[新聞] 美國巡迴上訴法院下令檢討飛機座位尺寸

[Assisi (Francesco d'Assisi)]

    The ‘Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat’ Gets a U.S. Court Rebuke
    美國聯邦上訴法院下令檢討『誇張縮水中的飛機座位』問題
    https://goo.gl/MgqGVY

    Bloomberg
    Alan Levin 報導
    2017年7月28日 GMT+8 下午11:18


    摘要：
    由民間團體 Flyers Rights 控訴美國聯邦航空管理局 (Federal Aviation
    Administration, FAA) 的案子在美國時間 7/28 獲得哥倫比亞特區聯邦上訴
    法院法官裁定：FAA 需要就緊急狀況時的安全因素來考量座椅尺寸的最低限度
    ，尤其在面臨到現今的美國人越來越胖，以及座位越來越小的趨勢。

    而這也呼應了稍早美國眾議院正在研議的 SEAT 法案 (Safe Egress in Air
    Travel)


    全文：

    -- Lawsuit sought regulations setting minimum seat standards
    -- Suit raised safety issues of smaller seats, growing passengers
    此處如摘要

    If you think the government should do something about the cramped
    legroom on airplanes, you’ve got a friend in a federal court.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., on Friday ordered
    aviation regulators to consider setting minimum standards for the
    space airlines give passengers.

    “This is the Case of the Incredible Shrinking Airline Seat,” 
    Judge Patricia Ann Millett wrote on behalf of the three-judge
    panel. “As many have no doubt noticed, aircraft seats and the 
    spacing between them have been getting smaller and smaller, while 
    American passengers have been growing in size.”

    The court found in favor of Flyers Rights, a nonprofit advocacy
    group, which had argued that steadily shrinking legroom and seat
    size created a safety hazard and the Federal Aviation
    Administration should impose new restrictions.

    The issue of airline passenger legroom has boiled over this year
    as some carriers said they plan to add more seats to planes.
    American Airlines in May announced it would shrink the space
    between most rows to 30 inches (76 centimeters) on its newest
    Boeing Co. 737 Max jetliners, while later dropping a move to cut
    the distance in some rows to 29 inches in the face of criticism
    from employees and customers.
    今年以來，部分美國航空公司正在計畫將飛機座位數提高。美國航空 (AA)
    在今年五月因為原先縮小到 29 寸的提議被廣泛批評後，宣布將會在最新的
    波音 737 Max 將座位間距縮小到 30 寸。


    Flyers Rights argued that the average seat width has narrowed from
     approximately 18.5 inches in the early-2000s to 17 inches in the
    early-to-mid-2010s. In recent decades, the distance between seat
    rows, known as "seat pitch," has gone from an average of 35 inches
     to 31 inches, and as low as 28 inches at some airlines, the group
     said in the suit.
    FLyer Rights 團體表示，座椅寬度已經從 2000 年代早期的 18.5 寸縮水到
    現今的 17 寸。而座椅間距 (Seat Pitch) 則從 31 - 35 寸縮到現在部分航
    空的 28 寸。


    While the FAA has contended its standards for safely evacuating an
     aircraft are adequate, U.S. lawmakers have grilled members of the
     administration and airline executives on the issue at several
    hearings this year, and some have drafted legislation to address
    the issue.
    當 FAA 爭辯說他們的標準一切符合安全，今年以來已經有不少聯邦議員們在
    聽證會上把 FAA 官員跟航空公司高層電的金光閃閃了，而且相關立法正在密
    切討論中。


    The court said the FAA had used "off-point" studies and
    "undisclosed tests using unknown parameters" to justify its
    initial refusal to review the rules. "That type of vaporous record
     will not do," the court said.
    此次上訴法院表示原先的判決搞錯重點了。


    The combination of less legroom and larger passengers has created
    a safety hazard, Flyers Rights argued, making it more difficult to
     exit a plane in an emergency and heightening the risk of deep
    vein thrombosis, a potentially fatal condition of blood clots in
    the legs that has been associated with longer flights.
    Flyers Rights 認為越來越胖的乘客跟越來越小的座椅空間已經對飛航安全
    造成危險，讓這些乘客在緊急狀態的時候更難離開飛機；並且這些乘客也在
    逐漸縮小的座椅空間中面臨更高的風險去得到深部靜脈栓塞，一種被認為和
    長途飛行有關的致命疾病。


    “We’re really gratified,” Paul Hudson, president of Flyers
    Rights, said in an interview. "We hope the FAA will now take it up
     as a proper rulemaking."
    Flyers Rights 的總裁 Paul Hudson 表示：『爽啊！我們希望 FAA 馬上採
    取行動去重新制定合適的規定。』


    Airlines for America, a trade group for the large U.S. carriers,
    said in an email it was not involved in the suit and referred to
    FAA for comment.
    由美國大型航空公司組成的團體 Airlines for America 表示：我們不會對
    此次訴訟表示看法，一切交由 FAA 來發表評論。


    The FAA said in an emailed statement that the agency “does
    consider seat pitch in testing and assessing the safe evacuation
    of commercial, passenger aircraft. We are studying the ruling
    carefully and any potential actions we may take to address the
    court’s findings.”
    FAA 表示：我們一切依法辦理，謝謝指教。將會在研議法院判決後做出適當
    的回應。

    The long-term impact of the court rules remains unclear. It
    stopped short of ordering FAA to create new rules, so the agency
    could conduct a review and decide not to act.
    這項判決的長期影響目前仍不清楚。FAA 仍然可以在研究完後決定不做相關
    規定。


    In a statement last May, the agency said it had already conducted
    evacuation tests on the smaller seat configurations to ensure they
     are safe. The agency has no rules on seat width or the distance
    between rows, relying instead on the evacuation standards.
    今年五月，行政當局表示在做完緊急逃生的相關測試後，比較小的座位還是
    可以確保乘客安全的，因此他們不打算對於座位寬度和間距做出相關規定。


    After American’s initial announcement it was shortening the
    distance between seats, the agency said Boeing in 1998
    successfully performed evacuation tests on the 737-400 with seats
    spaced 28 and 29 inches apart. As a result, the agency had
    certified up to 189 passengers aboard the 737 Max that American is
     buying.
    行政當局在美國航空的上述聲明之後表示，1998 年波音已經對於 737-400
    機型進行過測試，28 和 29 吋間距的座位是不會對乘客逃生產生問題的，
    而因此他們也認可了 737 Max 可以安裝 189 位乘客的配置。

    Maximum Capacity

    Even as emergency evacuations have gotten significantly safer in
    recent decades, a debate continues to rage on how U.S. and other
    leading aviation regulators around the world certify the maximum
    number of passengers allowed on an airliner.
    儘管飛機逃生在這幾十年來已經進步很多了，但全世界的飛航安全管理當局
    還是對於飛機上應該允許多少乘客的討論感到興趣。

    In part because full-scale evacuation tests have resulted in
    serious injuries, the FAA and other agencies have in some cases
    allowed manufacturers to substitute computer simulation and more
    limited tests.
    因為來真的測試會造成一些不必要的傷害，所以飛航當局允許飛機製造商用
    電腦測試或是一些比較局限性的測試來取代更貼近真實的測試。

    U.S. regulations require that Boeing, Airbus SE and other
    manufacturers prove that a fully loaded plane can be evacuated
    within 90 seconds with half the exits blocked and in low lighting
    conditions.
    美國方面是要求飛機製造商需證明在一半的出口被擋住而且機內空間昏暗時
    依然可以在 90 秒內撤離滿載的飛機乘客。

    Hudson, who has served on various FAA advisory panels in recent
    decades, has argued that the FAA’s requirements aren’t adequate
    to protect safety.
    Hudson 幹過幾年 FAA 的顧問，他表示 FAA 的規定對於確保安全來說是還不
    夠的。

    Hudson’s group initially filed a petition to FAA on Aug. 26,
    2015, asking the agency to create rules on seat size and spacing.
    The agency turned it down on Feb. 1, 2016.
    Flyers Rights 是在 2015 年 8 月開始對 FAA 提出請願希望對於座位空間
    和大小進行規定，然而 FAA 在 2016 年 2 月駁回了這項請願。


    In its response to the suit, the FAA cited earlier evacuation
    studies on seat rows placed as close as 28 inches apart to argue
    existing rules were adequate to protect safety. However, the
    agency declined to release those studies to Flyers Rights or to
    the court, arguing they contained proprietary information from
    manufacturers.
    而在這場訴訟中，FAA 雖然提出了之前的研究表示就算是 28 吋也是安全的，
    然而他們並沒有對 Flyers Rights 和法院提出完整的證據，宣稱這些就是他
    們有的所有資訊。


    "The problem here is that the administration has given no reasoned
     explanation for withholding the tests in their entirety, and it
    has declined to file them under seal or in redacted form," Judge
    Millet said in the ruling.
    聯邦上訴法院的主法官 Millet 說：『問題就是說行政當局給的測試並不合
    理，而且他們拒絕給出原始資料或者是那些已經被彌封保密的部分。』

    If it decides to deny Flyers Rights’s petition again, "the
    administration must provide appropriate record support for its
    decision." Millet said.
    Millet 也表示，如果 FAA 決定不甩 Flyer Rights 的話，那他們也必須提出
    足夠的證據顯示他們的決定是合理的。


    — With assistance by Andrew M Harris, Michael Sasso, and Mary
    Schlangenstein
    本文也受到來自  Andrew M Harris, Michael Sasso, 和 Mary Schlangenstein
    的協助。



--

    如果翻譯有錯也請幫抓蟲，感恩 A_A


--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 1.165.98.170
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Aviation/M.1501369906.A.EBA.html
推 tobbywolf: 推
推 A320neo: 感謝分享，如果在經濟艙走道坐一個過重的人，逃生是否受
→ A320neo: 到影響？ 90秒疏散認證好像沒看過體重的人參與！
推 chihchuan: 推
推 ecpoem: 推
推 woody820803: 讚
推 assanges: A320 説得也有道理，如果過重的人需要MEDICAL HELP的話
→ assanges: evac 結果會如何呢