Can we make today’s air travel safer by removing passenger windows?
About a year ago, an incident involving a broken window and a casualty aboard Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 raised concerns over the safety of passenger windows on airplanes.
Questions like “Are window seats more dangerous for passengers?” and “Are airplane windows by the wings more prone to breakage?” began to surface.
As an aviation enthusiast, I felt that these questions were variations of the popular query: “What is the safest seat on an airplane?”
Some studies and experiments have shown that, statistically, people seated in the rear of an aircraft have a higher chance of surviving a crash than those in front.
In spite of that, pilots, aircraft companies and authorities have stated time and time again that there is no conclusive evidence to determine the ‘safest’ airplane seat.
“One seat is as safe as another,” a Boeing spokesman said, “especially if you stay buckled up.”
Each commercial flight disaster is distinctive and are a result of many unfavourable circumstances coming into play simultaneously, as described using the Swiss cheese model.
Air accidents are unforeseeable, and many were in part due to uncontrollable factors, such as weather. And with more than 100,000 flights operating daily, there is no definite way to figure out the safest place to be on one particular plane serving a specific flight.
Alison Duquette, a Federal Aviation Adminstration spokeswoman, said, “Each incident or crash is unique.” Therefore, “There is no safest seat.”
Because they happen when we least expect it, plane crashes are impossible to avoid. Airlines, pilots, engineers and manufacturers can’t prevent air accidents, but they work incredibly hard to significantly reduce the chances. Everything from the engines to the windows are extensively tested by their respective manufacturers and certified by the aviation authorities, such as the FAA, before entering commercial service.
Your best bet as a passenger is to follow the instructions of the crew — fasten your seatbelt, remember where the exits are, adopt the brace position, etc., and not mull over the risks associated with the position of your seat.
Don’t forget, air travel is very safe. If you worry that your flight might crash on your way to the airport, you’re worrying wrong.
Now that we’ve discarded the idea of certain passenger seats being more perilous than other seats, let’s go back to addressing the question in the title.
Currently, holes are cut into airplane fuselages to form openings for glass windows to be fitted into. If the cutting is eliminated and the windows are ditched (much like freighter aircraft), the airframe will be stronger.
The fuselage’s aluminium or composite materials are certainly more impact-resistant (and engine-fragment-resistant) than glass. So, modern-day air travel will indeed be safer without windows, right?
Wrong. To understand why, we need some more context.
Here are the functions of passenger windows:
- They allow people to enjoy the scenery outside.
- They let natural light enter the airplane, opening up the cabin and providing a sense of spaciousness.
- They enable passengers/crew members to look outside the airplane to assess possible damage or risk present on the wing, engine or the area around the aircraft.
- They give rescue workers and firefighters the ability to see into the cabin from the outside to evaluate conditions in the cabin and determine the most suitable course of action.
This was what the passengers of Air France Flight 66 saw out the window on September 30, 2017:
There were no windows broken, but no one wants to see a plane’s engine quit on them while cruising at 37,000 feet.
The flight suffered from an uncontained engine failure, and the pilots were able to get a clear view of the damaged engine and visually assess the condition of the engine mid-flight. This allowed the flight crew to make an informed decision on what to do next.
If there were no windows on Flight 66, the pilots would have had little information about the malfunctioned engine’s condition to work with.
Was it a contained or uncontained engine failure? In addition to the engine, are parts of the wing damaged? These are factors that need to be taken into consideration when executing an emergency descent and landing later on.
Passenger windows are absolutely necessary such that in the event of presence of danger outside, passengers will be aware of it. In fact, airlines encourage passengers to look out for any hazards that may jeopardise the safety of the flight, including any anomaly with the wings or engines.
Kare Lohse, an airline pilot, noted that: “There have been cases where passengers have noted technical problems by looking out on the wing or engines for instance.”
It’s especially important to stay vigilant of external conditions during take-offs and landings, and that’s why flight attendants want your window shades up during those two critical phases of flight.
But, what about nighttime?
Most airliners are equipped with wing inspection lights to illuminate the engines and portions of the wings in darkness.
What about cargo planes? They don’t have passenger windows…or do they?
Well, they don’t have passengers anyway, but look closely. There are two passenger-sized windows situated on each side of this MD-11 Freighter pictured below:
There are passenger windows on the cargo variant of the Boeing 747 to allow pilots to perceive the outside environment from the side of the plane, when necessary.
Can we make today’s air travel safer by removing passenger windows?
In this day and age, no.
Removing passenger windows makes airplanes more dangerous, because the various purposes of the windows are key to the safety of the passengers and crew.
During takeoff and landing, the windows let passengers view the aircraft’s surroundings, hence allowing the passengers to anticipate a rotation and climb, or a flare and touchdown, and prepare themselves for it, giving them a greater peace of mind.
The windows provide views of the wings and engines, allow for the identifying of any abnormalities in their appearance or performance, and the assessment of their conditions by the flight crew.
In the event of an emergency evacuation, the windows allow passengers and crew to better determine whether there is danger outside the plane prior to evacuating, and where the hazard may lie.
For example, if the right engine is on fire, the passengers and crew will know not to use the right overwing exit(s). Often times, the aircraft’s electrical power will be cut in an emergency, so the cabin will be very dim, with some escape lighting providing pale illumination.
Without passenger windows, the darkness of the cabin, and inability to see outside, will likely disorientate the passengers, causing further panic during evacuation.
If there’s fire in a section of the cabin, the windows will, for example, allow the firefighters to decide the appropriate location to force their way in without going directly into the fire.
A catastrophic flight alone is extremely rare, let alone a flight specifically related to engine issues and broken windows. Research has found out that the odds of you being on a flight that crashes is 1 in 1.2 million, and the odds of you dying in a plane crash are one in 11 million.
In Southwest’s 47+ years of operations, Flight 1380 marks the second fatality aboard one of the airline’s 700+ airplanes that operate thousands of flights a day, after a hijacker died while attempting to break into a cockpit in 2007.
Aviation accidents can happen due to many factors, ranging from engine problems to pilot error. One high-profile incident involving broken windows and one unfortunate casualty does not warrant the removal of passenger windows, because many more deaths were averted due to the presence of those windows.
I offer my condolences to the victim of Southwest Flight 1380. Nonetheless, I believe that removing passenger windows will do more harm than good.
Wait. What about replacing windows with exterior cameras and high definition screens?
Presently, that’s difficult to implement. And people outside wouldn’t be able to see in.
The aviation industry is a conservative sector, and new technologies are often tested relentlessly before being certified for service, in hopes of avoiding catastrophe.
Back in the late 1990s, one of the newest features introduced aboard Swissair’s long-haul flights were personal In-Flight Entertainment screens for every First and Business Class seat, as opposed to large, central projection screens.
Unfortunately, improper wiring of the entertainment system resulted in an electrical fire on board one of its flights, claiming the lives of 229 people.
While there are concepts of virtual windows, existing technologies have not been proven to be reliable enough to function in emergency situations. What happens if a power outage were to occur? The current-generation Auxiliary Power Unit and Ram Air Turbine wouldn’t provide sufficient backup power for the screens to work.
You might have seen Emirates introduce virtual windows for their First Class seats. But those are middle seats, not window seats. Thus, none of the traditional windows were replaced.
The inadequacies of current technologies from a safety standpoint disallow traditional windows to be supplanted by screens on airliners capable of transporting hundreds of people. Having the virtual windows is simply not pragmatic at the moment.
This Medium story seeks to explain and educate relevant ideas in accordance to the realities of today. While it’s good to be forward-thinking, I will avoid considering futuristic concepts that haven’t been proven to be feasible yet.
Who knows, the answer might change in the near future. Only time will tell.
Thanks for reading.
