mpheels

What exactly would you have done differently? They only had one safe, functional exit. The forward doors were over the water, and the left doors were compromised by the fuel leak. It appears they did attempt to open and deploy the tail exit, but the slide failed. So, you're left with 130ish people on a plane with one exit. What would you do that is demonstrably different than what today's flight crew apparently did?

readywhenyouare

I don't have a problem with which exit they used. I have a problem with how long they waited to initiate an evacuation. An aircraft should be evacuated within 90 seconds.

readywhenyouare

The MBTI is not simple. There are professionals who get paid a lot to administer those tests and evaluate results.

Having said that, I never said I expected anyone to follow my lead. I'm going to get myself safely off the plane. Everyone else can sit tight and whatever happens, happens.

sandydeb

In my frequent trips to FLL/ATL from LGA on Delta MD88s/B717s, I have experienced more 'hard' landings than on any other aircraft type. And pretty consistently too. And not just in LGA, this is true in all 3 airports.

sandydeb

I would NOT have waited - crew instruction or not. When surrounded by thousands of gallons of kerosene that could go up in a fireball at any moment, the optimal strategy is to get the hell out of these as quickly as possible.

Jumping out 20 feet onto the water or snow covered ground and breaking a few bones is preferable to going up in flames.

ludocdoc

I think the standard is that the aircraft must be able to be evacuated within 90 seconds -- that goes into number of exits, aircraft design, crew training, etc. The start of the clock though would seem to be what's in debate. Most of us would feel the clock starts when the captain says evacuate. You may be seeing some negative feedback because you seem to have your own internal clock, which starts when you want it to, while the crew may be making assessments of their own which delays the start of their clock in a way you find unacceptable. It appears that in this case, the crew may have even (oh my) decided to take it slower on purpose, to decrease the risk of injury as they did not (evidently) perceive a risk of fire.

gooselee

The problem with that is that the actions of one untrained, uninformed individual could have negative consequences for the rest of the plane.

I might trust YOU to assess whether an exit is safe or not, but I would not trust any John Doe, and thus have a strong desire not to encourage everyone in the world to immediately evacuate a plane after an emergency, despite what flight crew is telling them.

readywhenyouare

^. Amen

I'd rather be laid up with a few broken bones than in the burn unit or worse, in a closed casket.

gooselee

Except when you tossing the exit window out of the plane and having it bounce off the tarmac is what sparks the fire in the first place.

BenA

It's always interesting to think about what we would have done in a similar situation, but at the end of the day speculating online is entirely different than being onboard an aircraft that's just been involved in an incident.

There's a lot of 'internet tough guy' in this thread, but I'd like to believe that in the real world, common sense would prevail. Flight crew are trained to take control of the situation, to clearly communicate to passengers and to direct everyone to take appropriate action. In the presence of clear and reasonable instruction, I assume we would all follow along rather than panicking and making up an independent course of action. And if the flight crew are incapacitated or fail to provide accurate instructions, I'm sure everyone will strive to act in the best interest of all onboard to ensure a safe evacuation.

Situations like this make me wish there were more opportunities to take the "road warrior training" courses where we could experience some of the same training that flight attendants get. I often choose exit row seating, and I would appreciate the chance to gain experience with the operation of safety devices onboard so they aren't unfamiliar if I am ever asked to assist.

BenA

I think you meant to say conceited.

readywhenyouare

Thanks for the correct spelling.

readywhenyouare

Now THAT would be an incredible scene in a Final Destination type movie!

AppleApe

Can someone tell me what the proper thing to do if the Delta MD88 ended up in the frigid water after the crash? If I was onboard, should I put on my life jacket before exiting or should I try to get out ASAP, in case the fuel leak causes a fire or explosion?

Speaking of the frigid water.... I once flew from Florida back to NY(JFK). It was 85 degrees in MCO and I left ALL of my winter clothes in my check-in bag. I boarded the plane with just a T-shirt and shorts. Yes, you guessed it... my bags were lost(apparently mis-routed to Houston, TX). I walked out of the airport terminal and waited in line for a taxi home. It was 20 degrees with snow blowing. Learned my lesson.

rylan

The big problem is that 90 seconds or whatever doesn't even have to be demonstrated by the airlines when they reconfigure aircraft, but just done via simulation or on paper. Anyone think about how the emergency evac time is effected by airlines cramming in more seats? Yeah, they didn't have to retest. Its a sure bet that if the FAA made airlines demonstrate evac time they wouldn't pass with the new high density configurations.