Rear facing passenger seats
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rear facing passenger seats
Would be interested in PPRUNE views on the safety improvement that would be achieved by installing all seats such that passengers face towards the back of the aircraft. This was a feature in RAF Transport Command in the fifties.
Moderator
(a) seats will end up heavier due to the back structure's carrying a significantly increased load. Floor structure probably likewise due to a higher body CG for reaction considerations.
(b) generally unpopular with the punters .. due to wanting any view to be where they are going, rather than where they have been, not to mention the claustrophobic tombstone seat backs/headrest requirements.
(c) you might like to look on the FAA site to see if CAMI has done any sled tests on rear facers to get an idea of any physiological differences ?
(d) "safety" is an arbitrary thing so what you wish to measure determines the results
(e) I suspect that the advantage of a rear facer is limited to reduced headstrike, and perhaps flailing, injuries
(b) generally unpopular with the punters .. due to wanting any view to be where they are going, rather than where they have been, not to mention the claustrophobic tombstone seat backs/headrest requirements.
(c) you might like to look on the FAA site to see if CAMI has done any sled tests on rear facers to get an idea of any physiological differences ?
(d) "safety" is an arbitrary thing so what you wish to measure determines the results
(e) I suspect that the advantage of a rear facer is limited to reduced headstrike, and perhaps flailing, injuries
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has been discussed many times before. I am sure a search will come up with some additional answers.
One point I recall is that passengers also dislike the sensation when climbing of leaning out of the seat. From a safety point of view there is also a greater risk of flying objects hitting someone in the face.
One point I recall is that passengers also dislike the sensation when climbing of leaning out of the seat. From a safety point of view there is also a greater risk of flying objects hitting someone in the face.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the early 1970s, I did travel often on BEA from LHR to BRU, on Tridents.
There were rear facing seats, often remaining empty.
Did not bother me (as I am a pilot) but regular passengers hated them.
Same thing on railroads.
I now often travel on the TGV Thalys, from Paris to Brussels.
Many seats are rear facing. They also remain empty.
I would not venture a commercial airline service with rear facing seats.
As deltayankee mentions, would you like to get hit on the face by objects in a crash...?
xxx
Happy contrails
There were rear facing seats, often remaining empty.
Did not bother me (as I am a pilot) but regular passengers hated them.
Same thing on railroads.
I now often travel on the TGV Thalys, from Paris to Brussels.
Many seats are rear facing. They also remain empty.
I would not venture a commercial airline service with rear facing seats.
As deltayankee mentions, would you like to get hit on the face by objects in a crash...?
xxx
Happy contrails
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. What objects are going to hit you in the face?
2. Train pax dont like them because the country side is moving backwards. This is only an issue on take off or landing.
3. Not convinced as to why the seats have to be stronger facing the other way.
4. There are a number of rear facing seats in First and Business class areas. They seem to sell ok.
5. Rear facing seats on trains with tables in between seem to sell ok.
2. Train pax dont like them because the country side is moving backwards. This is only an issue on take off or landing.
3. Not convinced as to why the seats have to be stronger facing the other way.
4. There are a number of rear facing seats in First and Business class areas. They seem to sell ok.
5. Rear facing seats on trains with tables in between seem to sell ok.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a takeoff or landing accident, due to possible fuselage structural failures, overhead stowage carry-on items are likely to be items that could hit you on the face. I could accept rear facing seating, again, being a pilot, does not bother me, but try to convince passengers about it.
xxx
Happy contrails
xxx
Happy contrails
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What objects are going to hit you in the face?
They may seem small and harmless but wait till one hits you in the eye at 100kts+
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about items 2,3,4,5?
Overhead lockers collapse downwards so are not relevant.
Small objects could be a lesser problem if you put your hands over your face.
Overhead lockers collapse downwards so are not relevant.
Small objects could be a lesser problem if you put your hands over your face.
Moderator
3. Not convinced as to why the seats have to be stronger facing the other way.
No certification requirement, per se, for additional crash load strength. The consideration arises when one looks at the certification test requirements.
(a) for the older static seat (9g structure with 12g attachment overload - or, if you go back further, 6g static seats) the tests were done with a simple pelvic block which really didn't apply much load to the seat back at all. I was always uncomfortable signing off Type Certification design data for such seats in a previous life for just this reason. On some occasions, the customer (especially military) would require an articulated body block and, for those instances, the situation was more in accord with (b).
(b) however, for the later dynamic requirements, and due to body articulation under crash loads, the end result is that the rear facer has a higher body CG line and, consequently, higher seat-floor attachment reaction loads than seen by the forward facer, ergo, it ends up needing a higher structural capability
No certification requirement, per se, for additional crash load strength. The consideration arises when one looks at the certification test requirements.
(a) for the older static seat (9g structure with 12g attachment overload - or, if you go back further, 6g static seats) the tests were done with a simple pelvic block which really didn't apply much load to the seat back at all. I was always uncomfortable signing off Type Certification design data for such seats in a previous life for just this reason. On some occasions, the customer (especially military) would require an articulated body block and, for those instances, the situation was more in accord with (b).
(b) however, for the later dynamic requirements, and due to body articulation under crash loads, the end result is that the rear facer has a higher body CG line and, consequently, higher seat-floor attachment reaction loads than seen by the forward facer, ergo, it ends up needing a higher structural capability
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dp the BA 747's still have the alternate facing business class seats (that basically became a reclining bed) in the upper deck? They did in the early 2000's - remember flying out of Philly a week after the Sept 11 attakcs on such an equipped BA 747.
Didn't notice any real difference on take-off or landing - and the rest of the flight I was asleep.
Didn't notice any real difference on take-off or landing - and the rest of the flight I was asleep.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4Greens - look down at the bottom of the page? Someone there even wondered why pilots face forwards.........................
Last edited by BOAC; 15th May 2009 at 07:25.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still not convinced about the extra strength of seats required. There are rear facing cabin crew seats in most aircraft. Those near over wing exits on 744 and 747 are not apparently strengthened in any way.
Moderator
Still not convinced about the extra strength of seats required
The secret seating business is in the data plate glyphs hidden somewhere on the seat.
(a) if a seat is certificated (and the data plate so reflects) for forward facing only, then it may not be installed, as is, aft facing. No reason why you can't modify and re-certify the seat to be an aft facer but that generally requires some structural modification to carry the loads, as well as a head rest extension to meet a certification design requirement for back/head support.
(b) if a seat is certificated for both forward and aft, then it can be configured either way, generally with only a requirement to have a tall headrest fitted for installation as an aft facer (unless the basic seat back is tall enough for a tick in the box).
I can't speak to your specific seat examples but the above is the way it is, I'm afraid. Typically F/A seats are incorporated into the aircraft structure so they are a bit different to freestanding pax seats.
Specifically, what bits are you unconvinced about and maybe we can address them rather than going around in circles ?
The secret seating business is in the data plate glyphs hidden somewhere on the seat.
(a) if a seat is certificated (and the data plate so reflects) for forward facing only, then it may not be installed, as is, aft facing. No reason why you can't modify and re-certify the seat to be an aft facer but that generally requires some structural modification to carry the loads, as well as a head rest extension to meet a certification design requirement for back/head support.
(b) if a seat is certificated for both forward and aft, then it can be configured either way, generally with only a requirement to have a tall headrest fitted for installation as an aft facer (unless the basic seat back is tall enough for a tick in the box).
I can't speak to your specific seat examples but the above is the way it is, I'm afraid. Typically F/A seats are incorporated into the aircraft structure so they are a bit different to freestanding pax seats.
Specifically, what bits are you unconvinced about and maybe we can address them rather than going around in circles ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets try it this way. If an aircraft interior was designed for aft facing seats only, what sort of extra expense in strengthening would this entail? I have always assumed that if aft facing seats were seen as safer then this would only apply to new types.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope you will pardon me for jumping into a discussion I have no expertise whatsoever to contribute, but having read the thread I think the original question:
has been largely answered here:
To summarise the rest of the answers: limited safety improvement, other risks introduced which have not been thoroughly investigated, additional direct and indirect costs associated.
I hope I got the above right?
I have heard people say in the past that rear-facing is safer, but I have never seen the body of research (which probably exists) confirming and quantifying that assertion.
Would be interested in PPRuNe views on the safety improvement that would be achieved
I suspect that the advantage of a rear facer is limited to reduced headstrike, and perhaps flailing, injuries
I hope I got the above right?
I have heard people say in the past that rear-facing is safer, but I have never seen the body of research (which probably exists) confirming and quantifying that assertion.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From June 08
Quote:
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.
RAF 1945
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.
Quote:
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.
RAF 1945
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.