See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/12605521

Biomechanical analysis of the dimensions of pilot seats in civil aircraft

Article  in  Applied Ergonomics · March 2000

DOI: 10.1016/S0003-6870(99)00028-9 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

23 14,777

3 authors, including:

Richard Goossens
Delft University of Technology
182 PUBLICATIONS   2,551 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Spreekkamer 2030 View project

Anthropometry for Industrial Design Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Goossens on 08 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 9}14

Biomechanical analysis of the dimensions of pilot seats in civil aircraft

R.H.M. Goossens!,",*, C.J. Snijders!,", T. Fransen"
!Department of Product and Systems Ergonomics, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology,
Jawalaan 9, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands
"Department of Biomedical Physics and Technology, Faculty of Medicine and Allied Health Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Received 22 January 1998; accepted 26 March 1999

Abstract

The dimensions of pilot seats from "ve di!erent types of civil aircraft were measured and the results compared with existing
standards and biomechanical criteria. It was apparent that these seats failed to meet requirements, particularly in the e!ective depth
and inclination of the seat and in the height of the lumbar support and the armrests. Hence, none of these seats made it possible for the
pilot to establish a comfortable sitting posture. In comparison with aviation standards, the anthropometric dimensions were not
satisfactory, meeting only 4}7 out of 10 requirements. The dimensions based on biomechanics were even less satisfactory, meeting
only between 1 and 3 requirements out of 7. ( 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ergonomics; Aviation; Biomechanics; Seat

1. Introduction can complaints reported by pilots be ascribed to certain

Complaints of discomfort and low-back pain during
middle- and long-range #ights were reported among traf-
"c pilots (Lusted et al., 1994). These complaints may
cause a pilot to lose concentration and can thus a!ect the
safety of a #ight. Pilot seats with a range of adjustment
options were designed to guarantee seating comfort. In
spite of this, complaints continued to be reported (Haw-
kins, 1973; Lusted et al., 1994). To solve these problems
engineers tried to improve the cushioning of cockpit seats
by modifying the shape and the hardness of seat, and by
covering the seat with sheepskin to improve the circula-
tion of air between pilot and the surface of the seat. These
changes did not eliminate complaints (Lusted et al.,
1994).
We addressed earlier studies to seating in "ghter air-
craft (Aghina, 1989; Snijders et al., 1991; Hoek van Dijke
et al., 1993), and to seating in cars, in the o$ce, at school
and at home (Snijders, 1988, Snijders et al., 1995a,b,c;
Goossens, 1994, Goossens and Snijders, 1995; Goossens
et al., 1994). This initiated the present study on pilot seats
in civil aircraft. The question our present research asks is:
* Corresponding author. Tel.: ##31-1527-86340; fax: ##31-
1527-87179.
features of the cockpit seat? To answer this question an
anthropometric and biomechanical analysis was made of
pilot seats in "ve modern middle- and long-range civil
aircraft.
2. Biomechanics: principles of seating
Parameters which have a strong in#uence on comfort
in sitting derive partly from anthropometric and party
from biomechanical considerations (Wachsler and
Laerner, 1960; Drury and Coury, 1982; Snijders, 1988;
Zhang et al., 1996). The standard used for pilot seats
(Aerospace Standard AS290B, 1965) is based on anthro-
pometrics. In addition, we discuss important bio-
mechanical considerations.
2.1. Seat}backrest angle and seat inclination
A biomechanical model (see Fig. 1) (Snijders, 1988)
demonstrates schematically that when a backrest is used,
the seat must be inclined backwards at the site of the
ischial tuberosities to eliminate shear forces between skin
and cushion.
Fig. 1A is a free body diagram of the upper part of the
body (including the mass of the arms, head and trunk). It
shows the forces that act on the trunk of the sitting

0003-6870/00/$ - see front matter ( 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 3 - 6 8 7 0 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 2 8 - 9
10 R.H.M. Goossens et al. / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 9}14
Fig. 1. Biomechanical model of the upper body. (A) No shear force on
the skin when the seat is perpendicular to F . (B) More backrest
5
inclination goes with a more oblique orientation of F . F "upper body
5 '
weight, F "force acting on the back, F "reaction force acting on the
" 5
ischial tuberosities, F "vertical component of F , F "horizontal
57 5 5)
component of F , which is a shear force on the buttocks in case of
5 and Snijders, 1995).
a horizontal seat surface (redrawn from Snijders et al., 1995a).
subject. In a state of static equilibrium (sitting still), the
lines of action of the force from the backrest (F ),
"
the weight force of the upper body (F ) and the force on
'
the ischial tuberosities (F ) all three intersect at one point
5
(S). Consequently, the reaction force on the ischial tuber-
osities (F ) cannot be vertical, but must have a slight
5
inclination when a backrest is used. The "gure on the
right (B) shows that when the upper body is tilted back-
ward, the inclination of the support force (F ) increases,
5
because its line of action must go through S.
Fig. 2. The measured pilot seat dimensions, see Table 1 for description.
To prevent sliding when sitting with an inclined back-
rest and a horizontal seat, the equilibrium requires
a shear force (F ) between seat and ischial tuberosities.
5)
This shear force acts in combination with pressure
(caused by F ) and aggravates discomfort during pro-
57
longed sitting. At high enough levels pressure load can
hinder the di!usion of oxygen and metabolites to the
cells. We demonstrated that the addition of shear load
worsens this phenomenon dramatically (Goossens et al.,
1994).
In theory, the shear force between seat and ischial
tuberosities can be eliminated completely by opting for
an angle of 90}1003 between seat and backrest (Fig. 2, c).
In that case shear is minimised, because the supporting
force (F ) is oriented perpendicular to the seat surface (see
5
Fig. 1). With such a seat angle there is no tendency to
slide. According to Aerospace standard AS290B (1965)
the backrest angle (Fig. 2, }) during #ight should be
between 65 and 853, consequently the angle of the pilot
seat (Fig. 2, a) should be between 5 and 153 (Goossens
2.2. Lumbar support
In order to prevent the pelvis from tilting backward
during sitting, a support force is needed at level of the
posterior superior iliac spine (Goossens, 1994). This lum-
bar support prevents the generation of a lumbar kypho-
sis, i.e. it provides the support for the lumbar spine to
adopt a slight lordotic curvature. However, compared to
standing, the lumbar spine will still #atten during sitting
(Keegan, 1953; Andersson et al., 1974; Zacharkow, 1988).
Few anthropometric data exist on the height of the
posterior superior iliac spine. In a study of 91 sub-
jects, Diebschlag et al. (1978) found that for 90% of the
 R.H.M. Goossens et al. / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 9}14 11

population the height of the posterior superior iliac spine 2.4. Ewective dimensions
was 18}25 cm.
More recently, the preferred setting for the height of From a biomechanical point of view, only those parts
the lumbar support in o$ce chairs was investigated by of the supporting surfaces (seat, backrest, armrest) which
Coleman et al. (1998). They found that the lumbar sup- actually support a part of the body are functional. There-
port should be adjustable from 15 to 25 cm (Fig. 2, g). fore, in the case of seat depth (Fig. 2, b), e!ective seat
This "nding supports the biomechanical consideration depth (Fig. 2, c) is de"ned as that part of the seat which is
on pelvic positioning. actually used for body support. This also applies to seat
In order to obtain lumbar support free space between width. The measurement technique is explained in
seat and backrest (Fig. 2, i) of at least 12 cm (Zacharkow, Section 3.
1988) is also needed.
2.5. Requirements
2.3. Armrests
The anthropometric requirements, as found in Aero-
Armrests placed at a su$cient height for proper arm space standard AS290B (1965), together with the require-
support will considerably reduce loads on the back ments obtained from biomechanical considerations are
(Zacharkow, 1988). Armrests placed too low may cause presented in Table 1 (de"nitions are shown in Fig. 2). The
people to adopt a scoliotic posture, i.e. with the upper two columns in Table 1 are not mutually exclusive. It is
body bent sideways. Then can also cause a kyphotic important that the seat inclination (Fig. 2, a) is de"ned as
shape of the lumbar spine (a C-form of the lower back). the inclination at the ischial tuberosities.
An armrest should give support below the mass centre of
gravity of the upperarm and forearm. It is a biomechani-
3. Methods
cal design mistake to make height adjustment dependent
on tilting the armrest (Fig. 2, d), because then taller
The pilot seats were evaluated by measuring their
people are unable to rest their elbows on the supporting
dimensions and adjustabilities, and comparing them with
surface. For armrest height (Fig. 2, k) the range of
the anthropometric and biomechanical design criteria in
20}32 cm from the Aerospace Standard is used (Table 1).
Table 1. Some of the dimensions were characteristic for
Only small angles of the armrest are allowed (d(53), so
pilot seats: a column cut out in the front of the seat (Fig.
that the entire arm remains in contact with the armrest.
2, f) and an adjustable thigh support (Fig. 2d).
Because discomfort most often occurs during pro-
Table 1 longed sitting, the seats of aircraft operating over middle
Standards of dimensions used for the analysis of cockpit seats.
and long distances were considered:
AS290B"Aerospace Standards and biomechanical requirements
Boeing 747-400, Boeing 747-300, McDonnell Douglas
Description AS290B Biomechanical DC10-30, Airbus A310 and Boeing 737-300.
a Seat height 33 min All linear dimensions were measured by means of
51 max a ruler (division of scale 1 mm). The height of the lumbar
b Seat depth 41 min support is de"ned as the height of the most pronounced
45 max point of the backrest, measured from the seat surface.
d Thigh support length 13 max
The minimum and maximum positions of the adjustable
f Column cut out width 10 max
h Backrest height 65 min lumbar supports were measured. Seat angle, seat height,
j Backrest width 43 min e!ective seat depth and width, and armrest height were
46 max measured, with the seat under a load of 500 N, using
l Armrest width 6.5 standardized wooden buttocks as used in the Dutch
m Armrest length 28 min
Standard for o$ce chairs (NEN 1812, 1990).
o Width between armrests 47 min
b Backrest inclination 65}85 Also apparent from Fig. 2 is the fact that some dimen-
sions are de"ned with respect to the Seat Reference
c Seat depth e!ective 41 min Point, according to the Aerospace Standard AS290B
52 max (1965). The term &Seat Reference Point' is de"ned as the
e Seat width e!ective 43 min
intersection of a line tangent to the surface of the seat
g Lumbar support height 15}25
i Free space pelvis 15 min bottom cushion and a line through the seat back cushion
k Armrest height 20}32 representative of a back tangent line, when in a com-
a Seat Inclination at ischial tuber- 5}15 pressed state under a load of a 50th percentile person.
osities Based on previous measurements (Goossens and Snij-
d Armrest inclination 0 min
ders, 1995), in this study we used 500 N for the P50 load
5 max
on the seat.
12 R.H.M. Goossens et al. / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 9}14

The seat angle a, backrest angle b and armrest inclina-
tion d were measured by means of an inclinometer (Seca,
1 degree per division of scale). Five di!erent seats from
four manufacturers were evaluated.
No "gures are given for the adjustability of the mea-
sured armrests, because they could only rotate about an
axis in the backrest. Rotation results in the rise of the
armrest at the level of the wrist, but with tall pilots this
leaves empty space below the elbow.

4. Results
In Table 2 all the dimensions which were measured are
listed, as well as the requirements from Table 1. Not
meeting the dimensions in Table 1 leads to asterisks in
Table 2. The cells have asterisks, if the measured para-
meters fall outside the minimum and maximum limits,
and if the measured range does not completely cover the
required range (see armrest height in Table 1).
No cells have asterisks for the armrest inclination (Fig.
2, d) because all chairs could have an armrest inclination
of 03.
The last two rows in Table 2 show the number of
requirements which were met for the anthropometric and
the biomechanical criteria, respectively.
It can be seen that the majority of the parameters
measured were not in accordance with the criteria.
5. Discussion
Some studies use questionnaires, "lled in by users, in
order to evaluate the comfort of seats. Lusted et al. (1994)
evaluated the seating of Qantas #ying crew by using this
method. They found that there are certain areas of dis-
comfort, but the reason for the discomfort could not be
explained.
In a recent study it was shown that some of the causa-
tive factors of discomfort can be related to biomechanical
aspects (Zhang et al., 1996).
We, therefore, used a checklist based on anthropomet-
ric and biomechanical dimensions. The results of the
study on the pilot seats presented here, and the results of
the questionnaires of the Qantas study (Lusted et al.,
1994) do not exclude each other. These authors mention

Table 2
Types of aircraft, pilot seats and dimensions measured in situ. Comparison with the standards mentioned in Table 1. An asterisk (*) means that the
considered dimension does not meet the requirements. Length in cm, angle in degrees

Description AS290B Biomechanical 747-300 747-400 DC10 A310 737

WEBER IPECO AMI SOCEA IPECO

a Seat height 33 min 38}51 34}47 34}50 36}51 38}51

51 max
b Seat depth 41 min 41 45 45 42 40}45
45 max
d Thigh support length 13 max 16* 17* 15* 12 16*
f Column cut out width 10 max 12* 10 11* 10 11*
h Backrest height 65 min 59* 54}63* 63* 67 55}63*
j Backrest width 43 min 37}40* 39}41* 52* 41* 39*
46 max
l Armrest width 6.5 5* 5.5* 6.5 4* 6*
m Armrest length 28 min 45 36 45 48.5 35
o Width between armrests 47 min 44.5* 44.5* 46* 47.5 49.5
b Backrest inclination 65}85 40}85 65}90 50}75* 60}75* 62}85

c Seat depth e!ective 41 min 38* 42 40 42 33}38*

52 max
e Seat width e!ective 43 min 46 39* 42* 45 42*
g Lumbar support height 15}25 13* 10}19* 13* 9}15* 14}23*
i Free space pelvis 15 min 6* 4}13* 0* 4* 0}9*
k Armrest height 20}32 19.5* 19.5* 17* 18* 22*
a Seat Inclination at ischial 5}15 0* 0* 0* 0* 0*
tuberosities
d Armrest inclination 0 min !5-#5 !25-#25 !25#10 !28-0 !24-#4
5 max

Number of measured features that meet the 10 4 5 4 7 5

anthropometric requirements
Number of measured features that meet the 7 2 2 1 3 1
biomechanical requirements
 R.H.M. Goossens et al. / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 9}14
that their study involved Ipeco chairs. The results of our
study show that the main areas of discomfort, namely the
buttocks and low back as found in the Qantas study, can
be ascribed to a failure to meet the biomechanical re-
quirements in that region.
Although the dynamics of #ying will in#uence the forces
acting on the pilot, we decided to use a biomechanical
model in a static seating posture, since civil #ight is, for
most of the time, without extreme accelerations.
The biomechanical model we presented is only valid
for the static situation, and is restricted to the sagittal
plane only, and thus does not study the in#uence of
postural changes. Hobson (1992) studied the in#uence
of postural changes on the shear force acting on the tissue
of the buttock in the plane of the seat. When the trunk
was bent laterally 153 to left and right, he found in the
healthy population only little changes in the shear force
(5 N) compared to the symmetric position. He found that
in healthy people, when the trunk was bent laterally 153
to left or right, only small changes in the shear force (5 N)
occurred, as compared with those occurring in a symmet-
ric position.
According to Hawkins (1973) complaints of discomfort
in the cockpit are related to stress, and to the inappropri-
ate cushioning of pilot seats. Because of the numerous
adjustment options the comfort of cockpit seats is pre-
sumed to be excellent. Some seat dimensions are related
to the anthropometry of small and tall pilots, for example
seat height, armrest length and width between the ar-
mrests. These dimensions did not compare favourably
with aviation standards, meeting only 4}7 requirements
out of 10. Furthermore, the dimensions based on bio-
mechanics, which may be related to discomfort, were
even less satisfactory, meeting only 1}3 requirements out
of 7. These were the e!ective seat depth, the lumbar
support height, height and position of the armrests and
seat inclination at the contact area of the ischial tuberosi-
ties. Despite the many adjustment possibilities, impor-
tant dimensions, as given in reference literature, could
not be achieved (Coleman et al., 1998; Drury and Coury,
1982; Goossens et al., 1994,1995; Snijders, 1988, Snijders
et al., 1991; Wachsler and Laerner, 1960; Zacharkow,
1988).
For example, in all the seats the maximal e!ective seat
depth was still too small for the majority of pilots. This
also applied to the height of the armrests and the lumbar
support. It is curious that the designers claim that the
height of an armrest can be adjusted by rotating the
armrest around an axis in the backrest. The above "nd-
ings indicate that the adaptation of the armrest height to
individual heights is insu$cient.
A typical characteristic of pilot seats is the adjust-
able thigh support, which rests on a spring. We could
not determine the exact purpose of this feature. It seems
that it evolved from an ancient chair design, in which the
front part of the seat had to spring down under pressure
13
from the thighs to allow proper pedal pressure to be
applied in emergency situations. However, the #exion of
the thigh support (Fig. 2, h) to 303 with respect to the seat
has no function according to biomechanics. The surface
of a seat must be #at in an anterior}posterior direction
(Snijders, 1988). Therefore, the pro"le in the sagittal
plane must be straight, since curbs and raised brims do
not match with human anatomy and will diminish the
seat depth, and may a!ect lumbar curvature. When
a backrest is used, an inclination must to be applied to
the entire seat, to give proper support to the ischial
tuberosities in all positions.
The impression gained from the results of this study is
that the seats which were evaluated are not able to
provide comfortable sitting positions.
In summary, the following improvements can be sug-
gested:
f Increase the e!ective seat depth by making the seat #at
in anterior}posterior direction.
f Raise the lumbar support.
f Make the armrests adjustable in height by translation
instead of rotation.
f Tilt the entire seat to an angle at the ischial tuberosi-
ties up to 7}103.
These recommendations for improvement will in no
way a!ect the operation of controls or the space available
in the cockpit.
6. Conclusions
f The dimensions of none of the "ve considered pilot
seats from middle- and long-range aircraft met basic
biomechanical design criteria.
f The majority of the dimensions did not meet aviation
standards.
f The inbuilt adjustment options are insu$cient, in par-
ticular, for taller pilots.
f Identi"ed as most problematic were the horizontal
seat at the ischial tuberosities, insu$cient e!ective seat
depth, insu$cient height of lumbar support and the
absence of height adjustability for armrests.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank N. Anderson, K.J. Bruce,
C.H. Draijer, S.V.W. Erftemeyer, H. de Ree and J.
Steketee for their valuable contributions.
References
Aerospace Standard, AS290B, 1965. Seats for #ight deck crewmentrans-
port aircraft. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA,
USA.
14 R.H.M. Goossens et al. / Applied Ergonomics 31 (2000) 9}14
Aghina, J.C.F.M., 1989. Low back pain and low level #ying. Thesis.
Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Andersson, G.B.J., OG rtengren, R., Nachemson, A., ElfstroK m, G., 1974.
Lumbar disc pressure and myoelectric back muscle activity during
sitting. I. Studies on an experimental chair. Sc. J. Rehabil. Med. 6,
104}114.
Coleman, N., Brynley, P., Hull, P., Ellit, G., 1998. An empirical study of
preferred settings for lumbar support on adjustable o$ce chairs.
Ergonomics 41, 401}419.
Diebschlag, W., MuK ller-Limmroth, W., Baldauf, H., Stumbaum, F.,
1978. Physiologische Untersuchungen zur SitzmoK belgestaltung. Z.
Arbeits Wiss. 34, 89}95.
Drury, C.G., Coury, B.G., 1982. A methodology for chair evaluation.
Appl. Ergon 13, 195}202.
Goossens, R.H.M., 1994. Biomechanics of body support; a study of load
distribution, shear, decubitus risk and form of the spine. Thesis,
Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Goossens, R.H.M., Snijders, C.J., 1995. Design criteria for the reduction
of shear forces in beds and seats. J. Biomech. 28, 225}230.
Goossens, R.H.M., Zegers, R., Hoek van Dijke, G.A., Snijders, C.J., 1994.
In#uence of shear on skin oxygen tension. Clin. Physiol 14, 111}118.
Hawkins, F.H., 1973. Crew seats in transport aircraft. Shell Aviation
News 418, 14}21.
Hobson, D.A., 1992. Comparative e!ects of posture on pressure and
shear at the body}seat interface. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev 29, 21}31.
Hoek van Dijke, G.A., Snijders, C.J., Roosch, E.R., Burgers, P.I.C.J.,
1993. An analysis of biomechanical and ergonomic aspects of cer-
vical spine in F-16 #ight situations. J. Biomech. 26, 1017}1025.
View publication stats
Keegan, J.J., 1953. Alterations of the lumbar curve. J. Bone J. Surg. 3,
589}603.
Lusted, M., Healey, S., Mandrijk, J.A., 1994. Evaluation of the seating
of Qantas #ight deck crew. Appl. Ergon 25, 275}282.
NEN 1812, 1990. Ergonomic requirements for o$ce work-chairs and
o$ce workdesks, Requirements for dimensions and design,
Measurement and test methods. NNI, Delft, The Netherlands.
Snijders, C.J., 1988. Design criteria for seating based on bi-
omechanics. Proceedings of ICAART 88, Montreal, 25}30 June, pp.
472}473.
Snijders, C.J., Bakker, M.P., Vleeming, A., Stoeckart, R., Stam, H.J.,
1995c. Oblique abdominal muscle activity in standing and in sitting
on hard and soft seats. Clin. Biomech 10, 73}78.
Snijders, C.J., Hoek van Dijke, G.A., Roosch, E.R., 1991. A biomechani-
cal model for the analysis of the cervical spine in static postures. J.
Biomech 24, 783}792.
Snijders, C.J., Nordin, M., Frankel, V.H., 1995a. Biomechanica van het
spier-skeletstelsel; grondslagen en toepassingen. Lemma, Utrecht,
ISBN 90-5189-278-0 (in Dutch).
Snijders, C.J., Slagter, A.H.E., Strik, R., van Vleeming, A., Stoeckart, R.,
Stam, H.J., 1995b. Why leg-crossing? The in#uence of common
postures on abdominal muscle activity. Spine 20, 1989}1993.
Wachsler, R.A., Laerner, D.B., 1960. An analysis of some factors in-
#uencing seat comfort. Ergonomics 3, 315}320.
Zacharkow, D., 1988. Posture, Sitting, Standing, Chair Design and
Exercise. Charles C. Thomas, Spring"eld, IL, USA.
Zhang, L., Helander, M.G., Drury, C.G., 1996. Identifying factors of
comfort and discomfort in sitting. Human Factors 38, 377}389.