Toronto collision: passengers insist on taking carryons

[Melburnian1]

There are media reports about how an empty SunWing (WG) plane apparently collided with WS2425 of WestJet as the latter was almost at the gate at YYZ:

'It was chaos': Planes collide on Toronto airport tarmac

Passengers used the emergency slides safely, but alighting was slowed as some insisted on taking carryon with them.

This raises the question: are the '90 second' tests that the USA's FAA or others carry out to certify passenger planes unrealistic?

There doesn't seem to be any way to enforce passengers not taking carryon with them in such rare, but challenging circumstances.

With canada and Australia often referred to as 'very similar' - similar GDP per capita, distances, infrastructure even if different climates - there may be some lessons for organisations here like CASA and ATSB as well as all our airlines.

In similar circumstances would some passengers in Australia fumble for carryon items and even open overhead bins to retrieve heavier items?

Note also the alleged lack of awareness of WS passengers that an evacuation was about to get underway.

 

[RooFlyer]

In similar circumstances would some passengers in Australia fumble for carryon items and even open overhead bins to retrieve heavier items?

Yes, without any doubt at all.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

There are media reports about how an empty SunWing (WG) plane apparently collided with WS2425 of WestJet as the latter was almost at the gate at YYZ:

'It was chaos': Planes collide on Toronto airport tarmac

Passengers used the emergency slides safely, but alighting was slowed as some insisted on taking carryon with them.

This raises the question: are the '90 second' tests that the USA's FAA or others carry out to certify passenger planes unrealistic?

There doesn't seem to be any way to enforce passengers not taking carryon with them in such rare, but challenging circumstances.

With canada and Australia often referred to as 'very similar' - similar GDP per capita, distances, infrastructure even if different climates - there may be some lessons for organisations here like CASA and ATSB as well as all our airlines.

In similar circumstances would some passengers in Australia fumble for carryon items and even open overhead bins to retrieve heavier items?

Note also the alleged lack of awareness of WS passengers that an evacuation was about to get underway.

Do we know how long the evacuation took? The flight was full and it would be interesting to see how quickly everyone got off the plane, hand luggage included (regulations require less than 90 seconds through half the exits).

It's not a Canadian or Aussie thing. Most major incidents in the last few years have seen pax taking cabin luggage. But not all those flights were full (BA at LAS for example was fairly lightly loaded).

Tests and certification should be run again. Particularly with ultra-high density configurations (3-4-3 on the 777) which have narrow aisles. Taking bags is the new norm.

 

[Melburnian1]

MEL_Traveller, I agree. We need the hard evidence but my perception is that there is no way on some configurations with nine or 10-across seating in Y and a plane loaded to say 85 per cent seat occupancy that '90 seconds' is achievable.

You, me and everyone else rooting around for glasses,smartphones and everything else left in seat pockets let alone bags under the seat in front or in an overhead compartment must add many seconds to the evacuation time, and then one has the issue of those in window seats having to wait for one or two others to finish looking for personal items and then extricate themselves into what could be a crowded aisle with others having started to panic.

Adrenalin may kick in but that may not help a lot if the person in front of one in the aisle is a slow moving 76 year old.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

MEL_Traveller, I agree. We need the hard evidence but my perception is that there is no way on some configurations with nine or 10-across seating in Y and a plane loaded to say 85 per cent seat occupancy that '90 seconds' is achievable.

You, me and everyone else rooting around for glasses,smartphones and everything else left in seat pockets let alone bags under the seat in front or in an overhead compartment must add many seconds to the evacuation time, and then one has the issue of those in window seats having to wait for one or two others to finish looking for personal items and then extricate themselves into what could be a crowded aisle with others having started to panic.

Adrenalin may kick in but that may not help a lot if the person in front of one in the aisle is a slow moving 76 year old.

What we know is that previous slide evacuations have been successful. There haven't been reports of death relating to the slow egress from the plane. But that comes down to a number of factors... whether or not there's smoke or fire in the cabin, length of time before the cabin is breached, number of pax on board, number of pax looking for items/bags. Passengers aren't entirely stupid either. The greater the emergency probably the greater likelihood pax will leave stuff behind.

A 3-4-3 configuration 777 still has the same of fewer passengers than a 747, with the same number of exits, so on that basis the pax-to-door ration probably isn't significantly different. But what effect does the narrower aisles have? IIRC some simulations for new variants of existing aircraft are done by computer simulation. It would be interesting to see the parameters of those simulations.

 

[jb747]

What we know is that previous slide evacuations have been successful. There haven't been reports of death relating to the slow egress from the plane. But that comes down to a number of factors... whether or not there's smoke or fire in the cabin, length of time before the cabin is breached, number of pax on board, number of pax looking for items/bags. Passengers aren't entirely stupid either. The greater the emergency probably the greater likelihood pax will leave stuff behind.

Well, if you take your luggage at all, you're worse than stupid.

This is the accident you should be thinking of... British Airtours Flight 28M - Wikipedia

It's quite likely that initially the event won't seem too bad, and people will start to grab their luggage. Then once you have a burn through, or severe smoke ingress, they'll start dumping the luggage in the aisles. As such they'll slow the passengers behind them. It's the ultimate 'me' thing to do. Personally, I'd love to see some way of locking the luggage bins.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Well, if you take your luggage at all, you're worse than stupid.

This is the accident you should be thinking of... British Airtours Flight 28M - Wikipedia

It's quite likely that initially the event won't seem too bad, and people will start to grab their luggage. Then once you have a burn through, or severe smoke ingress, they'll start dumping the luggage in the aisles. As such they'll slow the passengers behind them. It's the ultimate 'me' thing to do. Personally, I'd love to see some way of locking the luggage bins.

Not everyone reacts with an emergency in a text book manner. It's unlikely the desire to retrieve bags is conscious action on behalf of passengers to slow the evacuation. The answer is to design safety with the assumption some people, for whatever reason, will try and retrieve their possessions.

Locking of luggage bins has a number of potential problems. People may spend more time trying to open the locked bin than they would retrieving the bag. A manual locking system may be problematic in terms of crew time (and presumably able to be manually unlocked by pax). An electronic system could hamper access to overhead bins for a phone fire in-flight if the system malfunctioned.

I suspect there might be some correlation between the percentage of passengers taking bags and the intensity of the emergency. It would be interesting to see the statistics. There were a number of aircraft and cabin design issues with the 737 at the time of the Airtours incident. My initial re-reading of the accident report doesn't seem to talk about cabin baggage?

What we still don't have are smoke hoods.

 

[oz_mark]

Tests and certification should be run again. Particularly with ultra-high density configurations (3-4-3 on the 777) which have narrow aisles. Taking bags is the new norm.

Whie you can try to make the tests as real as possible (and the A380 test was done in the dark, with debris in the aisle), the people knew it was going to happen. The tests cannot account for human behavious in a real situation.

The other thing to bear in mind with the tests is that people do actually get injured during the tests, so there is a tendency not to run them more than you need to.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The other thing to bear in mind with the tests is that people do actually get injured during the tests, so there is a tendency not to run them more than you need to.

But the question is whether they are getting run at all? Test-subject injury is a consideration, but perhaps a small price to pay if it saves lives later.

The question is whether a high-density narrow-aisle aircraft can sustain an effective flow of passengers to the doors. Or is there the potential to create bottle necks that contributed to the loss of life in the Airtours accident?

Perhaps it's time for a rethink the parameters of the tests - simulated or real - and whether they reflect actual conditions. The Emirates accident and evacuation at Dubai in August 2016 showed perhaps one (maybe two) of the slides were able to be used as intended. Some were closed due to smoke, but others didn't fare well in the wind: https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/ePublication/admin/iradmin/Lists/Incidents Investigation Reports/Attachments/90/2016-2016 - Preliminary Report, AAIS Case AIFN-0008-2016 - A6-EMW.pdf The report suggests the pilots did a final check of the cabin for remaining passengers around nine minutes after the initial impact.

Flying is very safe, but airlines' claims that 'safety is their number one priority' often seems to extend only to what is mandated by law. After that commercial considerations kick in.

 

[jb747]

What we still don't have are smoke hoods.

And you'll never get them. Nor will you need one if you don't hang around trying to retrieve luggage.

 

[kiwitripper64]

I love the way people stopped to video the evacuation.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And you'll never get them. Nor will you need one if you don't hang around trying to retrieve luggage.

There are some quite small versions available, without large filters on the side. Not sure of their effectiveness, but with modern nano-fiber maybe there's a solution. Smoke hoods may have application for in flight smoke in the cabin, and on the ground too if crew are tardy in ordering an evacuation, or perhaps for unforeseen events during evacuations such as slide failures or bottlenecks created by narrow aisles.

 

[ButFli]

Tests and certification should be run again. Particularly with ultra-high density configurations (3-4-3 on the 777) which have narrow aisles. Taking bags is the new norm.

The tests are run on the highest density seating configuration that an aircraft is certified for. If an aircraft is flying with a certain seating configuration, the type has passed the test with that configuration or with one of higher density.

The 90 second evacuation requirement is under test conditions. Yes, many real life evacuations take longer than 90 seconds. That does not mean the seating configuration used would not pass the test.

 

[BAM1748]

And you'll never get them. Nor will you need one if you don't hang around trying to retrieve luggage.

Only providing no one else is hanging around either......

 

[Skyring]

Personally, I'd love to see some way of locking the luggage bins.

I'd love to see it too. Every evacuation that has been filmed has included some passengers wheeling their bags across the tarmac. There'll always be somebody who breaks the rules to get their bag, or video the drama and with all cabin crew busy, who will stop them? And once one person does it, everyone else will think it's okay.

There are really only two periods when there is an immediate opportunity for evacuation. Takeoff and landing. Locking overhead bins between (say) end of safety demonstration and seatbelt sign off, and seatbelt sign on for landing and arrival at gate shouldn't impact existing passenger expectations. During climb, cruise, and descent, there's zero chance of evacuation.

It would have to be some sort of remote locking and unlocking system, because cabin crew are busy enough at such times, and loading them up with even more work means that when time gets tight some tasks won't get done. Sometimes on a half-hour flight between Canberra and Sydney the crew is pretty much constantly in action, and they are asked to prepare the cabin for landing before they have finished serving out the tea and coffee. So having a crew member walk up and down each aisle manually locking and unlocking bins is not likely to work well.

If there is some sort of emergency, then likely there will be even less time - and a correspondingly greater chance that the system will be required.

Someone must have thought about this previously. Every other item of cabin equipment and procedure has been thought out and designed and engineered to the last millimetre. So what's the impediment, I wonder?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

a failure in the locking mechanism could mean a fire in one of the overheads couldn’t be accessed.

What if a phone battery on fire triggered a short circuit locking the bins which couldn’t be overridden? What is the default position in the event of an electrical power failure? locked or unlocked? if locked, what happens if the plane arrives normally at a gate and the power goes out? no one can leave the plane? And if it defaults to unlocked, you’ve defeated the purpose of having the mechanism in the first place.

I’m not sure every procedure has been fully considered. Gate to gate IFE being one example.

 

[jb747]

As long as there is a mechanical way for it to be opened by the crew there is no issue whatsoever.

 

[docjames]

I suspect the impediment (in the airlines / manufacturers eyes) is cost and weight.

+1 to the list for "should be standard".

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I suspect the impediment (in the airlines / manufacturers eyes) is cost and weight.

+1 to the list for "should be standard".

The main difficulty would be testing the theory behind the benefits of being able to lock the overhead bins.

How would it be tested? In ‘ideal condition’ evacuation tests passengers wouldn’t feel compelled to get their belongings, so you’d need to test actual behaviour in real life situations. The chances of that happening on any particular aircraft fitted with lockable bins would be minuscule.

Then there’s still the practicalities of even a manual locking system. At which point in the take-off and landing sequence are the bins locked? What happens if there’s a battery fire during that period? What if the fire melts the locking mechanism meaning the bin can’t be accessed?

What about passengers with infants who are issued infant life jackets or water cots? Where should these be stored? If the overhead is locked how would passengers access them? (It’s also not unknown for passengers to request these infant safety devices as part of their standard flight practice so they have them on hand in the event they are needed in an emergency. This kind of makes sense when you think about it, and the crew normally stow these in the overhead above the passenger’s seat.)

 

[docjames]

Agree there are "barriers" but the current situation isn't good either.

More research required.