ANM-115-08-02Emergency Exit AccessReview of Documents

Kenneth SpatzHawker Beechcraft Corporation

Pertinent Documents

• FAA memo dated May 29, 1991: Access to Emergency Exits

• FAA memo dated October 15, 1991: Access to Type III Emergency Exits

• Transportation Safety Board of Canada Investigation report A05Q0024 of incident on February 21, 2005

• FAA memo dated October 17, 2008: Policy Statement on Access to and Opening of Type III and IV Exits on Airplanes with Passenger Seating Capacities of 19 or Fewer

2

FAA memo dated May 29, 1991

• Acknowledges difference between smaller and larger airplanes

• States minimum requirement

• Does not allow placarding to be used to keep exit from being unopenable

3

FAA memo dated October 15, 1991

4

FAA memo dated October 15, 1991 (continued)

• Larger Transport: Access and Openability must be maintained• Smaller Transport: Openability must be maintained

5

A05Q0024 February 21, 2005 Incident

• Set up:– No passenger briefing

– Night landing

– Runway edge lights out of order

– Snow covered runway

– PAPI lights on Runway’s left (but to the dispatcher’s right)

• Result:– Transportation Safety Board of Canada Aviation Incident Report A05Q0024

– www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2005/a05q0024/a05q0024.asp

6

Report’s Finding as to Risk:

“The armrest of the side seat had not been removed as required and was blocking access to the emergency exit, which could have delayed the evacuation, with serious consequences.”

“One of the passengers tried unsuccessfully to open the emergency door [overwing exit]. As a result of the fuselage being bent out of shape, the door was jammed in its frame.”

“All the occupants left the aircraft through the main door, which proved difficult to open because the fuselage was bent out of shape.”

Pertinent Report Statements

7

FAA memo dated October 17, 2008

8

Concern

• The policy memo ANM-115-08-02’s Background and Relevant Past Practice section discusses A05Q0024 and restates its findings as to risk and then states “the airplane occupants exited out the main door exit, the only other exit, but not without difficulty. The main door exit was difficult to open because the fuselage was bent out of shape. One passenger who tried to open the main door exit was unable to do so. This delayed the evacuation.”

• The policy memo implies that for this incident the escape hatch was not utilized because the divan armrest was not positioned for TTL. It also incorrectly states that a passenger tried to open the main door exit, when in fact the report states the passenger tried to open the escape hatch which was unopenable due to fuselage deformation.

9