6 ms·

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 se

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 .
- owenversteeg 3y ago
  >Just how many seconds did it take? We don't have the entire thing on continuous video, but from various passenger videos and timestamps we know it was under one minute. >Clearly this was more difficult than the certification test scenario. Of course! "The plane was on fire and full of toxic smoke" would honestly be a bigger issue than the not-all-that-severely tilted floor in my opinion, but either way I think anyone would agree that this is more difficult than the certification test. Honestly, I think the certification should be much stricter, given how fast planes can burn. That is a different discussion. >Why do you think people don't fully appreciate that? Because there are several comments here saying you should stay put and saying outrageous things such as that you should stay inside as you could be hurt while using the slide, which is ridiculous to me while discussing an airliner that burned to the ground shortly after evacuation. >And most certainly the placards do not tell you to ignore the cabin crew, as you believe. I never said this. I did however imply that you should ignore cabin crew if they delay evacuation of a burning plane for several minutes, which I will stand behind. To quote another comment of mine - 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. >According to TASS, citing a law enforcement source You're citing a Russian propaganda outlet citing Russian law enforcement, but thankfully we have video to disprove this, of passengers that retrieved bags stored in the overhead compartments which obviously delayed the evacuation. There were also passengers that did escape the rear, even one seated only three rows from the tail! >In any case, even if true, your point is only relevant if the crew had delayed calling for evacuation I never said that the cabin crew were an issue in the evacuation of SU1492 - I used it as an example of what can happen when evacuation is delayed for any reason. It seems like you're going somewhat crudely through my comments word by word and finding anything you can take issue at. That I "failed to note" this, or "failed to point out" that. I'm not sure that makes interesting discussion; I think the broader, more interesting discussion here is whether to sit and listen to crew for several minutes in a burning aircraft or act to escape. Had the cards fallen slightly differently, this plane would have been entirely incinerated within those 18 minutes. When seconds matter, in the case of the Sewol or the Okawa disaster or SU1492, a quick and decisive evacuation is nearly always the right course of action. In fact, we have other very similar examples of a failure to evacuate by crew that caused hundreds of fatalities - Saudia 163, for example. I am not sure if those exist for the opposite point, but I would be curious to hear of them. I have found the occasional injury but not even one death.

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 .

owenversteeg 3y ago
>Just how many seconds did it take? We don't have the entire thing on continuous video, but from various passenger videos and timestamps we know it was under one minute. >Clearly this was more difficult than the certification test scenario. Of course! "The plane was on fire and full of toxic smoke" would honestly be a bigger issue than the not-all-that-severely tilted floor in my opinion, but either way I think anyone would agree that this is more difficult than the certification test. Honestly, I think the certification should be much stricter, given how fast planes can burn. That is a different discussion. >Why do you think people don't fully appreciate that? Because there are several comments here saying you should stay put and saying outrageous things such as that you should stay inside as you could be hurt while using the slide, which is ridiculous to me while discussing an airliner that burned to the ground shortly after evacuation. >And most certainly the placards do not tell you to ignore the cabin crew, as you believe. I never said this. I did however imply that you should ignore cabin crew if they delay evacuation of a burning plane for several minutes, which I will stand behind. To quote another comment of mine - 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. >According to TASS, citing a law enforcement source You're citing a Russian propaganda outlet citing Russian law enforcement, but thankfully we have video to disprove this, of passengers that retrieved bags stored in the overhead compartments which obviously delayed the evacuation. There were also passengers that did escape the rear, even one seated only three rows from the tail! >In any case, even if true, your point is only relevant if the crew had delayed calling for evacuation I never said that the cabin crew were an issue in the evacuation of SU1492 - I used it as an example of what can happen when evacuation is delayed for any reason. It seems like you're going somewhat crudely through my comments word by word and finding anything you can take issue at. That I "failed to note" this, or "failed to point out" that. I'm not sure that makes interesting discussion; I think the broader, more interesting discussion here is whether to sit and listen to crew for several minutes in a burning aircraft or act to escape. Had the cards fallen slightly differently, this plane would have been entirely incinerated within those 18 minutes. When seconds matter, in the case of the Sewol or the Okawa disaster or SU1492, a quick and decisive evacuation is nearly always the right course of action. In fact, we have other very similar examples of a failure to evacuate by crew that caused hundreds of fatalities - Saudia 163, for example. I am not sure if those exist for the opposite point, but I would be curious to hear of them. I have found the occasional injury but not even one death.