Are evacuations really as dangerous as some people would have us believe?

[MEL_Traveller]

We now have video footage of a third (slide) evacuation in almost as many days. The latest being an AA flight into Denver: https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=34&v=onxbArThaHI

The other two are those of TK and DL.

The latest one has attracted some criticism because some passengers took hand baggage with them and some comments have suggested people with hand luggage should be charged with a criminal offence for disobeying crew instructions.

Perhaps is interesting is that none of the evacuations seemed to incur any injuries of note - despite the common belief that evacuations will necessarily cause lots of injuries. Of course they may... but I think these three examples show they're not a given by any stretch.

On the broader issue, personally I'd rather be out of a plane than in it if there is any possibility of danger. I'd rather the flight crew didn't err on the side of caution under the absolute belief that an evacuation will cause more injuries than having people stay on board.

There is the argument that flight deck crew are in the best position to determine when and when not to order an evacuation. But we know that's not always the case.

If the flight crew have caused or contributed to the accident, are they necessarily in the best position to determine what happens next? Should cabin crew have a greater role in deciding - on their own initiative - to conduct an evacuation? Should passengers be forced to stay on a plane if they don't want to be there?

 

[Milboo]

I'm going to leave most of your post as it makes no sense but on the issue of taking hand luggage when evacuating.

- Direction is always to leave luggage - it's an offence to disobey a crew direction
- Fluffing around with retrieving your hand luggage (especially in overpacked overhead bins) delays the timely evacuation of the plane.
- A suitcase could damage the slide (same reason you're directed to remove heels) - how awesome would you feel that you took your suitcase but damaged the slide meaning it could not be used by following passengers to evacuate.

Hand luggage will always be returned to passengers following an evacuation.

People can prepare for the chance of evacuation by having their wallet (arguably not necessary) and phone in the seat pocket and they can be quickly put in a pocket or tucked in clothes as you're evacuating.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'm going to leave most of your post as it makes no sense but on the issue of taking hand luggage when evacuating.

- Direction is always to leave luggage - it's an offence to disobey a crew direction
- Fluffing around with retrieving your hand luggage (especially in overpacked overhead bins) delays the timely evacuation of the plane.
- A suitcase could damage the slide (same reason you're directed to remove heels) - how awesome would you feel that you took your suitcase but damaged the slide meaning it could not be used by following passengers to evacuate.

Hand luggage will always be returned to passengers following an evacuation.

People can prepare for the chance of evacuation by having their wallet (arguably not necessary) and phone in the seat pocket and they can be quickly put in a pocket or tucked in clothes as you're evacuating.

My post was not to do with baggage... that was more of a side observation. Rather it was to point out that slide evacuations are not necessarily as dangerous as some believe.

The three recent evacuations, for all intents and purposes injury free, might suggest that 'potential injury' (from the slide evacuation) should not necessarily be such a big factor in flight crew making a determination whether or not to evacuate.

 

[The Flying Brick]

For those that are interested, the House of Representatives Infrastructure & Communications Standing Committee did an Inquiry in 2011 into the ratio of cabin crew members on aircraft.

The inquiry spent quite a bit of time questioning expert witnesses on the dangers of aircraft evacuations and the need for adequate numbers of crew to be on hand to manage the situation.

The full report can be found at House of Representatives Committees – ic/cabincrew/report.htm – Parliament of Australia and the transcript from the Sydney hearing which directly address the dangers involved in evacuating an aircraft can be found at ParlInfo - Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications : 19/05/2011 : Ratio of cabin crew members to passengers on aircraft

Here's a quote from the Sydney hearing to think about:-

Mr NEVILLE: Just as a safety thing, if the high heel gets caught in the fabric on the slide then you are in all sorts of trouble.

Ms Maunsell : "Yes. There was an accident in Manilla where a women going down the slide caught her high heel in the slide and not only did she ruin the slide, but she ended up head first on the tarmac and died. From that point on there were a lot of things. There have been a lot of things over the years where people have tried to change what people do."

BTW - 3 1/2 years on and still no Government response to the Inquiry report :evil:

 

[meloz]

Throw in some flame and smoke, that might change peoples reactions.

Meloz

 

[PineappleSkip]

I'm sure I read about a 'normal' (probanly not the right adjective) expected injury rate from slide evacuations, one if the reasons why QF32 wasn't evacuated when it landed in SIN

Cheers skip

 

[Sprucegoose]

Any evacuation can be dangerous, depends on the circumstances. AA obviously could do something with the services of the Qantas CSM on QF32.

 

[harvyk]

Q. Are evacuations really as dangerous as some people would have us believe?

A. Yes...

Next question?

Let's just expand on that idea for a second, when airbus needed to get it's A380 certified, they did an evacuation test, they had 33 injuries out of 873 pax. That's an injury rate of 3.8%, in a controlled test where there was no fire / water / uneven ground or other dangerous obstacle, and the likelihood of a panicky pax would have been reduced (since every pax volunteered to be involved in the test)

What makes the airplane evacuation test so dangerous?

Most injuries are from friction burns a pax skin makes contact with the slide, but there is also the possibility of sprains or broken bones when leaving the slide (seriously, since you where a kid, how often have you gone down a slippery dip?) there is also the risk of crush injuries at the door of the plane as panicky people push towards to exits, and the same down the bottom pax don't get out of the way quickly enough once they exit the slide.

So whilst it's great that there has been a couple of examples of textbook evacuations, don't assume that it'll always be the case, and don't assume that getting off a plane is the safest thing to be doing. Ultimately the crew have the training to determine risks and to properly weigh up risks when determining if an evac should go ahead.

 

[Denali]

Ill be honest, in the situation posted above, I would be inclined to grab my handbag (passports, cash, cards ect) but leave my carryon. Hearing the FAs repeatedly yell leave your belongs, jump, side - yeah, I wouldn't be hanging around to get my roller-bag, back pack, whatever. Kudos to the FAs, they were clear and loud.

I also suspect I would be one of the 3.8% injured as I whale around on the ground after the slide down, I don't move as fast as I once use to.

I remember once watching a doco on the Hudson river landing and a pax was saying it wasn't until he was out on the wing did he realise he forgot to bring his floatation device - Im guessing there are many ways of being injured in a evac.

 

[dajop]

Also surely the bigger the plane the bigger the drop, the greater the likelihood of friction burn and gravity related injuries. It's a long way down from an A380 or 747!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I guess what I'm concerned about are two specific circumstances.

The Asiana crash... the pilot initially said not to evacuate because he was unsure of what was happening. Best position to determine whether or not to evacuate? Maybe not. The cabin crew were and did.

QF1, the pilots did not evacuate the aircraft immediately, because, as was later determined, they didn't have all the information they needed (so one assumes erred on the side of caution). Best position to determine whether or not to evacuate?

Should cabin crew be given more responsibility to determine an evacuation? (I know it's a tricky issue... but they arguably have a better knowledge of what's actually happening in the cabin.)

The initial report from the QF32 flight crew was that an evacuation was decided against because there was a risk some passengers might get injured... although the accident report discusses more that the outside conditions were a factor.

Given the recent evacuations, I would hope 'consideration for injury going down a slide' would take a back seat, especially where the aircraft is coming to a stop relatively in tact, and on flat ground (as per TK, AA and DL).

CX examples - a 747 evacuated at shanghai resulted in 2 leg fractures out of 370 on board (.005%) and CX780 an a330 at HKG resulted in 1 fracture out of 322 on board (.003%). (Other minor injuries were treated at the airport, or passengers were otherwise discharged form hospital within a couple of hours.)

On a side note... reading the Asiana accident report, it was noted that a crew member noted the unusual approach and shouted to her colleague to adopt the brace position just prior to impact. I continue to have concerns that gate-to-gate IFE for passengers will mean they could miss a potential command of this nature issued by cabin crew... people could (a) be distracted by the program they're watching, and (b) may not be able to hear with their headphones on.

 

[marki]

Q. Are evacuations really as dangerous as some people would have us believe?

A. ............,,Yes.........

........and don't assume that getting off a plane is the safest thing to be doing. Ultimately the crew have the training to determine risks and to properly weigh up risks when determining if an evac should go ahead.

There have been cases where crew don't know best case in point - British Airtours Flight 28M was an international passenger flight, originating from Manchester International Airport's Runway 24 in Manchester, England, en route to Corfu International Airport on the Greek island of Corfu. On 22 August 1985, this flight was being flown by Boeing 737–236 G-BGJL, ("River Orrin"), when take-off from Manchester Airport was aborted due to engine failure on take-off.

The standard operating procedures that were in place at the time also contributed to making matters worse. Thinking a tyre had burst and following those procedures, the flight crew braked slowly and cleared the runway. The slow braking of the aircraft allowed the fire to spread and reduced the time available for evacuation. Since this incident, all flight crew now check wind direction before making their decision on which direction to turn. It is also standard procedure for ATC to advise the crew of wind direction and speed in the event of fire on board an aircraft.




Accident summary
Date22 August 1985, 06:12 BST
SummaryFire on the ground caused by uncontained engine failure
SiteManchester Airport
Manchester, England
53°20′45″N 2°17′36″W
Passengers131
Crew6
Injuries (non-fatal)15 (serious)
Fatalities55 (54 on site, 1 subsequently in hospital (53 passengers, 2 crew))
Survivors82
Aircraft typeBoeing 737–236 Advanced
Aircraft nameRiver Orrin (formerly Goldfinch)
OperatorBritish Airtours
RegistrationG-BGJL
Flight originManchester Airport
DestinationCorfu International Airport


So don't park your plane such the wind increases the flames on to them!

 

[harvyk]

CX examples - a 747 evacuated at shanghai resulted in 2 leg fractures out of 370 on board (0.5%) and CX780 an a330 at HKG resulted in 1 fracture out of 322 on board (0.3%). (Other minor injuries were treated at the airport, or passengers were otherwise discharged form hospital within a couple of hours.)

Just fixed those percentages for you. Of course whilst those are ultimately very low numbers, if the evacuation was not necessary the counter argument could be made that it would have been 0% injuries had they been able to use stairs or an aero-bridge. It's purely a numbers game, what decision will end up with the best outcome.

Also yes pilots don't always have the most amount of information, however in any emergency situation, you do ideally want someone to be in control and responsible for handling that situation. Otherwise you could easily get into the situation of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, and when you've got an already dangerous situation, that could cost lives.

On a side note... reading the Asiana accident report, it was noted that a crew member noted the unusual approach and shouted to her colleague to adopt the brace position just prior to impact. I continue to have concerns that gate-to-gate IFE for passengers will mean they could miss a potential command of this nature issued by cabin crew... people could (a) be distracted by the program they're watching, and (b) may not be able to hear with their headphones on.

Gate-to-gate IFE I don't think is so much of a problem. If a PA to evacuate is made, then the IFE will pause during that announcement, and in some cases the evacuate command will even come through the headphones. What is a risk however is with the advent of allowing personal electronic devices to be used from gate-to-gate, especially if the pax is wearing good noise reducing / cancelling headsets.

That is part of the reason why I will always take my headphones off during take-offs and landings (the other part is I love hearing jet engines roar into life).

 

[harvyk]

There have been cases where crew don't know best case in point - British Airtours Flight 28M was an international passenger flight, originating from Manchester International Airport's Runway 24 in Manchester, England, en route to Corfu International Airport on the Greek island of Corfu. On 22 August 1985, this flight was being flown by Boeing 737–236 G-BGJL, ("River Orrin"), when take-off from Manchester Airport was aborted due to engine failure on take-off.

The standard operating procedures that were in place at the time also contributed to making matters worse. Thinking a tyre had burst and following those procedures, the flight crew braked slowly and cleared the runway. The slow braking of the aircraft allowed the fire to spread and reduced the time available for evacuation. Since this incident, all flight crew now check wind direction before making their decision on which direction to turn. It is also standard procedure for ATC to advise the crew of wind direction and speed in the event of fire on board an aircraft.




Accident summary
Date22 August 1985, 06:12 BST
SummaryFire on the ground caused by uncontained engine failure
SiteManchester Airport
Manchester, England
53°20′45″N 2°17′36″W
Passengers131
Crew6
Injuries (non-fatal)15 (serious)
Fatalities55 (54 on site, 1 subsequently in hospital (53 passengers, 2 crew))
Survivors82
Aircraft typeBoeing 737–236 Advanced
Aircraft nameRiver Orrin (formerly Goldfinch)
OperatorBritish Airtours
RegistrationG-BGJL
Flight originManchester Airport
DestinationCorfu International Airport


So don't park your plane such the wind increases the flames on to them!

True that, however the crew is going to be in a much better position to make judgement calls based on their training and experience than the pax sitting in 23A.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Gate-to-gate IFE I don't think is so much of a problem. If a PA to evacuate is made, then the IFE will pause during that announcement,

it will not come through the PA in circumstances such as OZ.

A cabin crew member making an instant decision to shout 'brace' will not be done through the PA. Those able to hear will be able to act. Cabin crew may not have time have time to reach behind them, pick up the phone, push the button, and issue the command.

It's something they'll shout, unaided, as they did in the OZ accident. There was no command issued from the flight-deck.

 

[welltravelled]

1. No cabin luggage or accessories should be taken during an evacuation, they are bulky and impede the evacuation process, also could become projectiles down the slide.
2. On your broader issue, this is not for you to decide. Passengers and Cabin Crew rely on information and instructions given by tech crew aka pilots. if you chose to disobey these instructions - penalties can apply. As a passenger you will not have access to all the information, so you are best to wait and listen. Imagine the implications if an evacuation were initiated but were unaware of a brake fire - on aircraft like the B737 the escape path over the wing is backwards and down the flaps, directly above the brakes! Worse still, cabin crew initiate an evacuation and the engines have not been secured?
3.Why do you know this is not always the case, passengers do not have radios to talk to ATC, fire fighting services, ground services, or have access to the many hundreds of systems the aircraft computers monitor?
4.There is a situation where cabin crew can initiate an evacuation however these are governed by strict guidelines.

History shows, that injuries will occur during an evacuation, so I guess it comes down to how carefully the passenger has listened to the safety brief and studied their briefing card.

 

[jb747]

The pilots will very quickly have assessments from both inside the aircraft, and from outside. In almost all situations they will be in the best position to make any decisions with regard to when an evacuation occurs, and the need for it to happen. And it won't be instantly the aircraft comes to a halt, unless you feel the need to evacuate into a still running engine.

It's a very long way down from either deck on 380 or 747. You WILL hurt people. Perhaps not many, but if you don't actually need to hurt anyone, then why do so.

One might be tempted to suggest that the evacuations over the past few days weren't all necessary.

 

[Mike65]

Bottom line is I wouldn't want passengers second guessing any safety instructions. Really annoys me when I hear the clicking of people take their seat belts off before the plane docks, sometimes even while still on high speed taxiways. Too dumb to realise the consequence of sharp braking let alone an accident. Never actually figured out what it achieves either - they can be loosened very quickly and easily without having to take them off. Also, I've had someone sitting next to me making a mobile phone call during take off. He was a real a*hole when I pointed out the safety breach too. I know it may not have any consequence but the point is passengers shouldn't treat the safety messages as optional or pick and choose which ones they'll obey.

 

[Milboo]

The pilots will very quickly have assessments from both inside the aircraft, and from outside. In almost all situations they will be in the best position to make any decisions with regard to when an evacuation occurs, and the need for it to happen. And it won't be instantly the aircraft comes to a halt, unless you feel the need to evacuate into a still running engine.

It's a very long way down from either deck on 380 or 747. You WILL hurt people. Perhaps not many, but if you don't actually need to hurt anyone, then why do so.

One might be tempted to suggest that the evacuations over the past few days weren't all necessary.

Thank you.

I have no hesitation in placing my faith in the pilots to make the right decisions for the safety of the passengers.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

3.Why do you know this is not always the case, passengers do not have radios to talk to ATC, fire fighting services, ground services, or have access to the many hundreds of systems the aircraft computers monitor?
4.There is a situation where cabin crew can initiate an evacuation however these are governed by strict guidelines.

We know '3' because it's contained in official accident reports, or accounts from pilots in accident reports.

'4' however raises an interesting issue. Cabin crew will have several instances where they can initiate an evacuation, perhaps the OZ accident fell into one of those categories and cabin crew should not have sought advice from the flight deck? However, maybe that was down to OZ policy and procedures.

Just as we assume a pilot does not intentionally cause an accident (although it may be down to their negligence), we have to assume a member of cabin crew (or even a passenger) is not going to initiate an evacuation without good reason or belief. To dangle the stick of 'penalties might apply' could be counter to the best interests of safety. (There have been recent reports where a passenger spotted ice on the wing before take-off, and another who reported flap damage, only spotted once the flaps were extended prior to take-off). Assuming pilots are aware of all issues could be dangerous.