Smoke Hoods

[Legal Flyer]

After re-reading the AIR into the Manchester 737 fire on 22/8/85 as a result of another thread (in cabin crew section on bravery) I was wondering what had happened to the AIR recommendation "CAA should urgently give consideration to the formulation of a requirment for the provision of smokehoods/masks to afford passengers an effective level of protection during fires which provide a toxic environment within the aircraft cabin"?

Also what is the current view as to whether this would be a good idea?

I also seem to remember somewhere that such hoods are available for general purchase, and indeed are carried by some frequent travellers, to the apparent discomfort of certain other travellers who see them. Any info/views?

[Onan the Clumsy]

Forget the hoods. Go out and buy a turkey basting bag.

It'll survive the heat and give you enough rebreathing time to walk around a hotel ballroom.

[Legal Flyer]

I'l bear it in mind next time I'm in the supermarket - but how is it going to meet the CAA requirements for visibility ?!! Won't all that opaque foil get in the way??

Seriously, does anyone know what did happen to the recommendation, and where smoke hoods can be purchased from.

If you have read the AIR on the Manchester fire lives might well have been saved had passengers had hoods. There again even the rear attendants never managed to get theirs on.

[topcat450]

If you want one, most of the GA suppliers like Transair, harry mendelsons, AFE etc will have them - I've definatly seen them in their catalogues.

[jettesen]

My oppinion of donning a smokehood, is that they are a waste of time for pax. As crew, The most important thing in an emergency is to get the pax out ASAP. This is not going to happen if they are all trying to put on smoke hoods. They will have no idea how to put them on, and if they are busy faffing around with that, they are not moving through the cabin to get out! I think they would be a waste of time for pax.

If I remember correctly, the CAA found that they would be of no use in an already smoke filled cabin. This is because if they are donning them in a smoke filled environment, they hood will already be filled with toxic smoke which they would be breathing in until they evetually get filtered air. therefore., breathing more intense toxic fumes.

[RatherBeFlying]

Bought Chemiscape smoke hoods some years ago. They've expired now as the activated charcoal/carbon eventually loses its absorbency.

Took one out of the pouch to practice with and it's quite the fiddly deal. If you do get any smoke hood, the time to figure it out is well before any emergency.

Don't sneer at the turkey-sized oven bags. They seem able to get you by for about two minutes -- a vital difference in an emergency evacuation.

A rubber band of the right diameter would free a hand, but may add delay.

Remember that home and hotel fires claim more lives than a/c and keep enough turkey bags handy:ok:

[Onan the Clumsy]

LF, it was a serious suggestion and one I picked up at a safety conference from (if I remember correctly) renowned aviatrix Wally Funk (http://www.ninetynines.org/funk.html).

The idea is that they are less expensive, not life limited, less bulky and easily obtainable from the local supermarket - and yes, they're transparent. They work on the principal that you can rebreath about half of what you exhale, that and all you need is a couple of extra minutes to evacuate.

She put one over her head, cinched up the opening around her throat and walked slowly around the room where the meeting was being held, talking into a microphone all the time. Quite an impressive demonstration.

Got to be a turkey bag though as they're designed to withstand the heat. :ok:

[cubbuster]

I used to work in a large petro-chemicals plant and had to do regular emergency procedure training courses. The fire evacuation drills included escaping from a smoke filled room. Without a smoke hood the disorientation was complete and almost instantaneous (not to mention the discomfort involved). With a smoke hood the task of "saving" ourselves was easy. I never fly without one.

[Legal Flyer]

Onan & RBF

My apologies - I thought the turkey bag was a joke but now I think about it, the idea makes sense - I had a foil one last Christmas hence my comment!

From the replies posted so far the jury seems to be out about whether it would be a good idea for smoke hoods to be provided for all pax, but at least they, and the alternative :D can be purchased.


I once did a fire fighting course at Rosyth with the navy (oil/chemical fires) and again the message was that anything that stops you inhaling the fumes and provides some protection from heat may well give you the few seconds you need to escape from danger. It is doing nothing (or being caught up in the panic of others) that is usually the killer. As the AIR into the Manchester fire pointed out - exiting through the dense smoke down the one slide that was activated at the rear of the plane was probably a viable option, but (from what little is known about events at the rear of the plane) it would appear that no one tried it,and no one made it from the rear of the cabin, despite the crew managing to get the door open. It was in fact the first slide activated by a few seconds. The (natural) reaction was to head away from the smoke, with the tragic consequences that followed.

[Onan the Clumsy]

That's ok LF, it is a slightly odd suggestion. I was just glad to be able to pass on one of the more worthwhile things I've heard at safety seminars.

[lomapaseo]

Videos of cabin smoke show that it streams upward from the source to the ceiling where it progresses laterally fore and aft while filling the remainder of the cabin from the ceiling downwards.

The smoke can kill within 30-40 secs of breathing while it takes upward of a minute or two to exit the smoke.

Seems like lots of time to don a smoke hood for the passenger who has one.

As to visibility, it ain't going to be easy seeing horizontally at standing height so either way one should be looking down at the lighted strips on the floor.

[Hwel]

was one of the points of Manchester not that the soot had effectively blinded people, and bunged up both ears and noses with a solid plug of rubbery material. so if you have a smoke hood/ turkey bag(like it!) could make all the diference.

Its also a very good point about hotels. we are at far more risk as crew in hotels than in aircraft.

[Legal Flyer]

Following up on recent posts - what is current cabin crew training when there is known risk of smoke in the cabin - at Manchester the exit where the smoke originated was viable, what may well have led to the tragic consequences was everyone naturally heading for the over wing and forward exits - is the advice to put pax through the nearest exists even if smoke affected or to direct them to the nearest clear exits - with smoke hoods the nearest exist would possibly be safest (though how is one to know?)

In the above situation what is current practice with cabin crew training?

[BlueEagle]

I think you will find that CC are trained to assess each exit, if they can see it is clear they will use it, if they see it is blocked due to fire outside they will direct pax to other exits. In the MAN case I suspect, due to the smoke, they decided the exit was unuseable, they had no way of knowing otherwise.

Any CC professionals care to comment?

BlueEagle - Moderator.

[runner3]

If you've ever tried to don a smoke hood you realise it takes time for instance the Drager one you have to remove it from the box and its foil packet and then open it up get it on your head and for the girls make sure all your hair is tucked in and pull your quick start handle and wrap the straps around your waste. Now can you imagine a packed aircraft all trying to do this while its filling with smoke!! Ive had passengers who struggled with their seat belt under normal circumstances let alone an emergency!

The best thing to do is get low on the cabin floor and use something like the headrest to cover your mouth (wont give you much protection but some). Smoke fills (in most cases) from the roof down if you can get an exit open (i.e clear of smoke and fire) and keep the magic 90 seconds for the evacuation all on board stand a chance to survive. But then you have things like shock etc.. which all adds to fatalities.

[Brandy]

As a Cabin Crew Line trainer i agree with Biscuit Chuckers comments.

The airline i work for trains cabin crew to get a smoke hood prepeared in any emergency situation and to remove it from it's casing and place in an over head locker closest to them, so that should the situation arise on landing (of a smoke filled cabin) then the equipment is close to hand for the evacuation!. (But i must remind you that if the smoke is to thick and the flames are too hot Cabin Crew will have left the A/C)

However, when this kind of emergency occurs on taxiing i feel i would be more inclined to (like Biscuit Chucker says) get the PAX off the A/C as quickly as possible rather than shouting for passengers to 'grab your smoke hood and get out!'.

If PAX were able to have a smoke hood this would be an absolute nightmare to explain during a safety demonstration and the chances of everyone being able to understand the use of them is very slim indeed. :ugh:

[Onan the Clumsy]

If PAX were able to have a smoke hood this would be an absolute nightmare to explain during a safety demonstration and the chances of everyone being able to understand the use of them is very slim indeed. Is that because the demonstration would go "Put the hood over your head and mmmm mm mmmmm mmm mmmmm mm mmmmm mmmm mmmmm" :8

[Legal Flyer]

Many thanks for all the replies which I have just had chance to catch up on.

It looks as if the points that Biscuit Chucker made form the consensus of cabin crew views - ie the idea of trying to explain, still less get passengers to put on, smoke hoods would be a non-starter and counter productive to getting people out ASAP.

That said, if you read the tests that followed the Manchester fire as part of the AIR what was surprising (see the report) is just how long smoke smoke hoods could provide protection for - some as long as 30 minutes - a lot more than the 90 seconds to get out.

If there is already a real risk of smoke before landing, why should there not at least be smoke hoods available, which could be got out - yes there would be a risk of chaos, but presumably the same applies to ditching in water - I assume that trying to get a whole cabin full of pax to put on a lifejacket (reaching under seats etc for those who had bothered to listen to the safety announcements) would be equally chaotic and indeed the odd pax might even inflate it in the aircraft etc, increasing the risk of obstruction.

Incidentally what about smoke in the cabin in flight - I assume a very rare occurence (has there ever been a major fire?) but there are regular threads about diversions due to smells of smoke etc

The cost of smoke hoods is very small (though they have expiry dates on the filters like most safety equipment). If they are not onboard (other than for crew) the option of their use simply does not arise.

One point that I do not believe anyone has been able to answer is why the AIR recommendation as to smoke hoods was not implemented (see the quote at the start of the thread). I assume that it was for the reasons identified by Biscuit Chucker - ie the cons outweigh the pros.

One final question - if you were cabin crew (but flying as a pax), and smoke was filling the cabin, would you not wish you had a smoke hood.....?

If yes, is the true answer that it is all about whether pax could be sufficiently educated for it to be a help rather than a hinderance.

[RatherBeFlying]

Lets just call a cabin filling with smoke a Darwin opportunity.

If you have gone to the trouble of obtaining a smokehood or turkey bag and put it on, you can wait 10-20 seconds for the people between you and the best exit to collapse and then make your way out over the bodies.

Once at the exit in breatheable air, it'll be easier to live with yourself later if you drag out as many live ones as you can.

[Jet_A_Knight]

This is a pretty good product.

I carry one, but thankfully I have yet to have to use it.

http://www.evac-u8.com/evac-u8/index.htm

[lomapaseo]

This is a pretty good product.

I carry one, but thankfully I have yet to have to use it.

Get back to us after you do:O

[crusty scab]

Interesting thread. I'm not aware of the emergency training Flight Attendants undergo, but does it cover working in confined areas filled with smoke and super heated gasses? Some of your statements suggest not.

A turkey bag might survive an ovens tempreture, but a fuel fire,or any solid-fuel fire for that matter inside a confined space will produce tempretures well over a thousand degrees. And even firefighters who conduct regular training in smoke-filled confined areas get disoriented at times, despite breathing from a positive pressure air supply.

Although a smoke hood may be of benifit in some situations, from what I've read the key to PAX survival on the ground is two fold:

1, Realistic training for Flight Attendants (heat and smoke - trial of hoods etc).

2, Assertive egress actions from both Attendants and Pilots (stopping aircraft) upon identification of a fire in the cabin.:suspect:

[Legal Flyer]

The sad fact about Manchester was that the fatalities occurred long before temperatures were much above the ambient. If you read the AIR it was not the heat but the mix of poisonous gases that overcame many - even as they were half out of the cabin - hence my interest in whether the recommendations of the AIR had been implemented.

[nooluv]

I took part in a simulated exercise at tees-side airport after the manchester disaster, to evaluate the use of smoke hoods.
We were loaded onto a trident (non flying used for training firefighters) given the usual safety briefing + how to use the smoke hood's.

After take off (simmed) smoke was pumped into the cabin & the slf's reactions were filmed. most people sat looking at the smoke 'till the cabin crew told them to put on the hoods. (this only took a few seconds to place over head and activate).

The pilots made an emergency landing after about 10 minutes, then we evacuated the the aircraft using the lighted strips to find the exits.

Everybody was pretty calm because we could all breath (no fire).
I thought it would be a good idea but the CAA did'nt! Don't know why?

[SLF3]

Referring to the Evac-U8 hood above, is it legal for passengers to carry these? I don't see why not, but we live in strange times.

[flyblue]

LegalFlyer,

I think the main issue is that Cabin Crew is a job which importance many companies -and unfortunately countries (read CAAs)- don't understand enough. In UK for example, CC don't even have the professional licence that we have in France, Italy, Belgium and even Greece. What do you expect if there is continuous turnover because the work conditions are unbearable an example (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105027) and the majority of the CC are young and unexperienced? Which it is exactly one of the things that were blamed in the Manchester accident.

[Frangible]

to answer legal flyer, the AIR rec was not implemented because CAA did a study in 1987 (Smoke hoods: net safety benefit analysis) and ruled against them. they were criticised for excluding from the cost-benefit analysis the Saudia Tristar fire in 1980, which claimed 300 lives. If they had put that in, the cost-benefit analysis would probably have been in favour of smoke hoods. The conclusion was that the time to get them on would compromise the 90 second evacuation standard. But this still left unanswered the point that you could be overcome by poisonous fumes long before you were threatened by flames. Simple fact is that parliament's select committee in its aviation safety reports in 1990 and 1999 failed to take them up on their failure to answer the question, and nobody else did either.

CAA also looked into and pronounced unviable cabin water-mist systems, which would produce an aerosol water mist in the event of fire and neutralise much of the effects of the smoke.

The industry doesn't want compulsory smoke hoods or water-misting even though death by fire or smoke is the second-biggest cause of death in air crashes. Smoke hoods would certainly be a lot more useful than lifejackets.

[S76Heavy]

Haven't the specs for materials changed so that they produce less toxic fumes? At least that was the reason quoted why we could not get replacement seats on our helicopters..it had to meet several specs not including comfort.
So the need for hoods would have decreased somewhat.

That is not to say that a good and simple to operate device would not be desirable. But so far I have seen more examples of safety devices that actually increase the risks for the untrained than I care for.

[Frangible]

Specs may have changed for materials. Not current on that.

But it reminds me of a true story. FAA and CAA place more store on preventing fire breaking out than on thinking what might happen if it does. So, they increased flammability standards for seat materials. Irony was that should a fire start anyway, the flame retardants actually increased the toxicity of the smoke. (And a lot of people thought higher flammability standards were pretty silly anyway, because fires in a/c usually start from fuel or electrical sources, not hooligans trying to light the seating with their lighters.)

Even if the toxicity of smoke from seating has been reduced (which I doubt but aren't sure) there are still a lot of very nasty compounds coming out of the several different plastics and vinyls used elsewhere, e.g. in cabin walls, wiring insulation, foam etc.

[phd]

Frangible - you are correct. All of the risk/cost/benefit data that I have ever read makes it quite clear that for all the lives that have been saved in survivable aircraft crashes by lifejackets over the decades, many times more would have been saved had smoke hoods been fitted to the aircraft instead.

If a heavy jet aircraft ditches or dives into the ocean the last thing you will need to worry about is whether you have got your life jacket on - I am afraid you will be very, very unlikely to survive the initial impact in most cases. However, on countless occasions fires have occurred in aircraft where the passengers could have survived had they been able to use smoke hoods, some after approach/landing crashes, some whilst the aircraft was still on the apron and of course Manchester when the aircraft was taxying.

If there was any logic to the provision of safety equipment on board modern aircraft all lifejackets would have been removed and replaced with smoke hoods long ago. Unfortunately lifejackets have been fitted to commercial aircraft ever since the days of the Empire Flying Boats, when the potential for drowning as result of a take-off or landing accident was considerable. Nothing changes quickly in international air travel and I am afraid that the airlines, regulators and probably the passengers themselves are now stuck in the mind set that an aircraft must have lifejackets (illogical) and do not need to have smoke hoods which would actually be the most logical and cost effective choice in terms of saving the maximum number of lives.

If there is another fire similar to that at Manchester with very considerable loss of life and the AAIB once again makes the same recommendations - maybe the CAA will change its views on this issue - but it will unfortunately require a lot of lives to be lost since this is the only thing that actually leads to significant safety improvements in aviation. The experts such as the AAIB and the NTSB are never listened to until a sufficiently large pile of bodies has accumulated and the public start demanding action. Always too little too late - that is the aviation business.

[pzu]

Another tip from a Safety Trainer (Dupont/Conoco)

When staying in high rise hotels etc - carry a roll of 'Gaffer/Gripper/Duct' tape - you know - the aluminised 2" repair tape;

In the unlikely event of being trapped in your room - use said tape to seal doors/vents etc to delay/prevent smoke ingress;

It may buy time - which could mean your life!!! :ok:

[Legal Flyer]

Thanks to Frangible for the explanation as to why the AIR rec was not implemented.

The more answers I read though, the more it sounds to me like it should have been.

Lets hope that the case for smoke hoods is not made by a major loss of life in the future - it seems to me that this is an area where cost/benefit analysis really does not wash given the relatively modest costs involved.

It also raises the question as to why life jackets are there - is the truth that they give a misleading sense of reassurance (ie if we ditch put on your life jacket and all will be well), whereas to tell the pax the aircraft may fill with smoke and everyone will be overcome in seconds if they don't done their hoods would not give quite the same (false) sense of reassurance?

It is a sad fact that safety improvements only seeem to come around when there is a major loss of life.

[zalt]

I find it slightly sad that as I write, this thread has had 1014 views, and a 6 day old thread linking to a very GAO detailed report on all cabin safety issues (identifying what has been done and what has not) has recieved just 20.

While it is true that the majority of deaths in (say) the Manchester accident were due to inhalation of toxic smoke, perhaps the (expensive) action taken on flamability standards to cut the production of smoke better addresses the hazard and action on cabin exits and aisle widths better aids escape (in all cirumstances) were a better use of resources.

Similarly the number of fires where smoke hoods would have made a big difference have been very small since Manchester. The real big killers have been things like CFIT (were a lot of effort has been put in) and one of the potential big killers in future as our skies get more crowded is mid-airs (leading to big investment in TCAS).


Legal Flyer said: "It is a sad fact that safety improvements only seeem to come around when there is a major loss of life." However its is far sadder when all the resources or debate are diverted to 'solve' the last accident not prevent the next.

[Legal Flyer]

Zalt,

I do not see why it is sad that this post has had over 1000 replies.

Does this not suggest that it is a subject of interest?

Also whilst it is better to prevent rather than to react to incidents, surely the whole point of AIRs is (amongst other matters) to learn for the future from incidents that have occurred.

When I started the thread the question I asked was why were the recommendations of the Manchester AIR viz smoke hoods not implemented.

A number of responses have given good reasons why the provision of smoke hoods is a difficult call. That being said views are clearly divided if you read all the responses.

Surely this is just the sort of topic that it is appropriate to debate?

My final point was that rightly or wrongly it is a sad fact that it often takes one or more major subsequent incidents for recommendations to be implemented. This is well made out from an examination of numerous AIRs.

I agree that it is better to prevent than cure but most safety bodies are as much reactive as proactive, and often when they are reactive there is less opposition to their recommendations.