Rear facing seats...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rear facing seats...
Forgive if this subject has been aired recently, and ignore or delete...
Having first flown facing rearwards, occasionally sideways (both RAF); being happy with travelling on trains backwards, in fact always heading for that seat if not occupied, as well as noting that approx. 50% of SLF on trains do not mind either...
Then why does the civil aviation industry not offer this option for some of us who would feel happier/safer with full spinal support in the event of an occurrence such as Friday 17ths?
...and indeed accidents such as the Garuda overrun a while ago... the more that haven't whacked their heads/been gutted by that rather pathetic lap strap, the more are capable of heading for the exits when/if things go wrong, fire or no fire?
I'd pay a small premium for such peace of mind, but have never been able to understand why so much effort is put into passenger safety yet this one BIG compromise is still insisted upon.
PS. When involved with aircraft design, the reasoning was always that SLF wouldn't stand for it, just as they wouldn't stand for aircraft without windows (despite the ones that get windows seats rarely look out of them
)
Having first flown facing rearwards, occasionally sideways (both RAF); being happy with travelling on trains backwards, in fact always heading for that seat if not occupied, as well as noting that approx. 50% of SLF on trains do not mind either...
Then why does the civil aviation industry not offer this option for some of us who would feel happier/safer with full spinal support in the event of an occurrence such as Friday 17ths?
...and indeed accidents such as the Garuda overrun a while ago... the more that haven't whacked their heads/been gutted by that rather pathetic lap strap, the more are capable of heading for the exits when/if things go wrong, fire or no fire?
I'd pay a small premium for such peace of mind, but have never been able to understand why so much effort is put into passenger safety yet this one BIG compromise is still insisted upon.
PS. When involved with aircraft design, the reasoning was always that SLF wouldn't stand for it, just as they wouldn't stand for aircraft without windows (despite the ones that get windows seats rarely look out of them
)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I'm aware it is purely for reasons as you stated, the general public wouldn't go for it.
Who decided this, I have no idea - most likely the Americans as they were the biggest a/c manufacturers when the industry was first taking off for want of a better pun !!.
I've flown backward a couple of times, once as a child on the e/exit row of a Dan Air BAC1-11 (see the obvious error there !!) and again on a BA777 in Club World - (that wasn't very nice though purely because they had already lowered the cabin deviding screens between C and Y before I woke up, and I was on the last row of C facing a crowded Y cabin as I awoke from my slumber !!!
)
I have no problem flying backwards, I would actually prefer it is it was on offer on more airlines in more classes too !!.
Who decided this, I have no idea - most likely the Americans as they were the biggest a/c manufacturers when the industry was first taking off for want of a better pun !!.
I've flown backward a couple of times, once as a child on the e/exit row of a Dan Air BAC1-11 (see the obvious error there !!) and again on a BA777 in Club World - (that wasn't very nice though purely because they had already lowered the cabin deviding screens between C and Y before I woke up, and I was on the last row of C facing a crowded Y cabin as I awoke from my slumber !!!
)I have no problem flying backwards, I would actually prefer it is it was on offer on more airlines in more classes too !!.
Paxing All Over The World
You should indeed find this subject in the PPRuNe archives, as it surfaces about once a year!!
It was tried in the UK in the mid 70s - I recall going backwards to Hamburg in a Trident and filling in the opinion card about it.
One of the reasons that it will not happen is standardisation. Airlines cut costs by keeping everything the same. Also there is the "we've always done it this way" and although trains have always done it both ways, airliners have not.
It was tried in the UK in the mid 70s - I recall going backwards to Hamburg in a Trident and filling in the opinion card about it.
One of the reasons that it will not happen is standardisation. Airlines cut costs by keeping everything the same. Also there is the "we've always done it this way" and although trains have always done it both ways, airliners have not.
If airlines don't do things pax don't want then why they are about to offer portable telephony on board?
I would definetely would like such a seat. PAXboy what did you put on your comment card?
Rwy in Sight
I would definetely would like such a seat. PAXboy what did you put on your comment card?
Rwy in Sight
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will have a hunt around for the relevant info and link, but rear facing in passenger planes was reckoned to be just as dangerous (if not more so)due to being hit by flying debris from overhead lockers and the like
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who flies with BA in Club regularly will have "flown backwards". Before I decamped to the opposition, I did it for 5 years or so and very much preferred it.
Virgin, which I now use for non-USA flights, have you travelling sideways (in the urinal configuration according to some unkind pundits)..so all that's left for me to try is is upside down.....maybe on the VS spaceship..?
I have to say, of all the seating positions, I dislike sideways most because of how difficult it is to look outside. It was only when I flew to the US "normally" that I realised how much I missed being able to look out the window from time-to-time.
Most regular Virgin UC travellers (certainly in my business) whilst appreciating the comfort and access, do not like the sideways configuration. Would be interesting to know the VS view for the next design....
Virgin, which I now use for non-USA flights, have you travelling sideways (in the urinal configuration according to some unkind pundits)..so all that's left for me to try is is upside down.....maybe on the VS spaceship..?
I have to say, of all the seating positions, I dislike sideways most because of how difficult it is to look outside. It was only when I flew to the US "normally" that I realised how much I missed being able to look out the window from time-to-time.
Most regular Virgin UC travellers (certainly in my business) whilst appreciating the comfort and access, do not like the sideways configuration. Would be interesting to know the VS view for the next design....
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somewhere at the back of my mind I recall someone once telling me that it was a more expensive option to design a rearwards facing seat; something to do with stress engineering; therefore a heavier item than its twin that faced forward. It made sense to me, so I didn't pursue the claim. Maybe I'll look into it after all?
TCF
TCF
Flying High
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Here
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not had any experience of sitting in a rear facing seat on a a/c...
However I would imagine, especially in a 'lower class', it would not be the best option... afterall if you had rear facing and forward facing seats.. woudl that mean you were looking into someones fce for the whole flight..?
If my thoughts are correct... I would go for a all forward facing choice every time...
However I would imagine, especially in a 'lower class', it would not be the best option... afterall if you had rear facing and forward facing seats.. woudl that mean you were looking into someones fce for the whole flight..?
If my thoughts are correct... I would go for a all forward facing choice every time...
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 39N 77W
Posts: 1,630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southwest (in the USA) had some rear-facing seats years ago, but no longer. They could probably tell how (un)popular those seats were due to their unassigned seating scheme.
I'd worry about all sorts of things hitting me in the face in case of a sudden stop.
YMMV
I'd worry about all sorts of things hitting me in the face in case of a sudden stop.
YMMV
Paxing All Over The World
Rwy in Sight I will now effortlessly cast my mind back some 32 years and recall in perfect detail what happened. 
The first couple of rows were reversed (2 or 3) so as to give regular configuration one-behind-another and then one row faced the first of the front facing with exit row seats that had the tray table in the arm rest. So it was exactly like many railway cars.
The two rows facing each other would be brilliant for families as they could have up to six of them together, certainly four would be good and they would all be sharing the same foot space - rather than impinging on others.
In that very point is, I think, the main reason that it would not be welcomed by many these days. If you could place a family of four and a couple, say, into the six facing then no one would be playing 'footsie' with a stranger. I guess that solo pax would not like to look up to glance around the cabin or out of the window and be under the constant gaze of a stranger. The male/female possibilities could be odious with someone feeling very trapped.
If you have seat allocation, then you have to find and seat six suitable folks PLUS another six on t'other side of the gangway also to be neatly arranged. If there was free seating, almost impossible.
As to comfort - that was fine. Rotation was slightly unusual as the Trident had a smart lift off from LHR but nothing uncomfortable. I don't recall what was done about the safety demo but suppose that one of them was facing us - they probably had more CC on in those days. (There's a question for Bealine?!)
So, I think that it will not happen:
The first couple of rows were reversed (2 or 3) so as to give regular configuration one-behind-another and then one row faced the first of the front facing with exit row seats that had the tray table in the arm rest. So it was exactly like many railway cars.
The two rows facing each other would be brilliant for families as they could have up to six of them together, certainly four would be good and they would all be sharing the same foot space - rather than impinging on others.
In that very point is, I think, the main reason that it would not be welcomed by many these days. If you could place a family of four and a couple, say, into the six facing then no one would be playing 'footsie' with a stranger. I guess that solo pax would not like to look up to glance around the cabin or out of the window and be under the constant gaze of a stranger. The male/female possibilities could be odious with someone feeling very trapped.
If you have seat allocation, then you have to find and seat six suitable folks PLUS another six on t'other side of the gangway also to be neatly arranged. If there was free seating, almost impossible.
As to comfort - that was fine. Rotation was slightly unusual as the Trident had a smart lift off from LHR but nothing uncomfortable. I don't recall what was done about the safety demo but suppose that one of them was facing us - they probably had more CC on in those days. (There's a question for Bealine?!)
So, I think that it will not happen:
- problems of solo pax feeling trapped
- finding suitable pax to be in the facing seats
- non-standard layout for some a/c, leading to further complications of ensuring that pax who are booking on-line have the correct seating plan for the a/c
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The slight nose up attitude of an aircraft in cruise would decrease the effectivness of a seats recline when facing rearward and if the amount of recline was adjusted the pax behind (fwd) would have less leg room.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Grand Forks North Dakota
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colonel Stapp in the 50's proved sitting backwards was significantly safer and military planes with backward facing seats were initiated by him. Today the military adapts civilian versions for their planes and tend to use forward facing seats.
Many people have told me they would get motion sickness facing backwards.
If you remain upright, the bending moment or leverage on the floor structure will be greater. They would have to make structural changes for the altered crash loading from the seats.
I would be concerned about stuff hitting me in the head also, but presumably they could make safer overhead bins relatively easily.
GBibel
Author
Beyond the Black Box: The Forensics of Airplane Crashes
Many people have told me they would get motion sickness facing backwards.
If you remain upright, the bending moment or leverage on the floor structure will be greater. They would have to make structural changes for the altered crash loading from the seats.
I would be concerned about stuff hitting me in the head also, but presumably they could make safer overhead bins relatively easily.
GBibel
Author
Beyond the Black Box: The Forensics of Airplane Crashes
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
afterall if you had rear facing and forward facing seats.. woudl that mean you were looking into someones fce for the whole flight..?
Paxing All Over The World
GBibel, welcome aboard our luxurious 'cabin' where we all have personal seats that (probably) face in all sorts of directions.
I think that the cost is the big factor. For airlines to make such a change would require legislation. Then you have to consider the PR problems of "If it's safer - why did you not make this change decades ago?" Leave alone the problem of some pax not liking it. Overall, it is not perceived as a problem and no one wants to 'fix' it.
My guess (and you would probably know the answer) is that overall safety levels have improved so much that seat direction is now much less important than it was. It is usually said that fire is the big killer? Further, if the machine descends very rapidly to the ground, then the seat and it's direction will be of minimal influence on mortality rates. The BA 777 at EGLL shows that forward facing worked very well for that low impact arrival.
Lastly, the military may expect that their a/c are going to have more occasions when they have to make strong manoeuvres and rapid braking than commercial airliners.
I think that the cost is the big factor. For airlines to make such a change would require legislation. Then you have to consider the PR problems of "If it's safer - why did you not make this change decades ago?" Leave alone the problem of some pax not liking it. Overall, it is not perceived as a problem and no one wants to 'fix' it.
My guess (and you would probably know the answer) is that overall safety levels have improved so much that seat direction is now much less important than it was. It is usually said that fire is the big killer? Further, if the machine descends very rapidly to the ground, then the seat and it's direction will be of minimal influence on mortality rates. The BA 777 at EGLL shows that forward facing worked very well for that low impact arrival.
Lastly, the military may expect that their a/c are going to have more occasions when they have to make strong manoeuvres and rapid braking than commercial airliners.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wherever my current employers wish to send me !!
Posts: 718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember travelling EMA-LHR on a Dash 7, whilst on duty travel. Sat in the rear-facing seats at the front in my 'lovely' British Midland diamond uniform and I have never known such turbulence in my life !
All I wanted to do was chuck-up, but the flight was full and every pax seemed to be looking at me. Wouldn't have been good for the company if our customers had seen a staff member throwing their lunch all over them !
All I wanted to do was chuck-up, but the flight was full and every pax seemed to be looking at me. Wouldn't have been good for the company if our customers had seen a staff member throwing their lunch all over them !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, all very interesting...
I was however not thinking of sets of fwd/rear table in the middle like our trains (though an idea) but all rear-facing and a re-stressing wouldn't be a weighty proposition - people weigh the same, they have to be stopped at up to 9g (from memory) and they're not sitting any higher -
and if a few pounds a seat was required, then as with all other safety requirements, it would just have to be factored in!
Luggage hitting you in the face...? Mmm! With all-rear facing seats, perhaps somewhat overstated? If we're talking overhead lockers bursting open, then a few pounds there as well, and better lock design too, with unlatched tell-tales lights. They're also supposed to handle 9g fully loaded - or were.
So we come to the crunch. Hanging on your straps during climb out - I think this may be the passenger acceptance criterion, the feather that broke the camel's back so to speak. IUpon reflection, it is rather nice to be leaning back against the seat during the initial climbout...
but what a compromise if/when things go a bit wrong during landing.
Inertia reel shoulder seat belts anyone - for the approach and landing? With lap straps for in-flight security.
But still seems to me that laps straps and fwd facing seats is a heavy compromise and a pretty dreadful arrangement for anyone of any real age in a heavy crash.
Yes, from what you have all said, seems only legislation would bring this about. The cost of change - but not from 'as new' though, surely...marginal difference I would imagine.
But the first to do so might have to face accusations that they weren't very confident about their aircraft, in one way or another... peer pressure, which of course should never come into safety, but obviously does at the PR level.
I just marvel at the billions spent in other areas of aircraft safety design...
I was however not thinking of sets of fwd/rear table in the middle like our trains (though an idea) but all rear-facing and a re-stressing wouldn't be a weighty proposition - people weigh the same, they have to be stopped at up to 9g (from memory) and they're not sitting any higher -
and if a few pounds a seat was required, then as with all other safety requirements, it would just have to be factored in!
Luggage hitting you in the face...? Mmm! With all-rear facing seats, perhaps somewhat overstated? If we're talking overhead lockers bursting open, then a few pounds there as well, and better lock design too, with unlatched tell-tales lights. They're also supposed to handle 9g fully loaded - or were.
So we come to the crunch. Hanging on your straps during climb out - I think this may be the passenger acceptance criterion, the feather that broke the camel's back so to speak. IUpon reflection, it is rather nice to be leaning back against the seat during the initial climbout...
but what a compromise if/when things go a bit wrong during landing.
Inertia reel shoulder seat belts anyone - for the approach and landing? With lap straps for in-flight security.
But still seems to me that laps straps and fwd facing seats is a heavy compromise and a pretty dreadful arrangement for anyone of any real age in a heavy crash.
I think that the cost is the big factor. For airlines to make such a change would require legislation.
But the first to do so might have to face accusations that they weren't very confident about their aircraft, in one way or another... peer pressure, which of course should never come into safety, but obviously does at the PR level.
I just marvel at the billions spent in other areas of aircraft safety design...
Last edited by HarryMann; 28th Jan 2008 at 22:36.
Moderator
Several considerations ..
(a) forward facing - generally minimum weight/cost regardless of which version design standard. Head impact (refer to HIC) considerations and limb flailing problems
(b) aft facing - back structure more complex/heavier/costly. Generally a higher seatback for required head restraint
(c) side facing - least preferred for crashworthiness due to difficulties with torso restraint. Refer to TARC harness for the preferred restraint system - this sort of restraint typically is seen on F/A seats and provides a reasonable level of thoracic restraint/support under crash loads
Main thing to keep in mind is that aircraft seats are a bit like motor vehicle seats .. the aim isn't to guarantee survival .. only to improve the odds greatly, especially at lower impact energies ..
(a) forward facing - generally minimum weight/cost regardless of which version design standard. Head impact (refer to HIC) considerations and limb flailing problems
(b) aft facing - back structure more complex/heavier/costly. Generally a higher seatback for required head restraint
(c) side facing - least preferred for crashworthiness due to difficulties with torso restraint. Refer to TARC harness for the preferred restraint system - this sort of restraint typically is seen on F/A seats and provides a reasonable level of thoracic restraint/support under crash loads
Main thing to keep in mind is that aircraft seats are a bit like motor vehicle seats .. the aim isn't to guarantee survival .. only to improve the odds greatly, especially at lower impact energies ..
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we come to the crunch. Hanging on your straps during climb out - I think this may be the passenger acceptance criterion, the feather that broke the camel's back so to speak.
Well I've flown backwards many times with BA and I don't recall "hanging on my straps"
I really think it comes down to "If it ain't broke......"
If there was an outburst of consumer outrage at flying forwards, or an AAIB recommendation, then maybe there would be some change. However, I don't think there are enough incidents or accidents to justify any wholescale change.
Still, I'm sure airlines will continue to be creative when maximising space in premium cabins so we'll continue to have sideways (complete with airbag on VS) and backwards seating for some while yet.
Well I've flown backwards many times with BA and I don't recall "hanging on my straps"
I really think it comes down to "If it ain't broke......"
If there was an outburst of consumer outrage at flying forwards, or an AAIB recommendation, then maybe there would be some change. However, I don't think there are enough incidents or accidents to justify any wholescale change.
Still, I'm sure airlines will continue to be creative when maximising space in premium cabins so we'll continue to have sideways (complete with airbag on VS) and backwards seating for some while yet.
