Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hplabsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!pesnta!hplabsc!dsmith
From: dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith)
Newsgroups: net.aviation,net.politics
Subject: Re: "A Design Proposal That Would Make Passenger Planes Safe"
Message-ID: <27@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Jan-86 13:40:25 EST
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.27
Posted: Tue Jan  7 13:40:25 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Jan-86 04:46:21 EST
References: <196@hropus.UUCP> <118@r2d2.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Lines: 21
Xref: lsuc net.aviation:634 net.politics:2784

>          I have sat in rear-facing seats on military aircraft.  It's easy
> to get used to, and obviously (excuse me, apparently since I've not actually
> seen results in tests) much more safe.  It must be tremendously expensive
> to completely re-tool for changes in commercial aircraft design.

I have ridden backward a couple of times in a Saberliner.  The deck angle
seemed higher than riding frontward on an airliner, but I haven't ridden
frontward on a Saberliner or backward on an airliner.  I think the worry
about public reaction is due to the comfort of being pressed into one's
seat vs. the feeling of hanging by a seat belt.  (But I thought it was
great fun.)

As far as retooling:  what is the expense of bolting the seats in the other
way?  The planes are designed for interior customization to the airline.
The first/coach class mix changes, the galleys can move, or they can put in 
carry-on luggage racks.  There are quick change versions, which carry
passengers by day and freight on the main deck at night.

			David Smith
			hplabs!dsmith
			dsmith%hp-labs@csnet-relay