4 ms·

>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 o

>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
> but from various passenger videos and timestamps we know it was under one minute. I have seen timestamped video for when the collision happened. Where have you seen a timestamped video showing the moment when the plane stopped? > Of course! Then why do you focus so much on "90 seconds" as if were a legal requirement or even expected time for evacuation in this scenario? Even if that should be the new target, there will be crashes like Gottröra where passengers will be stuck and require specialized equipment to evacuate. > 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. I'll quote what you wrote: "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." There are no qualifications in your statement, no "if the plane is on fire", only the blanket case "In the event of a crash". Even if the plane is on fire, it can be safer to stay on the plane. If the plane's wheel is on fire after the brakes overheat, and the fire engines are seconds away, then staying on the plane is not risky, while evacuating has a likely chance of injuries, and having people on the ground hinders the fire response. What you wrote is simply bad advice. > 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. A few paragraphs ago I quoted your exact text from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38871896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38871896 . It says exactly that, and does not imply what you say it does. No placard says anything like you suggest or imply to do. "Delay the evacuation" is incomplete. Why are they delaying it? Is it because the fire crew is working on making it safe for evacuation? Is it because they are trying to determine which exits are safe to use? Are you judging the delay relative to omniscient knowledge of the situation, relative to what a well-trained crew would decide to leave, or relative to when a passenger would think to leave? I expect a passenger is also more likely to make a mistake, and open an evacuation door when it's better to leave the door closed and use another door to evacuate. > You're citing a ... Technically I'm citing Wikipedia citing TASS citing an anonymous source. But my point isn't that it's okay to take your luggage with you. No, don't do that. I don't think anyone here disagrees. My point is that your example is not relevant to your argument concerning when as passenger should ignore the crew and initiate evacuation in their own. > Had the cards fallen slightly differently, this plane would have been entirely incinerated within those 18 minutes. Again, your 18 minutes baseline has built-in assumptions that wouldn't be relevant if the cards HAD fallen different. The captain left at the 18 minute point, after doing a last walk-through check for passengers. That means the captain, using information available to him for those exact cards, decided it was safe enough to do the walk-through. Had the cards played different, had the cabin not been safe, there would be no walk-through so the time would have been less than 18 minutes. Is Saudia 163, from nearly 50 years ago, the only example? And that's guiding your understanding of how to handle things? If there were no fatalities, what would that tell you? That the flight crew is well trained in dealing with unwarranted passenger-initiated evacuations and have managed (so far) to keep passengers same from their wrong-doing? That passengers initiate evacuations when things are generally safe, with a larger safety margin? FWIW, a search for "unwarranted passenger-initiated evacuation" finds https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A93_125.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A93_125.p... from 1993 saying "between 1983 and 1992, six passengers were seriously injured during 11 passenger-initiated evacuations that occurred because of APU torchings." Had cards fallen slightly differently, the two men "hanging on to the left wing: one to the leading edge, one to the trailing edge" while the plane was moving could have died. There was a "Ryanair engine fire in Stansted Airport in 2002, where passengers evacuated themselves onto a burning wing, despite airport fire services personnel shouting at them to return inside the aircraft and evacuate via a usable exit" quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwing_exits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwing_exits with details at https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor200437.pdf https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor200437.pdf . Had cards fallen slightly differently, they could have died. I expect there are a lot more cases like this since I found these with simple searches.

eesmith 3y ago

> but from various passenger videos and timestamps we know it was under one minute. I have seen timestamped video for when the collision happened. Where have you seen a timestamped video showing the moment when the plane stopped? > Of course! Then why do you focus so much on "90 seconds" as if were a legal requirement or even expected time for evacuation in this scenario? Even if that should be the new target, there will be crashes like Gottröra where passengers will be stuck and require specialized equipment to evacuate. > 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. I'll quote what you wrote: "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." There are no qualifications in your statement, no "if the plane is on fire", only the blanket case "In the event of a crash". Even if the plane is on fire, it can be safer to stay on the plane. If the plane's wheel is on fire after the brakes overheat, and the fire engines are seconds away, then staying on the plane is not risky, while evacuating has a likely chance of injuries, and having people on the ground hinders the fire response. What you wrote is simply bad advice. > 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. A few paragraphs ago I quoted your exact text from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38871896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38871896 . It says exactly that, and does not imply what you say it does. No placard says anything like you suggest or imply to do. "Delay the evacuation" is incomplete. Why are they delaying it? Is it because the fire crew is working on making it safe for evacuation? Is it because they are trying to determine which exits are safe to use? Are you judging the delay relative to omniscient knowledge of the situation, relative to what a well-trained crew would decide to leave, or relative to when a passenger would think to leave? I expect a passenger is also more likely to make a mistake, and open an evacuation door when it's better to leave the door closed and use another door to evacuate. > You're citing a ... Technically I'm citing Wikipedia citing TASS citing an anonymous source. But my point isn't that it's okay to take your luggage with you. No, don't do that. I don't think anyone here disagrees. My point is that your example is not relevant to your argument concerning when as passenger should ignore the crew and initiate evacuation in their own. > Had the cards fallen slightly differently, this plane would have been entirely incinerated within those 18 minutes. Again, your 18 minutes baseline has built-in assumptions that wouldn't be relevant if the cards HAD fallen different. The captain left at the 18 minute point, after doing a last walk-through check for passengers. That means the captain, using information available to him for those exact cards, decided it was safe enough to do the walk-through. Had the cards played different, had the cabin not been safe, there would be no walk-through so the time would have been less than 18 minutes. Is Saudia 163, from nearly 50 years ago, the only example? And that's guiding your understanding of how to handle things? If there were no fatalities, what would that tell you? That the flight crew is well trained in dealing with unwarranted passenger-initiated evacuations and have managed (so far) to keep passengers same from their wrong-doing? That passengers initiate evacuations when things are generally safe, with a larger safety margin? FWIW, a search for "unwarranted passenger-initiated evacuation" finds https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A93_125.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A93_125.p... from 1993 saying "between 1983 and 1992, six passengers were seriously injured during 11 passenger-initiated evacuations that occurred because of APU torchings." Had cards fallen slightly differently, the two men "hanging on to the left wing: one to the leading edge, one to the trailing edge" while the plane was moving could have died. There was a "Ryanair engine fire in Stansted Airport in 2002, where passengers evacuated themselves onto a burning wing, despite airport fire services personnel shouting at them to return inside the aircraft and evacuate via a usable exit" quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwing_exits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwing_exits with details at https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor200437.pdf https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor200437.pdf . Had cards fallen slightly differently, they could have died. I expect there are a lot more cases like this since I found these with simple searches.