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

If you had watched video of this story, you would know that "the time it spent careening down the runway with a massive fireball" was measured in seconds.

There are a number of comments critical of mine, mentioning various irrelevant factors. The time the plane spent in motion once on the ground was measured in seconds, the emergency exits are rated to be used even with the engines idling (no, you will not be "sucked into an engine"), and the plane is certified to be evacuated in under 90 seconds with half the exits randomly blocked as they were in this test. The test is, in fact, run with a representative public sample, half the exits randomly blocked, a high density configuration, lights out in the cabin, and debris on the floor.

What many fail to appreciate is that seconds matter when a plane crash lands. It is guaranteed to have a large amount of incredibly hot, damaged components sitting next to a large amount of jet fuel. Only a few years ago a jet was engulfed in flames only seconds after landing (Aeroflot 1492) and the slow evacuation, this time caused by selfish passengers opening overhead bins, caused deaths. Even still, half of the jet was able to evacuate in between 55-70 seconds depending on who you ask. Eighteen minutes is an eternity when you are sitting in a death trap that can kill everyone inside in seconds - there's a reason 90 seconds is the legal maximum evacuation time.

Let's see, the WSJ says "It isn’t clear how long it took for the airliner to reach a standstill or when the formal evacuation order was given." while you say the former was "measured in seconds." Just how many seconds did it take? I can't find anyone giving a number, and all I can determine is "more than 20 seconds" since that's the longest relevant video clip I can see. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/key-moments-tokyo... suggests it took two-to-three minutes. (Yes, that can be measured as around 150 seconds, but a day can be measured in seconds too.)

You say "with half the exits randomly blocked as they were in this test", but the WSJ article points out the A350 certification test calls for four exits, while in this crash "Only two of the plane’s exits at the front and one at the back were initially deemed safe—one less than the total used in the certification tests." and "The exit at the back was also likely available only temporarily before the flames had spread, leaving passengers near the back of the plane needing to reach the front two exits".

Clearly this was more difficult than the certification test scenario.

You also failed to point out how the tests are run with a level floor, while this crash ended up with was nose down, resulting in a sloped floor that was likely harder to traverse. How much harder? I don't know - maybe the certification test should include this case?

You also failed to note that the 18 minutes includes the extra time for the captain to do a final sweep plane. That check is not required for certification. How much time did it add? I presume the captain had knowledge that it was safe to make that check.

And of course everyone in the certification test knows what's about to happen.

> What many fail to appreciate is that seconds matter when a plane crash lands.

Why do you think people don't fully appreciate that? It's even in the WSJ article: “The 90 second rule is there for a reason, because that aircraft can obviously be incinerated in seconds,” said Sara Nelson, international president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA

What you don't appreciate is that evacuation may not be the best thing to do after a plane crash, and as an untrained passenger you are not as well qualified to make that decision as the crew.

And most certainly the placards do not tell you to ignore the cabin crew, as you believe.

> and the slow evacuation, this time caused by selfish passengers opening overhead bins, caused deaths

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_1492#Evacuatio... says that's speculation, and "According to TASS, citing a law enforcement source, the majority of passengers in the tail end of the aircraft had practically no chance of rescue; many of them did not have time to unfasten their seat belts. He added that those passengers from the tail section of the aircraft who managed to escape had moved to the front of the aircraft before it stopped, and that he had no confirmation that retrieval of luggage had slowed the evacuation."

In any case, even if true, your point is only relevant if the crew had delayed calling for evacuation, while the video shows essentially immediate evacuation after the Aeroflot plane stopped moving. And you know who sits next to the doors that were used? The cabin crew.

> the legal maximum evacuation time

Legal maximum evacuation time for certification. The law does not require that everyone be able to evacuate from any crash within 90 seconds.

In the Gottröra crash in Sweden there were a few passengers who were stuck in the plane wreckage for over half an hour until emergency services could arrive. https://youtu.be/OR0WfTUDj-U?t=1421 .

I am not surprised at all, years ago I spent too much one-on-one time with a paper copy of 14 CFR :) There is less in those few thousand pages than most would think.

Simply because the CFRs do not require something do not make it untrue. The fact of the matter is that your original comment was simply incorrect, you would not be sucked into a turbofan engine if you use the emergency slides fore of the engines.

> 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 . 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.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 with details at 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.