM

OSiriS wrote: »

the safety belt and crash position are intended to protect you in cases of survivable incidents.

Isn't the crash position designed to snap your neck on impact because it's cheaper to pay out for a death rather than long term injury?

Dodge · 09-11-2012 01:57PM

smash wrote: »

Isn't the crash position designed to snap your neck on impact because it's cheaper to pay out for a death rather than long term injury?

Well you'd know with that username...

TwoShedsJackson · 09-11-2012 02:17PM

ballsymchugh wrote: »

actually, crash position won't save you. it will preserve your face in a way that will make identification by dental records easier though :eek:

Ripping off some US stand-up comic I saw years ago: 'if they don't know who you are how the fu<k do they know who your dentist is??'

starbelgrade · 09-11-2012 02:20PM

RYANAIR ; DUBLIN TO STANSTEAD €2* WINTER SALE!!!

* Additional fees and charges may apply

- Ryanair seat: €2
- Tax : €57
- Credit Card booking charge : €5
- Priority booking fee : €15
- Additional baggage fee : €20
- Hire of seat belt : €900

Total cost of flight : €999 each way

Tefral · 09-11-2012 02:21PM

I watched a programme recently where they remote controlled an airliner into a type of crash that would happen when a plane is landing. The first ten rows were pretty much un survivable, but the dummies they used showed major destruction when the ones without seatbelts were examined.

The most the other dummies (With seatbelts) got were broken foot and arms..

EDIT: Here is a link about it http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137327/Discovery-Channel-Watch-passenger-jet-crash-land-Mexican-desert-devastating-consequences-documentary.html

norrie rugger · 09-11-2012 02:23PM

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Michael O'Leary gets media coverage by saying something controversial again.

yeah except this time he is showing a frightening lack of knowledge, regarding the industry that he is a major player in.
Considering the issues, with craft failure, of late; he would be better suited keeping his mouth shut on this

IvyTheTerrible · 09-11-2012 02:27PM

So I wonder will Ryanair now go easy on passenger who refuse to buckle their seatbelt before takeoff? :rolleyes:

ballsymchugh · 09-11-2012 02:28PM

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Ripping off some US stand-up comic I saw years ago: 'if they don't know who you are how the fu<k do they know who your dentist is??'

flight list and registration/insurance claims i presume. it's not as hard as it's made out to be.

666irishguy · 09-11-2012 02:35PM

I wonder is there also an extra cost to the airliner for the maintenance of the seat belt that he doesn't like having to pay. I assume somebody like a safety team has to come in and stress test them after every couple of thousand ours of constant stretching/strain and buckling/un-buckling to make sure they are still safe for emergencies. The only disadvantage to a seat belt that I can see is that you may be badly injured (let's say by chance both arms are broke) and strapped in only for the plane to catch fire as so often happens on say a take off accident. In the confusion you may not get any help to get out and get burned alive.

Capt'n Midnight · 09-11-2012 03:07PM

Auldloon wrote: »

In the late 90's I worked as a rep for a major Aircraft seat manufacturer. I was told then that waist seat belts are as likely to cut you in half as save you in the event of a serious crash.
Five point harnesses and rear faced seating like on military transporters is much safer but it was found that that commercial passengers didn't like this and would not travel in many cases.
For turbulence, heavy landings and the like the waist seat belt is adequate.

A three point inertial reel harness like in cars would protect your face from being mashed on the seat in front. - it's a good compromise between ease of use and safety.

Just because Americans don't like them doesn't mean the rest of us have to be put at risk.

Yes they will cost the airlines more, (in fuel consumption because of extra weight mainly) probably a lot less fuel than they saved by using less fresh air because of the smoking ban

Five point harness is needed in cases where you can submarine under the four points but in a commercial jet I'd guess the floor would have given way long before then. (IIRC it used to be that the seats on airliners could take about twice as many g's as the floor - go figure)

Capt'n Midnight · 09-11-2012 03:13PM

666irishguy wrote: »

The only disadvantage to a seat belt that I can see is that you may be badly injured (let's say by chance both arms are broke) and strapped in only for the plane to catch fire as so often happens on say a take off accident. In the confusion you may not get any help to get out and get burned alive.

Any sort of crash that is likely to leave you badly injured while wearing a seat belt would probably kill you if you aren't wearing one. If you are wearing a belt the most dangerous thing is probably getting hit by one of the projectiles that weren't wearing theirs.

It's like the old days in America where people didn't wear belts because they reckoned that would reduce their chances of being thrown clear of the wreckage

finnegan101 · 09-11-2012 03:14PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

yeah except this time he is showing a frightening lack of knowledge, regarding the industry that he is a major player in.
Considering the issues, with craft failure, of late; he would be better suited keeping his mouth shut on this

As another poster said, MOL knows well about the industry , just using comments as he does best....
the majoity of time seat belts used is take off and landing, when its quite possible for the plane to spin off whereby the belts would help, the only benefit they are in a high altitude crash is the same reason why you put your head between your legs.... to protect your teeth or identification!! being locked into your seat also helps ID you...

hmmm maybe hes thinking if you cant be identified he wont have to pay compensation!!!! ;-)

666irishguy · 09-11-2012 03:40PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Any sort of crash that is likely to leave you badly injured while wearing a seat belt would probably kill you if you aren't wearing one. If you are wearing a belt the most dangerous thing is probably getting hit by one of the projectiles that weren't wearing theirs.

It's like the old days in America where people didn't wear belts because they reckoned that would reduce their chances of being thrown clear of the wreckage

I'd definitely agree that being injured in a seat is better than getting smashed around the inside of the plane. If you encounter enough G-force to fling you around inside though, I'd say you'd be just as dead in the seat since the positive and negative G's you encounter will probably have shook your insides into mush as they bang around inside the body. Nasty. As for the old days in the US, I remember hearing that getting impaled on the elaborate raised centres they seemed to love putting on steering wheels back in those days, was another reason to wear a belt.

09-11-2012 03:46PM

cronin_j wrote: »

I watched a programme recently where they remote controlled an airliner into a type of crash that would happen when a plane is landing. The first ten rows were pretty much un survivable, but the dummies they used showed major destruction when the ones without seatbelts were examined.

The most the other dummies (With seatbelts) got were broken foot and arms..

EDIT: Here is a link about it http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137327/Discovery-Channel-Watch-passenger-jet-crash-land-Mexican-desert-devastating-consequences-documentary.html

At least it prevented those particular dummies from applauding a safe landing.

CruelCoin · 09-11-2012 03:54PM

smash wrote: »

Isn't the crash position designed to snap your neck on impact because it's cheaper to pay out for a death rather than long term injury?

Well i know i'd rather be dead than have a face like a melted candle for the rest of my life. Just my opinion mind you.

CruelCoin · 09-11-2012 03:55PM

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

So I wonder will Ryanair now go easy on passenger who refuse to buckle their seatbelt before takeoff? :rolleyes:

All you have to do is hide your lap under a magazine and look the other way when they come around to check.

Not once have they ever asked me to move it so they could verify i had my seatbelt on.

At the end of the day, i couldn't care less, and neither could they!

Jimoslimos · 09-11-2012 03:56PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A three point inertial reel harness like in cars would protect your face from being mashed on the seat in front. - it's a good compromise between ease of use and safety.

That type of car seatbelt might be desirable for another reason. Familiarity.

I vaguely recall seeing a programme on aircraft crashes and one report showed that in the panic survivors were more likely to start trying to disengage the seatbelt by pushing to the side - like you would to release a three-point seatbelt in cars.

Dodge · 09-11-2012 04:00PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

All you have to do is hide your lap under a magazine and look the other way when they come around to check.

Not once have they ever asked me to move it so they could verify i had my seatbelt on.

At the end of the day, i couldn't care less, and neither could they!

You sound like a cool dude! Riding around up in the air without a seat belt on.

You bleeding rebel, you!

Son Of A Vidic · 09-11-2012 04:05PM

davet82 wrote: »

I don't like him but he's probably right on this one

I think most of us can probably assure you that he's wrong on this one.

R0ot · 09-11-2012 04:08PM

davet82 wrote: »

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4634019/Ryanair-boss-says-you-dont-need-seatbelts-on-planes.html

as for putting your head between your legs before impact of a 200 mile an hour aerplane hitting the ground, seems more likely so that you can kiss your arse good-bye than saftey measures me thinks :pac:

Mythbusters did this one already, you are safer with your head between your legs.

Michael O'Leary - seatbelts useless

Comments