Immediate Evacuation Not Always Warranted, Official Suggests
LOS ANGELES, Calif. – A nationwide common frequency for pilots in emergencies to communicate with airport rescue and firefighting (ARFF) personnel has paid off in more effective emergency responses. Better communications also have helped to avoid unnecessary emergency evacuations, according to a senior Australian ARFF official.
"However, there is absolute need for rapid evacuation in serious situations involving fire or potential for fire," added Commander Simon Reilly of Airservices Australia.
Poor radio communications has been one of the main problems in coordinating the response between the aircrew dealing with an emergency and the emergency response forces at the airport. "For ARFF response, we have one frequency in Australia, 131.0," Reilly said. By contrast, he pointed out that there are six different frequencies in the United States and two different frequencies in Europe.
That single frequency has been in effect for the past two years in Australia. "In more than 42 incidents, it has worked very well for us," Reilly said. Speaking at the 20th International Aircraft Cabin Safety Symposium here recently, Reilly, a 23-year emergency response veteran, said the common frequency has facilitated far more effective communications between cockpit crews and emergency responders at Australia’s airports since it was put into effect. As an example, he cited the case of a China Eastern A330 twinjet with broken nosewheel steering that ran off the runway at Sydney two years ago. There was no fire, and no immediate danger to the approximately 220 passengers and crew aboard. "We advised keeping everybody aboard," he recalled.
Reilly recounted an earlier case of an Ansett B747 that suffered a nosewheel collapse, also at Sydney. "There was no fire and it was raining," he said, and these were major factors in the decision not to conduct an emergency evacuation.
Reilly suggested that when circumstances are not immediately life threatening, it may preferable to keep everybody aboard the aircraft. In a typical jumbo jet, one might have 16 cockpit and cabin crew; and on the tarmac another 16 personnel might be involved in the ARFF response. These personnel would be hugely outnumbered by 400 frightened, confused or dazed passengers. Since an Australian was giving the talk, the image of evacuated passengers as a flock of sheep came to mind. Moreover, injuries can occur as passengers hurl themselves down the slides, and once people are on the ground, they must be shepherded out of the way of ARFF vehicles and activity. Once an emergency evacuation is conducted, a host of needs arise, Reilly said. As an example, he asked, "Where do you get 400 blankets in a short period of time?"
The notion of avoiding unnecessary emergency evacuations was challenged by some conference attendees, who pointed to the risk of unnecessary deaths if emergency evacuations are not conducted promptly when even seconds of delay can spell the difference between life and death. If there is an intrinsic tension between unnecessary evacuations and unnecessary deaths, it is better to err on the side of preventing the latter, they maintained.
Reilly showed a video of a twin-turboprop making a wheels up landing, and coming to a stop on the runway with bent propellers and assorted scrapes on the fuselage, but no evidence of smoke or fire. With emergency responders on the scene within seconds, would an emergency evacuation be advisable under these circumstances, he asked. Opinions were divided among a discussion group made up largely of flight attendants, but the weight of opinion seemed to be in favor of getting out of the airplane as quickly as possible. After all, flight attendant training is focused on the imperative for prompt evacuation in an emergency. In some airlines, flight attendants are empowered to order evacuation, even in the absence of a command from the cockpit. De-emphasizing the imperative for speedy exit might be counterproductive. Reilly countered that not all cases warrant an immediate emergency evacuation. He agreed that when fire is present, there is no question of the need for prompt evacuation.
Candace Kolander, a safety expert with the Association of Flight Attendants, who was present during these discussions, remained troubled by the thought of keeping passengers on board, even in the absence of fire. "In all the scenarios discussed during the workshop, it was assumed that ARFF was going to be there right away," she said. "So do we desensitize the evacuation because cockpit crews may now want to wait and see what ARFF has to say because of all this new technology?"
Consider, she added, a fire in the cabin or in the cargo hold. "Who is in the best position to assess the situation? ARFF or the crew? Who actually has the final say in an evacuation?" she asked.
Kolander said concern about inducing minor injuries during an evacuation is one thing, but that it is imperative to "maintain and continue to practice fast evacuation, because that could mean the difference between life and death for some passengers."
Mike Murphy, a Canadian authority on ARFF, took a different tack, saying, "Sometimes it may be better to hold people inside rather than to take the chutes."
"But this decision is a critical one and underlines the need for ARFF personnel and flight crews to be extremely knowledgeable of the situation and the risks both ways." (For Murphy’s concerns about the deficient state of ARFF preparedness, see ASW, Oct. 21, 2002.)
While a common radio frequency has been a boon, Reilly pointed out that low-tech means of communication also need to be improved. For example, a system of common hand signals is lacking. Reilly presented the situation where an airplane with an emergency has landed and the flight attendant is looking out the exit window at an ARFF responder. The flight attendant gestures by crossing her arms across her chest. What does this hand signal mean? That the emergency exit is unusable? Perhaps. Or, consider a pointing signal. That is not only a more universal gesture, its range of potential meaning could actually lead to miscommunication.
"We need universal and consistent hand signals," Reilly declared. "These hand signals could incorporate security issues," he added. Indeed, a dictionary of hand signals has been developed, and could be employed worldwide under the auspices of an ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) standard, Reilly suggested.
While the common cockpit-ARFF radio frequency has helped emergency communications, a flight attendant said it’s one thing for the cockpit crew to have a better understanding of the emergency response situation, but flight attendants could still be clueless. One way to improve awareness among cabin crew of transpiring events and the captain’s concerns and intentions might be to include the ability for flight attendants to listen in on cockpit-to-ATC and cockpit-to-ARFF communications. They would not be able to interject their comments and concerns, potentially gumming up the net with unwanted communications, but being able to "listen in" could be a great boon to crew coordination. >> Reilly, e-mail [email protected]; Murphy, e-mail [email protected]; Kolander, e-mail [email protected] <<
