Backward Facing Seats ?

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi, I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question, but....

Has any thought ever been given to having passenger seats facing backwards?

This would be much the better position to be in should
the aircraft have any sort of accident.

[FRatSTN]

Probably a less efficient use of space and would it really be allowed for safety reasons?

Plus, I think I few people would have a bit of a roller coaster ride on take-off:yuk:

[121decimal375]

British Airways Club World has rear facing seats, in fact in think they are better for comfort than front facing seats!

[TSR2]

Row 1 on the BA Trident fleet were rear facing seats. Travelled on them a number of times and when looking down the aisle to the rear of the aircraft on take-off, gave an impressive sight of the rate of climb.

One reason for airlines not persuing rearward facing seats I believe, is they were not popular with passengers although it was quite common, if not mandatory, for military trooping flights.

[scr1]

Some of the Loganair SAABs have a rear facing seat seat 1D

[Tableview]

Some of FlymayBe's aircraft have rearfacing front seats, or used to have, I remember doing JER-LCY once on one. Quite appropriate for an airline that doesn't know whether it's coming or going.

[goudie]

The RAF had/has rear facing seats on some of it's passenger transport aircraft

[SWBKCB]

Probably a less efficient use of space and would it really be allowed for safety reasons?
FRatSTN - how is it a less efficient use of space? less safe?

For many years all RAF transports had rear facing seats. Definitely safer but the paying public don't like it. Always makes me laugh when you get the po-faced airline spokesman saying "safety is our primary concern"

[pwalhx]

How could it be a less efficient use of space, surely it would be exactly the same, just facing back instead of forward or have I missed something?

[PAXboy]

This topic has been raised a couple of times during my time in these forums, particularly in SLF forum. So the search function might find some.

In short, it is the take off that people are said to not like. But I think a bigger problem is that - if a carrier decides to switch to rear facing for saftey reasons (which seem well founded) Pas will be asking, "Why did you not do this 30 years ago? You don't care about us do you?" and similar.

For myself, I did travel once in the Trident with rear facing during an experiment in the mid-70s and I filled in a response form saying that I thought it was fine.

I do not expect any carrier to introduce this wholesale.

[mikerawsonderby]

I believe that one of the Dan Air 727s (those were the days) had backward facing seats

[FRatSTN]

how is it a less efficient use of space? less safe?

It depends. It wouldn't be less efficient it they all faced to the rear, it would of course be the same.

But if like a train with some forward facing and some backwards, it may reduce space because there would need to be a bigger gap between facing seats for two sets of legroom.

Seats that were back-to-back, would still need the space to recline and would be naturally spaced a little anyway because the backrest is never quite vertical.

By all facing the same way, the recline or backrest angle of the seat can overlap the legroom space. With some seats facing forward and some backwards, they can't.

As for safety, that was just another suggestion as to maybe why airlines don't tend to install rear facing seats.

[groundhogbhx]

DanAir used to have rear facing seats on the B15's, the rows at the overwing exits faced each other. You had to hope you got an attractive member of the opposite sex facing you as the leg room was so small you couldn't help playing footsie, if you were both 6ft + that would be kneesie:}

[PAXboy]

It is said that the rear facing is safer in sudden deceleration. However, no carrier or country Air Authority has mandated it. So it must be a marginal benefit. I guess that they have looked at prangs in, say, a ten year span and seen how many pax might have benefitted from rear facing in sudden deceleration.

One must conclude - not many.

[munster]

i believe that past studies into this have determined the there would also be a weight penalty too. the seat backs would have to be stronger to withstand the extra loads on them in an accident.

[wowzz]

Having flown in rear facing BA club world seats, I never experienced any issues [although I hate rear facing seats in a train]. Take-off was somewhat strange, but more because of the novelty factor than any sensory problem.
However, I believe that most slf prefer to face the direction of travel, even if they cannot see 'where' they are going.

[cornishsimon]

DH8-300s had the first row as rear facing

[Dairyground]

40 years ago or thereabouts BEA had rear-facing seats at the front of the cabin in their Trident 2 fleet and forward-facing seats towards the back. i cannot remember where the changeover was, but I guess that it was at a door.

My main recollection is that on takeoff you felt as if you were suspended by your seatbelt, which could be a little uncomfortable. Otherwise there was no real difference of sensation between the two directions.

[macuser]

Some BUA 1-11s in the late 60s had all rear facing seats as they were used also for military contracts.

[bannercounty]

Have been on the old Ryanair BAC 1- 11's rear facing (with the small table between forward facing seats) without any issues but a few years ago on Aer Arann ATR's the sensation was awful and all I wanted to do was pee!
Club World inflight was fine but prefer forward facing for takeoff and landing.

[mad_jock]

You might also find the seats need to be heavier if they are rearward facing due to the seat mounts requiring to handle a increased moment during a crash with the center of pressure being transfered high up the seat onto the seat back. The seat backs would also need to be stronger. Possibly also the seat rails will need beefed up.

Not really a problem with first class seats which in general are big units and can have multiple spread out load points and relatively few of them. Economy though your talking quite a bit more weight and also fuel burn/ decrease in traffic load.

[SWBKCB]

But it's preferable for the seat to be taking that pressure rather than the passenger and seat belt? Being pressed back into the seat in a sudden decleration is inherently safer than being thrown forward out of your seat (and the seat collapsing as you pitch forward). Economics 1 Safety 0.

[Mr Mac]

Have also flown on Comet (Dan Air) Malaga - Manchester in early 1970,s which had 2nr banks of rear and forward seats around a table as I recall one set each side in forward part of cabin. Also flew in Britania (British Eagle) in late 1960 LHR - Palma which I beleive was all rear facing, and I (like many others here) also remember the Tridents. All seems a long time ago now !!.

[mad_jock]

Thats as maybe but the public wants cheap seats. They arn't willing to pay for safety.

So unless there is a legislation change which enforces the change to rearward facing seats for everyone, no airline is going to put themselves at an economic disadvantage by having them.

To be honest though if you have alook at the statistics you will more than likely find that the number of lives saved will be quite minimal. If its an in air the seats belts just aid finding the bodies. On the ground if its a sudden stop the forces involved the seat belt/seat back isn't really going to do alot for you anyway. A relatively slow decleration the current setup works fine.

The actual situations that it would help is extremely small.

On the other hand if we could stop pilots flying perfectly servicable aircraft into hills that would save way way more lives.

To be honest by far the most useful thing about the seat belts is that during turbulence it keeps the person in there seat and not smacking off the roof in extreme turbulence. As soon as you talking about uncontrolled smashing into the ground the seat belt is pretty much useless. Most high energy impacts even with 6 point harnesses on in the front the pilots are found dismembered and embeded in the instrument panel.

[PAXboy]

If I recall correctly, this thread has now followed the same responses and trajectory as previous threads. :}

[mad_jock]

yep because the engineering and economics never change.

Yep we could engineer it.

PAX pay an extra 10 quid a ticket that will be bloody right :D

[on time all the time]

I have worked on high density BAC1-11 and the over wing exits had rear facing "seats" which were specially made. They almost looked like a bench with very high back.
The RAF pax VC10 have/had rear facing seats.
Test prove that this solution is safer and would save lives in case of crash but the public does not like them.

[joniveson]

I was allocated one last year on an Air Nostrum ATR 72 - their new ones have 2 at the front and a forward facing row immediately in front with no table or anything in between. There was so little leg room and I also found it really uncomfortable having to stare at the strangers in the seats opposite me! Thankfully it wasn't full and the crew were able to move us around.

[Peter47]

From memory it wasn't just row 1 on the BEA trident fleet but the front half of the cabin that faced rearwards.

Standard practice with the RAF, certainly the Britannias I flew in.