Rearward Facing Passenger Seats
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Apsley UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rearward Facing Passenger Seats
As far as I know, Britain's Royal Air Force has been the only aviation group to fit rearward-facing passenger seats in its transport aircraft.
Has any research been done to ascertain whether this would save lives in a crash situation? Could airlines ever follow suit?
I think it is always assumed by airline bosses that paying passengers would reject sitting 'backwards' in an airliner.
But the same theory was that people wouldn't travel on driver-less trains. However, transit systems such as London's DLR have always been driverless, and people have no problem with that.
Over to you for discussion!
Brine
Has any research been done to ascertain whether this would save lives in a crash situation? Could airlines ever follow suit?
I think it is always assumed by airline bosses that paying passengers would reject sitting 'backwards' in an airliner.
But the same theory was that people wouldn't travel on driver-less trains. However, transit systems such as London's DLR have always been driverless, and people have no problem with that.
Over to you for discussion!
Brine
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: berkshire
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On BAC 1-11 there were often a row of rear facing seats at the over wing exits, nice if you were facing a couple of girls in the opposite seats. Cabin crew face backwards but the pilots do not so how much safer is it.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A number of different aircraft and airlines use or have used rearward facing seats (BA club class for one). This is a very old topic, with either insufficient proof of improved safety, or willingness on the part of the airline to subject its passengers to face rearwards, while the aircraft in cruise is as much as 3-5 degrees nose-up.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British European Airways had at least one row of rearwards facing seats on their Trident 1's and 2's in the '70's - couldn't get used to looking backwards for 4 plus hours on the way to Nicosia. Don't recall them on the Trident 3 - prehaps someone with a better memory can help?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A rear-facing seat is much safer than a forward seat. The problem lies in the weight of the seat since it has to be significantly stronger. The crash-load on a forward seat (from the occupant) is centred around the seat-belt attachment, whereas for rear facing seats, the load point is much higher, more like the centre of the back which increases the moment on the seat floor attachments.
Edit to add that if pilots faced backwards..........................
Edit to add that if pilots faced backwards..........................
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Garden of England
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm fairly certain that the last time I flew Southwest Airlines in the US, there was at least one row which was rear-facing, and if I remember correctly, it was the first row. This was 10 years ago, mind, and the memory ain't what it used to be.
I have not come across any research on the safety of rear-facing seats vs. forward facing seats whilst conducting my own research, but if I do, I will certainly post here.
I have not come across any research on the safety of rear-facing seats vs. forward facing seats whilst conducting my own research, but if I do, I will certainly post here.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't recall them on the Trident 3 - prehaps someone with a better memory can help?
There were there, I recall sitting in one on a Trident 3 from LHR to Pisa in May 1978, on my first business trip by air - that circumstance anchors the memory
IIRC, there was a small table between the forward and rear facing seats.
There were there, I recall sitting in one on a Trident 3 from LHR to Pisa in May 1978, on my first business trip by air - that circumstance anchors the memory
IIRC, there was a small table between the forward and rear facing seats.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by javafox
I have not come across any research on the safety of rear-facing seats vs. forward facing seats whilst conducting my own research, but if I do, I will certainly post here.
USAF 1958
FAA 1988
Japan Civil Aeronautics Board 1994
No links.
Common fatalities/fatal injuries for forward facing (assuming seats do not concertina together in the crash) are caused by severe internal injuries from lap belts and sometimes severance of torsos by the belts (all finished brekkie?
). Cured by 3-point harnesses.C/Crew in seats are supported by bulkheads.
Moderator
Cured by 3-point harnesses.
Main problems are associated with limb flailing and head strike (in particular) .. although the problems cited are quite feasible.
I'll see if I can track down a crash test video from CAMI or elsewhere .. quite sobering.
Main problems are associated with limb flailing and head strike (in particular) .. although the problems cited are quite feasible.
I'll see if I can track down a crash test video from CAMI or elsewhere .. quite sobering.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since survivable airplane crashes are so infrequent, the emphasis is on passenger comfort.
Most center of gravity configurations in cruise result in a positive angle of attack, more steep at reduced Mach, which is to say that when walking forward in the cabin it involves a slight "uphill" incline. You can also witness that when cabin attendants are having to exert a greater push on the galley cart. And if the brakes were not applied on the galley cart, then it would roll backwards.
Because of this inclined axis, backward facing seats would give passengers the subtle sensation of sliding out of their seats.
Most center of gravity configurations in cruise result in a positive angle of attack, more steep at reduced Mach, which is to say that when walking forward in the cabin it involves a slight "uphill" incline. You can also witness that when cabin attendants are having to exert a greater push on the galley cart. And if the brakes were not applied on the galley cart, then it would roll backwards.
Because of this inclined axis, backward facing seats would give passengers the subtle sensation of sliding out of their seats.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Derbyshire
Age: 67
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
History first hand
Well as close as it gets. My Father was in the RAF on crash crew (medical team) and told me of three instances where aircraft with rearward facing seats were involved in heavy landings resulting in wheels collapsing, impacts into the trees etc and one "crash" in Canada an Avro York. From his experience which was as first hand as you could get, people were getting up and walking out of aircraft that they were not expecting survivors from. In each case these were where the seats were faced to the rear. The instances of flailing limb injuries of neck and back injuries were greatly diminished and they were able to evacuate before fire took hold which in those days was the biggest killer.
The fact that the weight of the occupant was dissipated over a larger area was at that time believed to be a key factor. Sadly Dad is no longer with us but I am sure there must be others of his generation who witnessed the same type of thing.
From my own experience My daughter gets sick flying in a Piper Cherokee six with rearward facing seats .
The fact that the weight of the occupant was dissipated over a larger area was at that time believed to be a key factor. Sadly Dad is no longer with us but I am sure there must be others of his generation who witnessed the same type of thing.
From my own experience My daughter gets sick flying in a Piper Cherokee six with rearward facing seats .
Moderator
Since survivable airplane crashes are so infrequent, the emphasis is on passenger comfort
Not so. Seating design has evolved through several different major design standard changes. Current standards are similar to motor vehicle requirements and impose a high dynamic crash load. The foam build up in the seat is critical for achieving compliance with maximum dummy loads under test with the result that one is not permitted to do minor rework to basic seat foam build without addressing the certification crash load tests .. this foam criticality is why the current crop of seats are comparatively UNcomfortable compared to older (static load test) design standard seats.
The instances of flailing limb injuries of neck and back injuries were greatly diminished
Which is precisely why F/A seats are more critical in design and require appropriate upper body restraint.
Have a looksee at the following ...
(a) side facing problems
(b) HIC assessment
(c) head and neck injury potential
and tell me that you think forward facing seats in a high density cabin environment are your choice of the way to go as a passenger ... ?
While the cited reports include stills of sled test records, I can't find any CAMI video on the FAA site .. pity ... the typical sled test video gives an idea of what might happen during a realistic aircraft crash sequence ..... given a choice I would sit in a well designed aft facing seat with upper body harness restraint .. you choose differently if you so desire ...
Not so. Seating design has evolved through several different major design standard changes. Current standards are similar to motor vehicle requirements and impose a high dynamic crash load. The foam build up in the seat is critical for achieving compliance with maximum dummy loads under test with the result that one is not permitted to do minor rework to basic seat foam build without addressing the certification crash load tests .. this foam criticality is why the current crop of seats are comparatively UNcomfortable compared to older (static load test) design standard seats.
The instances of flailing limb injuries of neck and back injuries were greatly diminished
Which is precisely why F/A seats are more critical in design and require appropriate upper body restraint.
Have a looksee at the following ...
(a) side facing problems
(b) HIC assessment
(c) head and neck injury potential
and tell me that you think forward facing seats in a high density cabin environment are your choice of the way to go as a passenger ... ?
While the cited reports include stills of sled test records, I can't find any CAMI video on the FAA site .. pity ... the typical sled test video gives an idea of what might happen during a realistic aircraft crash sequence ..... given a choice I would sit in a well designed aft facing seat with upper body harness restraint .. you choose differently if you so desire ...
I'm sure it was Boeing who did some research into this in the 1960s to counter the RAF rearward-facing approach.
What was found was that much of the injury in accidents was caused not so much by throwing passengers around as by airborne objects (baggage, detached cabin fittings, etc, even unbelted pax from behind) being thrown forward during the deceleration, and that conventional forward-facing seats offered much greater protection against this than rearward-facing ones where such debris will be very much more "in your face". A Brace Position will take your head completely out of the prime trajectory of such items, whereas rearward-facing seats offer no such protection.
What was found was that much of the injury in accidents was caused not so much by throwing passengers around as by airborne objects (baggage, detached cabin fittings, etc, even unbelted pax from behind) being thrown forward during the deceleration, and that conventional forward-facing seats offered much greater protection against this than rearward-facing ones where such debris will be very much more "in your face". A Brace Position will take your head completely out of the prime trajectory of such items, whereas rearward-facing seats offer no such protection.
Moderator
I'm sure it was Boeing who did some research
I'd be interested to read such research... at that time seat standards were a bit average and I'd be more concerned about the seats tearing free from the mountings under realistic crash loads.
as by airborne objects (baggage, detached cabin fittings, etc, even unbelted pax from behind)
if such occurs, then the crash loading is reasonably high .. see previous comment ..
A Brace Position will take your head completely out of the prime trajectory of such items
I suggest that the more worrying crashes don't involve sufficient warning to do anything .. far less "brace for impact" ..
whereas rearward-facing seats offer no such protection
.. granted .. but they do offer an improved probability of non-disablement and residual ability to exit the aircraft under one's own steam ..
I'd be interested to read such research... at that time seat standards were a bit average and I'd be more concerned about the seats tearing free from the mountings under realistic crash loads.
as by airborne objects (baggage, detached cabin fittings, etc, even unbelted pax from behind)
if such occurs, then the crash loading is reasonably high .. see previous comment ..
A Brace Position will take your head completely out of the prime trajectory of such items
I suggest that the more worrying crashes don't involve sufficient warning to do anything .. far less "brace for impact" ..
whereas rearward-facing seats offer no such protection
.. granted .. but they do offer an improved probability of non-disablement and residual ability to exit the aircraft under one's own steam ..
