Why don't passenger seats on aircraft face backwards?

The mildly amusing cynicism of 'Financial' apart, a main purpose of air crash investigation is the improvement of accident survivability. If government accident investigation bureaux conclude that rearward facing passenger seat can help improve the survivability of a crash then they could and should mandate that requirement. The understandable cynicism creeps in when airlines would then have to weigh up the financial pros and cons of such a radical, mandatory requirement. My own thought is that it would considerably improve accident survivability and that passengers would get used to it over time. And lets face it, first-time flyers wouldn't know any different.

The RAF does have rearward facing seats on all it's VC10 passenger aircraft and people have no complaints.

Dean
www.oggsplosh.com

Trains have both forwards and backwards. So have taxis. Given the choice, which will you take when you travel? I suspect that it'll be forwards facing and I also think that that's probably because as humans we don't like things sneaking up on us from behind. We like to see what's coming.

Apart from that, flying is very safe. If you're unlucky enough to be in a plane when it crashes, your chances won't be good one way or the other.

Although it seem 'unfair' that the seat havn't started changing, it is more likely to take effect on new planes due to the cost of refurbishing a plane or jet. Another thing is that the force of taking off makes you feel like you are stuck to your chair. during take off, you would probably have the same feeling you would while crashing. If the idea was changed to suit both situations, a flight would be safer and possibly more comfortable.

I hear the "passengers won't like it" argument, but nobody seems to have any evidence. I do remember flying in an RAF passenger aircraft many years ago and the seats were rear-facing and it certainly didn't cause me or anybody else any problems.