Factors That Control Egress Through TypeIII Exits The Cicada View

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
CAMI 1989 Average Type-III and Type-IV Exit
Crossing Times
Time in sec mean / std err. n 20 per
group in clear air / 80 per group in smoke
3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
Access to Egress2001 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
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

17
Hatch Operator Briefings
18
Hatch Effects
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
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
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
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 onIndividual Egress Time
Evacuation Effects
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
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.

37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)