Effect of Passenger Position on Crash Injury Risk in Transport-Category Aircraft
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOT/FAA/AM-15/17 Office of Aerospace Medicine Washington, DC 20591 Effect of Passenger Position on Crash Injury Risk in Transport-Category Aircraft Amanda M. Taylor Richard L. DeWeese David M. Moorcroft Civil Aerospace Medical Institute Federal Aviation Administration Oklahoma City, OK 73125 September 2015 Revised 11/19/2015 (see erratum page, inside cover) Final Report NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents thereof. ___________ This publication and all Office of Aerospace Medicine technical reports are available in full-text from the Federal Aviation Administration website. ERRATA This report, as originally published, contained errors, all of which have been corrected and eliminated from the revised report. The authors regret the oversight. Below is a list of corrections. 1. In the original version of this report, Tables 3,4,5,and 6 contained a typographical error. The Criteria Limit for the Negative Right Femur My (in-lb) and the Negative Left Femur My (in-lb) should have been 2655, not 2265. 2. Page A1: Third bullet, last sentence, change “exceeded the limit” to “was relatively high.” 3. Page A2: Third bullet, last sentence, change “exceeded the limit” to “was relatively high.” 4. Page A3: Third bullet, second sentence, change “exceeded the limit” to “was relatively high.” 5. Page A6: Third bullet, last sentence, change “which exceeded the limit” to “that was relatively high.” 6. Page A7: Third bullet, last sentence, change “both of which were greater than the limit” ” to “The TI exceeded the limit and the Y-Axis moment was relatively high.” 7. Page A8: Third bullet, next to last sentence, change “which exceeded the limit” to “that was relatively high.” 8. Page A9: Third bullet, 4th sentence, change “Y-Axis” to “positive Y-Axis” and change “above the limit” to “rela- tively high.” 9. Page A10: Third bullet, next to last sentence, change “exceeded the limit” to “was relatively high.” 10. Page A11: Third bullet, last sentence, change “exceeded the limit” to “was relatively high.” 11. Page A13: Third bullet, last sentence, change “below the criteria limit” to “relatively low.” 12. Page A14: Third bullet, last sentence, change “below the limit” to “relatively low.” 13. Page A15: Third bullet, last sentence, change “below the criteria limit” to “relatively low.” 14. Page A16: Third bullet, last sentence, change “well below the criteria limit” to “relatively low.” 15. Page A17: Third bullet, last sentence, change “well below the limit” to “relatively low.” Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT/FAA/AM-15/17 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Effect of Passenger Position on Crash Injury Risk in September 2015 Transport-Category Aircraft 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Taylor AM, DeWeese RL, Moorcroft DM 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute P.O. Box 25082 11. Contract or Grant No. Oklahoma City, OK 73125 12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Aerospace Medicine Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplemental Notes This work is to support the Fire & Cabin Safety Technical Community Representative Group Project: Prevention of Injuries That Impeded Egress, Project 2011-05/2012-06. 16. Abstract In the event of an accident, one action that an occupant can take to contribute to their survival is to assume an appropriate “brace-for-impact” position. This is an action in which a person pre-positions their body against whatever they are most likely to be thrown against, significantly reducing injuries sustained. Occupants in the US Airways flight 1549 sustained shoulder injuries that they attributed to the brace position; therefore, the NTSB recommended that the position be re-evaluated. The Federal Aviation Administration investigated this by conducting a series of 17 sled impact tests, 15 with two rows of transport category forward facing passenger seats and two with a bulkhead configured to represent the types of seats currently in use. Head, neck, upper and lower leg injury risks were evaluated using an advanced test dummy and injury criteria from current FAA regulations, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, European auto safety regulations, and applicable research findings. The current brace position, head against the seat back with hands on top of the seat back, was only successful in reducing head injury risk for locked-out seat backs. However, for full break-over and energy absorbing seat backs, this position increased the severity of the head impact. There was, however, no evidence that the anthropomorphic test device interaction with any of the seatback types resulted in hyper- extension of the shoulder joint. Significant lower leg injury potential was not observed in this study, and therefore adopting lower leg injury criteria at this time does not appear to be a benefit. Even in the worst case test condition, the femur axial compressive force was below the regulatory limit, indicating that the femur compression criteria currently cited in FAA regulations is not likely to be exceeded in passenger seat dynamic qualification tests. To reduce detrimental interaction between the occupant’s arms and the seatback, the current position was modified by placing the hands down by the lower legs instead of on the seat back. This alternate position was successful in significantly reducing head and neck injury risk for all of the seat back types evaluated. This research has led to the determination that as seat technology has evolved, the most effective brace position has as well, and the current positions recommended in AC 121- 24B may need some adjustment to provide an equivalent level of safety for all passenger seat back types. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Brace for Impact, Passenger Position, Leg Injury Document is available to the public through the Internet: Criteria, Neck Injury Criteria, Head Injury Criteria, www.faa.gov/go/oamtechreports Femur Compression, Femur Bending 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 42 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work is to support the Fire & Cabin Safety Technical Community Representative Group Project: Prevention of Injuries That Impeded Egress, Project 2011-05/2012-06. Without the full support of the CAMI technical staff—Jim Biegler, David DeSelms, and Ronnie Minnick—we would not have been able to complete the work. iii Contents Effect of Passenger Position on Crash Injury Risk in Transport-Category Aircraft Background ....................................................................1 Methods .......................................................................2 Test Device ................................................................2 Impact Surfaces .............................................................2 Seat Pitch ..................................................................5 Instrumentation .............................................................5 Seating Procedures ...........................................................9 Restraints ..................................................................9 Data Analysis ...............................................................9 Test Matrix ................................................................11 Results .......................................................................11 Locked-Out Seat Back .......................................................11 Full Break-Over Seat Back ....................................................11 Energy Absorbing Break-Over Seat Back .........................................15 Bulkhead .................................................................15 Discussion ....................................................................15 Injury Risk Evaluation .......................................................15 Neck Injury ...............................................................15 Brace Position Evaluation .....................................................17 Limitations ....................................................................18 Effect of Combined Loading ..................................................18 Seat Back Range of Stiffness ...................................................18 Seat Back Distribution .......................................................18 Test Repeatability ...........................................................18 Conclusions ...................................................................19 References .....................................................................19 Appendix A. Test Analysis .........................................................A1 v EFFECT OF PASSENGER POSITION ON CRASH INJURY RISK IN TRANSPORT-CATEGORY AIRCRAFT BACKGROUND It is a common misconception that if an airplane crashes, all occupants will likely perish. While in reality, according to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), from 1983 to 2000, 96% of occupants survived [1]. One action that occupants can take to contribute to their survival is to assume an appro- priate “brace