- Author
- Bottomley, D. M. | Muir, H. C. | Lower, M. C.
- Title
- Aircraft Evacuations: The Effect of a Cabin Water Spray System Upon Evacuation Rates and Behavior.
- Coporate
- Civil Aviation Authority, London, England
- Report
- CAA Paper 93008, March 1993, 76 p.
- Keywords
- mist | water sprays | aircraft compartments | evacuation | human behavior | visibility | safety | survivability | human factors engineering
- Identifiers
- audibility within the cabin; acoustic environment
- Abstract
- Water spray systems have been proposed as a means of reducing the effects of a fire occurring in an aircraft cabin. The research described in this report was commissioned by the civil Aviation Authority to investigate the human factors aspects of such systems and their potential effects upon evacuation rates and other issues such as visibility and audibility within the cabin. In total, eight full-scale aircraft evacuations were conducted using a 707 airframe located at the Fire Research Station at Cardington. Each evacuation involved a group of around forty-five adults who performed one evacuation only. Four groups evacuated in dry conditions, the remaining four evacuated in the water spray. Video cameras were positioned both inside the aircraft cabin and on the platform outside to provide objective measures of evacuation performance. subjective accounts were also obtained using post-evacuation questionnaires. The results revealed that the evacuation times for the two conditions were virtually identical, the lack of a statistically significant difference suggesting that the presence of the water spray did not affect evacuation rates. Similarly, subjective visibility ratings within the cabin were not found to differ between the conditions. However, the audibility of the evacuation commands given by the cabin attendants was rated as significantly worse in conditions in which the water spray was in use. As volunteers appeared to be considerably more motivated to evacuate in the 'wet' conditions, it was hypothesized that the differences in audibility ratings may have been a consequence of the possibility that these volunteers had less spare attentional capacity to take note of more peripheral sources of information such as the commands given by the cabin attendants. The majority of volunteers reported that the water spray had not affected their evacuation, with the majority of the remainder claiming that their vision had been adversely affected. In addition, it was found that volunteers wearing glasses had more visibility problems within the cabin during 'wet' evacuations (although this did not affect their evacuation performance) but the water did not appear to affect those wearing contact lenses. Finally, no problems resulting from the floor surface and other cabin furnishings becoming wet were identified.