Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Damnit. Air travel used to be magical.  Now it's a fucking greyhound with people literally dressed in pajamas.  

We were required to wear coat and tie for air travel with my college golf team.  I miss those days.  

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted

Never heard of it, which surprises me a little because my very long education and work experience are rooted in communication and touch a bit on tourism/recreation. I'm guessing this is is a publication whose primary audience was travel professionals, especially corporate folks and agencies. And folks who had to pay attention to transport logistics for other reasons. 

Ran a cursory search for more info but didn't get far, so I'm wondering if any of y'all would care to elaborate. Genuinely interested in why this is so meaningful.

Posted
14 hours ago, Hayduke said:

Never heard of it, which surprises me a little because my very long education and work experience are rooted in communication and touch a bit on tourism/recreation. I'm guessing this is is a publication whose primary audience was travel professionals, especially corporate folks and agencies. And folks who had to pay attention to transport logistics for other reasons. 

Ran a cursory search for more info but didn't get far, so I'm wondering if any of y'all would care to elaborate. Genuinely interested in why this is so meaningful.

+1....been an avgeek most my life, spent years doing the work travel thing, and have rummaged through countless reading materials at FBOs big and small. Have never heard of this so my FOMO is kicking in. Would love to learn more about it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
19 hours ago, pops said:

Damnit. Air travel used to be magical.  Now it's a fucking greyhound with people literally dressed in pajamas.  

We were required to wear coat and tie for air travel with my college golf team.  I miss those days.  

It's still magical if you want to pay the amount that people routinely paid for air travel in the era when "air travel was magical."

The average cost of a flight from JFK to LHR in 1970 was $550.  Adjusted for inflation, that's $4,500.

If you want to spend $4,500 for a flight from JFK to LHR, it's going to be magical.  You're likely going to be in First.  You'll walk right up to BA's First counter and a very lovely agent will check you in within five minutes.  Then you'll walk right through security with no line directly into the Chelsea Lounge where they'll pour you a glass of Laurent Perrier Grand Siecle.  Then you go to your plane and your lay-flat seat.

That's a fuckton better than the shitty coach seat that you would've gotten for the same price back in the Golden Age of Commercial Aviation.

19 hours ago, Hayduke said:

Never heard of it, which surprises me a little because my very long education and work experience are rooted in communication and touch a bit on tourism/recreation. I'm guessing this is is a publication whose primary audience was travel professionals, especially corporate folks and agencies. And folks who had to pay attention to transport logistics for other reasons. 

Ran a cursory search for more info but didn't get far, so I'm wondering if any of y'all would care to elaborate. Genuinely interested in why this is so meaningful.

The OAG Pocket Guide is a master schedule of all airline flights.  It comes in four regional versions--one for North America, one for Europe, one for East Asia, and one for South & Southwest Asia.

Inside, it lays out by airport every destination to which that airport has nonstop flights.  The flights are organized by departure time and identify the departure time, the arrival time, the equipment, and the airline.  So the entry for Austin would look like:

AUSTIN, TX

Albuquerque, NM

0645  0805  738  WN

0915  1040  73G  WN

etc.

It's an easy reference guide for anyone who does a lot of traveling to immediately see what flights are available between any given city-pair.  With the internet, it's obviously pretty obsolete.  But before all airlines were on sites like Expedia, it was the only place that had a comprehensive listing of all the available airline options for whatever destination you wanted to go to.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
It was when I was little and Southwest had those backwards seats.

With ash trays!

For all those going on about “the good ole days,” have you ever been on a smoking flight?

Absolutely brutal. Glad that shit is gone.
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's still magical if you want to pay the amount that people routinely paid for air travel in the era when "air travel was magical."

The average cost of a flight from JFK to LHR in 1970 was $550.  Adjusted for inflation, that's $4,500.

If you want to spend $4,500 for a flight from JFK to LHR, it's going to be magical. You're likely going to be in First. ...

That's a fuckton better than the shitty coach seat that you would've gotten for the same price back in the Golden Age of Commercial Aviation.

...

The OAG Pocket Guide is a master schedule of all airline flights.  It comes in four regional versions--one for North America, one for Europe, one for East Asia, and one for South & Southwest Asia.

...

It's an easy reference guide for anyone who does a lot of traveling to immediately see what flights are available between any given city-pair.  With the internet, it's obviously pretty obsolete.  But before all airlines were on sites like Expedia, it was the only place that had a comprehensive listing of all the available airline options for whatever destination you wanted to go to.

Thanks, @Ghost of LL. The guide would have made sense for frequent travelers, especially if they didn't want to rely on travel agents and administrative travel planners.

I recall some flights with my family in the '70s when I was too small to pay attention to seat size, but remember better times, especially regarding meals. Some quick AI searches say average coach seat size has shrunk from 20-21 inches wide (about the size of current first-class seats) and legroom from about 35 inches in the '60s to around 31 now and as low as 28 in budget carriers.

Before deregulation of the industry, complimentary meals, drinks (including alcoholic beverages) and even some entertainment were the norm and airlines competed with one another on amenities. One thing that popped up said Southwest "offered a bottle of alcohol to passengers who paid the full fare."  Anybody remember that?

So generally folks were getting what's now first-class experience -- and paying the price. Even my earliest flights, paid by the military when we followed Dad to Europe, were on airlines that I think no longer exist but still seemed slightly luxurious to me and my siblings. Things have just been eroding since, although, as @tigol points out, at least the air on planes has gotten better.

Was coming back from Costa Rica via Panama maybe 10 years ago on Copa and was stunned by a free meal and beer in coach. I wonder if they're still holding out, but kinda doubt it.

 

Edited by Hayduke
Posted
3 hours ago, Hayduke said:

Thanks, @Ghost of LL. The guide would have made sense for frequent travelers, especially if they didn't want to rely on travel agents and administrative travel planners.

I recall some flights with my family in the '70s when I was too small to pay attention to seat size, but remember better times, especially regarding meals. Some quick AI searches say average coach seat size has shrunk from 20-21 inches wide (about the size of current first-class seats) and legroom from about 35 inches in the '60s to around 31 now and as low as 28 in budget carriers.

Before deregulation of the industry, complimentary meals, drinks (including alcoholic beverages) and even some entertainment were the norm and airlines competed with one another on amenities. One thing that popped up said Southwest "offered a bottle of alcohol to passengers who paid the full fare."  Anybody remember that?

So generally folks were getting what's now first-class experience -- and paying the price. Even my earliest flights, paid by the military when we followed Dad to Europe, were on airlines that I think no longer exist but still seemed slightly luxurious to me and my siblings. Things have just been eroding since, although, as @tigol points out, at least the air on planes has gotten better.

Was coming back from Costa Rica via Panama maybe 10 years ago on Copa and was stunned by a free meal and beer in coach. I wonder if they're still holding out, but kinda doubt it.

 

Ok, but counterpoint: the "and paying the price" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.  But even with that lift, it's wrong.  If you compare the similarly priced products--a First Class seat today vs. a Coach seat in 1970--the flyer today is getting a waaaaaaay better product.  It's a product that the flyer in 1970 would only dream of.

And for a small fraction of the price of a Coach seat in 1970, the passenger flying in Economy today is getting a product that is in some ways worse.  But in some other ways it's better.  As you point out, the Coach seat in 1970 was bigger.*  There was more leg room.  You sometimes got a meal and a drink.**

But let's be real honest about that meal.  It was bad.  It was actually often borderline inedible.  But it was also your only choice.  Because back in 1970, airports didn't have restaurants that offered to-go meals in them.  In a standard 1970 airport, you had one bar and one restaurant, both of which were places that were owned by the best friend of the local city councilman.  They were by-and-large pretty terrible.  Ok--the one in Albuquerque offered a damned good breakfast taco.  But that was an exception.  But the idea of grabbing something from Campisi's or Chik-fil-a or Whataburger before your flight and eating it on the plane?  It was unheard of.  You were going to get the equivalent of a Stouffer's tv dinner that was either badly overcooked or badly undercooked (often both), and that was it.

Your entertainment was going to be a 13-inch television screen mounted in the ceiling of the cabin five rows in front of you.  It would show one movie.  That's it.  You've already seen that movie?  You don't like that genre?  Too fucking bad--read your goddamned Time magazine and shut up.  Now you get wifi (which airlines are starting to offer for free).  Or you bring your iPad with you with the movies you've already downloaded.  In 1970, you couldn't have dreamed of having those entertainment options in your home, much less in an airplane.

I get it, brother--I'm old, too.  I find myself prone to nostalgia.  But I do still have a decent memory.  And I'm going to tell you that the Golden Age of Commercial Aviation wasn't that great.***

 

 

*The Coach seat in 1970 was wider solely as a function of the aircraft used.  The Lockheed Electra and other propeller-driven aircraft were still widely in use on domestic short- and medium-haul flights.  And those planes had a wider fuselage, which allowed for wider seats.  But if given the choice between flying on a Lockheed Electra and a 737-200, you'd never choose the former.

The 737 family has always had a 3-3 seating configuaration in coach.  And from 1967 to today, the 737 has always had the same width: 12' 4".  So when you're comparing similar aircraft types, the seat width is exactly the same as it was in 1970.

** The free bottle of alcohol was a short-term promotion offered by Southwest in 1973, but it has become part of the airline's founding mythology.

Southwest was facing a cash-crunch in 1973 (only its third year in operation).  In an effort to drive Southwest out of business, Braniff started a fare sale and offered $13 fares between DAL, HOU, and SAT.  That was half the standard fare on Southwest.

In response, Southwest also offered a $13 fare.  But it kept its standard $26 fare and offered a free fifth of Chivas, Jack Daniels, or Smirnoff with it.  The idea was that any business traveler on an expense account would pay the higher fare and get the free booze.

 

But one important note on this--you observe that this was pre-deregulation.  But regulation only applied on interstate routes.  The intra-Texas route was always deregulated.  That's how Braniff could start a fare sale in the first place.  So the entire story could only take place in a deregulated environment.

*** Ok--there was one aspect of it that was fucking great, and you're omitting it entirely.  The Stewardesses.  They were hot.  Airlines could still get away with hiring only young hot women who met a weight restriction.  And because of the societal whatevers back then, they were almost (1) uniformly unmarried, and (2) interested in being married to a guy who could afford to fly.  As a counterpoint to that, I've got nothing.

  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted
6 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Ok, but counterpoint: the "and paying the price" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. 

...

 

Your entertainment was going to be a 13-inch television screen mounted in the ceiling of the cabin five rows in front of you.  It would show one movie.  That's it.  You've already seen that movie?  You don't like that genre?  Too fucking bad--read your goddamned Time magazine and shut up.  Now you get wifi (which airlines are starting to offer for free).  Or you bring your iPad with you with the movies you've already downloaded.  In 1970, you couldn't have dreamed of having those entertainment options in your home, much less in an airplane.

I get it, brother--I'm old, too.  I find myself prone to nostalgia.  But I do still have a decent memory.  And I'm going to tell you that the Golden Age of Commercial Aviation wasn't that great.***

...

*** Ok--there was one aspect of it that was fucking great, and you're omitting it entirely.  The Stewardesses.  They were hot.  Airlines could still get away with hiring only young hot women who met a weight restriction.  And because of the societal whatevers back then, they were almost (1) uniformly unmarried, and (2) interested in being married to a guy who could afford to fly.  As a counterpoint to that, I've got nothing.

Appreciate this perspective a lot.  I enjoy a more detailed discussion of anything that sparks my curiosity, and the OAG did that because I'd not heard of it.

I don't think I'm nostalgic, except maybe for a childhood when I was able to be more easily impressed by things like a "free" meal on a plane. Flew very little when I was young and have only experienced enough of it since to be able to see which parts of the experience have eroded over time, which is probably most of them except the high-end stuff and the presence of things that were only Jetsons material before.

Flying is a kick in the nuts if you're not business class or above, or fortunate enough to have a single-leg trip. I'd probably rather drive from NY to LA. Free wifi ain't gonna save the experience for me, but a Kindle book and my own music makes it more bearable. I'm with you there.

Can't say I'd rather have a bad free meal on the plane than an acceptable to decent one in the airport. But the entire flying experience seems to have deteriorated. Navigating take-out selections in the jammed, narrow concourses at O'Hare, for instance, is a nightmare that made me pick hunger over the prospect of missing a connection last year. 

At the same time, I also remember flying to a conference around 1997 or so from Easterwood Regional in College Station. Flight was at 7:35 a.m. and I woke up at 7:10.  Even though I was six miles from the airport, I made the plane.

If I have to venture an opinion, it's that air travel did strike me as more bearable and even humane when I first flew and wasn't horrible when I was a younger adult and flying on my own. From parking to security to picking up baggage, it's more a trial now, and a decent part of that probably is a function of aging. 

No question on your final point, though. Except ... pics.

Posted
9 hours ago, Hayduke said:

Appreciate this perspective a lot.  I enjoy a more detailed discussion of anything that sparks my curiosity, and the OAG did that because I'd not heard of it.

I don't think I'm nostalgic, except maybe for a childhood when I was able to be more easily impressed by things like a "free" meal on a plane. Flew very little when I was young and have only experienced enough of it since to be able to see which parts of the experience have eroded over time, which is probably most of them except the high-end stuff and the presence of things that were only Jetsons material before.

Flying is a kick in the nuts if you're not business class or above, or fortunate enough to have a single-leg trip. I'd probably rather drive from NY to LA. Free wifi ain't gonna save the experience for me, but a Kindle book and my own music makes it more bearable. I'm with you there.

Can't say I'd rather have a bad free meal on the plane than an acceptable to decent one in the airport. But the entire flying experience seems to have deteriorated. Navigating take-out selections in the jammed, narrow concourses at O'Hare, for instance, is a nightmare that made me pick hunger over the prospect of missing a connection last year. 

At the same time, I also remember flying to a conference around 1997 or so from Easterwood Regional in College Station. Flight was at 7:35 a.m. and I woke up at 7:10.  Even though I was six miles from the airport, I made the plane.

If I have to venture an opinion, it's that air travel did strike me as more bearable and even humane when I first flew and wasn't horrible when I was a younger adult and flying on my own. From parking to security to picking up baggage, it's more a trial now, and a decent part of that probably is a function of aging. 

No question on your final point, though. Except ... pics.

So my perspective is a little different.  My dad was an airline employee.  So we flew everywhere NonRev.  But two things about flying NonRev: (1) it was standby, and (2) you had to be in a suit.

The first point is why I'm so familiar with the OAG.  I can't tell you how many times we got stuck in some place like Boston or Denver because the flight we had anticipated getting on ended up being sold out.  So then we had to pop open the OAG in the terminal to figure out what flights we might be able to piece together to get back to Dallas.  By the time I was a teenager, my father would have two--one for him and one for me.  So we would sit there with our own OAG piecing together options.  "Ok--we can catch that Continental flight to IAH and then get the one that leaves 40 minutes later to SAT and then get on a Southwest flight to DAL."  "No--that's not going to work.  That CO flight to IAH is always oversold; check out the TWA flight through STL."

The second point sucked, and it's why I don't share the often-expressed nostalgia for people dressing up to fly.  I can't tell you in how many airport bathrooms I've changed from shorts and t-shirt into a suit.  It really is probably a hundred.  And you could always tell the NonRevs in those days because they're the people hanging out near the gate agent wearing a suit in goddamned Honalulu.  It was ridiculous.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

So my perspective is a little different.  My dad was an airline employee.  So we flew everywhere NonRev.  But two things about flying NonRev: (1) it was standby, and (2) you had to be in a suit.

The first point is why I'm so familiar with the OAG.  I can't tell you how many times we got stuck in some place like Boston or Denver because the flight we had anticipated getting on ended up being sold out.  So then we had to pop open the OAG in the terminal to figure out what flights we might be able to piece together to get back to Dallas.  By the time I was a teenager, my father would have two--one for him and one for me.  So we would sit there with our own OAG piecing together options.  "Ok--we can catch that Continental flight to IAH and then get the one that leaves 40 minutes later to SAT and then get on a Southwest flight to DAL."  "No--that's not going to work.  That CO flight to IAH is always oversold; check out the TWA flight through STL."

The second point sucked, and it's why I don't share the often-expressed nostalgia for people dressing up to fly.  I can't tell you in how many airport bathrooms I've changed from shorts and t-shirt into a suit.  It really is probably a hundred.  And you could always tell the NonRevs in those days because they're the people hanging out near the gate agent wearing a suit in goddamned Honalulu.  It was ridiculous.

Oh, wah, my life was so hard, flying for free all over the world, including Hawaii...

:)

 

  • Haha 2
Posted
On 8/9/2025 at 12:30 PM, Ghost of LL said:

It's still magical if you want to pay the amount that people routinely paid for air travel in the era when "air travel was magical."

☝️

Especially if you're going international, or any flight over 8 hours, you really do want to spend the extra if you are able to for some kind of upgrade.

Posted
10 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Oh, wah, my life was so hard, flying for free all over the world, including Hawaii...

:)

 

I'm sorry.  If my little story contained a "woe was me" tone, then I wrote it poorly.

Flying all over the world for free was fucking amazing.  I virtually grew up on airplanes.  To this day, I can recite the gates to which Southwest assigned its flights at Love Field (San Antonio flights went out of Gate 1; Amarillo and New Orleans flights went out of Gate 2; all Houston flights went out of Gate 4 (Gate 4A at the top of the hour; Gate 4C at the bottom)).  And I loved fingering through the OAG guide to plan out contingencies in case we got stuck in fucking Kansas City.

So yeah--nothing hard about my youth.  And I'm going to miss the OAG, which was a reminder of it.

 

 

 

But still--crawling into a suit in a bathroom at HNL was some bullshit.

Posted
2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm sorry.  If my little story contained a "woe was me" tone, then I wrote it poorly.

Flying all over the world for free was fucking amazing.  I virtually grew up on airplanes.  To this day, I can recite the gates to which Southwest assigned its flights at Love Field (San Antonio flights went out of Gate 1; Amarillo and New Orleans flights went out of Gate 2; all Houston flights went out of Gate 4 (Gate 4A at the top of the hour; Gate 4C at the bottom)).  And I loved fingering through the OAG guide to plan out contingencies in case we got stuck in fucking Kansas City.

So yeah--nothing hard about my youth.  And I'm going to miss the OAG, which was a reminder of it.

 

 

 

But still--crawling into a suit in a bathroom at HNL was some bullshit.

I flew Space A (military ) once.  While I appreciated it being free and all, getting stuck in the lower 48 trying to get home to Alaska was a beating.  

Posted

Ah, the good ole days!  My first airline adventure was Amarillo to El Paso on Braniff, then El Paso to Mexico City on Aeromexico in 1970.  Next to me was an experienced business traveler who evidently noticed I was a little nervous.  He very kindly spent 3 or 4 minutes explaining what was  procedure and that I really had nothing to worry about.  Then when we wheeled to the runway to run up the engines, he pulled a rosary from his pocket and started fingering the beads and murmuring-I nearly pissed my pants!

both planes reeked of stale cigarette smoke; OTOH, those cute stewardesses kept bringing the free screwdrivers to me on both flights.  I made it, but it’s better now, even with all the hassles.

Posted
On 8/8/2025 at 5:24 PM, pops said:

Damnit. Air travel used to be magical.  Now it's a fucking greyhound with people literally dressed in pajamas.  

We were required to wear coat and tie for air travel with my college golf team.  I miss those days.  

Fuck that. We brought girlfriends on road trips.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 8/9/2025 at 3:30 PM, Ghost of LL said:

It's still magical if you want to pay the amount that people routinely paid for air travel in the era when "air travel was magical."

The average cost of a flight from JFK to LHR in 1970 was $550.  Adjusted for inflation, that's $4,500.

If you want to spend $4,500 for a flight from JFK to LHR, it's going to be magical.  You're likely going to be in First.  You'll walk right up to BA's First counter and a very lovely agent will check you in within five minutes.  Then you'll walk right through security with no line directly into the Chelsea Lounge where they'll pour you a glass of Laurent Perrier Grand Siecle.  Then you go to your plane and your lay-flat seat.

That's a fuckton better than the shitty coach seat that you would've gotten for the same price back in the Golden Age of Commercial Aviation.

The OAG Pocket Guide is a master schedule of all airline flights.  It comes in four regional versions--one for North America, one for Europe, one for East Asia, and one for South & Southwest Asia.

Inside, it lays out by airport every destination to which that airport has nonstop flights.  The flights are organized by departure time and identify the departure time, the arrival time, the equipment, and the airline.  So the entry for Austin would look like:

AUSTIN, TX

Albuquerque, NM

0645  0805  738  WN

0915  1040  73G  WN

etc.

It's an easy reference guide for anyone who does a lot of traveling to immediately see what flights are available between any given city-pair.  With the internet, it's obviously pretty obsolete.  But before all airlines were on sites like Expedia, it was the only place that had a comprehensive listing of all the available airline options for whatever destination you wanted to go to.

First or Business is the only way to fly.  I flew back to NYC in BA First Class. I enjoyed my La Grande Dame.

Posted
On 8/11/2025 at 1:14 PM, Ghost of LL said:

I'm sorry.  If my little story contained a "woe was me" tone, then I wrote it poorly.

Flying all over the world for free was fucking amazing.  I virtually grew up on airplanes.  To this day, I can recite the gates to which Southwest assigned its flights at Love Field (San Antonio flights went out of Gate 1; Amarillo and New Orleans flights went out of Gate 2; all Houston flights went out of Gate 4 (Gate 4A at the top of the hour; Gate 4C at the bottom)).  And I loved fingering through the OAG guide to plan out contingencies in case we got stuck in fucking Kansas City.

So yeah--nothing hard about my youth.  And I'm going to miss the OAG, which was a reminder of it.

But still--crawling into a suit in a bathroom at HNL was some bullshit.

Didn't have that tone at all, IMO -- I enjoyed those stories -- but I also understand why @utee94 pounced on the opportunity. Surly ethos and all.

On 8/11/2025 at 3:54 PM, Macanudo said:

I flew Space A (military ) once.  While I appreciated it being free and all, getting stuck in the lower 48 trying to get home to Alaska was a beating.  

Our son is in the reserves and ROTC with a year of school left. He's had a couple of great internships and has been flown around a bit -- starting with basic training, when it seemed they purposely made the airport experience hellish. But based on the stories he's been telling, even with his internships, it appears the military and military-related agencies are trying to replicate the space available/standby experience as a matter of standard procedure. 

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

First or Business is the only way to fly.  I flew back to NYC in BA First Class. I enjoyed my La Grande Dame.

Huge waste of money unless flying to Hawaii or international. Even then it’s not really worth it unless you’re fat. 

Edited by Revolution512
Posted

Sorry... I'm close to a million miles and I still find air travel magical.  Yes, its not glamorous but whatever.  It takes me to new places.   

And besides, people talk about "the good ole days" but forget smokers on planes.  I took an Iberia flight in 1998 or 1999 and I sat one row from the smoking section.  Somehow the smoke did not stay on their side.  It was grand.  

image.png.851e9ab2c9106f85957cf5eae107a791.png

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Revolution512 said:

Huge waste of money unless flying to Hawaii or international. Even then it’s not really worth it unless you’re fat. 

in 2025 the subject of "worth it" means much more than the value of the "hard product" or the "soft product"

30 years of confusion and uninformed declarations about "shrinking seats" makes the discussion difficult

so in order to have that discussion i need to baseline a few topics....

first is seat width

airlines are not shrinking the width of seats

let's get this out of the way......

 

in the united states 90% of our air travel, both domestic and international, takes place on 73X or A32X metal flown by american, delta, southwest or united i.e. the us big 4

subsidiaries that fly other metal (bombardier/airbus, embraer & canadair i.e. regional jets), allegiant with their almost dead MD8X fleet, 'new' carriers like jsx, avelo, etc. are not part of this discussion

2-aisle widebodies and long-range service will be added to the discussion later......

 

the single-aisle boeing family, the 707, 727, 737 and 757, were all built from the same tooling, and the upper half of the hull is the same for all 4 aircraft: at floor level the internal width of the cabin is 139" and it's been that way since the 707-120 first flight in 1957 

the single-aisle airbus family i.e. the a320/19/21/neo/xlr/etc. in the same way have never varied in hull cross-section: at floor level the internal width of the cabin is 146" and it's been that way since the a320 first flight in 1987

for avoidance of doubt, all single-aisle boeing and all single-aisle airbus aircraft have always been configured with 6 seats in each row in the back

maximum seat width is a function of the seat design and the space available to use for seats factoring the FAA regulation on Minimum Passenger Aisle Width (14 CFR 25.815):

'for aircraft with a seating capacity of 20 or more, the minimum passenger aisle width is 15 inches at less than 25 inches from the floor and 20 inches at 25 inches and more from the floor'

thus the total available space for 6 seats, including armrests is 124" for the 73X and 131" for the a32X

'armrest widths being equal' there is 1.16" per seat of additional possible width on an a32X

'if there were no armrests' the maximum possible seat widths are:

73X: 20.66"

a32X: 21.83"

'seat width' is NOT regulated by the faa and the distance 'between the armrests' to measure seat width is an assumed convention

 

before we continue, please peruse the following (plaintext spoiled for your convenience)

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/airline-seat-size-faa-complaints/

Spoiler

FAA flooded with complaints over shrinking airline seats: "Torture"
Kate Gibson
moneywatch

November 2, 2022 / 3:04 PM EDT / MoneyWatch

When it comes to the ever-shrinking size of airline seats and leg room, the flying public has a lot to say. In the three months since the Federal Aviation Administration asked for public feedback on airline seat sizes, the agency was flooded with 26,000 submissions ahead of Tuesday's deadline to send a comment.

One telling detail: the word "torture" was used by more than 200 commenters to decry the lack of personal space on planes. 

The FAA, which currently has no rules for seat dimensions, had asked for public input about whether standards are needed to ensure safe evacuation in case of an emergency. In response, thousands of passengers complained not only of the physical stress of being squeezed into smaller spaces, but aired doubts about whether they could quickly leave their seats in an emergency. 

"The current seats are too small for Americans of average size, myself included," Emily Clarke told the agency. "I worry that this will significantly impact my ability to quickly evacuate the aircraft in case of emergency."

The FAA requires airlines to be able to evacuate passengers within 90 seconds. Only about 25% of passengers can fit in airline seats that accommodate 90% of passengers, according to one passenger advocacy group.

Many U.S. carriers have reduced seat widths to 17 inches from 18.5 inches, with seat pitch —a measure from one point in a seat to the same point in a seat in front or behind — had dropped to 31 inches from an average of 35. On some carriers, that distance is 28 inches. 
"Literally wedged into an aisle seat"

One parent described advising her children to fend for themselves should troubles arise and seated passengers are blocking their escape. 

"As the years have gone by and the seats have gotten smaller and smaller, I have definitely been in situations with my kids where I've told them that if there was an emergency they would have to feel OK leaping over rows of seats instead of exiting along an aisle because a passenger was literally wedged into an aisle seat blocking our egress," Tiffany Farrell of Bradenton, Florida, told the FAA.

Some commenters opted to use the forum to decry a system where only those who can afford pricier seats are able to travel comfortably. 

"Flying is a common mode of transport, it is nice to feel like a human being and not a sardine," wrote Meghan Sexton of Bellingham, Washington. "The decency of having a modicum of comfort should not be reserved for the wealthy," Sexton added. 
Shrinking seats, bigger Americans

Airlines have been shrinking seat sizes for decades, even as Americans have gotten bigger. 

Adults in the U.S. weigh more than in decades past, with more than 40% of the population obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Congress in 2018 directed the FAA to set size requirements for passenger seats that are necessary for passenger safety. The agency subsequently found seat size and spacing not to be a safety issue in simulated tests in 2019 and 2020. 

Consumer advocates and some lawmakers for years have argued the FAA should be taking into account other potential health risks that passengers face in sitting in small spaces for the duration of flights.  

But airline industry trade group Airlines for America had a different take, arguing that the relationship between safety and seat dimensions has been actively studied, finding "no basis" for new or updated regulations." 

 

 

the below is linked from within the cbs article

it's a pdf that does not format well in plaintext but is still spoiled below, reads easier if you open the url:

https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/2b7ac7a8-3914-4be3-a69a-dbd59cb43a84/downloads/FRO Seat Size Presentation Background Info 7.2.pdf?ver=1665350138871

Spoiler

1
The Case of the Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat
History
Rulemaking Petition by FlyersRights.org August 26, 2015
(FAA-2015-0411): Requesting appointment of
advisory committee & promulgation of
minimum seat and passenger space
standards
Denied by FAA: February 1, 2016
D.C. Circuit Court Remanded: July 28, 2017
Second Denial by FAA: July 3, 2018
Law: FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018: October 5, 2018
(Ordering FAA to issue minimum seat
standards and update emergency
evacuation standards last updated 2004)
Congressional Deadline: October 5, 2019
FAA conducts evacuation testing: December 2019
FAA appoints Emergency
Evacuation Advisory Rulemaking
Committee: late 2019
Report submitted to FAA: May 20, 2020
(Contains 27 recommendations)
No rulemaking initiated, no reports
published or submitted to Congress,
in clear violation of FAA Reauthorization
Act of 2018
DOT OIG Report on Emergency
Evacuations Published: September 16, 2020
(Requested by House Transportation &
Infrastructure Committee and House
Aviation Subcommittee in March 2018)
Major increases in passenger disruption
Incidents 2020-21
2
DOT Secretaries fail and refuse meet with
consumer representatives: January 2013 to January 2021
FAA Administrators, since Jane Garvey,
(1997-2002) fail and refuse to meet with
consumer representatives: January 2003 to present
Background of Paul Hudson re seat and emergency evacuation issues
-National advocate for airline passengers since 1989, public interest lawyer since 1974
-Member, FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (1993-present), Emergency
Evacuation/ Passenger Safety Issue Group (1990s)
-DOT/FAA Rulemaking and Judicial Petitioner for Seat Standards (2015-2018)
-Member, FAA Emergency Evacuation Advisory Rulemaking Committee (2019-present)
-President, FlyersRights.org (2013-present)
-Executive Director, Aviation Consumer Action Project (1997-2013)
General
Modern seats are designed for able-bodied people up to 5’10” and under approximately
180 pounds, reflecting passenger sizes in the early 1960s. Since the 1990s, airlines shrunk seats
and legroom (pitch) while passengers became larger, older, and less able-bodied. As a result,
only about 25% of passengers can now fit in modern airline seats and passenger space in
economy class where over 90% of passengers sit. Aisle widths and bathroom space have also
been reduced significantly to pack more and more people into planes. The FAA HAS NO
MINIMUM SEAT SIZE OR PASSENGER SPACE REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE
MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR TRANSPORT OF ANIMALS BUT NOT HUMANS.
Human Size Increases, comparing 1960-62 data to 2015-18 data
The average adult now weighs 186 pounds compared to 155 pounds in the early 1960s.
One quarter of men now weigh over 224 pounds, and one quarter of women weigh over 195
pounds according to the CDC. About 15% of men are over 6 feet, and average height for adults
has increased 2 inches.
3
Seat Size Shrinkage
Seats in first class are now similar to economy class prior to the deregulation of airlines
in 1978. The average man’s shoulders are wider than the seat, and for persons over about 5’10”
their head extends over the top of the seat and legs cannot be extended in a normal sitting
position. People over 224 pounds are generally unable to sit in economy seats without intruding
into the adjacent seat space or the aisle.
Average legroom or pitch has decreased from 35 to 31 inches, with the lowest pitch size
being 28 inches (Spirit). Low cost carriers are typically at 29-30 inches. Width has decreased to
16-18 inches.
According to Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data, domestic passenger load
factors—the average percentage of seats filled—have increased from 77.16 percent in 2005 to as
high as 89.2% in 2019. Load factor was above 85.5% for 7 of 12 months of 2019.
Safety: Emergency Evacuation
For many decades, the FAA has had a 90 second rule requiring every airliner certified by
the FAA as safe for public transport to demonstrate it can evacuate a fully loaded plane, in low
light conditions with half the exits disabled, within 90 seconds.
The FAA adopted this rule because historical accident statistics show that longer
evacuation times greatly increases fatalities in otherwise survivable crash landings. Deaths are
due to fire, smoke or drowning rather than impact trauma in most air crashes. This rule had
always required a manufacturer to conduct an actual demonstration test. However, in the mid-
1990s the FAA amended this regulation to allow “analysis” to substitute for an actual full scale
evacuation test. Actual demonstrations are now rare and ones using unpracticed test subjects
meeting the modern demographic profile of passengers are nonexistent. Manufacturers now can
substitute analysis for demonstrations, and even substitute older data for contradictory, newer
data.
FAA claims to amend the evacuation standards when it identifies new risks. FAA last
reviewed the standards in 2011 and found the standards acceptable. DOT standards require
review every 10 years, which DOT OIG says is insufficient to meet FAA’s SMS requirements
for continuous risk monitoring to capture new risks such as increased carry-on baggage, changes
in passenger demographics, and decreases in seat spacing.
4
NTSB asked the FAA to study passenger baggage behavior in 2000 and 2016, but the
FAA had not yet developed a research program.
The DOT Inspector General Report of September 2020 also noted that the FAA stated in
denying the FlyersRights seat petition in 2018 that the Boeing 737-300 and Airbus 320 had
demonstrated successful emergency evacuation with 28 inch pitches. However, the IG found this
to be untrue. The IG found out of 30 plane makers evacuation reports filed with the FAA,
“almost all used seats with pitches larger than 28, some up to 38 inches.” Only one used 28
inches. See Item 10, page 7 below for details.
Of the 40 NTSB reports DOT OIG reviewed, the 5 accidents that had measurable
evacuation times were 1:48, 2:11, 2:32, 3:00, and 5:00, all in excess of 90 seconds.
The Emergency Evacuation Advisory Rulemaking Committee (ARC) studied 290 actual
emergency evacuations. In its May 2020 report, it made 27 recommendations for changes and
improvements to evacuation standards. One recent evacuation alleged to have caused passengers
in the rear to burn to death due to passengers in front slowing evacuation by taking carry-on
baggage. No recommendations have been acted upon and the report remains unpublished and
under review at the DOT.
1. Changed Circumstances: Since the regulations (14 CFR 25.803) were promulgated in
1967, load factors have increased dramatically, increased checked bags fees have caused
carry-on bags to proliferate (DOT does not collect this data), passengers have gotten
older, taller, and larger, and flight attendant staffing levels are lower.
2. Flaws that are not discussed in DOT OIG report
a. Multiple attempts educates test subjects
b. Test subjects are younger, lighter weight, and more likely to wear athletic clothing
and shoes.
c. Baggage that is required to be placed as obstacles is not quantified by the testers
or by FAA. The FAA does not collect cabin baggage statistics.
d. Studies show persons over 65 have reduced mobility that slows evacuation times.
e. Disabled persons, elderly, children, or infants not considered in evacuation testing
standards.
f. The 2019 FAA evacuation tests were seriously flawed by excluding anyone over
250 pounds, anyone over 60 or under 18, using a small test bed with seats not
similar of modern airliner seating, multiple practices, no statistical basis for carry-
on baggage obstructions, no window exits, no low light conditions or multiple
exits.
5
Health: Blood Clots/Deep Vein Thrombosis/Pulmonary Embolism (DVT/PE)
The CDC says anyone traveling more than 4 hours by air is at risk for blood clots. These
clots form in the legs “when sitting still in a confined space for long periods of time.” Many
times the blood clots dissolve on their own, but when they do not, they can break off and travel
to the lungs and cause a fatal blockage and be fatal (pulmonary embolism).
The CDC recommends travelers extend their legs straight out and flex their ankles, an
impossible task for many travelers in economy class.
The FAA takes the position that it cannot consider health issues without a command from
the Secretary of Transportation, which it has not received for seat and passenger space standards.
So the FAA defines seat size safety narrowly to only include emergency evacuation.
Passenger disruption incident due to stress and overcrowding
It is well known that placing rats or other animals in over-crowded confined conditions
for long periods will cause them to fight and kill one another. Humans of course are civilized
and can withstand over-crowding but only up to a point. The pandemic, TSA requirements for
everyone to wear masks even on long flights, little to no food or beverage service, fear of
COVID infection from contact with other passengers or bathrooms or other surfaces, elimination
of any social distancing on planes have all ramped up passenger stress and led to more alcohol
consumption and a 20 fold increase in passenger disruption (ie verbal and physical fights). This
has resulted in thousands of passengers being referred to FAA OR DOJ AND OR PLACED ON
NO FLY LISTS.
HUMANS ARE NOW OVER-CROWDED ON PLANES TO THE POINT OF HAVING
PROPORTIONALLY LESS THAN A QUARTER OF MINIMUM SPACE REQUIREMENTS
FOR DOGS.
DOT OIG Report on Emergency Evacuations (September 16, 2020)
https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/38012
Requested by the Ranking Member of the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee and Aviation Subcommittee (DeFazio and Larsen), March 2018
Findings
1. FAA has not updated standards since 2004 (in response to a 1991 accident)
2. The FAA has only updated the standards 4 times due to accidents occurring the following
years:
a. 1978 (new slide/raft fire resistance/strength/inflation time/testing)
6
b. 1983 (seat cushion flammability, emergency path markings on floor, lavatory
smoke detection, lavatory trash fire extinguishers, increased cabin fire
extinguishers)
c. 1985 (new requirements for design and construction of exits and access to exits,
exit floor flighting and markings, and emergency equipment
d. 1991 (new requirements for improved access to emergency exit doors)
3. FAA has not done sufficient research on passenger behavior, carry on bags, emotional
support animals, and seat size
4. FAA does not collect or preserve comprehensive evacuation data from manufacturer
demonstrations and analyses that could inform the changes that need to be made
a. This does not meet the FAA SMS requirements or GAO Standards for Internal
Control in the Federal Government
5. The FAA allows manufacturers to use out-dated data in its analyses
a. One 2018 certification’s model was based on, in part, data from a demonstration
in 1974 (44 years prior)
b. DOT OIG reviewed the top 10 aircraft certifications by fleet number, and found
that 6 of 10 were based on analysis, and 4 of these 6 analyses were based on data
10 years old or more.
6. The FAA allows manufacturers to use out-dated data that delivers the result it wants
rather than recent data that does not deliver the desired results.
a. “Based on our analysis, use of recent data can yield results that differ from the
results based on old data. For example, a manufacturer used data that were about
12 years old to calculate the evacuation time for an aircraft model, despite the fact
that data approximately 3 years old were available. The test with the 12-year-old
data indicated that participants evacuated through an exit door in under 90
seconds. However, we found that use of the 3-year-old data indicated participants
could not evacuate through the same door in 90 seconds.”
7. The FAA allows manufacturers to rely more on analysis and less on demonstrations
a. “FAA’s acceptance of manufacturers’ greater reliance on analyses rather than on
demonstrations poses risks as demonstration data grows older”
8. The FAA allows manufacturers to use data from analysis rather than demonstrations
when they differ
a. “In our review of manufacturers’ analyses, we found instances in which data from
the analyses did not match data from the demonstrations the analyses were based
on. When conducting an analysis, a manufacturer uses data collected from
demonstrations, such as averages of passenger flow rates through exits, to
calculate the numbers of passengers that it can reasonably expect to evacuate the
aircraft model within the 90- second time limit. Based on our analysis, we found
that FAA certified 10 aircraft models based on inaccurate data or allowed
7
manufacturers to exclude the evacuation times of some passenger and crew
participants when determining exit times.”
b. “For example, one report stated that the manufacturer based its analysis for
certification on data from a demonstration, but the data the manufacturer used in
its analysis differed from the demonstration data. Specifically, in the analysis
report, the number of passengers that evacuated from three of four exit doors
differed from the numbers in the demonstration report. However, FAA certified
the aircraft model. It is unclear whether at the time of certification, FAA
recognized the differences in the numbers”
c. “In addition to exit times, manufacturers’ reports often contain information on
factors such as passenger tendencies in exit door selection and adherence to crew
instructions.32 FAA officials informed us that the Agency does not retain these
data because the manufacturers state the information is proprietary, even though
FAA can obtain them upon request. FAA’s lack of an historical record of these
data inhibits the Agency’s ability to identify data inaccuracies and risks that could
slow exit times.”
9. FAA’s lack of data inhibits its ability to meet the 2018 Congressional mandate
a. “At this time, however, FAA has no plans to conduct research on carry-on
baggage or emotional support animals. Furthermore, the Agency has not outlined
plans to update passenger demographics, although researchers plan to collect data
on height, weight, and girth from participants in the seat pitch study. To address
the other mandates, FAA has convened an Emergency Evacuation Standards
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) of industry experts to review evacuation
requirements, actual evacuations, and the results of the seat pitch testing. ARC
submitted its report to FAA in May 2020, but to date, FAA has not submitted its
report to Congress”
10. In the FAA’s second response to FlyersRights’ petition in 2018, the FAA claimed (and
relied on videos showing) that full-scale evacuation demonstrations were performed on
the Boeing 737-300 and Airbus 320 with a 28 inch pitch. However, the DOT IG found
that these aircraft had pitches above 28 inches.
a. “In 2015, a passenger advocacy group petitioned FAA to set a minimum standard
for seat dimensions due to members’ concerns over seat spacing and safety. In its
2018 response to the petition, FAA stated that full-scale evacuation
demonstrations have been performed on models with all seat pitches at 28
inches—including the Boeing 737-300 and the Airbus 320. We reviewed 43
manufacturers' evacuation demonstration reports provided by FAA, and found
that 30 reports referred to seat pitches. One report discussed a demonstration the
manufacturer conducted using seats that all had pitches of 28 inches. The 29 other
reports discussed demonstrations that almost all used seats with pitches larger
than 28 inches, some up to 38 inches. Among the aircraft in these 29 reports
8
were the Boeing 737-300 and the Airbus 320, which both had pitches above
28 inches during their evacuation demonstrations.” (DOT OIG Report pg. 12)
(emphasis added)
b. “Lack of comprehensive information on the pitches of seats used in evacuation
demonstrations hinders FAA’s ability to respond to public concerns about seat
pitch. It also affected the accuracy of the Agency’s response to the 2015
passenger petition.” (DOT OIG REport pg. 12)
“Due to FAA’s lack of an up-to-date study on passenger demographics, it is unclear whether the
mix of passengers involved in demonstrations reflects the current flying public, and whether
updates to the mix are necessary.” (DOT IG September 2020 Report)
Requests to the Secretary
1. Require establishment of a representative advisory committee to recommend seat
and passenger space standards within 180 days.
2. Place a moratorium on further reduction in seat and passenger space through a
temporary rule or interim final rule.
3. Require FAA to conduct new, realistic emergency evacuation testing within 90
days using representative test subjects with varying seat and passenger spaces.
4. Require publication of Evacuation ARC May 2020 Report with rulemaking to
commence in 30 days to be completed within 180 days.
5. Order the FAA Administrator to meet with the Evacuation ARC and passenger
representatives within 30 days.
6. Require the FAA to consider health and human rights issues in setting seat and
passenger space standards.
APPENDIX
2015 Rulemaking Petition: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2015-4011-0001
2016 FAA Rejection: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2015-4011-0140;
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2015-4011-0147
D.C. Cir. Remand Decision 2017: https://flyersrights.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Flyers-
Rights-v-FAA-OPINION-7-28-2017.pdf
2018 (2nd) FAA Rejection: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2015-4011-0160;
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2015-4011-0159;
9
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2015-4011-0156;
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2015-4011-0158;
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2015-4011-0157.
Space standards for transporting animals
Cats are entitled to 3 or 4 square feet of floor space. Dogs are entitled to the formula below. This
requirement is for an animal’s primary enclosure when not transported.
When transported, the animal must have:
“(e) Space and placement.
(1) Primary enclosures used to transport live dogs and cats must be large enough to ensure that
each animal contained in the primary enclosure has enough space to turn about normally while
standing, to stand and sit erect, and to lie in a natural position.” 9 CFR 3.15
For non-transportation purposes:
For an average man, 5’8”, the equivalent minimum floor space required for a dog would be 38
square feet
9 CFR 3.6 (a)(2)(xi) and (c)(1)
(xi) Provide sufficient space to allow each dog and cat to turn about freely, to stand, sit, and lie in
a comfortable, normal position, and to walk in a normal manner; and
-
(c) Additional requirements for dogs -
(1) Space.
(i) Each dog housed in a primary enclosure (including weaned puppies) must be provided a
minimum amount of floor space, calculated as follows: Find the mathematical square of the
sum of the length of the dog in inches (measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its
tail) plus 6 inches; then divide the product by 144. The calculation is: (length of dog in
inches + 6) × (length of dog in inches + 6) = required floor space in square inches. Required
floor space in inches/144 = required floor space in square feet.
(ii) Each bitch with nursing puppies must be provided with an additional amount of floor
space, based on her breed and behavioral characteristics, and in accordance with generally
accepted husbandry practices as determined by the attending veterinarian. If the additional
10
amount of floor space for each nursing puppy is less than 5 percent of the minimum
requirement for the bitch, such housing must be approved by the attending veterinarian in
the case of a research facility, and, in the case of dealers and exhibitors, such housing must
be approved by the Administrator.
(iii) The interior height of a primary enclosure must be at least 6 inches higher than the head
of the tallest dog in the enclosure when it is in a normal standing position: Provided That,
prior to February 15, 1994, each dog must be able to stand in a comfortable normal position.
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text
SEC. 577. MINIMUM DIMENSIONS FOR PASSENGER SEATS. (132 Stat. 3394) (49 USC
42301 note)
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and
after providing notice and an opportunity for comment, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall issue regulations that establish minimum dimensions for
passenger seats on aircraft operated by air carriers in interstate air transportation or
intrastate air transportation, including minimums for seat pitch, width, and length, and
that are necessary for the safety of passengers.
(b) DEFINITIONS.—The definitions contained in section 40102(a) of title 49, United
States Code, apply to this section.
SEC. 337. AIRCRAFT CABIN EVACUATION PROCEDURES.
(a) REVIEW.—The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall review—
(1) evacuation certification of transport-category aircraft used in air
transportation, with regard to—
(A) emergency conditions, including impacts into water;
(B) crew procedures used for evacuations under actual emergency
conditions;
(C) any relevant changes to passenger demographics and legal
requirements, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), that affect emergency evacuations; and
(D) any relevant changes to passenger seating configurations, including
changes to seat width, padding, reclining, size, pitch, leg room, and aisle
width; and
(2) recent accidents and incidents in which passengers evacuated such aircraft.
(b) CONSULTATION; REVIEW OF DATA.—In conducting the review under
subsection (a), the Administrator shall—
11
(1) consult with the National Transportation Safety Board, transport-category
aircraft manufacturers, air carriers, and other relevant experts and Federal
agencies, including groups representing passengers, airline crew members,
maintenance employees, and emergency responders; and
(2) review relevant data with respect to evacuation certification of transport-
category aircraft.
(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on
the results of the review under subsection (a) and related recommendations, if any,
including recommendations for revisions to the assumptions and methods used for
assessing evacuation certification of transport category aircraft.
14 CFR 25.803
§ 25.803 Emergency evacuation.
(a) Each crew and passenger area must have emergency means to allow rapid evacuation in crash
landings, with the landing gear extended as well as with the landing gear retracted, considering
the possibility of the airplane being on fire.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers, it must be shown that the
maximum seating capacity, including the number of crewmembers required by the operating
rules for which certification is requested, can be evacuated from the airplane to the ground under
simulated emergency conditions within 90 seconds. Compliance with this requirement must be
shown by actual demonstration using the test criteria outlined in appendix J of this part unless the
Administrator finds that a combination of analysis and testing will provide data equivalent to that
which would be obtained by actual demonstration.
14 CFR Appendix J to Part 25
The following test criteria and procedures must be used for showing compliance with § 25.803:
(a) The emergency evacuation must be conducted with exterior ambient light levels of no greater
than 0.3 foot-candles prior to the activation of the airplane emergency lighting system. The
source(s) of the initial exterior ambient light level may remain active or illuminated during the
actual demonstration. There must, however, be no increase in the exterior ambient light level
except for that due to activation of the airplane emergency lighting system.
12
(b) The airplane must be in a normal attitude with landing gear extended.
(c) Unless the airplane is equipped with an off-wing descent means, stands or ramps may be used
for descent from the wing to the ground. Safety equipment such as mats or inverted life rafts may
be placed on the floor or ground to protect participants. No other equipment that is not part of the
emergency evacuation equipment of the airplane may be used to aid the participants in reaching
the ground.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this appendix, only the airplane's emergency lighting
system may provide illumination.
(e) All emergency equipment required for the planned operation of the airplane must be installed.
(f) Each internal door or curtain must be in the takeoff configuration.
(g) Each crewmember must be seated in the normally assigned seat for takeoff and must remain
in the seat until receiving the signal for commencement of the demonstration. Each crewmember
must be a person having knowledge of the operation of exits and emergency equipment and, if
compliance with § 121.291 is also being demonstrated, each flight attendant must be a member
of a regularly scheduled line crew.
(h) A representative passenger load of persons in normal health must be used as follows:
(1) At least 40 percent of the passenger load must be female.
(2) At least 35 percent of the passenger load must be over 50 years of age.
(3) At least 15 percent of the passenger load must be female and over 50 years of age.
(4) Three life-size dolls, not included as part of the total passenger load, must be carried by
passengers to simulate live infants 2 years old or younger.
(5) Crewmembers, mechanics, and training personnel, who maintain or operate the airplane in
the normal course of their duties, may not be used as passengers.
(i) No passenger may be assigned a specific seat except as the Administrator may require. Except
as required by subparagraph (g) of this paragraph, no employee of the applicant may be seated
next to an emergency exit.
(j) Seat belts and shoulder harnesses (as required) must be fastened.
(k) Before the start of the demonstration, approximately one-half of the total average amount of
carry-on baggage, blankets, pillows, and other similar articles must be distributed at several
locations in aisles and emergency exit access ways to create minor obstructions.
(l) No prior indication may be given to any crewmember or passenger of the particular exits to be
used in the demonstration.
13
(m) The applicant may not practice, rehearse, or describe the demonstration for the participants
nor may any participant have taken part in this type of demonstration within the preceding 6
months.
(n) Prior to entering the demonstration aircraft, the passengers may also be advised to follow
directions of crewmembers but may not be instructed on the procedures to be followed in the
demonstration, except with respect to safety procedures in place for the demonstration or which
have to do with the demonstration site. Prior to the start of the demonstration, the pre-takeoff
passenger briefing required by § 121.571 may be given. Flight attendants may assign
demonstration subjects to assist persons from the bottom of a slide, consistent with their
approved training program.
(o) The airplane must be configured to prevent disclosure of the active emergency exits to
demonstration participants in the airplane until the start of the demonstration.
(p) Exits used in the demonstration must consist of one exit from each exit pair. The
demonstration may be conducted with the escape slides, if provided, inflated and the exits open
at the beginning of the demonstration. In this case, all exits must be configured such that the
active exits are not disclosed to the occupants. If this method is used, the exit preparation time
for each exit utilized must be accounted for, and exits that are not to be used in the demonstration
must not be indicated before the demonstration has started. The exits to be used must be
representative of all of the emergency exits on the airplane and must be designated by the
applicant, subject to approval by the Administrator. At least one floor level exit must be used.
(q) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, all evacuees must leave the airplane by a
means provided as part of the airplane's equipment.
(r) The applicant's approved procedures must be fully utilized, except the flightcrew must take
no active role in assisting others inside the cabin during the demonstration.
(s) The evacuation time period is completed when the last occupant has evacuated the airplane
and is on the ground. Provided that the acceptance rate of the stand or ramp is no greater than the
acceptance rate of the means available on the airplane for descent from the wing during an actual
crash situation, evacuees using stands or ramps allowed by paragraph (c) of this appendix are
considered to be on the ground when they are on the stand or ramp.

 

Edited by Hagbard Celine

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...