Flight Attendants Seeking FAA Help

Suppose you survived an airplane crash, then tried to escape from a window exit before toxic gases and fire spread through the plane, but couldn’t because of limited access to the window access hatches?

The Assn. of Flight Attendants is asking the Federal Aviation Authority to come to terms with the issue, and cited the British Civil Aviation Authority in coping with the problem.

“Seats are jammed too close to the window exits in the economy sections of many American jets, and this can make it difficult for passengers to find a good physical position to quickly open and remove the heavy hatches at these exits,” Matt Finucane, director of air safety and health for the flight attendants group, said.

Finucane added that narrow-body planes such as 737s, 727s, DC-9s and MD-80s have this problem in coach sections.

Less Problem With Doors

“The wide-body planes such as 747s, DC-10s and L-1011s have doors over their wings rather than windows, so getting out of the jets doesn’t present this problem,” he said.

Finucane also charged that the FAA is delaying in alleviating the situation.

“Although we’re accustomed to long delays in FAA rule-making, it is unforgivable that it would take the agency more than four years to write a rule implementing a known solution to a known problem,” he added.

“In effect, American passengers remain exposed to a hazard eliminated by the British. They’re also safer flying on American-made jets in England than in the United States.”

An FAA spokesman said the agency is putting together a proposal that might change the regulations on access to window seats. The proposal is expected to be ready for public comment early next year.

The British action resulted after an Aug. 22, 1985, accident involving a Boeing 737 taking off at Manchester International Airport.

In that accident the takeoff was aborted. Although the first fire vehicle arrived in less than 30 seconds, 55 passengers and crew died from fire, smoke and toxic gas inhalation.

As a result of the Manchester incident, Finucane said the British in 1986 ruled that airlines must make more space for passengers to open such exits, either by providing an aisle to the exit, which is forward of the midline of the exit and at least 10 inches wide, or removing the seat closest to the exit.

A typical U.S. airplane seat installation has an aisle width of seven inches, seats forward of the midline of the window exit, and three seats abreast. “This type of installation, while not necessarily used on all American jets, allows little room for a passenger to remove the window exit,” Finucane said.

“In order to provide adequate access, the aisle width would have to be increased at least three inches, as with the British rule. In addition, the seat row would have to be moved back so the cushions don’t cross the centerline of the exit. As an alternative, the seat nearest the exit could be removed.”

The FAA is considering a related proposal that would determine who should sit in an exit row on domestic flights. This could lead to certain passengers being banned from sitting in such rows because of safety considerations.

Seating Choices

Passengers considered unable to operate emergency exits without assistance, or who might impede the evacuation of other passengers, would have to sit elsewhere.

Flight crews would have to judge, because the proposal would call for the carriers to train such personnel, who would have to make judgments about passenger capabilities.

The proposal also calls for the airlines to verify that appropriate passengers are sitting in the exit rows before takeoff, and to be responsible for briefing passengers on their option of moving out of the exit row if they think they can’t handle the responsibilities that go with such seats.

The rule by the FAA would call for passengers sitting in exit rows to be able to find the exit and follow instructions for use.