Passengers stuck on plane wing during evacuation
 

From the BBC ....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-54194947

No slides on E-Jet overwing exits? Didn't realize this myself until now. A 737 feels high enough.

No slides on most (if not all) narrow body overwing exits! If your life is in danger, don’t make a fuss. Just get off!

That could explain the difference between certification tests done with manufacturer employees in their 30s having to be jumping 1,3 m . and real life , where flaps cannot be lowered an pax above 65 having to jump 2 m ..:hmm:

Capt Fathom

People freeze upon the immediacy of danger. The only way around this is to provide them an obvious way to get off the wing, or be led by a trained person on the wing with them. Maybe they should start asking the passengers seated alongside the exit if they actually know what to do and are willing to lead the way. Not just help opening the door.

From the report, the E195 requires Flap 5 selection to assist with the pax getting off the wing. Interestingly the report doesn't recommend any changes to ensure sufficient hydraulic power for long enough to achieve this. In this instance it looks like the crew selected Flaps 5, shut the engines down and the flaps never made it to their selected position.

To be fair 1.8m (the legal requirement) is a big drop when you are considering the whole population... elderly people, disabled, children etc. But I guess it's an emergency egress. The other issue seemed to be that they didn't recognise the markings on the wind directing them backwards. Imagine the confusion if it was a dark and stormy night, howling winds and very slippery wing surface. It's also clear the majority had not read the safety briefing card:= - maybe a mandatory quiz before departure for all the pax on evacuation procedures :8

Looking at other popular narrow bodies, the A318/319/320 has overwing exit slides. (A321 doesn't have overwing exits at all)

The 737 has "flaps 40" as one of the evacuation checklist items I believe in order to meet the 1.8m requirement.

It's all in the report! Including the recommendations to EASA and FAA.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...FBEJ_10-20.pdf

Pity that the Flap 5 position isn’t shown in the report, thus allowing comparison with the Flap 1 position photo

Presumably the absence of any such recommendation is based on the fact that the checklist requires the flight crew to confirm that the flaps have already travelled to the selected setting.

There is full coverage of CAT evacuation issues in this excellent RAeS specialist paper: www.aerosociety.com/emergency-evacuation-of-commercial-passenger-aeroplanes

I understand the 1.8m max height requirement originated in the US, which seems a bit arbitrary until you consider that 1.8m= 6ft, which makes it definitely arbitrary rather than science-based in my book. Whatever, it is still a long way to jump, especially if you are small or not in the first flush of youth. It is just like the view of (eg) a 3m or 10m diving board - from the ground/water looking up, jumping appears easy enough, whereas you get a very different perspective looking down from the board itself.

Back in 1998 at Manchester, on a Continental DC10, the port overwing slide only partially inflated forcing passengers back into the cabin to find another exit. Fortunately the fire was in the tail engine and was quickly extinguished.
BBC
Report

The checklist does not call for that at all.
(I've never flown an embraer, but just going by the checklist as published in the report, Fig.5, Page 17)

On the same page, Fig 4 entitled "Emergency Evacuation actions from operator’s operations manual" lists "Confirms Flaps 5" as an F/O action.

It seems ironic to survive a rapid descent from 35,000 feet and stop, only to break one’s crown in the last 7 feet or so to terra very firma.

Good point Dave. However the manufacturer says "the normal flow of actions allows enough time for the flaps to reach a position beyond flap 1 and even if this did not occur, the drop to the ground from the flap 1 setting was still within with the maximum of six feet certification requirement", so why would they need the FO to check the flaps had reached the selected position before shutting down the engines?

Also, the report is also unsure of the meaning of "Confirms Flap 5", stating only that it "suggests that this action requires the flight crew to confirm that the flaps have already travelled to flap 5".

DaveReid have you flown the type? (no disrespect if not, just trying to shine some light on type specific operations). Do operators of the type normally teach to wait a few seconds before shutting the engines down and continuing with the evacuation? I would be surprised if they were expecting you to sit on your hands for a few seconds waiting for the flaps.

I was also very surprised to read that the captain reported when practicing RTO/evacuation in the sim that they would normally select Flap 5 when the decision to reject was taken - I've never seen any actions on an RTO that aren't geared towards keeping the aircraft on the runway and stopping as quickly and safely as possible.

Ambiguously written/taught procedures are one of my bugbears, and it just annoys me that this hasn't been cleared up in the recommendations of the report.

White Van Driver

if you haven’t flown the aircraft in question, why are you making such bold statements as “the c/l does not call for that at all”. You know that the proper use of a checklist requires training? This includes the study of expanded procedures amongst other things.

You are quite correct about the study of expanded procedures etc. Have you flown the aircraft in question? If so, what do the expanded procedures say? The AAIB didn't mention anything about expanded procedures and left the meaning of the checklist item "Confirm Flaps 5" quite unclear. It seems that there is some ambiguity here and I find that quite frustrating given the importance of clarity in emergency procedures.

I wonder what the outcome would be if this was a "pilotless" aircraft, you know, the numpty idea that someone had to do away with pilots......

I would respectfully disagree.

As a general rule, if the meaning of a word in a particular context differs from everyday usage, it should be defined for the user.

"Confirms" isn't so defined, therefore it's reasonable to interpret it as the usual meaning of "to state with assurance that a fact is true".

While neither I, you nor the AAIB can get inside the head(s) of the person(s) who wrote the Actions list, I'd suggest that it's significant that it says, for example:

"Sets thrust levers to idle"

"Sets the passenger seat belt signs to OFF"

but, rather than "Sets Flaps 5", it states "Confirms Flaps 5".

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e4282c1cb4.jpg

VIKING9

A computer would have executed the checklist perfectly, waiting for flaps 5 to be indicated before shutting down?