2018-02-13
1595
Next time you board an aircraft, ask yourself a question: if this thing crashes, what are my chances of surviving!
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 and pop a sleeping pill. If it happens, it happens. But researchers 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 and often during takeoff or landing, when the deceleration forces on impact are within the tolerance levels of the human body.
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 your 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 loose 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 Ml, killing 47 of the 126 people on board. As investigators analysed every aspect of the tragedy, attention turned to the injuries sustained by passengers: ail but 10 suffered head or face injuries, 47 had broken or dislocated arms or shoulders, 38 suffered abdominal traumas 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 meanpassengers 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 drink 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."
WHAT TO DO:
1. Explain the meaning of the following words and word combinations:
negative panic; emergency exit; safety briefing; common sense; brace position; head-on crash; rear-facing seats, aft-facing passengers.
2. Complete the following sentences using the text:
1. Often, those who died have sat…;
2. An engine failed during take-off, …;
3. Flying infantilises us…;
4. If fire breaks out,…;
5. Most importantly, passengers need to know….
3. Work in pairs. Correct wrong statements. Begin your answers with the following word combinations:
That’s right, precisely so, I agree with you, exactly so, you are not right.
1. Those who survived reacted quickly.
2. Most air crashes occur in mid air.
3. There are occasions when common sense is needed.
4. We usually pay sufficient attention to safety briefings.
4. Fill in the gaps. Use the following words:
A matter of luck; frozen in panic; died of burns; smoke inhalation; caught fire; reacted quickly.
Why should one passenger die and another survive? You might think this is simply ____ _____ ____ but you'd be wrong: crash investigators have found time and time again that those who survived have been those who ____ _______, thought on their feet and evacuated the aircraft swiftly. Often, those who died have sat _____ _____ _____, 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 ______ ______ 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 _____ _________ and five ______ _____ _____.
5. Work with your partner. You could possibly ask each other in turn:
1. What are the chances of surviving an air crash?
2. When do most accidents occur?
3. Why should one passenger die and another survive in the event of a crash?
4. Why do most passengers ignore safety briefings?
5. Which part of an aircraft is safest?
