18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?
#2Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?
#3> In its certification test, Airbus was required to prove that its A350 aircraft can be evacuated in less than 90 seconds.
I literally laughed out loud at this.
People can't seem to orderly exit a plane under regular conditions, without panic, without smoke, without an incline. I'd love to see the videos of evacuations during the certification process.
I also have to wonder if they have a representative group of body sizes, age, and physical ability in their tests.
Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?
#4I was pleased to hear, but a little surprised that, according to the article, the captain found some more passengers on a final sweep. It would be tempting not to take the risk.
Short of asking a pilot how they could make a calculated risk, I found the following. The International Society of Air Safety (9.11) notes that there "when practical, the commander may decide to check the entire passenger cabin before leaving the aeroplane." The section also notes some potential disadvantages of the flight crew helping with the evacuation.
https://www.isasi.org/Documents/Library/raes-emergency-evacu...
Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?
#5I 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.
Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?
#6It was 18 minutes until the last person, the captain, evacuated. [1] Until an investigative report is released, and the timeline thoroughly reconstructed, it is bettee to ignore all such articles.
Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?
#7I 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 ENT…
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.
Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?
#8I 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 ENT…
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.
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.
Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 prob…
Exactly. Someone would have looked out the window, seen no apparent fire, and opened the slide right into a runaway engine
Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?
#10> In its certification test, Airbus was required to prove that its A350 aircraft can be evacuated in less than 90 seconds. I literally laughed out loud at this. People can't seem to orderly exit a plane under regular conditions, without panic, without smoke, without an incline. I'd love to see the videos of evacuations during the certification process. I also have to wonder if they have a representative group of body…
[deleted]