Originally Posted by
ashill
And crucially, based on reports I've seen (probably in this thread), the captain (and crew?) in fact found additional passengers in that 10 minute search who had not evacuated for whatever reason. So a damn good thing the crew didn't say "OK, we've taken 8 minutes and there's no one continuing off the plane, time for us to leave so people on the Internet don't criticize us for taking 18 minutes to evacuate".
Calm down...nobody is "criticizing" anyone here. Here's what I wrote:
- it must be analyzed why it took so long for the cabin crew to make a decision.
- The protocols need to be clear and cabin crew should feel empowered to make such decisions.
- there is a serious question about taking 10-18 minutes to make a decision to exit a burning plane. What's the point of a 90s evacuation certification if the protocols for taking that decision to evacuate becomes the bottleneck?
- As per the following video, it took 10-18 minutes to evacuate the plane.
After every crash, all things need to be scrutinized and investigated...both things that went well and those that did not go well. Without that, no improvements can be made. If it is right, it needs to be emphasized and shown in example training videos. If protocols can be improved so that any future incident can take much quicker actions, they need to be put in place. Perhaps questioning something in some cultures may be seen as criticism, but I do not see it that way. I am a scientist/researcher by profession. Every time I send a research article for publication which I have meticulously experimented with and researched, it is still scrutinized/objected/criticized/questioned and I may be asked to provide more evidence. Questioning is not criticizing, it is critically analyzing things, reinforcing what stands the tests, and trying to improve what can be improved. That is how we (try to) maintain the scientific rigor.
To me, this evacuation is a case study from which we can learn lessons about what went right and what went wrong and how we can improve upon it. As discussed in a WSJ report, it exceeds a standard evacuation time and the design of the A350 had a major role to play in its success. In a future incident, the plane may not give us that time luxury. This is an open discussion forum...I would rather question things first and conclude that the crew did the right thing instead of acting like it is a fan club.
I do appreciate members sharing information and videos here including in Japanese which adds a lot of details often missed/overlooked by the English-speaking press.