I find it quite sad that (with notable exceptions - thanks for useful data Xenia et al.) so many people here feel the need to get abusive and insulting in response to what seem to me to be reasonable questions.
I don't claim to know all the answers, and I had hoped that by entering into a dialogue with the professionals here I would be able to learn more about this area. It is sad that so many of you seem to think that the people who pay your wages are somehow not entitled to enquire about things affecting their safety.
Personally, if anyone happens to want to know more about my profession (which happens to be in telecoms) I am happy to try to explain as best I can. I am sure, for example, that if my answer to
"Why is it that making phone calls from Hong Kong to London is cheaper than from Birmingham?" was
"Don't worry your pretty little head about it - it's far too complicated and you couldn't possibly understand it"
then you would quite rightly get upset.
Stewardess007: I am sure there are many things that you don't know either, but my response to this is to try to learn, not to abuse people for doing so.
Anyway, in a final attempt to return to the topic...
Sick Squid: unfortunately the NTSB study you mentioned doesn't seem to be available from their website (although newer ones covering ground evacuation are). Does anyone know any online sources of data on ditching of commercial jets?
On the question of the head cloths as smoke filters, doesn't anyone else think it is strange that passengers are not informed of this possible use - maybe not in the demo/briefing, but at least on the safety card?