Water evacuation Conundrum
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Water evacuation Conundrum
Flew Continental as SLF. Was surprised to read their safety card on the 757 200, and find they show that in the case of a water landing, the over wing emergency exits are NOT to be used. Further, it shows the emergency raft(s) stowed in the overhead(s) by the over wing exits. The other 6 exits do come equipped with slides that also function as rafts though. In addition, the diagram showed carrying the overwing raft forward up the aircraft aisle to a non overwing exit, and deploying it from there.
Continental's EMB 145(?) jet, with about 56 seats, had a safety card saying the opposite, to use the overwing exits and not the others, in the event of a water landing.
Anyone have an idea why the two types would be so different?
What does the A320 safety card say?
Continental's EMB 145(?) jet, with about 56 seats, had a safety card saying the opposite, to use the overwing exits and not the others, in the event of a water landing.
Anyone have an idea why the two types would be so different?
What does the A320 safety card say?
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Age: 49
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am surprised to hear this of the 757 may be due to the size of the exit and flotation devices, as for the EMB145 there is only one door (stairs too) may prove to be an obstruction and would allow for more water to enter the cabin, the overwing sounds logical in it's case. The other factors are egress and the amount of PAX., in any egress you want to generally have everyone heading for the nearest exit to egress as quickly as possible.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This issue illustrates why even a seasoned flyer should review the emergency card before EACH flight! One of those "minor" differences may be lethal if you're not acutely aware...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a ditching on the A320, the overwing exits are useable, however, the slides are not. The aspirators used for slide inflation are below the waterline which means that the slide will not inflate correctly. Also the overwing slides cannot be detached from the aircraft.
Maybe the 757 could have a similar set-up?
Maybe the 757 could have a similar set-up?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So....back to my original question, if the ERJ 145 and the A320 use the overwing exits in a ditching (as rusty fork says), why not so on the 757 200?
Maybe, when they repacked the 757 rafts after the first inspection, they could no longer be compressed small enough to fit out the overwing exit?
Maybe, when they repacked the 757 rafts after the first inspection, they could no longer be compressed small enough to fit out the overwing exit?
Only half a speed-brake
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any thoughts that a ditching aircraft may not want to open the non overwing exits? Perhaps that could just let the water in, sink the aircraft faster. Thus the ERJ 145 says to only use the overwing exits in a water landing, not the normal exits.
Could Boeings & Airbusses float better, don't have to worry about flooding?
Could Boeings & Airbusses float better, don't have to worry about flooding?