FAA Proposal Would Make It Easier to Use Airplane Emergency Exits

Airlines will finally be required by the Federal Aviation Administration to expand the space around emergency exits under a proposed regulation drafted by the FAA and currently being studied by the airlines.

While such a change has been discussed for a number of years, the issue was raised again recently by airport accidents in Los Angeles and Detroit, where some passengers survived the initial impact of the plane crashes but then perished trying to evacuate the jets.

On Dec. 3, 1990, eight passengers died at Detroit Metropolitan Airport before they could exit a Northwest Airlines jet that had collided with another Northwest plane. And last Feb. 1, 34 passengers died in a collision at LAX between a USAir 737 and a SkyWest commuter plane. Of the 34 who died, 18 were trying to evacuate the burning USAir jet before they perished.

“This action is aimed at making it easier for passengers who survive the impact forces of an accident to escape a burning aircraft,” said Secretary of Transportation Samuel K. Skinner in announcing the FAA’s proposal on April 8. “Speed in evacuating an aircraft is the key to survival.”

Airlines have been given the choice of two courses of action that would satisfy the FAA proposal: Remove the seat next to the emergency window exit, located above the plane’s wings, or expand the space between window-exit rows to at least 20 inches. The current norm for space between rows is six to eight inches.

FAA officials have predicted that most airlines will choose widening the area in front of window-exit seats because of their reluctance to give up a revenue-producing seat.

Airlines will also be required to inform passengers sitting by window exits how to open these exits. Some of the exits are removable hatches, while others may be hinged doors. The number of exits on commercial aircraft varies from two to six.

Some industry observers believe that neither of these options adequately fulfills the ultimate purpose of the FAA’s proposal--that passengers will be able to quickly evacuate disabled planes before being overcome by fire and toxic gases. Studies have shown that passengers have to get out of a burning jet within about 90 seconds to survive.

“Between the two choices, we think the 20-inch option is the best as far as passenger safety,” said Matt Finucane, director of air safety and health for the Washington-based Assn. of Flight Attendants. “If you take out a seat, you might have an area of about 33 inches. That could mean two lines of passengers using this space from both in front and behind the exit row, which could crowd the area.”

Bill Jackman, a spokesman for the Air Transport Assn., an industry group representing major U.S. airlines, agrees on that point: “Widening the space at the window exit could result in clogging the area and reducing the ability to get out. Now there is room for one passenger at a time to exit. If you widen the space, there would be passengers coming from two directions trying to get into this row. There may be a better way.”

This same issue was raised several years ago in Great Britain. The British Civil Aviation Authority passed a rule in January, 1986, requiring airlines to either provide an exit aisle at least 10 inches wide or remove the seat closest to the exit. That action was spurred by an Aug. 22, 1985, accident at Manchester International Airport involving a British Airtours 737 that experienced engine failure upon takeoff, then burst into flames. Although the first fire vehicle arrived in less than 30 seconds, 55 passengers and crew died from fire, smoke and toxic gas inhalation.

“In research afterward, the British found that an 18-inch area would provide even better access,” Finucane said.

“The 20-inch access area in the FAA proposal is better, but now we’re concerned about how long the rule-making process will take. It may be 1993 before we see a change and the FAA finally remedies a problem that became obvious in 1985.”

The FAA proposal would give the airlines up to six months after the final rule was passed to make the necessary modifications on their planes.

Finucane pointed out that narrow-body planes, such as the 737s, 727s, DC-9s and MD-80s used on shorter routes--may have seats jammed too close to the window exits in their economy sections. “This could make it difficult for passengers to find a good physical position to quickly open and remove the hatch,” Finucane said. “Wide-body planes such as 747s, DC-10s and L-1011s have doors over their wings rather than windows, so getting out of these jets doesn’t pose this problem.”

Under the FAA proposal, when the window exit is a removable hatch, a placard by the seat would have to clearly indicate how to open the hatch and where to store it so it wouldn’t block passengers on their way out of the jet.

Moreover, the placard would have to indicate the weight of the hatch, which is likely to be heavier than passengers anticipate. Hatches can weigh as much as 50 pounds.

Airlines are already required by law to restrict exit-row seats to passengers presumed to be capable of opening these exits. According to a regulation that went into effect Oct. 5, carriers are also required to put special cards at all exit-row seats advising passengers of what steps to take in case of an emergency.

Passengers who are unable or unwilling to handle exit-row responsibilities are supposed to be reseated elsewhere on the jet.

While some airlines screen passengers before assigning them exit-row seats, one FAA official said that full implementation and enforcement of the rule has been spotty so far, mostly due to the time required to adequately review each individual airline’s compliance plans.

Passengers who may be denied exit row seats include the disabled, those who don’t understand English, children under 15 and parents with small children. Elderly, frail and obese passengers may also find themselves being asked to sit away from exit rows.

The FAA welcomes public response to the window-exit proposal. Written comments should be sent by Oct. 7 to the Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No. 16530, 800 Independence Ave. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591.