·  News ·  Travel ·  Food ·  Arts ·  Science ·  Sports ·  Advice ·  Religion ·  Life ·  Greensboro · 

Rear Facing Seats in Airplanes, Safer?

by Liv | Published on May 13th, 2007, 9:50 am | Travel
That's whats been suggested by some. That safety on airplanes could be improved, even dramatically, except that Americans are too scared to fly backwards. What might effect one's own personal comfort level has arguably been suggested to decrease the number of deaths in a emergency landing situation. The idea that the the body's energy of forward motion would be distributed by the seat back, rather than waist seat-belt, makes sense to many.

Children in vehicles now ride in rear-facing child seats, and military aircraft have adapted this seating arrangement for years. So why are commercial airliners and passengers so committed to front-facing seats? Would you ride in a rear-facing aircraft?

4919rear-facing-seats.gif


It began in 1945 with with the UK unofficially adopting rear-facing seats in their military aircraft's. By 1958 the US Air Force released conclusive studies indicating forward-facing passengers were seven times more likely to suffer injuries than aft-facing passengers. In 1988 the FAA came to the same conclusion, and by 1994 The Japanese Aviation bureau concluded it's 5 year research that that aft-facing seats provide "the most effective crash impact alleviation."

Despite this information, most airlines play-down or argue any increase in safety from rear-facing seats. But the bottom line is really about money. Aft-facing seats require stronger - and consequently heavier - seat backs and floor attachments. As Southwest, the only airline to experiment with backwards seats, discovered through a cost analysis, the increase in weight would not only hurt fuel efficiency but also would force airlines to reduce the number of seats on their planes. That means the FAA must determine how much a change would cost the industry and weigh it against human life. For the purpose of comparison, the FAA considers a human life to be worth $2.2 million.

I guess the biggest question is whether or not it all really matters. In the case of an airplane crash, most if not all people are going to die anyways. They used to suggest on aircraft that a airplane could land in the water, and you would be given a safety speech about your seat being used as a flotation device. Today most airlines, and passengers recognize there has never been a successful water landing of a commercial aircraft except for failed take-offs and landings. The idea that if something goes wrong at 30,000 feet in the air, and that some seating arrangement, or seat cushion is going to save you is nothing more than the airline's mental brainwashing to make you think your safe. Bottom line, your going to die.
 
 
Liv wrote:I guess the biggest question is whether or not it all really matters. In the case of an airplane crash, most if not all people are going to die anyways.
It does and they don't.

Liv wrote:Today most airlines, and passengers recognize there has never been a successful water landing of a commercial aircraft except for failed take-offs and landings. The idea that if something goes wrong at 30,000 feet in the air, and that some seating arrangement, or seat cushion is going to save you is nothing more than the airline's mental brainwashing to make you think your safe. Bottom line, your going to die.
Most crashes DO occur at takeoff and landing (you could argue that ALL crashes by definition occur at landing)

I'm convinced that rear-facing seats would help survivability in a great many crashes. And apparently passengers are not as averse to the idea as had been thought
BA said that rear-facing seats were popular in business class and it would consider them for economy passengers.
This article suggests that there may be economic advantages to that alternating layout. Sardines pack better in the can, laid nose to tail and the same apparently applies to humans.
All stupid ideas pass through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is ridiculed. Third, it is ridiculed
May 13th, 2007, 11:02 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
Liv wrote:I guess the biggest question is whether or not it all really matters. In the case of an airplane crash, most if not all people are going to die anyways.


The surviving passengers on Oceanic 815 were all sitting in rear-facing seats. I also believe they would beg to differ with with:

Bottom line, your going to die.
May 15th, 2007, 9:22 am
User avatar
rumface
 
Location: Triad Area
rumface wrote:The surviving passengers on Oceanic 815 were all sitting in rear-facing seats.
You are aware that Oceanic Airlines is a fictional airline?
May 15th, 2007, 9:41 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:
rumface wrote:The surviving passengers on Oceanic 815 were all sitting in rear-facing seats.
You are aware that Oceanic Airlines is a fictional airline?


It was a JOKE!! Apparently "lost"...
May 15th, 2007, 12:25 pm
User avatar
rumface
 
Location: Triad Area
Liv wrote:Seems pretty real too me!!!
My neighbor's son works at the Denver Airport. When I showed him that video, he assured me that any fool who gets too close to an active jet engine does risk getting sucked into the engine just like the video shows. But he said there was a LOT wrong with that video.

He said that anybody who knows anything about airplanes knows those engines would never be spinning super fast (like what the video shows) after a crash. The engines would be dead shortly after the crash because all the connections from the gas tanks to the engine would be severed in a plane broken up as much as the plane in the video. Without fuel, those engines don't run.

He also said the engine won't blow up if a person did get sucked in. Bottom line, after a crash, the engines wouldn't likely be spinning at all, much less high enough to suck anybody in. He said that once the plane is down, there isn't all that much engine power needed to taxi in and very, very little is needed to keep the electric systems when the plane is at the gate. So the danger isn't that great. One mechanic did get sucked into an engine (not at Denver, and this was several years ago), but they were testing the engine so it was revved way up. The mechanic's hat got sucked in and instinctively he went for the hat and got sucked in too. But that wouldn't have happened on a regular airport tarmac because the engines are revved way down. Nevertheless, the guys on the ramp take great care not to get too close to those jet engines, because nobody wants to be the guy who proves that even a low rev engine can suck a person in!

Interestingly, many years ago I worked with some folks taking care of some plane crash survivors in our burn unit. The truth is that there actually are quite a few survivors of plane crashes. But what we hear about on the news are the high altitude crashes of the big passenger jets (like the plane that crashed over Lockerbee, Scotland and the one that blew up in the air over the Atlantic a few years ago) and that sort of thing. When a plane falls from over 1,000 feet in the air, pretty much nobody is going to survive. But as "A Person" said, the two most dangerous times for a flight are take-off and landing. At those times, the plane is moving much slower and is near to the ground. Ergo, in many of those crashes, survival is possible.

One tidbit I can share from that long ago time in the burn unit is that I never wear polyester or nylon or any other synthetic material when I'm going to get on a plane. Not to be too graphic, but did you know that the synthetic material melts in the kind of flash fires they have when the jet fuel aerosolizes? You don't want the doctors and nurses trying to pick bits of melted nylon and polyester out of your tissues. Trust me on this.
May 16th, 2007, 1:51 am
Questioner
 
Location: Colorado
Sucked into a jet engine has to be one of the greatest ways to die. Ever. I'd put it right up there with falling into a meat grinder.
May 16th, 2007, 4:35 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
Liv wrote:Sucked into a jet engine has to be one of the greatest ways to die. Ever. I'd put it right up there with falling into a meat grinder.

Well....there are parallels. :mrgreen:

At least it is so quick there just about cannot be any suffering. My son says there weren't any recognizable parts that came out the other side. Just sort of a large spray and smear.
May 16th, 2007, 7:55 pm
Questioner
 
Location: Colorado
chances.jpg

Ask yourself this. It's not whether you can afford first-class, it's can you afford a chance at survival?
September 4th, 2008, 5:27 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
Survival in a crash is not among my worries in air travel. Nearly all crashes that I've ever heard of are 100% fatal.
September 4th, 2008, 7:03 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
Where did you find the chart?
I always thought that seats near the back were safer - the pilots tend to be the first to arrive at an accident because planes don't usually back into things.

Let's see now -- Yes, according to Popular Mechanicsthe opposite is true:
Image -
September 4th, 2008, 7:34 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
I think that Liv's diagram indicates that the closer you can get out of the plane ( the more likely you are to survive a non-catostrophic crash (which I'd gamble to say most are).
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
September 4th, 2008, 7:40 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
I think you're right. It might be relevant in he case of a cabin fire after the plane has landed. the PM Chart is based on actual fatal crash statistics.

Frankly, I'll take business class when I can and head to the back or an exit row when I can't and not worry about a crash.
September 4th, 2008, 7:46 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
Well I got it on some Brazilian Blog... but I backtracked it to this post:

http://science.kukuchew.com/2008/07/08/ ... n-a-plane/
September 4th, 2008, 7:51 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
Image

Apparently yes... well, that is if you get good seats:

According to the statistics 95.7 percent of those effected survive a crash, depending on where they are seated and whether they are able to react intelligently at the moment of disaster. VIA


The same study also delivered the results that passengers seated next to the aisles had 64-68 percent better chances of escaping the aircraft than their co-passengers with window seats.

In contrast with the American results, the Brits came to the conclusion that a seat at the front of the aircraft is statistically safer in the majority of cases – passengers seated in the bow have a 65 percent chance of survival, while a passenger seated in the rear has a 53 percent chance.
February 27th, 2009, 8:58 am
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
I prefer an aisle seat over the wings or towards the rear of the plane. Planes don't often reverse into the ground.

Q: Who is the first person to arrive at the scene of an airplane crash?

Highlight to see answer

A: The pilot
February 27th, 2009, 11:54 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
I never much care where I sit in a plane. If it crashes, the result will either be survivable (in which case, I'll do my darnedest to survive) or it won't. You go zooming into the ground at 400 mph, won't make the slightest bit of difference where the heck you're sitting.
February 27th, 2009, 12:11 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
It has more to do with whether you'll get out of the plane (in time) after it has hit the ground and hopefully you survived.

But it also has to do with that I prefer an aisle seat and I like to get on while there is still space in the overhead bins for carry-on. Arriving alive is a welcome bonus.
February 27th, 2009, 12:15 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:It has more to do with whether you'll get out of the plane (in time) after it has hit the ground and hopefully you survived.

But it also has to do with that I prefer an aisle seat and I like to get on while there is still space in the overhead bins for carry-on. Arriving alive is a welcome bonus.

Yes, being able to walk off the plane is always a big plus in my opinion. 8)
February 27th, 2009, 12:23 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
The more and more I fly, I'm learning... usually the most free seats are at the back of the plane.... so if I book back there... sometimes I get extra seats to spread out in.... furthermore.... the bathroom is less used then the forward lavatories... and I really don't mind being in proximity to them... It's nice to be able to look over and see if it's available... it also usually is near the exit door which besides the obvious make nice standing room... I spent an hour or so just standing back there on our way to London last year... It felt good to stretch the legs after about 5-6 hours in.... Better yet, I was probably one of the few who got to look down and see Ireland from 40,000 feet...
February 27th, 2009, 1:13 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
Liv wrote:The more and more I fly, I'm learning... usually the most free seats are at the back of the plane....

Really? Free seats? How do you get free seats?

I fly Delta, and I use their Sky Miles program whenever I can. But I discovered that they simply have limited numbers of seats you can purchase through the program on any given flight. The never limit us to where in the cabin we can sit, so I get my reservations like 10 or 11 months in advance, so the seat choices are plentiful.
February 27th, 2009, 3:49 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
Free as in available... everyone wants the front of the aircraft so they can run to the rental car counter first...

I've found even playing with the days can make a huge difference... I've got a flight in 2 weeks right now where only about 10 seats are filled on a 767... unfortunately I booked this one on a "vendor" site.... It absolutely blows my mind that American advertises they're the cheapest but I can get their exact flight cheaper through a 3rd party....

Oh well.
February 27th, 2009, 9:14 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
One plus to flying First Class...
first-class-coach.jpg
March 1st, 2009, 4:56 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
Apparently not much has changed since the titanic.
March 1st, 2009, 5:07 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
Came across this... New way of seating by raising every other row up 2 inches.... Anything would be better than how airliners have the seats now.

http://jacob-innovations.com/
November 14th, 2009, 3:28 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC

Return to Travel