Evacuation Command

[sprucegoose]

Hi,

I am looking for feedback on what other airlines use for the flight deck command for a passenger evacuation. A previous thread years back suggested some carriers may use a covert command to avoid passengers prematurely moving to exits before they were open and ready for use. My curiosity is whether this is still the case and how widespread is this type of signal in the industry. Is there any published study to support this?

My airline uses "This is the captain, evacuate evacuate."

[Dash8driver1312]

This is an emergency, evacuate by (all/left/right/forward/aft) exits


Nothing much subtle there.

[sprucegoose]

Nope, we don't even nominate the exits anymore. We did in past airlines but that is left to the CC to determine these days.

[Yarpy]

One of my employers taught:

'This is an emergency. Undo your straps and get out!'

Left absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

[oldbalboy]

Evacuate evacuate undo seatlbelts & get out.

[cjags]

Evacuate, unfasten your seatbelts and get out.

[betpump5]

Nope, we don't even nominate the exits anymore. We did in past airlines but that is left to the CC to determine these days.

Spruce, please tell me you are joking.

I am very pro-CC and treat them with the ultimate of respect for the very difficult job they do day-in day-out. However their situational awareness leaves a lot to be desired in most normal situations - made much worse by a tiny cabin window they have to look out of in terms of emergencies.

Surely you have the bigger picture when it comes to evacuation?: Engines on fire, prevailing winds blowing said fire in direction of evacuees, live runway/ taxiway on a specific side of the aircraft, a known spillage on one side that the CC would have no way of knowing etc.

The above are just a few things I can think of as to why CC should never be given the authority to decide what side an evacuation should be made on.

Of course in the event of no communication between flight deck and cabin due to a catastrophic failure, then obviously CC need to make that decision.

Also regardless of what the Captain says, CC should always do their usual checks before they open their respective exit.

[vctenderness]

Cabin crew only initiate an evacuation in 'clearly catastrophic circumstances' otherwise wait for evacuation to be initiated from flight deck.

Of course there is always the chance that it is not catastrophic but cabin crew are trained to make a good decision and what constitutes circumstances of evacuation.

One earlier comment here refers to undo straps I don't think that is the right terminology that passengers would understand. It should be unfasten seat belts in all airlines.

[crewmeal]

I would imagine most evacuations will be based on NITS - nature - information - time available - special instructions.

Catastrophic circumstances would require cabin crew to initiate an evacuation based on the event. At least that was what I was taught in BA years ago.

[Piltdown Man]

A typical flow for us would be:

Something goes wrong - Stop aircraft - Apply parking brake - Announce "Cabin crew and passengers: Remain Seated" - Start configuring for an evacuation and shut engines down - Announce "Evacuate Aircraft."

The choice of doors will be made by the cabin crew. They will be closer to the problem and better placed to make the call.

PM

[Tray Surfer]

Flight Crew to Cabin:

"THIS IS AN EMERGENCY. EVACUATE... EVACUATE..."
This would be followed by any additional information if any known hazards exist at any door or side of the aircraft etc.

[sprucegoose]

In the past I worked for a company that had flight crew nominate exits and there was no issue. I had no issue. It was always the caveat that if a nominated exit was not useable, it didn't get opened by the CC. I agree entirely that there are some circumstances where the FC might just have a better idea of where the dangers are outside, dangers that won't be immediately visible when checking outside conditions from a door viewing window. I would have to research the history to my present procedures, they have been in place since day one.Most likely borrowed from someone. After all how else do most airlines get the initial manual suits up and running? The matter has been discussed a few times over the years but there has been no will to change it. Personally I prefer the FC to nominate. I then trust the CC to make the correct assessment based on what they can see. Its a grey area at best.

Not sure where the covert evac signal originated, I haven't seen it appear in a discussion forum since 2009 so maybe it has passed away into the ether.

[Whiskey Zulu]

Historically, it was considered 'unwise' to use exits on the same side as an engine fire to evacuate. e.g."Evacuate starboard side only" PA.

Since the Airtours B737 disaster at Manchester Airport, when such a PA was made by the Cpt, the philosophy remains, but in theory only. In the Manchester disaster ALL the main exits on the starboard side were affected by fire (AFT right) or jammed (FWD right) leaving the pax controlled right overwing exit as the only means of escape!

The FWD left door was eventually used and 17 pax escaped using this door, which was 'on the same side as the fire.'

On larger aircraft, the distance between FWD and AFT most doors and the engines is quite considerable. C/C should therefore be taught to assess the usability of each exit, regardless of which side of the aircraft the fire is on, before using it.

The Captain may still nominate exits, based on information from ATC or emergency services, but, as proved in Manchester, usable exits on the other side should not be discounted.

[sprucegoose]

And that would suggest that it is in fact best left to the CC to decide which exits are best for use. Interesting debate on this point. Evacuations should only be carried out in circumstances where there is immediate threat to the safety of crew and passengers meaning that once the captain has nominated exits, it becomes a moot point if the CC assess doors and have the liberty to use which ever exits appears safe, as they are expected to do.

Do any of you specific procedures or training in the removal of "deranged" passengers in an evacuation. This term is straight from our regs, I assume it MAY allude to removal of restrained passengers (had they been a threat inflight) however the context of the reg is not specific on this point. It could be assumed that it refers to a passenger that becomes deranged in the emergency event and subsequently become an obstruction to other pax. However the specific use of the word "deranged" in the regs in relation to evacuations implies something more than simply an ineffectual person.

[Tray Surfer]

In terms of dealing with "non standard" passengers. The only times it is really referred to in our manuals is for a Planned Ditching, where we would un-restrain a restrained passenger, and also in regard to someone obstructing the exit, which is worded something like "If a passenger were to pause and cause an obstruction, push them out of the exit in any position" as a pose to the instructions about "accepted" ways of pushing someone out of the door if they momentarily hesitate and impede the passenger flow etc...

[+TSRA]

Very interesting to see the differences. The places I've worked have used "Evacuate, Evacuate, Evacuate" and leave the direction up to the Flight Attendants. The thinking behind not giving a direction is that in many aircraft, my left is my in-charges right. Even though there should be a standard "left" and "right," it's a risk that need not be taken in a high risk, high stress environment such as an emergency. The same logic exists behind not calling "Remain Seated, Remain Seated," then calling for the evacuation; it sends mixed signals to the passengers, and in our manuals, "Remain Seated" advises the FA's to stop their silent review.

No right or wrong exists though, so long as both pilots and flight attendants are operating from the same playbook.

As for restrained passengers, here in Canada they get uncuffed, regardless of how bad they were. It falls under the human rights act, rather than any aviation regulation. Any person with a physical or mental impairment is assigned a Able Bodied Passenger if they don't already have an escort. Of course, that all goes out the window for an unplanned emergency. ;)

[Whiskey Zulu]

Our SOP's state that a physically restrained pax should be released from the 'restraint kit' once the first door is opened for an evacuation. The buckles of the restraint straps would be released and they would exit the aircraft, still handcuffed, and having to carry the attached strap.

[sprucegoose]

We have the same procedure for a restrained pax but the Civil Aviation Orders suggests there should be a procedure for handling in emergencies and emergency evacuations.... deranged passengers among other things. The context almost suggests that this derangement presents itself in the middle of the emergency or emergency evacuation. Strange yet its been there for decades. Id say improvisation is the best procedure because it would be very difficult to encapsulate all the possible ways this could play out in a single procedure.

How about the Brace commands, does your operation have crew ceasing them at the first sign of impact or when the aircraft comes to a stop. We have until stopped but if you are having a crash or non-normal event such as gear up, nobody will hear a damn thing and there is added risk of forward facing crew biting off a tongue in very high G forces.

[Whiskey Zulu]

Our brace commands are to be continued until the aircraft comes to a complete stop.

Interestingly, despite the studies following the injuries sustained during the Kegworth B737 crash in the UK, there is not a standard, recommended brace position world-wide.

Unpremeditated brace commands also vary. Ours used to be "bend down, grab your ankles." After the changes to the standard brace position in the UK, following Kegworth, I suggested these were changed to "bend down, protect your head" which actually is much more effective and has been adopted by my company.

[jetset lady]

It's the same with us in respect of how long to keep up the command, however, we use the simple command of "Brace! Brace!" Having worked for an airline that used, "Get your heads down, get your heads down!", I have to admit to finding our command much easier to keep up at high volume for what could be a fair amount of time. We also do it in tandem from front to back and/or side to side, depending on aircraft type so you'll hear the commands alternately from the left and right, back to front. Again, that gives us half a chance to keep it going, while grabbing a breath in between. Having said that, in all honesty, I'm not entirely sure it matters what you shout or whether the passengers will even be able to make out what you are saying in true emergency. I'd have thought the most important part of any emergency command would be to keep it simple and direct.

As far as adding directions to an evacuation command, while I agree with what has been said so far, this is one of my bug bears in the current company. The command in such circumstances is "Evacuate, evacuate, hazard on left/right.." If part of the message is lost in the general melee, all you hear is "Evacuate......Left" Which way are you going to go? We cabin crew have always been taught to only ever give positive commands for that exact reason. I did try to very politely bring this up after a mock up scenario but was shot down in flames by a training Captain. :ouch:

[sprucegoose]

Well being flight deck crew, and managing an EP program, i can say that pilots are NOT always the best judge of exits to be used. Like everyone in the puzzle, they have some information but not all of it. The final assessment of exit availability is the check outside from the viewing window. The problem with fuel spills (as an example) is knowing how that spill may migrate along the ground. So even though there is risk in opening an exit if there is a fuel spill not identifiable by CC, there is also a risk in not opening a perfectly serviceable door prior to any fuel spill igniting, if it should. Its a fine line. Of course if you have an Aviation Rescue Fire Fighting service at the field, it is usually better to give them a chance to contain external fires and fuel spills before considering an evacuation. So long as the airframe is intact you have up to 5 minutes before burn through of the fuselage and insulating material occurs. That is well beyond the minimum response times for the ARFF (assuming it is a clear day/night and you are on a runway or taxiway).

How many of you have procedures for CC shutting down the aircraft engines prior to initiating an evacuation if the FC are incapacitated?

[jetset lady]

We don't but are there many scenarios are there that this could actually come into play? If both flight crew are completely incapacitated due to impact injuries, then that would suggest fairly heavy damage to the flight deck and possible buckling of the front section. Would the crew even be able to get in and reach the handles? That's assuming that the cabin crew at the front are also not incapacitated, the engines have survived the impact and the controls are working. The only other situation I could think of would be smoke inhalation but again, if the flight crew are overcome and those in the cabin aren't, would the time taken to get into the flight deck would be too long?

(These are genuine questions by the way. It's a subject I have an interest in, not just for my own personal safety!)

[ShyTorque]

My emergency evacuation / parachute abandonment drill for my students was:

"In the event of an emergency requiring us to leave the aircraft immediately, I will say "JUMP, JUMP, JUMP!" If you hesitate, you will see the words "FOLLOW" and "ME" written on the soles of my boots as I jump headfirst over the side."

They always seemed to understand.

[sprucegoose]

jet set lady, all good questions and valid ones. It is probable that if both pilots are incapacitated then further damage to the airframe and controls is likely. The chance of shutting an engine down will be partly dependant on the make and model of aircraft. Many aircraft these days have electronic control of the engine start/stop systems in the flight deck. All you would need to effect a shut down is a complete electrical circuit between the master switch, the FADEC and the engine fuel valves. that may be more likely that older types where controls were cable actuated.

If engines were running and CC had to initiate an evac with incapacitated FC, do any of your company procedures preclude use of exits forward of the wing?

[air pig]

The Kegworth crash showed that some passengers were unable to evacuate due to fractured femurs due to seat design. There was at the time a metal rail across the seat a femur level so when that aircraft crash the impact and resultant 'G' forces caused the fractures. A number of seats are still at Farnbrough.

[Burnie5204]

Spruce - dont you mean rear of the wing?

Certainly at low idle the engine ingestion zone does not extend as far forward as the L1/R1 doors so these would be safe-ISH for egress and evacuation forward of the aircraft.

Doors rear of the engines would be no-go due to engine exhaust gas.

Though saying that in an EJ135/145 type design you could probably evacuate all doors with engines at idle (it would be a bit noisy though)


However, if the flight crew is incapacitated then presumably CC could start evac via L1/R1 whilst one CC enters the flightdeck and pull the fire handles to cause shutdown (thats if CC do have the door code if not fire axe the way in) If the cockpit becomes detached so entry is not possible then the control systems would have severed and the engines would shutdown anyway due to fuel starvation as the pumps will stop running.


Although any impact causing crew incapacitation on impact would be a very severe impact, of sufficient size to cause severe engine damage which will result in shutdown. Any in-flight incapacitation of both crew is unlikely to result in a survivable accident. If you would be lucky enough to survive then the aircraft is likely to be in multiple pieces and the engines again severely damaged resulting in shutdown.

[Tu.114]

Here, the evacuation command is simple. "This is an emergency. Evacuate." (repeated in German language). While it is allowed to specify the exits to be used, doing so is left to flight crew discretion. If no exit is specified, cabin crew is to check the conditions outside on their own and decide whether using an exit is safe or not.

After an emergency landing and also a rejected takeoff, flight crew has 10 seconds to call a decision. If nothing is heard until then, cabin crew will call the flight deck and in the absence of other instructions begin to evacuate on their own account thereafter.

[sprucegoose]

At idle power the escape slides closest to the engine intakes are safe. Above Idle there are no guarantee's. You will notice on some wide body types, the slides closest to the engine intakes are canted slightly forward to ensure evacuee's are dispatched at a slight angle away from the engine intakes. The danger of ingestion is far worse than the danger of of jet blast, but this is also considered at idle power. We used to teach CC not to open doors forward of engines if they were running but we changed it in light of the engine intake danger footprints being safe for this condition. We were essentially pre blocking useable exits. We also used to teach CC to shut down engines if they were running and FC were incapacitated. That changed too and is no longer done. I'm curious how many operators teach CC the quite basic task of shutting engines down if they need to before initiating an evacuation.
Sorry for so many questions but I am quite curious for my own research in procedural design as to who does what and why. The industry really needs, and lacks, any internationally accepted standards of CC EP procedures.

[Tu.114]

We also used to teach CC to shut down engines if they were running and FC were incapacitated.

I do assume that this was in the days before the installation of the armoured flight deck door. As it is now, this is a serious obstacle not only for bad guys, but also for cabin crew with the understandable desire to kill the engines for an evacuation. Such an attempt will seriously cut short the time available for an evacuation.

So the choice is either to use time to ensure the engines are dead while the cabin becomes more and more inhospitable or to accept the uncertainty about the engines state and get those passengers out of the cabin.

Accepting the more or less remote possibility of an engine still running and therefore giving the evacuees orders to leave the individual exit into an appropriate direction away from the engines is certainly not a perfect option either but IMHO more likely to result in the desired outcome: to get the passengers out and clear of the aircraft as quickly as possible.

[sprucegoose]

I can't recall which came first, the door or the procedure. I do recall that some not very well supervised live aircraft training had resulted in start levers being left in the wrong position following a CC training session one evening and the fall out was to cease the manual manipulation of the start/stop controls for engines. It may have come to pass as a result that we didn't need to teach that anyway and dropped it.

[fa2fi]

I know at Delta it is (or certainly was) "easy victor" said three times. No specific instructions as to what doors to use.

[Dixie]

In the USA most commands for an unplanned emergency are "heads down stay down, heads down stay down." Once the exits have been assessed then the evac commands begin which are "open seat belts get out, come this way, leave everything, jump jump" Evac command from the flight deck is "Get Out", if nothing from the flight deck the cabin crew can initiate an evacuation. In a planned evacuation the only difference is "Brace brace brace" just prior to landing. USA does not use NITS but instead uses NTSB, TEST or TESTS depending on the airline.

[PennywiseTheClown]

What's the logic in codes commands? If the crew are unconscious the passengers will be left wondering what was said, what it meant and what to do next.

Beep Beep.

[mary meagher]

Forgive this thread creep, but can't resist sharing - if you havn't seen the film "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming" it is a classic and well worth watching.

The relevance to this discussion of evacuation takes place when the Soviet submarine crew are attempting to steal a motor yacht to tow their sub off an inconvenient sandbar. They invade a dry cleaners and cover their uniforms with incongruous civilian items, then proceed toward the docks telling everyone they meet - in heavy Russian accents -

"Emergency! Everybody to leave the street!"

When I am briefing a passenger in my glider, I first fit him with a parachute, and tell him- "If I say to you 'bale out!' don't turn around to ask me what did I say, because I won't be there any more!.....you can then decide what to do next.

[Piltdown Man]

I just wonder - how many of these procedures have come about as the result of real incidents and evacuations? The excruciating minutiae of detail defies all logic. The bottom line is that it becomes the Cabin Crew's job is to try and save as many people as possible once the overpaid heros in the bit that was the front have parked the remains of the aircraft. Simple commands, complete with errors, will be more than sufficient to coax the slightly recalcitrant out of their and seats and towards the emergency exits. The "eager beavers" will probably be out of the plane before the average CA has said anything and the Darwin Award mob will still be in their seats the following day, not matter what happens.

It is plain to see that the rubbish spouted by SEP trainers has no bearing on reality and appears to totally ignore human nature. It is a shame. Because time and time again, heroines have been seen by the doors of stricken, burning aircraft helping the injured and confused to safety using common sense, the very thing they appear not to be trusted to use in a real emergency. The bigger the problem, the simpler the procedures. It's about time things changed.

PM

[The Bullwinkle]

Any Pilot who's been divorced (and I'm sure there's a few) knows the drill.

"Leave everything behind, Get Out"

I've heard that a couple of times myself! :)

[regional_flyer]

The Captain used to nominate our exits - after impact they may have done an alert/post-impact PA stating "attention, this is the captain, cabin crew expect [all/RH/LH/FWD/AFT] exits", followed shortly by "attention, this is the captain, evacuate [nominated] exits, [nominated] exits evacuate". The first (alert) PA may or may not be used, it could go immediately into the evacuation.

The alert/post-impact PA was recently changed to "attention, this is the captain, cabin crew to your stations", which actually means to check the exits near our relevant station. To initiate an evacuation they now simply state "attention, this is the captain, evacuate evacuate." Basically, the big change is the decision of what exits to utilise has shifted from the flight deck to the cabin crew.

How about the Brace commands, does your operation have crew ceasing them at the first sign of impact or when the aircraft comes to a stop. We have until stopped but if you are having a crash or non-normal event such as gear up, nobody will hear a damn thing and there is added risk of forward facing crew biting off a tongue in very high G forces.

30 seconds prior to impact the Captain will announce "attention, brace brace", to which the CC command "brace, brace, brace, heads down, stay down, heads down, stay down, heads down, stay down", before bracing. This allows us to get into our brace position prior to impact, and we remain silent until the aircraft completely stops. We then release ourselves and command "stay seated" until given indication to open our exits.

USA does not use NITS but instead uses NTSB, TEST or TESTS depending on the airline.

Ours used to be TESTO, recently changed to NITS.