I have heard from several different people (none of whom I would rely on) that the life-jackets in aircraft are of no practical use and that no one actually uses them. Is this true? I can split this into a couple of smaller questions:
How long would a plane take to sink? (Assuming people survived the ditching and it didn’t go straight under).
If it didn’t start to sink immediately, for how long would one be able to climb out of the doors and into a raft?
I can’t imagine airlines would spend money placing lifejackets under every seat if they were no use. On the other hand, I can think of several reasons why they might never be used. I’ve found some references and it seems that people do survive them, but the odds aren’t great.
So, are lifejackets genuine life-savers or just good PR?
Think of life jackets as an insurance policy. You might go your whole life and never use it, but could you sleep at night if you didn’t have it?
As far as how long it takes a plane to sink…it depends. The greatest variable is whether or not the fuselage remains intact. If the airplane is ditched correctly onto a calm sea, it can stay afloat for quite a long time…certainly long enough for everyone on board to escape. If the fuselage is ruptured or completely torn in two, the airplane is going down quickly.
Two examples…a Colombian Air Force C-130 ran out of gas over the the waters north of Colombia (they got lost, apparently). They ditched the airplane into a calm sea during daylight and the airplane remained intact. Since fuel is carried in the wings (which were now empty), the airplane floated. In fact, it only sank after a navy ship was dispatched to put the damn thing underwater! Everyone survived except (reportedly) the navigator, who had some sort of unfortunate accident shortly after the ditching…
Second example…Air Florida that went into the 19th St bridge and then into the water during a snowstorm in DC. The airplane was torn apart and it sank very quickly. Very few people got out, but those who did were fighting the freezing cold, had jet fuel in their eyes and were struggling to stay afloat. A life jacket, ANY life jacket, would have been of great help to them.
Bottom line is, if everything falls apart and you find yourself on an airplane about to go in the water, you want everything available to help you. Overwater airplanes are equipped with large liferafts as well (some are 15 feet across and they all have medical kits, fishing kits, drinking water, sea anchors, roofs and signaling devices). The plan is for the life jacket to help you get out of the airplane and keep your noggin above water, even if you pass out, until you can get on the big life raft. After that, wait and see how long it takes someone to bring up Cast Away.
Agree with the other posters. It is probably useful only at the margins, but it can’t hurt, and probably inspires some confidence in passengers. Some stand-up comedian had a routine about crash investigators coming across some victim and exclaiming “If only he’d had his seat in the full, upright position!” Wearing or not wearing your life vest is probably in the same category as far as catastrophic ditching/mid-ocean crashes go.
You went to the right place with www.airsafe.com. If you browse through the detailed information on fatal events, you will see a handful of Air Florida-like scenarios; usually crashes (or runway overshoots) right before/after takeoff/landing, usually in shallow water and close to shore, where a handful (in a few cases, larger numbers) of passengers escaped alive – usually it’s not clear if they actually used the life jackets. I’m not aware of any instances of anyone surviving a SwissAir style catastrophe in mid-ocean, or of any successful deployments of life rafts, or of some well prepared passenger being picked up by the night locater light on his life jacket, but there’s always a first time.
Here’s a description of a deep-water (5000 feet!) airliner ditching incident where 2/3 of those on board survived. Here’s one that stayed up long enough to do a full life-raft evac before sinking.
The exception, rather than the rule. And both definitely within helicopter/rescue boat range of help.
The lifevests indeed seem adequate if they’re meant to just hold you up until you make it to a proper raft. Talking about these safety measures’ worth in “a SwissAir style catastrophe” seems sort of pointless – beyond some speed a crash into water is not that much kinder than one into the ground: if the plane gets smashed up in pieces, odds are it will happen to those in it, seatbelts/lifevests be damned. What you want is a nice, controlled ditching that leaves a whole airplane, as in the two above. But you seldom have the right conditions for such a nice, controlled ditching. (Recall the Ethiopian Airlines crash off Comoros, 1996. The water was fine but the pilot had hijackers in the cockpit. Video shows an attempt to ditch, seems about to make it, but… the port wing dips – the underwing engine hits water first, drags, and makes the plane do a half-turn somersault, upon which it slams hard and breaks up. )
I don’t think I’d have the presence of mind to use one, even if I survived the crash. My instinct would be to get the hell out, and deal with the water later. Maybe if one floated by…
Ever wonder why the flight attendants go through that entire rigamarole (or why it gets shown on the TVs on the newer jets?)
It’s so you and everyone else might know what to do if it came down to brass tacks.
If you actually listen to what they are saying, you will notice that there is a significant difference in the briefings that are given, depending on if the flight is overwater or not. The aircraft must also meet certain equipment requirements (liferafts, etc), and the FAA takes the entire event VERY seriously. The standards that long-range twin-engine aircraft (ie 767,777,A330) must meet in order to fly over large bodies of water is tremendous. The unknown in the entire equation that has the most variance is the action of the passengers. The crew is trained, professional, and proficient. The passengers are bored, tired and drunk.
I’m not saying to not enjoy yourself on your way to Paris or Hong Kong, but do everyone a favor and LISTEN to what is said, and at the very least pick out the nearest exit (or two) that you are seated near. At least be someone moving toward the exit instead of an obstacle that someone else has to get around. If your flight is overwater, the FA’s will tell you where the lifejackets are located - trust me, one is for you - the airplane cannot fly without a jacket for every passenger. Listen, come up with your own plan, and then enjoy the flight.
Trust me, when the only chance you have of survival is getting on top of the water, you WILL have the presence of mind to use whatever is available!
So it seems that the idea of evacuating an aircraft into a life-raft and actually using the survival apparatus there is pretty minimal. Has anyone found/ know of any recorded cases of this happening?
This question is too complex for a simple answer. If an airplane is under control then survival equipment is probably useful and if the airplane is not under control then the equipment is probably useless.
And another such case is that for an explosive decompression at 40000 ft, the dropdown oxygen masks are a joke. But for a slower loss of cabin pressure they would be lifesavers.
In most WWII aiplanes, parachutes were worthless for most crew members when the plane was not in control, say when a wing was blown off. The acceleration in such a case would be such that the crew members, except perhaps for the waist gunners who were right by an open window, couldn’t stand up so as to get to an exit port. When the plane was under control, bail out was not easy but could be done.
