Lifejackets conundrum

[phd]

Why do aircraft engaged in commercial flight operations have to carry life-jackets and not smoke hoods? If I am unlucky enough to be in a large aluminium tube that has to ditch in the Atlantic with a landing velocity of 200kts+ - the last thing I am going to be worried about is drowning since it is highly unlikely I am going to survive the rapid deceleration/break-up/fireball! As far more passengers have died unnecessarily in aircraft through smoke and toxic fume inhalation following survivable incidents on land than have ever drowned following a ditching at sea, should the life jackets not be replaced with smoke hoods?

------------------------------------------------

An ounce of action is worth a tonne of theory.

[eeper]

Fishbed,

This debate raged for a while around the time of the Manchester disaster (that is, the fitting of smokehoods in addition to lifejackets).

Have you ever tried to put a smokehood on? They are nasty, claustrophobic pieces of kit with a very tight rubber collar and an oxygen generator which gets quite hot bouncing against your chest. The great fear of those who oppose smokehoods for passengers is that the pax will stand there post impact and try to figure out how to put this damn thing on, instead of doing the right thing and getting out as quickly as possible.

Don't forget that most crashes are unexpected and most of our passengers prefer to read the newspaper instead of watching the safety briefing. A ditching, by contrast, is usually planned and gives the crew plenty of time to wander round the cabin checking correct fitting of lifejackets. While I take your point that a succesful ditching is unlikely, if it does happen then lifejackets will save a lot of lives.

Flight and cabin crew have smokehoods that they are trained to use and would only use them if they had to enter or return to a smoke filled environment. If all I was going to do was leave the flight deck and jump on a slide then I would not even bother going for my smokehood (might take an extinguisher though).

[The Beak]

Yep fully concure. Another old chestnut is the cost. To provide every passenger(and a few spares) costs £'s / passenger. To provide all with smoke hoods would be £00's / passenger. If you add to all of this the likelihood of them being used (correctly) by untrained passengers it makes them unviable on this bases alone. Add to this eepr's remarks and it makes it nigh on impossible. Better to work on fire / smoke retardent materials, better drills and to listen to what's being said in the first place.

[englishal]

Hang on, I can buy a smoke hood in my local pilot shop which comes in a little tube. In an emergency you rip it out and pull it over your head. No messing around with oxygen and stuff like that. Basically a heat resistant plastic bag with a filter attached and a draw string to make the seal around the neck. Costs $60, and in provides protection for up to 15 mins, and in an emergency I would rather use one of those than not one at all !

[Crusty Ol Cap'n]

Smoke hoods are carried on all EI flights, for both cockpit and cabin crew. To the best of my, limited, knowlege they are mandatory.

[reverserunlocked]

I agree that it's probably better to concentrate on getting out of burning aircraft rather than wasting precious seconds on donning potentially confusing smoke hoods.

I disagree though that a ditching is likely to be unsurvivable.

There have been few incidents of airliners making planned ditching attempts, but there has been a high survival rate in those that have.

The Ethiopian 767 that put down in the Indian Ocean could hardly be called a planned ditching as the pilot was being attacked with a crash axe at the time, but still there were survivors.

There was a DC9 that ditched from fuel exhaustion in the Caribbean in the 70's. The aircraft put down intact and most escaped with their lives, despite the flight crew 'omitting' to tell the cabin crew about the impending dichting..

Just because you're about to ditch doesn't necessarily mean you're finished!

[ 12 January 2002: Message edited by: reverserunlocked ]</p>

[PAXboy]

Once again, I agree with the general run of this thread but add that I have my own smoke hood and have done for some years.

I started with the passive one from a branch of the Dowty family, if memory serves. This was good in that it was flat pack and easy to carry.

I upgraded about a year or so ago to the Evac-U-8 (don'tcha just luurv those Americanos?). This is about the size and shape of a cool drink can and is of an all plastic construction externally. There are a couple of metal componets in it but no X-ray operator has ever asked to see inside the bag. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

I have this not just for a/c but by my bed in hotels. I have worked in hotels and know how easily they can become 'smoke logged'.

The unit states that it's filter will give 15 minutes. I have no idea if, should need demand, I will be able to put it on in time but that is my concern. If I am close to a viable exit - I would probably go straight out. If I find myself in the middle of a smoke filled cabin ...?

As to the carriers, I would like to see 'water mist' systems tested more throughly. One of the carriers objections to them is the weight of the water they have to carry all the time. However, when these were debated in another Forum a few months ago, someone pointed out the weight of all those lovely glossy in-flight magazines and the 'flame retarding' alchohol which they cheerfully carry! Basically, we need more people to die or more people to be saved by a water mist system. It is pure economics.

[ 14 January 2002: Message edited by: PAXboy ]</p>