Turn the seats around to save lives

[Ivan Seeking]

Before I contact someone through Boeing [Boeing is a customer of mine] to make the following suggestion, I wanted to get some feedback. While flying home this weekend I was thinking about aircraft safety and crash survival. :yuck:

Wouldn't a survivable air disaster likely be made more survivable, or at least [maybe] result in fewer or less severe injuries, if the seats faced backwards instead of forwards?

I know this sounds a bit silly but it seems to make sense. Am I missing something here?

 

[(Q)]

I'm only posting this because I wouldn't want you to lose your contacts at Boeing by making that suggestion. Perhaps you need to think it through first.

How is changing the seat location supposed to alleviate a ground impact at several hundred miles per hour and the ensuing fireball? Have you ever seen the remains of an air disaster?

 

[Janitor]

You may well be right. But I know two people who complain of motion sickness in both cars and airplanes. I was talking to one of them about a friend of the family way back when, who owned a station wagon in which the rearmost seat faced backward. The person I was telling this to blanched at the thought of going backward. For whatever reason, that mode aggravates motion sickness. (Thankfully I never get queasy, even in a Cessna on a hot summer day with lots of bumpiness in the air, so I can't relate.)

 

[rdt2]

Before I contact someone through Boeing [Boeing is a customer of mine] to make the following suggestion, I wanted to get some feedback. While flying home this weekend I was thinking about aircraft safety and crash survival. :yuck:

Wouldn't a survivable air disaster likely be made more survivable, or at least [maybe] result in less injuries, if the seats faced backwards instead of forwards?

I know this sounds a bit silly but it seems to make sense. Am I missing something here?

No, you're perfectly correct. I can't speak for the US but in Royal Air Force transport aircraft the seats face backwards (or at least they did the last time I was in one - about 5 years ago).

However, the most significant design change that would improve aircraft structural safety - and make the designer's job easier - would be to omit the stress raisers we call 'passenger windows'. There's nothing to see for most of the time and CCTV could deliver a range of views to each seat. The windows are there only to satisfy passengers' psychological need to see outside.

Edit to answer Janitor's comment: that aspect of motion sickness in cars results from the difference is visual signals you get in a ground vehicle when facing backwards. Basically, your eye has to rapidly refocus on what comes into view, whereas when facing forward your eyes adjust slowly (the natural frequencies of the suspension also have an effect on motion sickness but that's the same whether you face backward or forward).

Edit to answer (Q)'s comment: not all air crashes involve very-high g decelerations and a fireball that destroys the whole aircraft. Many people survive them and even the position of the seat along the fuselage has an effect on survivability - it's generally safer near the back. You could use your argument to do away with seatbelts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You may well be right. (Thankfully I never get queasy, even in a Cessna on a hot summer day with lots of bumpiness in the air, so I can't relate.)

Do you have a plane? :tongue2: :tongue2: :tongue2:

I think your point is a good one. Maybe this is why the aircraft seats face forwards in the first place. On the other hand, in the station wagon you face the rear window so this might be different. I am thinking that car sickness is reduced if you can anticipate the turns by looking out the front window. The side to side motion is what seems to get me. Note that while driving on a winding road, I can't ride in the back seat of a car without wanting to lose my lunch. :uhh: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck:

It is hard to believe that no one has ever considered this so I tend to think that there must be a good reason, but innovation can be funny that way. It wouldn't be the first time something so obvious had never been seriously considered.

 

[Janitor]

Do you have a plane? - Ivan Seeking

Nope. But maybe one of these days! I got to fly from the right seat of a Cessna 150 in my teens on several occasions.

Jim Neighbors hasn't been missing any meals. He's singing Back Home in Indiana just before the start of the big race.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, you're perfectly correct. I can't speak for the US but in Royal Air Force transport aircraft the seats face backwards (or at least they did the last time I was in one - about 5 years ago).

However, the most significant design change that would improve aircraft structural safety - and make the designer's job easier - would be to omit the stress raisers we call 'passenger windows'. There's nothing to see for most of the time and CCTV could deliver a range of views to each seat. The windows are there only to satisfy passengers' psychological need to see outside.

Edit to answer Janitor's comment: that aspect of motion sickness in cars results from the visual signals (the natural frequencies of the suspension also have an effect but that's the same whether you face backward or forward).

Interesting. Do you know if the motivation for the RAF to face the seats backwards is to reduce injuries and deaths on impact?

 

[rdt2]

I am thinking that car sickness is reduced if you can anticipate the turns by looking out the front window.

Perfectly correct, for the reasons I mentioned above (sorry - we're almost having a real-time dialogue here).

It is hard to believe that no one has ever considered this so I tend to think that there must be a good reason, but innovation can be funny that way. It wouldn't be the first time something so obvious had never been seriously considered.

In this case, sorry - but it has (again see my earlier post). Customer psyche can be a real hindrance to sound engineering design.

 

[rdt2]

Interesting. Do you know if the motivation for the RAF to face the seats backwards is to reduce injuries and deaths on impact?

Yes, indeed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Nope. But maybe one of these days! I got to fly from the right seat of a Cessna 150 in my teens on several occasions.

Not to get off topic, but just for second: I flew Air Combat a few years ago. This is where as a completely untrained pilot you get to fly in dog fights, with you really at the controls, while playing LASER tag with another identical high performance, light attack aircraft. OMG what a thrill that was! When I landed Tsu had to drive me home. I was incapable of driving due to the overdose of adrenalin. This reeeeeeaaaaaaalllllllyyyy gave me the flying bug.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, indeed.

WOW! I really have to get to a Boeing designer and find out why this is not done.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

- we're almost having a real-time dialogue here

Yes. Please ignore the continuity issues here.

 

[rdt2]

Here's a thought - if we do away with the windows, we could seat the passengers on bench seats - like in a C130. That wouldn't be as safe as backwards facing but it would be better than forward facing - and no-one would have to disturb another to get to the toilet.

The down side is that it'd be almost impossible to avoid eye contact with whoever was sitting opposite - which is a problem in railway seating, especially on high-density subway coaches.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In this case, sorry - but it has (again see my earlier post). Customer psyche can be a real hindrance to sound engineering design.

Well, even though I bet you're right, it seems like something pretty simple to overcome. As a frequent flyer I can assure you that bigger issues exist for customer psychology; such being forced to sleep in an airport due to canceled flights or delayed, delayed, delayed, delayed, delayed flights.

It seems that someone at Boeing needs a good talking to.

 

[rdt2]

Oh, I fully agree on both counts. I'm lucky insofar as my frequent flyer days are over. I hope.

If you can force some logic into the whole flying experience, you get my support. The role model for the flying experience seems to have been the luxury end of ocean travel (and oh, how it has drifted from that model). Like separating passengers from baggage not wanted on voyage. Think how much simpler the infrastructure would be if you were not separated from your baggage. It could still be scanned and it would remove the problem of unaccompanied baggage. In these days of suicide bombers, it wouldn't guarantee security but then, what does?

And, off topic, nice to see your Kerry quote! It's good for some of us this side of the pond to know that not all of the US follows Dubya.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In the case of your RAF flying experience, how much of a problem was the force from the acceleration at take off? This just struck me as a potential problem.

 

[(Q)]

Many people survive them and even the position of the seat along the fuselage has an effect on survivability - it's generally safer near the back. You could use your argument to do away with seatbelts.

Yes, I’ve heard that the seats near the back are safer but to simply spin the seats around makes no sense if we’re talking forward motion impact. If the seat remains intact and does not come away in a crash, the likeliness of survival should be equal regardless the direction of the seat.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And, off topic, nice to see your Kerry quote! It's good for some of us this side of the pond to know that not all of the US follows Dubya.

Now don't get me started!

side note: The regional jets have two seats per row along the right side of the plane, and one seat per row along the left side. I asked the pilot how they compensated for the heavier side. He said they don't. I suggested that they need to make the right wing a little longer than the left wing. :rofl:

sorry. Every now and then I crack myself up.

 

[BoulderHead]

Brainstorming

I'd like to be situated under one of the wings in a small detachable pod containing a parachute and GPS signaling device. When disaster strikes, the pod releases from the wing and parachutes safely down to earth. My snack and beverage could be delivered to the pod by a clothesline/pulley mechanism of some sort. I would be willing to forego the regular meals for this service. :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Janitor]

How is changing the seat location supposed to alleviate a ground impact at several hundred miles per hour and the ensuing fireball? Have you ever seen the remains of an air disaster? - (Q)

There is a famous video of a passenger jet crash-landing on the airport property at Sioux City, Iowa in 1991. All the hydraulics had leaked out due to a turbofan failure, and the pilots were using engine thrust to try to control the plane. There was indeed a fireball, and the plane broke apart. About half the people aboard actually survived. It would be interesting to know how the fatality count would compare had there been backward seating.

A couple years back I attended a talk given by the pilot, Al Haynes, at Arizona State University. The nose section of the airplane ended up by itself in a cornfield. Capt. Haynes said he can't remember the experience of the crash itself, because he was unconscious for quite some time.

http://yarchive.net/air/airliners/dc10_sioux_city.html

 

[Njorl]

I would think taking off would be very uncomfortable in rear facing seats. I think crashes are so rare that even if the facing makes a difference, it isn't worthwhile.

Njorl

 

[Cliff_J]

The Sioux City crash actually happened in 1989. Dateline NBC had over an hour on this event of 'flight 232' just last night. :) Of the 296 aboard, 112 perished and 184 survived including 3 infants. Where the passengers were sitting was the largest factor, first class and the rear section where the areas where people died, the middle section and cockpit had no fatalities.

Flying on my friend's dad's timeshare jet (a Falcon 2000 one time as a free upgrade!) the 'motion sickness prone' members always sit facing forward as they get sick otherwise. As a guest I'm sitting backwards and mentally all I'm trying to do is telepathically get the pilots to goose the throttles (Air Combat is high on my wish list of to-do items). So from my experience, a lot of the population wouldn't fly on a plane with rear facing seats.

On some other show on Discovery they showed the NASA testing grounds where they study the effects of crashes on light aircraft. The survivable G-forces are quite small, even a 100ft drop is too much so at altitude and over 100MPH?? Get me a parachute instead of a rear facing seat! Oh, and on that same show they had a simulator where NASA is developing a computer to run the throttles on passenger aircraft similar to how flight 232's pilots did to allow any pilot to use the standard controls (with the computer) to safely manuver the plane. Impressive stuff.

Cliff

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would think taking off would be very uncomfortable in rear facing seats. I think crashes are so rare that even if the facing makes a difference, it isn't worthwhile.

Njorl

Also, what they really need to do is to get those commercial aircraft parachutes designed and installed. This might virtually eliminate air disasters. Imagine if the pilots of the 911 planes could have deployed a chute.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'd like to be situated under one of the wings in a small detachable pod containing a parachute and GPS signaling device. When disaster strikes, the pod releases from the wing and parachutes safely down to earth. My snack and beverage could be delivered to the pod by a clothesline/pulley mechanism of some sort. I would be willing to forego the regular meals for this service. :rofl: :rofl:

Why wait for a disaster? One plane could deliver passengers to multiple destinations without ever landing. Really, you could just use a large cargo jet and start rolling the pods out the rear as you pass over various cities: Blue to LA, Red for Phoenix, Brown for Dallas... Piece of cake man! :rofl:

 

[DarkAnt]

I've been on several US military transport planes. The seats do all face backwards and there aren't any windows. Surprisingly they always serve good food with a nice little desert. If I could, I'd pay to go on military transport planes instead of civilian cause they are a whole lot nicer in my opinion.

 

[brewnog]

I have been involved with the design of a new seating system for aircraft, and we thought of arranging the seating to face backwards for exactly the same reasons as yourself. The two main reasons why this was not done are as follows. Passengers simply like to face the direction of travel (both psychologically and to avoid nausea). The other issue was that in an impact (and we know how much deceleration there is in this situation...) any objects which were loose in the cabin which weighed more than a couple of hundred grams would almost certainly maim any obstructing passengers. To be honest, if I were in a plane crash, having a can of coke hurling towards me at eleventy million mph would be the last thing on my mind. Obviously this second issue can be overcome, but thought I'd say anyway!