Why do airline seats have to be in an upright position during takeoff?
The rules are confusing, but the safety concern is real.
- By Joe Pappalardo
- AirSpaceMag.com, September 01, 2007
Boeing
The rules imposed on airline passengers continue to generate confusion. After reading Bobbi Barlow, of Daytona Beach, Florida, asks:
"Can you explain why the seat backs must be in their most upright (and uncomfortable) position during takeoff and landing? Can it be possible that the three inches or so it moves affects the safety of the person occupying the seat or the person behind them? The science behind this escapes me, and I would so love an answer!"
There are two main reasons why flight attendants pester people to keep those seats up—to keep injuries to a minimum during a crash and to clear the maximum amount of space for a quick exit.
The science is pretty basic, as explained by Brian Manning, a flight attendant for Mesa Airlines. "When the seat is up, it is locked. When the seat is back, it's not locked. In the event of an emergency, an unlocked seat has more force during impact, and the thrusting forward of that seat can cause passenger injury."
Like a catapult, the farther back the seat, the greater distance your head would travel during an impact, and the more force would be generated. Those three inches can add to the whiplash effect.
Also, Manning notes, people sitting behind a seat that is reclined or unlocked will not be able to brace properly. And yes, there are proper ways of bracing. In the late 1980s the FAA researched various ways to prepare the body for impact, using test dummies.
Before an airliner is certified, the manufacturer has to demonstrate that it can be evacuated quickly. For this reason, Section 121.311(d) of the Federal Aviation Regulations requires seat backs that can be locked into position. Having passengers weave around jutting seats as they shimmy into the aisle simply wouldn't do.
"Since most accidents occur during takeoff and landing, it is for the safety of everyone onboard the aircraft to have all seats in their upright and locked position," says Manning.
Got a nagging question about aviation or space? Use our online submission form, and we'll do our best to answer it. Or maybe we already have.
Comments (24)
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...
Posted by Tommy MacLuckie on December 6,2008 | 11:23 AM
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.
Posted by Christopher Davis on December 8,2008 | 12:11 PM
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.
Posted by Kevin on December 30,2008 | 02:34 AM
Why do we assume the crash possition in the event of a crash?
Posted by Louise Hart on January 8,2009 | 08:34 AM
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.
Posted by An Onymous on January 15,2009 | 06:35 PM
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
Posted by afpae1 on January 17,2009 | 03:07 PM
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
Posted by afpae1 on January 17,2009 | 03:07 PM
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?
Posted by Christine on January 18,2009 | 03:31 PM
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.
Posted by Flyboy on February 12,2009 | 07:35 AM
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.
Posted by flygirl80 on February 13,2009 | 01:35 PM
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.
Posted by ajay sharma on February 17,2009 | 12:46 PM
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.
Posted by James on June 2,2009 | 08:37 PM
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.
Posted by Tomelow this articl on June 12,2009 | 12:18 AM
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.
Posted by Virginia Seahawk on August 21,2009 | 09:56 AM
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.
Posted by Sasha on November 8,2009 | 03:35 PM
I'm sure it all seems silly to some, and sure they need redesign, more space, better this and/or that. One has to keep in mind that the purpose of flying is to travel, and that lifting things into the air is very energy consuming. Figure into the mix the costs of the craft and inspections/replacements etc., and you get higher airfares. These aircraft don't last forever and the companies that operate them must make a profit -- or you'll have fewer choices -- so, if "grouse you must" at least take a few deep breaths of reason before you do.
Whether the rules are needed or not, in any particular case, cannot be foreseen, is why they have to be uniformly applied, even if in your particular event, they may not be so effective.
Obwon
Posted by Obwon Kenobe on July 7,2010 | 08:00 AM
this is one more doubt I had apart from why the light have to be dimmed before landing now i get the reason straight.
http://www.twitqa.com/qid/why_during_start_and_landing_lights_inside_an_airplane_are_turned_off_/1110
Posted by Erick on August 26,2010 | 02:35 PM
Are some of you people serious? Following these simple rules MAY save your life. They may save the life of someone around you. Are you seriously that stupid to blow them off as they're a minor inconvenience? Tommy: "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..." Who do you think knows more about this? You, or aircraft seat manufacturers? I guess it's lucky that you won't be around to explain to your mom/wife/kids that you could have survived an accident, or worse, someone else's mom/wife/kids that you couldn't be bothered to give yourself or their family member every chance they had.
Posted by Ryan N. on October 4,2011 | 02:13 PM
If you don't like the rules, drive it.
Posted by Otis on February 7,2012 | 04:51 PM
They want yo minimize injuries in the event of a crash? Whiplash is the least of my worries if the plane is about to crash.
Posted by lisa on February 8,2012 | 12:10 AM
This does not make sense at all.
I travel business class and in e.g. Jet Airways, passengers have a little cabin-like seat.
http://wapedia.mobi/thumb/9ac5499/en/fixed/470/352/Jet_Airways_777_Premiere_cabin.jpg?format=jpg
Whether you recline your seat or not, there is no bstruction to the people seated on the back. Still, everybody is asked to put to upright position.
About the lock/unlock - when the seat on in recline, it looks pretty locked to me. And if not, why exactly can't the aircraft manufacturers make the reclining position lock?
Posted by Jim on February 11,2012 | 04:59 PM
When I read some of the comments on this subject it is obvious that we in the industry have not provided credible information to the traveling public and so there is a lot of skepticism and confusion concerning air travel.
When traveling with the airlines people think it's all about what is convenient or inconvenient. I'm not comfortable with the seat in the upright position. I don't want to turn my phone off, etc., etc. Safety, like security is inconvenient. everybody wants to bitch about it but it could, just maybe, save your life.
Everyone likes to bash the FAA but the fact is that due to the efforts of the FAA , air transportation is a lot safer today than it has ever been. It is very rare that you would die in a plane crash in the current system.
I personally do not enjoy flying commercially. It is a pain in the posterior to put it lightly but the chances of arriving alive and intact is pretty high.
Posted by Charles on June 16,2012 | 07:47 AM
There should be an effort made by the airline companies to mold the design of the aircraft for better comfort of its customers. If I fly 11 hours and 10 of that is uncomfortable that is unacceptable at 1,500 dollars. Hands down 100% no exceptions. The air line company will continue to use bogus safety rules to accommodate the regulations of their insurance providers others wise they are not covered! If said person fails to follow rules then it can be investigated that person was liable for themselves. Its simple! Just company policy. Ultimately some is being asked to do a job and did not make the rules they are just earning a living so quit being jerks and giving them a hard time. I hate to do it but you at this point have to pay more money for a little bit of comfort. I am all for more efficient planes but do you honestly think they will give up one or two 1,500 dollar seats for one person. NO WAY! Its big business and that's big money to loose.
Posted by Chaz on August 30,2012 | 06:25 PM
Hi: can you help me why do you put your head between your knees before a crash?
Posted by Kevin on October 22,2012 | 01:50 PM