This does raise an important question: is the rear of an aircraft intrinsically safer, or is this simply coincidence?
Two tragic air disasters last week-one in Kazakhstan and another in South Korea-have raised pressing questions about aviation safety. A crash involving an Azerbaijan Airlines flight on December 25 resulted in the plane crash-landing near Aktau in Kazakhstan, killing 38 passengers. Days later, on Sunday, another Jeju Air Boeing aircraft met a similar fate during an emergency landing at Muan International Airport in South Korea, killing 179 people and only two survivors. The latter is regarded as South Korea’s worst aviation disaster.
Interestingly, in both accidents, survivors were found to be at the back of the plane. In Kazakhstan, passengers were rescued from the tail section of the Azerbaijan Airlines fuselage, while in South Korea, two crew members who survived were rescued from the tail of the plane. This does raise an important question: is the rear of an aircraft intrinsically safer, or is this simply coincidence?
Air Travel: Still the Safest Mode of Transport
Before discussing seat safety, it must be stated that air travel is statistically the safest form of travel. Although rare, the sheer catastrophe of an air crash makes it a less probable event than road or rail accidents in terms of frequency and fatality rates. According to statistics, the fatality rate for air travel is at 0.003 deaths per 100 million passenger miles, thus much safer than road travel, which records 1.18 deaths over the same distance.
The safety record for air travel remains on an upward trend. Statistics from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) show a dramatic reduction in fatalities, with the rate now at 17 deaths per billion passengers in 2023, compared to 50 in 2022. Yet flying is still a high-risk activity, given the intricacy of aircraft systems and the possible consequences of even small failures.
Is There a “Safe” Seat on an Aircraft?
The seat safety research on air crashes does not give conclusive results, yet a few patterns do emerge. Crash analyses seem to indicate that seats located at the back of an aircraft may offer some degree of survival advantage. According to a study done by Popular Mechanics covering crashes between 1971 and 2005, passengers seated in the rear of a plane had a 40% chance of survival. The study showed fatality rates of 32% for rear seats, 39% for the middle, and 38% for the front.
The results indicate that front seats are more susceptible to impact because they are the first ones to be hit in the case of nosedives or runway overrun, for example, the 2010 Mangalore crash in India. In a similar vein, a US National Transportation Safety Board report quoted in a study indicated a survival rate of 69% for rear seats compared to 59% for mid-seats and 49% for front seats.
However, there are some exceptions. In the case of the 1989 United Airlines crash, most survivors were found seated behind the first-class section. A separate TIME analysis in 2015, on the basis of 35 years of crash data, said that seats in the middle-rear section had a mortality rate of 28%, which was the lowest, followed by the middle section at 44%.
Variables in Seat Safety
While rear seats may offer quicker access to rear emergency exits, their position also comes with risks, as the tail of an aircraft can sustain heavy damage upon impact. Similarly, middle rows near the wings, although close to emergency exits, face risks from wing explosions, as wings typically house fuel tanks. Ultimately, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) asserts that no section of an aircraft is inherently safer. Survival will largely depend on factors such as crash dynamics, the location of impact, and evacuation conditions.
Conclusion
Aviation remains the safest form of transportation, with risks continually mitigated by advancements in technology and safety protocols. While seat placement may influence survival rates in rare crashes, the circumstances surrounding each incident are the most critical factors.
