Are aft-facing airplane seats safer?

They may well be. But don't look for them anytime soon.

  • By Michael Klesius
  • AirSpaceMag.com, October 26, 2009
 
The U.K.-based Premium Aircraft Interiors Group offers rear-facing seats strictly for economic reasons and makes no claims about safety. The U.K.-based Premium Aircraft Interiors Group offers rear-facing seats strictly for economic reasons, and makes no claims about safety.

Premium Aircraft Interiors Group

Katherine Cooper of Xenia, Ohio wonders why the seats in military aircraft face the back of the plane. “It is my understanding that seats are placed in this position for safety,” she writes. “I was under the impression this would protect passengers in case of an aircraft emergency like a sudden deceleration on the ground. Is this so? And if so, why is it that commercial airlines continue to put the seats facing forward?”

People have been debating for at least half a century which way airplane seats should face—forward or backward. According to an article in the December 1952 edition of Naval Aviation News, “Passengers in Navy transport planes have ten-fold better chances of coming out of crashes alive, thanks to backward-facing seats which are being installed in all new planes….The Navy has decided to install the seats after five years of development and testing showed they gave passengers much more protection for the entire back, neck, head and parts of the arms and legs in sudden stoppages. The human body can absorb more shock by the back than by the chest and abdomen, flight surgeons say.” The unsigned article cites two Royal Air Force accidents involving a four-engine Hastings and a two-engine Valetta. Both had rear-facing seats that were credited with minimizing injuries to passengers.

Aft-facing seats were used in Britain and the U.S. as early as 1945, according to the article, but “it took time to prove their advantages justifying the added cost of converting the seats….Navy passengers seem to like the rearward-facing seats. BUAER [the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics] distributed questionnaires to passengers during first months of experimentation with them. More than 500 were questioned after a flight, with only a few voting against them and none advancing a convincing reason for their opinions.”

Not long afterward, Britain’s Flight magazine ran an editorial in its July 16, 1954, issue praising a talk by one G./C. A.C. Dudgeon, D.F.C., of Britain’s Transport Command. “It was an informative, persuasive and entertaining talk, and it put the advantages of the aft-facing seat into very clear perspective—no wild claims, no concentration on one aspect of survival to the exclusion of all others. Subsequently a very lively discussion developed and someone called for a show of hands. I was surprised to see that four-fifths of a reasonably well-informed audience (consisting of members and guests of Aviation Forum) were in favour of the rearward-facing seat for all civil transport aircraft.”

Dudgeon was an early crusader for aft-facing seats, citing research dating back to 1942. The Flight editorial dismissed as “fatuous” the airlines’ worry that passengers would view aft-facing seats as an admission that accidents were possible. “One might carry this argument further,” wrote Flight’s editors, “and advocate the abolition of lifejackets and instructions on how to wear them.”

The same magazine revisited the subject in 1964 with another editorial, “Rearward-facing Seats NOW?,” that  provided more technical detail. The center of gravity of a decelerating person is six to nine inches higher when facing aft than when facing forward due to the placement of the seatbelt, according to the article. Because the force of impact would be applied higher on the seat, airlines would have to strengthen the seat’s attachment to the floor. This, the editorial acknowledged, would add weight, and would translate to fewer passengers or the need to carry more fuel. “At present, with airlines losing money almost everywhere, it is only too easy to understand their antipathy for this subject,” say the editors. Yet they also cite a 1958 accident involving an airliner in Munich, Germany, which crashed on takeoff with the Manchester United soccer team on board. Those in forward-facing seats were killed, and those in aft-facing seats were saved.

In 1983, Richard Snyder, a research scientist studying crash protection and transportation safety at the University of Michigan, published a paper titled “Impact Protection in Air Transport Passenger Seat Design.” Snyder wrote, “Data appear to overwhelmingly substantiate that the seated occupant can tolerate much higher crash forces when oriented in the rearward-facing position.” He concluded that aft-facing seats were safer, and still holds to that view today. Now retired from teaching, he replied by email from his home in Arizona, “The basis for providing aft-facing seating impact crash protection is substantial and supported by over half a century of experience.”

Despite the research, we all face forward. Car companies, including super-safety-conscious Volvo, aren’t planning to turn passenger seats around anytime soon, and newborns are the only ones who face aft in automobiles. Most train and bus seats face forward. Airplanes just follow conventional practice.

Katherine Cooper of Xenia, Ohio wonders why the seats in military aircraft face the back of the plane. “It is my understanding that seats are placed in this position for safety,” she writes. “I was under the impression this would protect passengers in case of an aircraft emergency like a sudden deceleration on the ground. Is this so? And if so, why is it that commercial airlines continue to put the seats facing forward?”

People have been debating for at least half a century which way airplane seats should face—forward or backward. According to an article in the December 1952 edition of Naval Aviation News, “Passengers in Navy transport planes have ten-fold better chances of coming out of crashes alive, thanks to backward-facing seats which are being installed in all new planes….The Navy has decided to install the seats after five years of development and testing showed they gave passengers much more protection for the entire back, neck, head and parts of the arms and legs in sudden stoppages. The human body can absorb more shock by the back than by the chest and abdomen, flight surgeons say.” The unsigned article cites two Royal Air Force accidents involving a four-engine Hastings and a two-engine Valetta. Both had rear-facing seats that were credited with minimizing injuries to passengers.

Aft-facing seats were used in Britain and the U.S. as early as 1945, according to the article, but “it took time to prove their advantages justifying the added cost of converting the seats….Navy passengers seem to like the rearward-facing seats. BUAER [the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics] distributed questionnaires to passengers during first months of experimentation with them. More than 500 were questioned after a flight, with only a few voting against them and none advancing a convincing reason for their opinions.”

Not long afterward, Britain’s Flight magazine ran an editorial in its July 16, 1954, issue praising a talk by one G./C. A.C. Dudgeon, D.F.C., of Britain’s Transport Command. “It was an informative, persuasive and entertaining talk, and it put the advantages of the aft-facing seat into very clear perspective—no wild claims, no concentration on one aspect of survival to the exclusion of all others. Subsequently a very lively discussion developed and someone called for a show of hands. I was surprised to see that four-fifths of a reasonably well-informed audience (consisting of members and guests of Aviation Forum) were in favour of the rearward-facing seat for all civil transport aircraft.”

Dudgeon was an early crusader for aft-facing seats, citing research dating back to 1942. The Flight editorial dismissed as “fatuous” the airlines’ worry that passengers would view aft-facing seats as an admission that accidents were possible. “One might carry this argument further,” wrote Flight’s editors, “and advocate the abolition of lifejackets and instructions on how to wear them.”

The same magazine revisited the subject in 1964 with another editorial, “Rearward-facing Seats NOW?,” that  provided more technical detail. The center of gravity of a decelerating person is six to nine inches higher when facing aft than when facing forward due to the placement of the seatbelt, according to the article. Because the force of impact would be applied higher on the seat, airlines would have to strengthen the seat’s attachment to the floor. This, the editorial acknowledged, would add weight, and would translate to fewer passengers or the need to carry more fuel. “At present, with airlines losing money almost everywhere, it is only too easy to understand their antipathy for this subject,” say the editors. Yet they also cite a 1958 accident involving an airliner in Munich, Germany, which crashed on takeoff with the Manchester United soccer team on board. Those in forward-facing seats were killed, and those in aft-facing seats were saved.

In 1983, Richard Snyder, a research scientist studying crash protection and transportation safety at the University of Michigan, published a paper titled “Impact Protection in Air Transport Passenger Seat Design.” Snyder wrote, “Data appear to overwhelmingly substantiate that the seated occupant can tolerate much higher crash forces when oriented in the rearward-facing position.” He concluded that aft-facing seats were safer, and still holds to that view today. Now retired from teaching, he replied by email from his home in Arizona, “The basis for providing aft-facing seating impact crash protection is substantial and supported by over half a century of experience.”

Despite the research, we all face forward. Car companies, including super-safety-conscious Volvo, aren’t planning to turn passenger seats around anytime soon, and newborns are the only ones who face aft in automobiles. Most train and bus seats face forward. Airplanes just follow conventional practice.

That didn’t stop Bern Case from campaigning to change the standard. In the summer of 1987, Case was working at the Tri-City International Airport in Saginaw, Michigan (today he’s the airport manager for the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport in Oregon) when Northwest Flight 255 had a disastrous accident on its next stop after Saginaw. The MD-82 had barely taken off from Detroit when it stalled and crashed into the embankment of a freeway overpass, killing 155 passengers and crew members. Only four-year-old Cecilia Cichan survived.

As Case learned the details of the tragedy, he became convinced that rear-facing seats would have saved lives. Throughout the 1990s, he contacted agencies, companies, and airlines, pushing the idea of rear-facing seats. By the end of the decade, he’d given up. “These numerous studies are just ta-ta’d away with clichés,” he says today. “Airlines say passengers wouldn’t like to face backward. But military airplanes and corporate jets have them.” And, he adds, their passengers report no problems. When former president Bill Clinton came to Oregon during the 2008 presidential campaign, Case was invited to board his charter plane, and noted that Clinton had chosen a rear-facing seat.

“Another objection you hear is cost,” says Case. He thinks it’s a non-issue. “The FAA [Federal Aviation Administration ] doesn’t need to say, ‘Change your planes overnight.’ ”

In fact, the FAA doesn’t seem concerned about the matter one way or the other. “Basically, we set standards and the airlines decide how they want their airplanes built,” says Alison Duquette of the agency’s public affairs office. There might be some concern about passengers evacuating an airplane with rear-facing seats, she adds, although “There has been no definitive research on the subject that we’re aware of. [It’s] just a factor that has to be considered.”

According to David Castelveter of the Washington, D.C.-based Air Transport Association, “There is no difference in the safety of commercial airliner seats—only differences in their weights. There can be a lot of back-and-forth on passenger preferences and reasons for them. Nonetheless, most [passengers] would give the nod to forward-facing.” But the association could not produce any surveys or studies supporting this contention, and does not have a policy on the safety of aft-facing seats. Nor does the Flight Safety Foundation, based in Alexandria, Virginia.

So we asked a manufacturer. Sandy Angers of Boeing Commercial Airplanes’ public relations office replied by email: “We are not familiar with any study or survey pertaining to passenger preference of aft-facing vs. forward-facing seats. Airlines traditionally conduct their own market research and may have that data.” As for which is safer, “Boeing does not have a position on whether aft-facing seats offer greater or less safety. All seats must meet regulatory safety standards.”

We weren’t able to find surveys of passenger preference for airplane seating, either. But Alison Trinkoff, a former doctoral student at Johns Hopkins and now a nurse at the University of Maryland, wrote a paper in the American Journal of Public Health in 1985 about preferences on the Washington, D.C., Metro subway system, which offers both forward- and aft-facing seats in every train car. She found that only 25 percent of adults chose aft-facing seats, while 66 percent of children chose them. Trinkoff concluded, “While many adults may prefer to ride facing forward, others might opt to face rearward if safety advantages were known and appropriate seating was made available.”

In the 1960s and 1970s, British Airways (then British European Airways) flew Tridents with half the seats facing backward, and the airline still has some aft-facing seats in business class. Two years ago, a U.K.-based company called the Premium Aircraft Interiors Group began promoting a design called the Freedom Seat for commercial wide bodies, in which every other seat in each row faces aft. The Freedom Seat is more about comfort and economy than safety, however—the shoulders of passengers in adjacent seats can intrude slightly into the space above the legs of passengers to their left and right if they face the opposite way. The configuration translates to an additional column of seats down the length of the economy class cabin of a wide body, and four inches added to the pitch, or the front-to-back spacing between seats. That means 21 more seats in the economy cabin of a Boeing 777 and 50 more in an Airbus A380. “Nobody’s taken us up on it yet,” says business development director Ben Bettell. “I think the main reason is the eye-to-eye contact.” British Airways has solved that problem in their business class cabin with dividers for privacy.

Bettell says that because airplane seats have been facing the same direction for 50 years, airlines may find it hard to adopt radically new seating ideas. He’s hopeful that this will change, and says that one U.S. airline, whom he declines to name, is interested in the company’s aft-facing seats.

As for whether passengers sitting in those seats would be safer, Bettell declines to comment, promising only that the seats will be manufactured to all necessary safety standards.


Single Page 1 2 3 Next »

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 (8)

Great article- but please the soccer team in the 1958 Munich disaster was the brilliant "Manchester United". EDITORS' REPLY: Thanks. We'll fix that.

Posted by A Donoghue on November 12,2009 | 07:59 PM

The thing is, when the risk of a crash is so infinitesimally low, it doesn't take much of a preference or reason for forward-facing seats for the change to not be worthwhile. I much prefer looking forward; some friends feel more susceptible to motion sickness when sitting in rear-facing seats on subways and trains. And on every train or subway I ride, the front-facing seats fill up first. Very few people choose rear-facing seats if they have a choice, unless there's another reason, like not having sunlight in the face if the train's moving sunward or wanting to face conversation partners who've already chosen forward-facing seats.

Posted by Peter on March 4,2011 | 01:18 AM

The rear facing seat is much more safe. Yes, the risk of crash is low but the injuries involved in a forward facing seat are much greater than a rear facing seat. Consider facial injuries, back injuries and especially abdominal injuries caused because the passengers hips slip below the lap belt. None of these happen with rear facing seats. True, the expense incurred from stengthening the floor and the heaver rear facing seat will keep airlines from using them. If they were introduced, I think passenger apprehensiveness would disolve rather quickly in light of a more comfortable ride, especially in land and hold short operations.

Posted by James Wells on June 5,2011 | 11:39 PM

I am 100% in favour of RFS (Rearward Facing Seats). The military require live troops arriving for battle even in a war risk zone where crash landings can happen. The commercial airlines don't care as they get their money up front before take off. I have written a book on this safety aspect which is almost ready for publication*. Weight is not an issue, One could say we all lie in rearward facing beds at night, or hammocks by day. Aircraft never go backwards!
The key to survival is to avoid being thrown forward and being stunned on the seat in front long enough to be burned alive in the ensueing fire. Those precious minutes after a crash one could climb out of a RFS and aided by a water misting system see and feel one's way out of the aircraft. The FAA allow 90 seconds evacuations. I have done one at Boeing.
*Impact by Eric P Donald (former Ch. Stress Analyst BAeGW)

Posted by Eric P Donald, FRAeS on June 27,2011 | 08:17 PM

I have flown in a rear-facing seat in a T-39B Sabreliner and when we took off -- at a rather steep angle -- the combination of the angle and the acceleration meant that I leant forward, i.e. to the rear of the aircraft. In a forward-facing seat, takeoff causes you to lean back against the seat. I think a lot of passengers would not like to lean forward like that if they were in a rear-facing seat and I very much doubt the airlines would want to add shoulder straps to every seat on every aircraft.

Weighed against how few crashes there are per total flights flown and the percentage of those crashes that are survivable no matter which way you're facing, I would suggest that there is no reason to change the current orientation of airline seats.

Posted by Jeff Rankin-Lowe on January 31,2012 | 11:11 PM

I have flown in a rear-facing seat in a T-39B Sabreliner and when we took off -- at a rather steep angle -- the combination of the angle and the acceleration meant that I leant forward, i.e. to the rear of the aircraft. In a forward-facing seat, takeoff causes you to lean back against the seat. I think a lot of passengers would not like to lean forward like that if they were in a rear-facing seat and I very much doubt the airlines would want to add shoulder straps to every seat on every aircraft.

Weighed against how few crashes there are per total flights flown and the percentage of those crashes that are survivable no matter which way you're facing, I would suggest that there is no reason to change the current orientation of airline seats.

Posted by Jeff Rankin-Lowe on January 31,2012 | 11:11 PM

I believe there is enough technology & intellectual people to make aft facing seats cost effective for passenger planes. We need to take the politics out of it!

Posted by Chad on November 2,2012 | 08:05 AM

I systematically avoid aft-facing seats in public transportation (eg: trains) because they make me sick (nausea).

I would certainly try to avoid rear-facing seats in an airplane. I already have a tendency to airsickness, and wouldn't want to compound it by travelling backwards.

Posted by Bernard P. on January 16,2013 | 05:18 PM

Post a Comment


Name: (required)

Email: (required)

Comment:

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.



Advertisement


Advertisement


Follow Us

Snapshot

There's No Upside-Down

An astronaut takes a walk out in space last week.

Reader Scrapbook

Discovery's Tail-Cone Fitting

Check out our scrapbook of readers' aviation and space pictures. Then add your own.

Smithsonian Store

Smithsonian Journeys