The joke has always been made that the plane can not land unless the tray tables are up (and in their locked position) and the Seatbacks in their full and upright position. Why exactly is this? The only thing I can think of is because the possibillity of ensuing turbalance would cause harm/liabilites/lawsuits to the airline.
This rule was instituted following the crash of a 727 in, I believe, Salt Lake City. The plane landed short of the runway, which is the subject for another tale about 727’s and other high horizontal stabilizer aircraft, by the way. Anyway there were numerous survivors and a lot of information about what happened in the cabin during the crash.
It was discovered that passengers who were reclining were propelled forward as if shot from a gun when the plane decelerated sharply upon hitting the ground. They were seriously injured, killed and also killed and injured others during their unfortunate trip.
People who were not reclining were also seriously injured or killed when they smashed into the edge of the unfolded tray table.
It was also learned that all loose objects should be restrained which had previously not been the case. The cabins being full of luggage and other loose objects that became lethal projectiles at the time of the crash.
And last, but not least, the crash also resulted in a new training procedure for planes with high horizontal stabilizers. It was learned that if the descent rate is allowed to get too high, the wash from the wing tends to pass over the stabilizer and elevator controls in such a way that elevator effectiveness was reduced to the extent that it took a long time to recover from the high descent rate. When the plane is close to the ground in landing there just isn’t that enough room available to reduce the descent rate with the reduced elevator control.
There are plenty of reasons, all of which relate to rough weather/landings/emergencies.
If your tray table is down and you have some sort of disturbance, you’re going to catch the edge of it and get hurt. If your seat back isn’t up, the guy behind you is going to nail your seat and get hurt. Also, you’ll have more room to gain speed before you smash the guy’s seat in front of you. Basically, they’re trying to remove all potential obstructions, and at the same time get all the passengers to play ball. Pretty good trick, if you ask me.
The alternatives? 4-point restraints, like what the military has, or rear-faced seating, which we have as well. The seat back absorbs any energy from hard landings and deceleration, and the restraints keep us secure on takeoffs and during turbulence. Nothing’s too good for our boys in blue, eh? 
Upon reading my post I discover that so much was learned from this one crash that it is amost a blessing that it happened. (That’s gallows humor, sonny)
Similarly, in the case of an evacuation, the reclined seats and tray tables down will greatly reduce the ability of people near the windows to get out quickly.
Why don’t they reverse the seats? It is not as though you can watch the passing scenery, after all.
I think the airlines oppose this and I’m not sure why. I’ve heard that they want everything to appear as normal as possible to allay the flight fears of many passengers. Turning the seats backwards, which is really sensible, would remind people that they are going to fly up in the air in a machine; there is some element of risk and that isn’t good public relations.
The reason why they don’t reverse the seats is because it provides a sensation totally dissimilar to what one is used to, like driving a car. Until the forces even out, any turn feels reversed compared to what you can see out the window, and vice versa.
Not only is it more uncomfortable for your average traveler who flies little, but it would cause a considerable amount of vomiting from the disorientation. The first time I flew like that, I almost honked, and about 1 of every 5 people puke on their first flight with tactical maneuvers. If a jumbo does a steep turn, people will spew everywhere. That is not a good thing.
Yeah, much better that they occasionally splatter everywhere.
I expect that if this were actually implemented, we’d see a spike in airsickness followed by a decline as people caught on and started taking motion sickness medicine before flying.
It would hurt the industry, but frankly I don’t give a damn. Mind you, I know flying’s very safe, but if it can easily be made safer, I’m all for it. If it ultimately cuts into business, we’ll see higher prices, sure. But maybe bigger seats. And jets ain’t that good for the environment, anyway. We could probably stand to have a few less in the air.
Oh, please. If things are bad enough for someone to splatter everywhere, a back-facing seat ain’t gonna save 'em.
Facing backward can save you from whiplash or a broken neck, but if you can get that same effect from sitting upright and folding up your tray tables, without the widespread horking, why bother going to all that time, expense, and bother?
There are a lot of people who refuse to get into modes of transportation in which the seats are not facing the front of the vehicle. I’ve noticed this a lot on trains; the trains in my area have seats that face forward and seats that face backward, and I’ve been with people who refused to get in the backward-facing ones.
The reasons vary. One person said it felt weird, another said he wanted to see what was coming (even though you can’t see anything when you’re going forward, even if you’re in the first car).
I suspect it’s at least partially a psychological issue.
I wonder how many people posting here have actually flown on flights facing backwards, and what their experience is? It would be interesting to see a poll…
I have - on Southwest. One of many reasons I avoid that airline (no assigned seating being another, which leads to the person scrambling to make a connection being stuck in - you guessed it - the back-facing seat).
Now, I’m a pretty experienced traveler, and I imagine I’ve flown more than 99% of the people here. In all kinds of turbulence. In planes from 2 seats to 400.
But sitting backward just sucks, it’s disorienting to me, and makes me ill.
As to the OP - the answer is simple. In an emergency, it is very difficult to get into the aisle quickly and without injury when 1) you have to climb over 3 down tray-tables and 2) the seats in front of you are reclined such that it’s hard to get out anyways.
But I assume this crash was done when your seat back in coach actually folded down more than the two or three inches I get these days. The last flight I took, I’m quite sure I couldn’t have rocketed anywhere, reclined or not. The tray tables make perfect sense, but I think the paltry ability to “recline” these days has made the “seat back” provision obsolete.
With the seat pitch as narrow as it is (seat pitch being the distance from the back of your seat to the back of the seat behind you), even a few inches of recline can make it difficult for the person behind you to get out. Ever notice that the seats in front of an overwing exit don’t recline at all? It’s all about the exit space BEHIND your seat. First someone has to get out of the seat and into the aisle, and then they have to get from the aisle to an exit.
I am sure that British troop transport planes used to have rear-facing seats on some of their fleet . I do not know if this is the case now. The reasons for this was greater safety.
If you look about halfway down this rather large article at point number one you will see an explanation. :-
http://www.amsanz.org.nz/avmedia/23/am23_350years.htm
In 1964 I few from Japmn to Calif in an old milatary DC-6 which as i remember was designated a C-121. All seats faced the rear.
33 hours total flight time. It was miserable for most all. I stood up for most of it. Being of the flying persuation, I got a lot of cockpit time in the jump seat too. that part was good.
I don’t do backwards well at all, roller skate, car, plane, boats, walking, dancing, diving — nada… I’d rather be weightless or doing acrobatics or patrolling a lousy oil field gathering system on a hot rough day with a bad hangover…
Backwards is for others …
David Simmons
Upon reading my post I discover that so much was learned from this one crash that it is amost a blessing that it happened. (That’s gallows humor, sonny)
Ditto TWA Flight 514.
I only ever get motion sickness when facing backwards on trains. I’d imagine this applies to a lot of other people too.
I’ve flown in a back-facing seat. Apart from take-off (when the combination of acceleration and angle of the plane made me lean forward), it was unremarkable (and actually more comfortable in some respects).
Sitting backwards on trains and buses is more uncomfortable because of all the stops and starts (and turns, in the case of the buses). Plus, it makes watching the scenery more difficult.
Me!
One time on Southwest I took the back-facing seat because I was curious about what that would be like. It was a little odd at first, but I wasn’t the least bit airsick. Then again, I have a higher than usual resistance to motion sickness.
Then again, I’ve been riding facing the rear in various vehicles most of my life. When young I frequently wound up in the back-facing rear seat of the station wagons we owned. After a train accident I took up riding trains in the rear-facing seats when available - keep in mind I’ve been riding trains to work five days a week for… oh… 20 years now and you’ll realize that’s a LOT of backward riding. Maybe I’m just used to the overall sensation of going backwards so when I do it in an airplane it’s not that disorienting.
But I suspect I am very much the exception to the rule.