1. 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

2. Clear AirSmoke Type IIIType IVType IIIType IV PPBE1.70 / 0.123.30 /0.152.00 / 0.093.30 / 0.16 No PPBE 1.40 / 0.082.90 / 0.161.70 / 0.082.60 / 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

13. 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

14. Research Design Factors * 6” passageway is OBR configuration

15. Passageway Configuration

16.  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

17. Hatch Operator Briefings

18. Hatch Effects

22. 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.

23. Evacuation Effects Design Factors Effects on Individual Egress Time

29. Hatch Obstruction

30. 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.

31. Human Subject Effects on Individual Egress Time Evacuation Effects

36. 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.