Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3


1195 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 230

Trusted

  Reply # 2017639 17-May-2018 13:47
Send private message quote this post

hairy1:

 

FireEngine:

 

frankv:

 

FireEngine:

 

...so if we ditch in the Tasman who opens the window seats? I know there are FAA regs worldwide that able-bodied peeps only must sit they as they are an emergency exit...

 

 

Just a point, FAA regs only apply to aircraft flying in US territory. I guess that NZ CAA and CASA regs would apply to Tasman flights. With perhaps some kind of ICAO input?

 

 

True - and I probably knew that if I had thought about it, interestingly from the NZ CAA website:

 

https://www.caa.govt.nz/passengers/cabin-safety-for-passengers/

 

"

 

Seats by Emergency Exits

 

Some passengers may not be permitted to sit in a seat row next to an emergency exit. This is to ensure that if the emergency exit is needed, the exit can be opened and the aircraft evacuated as quickly as possible.

 

The following passengers are among those who should not be allocated, or directed to, seats by emergency exits:

 

  • passengers with physical or mental impairment or disability to the extent that they would have difficulty in moving quickly if asked to do so;
  • passengers who have significant sight or hearing impairment to the extent that it might be difficult for them to respond to instructions quickly;
  • passengers who, because of age, sickness or ill health, have difficulty in moving quickly and or have difficulty in responding to instructions;
  • passengers who, because of physical size, have difficulty in moving quickly;
  • children (whether accompanied or not) and infants;
  • passengers travelling with assistance dogs."

 

 

Hard to equate this section of the rules (which aim to "This is to ensure that if the emergency exit is needed, the exit can be opened and the aircraft evacuated as quickly as possible."), with an airline policy to charge extra for those seats and if necessary have no-one sitting in them...

 

 

The aircraft itself is certified by the FAA and/or EASA for evacuations. If you are interested you can search for "Emergency Evacuation Test" on Youtube.

 

Overlaying that is an Airlines Operating Certificate (AOC) and their Exposition (how they will operate within the rules). The aviation rules are laid down by each country. Virgin operate on an Australian AOC so the CASA rules apply. The New Zealand CAA rules you quote above don't apply to Virgin (although without looking are probably the same).

 

The rules around the overwing exits focus on the ability for anyone to open these exits easily in an emergency. The 737-800 exit is pretty cool as it is hinged and pops up out of the way so that the passengers don't have to lift the exit out of the way.

 

If you are really keen on further reading there is some good information from the FAA on their safety review they completed of emergency exits in 2000 here:

 

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS0001.pdf

 

Cheers, Matt.

 

 

 

 

I'll have a look - thanks! :-)





Regards FireEngine


26340 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5918

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2017649 17-May-2018 14:19
Send private message quote this post

hairy1:

 

The 737-800 exit is pretty cool as it is hinged and pops up out of the way so that the passengers don't have to lift the exit out of the way.

 

 

Is there any aspect of the Airbus that's actually better than the Boeing apart from the pilot's tray table? smile


 
 
 
 


Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software


1195 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 230

Trusted

  Reply # 2017659 17-May-2018 14:37
Send private message quote this post

hairy1:

 

If you are really keen on further reading there is some good information from the FAA on their safety review they completed of emergency exits in 2000 here:

 

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS0001.pdf

 

Cheers, Matt.

 

 

Thats a fascinating report, I'll read properly at leisure but already interesting that the 90sec test requires the use of only 1/2 of the required exits - whereas elsewhere the study of actual evacuations indicates that on average 50% of door and only 30% of over wing exits are usable/opened in the event of a live evacuation.

 

Against that background, making those over wing exits inoperable by not seating passengers next to them seems potentially "unwise" - even a simple single engine fire scenario would mean 50% of the remaining door exits would be unusable...meaning the evacuation taking place with a mere 25% of the exits instead of 1/2 with the studies indicating that vastly increases the evacuation time...

 

Thanks for the link.





Regards FireEngine


Minimalist
5470 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 408

Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2017689 17-May-2018 14:41
3 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

FireEngine: making those over wing exits inoperable by not seating passengers next to them seems potentially "unwise" - even a simple single engine fire scenario would mean 50% of the remaining door exits would be unusable...meaning the evacuation taking place with a mere 25% of the exits instead of 1/2 with the studies indicating that vastly increases the evacuation time...


Why does nobody in the seat make them inoperable? Somebody who was seated seats or rows away can open them when they get there ???

26340 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5918

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2017701 17-May-2018 15:11
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

FireEngine:

 

hairy1:

 

If you are really keen on further reading there is some good information from the FAA on their safety review they completed of emergency exits in 2000 here:

 

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS0001.pdf

 

Cheers, Matt.

 

 

Thats a fascinating report, I'll read properly at leisure but already interesting that the 90sec test requires the use of only 1/2 of the required exits - whereas elsewhere the study of actual evacuations indicates that on average 50% of door and only 30% of over wing exits are usable/opened in the event of a live evacuation.

 

Against that background, making those over wing exits inoperable by not seating passengers next to them seems potentially "unwise" - even a simple single engine fire scenario would mean 50% of the remaining door exits would be unusable...meaning the evacuation taking place with a mere 25% of the exits instead of 1/2 with the studies indicating that vastly increases the evacuation time...

 

Thanks for the link.

 

 

I watched a fascinating documentary years ago about the British Airtours incident at Manchester in the '80s where 55 people died due to a fire on the runway. That incident resulted in some pretty significant changes to evacuation procedures and aircraft interiors.

 

There were a lot of trials done after this to simulate people exiting aircraft, and one trial involved paying people on the order they got out of the aircraft with people further away from exit rows getting paid more. This created the exact sort of panic they were after as people rushed for the exit.

 

One problem with many exit simulations is they're trained people who know exactly what they're supposed to do so the stats are always good.




1195 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 230

Trusted

  Reply # 2017702 17-May-2018 15:11
Send private message quote this post

scottjpalmer:
FireEngine: making those over wing exits inoperable by not seating passengers next to them seems potentially "unwise" - even a simple single engine fire scenario would mean 50% of the remaining door exits would be unusable...meaning the evacuation taking place with a mere 25% of the exits instead of 1/2 with the studies indicating that vastly increases the evacuation time...


Why does nobody in the seat make them inoperable? Somebody who was seated seats or rows away can open them when they get there ???

 

There is a whole bunch of human factors as to whether anyone will go and open them, whether they can get there (smoke, blocked aisle), and the usual human belief that "someone else will". As a minimum there is a very real delay to them being operated even with switched on passengers heading straight there. Those are exactly the reasons attendants are seated at all primary door exits.

 

Easier and safer to just have suitable passengers sat there, screened to operate them as per the regs and ready to do so immediately.

 

The FAA report dates from 2000, there is zero mention in it of "no passengers seated in emergency exit seats" as a scenario, either in studied evacuations or in testing - because probably back then there wasn't the prevalence of seat-pricing for the extra leg room, increasing the likelihood of no-one sat there due to commercial factors.

 

Of course the FAA mandated the extra legroom in the first place to speed passenger flow through the exits when required. Delaying the opening of the exit goes completely counter to that aim. 

 

 





Regards FireEngine




1195 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 230

Trusted

  Reply # 2017706 17-May-2018 15:17
Send private message quote this post

sbiddle:

 

There were a lot of trials done after this to simulate people exiting aircraft, and one trial involved paying people on the order they got out of the aircraft with people further away from exit rows getting paid more. This created the exact sort of panic they were after as people rushed for the exit.

 

One problem with many exit simulations is they're trained people who know exactly what they're supposed to do so the stats are always good.

 

 

Including I think studies that showed that the delay in donning smoke hoods, even if they were made available, would cost more lives than the smoke hoods would save...seconds count <that> much.

 

Floor-level exit lighting was introduced as a result of that tragic event I believe.

 

That FAA report does criticise some studies for having participant carry out as many as 30 evacuations, by which time they are not representative of the evacuation-novice that is a real-life scenario.





Regards FireEngine


Minimalist
5470 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 408

Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2017711 17-May-2018 15:20
Send private message quote this post

Easier and safer to just have suitable passengers sat there, screened to operate them as per the regs and ready to do so immediately.


And the person seated beside the window freaking out and subsequently impeding egress through that window is another human factor. A cabin crew member asking "Are you happy to help?" is hardly a robust screening process, especially if Joe Bloggs has paid good money to secure that leg room seat so naturally says "yes".

3903 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 649

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2017736 17-May-2018 15:29
Send private message quote this post

hairy1:

 

The rules around the overwing exits focus on the ability for anyone to open these exits easily in an emergency. The 737-800 exit is pretty cool as it is hinged and pops up out of the way so that the passengers don't have to lift the exit out of the way.

 

 

I have always wondered about this aspect of the 737-800. I think the classic series 737s had plug type emergency exits which are impossible to open during flight due to cabin pressure. On the 800 series (and, presumably, 600/700/900 series) what is to stop the door from flying open mid flight if a latch fails or an errant passenger releases it?


2546 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 263


  Reply # 2017741 17-May-2018 15:35
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

alasta:

 

hairy1:

 

The rules around the overwing exits focus on the ability for anyone to open these exits easily in an emergency. The 737-800 exit is pretty cool as it is hinged and pops up out of the way so that the passengers don't have to lift the exit out of the way.

 

 

I have always wondered about this aspect of the 737-800. I think the classic series 737s had plug type emergency exits which are impossible to open during flight due to cabin pressure. On the 800 series (and, presumably, 600/700/900 series) what is to stop the door from flying open mid flight if a latch fails or an errant passenger releases it?

 

 

A sodding great lock that only disengages on power loss or ground trigger it seems :D

 

 

 

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=750925 




1195 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 230

Trusted

  Reply # 2017743 17-May-2018 15:41
Send private message quote this post

scottjpalmer:
Easier and safer to just have suitable passengers sat there, screened to operate them as per the regs and ready to do so immediately.


And the person seated beside the window freaking out and subsequently impeding egress through that window is another human factor. A cabin crew member asking "Are you happy to help?" is hardly a robust screening process, especially if Joe Bloggs has paid good money to secure that leg room seat so naturally says "yes".

 

Of course not, no-one is suggesting it is, the report makes it clear the benefits of briefing passengers properly and personally (that scenario had a 100% "no difficulty" result), vs no briefing (which resulted in 50% no difficulty as reported by passengers who evacuated). Obviously if you leave it to general passengers from other rows you have both the delay in them getting to the exit and the fact that they are by definition unbriefed with a slower/more difficult exit when they do get there.

 

At the end of the day, those exits represent and additional 1.3 exits on average, in evacuations where on average only 2 door exits are available.

 

So would you rather have 3.3 exits to get out of or just 2?





Regards FireEngine


Minimalist
5470 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 408

Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2017771 17-May-2018 16:10
Send private message quote this post

And in a study everyone listens very intently to the briefing and then gets to put it into practice without the real effects of a real accident. Stats are nice for design and certification.

I get the feeling we could go on forever on this.

I'll take whichever hole in the fuselage is nearest and clearest. If there happens to be a door or window in the way I'm fortunate enough to be quite experienced in opening them 😁

6124 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3090


  Reply # 2017774 17-May-2018 16:18
Send private message quote this post

How is this thread "cars bikes and boats"?

 

How come planes don't have airbags?  


Minimalist
5470 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 408

Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2017777 17-May-2018 16:28
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

How is this thread "cars bikes and boats"?


How come planes don't have airbags?  



The main forum name is Transport.

My A320 this morning had an airbag.

26340 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5918

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2017779 17-May-2018 16:31
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

 

How is this thread "cars bikes and boats"?

 

How come planes don't have airbags?  

 

 

Lots do.

 

Most business class seats have them, and on the newer A320's seat 1A has them due to the risk of smashing your head against the door.

 

In regular economy seats (with a row in front) they don't really offer any increased protection over the regular brace position.

 

 


1 | 2 | 3
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

UpStarters - the New Zealand tech and innovation story
Posted 21-May-2018 09:55


Lightbox updates platform with new streaming options
Posted 17-May-2018 13:09


Norton Core router launches with high-performance, IoT security in New Zealand
Posted 16-May-2018 02:00


D-Link ANZ launches new 4G LTE Dual SIM M2M VPN Router
Posted 15-May-2018 19:30


New Panasonic LUMIX FT7 ideal for outdoor: waterproof, dustproof
Posted 15-May-2018 19:17


Ryanair Goes All-In on AWS
Posted 15-May-2018 19:14


Te Papa and EQC Minecraft Mod shakes up earthquake education
Posted 15-May-2018 19:12


Framing Facebook: It’s not about technology
Posted 14-May-2018 16:02


Vocus works with NZ Police and telcos to stop scam calls
Posted 12-May-2018 11:12


Vista Group signs Aeon Entertainment, largest cinema chain in Japan
Posted 11-May-2018 21:41


New Privacy Trust Mark certifies privacy and customer control
Posted 10-May-2018 14:16


New app FIXR connects vehicle owners to top Mechanics at best prices
Posted 10-May-2018 14:13


Nutanix Beam gives enterprises control of the cloud
Posted 10-May-2018 14:09


D-Link ANZ launches Covr Seamless Wi-Fi System
Posted 10-May-2018 14:06


Telstra, Intel and Ericsson demonstrate a 5G future for esports
Posted 10-May-2018 13:59



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.