The most frightening thing about air bags in planes

During my commute yesterday I happened to catch Adam Hochberg's report, 'Rethinking Flight Safety With Air Bags In Planes' on NPR's Morning Edition. I considered posting about it yesterday, but decided not to. It's not that the report wasn't interesting -- it definitely stuck with me I was just having trouble figuring out an angle to approach it with that made sense.

Hochberg spoke with AmSafe, the predominate manufacturer of seat belts used in planes, and they are reporting an increase in sales of their air bag filled belts -- that's right, air bags IN seat belts. The company produces these belts for airlines seeking to meet the updated US crash standard taking full effect this week. These updated standards require passenger protection from crashes 16 times the force of gravity, similar to that of a head-on collision in a car.

AmSafe's research director, Tom Barth described the air bag seat belts to NPR:

"The air bag seat belt looks pretty much like a standard seat belt. People don't really notice that it's there."

Listening to the report on the radio, this sparked questions of technological fantasy, "How do they fit an air bag into a seat belt undetected?"

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="160" caption="Um, yeah Tom. Looks pretty standard to me."][/caption]

Gizmodo's John Herrman hilariously illustrates the answer:

"No need to deny the lumpiness, Tom—I think people will forgive a little bulk if it means they won't splatter their brains all over that darling floral bulkhead carpet next time a landing doesn't go quite as planned."

Ok, so the innovation is not as fantastically covert as the radio broadcast led me to believe. Herrman still makes a valid point, if safety is the key people will excuse the bulkiness. I mean, if it's a question of life or death, fashion pretty much takes a back seat, right?

Which leads me to my angle -- why post about this a day after the fact? Well, something stuck with me after listening to Hochberg's initial report. These belts are intended to save lives, and anytime something like this comes along, one would think it would be prioritized up on the list of things to do, right?

Over the last decade we've seen airlines optimize the flight experience for passengers in several ways. JetBlue made a stir by offering satellite television available. Virgin allows their customers a very different experience altogether -- comfortable seating, a variety of food and drink, WIFI, and a certain cable channel that may be near and dear to some of you [ed. note -- enough with the coyness, Current TV content is available on Virgin flights].

The most frightening aspect of this story is that the previous school of thought in regards to airline safety was as follows: In severe crashes, no one will be walking away anyway. So why bother?

Here's more from Hochberg:

"There was a time — maybe 25 years ago — when the idea of putting air bags in planes would have been seen as pointless. For decades, aviation safety focused mainly on avoiding accidents on the theory that if a crash occurred, nobody could survive anyway.

But more recently, safety experts have discovered that even in major mishaps — like planes running off runways or landing on the Hudson River — passengers can walk away unharmed if they're properly protected. And that's where air bags can help."

And here's the trick, the updated standards impacting the adoption of these air bag seat belts is not new, they are merely going into full effect this week. In fact, these standards have been in place for the past 21 years, but have been slow to roll out over this period of time.

To be fair, it's obvious that the cost of these upgrades and the impact of several events (9/11 and our present recession) on airline travel have to factor in here. These belts cost in the upwards of $1200 compared to the $35 price point of standard safety belts. In a belt-tightening economy, you have to expect slow adoption. But what about the remaining difference? I'm sure there had to be a travel surge where profits were booming somewhere in the time between 1984-2009.

Yet still, the thought of 21 years worth of plane crashes that, while still disastrous, could have still yielded survivors is pretty bone-chilling. What do you think?