Long ago, I flew off to Germany to sample their beer, chat with their frauleins, and - oh, yeah - something about olive drab clothes and big men with stripes yelling at me. The Military Air Transports had aft facing seats. There was no problem with comfort or sensation. In fact, it was a boon. We lost an engine somewhere out of Gander Bay and had to make an emergency landing at Glasgow (It was a two-engined prop plane, so we kinda missed the one that flew apart). Instead of the duck and brace, we just sat back firmly. Fortunately we got in OK, so we didn't get to check the survivability of that configuration.

I do believe that aft facing seats was tried in the past. From what I remember many airline passengers simply didn't like it. I know it is logical from a safety point of view, but even I don't like the idea, for on a commercial jetliner it sure would tend to make me feel like cargo, instead of as a participant in the flight.

Airline Pilots call you two things on the manifest, either you are a "soul", or you are a "toad". To be crammed in an airliner sitting facing aft, would tend to make me feel more like a toad.

I'd rather be a live "toad" than a dead "soul"

Problem is that all the force would then be on the back of the seat, rather than transferred to a lower point via the seatbelt. This requires substantially stronger seat backs which would be substantially heavier.

Thanks for your comments Guest

I understand what you are stating which had me investigate further the crash dynamics of transport type aircraft seats. The current seat cushions are designed to minimize the rebound force from the crash; therefore; in aft facing seat the g-load factor may be substantially reduced to be within the inherent strength of the current seat design but analysis and testing should be done by FAA/JAA. This would reduce g-loading experience by the passenger.

Also, when the passenger is in the brace position in an aft facing seat the impact force is not applied to the passenger's pelvis via the lap belt but to the passenger's buttocks to the intersection of the seat cushion to the seat back cushion.

I also found this report http://www.etsc.eu/documents/copy_of_Increasing_survival_rate_in_aircraft_accidents.pdf

which states the following on page 18:

Rearward facing seats

During impact, passengers who are restrained by a lap belt and who do not take up a brace position prior to impact, are likely to suffer serious injuries due to the flailing motion of the upper body. The adoption of rearward facing seats would prevent this situation. Since standard aircraft seats are not designed for the loads which will be applied to rearward facing seats, research is needed to determine the strength requirements for the seat and seat support, and ways to attenuate the loading of the cabin floor through energy absorbing mechanisms in the support structure. In addition to the engineering aspects of rearward facing seats, the willingness of passengers to travel backwards should also be considered.

I feel that ALL passenger aircraft should have rearward facing seats, if that was the case, there would only be one choice, to fly or not to fly........

I cannot believe passenger perceived preference takes precedence over safety.

If Aft Facing seating arrangement is technically proven to be the safest seating concept and is affordable, then the FAA/JAA should enforce that concept onto the aircraft manufacturers and subsequently the airlines. But maybe I am nieve in thinking that the FAA/JAA are concerned about the flying public safety.

It seems that no one wants to challenge the status quo of forward facing seats and are just following the rest of the herd.

Maybe you should broaden your understanding of the impact of federally mandated safety requirements on public transportation. I don't mean that in a disrespectful way, just that commercial airline deaths per passenger mile flown shows that the airline industry is probably the safest mode of travel ever devised. How much safer (versus cost) can we possibly make it?

Following on with your mandated safety logic, we should soon be driving ground vehicles with aft facing seats, possibly even the driver, with him/her "piloting" via remote video. This would certainly cut down on the carnage on our public highways, wouldn't it? Based on deaths per passenger mile, it would appear that cars should be a much higher priority.

I could go on but probably need to temper my Libertarian views for once.

Hooker

I do not disagree with what you are saying and everyone in the world can repeat the matra of the airline industry that it is the safest mode of transportation. But does that mean we give up making it safer. Besides the airlines are now investing in these new seatbelt - airbag to reduce neck injuries and seats are being design for 16g rating instead of the old 9g rating All I am asking is there a better way that not being investigated because it challenges the status quo.

On page 9 of the report (dated December 1996) I provided a link to above states:

Approximately, 90 per cent of aircraft accidents can be categorised as survivable or technically survivable. In round and, of course, fluctuating figures it is estimated that of the 1500 who die each year in air transport accidents some 900 die in non-survivable accidents. The other 600 die in accidents which are technically survivable and crashworthiness, fire and evacuation issues are all important. Of these 600 perhaps 330 die as a direct result of the impact and 270 due to the effects of smoke, toxic fumes, heat and resulting evacuation problems.

I am not sure about their statistics; however, saving approximately 330 lives a year by just changing the seating arrangement if technically proven to be safer and affordable is a worthy goal.

Can't argue with the need for continuing aviation safety improvements. I spent too many years involved in research in that very subject. The biggest battle, though, has always been "at what cost". There are literally thousands of potential safety improvements in NASA databases that could be implemented, if the cost could be justified.

I always draw the line, though, when people start championing gov't mandates purely on the basis of saving lives. Airlines are a commercial business. They need to MAKE money to stay in business. The more that is imposed on them the less likely they are to make money and the more they are prone to failure.

Where do YOU draw the line? Is a 1000 deaths per 10,000,000 passenger miles safe enough? Or will you back federal mandates to push that down to 10 deaths per 10,000,000 passenger miles? And if the cost of attaining that 10 death level bankrupts our commercial aviation system, is that justifiable? At least then the US wouldn't have to worry about aviation deaths.

I suspect that making the system absolutely safe is something you and I can agree is impossible, but what level (short of bankruptcy) would make YOU happy? Or, should we just nationalize the entire business and quit worrying about business losses? The the Feds could run the system into the ground directly out of our wallets.

Oh, and let's just ignore the desires and opinions of those who spend their hard earned dollars using the system. They're just cattle and don't deserve a say.

Hooker <--- trying to take the discussion out of the emotional realm and into reality

"I suspect that making the system absolutely safe is something you and I can agree is impossible". This I agree with

I am not trying to bankrupt the airlines. All I am asking is there a better way from a higher safety and less life cycle cost approach. I have been in engineering for almost 40 years and lately there had been numerous times I heard "well that the way we always do it" thus reducing an engineer down to the level of a designer/draftsperson.

An analogy of this is the Qwerty keyboard you are using on your computer because the old typewriter were designed to slow the typist down to prevent the keys from jamming. There is a Dvorak keyboard pattern that would permit you type faster and reduce the distance your finger travels in a eight hour day of typing approximately a quarter mile. But still the standard keyboard for computers are the qwerty pattern which impacts practically everyone's productivity and cost.

Sorry I digress.

Actually, the airbag provides a large degree of safety in cars.

If the costs and weight of an airbag for each passenger were possible, perhaps that would be more acceptable generally.....

I still think that rearward seats would in fact be better on both cost and weight....

I agree, but its uncomfortable at takeoff time, you hange on the belt.

I used to fly a lot with the RAF Transport Command, all their passenger aircraft had rearward facing seats.....

Aft facing seats will never be generally accepted by the flying public.

I was involved in some extensive testing about this stuff with NASA, albeit in helicopters. We took lots of non-aviation people up for rides in a CH-53 whose interior was outfitted like a commercial airliner, with about 25% of the seats facing aft. We would put the helicopter through various maneuvers and ask the pax to rate their feelings on a questionnaire after each one. Invariably, those in the aft facing seats had higher levels of dissatisfaction, nausea, and more than expected requests to dispose of used air sick bags.

Hooker <--- who, as crew chief, had to collect those bags. I especially hated the after-lunch flights.

If God had intended for man to fly facing backwards, He would have put the eyes in the back of the head. (Sorry, folks, I just couldn't help myself, the devil made me do it.)

imho: aft facing or fwd facing.

the purpose of a commercial airliner is to give the pax as close to a bus ride as they can have .

i can think of 2 areas that could be looked at.

1 ) the method for securing the seat assy to the seat track. imho : the way its done is insufficient.

2 ) now the tricky part : less seats " more leg room "..

but that also requires the flying public to understand that flying is not as cheap as riding the bus.

sure you wanna pay $99 for sfo to jfk in 5 hours.

but folks get a grip !!

spend that $99 on the bus and see how far 5 hours gets ya.... try almost 4 days by train..so by bus ..?

btw : when the bus breaks it coasts to the side of the road...( most times )

try that at 38 k feet...

and weather someone has determined the law suits after the accident are cheaper than installing the fcd ( fleet campaign directive ) or eco ( engineering change order ), well , i hope that person can sleep at night.

Bear in mind that airplanes are only strong where they have to be to save weight and be able to carry more payload. To increase the strength you will either decrease the payload or increase the cost with newer, lighter weight composites. And with some of these composites like carbon fiber, or carbon-carbon, there are no bullet proof inspection methods that the FAA and insurance companies are so fond of. Therefore, it will cost more to fly.

Besides, EVERYTHING we do is a risk-benefit calculation. Do the benefits outweigh the risk? I get in my car nearly every day to drive for about 2 1/2 hrs to get to work and home, always running the risk that some drunken tourist is going to take me out. I don't even think about that aspect of the risk, though my insurance company does. The benefit of my job outweighs the risk involved.

Besides, years back if there was an airline crash, there was only next of kin. The fact that there are survivors now speaks volumes about the quality of the aircraft, the airports to which the aircraft go, and the quality of the people who maintain and fly them.

The real cost benefit analysis lies in having to show up two hours early with nothing in your pockets but 47 forms of ID of which at least 3 must have your thumb prints in blood on them.

It seems to me that the primary function of seat belts in today's commercial airlines is to constrain bodies to keep them from bouncing around during turbulence with little regard to the belts' effectivity during crashes. I'm guessing that crash survival rates would increase dramatically, if rearward facing seats were used.