Why aren't airliner seats faced backwards?

On the surface it seems like a good way to increase survivability in a crash and it shouldn't hinder the airlines ability from cramming as many seats as humanly possible in the air frame. What say those familiar with flying?
When you have an incident that produces > 9gs, it won't matter if you're forward or rear facing, or side saddle.
 
Do all incidents produce that level of G forces? Is there any in between?
A deceleration from 200 mph to 0 over the course of 1 second produces 9 G's. 1 second is a really really long time when you're hitting something solid like the ground. 200-0 mph in half a second is over 18 G's. quarter second = 36 g's etc. It's like the old saying, its not the falling off the building that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end.
 
A deceleration from 200 mph to 0 over the course of 1 second produces 9 G's. 1 second is a really really long time when you're hitting something solid like the ground. 200-0 mph in half a second is over 18 G's. quarter second = 36 g's etc. It's like the old saying, its not the falling off the building that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end.
Sure, in a crash where the pilot pile drives the plane into a mountain or whatever, those numbers probably work just fine and survival is.. not likely. But why give the worst possible outcome as a reason for not doing something? What about the times where that doesn't occur? Aviation is a world where the "what if" is heavily considered, so what if a pilot is forced into a bad position where they hit the ground not like a huge lawn dart?
 
I've been on a train in another country where the seats could rotate around in pairs. Apparently they have these now in Australia:



The metra commuter train for Chicago/suburbs have that configuration. It's mighty annoying when people end up taking two seats during rush hours. The newest cars now are fixed-back and very uncomfortable.

images.webp
 
Back
Top Bottom