Latest survivability stats from the Dept of the blindingly obvious...

[Two's in]

Apparently pax stand a greater chance of escaping from a burning plane if they are sat at, or adjacent to, the emergency exits. The CAA commissioned a study by Greenwich University to deliver this jaw-dropping insight into the factors of air crash survivability. No news yet on how disenfranchised the other 120 people who are not sat by an exit may feel about this, or why paying for a First Class fare should reduce the chances of your offspring tapping into their (your) inheritence prematurely.

Next week the following studies are also due to be released;

a) Why the houses appear to get smaller when pilots pull the controls back.
b) Why Airports need to be close to runways to remain cost effective.
c) Why bigger aircraft can carry more passengers than really little ones.

In a plane crash safest seats are in aisle - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4214998.ece)

Commissioned by the Civil Aviation Authority and carried out by Greenwich University, the study found that the seats with the best survival rate were in the emergency exit row and the row in front or behind it.

[NotPilotAtALL]

Hi,

ROFL !

Nice spending money by CAA
This is a great discovery and no doubts .. this study will improve the safety.
Foot note:
How many time the wheel was revamped ?
I think this deserve also a study :)

Cheers.

[fantom]

The response from our "Government" will, doubtless, be that all windows will be emerg exits from now on...

[Agaricus bisporus]

How long ago was that report published? (Several weeks ago actually)

Why is it suddenly news?

Why is it reported in such a typically dishonest tabloid journalistic manner taking just one snippet of info and applying a sensational headline to it, out of context and devoid of the rest of the information? The report itself was interesting, informative and factual.

Not up to the usual PPRuNe standard. Room for improvement.

D-

[Abusing_the_sky]

As taken from the article:

It is the question that most nervous flyers ask themselves whenever they board an aircraft: where is the safest place to sit?

What next?

I guess now nervous flyers are OK to sit in an emergency exit row?:ugh:

No way Jose, not as long as I'm in THAT a/c.

A unnecessary waste of money this survey is. Well done CAA:D

Rgds,
ATS


No doubt this will be a money maker for some airlines; "wanna live? That'll cost you extra"

[The Flying Pram]

Presumably there will have to be a further study to show that if the pilots keep pulling back on the controls the houses suddenly start getting larger again....

[frontlefthamster]

Given that a quick read through the Times article shows there's quite a lot more to the report than is reflected here, and that a read through the whole report shows that there is quite some substance to it, I'm puzzled that a site full of folk who are so quick to bash tabloid journalism, are so quick to embrace its principles here.

I'm sure that the academics who did the work (properly) will be heartened by the responses of the 'professional pilots' here. Anything which drives towards meaningful improvements in cabin design for safety should be welcomed.

I've been astonished at how much some manufacturers and operators get away with in this regard, but I don't see anyone outing it here...

[Agaricus bisporus]

Well, Mr Hamster, you might like to exclude my post from that accusation, seeing as I made exactly that point first...

After all, it would never do to read the previous posts, would it???

[frontlefthamster]

Thanks AB,

I had read your post but wished to make a similar point in my own way.

Clearly your own desire to indulge in bickering with others who share your point of view has clouded your judgement.

I wasn't aware that I had to specify precisely those posts to which I was referring, nor that there was a 'one point per poster' rule here.

I wonder, what in the name of all that's holy do you say to people with whom you disagree???!!!

[ChristiaanJ]

Is there a link somewhere to the full report?

The newspaper article seemed to be biased towards aircraft fires.... in which case I would agree with the conclusions.

But I was under the impression that statistically a rear-cabin seat gave you a better survival chance overall.

Anyway, I shall be taking a few flights again in a fortnight, so I'll let you know how I got out in the 'rejected take-off / overrun / short landing due to ice in the engines / veering off the runway' accident/incident I will undoubtely be involved in, knowing my luck.

CJ

[Gooneyone]

ATS, aren't they already charging extra for the Em. exit row? They claim it's for the extra leg room, so I suppose they'll charge even more now saying it increases your survival chances!

[vapilot2004]

Apparently pax stand a greater chance of escaping from a burning plane if they are sat at, or adjacent to, the emergency exits.

As opposed to those seated nearest the fire.....It does make perfect sense! :ok:
It is not often you get this kind of clear thinking from a regulatory body.

[10secondsurvey]

This is actually a useful piece of research, despite some garbage being posted by some above.

The most important point is being missed; that the current certification evacuation tests have been shown quite clearly to be inadequate, in that in a real emergency people cannot evacuate in just 90 seconds for various reasons.

This is important, and as a matter of principle I always site near an emergency exit, and usually in the aisle. Many times I have boarded a large jet, and looked back to the people in the middle of the middle rows of four between emergency exits, and thought to myself, they'd have no chance in an accident.

I honestly believe the reason many pax don't ever object, is simply that there is a common belief that most people don't survive airline crashes, that if the plane is going down, you can kiss you a**e goodbye. The reality is that around 80-85% of pax survive air crashes, just not the ones who are far away from an exit.

Another point, it is actually good to let tall people pay to get emergency exit seats. Why not? it's not their fault that airlines don't have enough exits.

[Globaliser]

The most important point is being missed; that the current certification evacuation tests have been shown quite clearly to be inadequate, in that in a real emergency people cannot evacuate in just 90 seconds for various reasons.
...
it's not their fault that airlines don't have enough exits.So what do you think should be the certification standard? How many exits should aircraft have? Should every row have its own door?

[TightSlot]

10SS - Globaliser surely asks a reasonable question? It requires an answer that both enhances safety and maintains the viability of aviation as a business prospect for both airlines and customers.

Since you believe that the current evac cert process is flawed (with great respect - I don't) it is reasonable to ask what should be used?

[Pax Vobiscum]

The reality is that around 80-85% of pax survive air crashes, just not the ones who are far away from an exit.

10SS, you must be using a fairly broad definition of 'crash' to reach that conclusion. Air Disaster (http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_year.cgi?year=2007)'s stats for 2007 show that 60-65% of pax don't survive. What's more there are really two types of fatal accident - those where most (>90%) survive (e.g. the Airbus at Tegucigalpa) and those where <10% survive (e.g. the recent Spanair tragedy). In both these cases, it really doesn't matter where you're sitting - you're either going to be OK, or not. Accidents which lie between these two extremes are relatively unusual, and even in those events, there's no clear pattern as to whether front or back of the plane is safer (though sitting near an emergency exit should be a good thing).

My apologies for the depressing nature of this post - remember that it's still safer to cross the Atlantic than to cross the Cromwell Road (and the Heathrow coach drivers are under orders to make sure it stays that way :ok:).

PV (lapsed actuary)

[strake]

Pax Vobiscum,

A very nicely put argument.

Truth is, to be involved in a serious aircraft accident means you have suffered some very, very bad luck. To survive this type of accident, in a matter of minutes or seconds, fate needs to rush you across to the other side of the spectrum which is marked "very, very good luck.."

[Eboy]

"How many exits should aircraft have?"

Good question. Every row having an exit . . . well . . . I guess that would be too heavy. Why not start with doubling the exits?