The Guvnor
14th Aug 2000, 02:11
This article was in today's Sunday Times, and carries several very interesting points.
Next time you board an aircraft, ask yourself a question: if this
thing crashes, what are my chances of surviving? Research
shows that most people's answers are unduly pessimistic. A lot
will guess their chances as zero, which might explain why they
ignore the safety briefing, down a few drinks, then pop a
sleeping pill. Hell, if it happens, it happens.
But researchers in America have found that, even in a
calamitous air accident, your chances of survival are as high as
80%. There are several reasons for this, including the fact that
most accidents occur on or near the ground, often during takeoff
or landing, when the deceleration forces on impact are within
the tolerance levels of the human body.
But why should one passenger die, and another survive? You
might think this is simply a matter of luck, but you'd be wrong:
crash investigators have found time and time again that those
who survived have been those who reacted quickly, thought on
their feet and evacuated the aircraft swiftly. Often, those who
died have sat frozen in panic, staring numbly at the seat back in
front of them.
One of the most tragic cases of this kind occurred in 1985,
when an Airtours Boeing 737 caught fire at Manchester airport.
An engine failed during takeoff, rupturing a fuel tank and causing
fire to spread to the cabin. Of the 55 people who perished, 50
were killed by the effects of smoke inhalation and five died of
burns.
NEGATIVE PANIC
Dianne Worby, who trains cabin crew and pilots in dealing with
the immediate after-effects of a crash, says many of those who
died at Manchester failed to get out of the wreckage in time
because they suffered "negative panic". "Normally with fire
sweeping through the cabin, you would expect passengers
sitting near emergency exits to have the best chance of
survival," says Worby. "But at Manchester it didn't work like
that. Some passengers close to the exits sat frozen in panic,
while the more determined clambered over seats and got out by
any means they could." Worby says that in the vital moments
after the crash, some passengers calmly tried to retrieve their
carry-on bags and other personal effects even as fire swept
through the aircraft. This is not unusual: similar behaviour has
been reported by crash investigators worldwide.
Robert Bor, a professor of aviation and travel psychology at
London Guildhall University, thinks part of the explanation lies in
our assumption that, in the event of a crash, we are doomed
anyway. "People's chances of surviving an air crash are far
better than they imagine," he says. "They tend to be fatalistic,
but research shows that passengers who have an escape plan
are more likely to survive."
Bor says that many people, when they board an aircraft, refuse
to contemplate the chance of something going wrong. "We don't
want to think about the possibility of dying, so we don't pay
sufficient attention to the safety briefings; instead, we hand over
responsibility to those in authority and assume they'll take care
of things. Flying infantalises us - we are told when to eat, when
to stand up, when to go to the toilet - so, in the event of an
emergency, we simply wait for instructions." Bor thinks this is
why so many passengers experience negative panic, but says it
can also lead to disaster if those in charge make a wrong
decision. In 1980, fire broke out on a Lockheed Tristar just after
takeoff at Riyadh, in Saudi Arabia. The captain returned to the
ground and told passengers to remain in their seats as he
taxied off the runway. Everybody did as they were told, although
smoke was pouring into the cabin. When the aircraft came to a
halt, fire had already taken hold and, in the ensuing blaze, all
301 people on board died.
ESCAPE PLAN
"I'm not suggesting that people ignore the captain and crew,"
says Bor, "but there are occasions when common sense is
needed." Worby, who has been teaching survival courses for
eight years and is a qualified pilot, says a positive mental
attitude is only part of the key to walking away from an air
crash. Like Bor, she says all passengers should have an
"escape plan": they should understand the brace position, count
the rows to their nearest emergency exit and listen to the safety
briefing.
"When I fly as a passenger, I go through it all in my head -
where the exits are, where my life jacket and oxygen mask are,
how the doors open," says Worby. "In a crash, many people
seem to assume that they must go out the way they came in,
and they'll try to battle to the front of the aircraft when there
might be an exit just two rows behind them." She says it is vital
to memorise the number of rows between you and the nearest
exit. If fire breaks out, thick toxic smoke may fill the air and
you'll be crawling on all fours, struggling to see and breathe.
Worby is frequently asked which part of an aircraft is safest.
"The frivolous answer is the back, because no plane ever
reverses into a mountain, but the truth is there is no single safe
place," she says. "In some accidents, the back has been the
worst place to be." The section between the wings is
structurally most sound, but it is also closest to the fuel tanks.
"I would take an aisle seat close to an exit, regardless of
whether it was at the front, middle or back." Worby says
passengers should focus on surviving the moment of impact.
Small things matter: remove your spectacles (they can shatter
and break your nose) and put them in the sick bag for safe
keeping. "Also, take out false teeth," says Worby. "They could
choke you or fly out at speed and injure somebody else."
Empty pockets: tests have shown that, in a head-on crash, a
pen in a jacket pocket can be propelled forward at such a speed
that it will fly through the seat back in front, and its occupant.
Seatbelts should be tightened around hips; a lose belt can
allow its wearer to "submarine", or slide forward, on impact,
causing the belt to ride up and dig into the soft tissue of the
abdomen. Typical injuries include ruptured livers, spleens and
bowels.
Most importantly, passengers need to know the brace position,
in which they are bent double with their forehead pressed
against the seat in front, arms wrapped around their head and
feet flat on the floor. This version of the position is relatively new:
traditionally, passengers were told to put their arms straight out
against the headrest in front and stretch out their legs under the
seat in front. Then Kegworth happened.
On January 8, 1989, a British Midland Boeing 737-400 from
London to Belfast developed engine trouble and was diverted to
East Midlands airport. The crew shut down the wrong engine
and the aircraft fell short of the runway, eventually crashing on
an embankment of the M1, killing 47 of the 126 people on
board.
As investigators analysed every aspect of the tragedy, attention
turned to the injuries sustained by passengers: all but 10
suffered head or face injuries, 47 had broken or dislocated arms
or shoulders, 38 suffered abdominal trauma and there were
dozens of leg injuries.
REAR-FACING SEATS
After Kegworth, extensive tests were carried out at RAF
Farnborough and the new brace position was proposed. Five
years later, it was adopted by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
But another finding emerged from Kegworth: the cabin crew,
sitting in high-backed rear-facing seats, suffered fewer injuries
than passengers. Campaigners asked why passengers were not
offered similar seats.
The RAF had adopted rear-facing seats as early as 1945, after
tests showed they allowed passengers to withstand higher
impacts. In 1958, a US Air Force study concluded that
forward-facing passengers were seven times more likely to
suffer injury than aft-facing passengers. The airline industry,
however, insists that travellers don't want to face the "wrong
way". The CAA says: "A lot of modern aircraft cruise 'nose up',
which would mean passengers would spend most of the flight
leaning forward." It says there is "no clear case" for introducing
them. British Airways told a Commons select committee that
rear-facing seats would be "unpopular with passengers", and
British Midland said they offered "no commercial advantage".
The committee's report, published last year, concluded: "This
assessment may be correct, but we received no evidence that
passengers had been consulted about the matter."
There are other arguments against rear-facing seats. In some
crashes, the overhead bins have collapsed, sending heavy bags
and bottles of duty-free spirits flying forward through the cabin;
passengers facing the rear might have received serious face and
head injuries. Also, in a head-on collision, a rear-facing seat
absorbs more impact from its occupant and needs to be
attached more firmly to the floor of the fuselage, which, in turn,
would have to be strengthened. Altering aircraft would be
expensive and, says the CAA, bring with it a "weight penalty".
Heavier planes consume more fuel, putting up costs.
The problem with the existing lap belts is that, in a head-on
crash, a passenger's entire weight is thrown against the belt,
causing the body to "jack-knife"; seats are designed to collapse
forward on impact to reduce head injuries. One possible solution
to this would be to fit shoulder harnesses like those worn by the
cabin crew. Most experts agree this would save lives, but again,
the weight penalty would be significant, and the enormous cost
would inevitably lead to higher fares.
SMOKE HOODS
Another contentious issue is the use of smoke hoods. These
come in various forms but the simplest type is a fire-resistant
translucent bag with an air filter attached that protects the
wearer from smoke and some of the toxic gases produced in a
blazing aircraft, such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide,
benzine and hydrogen chloride.
Most experts agree that an individual passenger has a far higher
chance of survival with a smoke hood than without. Not only are
wearers protected from smoke, they also have improved visibility
and protection from flaming debris. However, many of the same
experts say hoods should not be issued to all passengers. This
is because even a small delay while some passengers struggle
to put on the hoods could hold up the evacuation. Commercial
aircraft are designed to be evacuated in 90 seconds; just two
minutes after a fire starts in the cabin, toxic gases can explode
into flames - the point known as "flashover".
In 1991. the CAA conducted a study into the use of smoke
hoods and estimated that they could reduce crash deaths by
18%. However, it concluded that they should not be introduced:
it would take only a few passengers to hesitate over whether to
put on the smoke hood or head straight for the exit "before a
disciplined and orderly evacuation becomes disorganised and
chaotic".
Although there seems little prospect of smoke hoods becoming
standard issue, there is nothing to stop individuals flying with
them. They can be bought on the internet. One of the most
popular models is the EVAC-U8. It has an air filter with a 20-
minute capacity and packs down to the size of a drinks can. It
costs $59.95 (about £40) from Aeromedix
(www.aeromedix.com).
What the airlines could do
FIT AIR BAGS
Why? Ron Ashford, a former head of air safety at the CAA,
campaigned for the introduction of air bags, one to protect the
upper body, another for the legs. Michael Meacher, then
opposition transport spokesman, said: "We have seen the use
of air bags spread on cars and there is no reason why airlines
should not follow suit."
Why not? The CAA says: "We do not accept that there is a
significant injury transfer to create the need."
CUT CARRY-ON ALLOWANCES
Why? Overhead bins tend to burst open or collapse on impact,
sending heavy objects flying around the cabin, injuring
passengers and blocking exits.
Why not? Passengers like being able to take luggage into the
cabin. Airlines are reluctant to upset passengers, particularly in
business class.
STOP SELLING DUTY-FREE SPIRITS ON BOARD
Why? Bottles stored in overhead bins can fly out on impact.
They are a triple nightmare: heavy, breakable and full of
flammable liquid.
Why not? Airlines make money from selling duty-free goods.
Cabin crews make commission on each sale.
MAKE SEATS MORE STURDY
Why? A bad crash is made much worse if seats work loose
from their moorings. Seats on new aircraft registered in the UK
must be able to withstand an impact of 16G, but seats on
existing aircraft need only be tested to 9G.
Why not? Upgrading existing seats would be expensive, but
the Europewide Joint Aviation Authorities is considering a law
requiring airlines to bring all aircraft up to the new standard.
www.globalaviation.com (http://www.globalaviation.com)
Courses in crash survival for air crew and groups of 10
people or more, across the UK www.caa.co.uk (http://www.caa.co.uk)
Civil Aviation Authority www.open.gov.uk/aaib (http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib)
Air Accidents Investigation Branch, UK www.pr.erau.edu/~case (http://www.pr.erau.edu/~case)
Center for Aerospace Safety Education, US
------------------
:) Happiness is a warm L1011 :)
Next time you board an aircraft, ask yourself a question: if this
thing crashes, what are my chances of surviving? Research
shows that most people's answers are unduly pessimistic. A lot
will guess their chances as zero, which might explain why they
ignore the safety briefing, down a few drinks, then pop a
sleeping pill. Hell, if it happens, it happens.
But researchers in America have found that, even in a
calamitous air accident, your chances of survival are as high as
80%. There are several reasons for this, including the fact that
most accidents occur on or near the ground, often during takeoff
or landing, when the deceleration forces on impact are within
the tolerance levels of the human body.
But why should one passenger die, and another survive? You
might think this is simply a matter of luck, but you'd be wrong:
crash investigators have found time and time again that those
who survived have been those who reacted quickly, thought on
their feet and evacuated the aircraft swiftly. Often, those who
died have sat frozen in panic, staring numbly at the seat back in
front of them.
One of the most tragic cases of this kind occurred in 1985,
when an Airtours Boeing 737 caught fire at Manchester airport.
An engine failed during takeoff, rupturing a fuel tank and causing
fire to spread to the cabin. Of the 55 people who perished, 50
were killed by the effects of smoke inhalation and five died of
burns.
NEGATIVE PANIC
Dianne Worby, who trains cabin crew and pilots in dealing with
the immediate after-effects of a crash, says many of those who
died at Manchester failed to get out of the wreckage in time
because they suffered "negative panic". "Normally with fire
sweeping through the cabin, you would expect passengers
sitting near emergency exits to have the best chance of
survival," says Worby. "But at Manchester it didn't work like
that. Some passengers close to the exits sat frozen in panic,
while the more determined clambered over seats and got out by
any means they could." Worby says that in the vital moments
after the crash, some passengers calmly tried to retrieve their
carry-on bags and other personal effects even as fire swept
through the aircraft. This is not unusual: similar behaviour has
been reported by crash investigators worldwide.
Robert Bor, a professor of aviation and travel psychology at
London Guildhall University, thinks part of the explanation lies in
our assumption that, in the event of a crash, we are doomed
anyway. "People's chances of surviving an air crash are far
better than they imagine," he says. "They tend to be fatalistic,
but research shows that passengers who have an escape plan
are more likely to survive."
Bor says that many people, when they board an aircraft, refuse
to contemplate the chance of something going wrong. "We don't
want to think about the possibility of dying, so we don't pay
sufficient attention to the safety briefings; instead, we hand over
responsibility to those in authority and assume they'll take care
of things. Flying infantalises us - we are told when to eat, when
to stand up, when to go to the toilet - so, in the event of an
emergency, we simply wait for instructions." Bor thinks this is
why so many passengers experience negative panic, but says it
can also lead to disaster if those in charge make a wrong
decision. In 1980, fire broke out on a Lockheed Tristar just after
takeoff at Riyadh, in Saudi Arabia. The captain returned to the
ground and told passengers to remain in their seats as he
taxied off the runway. Everybody did as they were told, although
smoke was pouring into the cabin. When the aircraft came to a
halt, fire had already taken hold and, in the ensuing blaze, all
301 people on board died.
ESCAPE PLAN
"I'm not suggesting that people ignore the captain and crew,"
says Bor, "but there are occasions when common sense is
needed." Worby, who has been teaching survival courses for
eight years and is a qualified pilot, says a positive mental
attitude is only part of the key to walking away from an air
crash. Like Bor, she says all passengers should have an
"escape plan": they should understand the brace position, count
the rows to their nearest emergency exit and listen to the safety
briefing.
"When I fly as a passenger, I go through it all in my head -
where the exits are, where my life jacket and oxygen mask are,
how the doors open," says Worby. "In a crash, many people
seem to assume that they must go out the way they came in,
and they'll try to battle to the front of the aircraft when there
might be an exit just two rows behind them." She says it is vital
to memorise the number of rows between you and the nearest
exit. If fire breaks out, thick toxic smoke may fill the air and
you'll be crawling on all fours, struggling to see and breathe.
Worby is frequently asked which part of an aircraft is safest.
"The frivolous answer is the back, because no plane ever
reverses into a mountain, but the truth is there is no single safe
place," she says. "In some accidents, the back has been the
worst place to be." The section between the wings is
structurally most sound, but it is also closest to the fuel tanks.
"I would take an aisle seat close to an exit, regardless of
whether it was at the front, middle or back." Worby says
passengers should focus on surviving the moment of impact.
Small things matter: remove your spectacles (they can shatter
and break your nose) and put them in the sick bag for safe
keeping. "Also, take out false teeth," says Worby. "They could
choke you or fly out at speed and injure somebody else."
Empty pockets: tests have shown that, in a head-on crash, a
pen in a jacket pocket can be propelled forward at such a speed
that it will fly through the seat back in front, and its occupant.
Seatbelts should be tightened around hips; a lose belt can
allow its wearer to "submarine", or slide forward, on impact,
causing the belt to ride up and dig into the soft tissue of the
abdomen. Typical injuries include ruptured livers, spleens and
bowels.
Most importantly, passengers need to know the brace position,
in which they are bent double with their forehead pressed
against the seat in front, arms wrapped around their head and
feet flat on the floor. This version of the position is relatively new:
traditionally, passengers were told to put their arms straight out
against the headrest in front and stretch out their legs under the
seat in front. Then Kegworth happened.
On January 8, 1989, a British Midland Boeing 737-400 from
London to Belfast developed engine trouble and was diverted to
East Midlands airport. The crew shut down the wrong engine
and the aircraft fell short of the runway, eventually crashing on
an embankment of the M1, killing 47 of the 126 people on
board.
As investigators analysed every aspect of the tragedy, attention
turned to the injuries sustained by passengers: all but 10
suffered head or face injuries, 47 had broken or dislocated arms
or shoulders, 38 suffered abdominal trauma and there were
dozens of leg injuries.
REAR-FACING SEATS
After Kegworth, extensive tests were carried out at RAF
Farnborough and the new brace position was proposed. Five
years later, it was adopted by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
But another finding emerged from Kegworth: the cabin crew,
sitting in high-backed rear-facing seats, suffered fewer injuries
than passengers. Campaigners asked why passengers were not
offered similar seats.
The RAF had adopted rear-facing seats as early as 1945, after
tests showed they allowed passengers to withstand higher
impacts. In 1958, a US Air Force study concluded that
forward-facing passengers were seven times more likely to
suffer injury than aft-facing passengers. The airline industry,
however, insists that travellers don't want to face the "wrong
way". The CAA says: "A lot of modern aircraft cruise 'nose up',
which would mean passengers would spend most of the flight
leaning forward." It says there is "no clear case" for introducing
them. British Airways told a Commons select committee that
rear-facing seats would be "unpopular with passengers", and
British Midland said they offered "no commercial advantage".
The committee's report, published last year, concluded: "This
assessment may be correct, but we received no evidence that
passengers had been consulted about the matter."
There are other arguments against rear-facing seats. In some
crashes, the overhead bins have collapsed, sending heavy bags
and bottles of duty-free spirits flying forward through the cabin;
passengers facing the rear might have received serious face and
head injuries. Also, in a head-on collision, a rear-facing seat
absorbs more impact from its occupant and needs to be
attached more firmly to the floor of the fuselage, which, in turn,
would have to be strengthened. Altering aircraft would be
expensive and, says the CAA, bring with it a "weight penalty".
Heavier planes consume more fuel, putting up costs.
The problem with the existing lap belts is that, in a head-on
crash, a passenger's entire weight is thrown against the belt,
causing the body to "jack-knife"; seats are designed to collapse
forward on impact to reduce head injuries. One possible solution
to this would be to fit shoulder harnesses like those worn by the
cabin crew. Most experts agree this would save lives, but again,
the weight penalty would be significant, and the enormous cost
would inevitably lead to higher fares.
SMOKE HOODS
Another contentious issue is the use of smoke hoods. These
come in various forms but the simplest type is a fire-resistant
translucent bag with an air filter attached that protects the
wearer from smoke and some of the toxic gases produced in a
blazing aircraft, such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide,
benzine and hydrogen chloride.
Most experts agree that an individual passenger has a far higher
chance of survival with a smoke hood than without. Not only are
wearers protected from smoke, they also have improved visibility
and protection from flaming debris. However, many of the same
experts say hoods should not be issued to all passengers. This
is because even a small delay while some passengers struggle
to put on the hoods could hold up the evacuation. Commercial
aircraft are designed to be evacuated in 90 seconds; just two
minutes after a fire starts in the cabin, toxic gases can explode
into flames - the point known as "flashover".
In 1991. the CAA conducted a study into the use of smoke
hoods and estimated that they could reduce crash deaths by
18%. However, it concluded that they should not be introduced:
it would take only a few passengers to hesitate over whether to
put on the smoke hood or head straight for the exit "before a
disciplined and orderly evacuation becomes disorganised and
chaotic".
Although there seems little prospect of smoke hoods becoming
standard issue, there is nothing to stop individuals flying with
them. They can be bought on the internet. One of the most
popular models is the EVAC-U8. It has an air filter with a 20-
minute capacity and packs down to the size of a drinks can. It
costs $59.95 (about £40) from Aeromedix
(www.aeromedix.com).
What the airlines could do
FIT AIR BAGS
Why? Ron Ashford, a former head of air safety at the CAA,
campaigned for the introduction of air bags, one to protect the
upper body, another for the legs. Michael Meacher, then
opposition transport spokesman, said: "We have seen the use
of air bags spread on cars and there is no reason why airlines
should not follow suit."
Why not? The CAA says: "We do not accept that there is a
significant injury transfer to create the need."
CUT CARRY-ON ALLOWANCES
Why? Overhead bins tend to burst open or collapse on impact,
sending heavy objects flying around the cabin, injuring
passengers and blocking exits.
Why not? Passengers like being able to take luggage into the
cabin. Airlines are reluctant to upset passengers, particularly in
business class.
STOP SELLING DUTY-FREE SPIRITS ON BOARD
Why? Bottles stored in overhead bins can fly out on impact.
They are a triple nightmare: heavy, breakable and full of
flammable liquid.
Why not? Airlines make money from selling duty-free goods.
Cabin crews make commission on each sale.
MAKE SEATS MORE STURDY
Why? A bad crash is made much worse if seats work loose
from their moorings. Seats on new aircraft registered in the UK
must be able to withstand an impact of 16G, but seats on
existing aircraft need only be tested to 9G.
Why not? Upgrading existing seats would be expensive, but
the Europewide Joint Aviation Authorities is considering a law
requiring airlines to bring all aircraft up to the new standard.
www.globalaviation.com (http://www.globalaviation.com)
Courses in crash survival for air crew and groups of 10
people or more, across the UK www.caa.co.uk (http://www.caa.co.uk)
Civil Aviation Authority www.open.gov.uk/aaib (http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib)
Air Accidents Investigation Branch, UK www.pr.erau.edu/~case (http://www.pr.erau.edu/~case)
Center for Aerospace Safety Education, US
------------------
:) Happiness is a warm L1011 :)