Live data from Hacker News

18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?

wsj.com

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?

#11
post #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…

[deleted]

Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?

#12
post #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…

Not the A350, but here's a clip of the A380's certification process in action: https://youtu.be/G_8hbsWKoOU?si=9y_8YaXSsLCbphxY

Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?

#13

I 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.

As someone commented, it was until the captain left the plane. I would assume that the captain could and would have left earlier if needed. I'm surprised how long he stayed with the fire.

The important measurement is time from plane stopping to passengers getting off.

Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?

#14
post #12
post #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…

Not the A350, but here's a clip of the A380's certification process in action: https://youtu.be/G_8hbsWKoOU?si=9y_8YaXSsLCbphxY

Now offer a randomly selected 10% of the passengers a $10,000 bonus if they exit in the first half of passengers, and another 10% a $500 bonus if they can get any piece of their luggage off with them.

Tell the FA's that the captain will signal the evacuation, and then don't let him.

Fill the cabin air with fake smoke, and have noise equal to one side of the engines running at go-around power outside the plane.

Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?

#15

I 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…

As others have pointed out, the 18 minutes include things like stopping the plane.

But I want to focus on where you got your ideas. The placards should be telling you to follow the directions of the crew members, and only if they are not available to assist should you do anything.

Here's the relevant US law, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/135.129

> (d) Each certificate holder shall include on passenger information cards, presented in the language in which briefings and oral commands are given by the crew, at each exit seat affected by this section, information that, in the event of an emergency in which a crewmember is not available to assist, a passenger occupying an exit seat may use if called upon to perform the following functions:

> (1) Locate the emergency exit;

> (2) Recognize the emergency exit opening mechanism;

> (3) Comprehend the instructions for operating the emergency exit;

> (4) Operate the emergency exit;

> (5) Assess whether opening the emergency exit will increase the hazards to which passengers may be exposed;

> (6) Follow oral directions and hand signals given by a crewmember;

> (7) Stow or secure the emergency exit door so that it will not impede use of the exit;

> (8) Assess the condition of an escape slide, activate the slide, and stabilize the slide after deployment to assist others in getting off the slide;

> (9) Pass expeditiously through the emergency exit; and

> (10) Assess, select, and follow a safe path away from the emergency exit.

Notice the phrases like "in which a crewmember is not available to assist" and "Follow oral directions and hand signals given by a crewmember"?

That is not at all telling you to ignore the stewards or pilots, and I think it's very bad advice.

You (as a passenger) have received nowhere near the training as the crew have in how to recognize possible dangers, or to judge when it is appropriate to stay on the plane vs. leave.

If you plane crash lands on an airfield, and you see no smoke, fire or other dangers, why leave the plane? Can you tell if fuel is pooling up near overheated brakes? Probably not. But you know who can? The fire fighters who don't want passengers keeping them from dumping loads of water and foam onto the scene.

It's also risky to evacuate. People hurt themselves going down the slides.

Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?

#16
post #14
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the A350, but here's a clip of the A380's certification process in action: https://youtu.be/G_8hbsWKoOU?si=9y_8YaXSsLCbphxY

Now offer a randomly selected 10% of the passengers a $10,000 bonus if they exit in the first half of passengers, and another 10% a $500 bonus if they can get any piece of their luggage off with them. Tell the FA's that the captain will signal the evacuation, and then don't let him. Fill the cabin air with fake smoke, and have noise equal to one side of the engines running at go-around power outside the plane.

Reminds me of Samsung proudly proclaiming that they tested their foldable OLED phone with a robot to thousands of open-close cycles… in a clean room, inside a dust-free glass enclosure.

Now try… ten. Just ten open-close cycles after sitting down at the beach.

Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?

#17

Earlier 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.

As someone commented, it was until the captain left the plane. I would assume that the captain could and would have left earlier if needed. I'm surprised how long he stayed with the fire. The important measurement is time from plane stopping to passengers getting off.

One of the most important duties of a captain in an emergency is to make sure everyone else has been evacuated. His job is to be the last man off the vessel under such circumstances.

I have nothing but applause for the JAL crew, what they pulled off rivals the Miracle of the Hudson.

Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?

#18

I 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…

Less than half (3 of 8) of the exits were usable in part because one of the engines could not be shut down. Thankfully nobody took your approach and jumped into the intake of a running turbofan engine.

The pilots and cabin crew are in a far better position to assess the dangers than you are.

Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?

#19
I've been flying a lot recently, and have been thinking about why it is so slow to get off of a plane sometimes.

The majority of the slowdown seems to be from people who aren't ready to move down the aisle blocking those who are trying to go down the aisle.

If people would wait until a gap to enter the aisle to grab their bags the whole thing would go a lot faster.

In an emergency you're not supposed to grab your bags, but somehow I imagine this behavior to still play a role.

Re: 18 Minutes to Evacuate a Burning Plane: Success Story or Cautionary Tale?

#20

I 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…

Less than half (3 of 8) of the exits were usable in part because one of the engines could not be shut down. Thankfully nobody took your approach and jumped into the intake of a running turbofan engine. The pilots and cabin crew are in a far better position to assess the dangers than you are.

>Thankfully nobody took your approach and jumped into the intake of a running turbofan engine.

You may be surprised to learn that the exhaust presents a greater danger than the intake on a running turbofan engine. You may be even more surprised to learn that there was some thought put into the emergency placards in the aircraft; the evacuation slides on modern aircraft such as the A350 are certified for use even with the engines still running, although for obvious reasons they should be shut down if possible. That is why both the fore and aft center slides are angled away from the engines.

Post reply on HN