1 / 40

Factors That Control Egress Through Type-III Exits - The Cicada View -

Explore how passageway configurations and human subject factors impact egress times and evacuation effectiveness. Learn how hatch operation briefings can enhance passenger survivability in emergencies.

akara
Télécharger la présentation

Factors That Control Egress Through Type-III Exits - The Cicada View -

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 Air Smoke Type III Type IV Type III Type IV PPBE 1.70 / 0.12 3.30 /0.15 2.00 / 0.09 3.30 / 0.16 No PPBE 1.40 / 0.08 2.90 / 0.16 1.70 / 0.08 2.60 / 0.12 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. Access to Egress2001Study 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

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

  5. Passageway Configuration

  6. Passageway Configuration • 6” dualpassageways withoutboard seat removed • 10” passageway with 14” aft seat encroachment • 13” passageway with 10” aft seat encroachment • 20” passageway with 5” aft seat encroachment

  7. Hatch Operator Briefings

  8. Hatch Effects

  9. 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.

  10. Evacuation Effects Design Factors Effects on Individual Egress Time

  11. Hatch Obstruction

  12. 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.

  13. Human Subject Effects onIndividual Egress Time Evacuation Effects

  14. 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.

More Related