3 ms·

> rear-facing seats, which are known to be safer There's some constraints on that. A full passenger jet isn't the same thing as a military transport plane. F

> rear-facing seats, which are known to be safer There's some constraints on that. A full passenger jet isn't the same thing as a military transport plane. For example, things coming loose which would hit seatbacks now hit people. It's also important, IMO, to note that "passengers wouldn't be happy" is a slight underestimate. The number of people barfing from motion sickness would go up pretty dramatically, for one. Even the people not barfing aren't going to like that. And then of course there's the problem of frequency. Passenger plane crashes are rare enough now that squeezing out the last little bit of safety by causing serious discomfort and other headaches is probably not a good trade-off.

wolverine876 3y ago
> things coming loose which would hit seatbacks now hit people. That assumes rapid deceleration. I can certainly imagine that happening in many undesireable situations, major and minor, but how often is there rapid acceleration, minor (e.g., turbulance) or major (e.g. in an uncontrolled dive - if that ever really happens, and if survival is possible regardless)? > things coming loose which would hit seatbacks now hit people. > Even the people not barfing aren't going to like that. I'd like a seat in the rear, please.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  > That assumes rapid deceleration. Sure, but my understanding is that the only time a rear facing seat has an advantage is when decelerating rapidly. The seat back can support your body better than a lap belt.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Good point.