Well, I waited 'till I cooled down a bit.
This is hardly the most dynamic sub-forum, yet when someone tries to stimulate a bit of intelligent discussion about SOPs that are blindly and unquestioningly followed, one gets patronised, scorned, belittled and shouted down. you want to stifle debate?
For what it's worth......
1- basic safety of Pax hasn't changed since the dawn of Commercial Aviation.....look at motor-car safety and then tell me it can't be done.
2 I stated that in a "sudden decelleration" SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE ARMREST A REAL DANGER....the Pax would have a lot more serious injuries to worry about....well, they wouldn't , 'cos they'd be dead/unconcious)
3 Excuses about armrests swivelling backwards, is an excuse for piss-poor design and engineering. look at Cinemas/theatres/road transport....yup, they're regulated as well, "pax" have to escape from a bloody sight longer rows of seats than in a plane!- Granted, there ain't many Cinemas crashed recently
4 Blind faith in what your lords and masters decree, doesn't make it informed, honest , truthful and reasoned....even though you "take safety seriously"
5 a lap-belt gives some protection, a lap/diagonal is better, 5-point harness the best....they ALL work BY STRETCHING and slowing the body down in less than a foot, rather than stopping dead.....that's why airbags work so well....the smaller the amount of webbing, the higher the point-load on the body....victims die because organs slam around inside the body and get ruptured.
I never argued that "armrests down" was not good practise...of course it is.....so would removing overheads entirely and having reinforced stowage under the seat in front.....but it's unlikely to happen.
Why spend a rake of money on developing extra crash protection.....everyone accepts the current status-quo, so it's not cost -effective.......However, develop WINGLETS and even retro-fit them and the balance -sheet shows a goodly percentage fuel -saving every sector........
going to join the OP in Jet Blast.