4 ms·

I don't care what excuses you make, eighteen minutes to evacuate a burning aircraft is completely unacceptable. There is a reason why 90 seconds to evacuate, wi

I don't care what excuses you make, eighteen minutes to evacuate a burning aircraft is completely unacceptable. There is a reason why 90 seconds to evacuate, with half the doors blocked, dimmed lighting and obstructions, is the law. I find the comments by the cabin crew union disturbing, that they "appear to perform their jobs perfectly". Three minutes to open doors is more than twice the time it can take for the ENTIRE aircraft to burn! In the event of a crash on land, you need to follow what the placards say - not the stewards, not the pilots, and certainly not your fellow passengers: look out the window for smoke, fire or other dangers, and if you do not see any then immediately open the door and evacuate. It would be nice to be able to follow the cabin crew's instructions, but as the article notes, even the US government finds their decision-making to be "poor". I'm open to change my mind if I see strong evidence to the contrary, but otherwise this looks like yet another case of that.

thesh4d0w 3y ago
If you had read about this story, you would know it was 18 minutes from the plane first touching the ground to being evacuated. This includes the time it spent careening down the runway with a massive fireball.
- klyrs 3y ago
  I like this interpretation where one should only follow the placards, ignore the pilot and crew because they're untrustworthy, and open the door to an inferno and jump in. The discrepancy between "can be evacuated in 90s in a simulated emergency" and "actually evacuated in 18min in real emergency with untrained members of the general public (with 100% survival despite the inferno)" just doesn't strike me as that problematic.
  - Arn_Thor 3y ago
    Exactly. Someone would have looked out the window, seen no apparent fire, and opened the slide right into a runaway engine
- ianburrell 3y ago
  As someone commented, it was until the captain left the plane. I would assume that the captain could and would have left earlier if needed. I'm surprised how long he stayed with the fire. The important measurement is time from plane stopping to passengers getting off.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    One of the most important duties of a captain in an emergency is to make sure everyone else has been evacuated. His job is to be the last man off the vessel under such circumstances. I have nothing but applause for the JAL crew, what they pulled off rivals the Miracle of the Hudson.
- owenversteeg 3y ago
  If you had watched video of this story, you would know that "the time it spent careening down the runway with a massive fireball" was measured in seconds.
eesmith 3y ago
As others have pointed out, the 18 minutes include things like stopping the plane. But I want to focus on where you got your ideas. The placards should be telling you to follow the directions of the crew members, and only if they are not available to assist should you do anything. Here's the relevant US law, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/135.129 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/135.129 > (d) Each certificate holder shall include on passenger information cards, presented in the language in which briefings and oral commands are given by the crew, at each exit seat affected by this section, information that, in the event of an emergency in which a crewmember is not available to assist, a passenger occupying an exit seat may use if called upon to perform the following functions: > (1) Locate the emergency exit; > (2) Recognize the emergency exit opening mechanism; > (3) Comprehend the instructions for operating the emergency exit; > (4) Operate the emergency exit; > (5) Assess whether opening the emergency exit will increase the hazards to which passengers may be exposed; > (6) Follow oral directions and hand signals given by a crewmember; > (7) Stow or secure the emergency exit door so that it will not impede use of the exit; > (8) Assess the condition of an escape slide, activate the slide, and stabilize the slide after deployment to assist others in getting off the slide; > (9) Pass expeditiously through the emergency exit; and > (10) Assess, select, and follow a safe path away from the emergency exit. Notice the phrases like "in which a crewmember is not available to assist" and "Follow oral directions and hand signals given by a crewmember"? That is not at all telling you to ignore the stewards or pilots, and I think it's very bad advice. You (as a passenger) have received nowhere near the training as the crew have in how to recognize possible dangers, or to judge when it is appropriate to stay on the plane vs. leave. If you plane crash lands on an airfield, and you see no smoke, fire or other dangers, why leave the plane? Can you tell if fuel is pooling up near overheated brakes? Probably not. But you know who can? The fire fighters who don't want passengers keeping them from dumping loads of water and foam onto the scene. It's also risky to evacuate. People hurt themselves going down the slides.
- owenversteeg 3y ago
  >As others have pointed out, the 18 minutes include things like stopping the plane. This took under a minute. >The placards should be telling you to follow the directions of the crew members, and only if they are not available to assist should you do anything. The placards on almost every aircraft I have flown indicate that in a crash, you should look for smoke, fire, debris or water, and then open the door immediately thereafter. That is because it is good safety practice. You are correct that everywhere in the world you're also instructed to follow crewmember instructions (obviously) but I'm sorry, I'm not going to die because of crew incompetence. Had you followed crewmember instructions you would have likely died with the majority of the passengers in the Sewol disaster, for example, or the majority of the children in the Okawa disaster. I have never needed to disobey a steward's order, but if it is between my life and disobeying a steward I will choose my life every time. >Can you tell if fuel is pooling up near overheated brakes? Probably not. In virtually every crash of this severity the answer to "is there fuel leaking near overheated components" is "yes", which is exactly why it is important to evacuate the aircraft as quickly as possible. >But you know who can? The fire fighters Not if they're not there - yet another example of the gross incompetence displayed by this crash was the slow response by the airport fire services. >It's also risky to evacuate. People hurt themselves going down the slides. It's much riskier to stay inside of a plane that will burn to the ground, which is indeed what happened here.
inferiorhuman 3y ago
Less than half (3 of 8) of the exits were usable in part because one of the engines could not be shut down. Thankfully nobody took your approach and jumped into the intake of a running turbofan engine. The pilots and cabin crew are in a far better position to assess the dangers than you are.
- owenversteeg 3y ago
  >Thankfully nobody took your approach and jumped into the intake of a running turbofan engine. You may be surprised to learn that the exhaust presents a greater danger than the intake on a running turbofan engine. You may be even more surprised to learn that there was some thought put into the emergency placards in the aircraft; the evacuation slides on modern aircraft such as the A350 are certified for use even with the engines still running, although for obvious reasons they should be shut down if possible. That is why both the fore and aft center slides are angled away from the engines.
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    You may be surprised to note that neither the FAA nor EASA mention running engines at all in the requirements for emergency exits and associated hardware (ETSO-C69c, 14CFR25.810).
    - owenversteeg 3y ago
      I am not surprised at all, years ago I spent too much one-on-one time with a paper copy of 14 CFR :) There is less in those few thousand pages than most would think. Simply because the CFRs do not require something do not make it untrue. The fact of the matter is that your original comment was simply incorrect, you would not be sucked into a turbofan engine if you use the emergency slides fore of the engines.
owenversteeg 3y ago
There are a number of comments critical of mine, mentioning various irrelevant factors. The time the plane spent in motion once on the ground was measured in seconds, the emergency exits are rated to be used even with the engines idling (no, you will not be "sucked into an engine"), and the plane is certified to be evacuated in under 90 seconds with half the exits randomly blocked as they were in this test. The test is, in fact, run with a representative public sample, half the exits randomly blocked, a high density configuration, lights out in the cabin, and debris on the floor. What many fail to appreciate is that seconds matter when a plane crash lands. It is guaranteed to have a large amount of incredibly hot, damaged components sitting next to a large amount of jet fuel. Only a few years ago a jet was engulfed in flames only seconds after landing (Aeroflot 1492) and the slow evacuation, this time caused by selfish passengers opening overhead bins, caused deaths. Even still, half of the jet was able to evacuate in between 55-70 seconds depending on who you ask. Eighteen minutes is an eternity when you are sitting in a death trap that can kill everyone inside in seconds - there's a reason 90 seconds is the legal maximum evacuation time.
- eesmith 3y ago
  Let's see, the WSJ says "It isn’t clear how long it took for the airliner to reach a standstill or when the formal evacuation order was given." while you say the former was "measured in seconds." Just how many seconds did it take? I can't find anyone giving a number, and all I can determine is "more than 20 seconds" since that's the longest relevant video clip I can see. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/key-moments-tokyo-runway-collision-2024-01-05/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/key-moments-tokyo... suggests it took two-to-three minutes. (Yes, that can be measured as around 150 seconds, but a day can be measured in seconds too.) You say "with half the exits randomly blocked as they were in this test", but the WSJ article points out the A350 certification test calls for four exits, while in this crash "Only two of the plane’s exits at the front and one at the back were initially deemed safe—one less than the total used in the certification tests." and "The exit at the back was also likely available only temporarily before the flames had spread, leaving passengers near the back of the plane needing to reach the front two exits". Clearly this was more difficult than the certification test scenario. You also failed to point out how the tests are run with a level floor, while this crash ended up with was nose down, resulting in a sloped floor that was likely harder to traverse. How much harder? I don't know - maybe the certification test should include this case? You also failed to note that the 18 minutes includes the extra time for the captain to do a final sweep plane. That check is not required for certification. How much time did it add? I presume the captain had knowledge that it was safe to make that check. And of course everyone in the certification test knows what's about to happen. > What many fail to appreciate is that seconds matter when a plane crash lands. Why do you think people don't fully appreciate that? It's even in the WSJ article: “The 90 second rule is there for a reason, because that aircraft can obviously be incinerated in seconds,” said Sara Nelson, international president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA What you don't appreciate is that evacuation may not be the best thing to do after a plane crash, and as an untrained passenger you are not as well qualified to make that decision as the crew. And most certainly the placards do not tell you to ignore the cabin crew, as you believe. > and the slow evacuation, this time caused by selfish passengers opening overhead bins, caused deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_1492#Evacuation_with_luggage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_1492#Evacuatio... says that's speculation, and "According to TASS, citing a law enforcement source, the majority of passengers in the tail end of the aircraft had practically no chance of rescue; many of them did not have time to unfasten their seat belts. He added that those passengers from the tail section of the aircraft who managed to escape had moved to the front of the aircraft before it stopped, and that he had no confirmation that retrieval of luggage had slowed the evacuation." In any case, even if true, your point is only relevant if the crew had delayed calling for evacuation, while the video shows essentially immediate evacuation after the Aeroflot plane stopped moving. And you know who sits next to the doors that were used? The cabin crew. > the legal maximum evacuation time Legal maximum evacuation time for certification. The law does not require that everyone be able to evacuate from any crash within 90 seconds. In the Gottröra crash in Sweden there were a few passengers who were stuck in the plane wreckage for over half an hour until emergency services could arrive. https://youtu.be/OR0WfTUDj-U?t=1421 https://youtu.be/OR0WfTUDj-U?t=1421 .
marlene123 3y ago
Follow what the placards..ok you have never evacuated a plane..I have.You have to asses the situation which they did and realized some doors could not be opened so had to divert passengers to other doors..if you read it the PA system went down and they used megaphones to direct people

thesh4d0w 3y ago

If you had read about this story, you would know it was 18 minutes from the plane first touching the ground to being evacuated. This includes the time it spent careening down the runway with a massive fireball.

klyrs 3y ago
I like this interpretation where one should only follow the placards, ignore the pilot and crew because they're untrustworthy, and open the door to an inferno and jump in. The discrepancy between "can be evacuated in 90s in a simulated emergency" and "actually evacuated in 18min in real emergency with untrained members of the general public (with 100% survival despite the inferno)" just doesn't strike me as that problematic.
- Arn_Thor 3y ago
  Exactly. Someone would have looked out the window, seen no apparent fire, and opened the slide right into a runaway engine
ianburrell 3y ago
As someone commented, it was until the captain left the plane. I would assume that the captain could and would have left earlier if needed. I'm surprised how long he stayed with the fire. The important measurement is time from plane stopping to passengers getting off.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  One of the most important duties of a captain in an emergency is to make sure everyone else has been evacuated. His job is to be the last man off the vessel under such circumstances. I have nothing but applause for the JAL crew, what they pulled off rivals the Miracle of the Hudson.
owenversteeg 3y ago
If you had watched video of this story, you would know that "the time it spent careening down the runway with a massive fireball" was measured in seconds.

eesmith 3y ago

As others have pointed out, the 18 minutes include things like stopping the plane. But I want to focus on where you got your ideas. The placards should be telling you to follow the directions of the crew members, and only if they are not available to assist should you do anything. Here's the relevant US law, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/135.129 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/135.129 > (d) Each certificate holder shall include on passenger information cards, presented in the language in which briefings and oral commands are given by the crew, at each exit seat affected by this section, information that, in the event of an emergency in which a crewmember is not available to assist, a passenger occupying an exit seat may use if called upon to perform the following functions: > (1) Locate the emergency exit; > (2) Recognize the emergency exit opening mechanism; > (3) Comprehend the instructions for operating the emergency exit; > (4) Operate the emergency exit; > (5) Assess whether opening the emergency exit will increase the hazards to which passengers may be exposed; > (6) Follow oral directions and hand signals given by a crewmember; > (7) Stow or secure the emergency exit door so that it will not impede use of the exit; > (8) Assess the condition of an escape slide, activate the slide, and stabilize the slide after deployment to assist others in getting off the slide; > (9) Pass expeditiously through the emergency exit; and > (10) Assess, select, and follow a safe path away from the emergency exit. Notice the phrases like "in which a crewmember is not available to assist" and "Follow oral directions and hand signals given by a crewmember"? That is not at all telling you to ignore the stewards or pilots, and I think it's very bad advice. You (as a passenger) have received nowhere near the training as the crew have in how to recognize possible dangers, or to judge when it is appropriate to stay on the plane vs. leave. If you plane crash lands on an airfield, and you see no smoke, fire or other dangers, why leave the plane? Can you tell if fuel is pooling up near overheated brakes? Probably not. But you know who can? The fire fighters who don't want passengers keeping them from dumping loads of water and foam onto the scene. It's also risky to evacuate. People hurt themselves going down the slides.

owenversteeg 3y ago
>As others have pointed out, the 18 minutes include things like stopping the plane. This took under a minute. >The placards should be telling you to follow the directions of the crew members, and only if they are not available to assist should you do anything. The placards on almost every aircraft I have flown indicate that in a crash, you should look for smoke, fire, debris or water, and then open the door immediately thereafter. That is because it is good safety practice. You are correct that everywhere in the world you're also instructed to follow crewmember instructions (obviously) but I'm sorry, I'm not going to die because of crew incompetence. Had you followed crewmember instructions you would have likely died with the majority of the passengers in the Sewol disaster, for example, or the majority of the children in the Okawa disaster. I have never needed to disobey a steward's order, but if it is between my life and disobeying a steward I will choose my life every time. >Can you tell if fuel is pooling up near overheated brakes? Probably not. In virtually every crash of this severity the answer to "is there fuel leaking near overheated components" is "yes", which is exactly why it is important to evacuate the aircraft as quickly as possible. >But you know who can? The fire fighters Not if they're not there - yet another example of the gross incompetence displayed by this crash was the slow response by the airport fire services. >It's also risky to evacuate. People hurt themselves going down the slides. It's much riskier to stay inside of a plane that will burn to the ground, which is indeed what happened here.

inferiorhuman 3y ago

Less than half (3 of 8) of the exits were usable in part because one of the engines could not be shut down. Thankfully nobody took your approach and jumped into the intake of a running turbofan engine. The pilots and cabin crew are in a far better position to assess the dangers than you are.

owenversteeg 3y ago
>Thankfully nobody took your approach and jumped into the intake of a running turbofan engine. You may be surprised to learn that the exhaust presents a greater danger than the intake on a running turbofan engine. You may be even more surprised to learn that there was some thought put into the emergency placards in the aircraft; the evacuation slides on modern aircraft such as the A350 are certified for use even with the engines still running, although for obvious reasons they should be shut down if possible. That is why both the fore and aft center slides are angled away from the engines.
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  You may be surprised to note that neither the FAA nor EASA mention running engines at all in the requirements for emergency exits and associated hardware (ETSO-C69c, 14CFR25.810).
  - owenversteeg 3y ago
    I am not surprised at all, years ago I spent too much one-on-one time with a paper copy of 14 CFR :) There is less in those few thousand pages than most would think. Simply because the CFRs do not require something do not make it untrue. The fact of the matter is that your original comment was simply incorrect, you would not be sucked into a turbofan engine if you use the emergency slides fore of the engines.

owenversteeg 3y ago

There are a number of comments critical of mine, mentioning various irrelevant factors. The time the plane spent in motion once on the ground was measured in seconds, the emergency exits are rated to be used even with the engines idling (no, you will not be "sucked into an engine"), and the plane is certified to be evacuated in under 90 seconds with half the exits randomly blocked as they were in this test. The test is, in fact, run with a representative public sample, half the exits randomly blocked, a high density configuration, lights out in the cabin, and debris on the floor. What many fail to appreciate is that seconds matter when a plane crash lands. It is guaranteed to have a large amount of incredibly hot, damaged components sitting next to a large amount of jet fuel. Only a few years ago a jet was engulfed in flames only seconds after landing (Aeroflot 1492) and the slow evacuation, this time caused by selfish passengers opening overhead bins, caused deaths. Even still, half of the jet was able to evacuate in between 55-70 seconds depending on who you ask. Eighteen minutes is an eternity when you are sitting in a death trap that can kill everyone inside in seconds - there's a reason 90 seconds is the legal maximum evacuation time.

eesmith 3y ago
Let's see, the WSJ says "It isn’t clear how long it took for the airliner to reach a standstill or when the formal evacuation order was given." while you say the former was "measured in seconds." Just how many seconds did it take? I can't find anyone giving a number, and all I can determine is "more than 20 seconds" since that's the longest relevant video clip I can see. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/key-moments-tokyo-runway-collision-2024-01-05/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/key-moments-tokyo... suggests it took two-to-three minutes. (Yes, that can be measured as around 150 seconds, but a day can be measured in seconds too.) You say "with half the exits randomly blocked as they were in this test", but the WSJ article points out the A350 certification test calls for four exits, while in this crash "Only two of the plane’s exits at the front and one at the back were initially deemed safe—one less than the total used in the certification tests." and "The exit at the back was also likely available only temporarily before the flames had spread, leaving passengers near the back of the plane needing to reach the front two exits". Clearly this was more difficult than the certification test scenario. You also failed to point out how the tests are run with a level floor, while this crash ended up with was nose down, resulting in a sloped floor that was likely harder to traverse. How much harder? I don't know - maybe the certification test should include this case? You also failed to note that the 18 minutes includes the extra time for the captain to do a final sweep plane. That check is not required for certification. How much time did it add? I presume the captain had knowledge that it was safe to make that check. And of course everyone in the certification test knows what's about to happen. > What many fail to appreciate is that seconds matter when a plane crash lands. Why do you think people don't fully appreciate that? It's even in the WSJ article: “The 90 second rule is there for a reason, because that aircraft can obviously be incinerated in seconds,” said Sara Nelson, international president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA What you don't appreciate is that evacuation may not be the best thing to do after a plane crash, and as an untrained passenger you are not as well qualified to make that decision as the crew. And most certainly the placards do not tell you to ignore the cabin crew, as you believe. > and the slow evacuation, this time caused by selfish passengers opening overhead bins, caused deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_1492#Evacuation_with_luggage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_1492#Evacuatio... says that's speculation, and "According to TASS, citing a law enforcement source, the majority of passengers in the tail end of the aircraft had practically no chance of rescue; many of them did not have time to unfasten their seat belts. He added that those passengers from the tail section of the aircraft who managed to escape had moved to the front of the aircraft before it stopped, and that he had no confirmation that retrieval of luggage had slowed the evacuation." In any case, even if true, your point is only relevant if the crew had delayed calling for evacuation, while the video shows essentially immediate evacuation after the Aeroflot plane stopped moving. And you know who sits next to the doors that were used? The cabin crew. > the legal maximum evacuation time Legal maximum evacuation time for certification. The law does not require that everyone be able to evacuate from any crash within 90 seconds. In the Gottröra crash in Sweden there were a few passengers who were stuck in the plane wreckage for over half an hour until emergency services could arrive. https://youtu.be/OR0WfTUDj-U?t=1421 https://youtu.be/OR0WfTUDj-U?t=1421 .

marlene123 3y ago

Follow what the placards..ok you have never evacuated a plane..I have.You have to asses the situation which they did and realized some doors could not be opened so had to divert passengers to other doors..if you read it the PA system went down and they used megaphones to direct people