3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThat'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 agoAll 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.