Anyone who travels extensively must have noticed that airline passenger seats are getting smaller and smaller. Average seat width has narrowed from about 46 cm to 42 cm over the last decade. Economy-class seat pitch - the distance between seat rows - has decreased from an average of 89 cm in the 1970s to 79 cm, and in some airplanes to 71 cm.

But now help is on the way. The US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, recently ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to consider setting minimum standards for the space airlines give passengers.

All three judges agreed the FAA must conduct a new review following a request by a passenger advocacy group, Flyers Rights, to set a minimum airline seat size. The FAA had tried to make the case that uncomfortably space-crunched seats have no impact on how quickly travelers can exit an airplane during an emergency.

In March, the FAA presented its case to a judges panel that its tests had proven that smaller seat dimensions had no impact on emergency exits, however, the agency refused to offer concrete evidence that backed up such claims. Instead, the FAA’s lawyers argued that any proof is confidential airline information. Last week the court disagreed.

That a court of law was needed to investigate what the judge called “the case of the incredible shrinking airline seat” is an indictment of how serious the seat issue is and how the FAA, the chief aviation regulator, has not seen it as serious enough.

It would not be fair to blame the FAA for ailments like soreness, stiffness and other joint and muscle problems related to tight space. These various joint and muscle issues are commonplace, temporary and non-life threatening discomforts.

But the combination of less legroom and larger passengers might be creating a safety hazard. The average flier has grown steadily larger in both height and girth, and the decrease in seat size, coupled with the increase in passenger size, might have imperiled passengers’ safety by slowing down emergency exits. Can, as US regulations require, a fully loaded plane be evacuated within 90 seconds with half the exits blocked and in low lighting conditions?

Secondly, smaller seats have certainly heightened the risk of deep vein thrombosis, a potentially fatal condition of blood clots in the legs that has been associated with longer flights. Cramped quarters also increase the potential for air rage as tensions mount inside more tightly packed cabins.

The long-term impact of the court ruling remains unclear. It stopped short of ordering FAA to create new rules, so the agency could simply conduct another review but decide not to act.

Still, the ruling is a mild victory for Flying Rights. Though the court cannot order the FAA to regulate on seat width, it did ask the administration to review its response to Flyers Rights. This means that the FAA is now obligated to review the organization’s petition to place a moratorium on shrinking seat sizes and to create seat size standards. The ruling at least puts the pressure on the FAA to give Flyers Rights valid evidence that current seat sizes are actually safe, instead of offering vague evidence and a cold shoulder.

The issue of airline passenger legroom has boiled over this year after some carriers said they plan to add more seats to planes. A number of major airlines are also planning to add extra rows in cabins and, therefore, reduce seat sizes. More seats mean more profits for airlines. But that is no excuse for airlines being more interested in profit than passenger health and safety.