3 ms·

Has it been evaluated whether any real-life evacuations were time sensitive enough to where a wide bodied plane would have resulted in more deaths? Doesn't seem

Has it been evaluated whether any real-life evacuations were time sensitive enough to where a wide bodied plane would have resulted in more deaths? Doesn't seem like a real problem intuitively, but I don't really have any data to back that up.

chrisseaton 4y ago
Do they do all those evacuation tests with able-bodied volunteers? How would they evacuate for example five wheelchair users within the 90 seconds or whatever is required for the test?
- colordrops 4y ago
  That's what I'm getting at though. There are imagined criteria for these tests, but what has the real life situation been in actual emergencies? Have there been enough real life evacuations where getting everyone out within 90 seconds vs 3 minutes was the difference in saving many lives?
  - lmm 4y ago
    All airliner safety features are objectively pretty pointless given that cars remain legal and routine with like 100x the lethality. But yes, there have been at least a handful of cases where some but not all of the passengers were able to get out of a plane in time, particularly when the plane caught fire on landing (e.g. Air Canada 797).
  - chmod775 4y ago
    > 90 seconds vs 3 minutes That's a huge difference in case of a fire. Ninety seconds of smoke filled, oxygen deprived, or hot air, and many people will make it out alive. Three minutes and most will have passed out. There's quite a few instances of burning planes being evacuated where not everybody, but a sizeable portion, made it out. Seconds matter*. * Almost always there was some idiots slowing everything down by grabbing their luggage.
    - colordrops 4y ago
      That's obvious. But I just made those numbers up - they aren't important to my point, which is that I'm asking if there is any real world data on evacuation timing.
      - chmod775 4y ago
        All those instances where not everybody - but some - made it out of a plane that caught fire but where the passenger cabin was otherwise intact, physically allowing the evacuation of conscious passengers. Here's a good example because it has a clear cutoff point: "Less than 90 seconds after touchdown, the interior of the plane flashed over and ignited, killing the remaining 23 passengers on board, who died from smoke inhalation and burns from the flash fire." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797 It seems obvious that a faster evacuation would have saved more people and a slower one less, roughly proportional to speed of evacuation.
- ars 4y ago
  Not only is the test with able bodied people, they also are permitted to practice first to make the time. But - the test handles this by only giving them 90 seconds. In the real world it would take far longer, but rather than testing a longer, more realistic test, they do a really fast one instead.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    The test is about whether such an evacuation is theoretically possible, not if it is realistic under any conceivable circumstance (half the plane gone, blocked exits, plane resting at an incline, smoke and/or fire and/or water in the cabin...). If the happy-path evacuation isn't possible to begin with, e.g. for design reasons, the more complicated realistic ones will be negatively affected as well.
Merad 4y ago
Aircraft fires can escalate extremely quickly, and in an enclosed space like an aircraft there's nowhere for smoke to go. Accidents also often result in less than optimal evacuation conditions. Fire may block exits, doors can jam, slides can fail to deploy, all of which slow down the evacuation. I've spent way too much time watching the Air Disasters show [0] and off the top of my head remember at least half a dozen or so accidents portrayed in the show where a plane was evacuated in minutes but some passengers were killed by fire or smoke because they couldn't get off in time. I'm not saying that wide body planes couldn't be evacuated quickly or safely (haven't really looked into them at all) but I don't think it's a situation where you can just say, wide bodies are more slow to evacuate and that's no big deal. [0]: https://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/air-disasters https://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/air-disasters

chrisseaton 4y ago

Do they do all those evacuation tests with able-bodied volunteers? How would they evacuate for example five wheelchair users within the 90 seconds or whatever is required for the test?

colordrops 4y ago
That's what I'm getting at though. There are imagined criteria for these tests, but what has the real life situation been in actual emergencies? Have there been enough real life evacuations where getting everyone out within 90 seconds vs 3 minutes was the difference in saving many lives?
- lmm 4y ago
  All airliner safety features are objectively pretty pointless given that cars remain legal and routine with like 100x the lethality. But yes, there have been at least a handful of cases where some but not all of the passengers were able to get out of a plane in time, particularly when the plane caught fire on landing (e.g. Air Canada 797).
- chmod775 4y ago
  > 90 seconds vs 3 minutes That's a huge difference in case of a fire. Ninety seconds of smoke filled, oxygen deprived, or hot air, and many people will make it out alive. Three minutes and most will have passed out. There's quite a few instances of burning planes being evacuated where not everybody, but a sizeable portion, made it out. Seconds matter*. * Almost always there was some idiots slowing everything down by grabbing their luggage.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    That's obvious. But I just made those numbers up - they aren't important to my point, which is that I'm asking if there is any real world data on evacuation timing.
    - chmod775 4y ago
      All those instances where not everybody - but some - made it out of a plane that caught fire but where the passenger cabin was otherwise intact, physically allowing the evacuation of conscious passengers. Here's a good example because it has a clear cutoff point: "Less than 90 seconds after touchdown, the interior of the plane flashed over and ignited, killing the remaining 23 passengers on board, who died from smoke inhalation and burns from the flash fire." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797 It seems obvious that a faster evacuation would have saved more people and a slower one less, roughly proportional to speed of evacuation.
ars 4y ago
Not only is the test with able bodied people, they also are permitted to practice first to make the time. But - the test handles this by only giving them 90 seconds. In the real world it would take far longer, but rather than testing a longer, more realistic test, they do a really fast one instead.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  The test is about whether such an evacuation is theoretically possible, not if it is realistic under any conceivable circumstance (half the plane gone, blocked exits, plane resting at an incline, smoke and/or fire and/or water in the cabin...). If the happy-path evacuation isn't possible to begin with, e.g. for design reasons, the more complicated realistic ones will be negatively affected as well.

Merad 4y ago

Aircraft fires can escalate extremely quickly, and in an enclosed space like an aircraft there's nowhere for smoke to go. Accidents also often result in less than optimal evacuation conditions. Fire may block exits, doors can jam, slides can fail to deploy, all of which slow down the evacuation. I've spent way too much time watching the Air Disasters show [0] and off the top of my head remember at least half a dozen or so accidents portrayed in the show where a plane was evacuated in minutes but some passengers were killed by fire or smoke because they couldn't get off in time. I'm not saying that wide body planes couldn't be evacuated quickly or safely (haven't really looked into them at all) but I don't think it's a situation where you can just say, wide bodies are more slow to evacuate and that's no big deal. [0]: https://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/air-disasters https://www.smithsonianchannel.com/shows/air-disasters