Factors That Control Egress Through Type-III Exits - The Cicada View - G. A. ‘Mac’ McLean, Ph.D. Cynthia L. Corbett, M.A. Protection and Survival Research Lab FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute

Clear AirSmoke Type IIIType IVType IIIType IV PPBE1.70 / / / / 0.16 No PPBE 1.40 / / / / 0.12 Time in sec = mean / std err. n = 20 per group in clear air / 80 per group in smoke CAMI 1989 Average Type-III and Type-IV Exit Crossing Times

Access to Egress 2001 Study Highlights 2,544 subjects participated in 48 “naïve” evacuations  Each group completed another 3 evacuations (192 total)  192 of those “naïve” subjects opened the exit  4 independent variables  Naïve versus repeated measures data analyzed separately

Research Design Factors * 6” passageway is OBR configuration

Passageway Configuration

 6” dual passageways with outboard seat removed  10” passageway with 14” aft seat encroachment  13” passageway with 10” aft seat encroachment  20” passageway with 5” aft seat encroachment

Hatch Operator Briefings

Hatch Effects

Conclusions  Exit preparation time was influenced little by passageway configuration - except for “outside” hatch disposal at the 10” configuration - which was dependent on ergonomic constraints.  Subjects can and will comply with hatch removal and disposal instructions when they understand what is expected.  Positive review of briefing cards by hatch operators allowed them to understand the intended method of hatch operation.  The results indicate that passengers can be more effective survivors if they are properly informed about emergency procedures.

Evacuation Effects Design Factors Effects on Individual Egress Time

Hatch Obstruction

Conclusions  Passageway configuration effects were small and generally correlated with the human subject effects.  Hatch removal and disposal effects were small and were resistant to interactions with passageway width.  Motivation effects were small and not qualitatively different from each other; there were no interactions between motivation level and the other design factors.  Subject group density effects were small and not predictive of subject egress time.

Human Subject Effects on Individual Egress Time Evacuation Effects

Conclusions  Human subject effects accounted for most of the variance in the subject egress time data.  Age, waist size, and gender were predictive of subject egress time, as older and larger subjects, particularly females, were found to egress more slowly.  These findings replicate and extend those from previous evacuation research employing practiced subjects.