Why do airline seats have to be in an upright position during takeoff?

It is a big tin can with wings. "In the event of a water landing"? Give me a break - nobody will ever need to use their so called flotation device. Seat up or back. Give me a break! When a plane crashes it explodes/falls apart/tears apart. I severely doubt the position of the seat will have any impact on the crash and the shape of people being ripped from their seats, etc... Airplanes are very big and go fast and when they crash it is not like a car hitting something at 10 mph...

Many crashes are survivable, especially ones that happen at takeoff or landing (when the seatback rule is in effect). In 2005, for example, an Air France plane overran the runway at Toronto-Pearson; everyone survived without major injuries despite the aircraft sliding into a ravine and catching on fire. As for water landings: in 1970 a DC-9 was successfully ditched in the Caribbean after running out of fuel. While 23 died, another 40 survived and were rescued. Investigators believe that more people would have survived if the crew had given passengers a warning to brace for impact, and "warn passengers" has since been added to the emergency landing checklist.

This requirement is dumb. This all comes down to a trade-off. Are you safer with the seat upright? Perhaps in some nominal sense. But, you would also be safer if you had to assume the crash position and surround yourself in bubble wrap every time a plane took off. Why not require that too? Because there is a point at which there is so little return on the investment of time, energy, money, and inconvenience that rationale people do not make that investment. That's why. The odds of any person ever being in a plane crash during take-off or landing in which that extra few degrees of angle would make a difference are inconceivably small. This is like telling people to brace when the plane is going down.

Why do we assume the crash possition in the event of a crash?

Bet you all (commenters above) are feeling stupid right now. Kudos to the entire USAir crew...that includes the flight attendants who too command and ensured that only the proper exits were opened and ensured a calm evacuation.

Now that we saw the safe and complete evacuation of U.S. Airways Flt. 1549 in the Hudson River, I would guess that all of the above questions have been answered. That is what happens when you have a great flight crew and the Captain and crew know what they are doing (per their training) It reminds me of how I used to question the seat belt law until we had a landing gear strut break on take-off (in a C-119) and the seat belt was the only thing that kept me from bouncing off the cieling (per the Captains orders) when we landed. There is a reason for these rules and it's best for all if the rules are followed..... Afpae1

Now that we saw the safe and complete evacuation of U.S. Airways Flt. 1549 in the Hudson River, I would guess that all of the above questions have been answered. That is what happens when you have a great flight crew and the Captain and crew know what they are doing (per their training) It reminds me of how I used to question the seat belt law until we had a landing gear strut break on take-off (in a C-119) and the seat belt was the only thing that kept me from bouncing off the cieling (per the Captains orders) when we landed. There is a reason for these rules and it's best for all if the rules are followed..... Afpae1

Does anyone know the FAA rules regarding the rationale of why in some flights there are 3 seats in a row and other times, 2 seats in a row, and in larger flights, 5 seats in a row? I travel often with my 2 kids and another adult will be with me, and it would be great to all sit together 4 in a row. The flights we take are smaller air crafts, so we have to split up, 2 and 2. In larger air crafts, there can be 4 or 5 seats together in a row. Is there a reason why, for example there couldn't be more than 3 seats in a row in a smaller air craft?

In addition to safety, it's question of good manners. During takeoff and landing it's nice if you don't have to be someone's hair in our mouth, and during meals too. I really like Ryanair's seats that cannot be reclined at all. This is like many other things, if there are no strict rules, some people can't think anybody but themselves.

The crew during the UsAir FLight did an excellent job. I see numerous times wher passengers do not listen and accidents do happen and people can survive. It takes just to listen for this to happen. Also the more room you have to put your head down and protect your head from an impact the safer you are.

While the locked vs. unlocked seat argument is compelling one of the motive could be reduce the cost for airlines having to return the seat back to upright position once the passenger have left. I simply dont buy the argument that 3 to 4 measly inches that they allow to recline makes much of difference in terms of clearance during evacuation. Commercial airliner seating is one place where human being are treated more like animals. Heck there are cheap tourists buses in Thailand with recliner seats with ample leg room for crying out loud. Airline interrior design fundamentally needs to change. Don't give me the "making it economic" argument - it has to pan out at certain point such that comfort meets the cost.

Agreed! And when you consider the possibility that the "upright" position is really the "nearly hunched over position" and the "reclined" position is really the "upright" position, you begin to see how words can trick the mind. In all actuality, both positions are still in the upright, supine position. As passengers we may become frustrated at the person in front of us who reclines, when really we should be frustrated at the airlines for cramming the rows so close together! If airlines were not for-profit organizations, perhaps there could be 50 inches between rows with the ability to recline back 7 or 8 inches, wider, more comfortable seats. Heck if we weren't given the opportunity to truly recline at least 7 or 8 inches, then I could understand putting the seat back into its upright position. Furthermore, we should not relate "seatbacks in the upright position" to "wearing seatbelts" just because the two fall under the umbrella of FAA regulations. Saying one action that works to save lives during a flight necessitates the need for the other is a fallacy. The two actions are entirely unique, in and of themselves, different. Seat belts can and do save us in times of turbulence or crashes. A seat back 3 inches would not make a world of difference in a crash involving such high velocities.

I was reading the comments below this article and really had to laugh at the following question. "Does anyone know the FAA rules regarding the rationale of why in some flights there are 3 seats in a row and other times, 2 seats in a row, and in larger flights, 5 seats in a row?" I don't know if there are any FAA rules about the # of seats in a row but I doubt it (within reason!). Each airline tries to cram as many seats as possible inside the aircraft. A 737 has 6 17" seats in typical coach configuration with an isle in the middle. To fit more seats in an airplane either the seats have to be smaller or the airplane has to be wider. The next larger size plane in terms of width is a 767 with a 2-3-2 configuration. I'm sure Boeing could have made the plane with 4 seats on each side of 1 isle but it probably couldn't meet the FAA requirements for all of the passengers to exit in the required time in an emergency.

Sooo on Military planes the seats faced the rear so during a crash landing, the head and neck did not suffer injury. When are we going to see that configuration on Commercial Airlines? NEVER.

The sole reason why the seat backs must be up is not for your protection, but for the protection of the person behind you. During a crash everyone will lunge forward with a force. You don't want your head crashing into the seat back in front of you which can happen more readily if it is in the reclined position.