Smoke Hoods
Guest
Posts: n/a
smoke hoods
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: England
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: below the sky
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by nooluv; 5th Oct 2003 at 06:39.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
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 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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: At home
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: N Yorkshire, UK
Age: 76
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re Hotel Rooms
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!!!
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!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: England
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: England
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
