Survivor Wants Tough Plane-Evacuation Tests

The article on McDonnell Douglas’ problems with its evacuation test of a higher-density configuration for the MD-11, “A Dangerous Test at McDonnell” (Nov. 6), detailed the injuries resulting from two attempts to meet an FAA requirement to evacuate an aircraft within 90 seconds of an emergency.

Since the original certification of the MD-11--then the DC-10--in the 1970s, the FAA has made significant changes in the evacuation test requirements. Fifty percent of test participants must be over 50, compared to 5% before.

The cabin is darkened and obstacles are placed in people’s paths. These changes were criticized by some people quoted in the article. And someone proposed not using the evacuation slides to avoid injuries in tests.

My interest stems from my personal experience in a real emergency, the USAir-SkyWest accident at LAX in February.

Within 90 seconds, the cabin filled with dense, acrid smoke. Lighting failed or was obscured by the smoke--I was unable to tell which. The aisle was clear, but the path to the right window exit was not. The seat-backs seemed to have collapsed forward so that they formed a platform you had to crawl across to get to the exit.

Most of the passengers who survived used only two of the six emergency exits. The chutes were another story. The angle of the aircraft, with the nose gear collapsed, was steep enough that the chute at the right rear door exit was almost vertical. Many of the injuries--back, hip and foot sprains and bruises, if not worse--I saw resulted from people using this slide and hitting the ground hard. The atmosphere in the cabin would be difficult to reproduce in a staged drill. As the plane touched down, passengers who were contemplating the drive home or the beginning of a weekend suddenly saw fire appear from both sides of the aircraft. The plane bumped across the field and jolted to a stop as it crashed against a building.

People were afraid, and some panicked. Once the exits were opened, the cabin quickly filled with smoke.

I estimate that it took me 2 1/2 minutes to exit through the window. One quarter of the people on the USAir plane perished, most from smoke inhalation.

I do not know how many people were injured exiting the plane, but I would be surprised if it were as few, proportionately, as in the MD-11 tests.

It appears that the FAA’s test changes have been designed to inject a bit of realism to determine if seating configurations and density allow for rapid evacuation. Based on my experience, I hope that the tests are not scaled back because of recent problems.

MICHAEL J. McCARTHY

Point Mugu