TABLE 3. Percent Improvement of Overall Evacuation Rate With
Direct Aisle Lighting vs. Ceiling-Mounted Illumination
Using Experienced Subjects With Laered Smoke

Test Lighting System Total Evacuation
Series* Sequence Time (seconds) Improvement
B,C,D, Control 33.79
Ear Trial 1 average
Control 26.14 22.6%

Trial 2 average

B,D, Aisle Lights 32.85 17.2%
& F Average third trials
Ceiling Lights 39.70

Average fourth trials

C&E Aisle Lights 33.49 19.7%
Average fourth trials

Ceiling Lights 41.73
Average third trials

B,C,D, Aisle Lights 33.17 18.54%
E&F Combined third and
fourth trials

Ceiling Lights 40.72
Combined third and
fourth trials

*Series A has been eliminated from this data as the first series
used only 20 test subjects per trial.

15


TRIAL 3. Aisle Lightirg

NAME = VEST NO. TEST NO.

Please respond to every item on the questionnaire according to your best
judgment on each item for the test just completed.

Did you have a feeling or an impression that a real emergency existed
during the evacuation?

98 Yes 20. No

Tf you answered yes to the above question, how strong was the feeling
er impression?

26 Slight 37 Moderate 35 Strong

Did you feel discriented or confuse? at any time during the test?

55_ Yes 63 No

If vou felt disorientea or confused, when was that feeling strongest?

Not applicable

When first seated in simulator
hen bell sounded

hile moving through =he cabin

ae

While you were seated, before the bell rang, were you aware of the exit
signs?

_105 Yes 12. No 1 Don't remember

After the bell rang and you got up from your seat, were you aware of the
exit signs?

68 Yes 47 No 3. Don't remember

Did the type of lighting affect your confidence and speed of evacuation?

74 Yes 36_ No 8 Don't know

De you think the lighting was:

39 Inadeauate 54 Barely adequate 25 More than adequate

for a quick and safe evacuation? .

biiesaitan

_.wawe——-



TRIAL 3. Ceiling Lighting

NAME: VEST NO. TEST NO.

Please respond to every item on the questionnaire according to your best
judgment on each item for the test just completed.

Did you have a feeling or an impression that a real emergency existed
during the evacuation?

83 Yes 16 No

If you answered yes to the akove question, how strong was the feeling or
impression?

13 Slight 38 Moderate _26 Strong

Did you feel disoriented or confused at any time during the test?

66 Yes 33 No

If you felt disoriented or confused, when was that feeling strongest?

33. Not applicable
2 When first seated in simulator

4 When bell sounded

59 While moving through the cabin

1_ No Answer

While you were seated, before the bell rang, were you aware of the exit
signs?

73_ Yes 25 No 1 Don't remember

After the bell rang and you got up from your seat, were you aware of the
exit signs?

33_ Yes 64 No 2_ Don't remember

Did the type of lighting affect your confidence and speed of evacuation?

66 Yes 29_ No 4 Don't know

Do you think the lightiag was:

53 Inadequate 35 Barely adequate 11 More than adequace

for a quick and safe evacuation?


TABLE D-l1. Measured Illumination Levels of the
Gulfstream American G-1C Aircraft*

Photometer Orientation ~
Section 25.803(c) Section 25.803(d)
Aisle Lighting Exit signs
at armrest ievel at 15.24 cm

Aisle Looking Rotated (6 inches) above Aisle
Position Down 90° Aft | cross-aisle floor. Location

1 - - .225 Entrance to cockpit

2 - - -16 Baggage compartment

3 009 009 27 Fwd cabin door

4 14 073 - Seat row 1

5 ~026 044 -

6 -145 139 - Seat row 4

7 095 +325 -

8 .125 -il -

9 127 046 55 Seat row 7 and

overwing exits

10 -081 074 -

ll .147 -034 - Seat row 10

12 038 035 -

13. +030 «192 -

14 +039 957 37 kear docr
Average 0.081 0.095 0.315

*Readings in foot candles.



The FAR requirement i
lighting must be provided
meter (40 inch) intervais,
lux (0/05 foot candles)....

aisle.

ments as 0.22 lux (0.02

Exit was identified with two conventionally mounted
Sign on left is mounted directly over the
ide of Type A

Figure 6.
exit signs.
exit. Sign on right is mounted to right s.

exit on cabin sidewall.

a minimum value, stating that cabin emergency
so that "....at seat armrest height and 1.02
the average illumination is not less than 0.54
“along the centerline of the main passenger.

The regulation also defines minimum cross-aisle lighting reauire- °
0.02 fe) along the centerline of the cross aisle 15.2cm

(6 inches) abeve the. flocr.


layered smoke. Other subjects followed in trail as documented on i6mm
film coverage of each trial evacuation. During trials with ceiling-
monnted Lights and signs engulfed in smoke, Subjects had no visual refer-
ence as to exit location from a crouched body position, thus both indi-
vidual and group evacuation times were slower than on trials where signs
were mounted at cabin midpoint or below.

Results of subject questionnaires, although subjective in nature,
showed a favorable reaction to the aisle-mounted lighting system. Reportea
disorientation was less with the aisle-mounted lights. The effects of the
smoke on the overhead-mounted signs and lights were judged twice as severe
as on the signs and lights mounted at the midpoint of the cabin or below.

CONCLUSION

The traditional interpretation of lighting requirements has been
restricted to ceiling and high cabin-mounted installations.

Evacuation times can be reduced in a smoke-filled cabin whem emergency
lighting and exit locator signs are mounted at or below the midpoint of
the cabin, directly illuminating main and cross aisleways.

Test subjects reported an overall reduction in disorientation during

evacuation with aisle lighting, according to subjective responses to the
questionnaires, as reported in Appendix C.

19


How
the

How
the

How

How

Did

well could you see the exit when you first moved into the aisle after
bell rang?

77 Not at all 28 Barely 13. Distinctly

much did the presence of smoke in the cabin affect your access to

exit?
19 Not at all 22 Very little
51 Moderately 25 Severely

1 No Answer

much did the smoke affect the lighting in the cabin?
5 Not at all 10 Very little
49 Moderately 53. Severely

i No Answer

much did the smoke affect the visibility of the exit signs?
14 Not at all 22. very little
42 Moderately 38 Severely

2 No Answer

you experience any physical reactions to the smoke?

18 Yes 99° No 1 No Answer

If yes, how so: (Please describe reaction)


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS,

The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of
Mrs. Linda Alexander, Protection and Survival Laboratory,
for her assistance as the Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI)
Flight attendant during testing. Acknowledgment is also
given to Gregg Winters, Lee Forrest, Jr., and Bill Nixon,
Protection and Survival Laboratory, for photometric support.
Additional thanks to the many other CAMT employees who
contributed their varied talents to the test program.

iv



TRIAL 2. Questionnaire Results, Control Lighting No. 2

NAME: VEST NO. TEST NO.

Please respond to every item on the questionnaire according to your best
judgment on each item for the test just completed.

Did you have a feeling or an impression that a real emergency existed
during the evacuation?

147, Yes 72_ No

If you answered yes to the above question, how strong was the feeling or
impression?

59 Slight 55 Moderate 33 Strong

Did you feel disoriented or confused at any time during the test?

40_ Yes 179 No

If you felt disoriented or confused, when was that feeling strongest?

B

79 Not applicable

When first seated in simulator
23 When bell sounded

While moving through the cabin
No Answer

lH

w
BES

While you were seated, before the bell rang, were you aware of the exit
signs?

174 Yes 39_ No 5 Don't remember 1_ No Answer

After the bell rang and you got up from your seat, were you aware of the
exit signs?

100 Yes 109 No 9 Don't remember 1 No Answer

Did the type of lighting affect your confidence and speed of evacuation?

44 Yes 147 No 28 Don't know

Do you think the lighting was:
12 Inadequate 58 Parely adequate 149 More than adequate

for a quick and safe evacuation?



Evacuation Rate (Seconds per Subject)

1.5
+
a
: S
4 a ray
° °
— ° a
a
Tt i fo}
a oO peed Sa a rey
1.¢ . . rood fo} .
N
S oO
‘ ©
2 c 2 + |B
2 ted & v
Eps en a1 a
af comet apeqo] s
4 = Loam red ae fae fea | &
a “a als
cas ees eds oe at “A
ce) a) dafafo]A
0.5 ap > pfs colo]s
~ eye Bye SPR lap o
mys ELS plolalea
z=] o of aleafeeay e
os 5 SiO) e fea
afo x a]fajs ololole
ae = Qe a ia v
5 solojuls
ait apcfs ale o}/o}a]o
co] ops oo cor a s s i=
we Sl oe wy cos ct fed led cd
He] epada ofa a
a Clea] & S < & 2 2 2
Cf of eden StS Slolols
OJ Op < |S 5 CPOPOLS
1 2 3% 4* 1 2 3% 4* *
Series A,C,&E Series B,D,&F All Series
Evacuation Trials Evacuation Trials Combined
Combined Combined

*Trials with smoke in the cabin.

Figure 9. Combined Trials Evacuation Rates (Seconds/Subject) .
The method used to counterbalance trials is shown
graphically with Series A, C, and E having ceiling
lighting as the third trial and Series B, D, and F
where ceiling lights were used as the fourth trial.

16


APPENDIX B

EVACUATION RESEARCH UNIT PROTOCOL, 80-02

Title: Emergency Cabin Lighting Installations ~ an Analysis of Ceiling-

Mounted vs. Lower Cabin-Mounted Lighting During Evacuation Trials,
FAA Form 9550-1, ARD~500-76-2.

Introduction: CAMI's continuing investigations into commercial aircraft
crashworthiness and cabin fire safety is in response to the FAA Technical
Center's Fire Safety Program Fian and FAA Form 9550-1, Technical Support

for Transport Emergency Lighting Evaluation, ARD-520 Project No. 182-521-095
(ARD-500-76-2). The effectiveness of FAR Part 25.812 exit sign and cabin
emergency lighting locations/installations will be analyzed in dense cabin
smoke typical of a post-crash fire environment.

Preliminary work has stressed the development of a means to uniformly
distribute white smoke in the cabin of the evacuation simulator consis-—
tently during each test. Smoke optical density measurements have been made
as part of our effort to replicate layered smoke in the cabin during suc-
cessive evacuation trials. From these preliminary efforts, we have
developed repeatable test methodolegy which will allow consistent smoke
distribution and stratification throughout the evacuation simulator aft
cabin.

Problem: Smoke in an aircraft cabin, whether from a cabin fire or from an
BECAERRL LER. WRCELG, CESHESSR SSE EEE ESS SRE crc e -Sitae Stone
ifockional arrows, and exit wash (Floods [fahting become less effective

in providing evacuation information to passengers when the cabin fills with
smoke. Results of FAA Technical Center (formerly NAFEC) tests published

in NA-79-46-LR, “A Preliminary Examination of Interior Aircraft Emergency
Lighting Under Simulated Post-Crash Fire and Smoke Conditions," found that
the lowering of exit signs and Lights closer to the floor may increase
their usefulness during times when the aircraft capin fills with layered
smoke. The study found that ceiling-mounted lights and signs are effec-
tively mlocked from view and there is a significant decreased emergency

in iliumination even though cabin air temperatures are still at a sur-
vivable level. ?.isle lighting was evaluated in the forms of armrest-
mounted fluorescent lights and floor-mounted electroluminescent strip
lights with the conclusion that, in a smoke-filled cabin, aisle lighting
mounted near the floor provides passenger awareness, exit locatica informa-
tion, and cabin illumination for a longer period of time than ceijing- or
bulkhead-mounted lights. However, no testing was conducted with actual
passengers due to the toxic properties of the smoke being used.

CAMI, recognizing the problems with smoke stratification in the cabin,
conducted human subject evacuation testing on July 20 and August 10, 1978,
tc evaluate evacuation problems with obscured vision. Four tes’s were
conducted using 40 subjects on each of two test dates. Resuits were
preliminary in nature, having been reported in the July-September 1978
Research Task Quarterly Report under tisk AM-B-78-PRS-38. For these
tests, 40 test subjects, in a vepresentative mix of the flying public,

B-1


involving smoke in the cabin. The presence of even very low concentra-
tions of irritant gases in the cabin will produce a loss of visual acuity
and impairment of vision (14). Larger or brighter signs are a relatively
ineffective, or at least inefficient, approach to compensating for higher
smoke densities though such signs may be more effective in meeting their
intended purpose at lower optical densities. With this limitation, the
most apparent method for improving the visibility of the signs in the
presence of smoke is to locate them lower in the cabin where the smoke is
normally less dense, but high enough above floor level to be seen without
obstruction from view by interior features such as seat backs or the move-
ment of passengers through the cabin. The decreases shown in evacuation
times for trials using armrest~mounted aisle lighting in this svudy
indicates the effectiveness of lighting systems mounted beJow the layered
smoke (see percent improvement in Table 4).

By mounting signs, aisle lights, and cross~aisle markers at or below
the midpoint of the cabin, illumination in the aisle can be achieved in
layered smoke at or above present minimum levels with proper sizing and
spacing of lights. The option for alternate mounting locations of emer-
gency exit marking signs and emergency illumination of the aisleway
presently exists in the regulatory requirements of Part 25.311 (d) (2,3)
and 25,.812(c). At least one such adoption of this concept has been accom-
plished on modifications to several Gulfstream American G-1C a‘ rcraft
with certification by FAA Scuthern Region in December 1980 (see Appendix D).
The modification included mounting emergency light units under every tlird-
seat row, flooding the aisleway with illumination at a leve] above that
which is required by regulation. This certification was granted with
technical guidance on emergency lighting from the FAA Technical Center's
Fire Safety Branch, ACT-350.

FAR 25.812(c) does not require that general emergency lighting systems
be mounted at the ceiiing or other overhead locations even though the
requirement for measurement of illumination levels might be interpreted
to imply such a location. A direct aisle-licghting system, such as was
used in this study and as found on the Gulfstream aircraft, concentrates
the general emergency lighting in the aisle space below armrest level.
Similarly, FAR 25.812(d) does not specify the mounting position for the
signs that provide illumination of the cross-aisle passageways to the floor
level exits. However, to the extent that the passageway lighting is
provided from the same fixtures as provide exit location and/or identifica-
tion information, FAR 25.811(d)(1) specifies that such siy.» be located
above the cross aisles or at other overhead locations. Lcvating the exit
locator signs lower in the cabin area may or may not meet this require-
ment depending on the particular definition of "overhead." If "overhead"
is defined .s above the passenger's seated head height, the exit locator
signs coule be mounted lower in the cabin and still meet the requirement
of being mounted above (higher than) the aisle. An exit locator sign
mounted halfway down a bulkhead or galley partit*on would still be visible
from the passenger's seated position. During the evacuation trials, with smoke
layered most heavily in the upper third of the cabin, subjects tended to
crouch down or stoop over to avoid the smoke, and were looking for the
exit from just above seatback height. Those individuals who were first
down the aisle had the greatest need to see exit locator signs below the

1g


How well could you see the exit when you first moved into the aisle
after the bell rang?

92 Not at all 56 Barely 71_ Distinctly



pamemsrianansna ree)

RESULTS

The times from the start of each trial until the last subject crossed
the exit threshold are shown in Table 2. Also shown are the elapsed times
until the last subject moved from the seat. row into the main aisle. The
first and second control evacuations averaged 32.7 and 24.8.seconds respec-
tively for all series of evacuations for an overall improvement of 7.9 seconds
or 24.2 percent on the second trial. These trials were intended to bring the
groups up to a common experience level and minimize the interaction of learn-
ing effects with the main variable during subsequent trials. Such initial
improvement was in general agreement with the results of a previous study of
dearning during several successive evacuation repetitions (10). This training
experience also allowed those persons who had reservations about participating,
or who encountered a physical problem moving rapidly in a crowded aisle, to
withdraw from the tests before the paramount trials with emergency lighting
and white smoke. Withdrawals are noted for Series D and E at the bettom of
Tables 1 and 2.

Series A trials were to be a complete series scaled down to half size
{20 test subjects) to verify evacuation procedures, checklists, and teamwork
of the CAMI crew. » Series A evacuation trials 1-4 were completed: without
problems, and individual evacuation rate data (seconds/subject) were recorded
on film, . Series A data have been included in the analysis of rates of-evacu-
ation where total evacuees and total times are secondary to the individual
performance. When total times and group rates are discussed, appropriate
notes are made for Series A.

Table 3 shows overali evacuation times for groups of 40.experienced
subjects. Aisle-mounted lighting shows significant improvement ‘over con-
ventional ceiling-mounted lighting under smoke conditions. An overall
performance improvement of 18.54 percent for the aisle lighting was evident.
when combining averages for the counterbalanced triais.

Average evacuation rates per subject are shown in Figure 9 as combined
trials of counterbalanced tests ard also with trials of all series combined.
Table 4 shows the percentage improvement in average evacuation rates per
subject, using aisle lighting compared to ceiling-mounted lighting.

Direct, aisle lighting resulted in shorter-time per subject evacuation
rates regardless of whether it was employed before (16.8 percent) or
subsequent to (21.9 percent) the trial employing ceiling-mounted lights.
An overall performance improvement of 19.7 percent is indicated for the
combined third and fourth aisle lighting trials compared to the ceiling=-
mounted lights.

DISCUSSION

As early as 1966, concern for upgrading cabin lighting criteria
became apparent. A series of FAA and industry conferences were held to
review regulations involving crashworthiness and passenger evacuation.
As a result of these meetings, the regulation on emergency lighting,
FAR Part 25.812, was extensively rewritten and amended October 24, 1967.

13


: Figure 2.0 Aiternhating left ‘and rightTM seat rows with: an
: 7 ' Light units mounted in armrests showing soe
* light’ on carpeted aisle. ; :



TRIAL 1. Questionnaire Results, Control Lighting No. 1

NAME: VEST NO.

AGE: SEX: DATE: TEST NO.:

Please respond to every item on this questionnaire according to your best
judgment on each item.

How many times have you flown as a passenger on a commercial airlines
during the past two years?

53 I have never flown
57 I have not flown during the past two vears

|

46 Once or twice

35 Three to five times

28 More than five times
(219)

As a passenger, have you ever participated in a real emergency evacuation?
5_ Yes 213 No 1 No Answer

Before the bell sounded, were you aware of your seat location in relation
to the exit?

146 Yes 64 No 9 Don't remember
Do you feel that the briefing on the evacuation procedures was:
142 Adequate 22 _ Inadequate
S Too long 8 Too short
0 Too technical 37 Not specific enough
10 Confusing 71 Heipful

Did you have a feeling or an impression that a real emergency existed
during the evacuation?

94 Yes 124 No 1_ No Answer

If you answered yes to the above question, how strong was the feeling or
impression?

39 Slight 45 _ Moderate 10_ Strong 1 No Answer



The exit used will be a "Type A" (110.5 cm X 182.8 cm) design. Aisle
will be approximately 12.5 meters long. Airline-type seats will be
spaced at 86.3 cm pitch.

A partition has been installed just inside the left rear exit to block
sunlight from entering the forward part of the cabin when the exit is
opened. A wooden structure has been erected just outside, adjacent to the
exit, which is covered with black plastic and has black plastic baffles
hanging from the ceiling inside. This structure will serve as a shroud
around the exit to prevent sunlight from entering the evacuation simulator.
The aircraft attitude will be wings level with the simulator remaining on
the ground. Escape slide and safety net will not be used.

Twenty paid volunteer subjects will be used on June 17 and 40 subjects on
successive tests on June 19, 24, 26, and July 1 and 2. Passengers will be
briefed about the general test conditions they will be exposed to in the
lobby of the CAMI Buildina. When both subjects and the test vehicle are
ready, subjects will be led to the simulator and assigned seats. The same
seat assignment will be maintained throughout the test series. Seating
will be 4, 5 and 6 abreast in the forward part of the cabin.

Cameras will be prepositioned in the forward and aft sections of the
simulator and outside, viewing the test subjects as they egress the black
Plastic shroud covering the exit. One camera will be equipped with
numeric timing equipment and flash bulbs will go off, giving a visual
signal to the cameras that the test has begun. Motion picture cameras
will shoot 24 frames/second with camera accuracy being + : frame/s.

Rates of movement down the aisle and total time will be obtained from
both film coverage and stopwatches.

senate


depth effects of smoke as a light attenuating medium. It was also concluded
that photographic recording of test subject movements with layered smoke in
the cabin could be accomplished by using image intensifying devices on the
cameras.

During the same time pericd, the FAA Technical Center, formerly the
National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center (NAFEC), conducted engineer-
ing tests of emergency lighting in black smoke but could not conduct human
subject evacuations due to the toxic properties of the smoke. The study,
published in a NAFEC Technical Letter Report (6), found that ceiling-mounted
lights and signs are effectively blocked from view by layered smoke and there
is a significant decrease in effective cabin illumination levels even though
cabin air temperatures are still at a survivable level. Aisle lighting was
evaluated in the forms of armrest-mounted fluorescent lights and floor-mounted
electroluminescent strip lights with the conclusion that, in a smoke-filled
cabin, aisle lighting mounted near floor levei provides passenger awareness,
exit location information, and cabin illumination for a longer period of time
than ceiling or bulkhead-mounted lights.

With the previously mentioned work laying the foundation, the following
study was undertaken to evaluate the relative effectiveness of two types of
emergency cabin lighting under conditions of stratified or layered smoke in
an aircraft cabin. To relate emergency lighting installation locations with
evacuation performance, a test program consisting of six series of four trial
evacuations each were conducted at CAMI during June and July 1980, This report
Gescribes the conduct of those tests and the results of the program.

METHODS

Subjects. A group of 40 subjects was used for each evacuation series
with the exception of the first series which used 20 subjects, for a total of
220 subjects. The subjects were furnished under contract which required that
they meet the criteria of a representative mix of the flying pubic by age
and sex and had not participated in an emergency evacuation within the preced-
ing 6 months as specified in federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Sections 25.803
(7), and 121.291, Appendix D (8). Table 1 breaks the subject population down
by sex and mean age for each test series.

Cabin Configuration and Lighting. The evecuation simulator was maintained
in a level attitude at ground level. A 4.9m (16 ft) by 2.4m (8 ft) by 1.2m
(4 ft) black plastic shroud was placed outside the Type A exit to form a tunnel
to prevent outside light from entering the cabin (Figure 1). A floor-to-ceiling
partition was placed just inside the exit, effectively blocking from subject
view the actual exit as they evacuated along the aisle and also served to
further block any external light at the exit.



EMERGENCY CABIN LIGHTING INSTALLATIONS: AN
ANALYSIS OF CETFLING- VS. LOWER CABIN-MOUNTED
LIGHTING DURING EVACUATION TRIALS

INTRODUCTION

Yost-crash fire has been the single most important factor contributing
to loss of life in survivable air carrier and commuter aircraft accidents
for survivors of the crash impact. Many fatalities have occurred because
the cabin filled with smoke with a resulting loss of visual reference, panic,
and eventual incapacitation due to the toxic properties of the smoke. Par~
ticulate matter (smoke) in the cabin may absorb, reflect and refract emergency
lighting to the extent that emergency lighting and exit signs provide little
or no visual evacuation information. The loss of visual cues for direction
and distance to the nearest usable exit can significantly prolong the time
required to evacuate the aircraft, thus subjecting passengers to irritants
and toxic by-products of combustion for longer periods (1).

The Protection and Survival Laboratory of the Civil Aeromedical
Institute (CAMI) initiated a program to study cabin lighting in response
to a request from the Federal Aviation Administration's Systems Research
and Development Service, Washington, D.C. (2). The purpose of the study was
to evaluate the relative effectiveness of emergency cabin lighting under
conditions of stratified or layered smoke in an aircraft cabin with respect
to passenger evacuation rates. Two lighting systems, one a conventional
ceiling-mounted system and the other an aisle-mounted system were compared
during evacuation triais in the CAME evacuation simulator. The program,
which began in 1976, evaluated the effectiveness of present lighting
requirements in dense cabin smoke typical of a post-crash fire environment.
A CAMI memorandum report was published in 1977 as an interim report (3) out-
lining specific emergency lighting systems to be evaluated in relation to
the adeguacy of current lighting requirements when exposed to a smoke envi-
ronment and with specific application to human evacuation performance.

Before launching into the full series of evacuation tests, which form
the basis for this report, evacuation tests were conducted to evaluate the
use of light-filtering goggles as an alternative to white smoke in evacuation
testing. The smoke goggle development was completed in 1978 and cited in a
CAMI memorandum report (4). The goggle was developed in an attempt to over
come the difficulty of record test subject movement in the cabin on film
when actual smoke was used to restrict visibility. Test subjects were each
given a pair of smoke goggles designed to decrease light transmission and
provide a haze factor. Preliminary tests were conducted on July 20 and
August 10, 1978, to evaluate the visibility limitations of both goggles and
white smoke under emergency lighting conditions. The results of these tests
were reported in a CAMI research task quarterly report (5). After completing
this preliminary evaluation, it was concluded that the smoke goggles should
not be used to simulate the effects of smoke or evaluate alternate lighting
systems because of the goggles’ inability to simulate the layering or the

Ll



TABLE 2. Total Evacuation Times Per Trial

Test Trial Total Time for Last Time for Last Number
Series Subject to xeach Exit Subject Into of
Threshoid (sec) Aisle (sec) Subjects
A 1 27.5 14.6 20
2 17.7 8.6 20
3 Ceiling 29.8 7.8 20
4 Aisle 21.3 4.4 20
B 1 33.4 19.2 40
2 25.3 17.2 40
3 Aisle 37.0 13.2 40
4 Ceiling 40.4 20.6 40
“Cc 1 34.0 no data 40
2 28.1 14.4 40
3 Ceiling 44.5 17.8 40
4 Aisle 36.5 12.0 40
ra) 1 34.0 14.0 40
2 24.7 10.4 39
3 Aisle 28.6 13.4 39
4 Ceiling 34.6 no data 38
E i 32.0 17.4 40
2 26.4 10.2 40
3 Ceiling 38.9 13.8 39
4 Aisle 30.5 10.6 39
PF 1 35.4 24.2 40
Zz 26.3 21.0 40
3 Aisle 33.0 17, 40
4 Ceiling 44.1 21.4 40

NOTES: Total evacuation times for Series A are not comparable to other
series because of smaller number of subjects.

Ceiling - Ceiling-mounted emergency lights
Aisle - Aisle-mounted emergency lights

Uneven number of subjects in Series D and E are the result of
subjects withdrawing from voluntary participation.


TABLE 1. Subject Description

Test Number of Subjects
Series Male Female Total Mean Age (Yrs)
A 8 12 20 28.8
B 18 22 40 23.6
Cc 15 25 40 25.6
D 24/23* 15 39/38 23.2/23.2
E 17 23/22** 40/39 29.0/29.5
F 15 25 40 35.2

*R boy, age 10, dropped out after the first control evacuation and was
not included in the mean age calculation. A 25-year-old male dropped
out after the third evacuation when he reinjured an old knee injury.

**K 7-year-old female dropped out after the second evacuation because of
apprehension about the vigorous activity and the smoke environment.

The system of /ower cabin-mounted emergency lighting consisted of
armrest-mounted aisle lights and bulkhead-mounted exit locator signs. The
cabin interior was configured with double and triple seats the full length
of the coach cabin. Alternate left and right seat rows were equipped with
an aisle light assembly built into the armrest (Figure 2). The light units
were 8-watt fluorescent tubes mounted behind an edge-lit prismatic Lumipane
(TM)* lens. This upper lens contained a directional arrow and the words
"EMERGENCY EXIT." Each unit also had a lower prismatic light panel that
illuminated the aisle and lower portion of the armrest. In the forward
part of the cabin two twin seats had newer prototypes of aisle lighting
designs. The left side twin seat had a 4-watt fluorescent tube behind a
Lumipane (TM)* lens built into the. top of the armrest and a lower aisle
flood panel which provided light on the aisle (Figure 3). The right side
twin seat had a 4-watt fluorescent tube enclosed on three sides by a white
reflector and mounted under the aisle seat bottom cushion.

Two 8-watt fluorescent exit locator signs (directional arrows) were
mounted on the cross-aisle bulkhead (Figure 4), at and below the midpoint
of the cabin floor-to-ceiling distance. The upper sign shown at midpoint
of the cabin was located 122cm (approximately 48 in) above the cross aisle.
The lower sign was located 42cm (approximately 16.5 in) above the aisle,
and provided floor level illumination as well as exit location information
to the subjects.

*American Optic Light Corp., Fort Worth, Texas

4


10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

REFERENCES

Hill, R. G., Johnson, G. R., and Sarkos, C. P.; Postcrash Fuel Fire
Hazard Measurements In a Wide Body Aircraft Cabin, FAA-NA-79-42, 1979.

Request for RD&E Effort, FAA Form 9550-1, Technical Support for Transport
Emergency Lighting Evaluation, ARD-520 Project No. 181-521-095 (ARD-500-
76-2).

Garner, J. D.: Interim Projress Report: Technical Support for Transport
Emergency Lighting Evaluation, ARD-520 Project 181-521-095, Request for
RDSE Effort ARD-500-76-2, Civil Aeromedical Institute Memorandum Report
No. AAC~119-77-7(E), 1977.

Blethrow, John G.: Smoke-Simulating Goggles, Civil Aeromedical Institute
Memorandum Report No. AAC-119-78-11(E), 1978.

Garner, J. D.: Civil Aeromedical Institute Research Task Quarterly
Report, Task AM-B-78-PRS-38, July - September, 1978.

Demaree, James E.: A Preliminary Examination of Interior Aircraft
Emergency Lighting Under Simulated Postcrash Fire and Smoke Conditions,
NAFEC Technical Letter Report NA-79-46-LR, 1979.

FAR Part 25.803, Emergency Evacuation.

FAR Part 121.291, Appendix D, Criteria For Demonstration of Emergency
Evacuation Procedures.

FAR Part 25.812, Emergency Lighting.

Chesterfield, B. P., P.E., Garner, J. D., Blethrow, J. G., Cook, E. A.:
Preliminary Examination of Aircraft Evacuatior. Simulator Test Subject
Learning Curve Data, Civil Aeromedical Institute Memorandum Report
AAC-119-80-3, 1986.

FAR Part 25.811, Emergency Exit Marking.

Rasmussen, P. G., Garner, J. D., Blethrow, J. G., and Lowrey, D. L.:
Readability of Self-Illuminated Signs In A Smoke-Obscured Environment,
FAA Office of Aviation Medicine Report No. AM-79-22, 1979.

iasmussen, P. G., Chesterfield, 8. P., and Lowrey, D. L.: Readability of
Self-Illuminated Signs Obscured By Black Fuel-Fire Smoke, FAA Cffice of
Aviation Medicine Report No. AM-80-13, 1980.

Grant, V. M.: Toxicology of the Eye, Springfield, Illinois,
Charles C. Thomas, 1974, p. 922.

20




Figure 4. Two 8-watt fluorescent exit locator signs
mounted on the cross-aisle bulkhead at and Se
. below the.midpoint of the cabin. _ =



Figure 3. Newer prototype aisle light built into seat armrest .
with upper lens in top of armrest and flocd panel below
which directs light into aisle. , :



How well could you see the exit when you first moved into the aisle after
the bell rang?

86 Not at all 22. Barely 10_ Distinctly

How much did the presence of smoke in the cabin affect your access to
the exit?

13_ Not at all 11 Very little

24 Moderately 68 Severely
1 No Answer

How much did the smoke affect the lighting in the cabin?

2 Not at all 7 Very little
38 Moderately _70_ Severely
1_ No Answer

How much did the smoke affect the visibility of the exit signs?
7. Not at all 20 Very little

25 Moderately 65 Severely
1 No Answer

Did you experience any physical reactions te the smoke?
14 Yes 103 No

If yes, how so: (Please describe reaction)

c-13


APPENDIX C

Summary of Results of Selected Questionnaire Items:

The percentage of subjects reporting experiencing an impression or
feeling of the existence of a real emergency during the trial evacuations
increased from 43 percent on the first control to 67 percent on the second
control evacuation. This may be the result of the encouragement given the
subjects to improve their performance on subsequent trials. The reported
incidence of such impressions increased to 83 percent on the third trial
when smoke was first introduced into the cabin but decreased to 75 percent
on the fourth trial, which was also with smoke. There were essentially no
differences in the reported frequencies of impressions of an actual emer-
gency attributable to the specific type of emergency lighting employed.
The weighted strengths of the reported impressions were in approximately
the same ratio as the frecuency of occurrence.

The frecuency of reports of having experienced disorientation during
the trial decreased from 29 percent on the first trial to 18 percent on
the second trial. The frequency increased to 67 percent on the third
trial when ceiling lights were used with the first introduction of smoke.
Om the fourth trial the freauency jecreased to 42 percent when aisle
lighting was used with smoke. When the aisle lights were used on the

third trial the reported frequency was 47 percent and increased to 53 percent
on the fourth trial with ceiling lights. In both sequences the reported
frequency of disorientation was less with aisle lighting than with ceiling
lights. This also suggests a sequence effect with reported disorientation

being more prevalent when the first experience with smoke is coupled with
the use of ceiling lighting.

Almost all reports of disorientation were associated with moving
through the cabin but a few reported onset with the sound of the alarm
bell. It is possible these subjects interpreted their alerting reaction
for disorientation.

The ceiling-mounted emergency jighting was rated inadeauate by 52 percent
of those responding to the question while 28 percent rated the aisle light-
ing inadequate. The aisle lighting fared somewhat better when presented on
the fourth trial when 22 percent rated it inadequate compared to 33 percent
wher it was presented on the third trial. This difference can be attri-
buted to the subjects making a comparative evaluation against ceiling
lighting rather than an absolute judgment. Interestingly, a small number of
responses judged the full bright cabin lighting on the control trials as
inadeguate.

More than half judgea the effects of the smoke on the ceiling lights to
be severe while only a little more than a third judged the effect on aisle
lights to be severe. This difference was most rronounced when aisle light-
ing was employed on the fourth trial. The effects of the smoke on the over-
head emergency locator signs was judged severe twice as often as for the
bulkhead signs mounted lower in the cabin. The smoke was also judged to
severely affect access to the exits twice as often with ceiling lighting as
with aisle lighting. Awareness of exit signs appeared relatively low and
may have been the result of the subjects’ stated practice of simply follow-
ing the person ahead of them.

c-1



10.

14.
1s.
16.
17.
1s.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

26.

*On

Check

Briet

Photo

Reset

Test Sequence Checklist
subject seated position.
subjects "Do as they are told."
team reset cameras.

clocks.

Replace two flashbulbs.

Change outside and inside run numbers.
Turn on tape recorder.

Readiness check from each crewmeriber.
Turn on smoke fan.*

Turn off air conditioner.*

Start smoke generator.*

Smoke cabin for 60 seconds.*

Turn off smoke fan.*

Turn on special lighting for that trial.*
Turn off overhead fluorescent lights.*
Turn on Night Viewing Devices.*
Five-second countdown (cameras start).
Ring bell.

Remove door covering.

Shout evacuation instructions.

Stop clocks.

Turn off Night Viewing Devices. *
Record stopwatch readings.

Record clock readings.

Turn on exhaust fans.*

Debri

ef passengers and reboard,

third and fourth trials with smoke only.

B-4



Figure l.

Type A exit shroud blocked light from entering cabin,
simulating night evacuations. Subjects passed through
darkened tunnel before stepping into bright sunlight.
Tunnel evacuation times were not included in total
evacuation times.


TABLE 4. Percent Improvement in Evacuation Rates
With Direct Aisle Lighting vs. Ceiling-Mounted Emergency
Lighting Using Experienced Subjects With Layered Smoke in the Cabin

Lighting System Sequence Average Evacuat.on Percentage
Rate (Seconds/Subject) Improvement

Aisle lights - third trials 0.84 16.8
Ceiling lights - fourth trials 1.01
(118 Subjects)

Aisle iights - fourth trials 0.89 21.9
Ceiling lights - third trials 1.14
(99 Subjects)

Aisle lights - combined trials 0.86 19.7
Ceiling lights - combined trials 1.07
{All 217 Subjects)

In May 1972, the lighting criteria was again revised to upgrade emergency
lighting system requirements for wide-bodied aircraft. Since that time no
significent changes have been made in emergency lighting requirements.
There hus been no requirement that general cabin emergency lighting or
exit locator and identification signs be proven effective in a cabin smoke
environment.

Depending on its density and distribution in an aircraft cabin, smoke
can become a considerable restriction to effective visibility. Because
smoke tends to stratify in an aircraft cabin, with progressively increasing
optical densities From floor-to-ceiling levels, emergency lighting and
internally illuminated signs mounted in the upper one-third to upper one-
half of the cabin may be rendered ineffective even though the smoke
densities in the lower part of the cabin may be considerably less visually
restrictive. Lights and signs which are restricted from view by smoke
offer little guidance during the evacuation. This is reflected in the
increase in evacuation times recorded for trials using ceiling-mounted
lights, as shown in average evacuation rates in Figure 9 ard Table 4.

Relocating emergency exit signs and locator sians lower in the cabin
would appear to fulfill the requirement of FAR 25.811(c), reference (11)
which sta:es that means must be provided to assist occupants in locating the
exits in conditions of dense smoke. The criteria for dense smoke are not
defined but the results of studies on the effect of smoke on the visibility
of exit signs (12,13) indicate that signs similar to those meeting the
criteria of FAR 25.312(b) (1) (i) are not readable with any degree of
certainty when the total optical density of the smoke between the observer
and the signs exceeds approximately 3.5. This value is based on otherwise
optimal viewing conditions and therefore vrobably exceeds the density that
would render the signs ineffective in an actual emergency situation

17


TRIAL 4. Aisle Lighting

NAME: VEST NO. TEST NO.

Please respond to every item on the questionnaire according to your best
judgment on each item for the test just completed.

Did you have a feeling or an impression that a real emergency existed
daring the evacuation?

75_ Yes 24 No

If you answered yes to the above question, how strong was the feeling
or impression?

18 Slight 39 Moderate _i8_ Strong

Did you feel disoriented or confused at any time during the test?

42 Yes 57_ No

If you felt disoriented or confused, when was that feeling strongest?

Not applicable

When first seated in simulator
6 When bel: sounded

While moving through the cabin

Ie

While you were seated, before the beil rang, were you aware of the exit
signs?

79 Yes 18 No 1 Don't remember 1 No Answer

After the bell rang and you gt up from your seat, were you aware of the
exit signs?

68 Yes 29_ No 2_ Don't remember

Did the type of lighting affect your confidence and speed of evacuation?

57 Yes 39 ~ No + Don't know

Do you think the lighting was:
22_ Inadequate 45 Barely adequate 3] More than adequate

for a quick and safe evacuation?



How

well could you see the exit when you first moved into the aisle after

the bell rang?
53 Not at all 3] Barely 15 Distinctiy
How much did che presence of smoke in the cabin affect your access tc
the exit?
_ 5 Not at all 25. Very little
40 Moderately 16 Severely
13 No Answer
How much did the smoke affect the lighting in the cabin?
2. Not at all 29 Very little
3g Moderately 26 Severely
13 No Answer
How much did the smoke affect the visibility of the exit signs?
14 Not at all 18 Very little
31_ Moderately 23 Severely
13 No Answer
Did you experience any physical reactions to the smoke?
10 Yes 74 ~No 15 No Answer
If yes, how so: (Please describe reaction)
c-9

oe wee eee

wee eater wee wee ee we



APPENDIX B

EVACUATION RESEARCH UNIT PROTOCOL, 80-02

Title: Emergency Cabin Lighting Installations - An Analysis of Ceiling-

Mounted vs. Lower Cabin-Mounted Lighting During Evacuation Trials,
FAA Form 9550-1, ARD-500-76-2.

Introduction: CAMI's continuing investigations into commercial aircraft
crashworthiness and cabin fire safety is in response to the FAA Technical
Center's Fire Safety Program Fian and FAA Form 9550-1, Technical Support
for Transport Emergency Lighting Evaluation, ARD-520 Project No. 181-521-095
(ARD-506~76-2). The effectiveness of FAR Part 25.812 exit sign and cabin
emergency lighting locations/installations wili be analyzed in dense cabin
smoke typical of a post-crash fire environment.

Preliminary work has stressed the development of a means to uniformly
distribute white smoke in the cabin of the evacuation simulator consis-
tently during each test. Smoke optical density measurements have been made
as part of our effort to replicate layered smoke in the cabin during suc-
cessive evacuation trials. From these preliminary efforts, we have
developed repeatable test methodology which will allow consistent smoke
distribution and stratification throughout the evacuation simulator aft
cabin.

Problem: Smoke in an aircraft cabin, whether from a cabin fire or from an
external fire, quickly obscures visibility. Exit signs, cross-aisle signs,
directional arrows, and exit wash (flood) lighting become less effective

in providing evacuation information to passengers when the cabin fills with
smoke. Results of FAA Technical Center (formerly NAFEC) tests published
in NA-79-46-LR, "A Preliminary Examination of Interior Aircraft Emergency
Lighting Under Simulated Post-Crash Fire and Smoke Conditions," found that
the lowering of exit signs and lights closer to the floor may increase
their usefulness during times when the aircraft capin fills with layered
smoke. The study found that ceiling-mounted lights and signs are effec-
tively plocked from view and there is a significant decreased emergency
cabin illumination even though cabin air temperatures are still at a sur-
vivable level. isle lighting was evaluated in the forms of armrest-
mounted fluorescent lights and floor-mounted electroluminescent strip
lights with the conclusion that, in a smoke-filled cabin, aisle lighting
mounted near the floor provides passenger awareness, exit location informa-
tion, and cabin illumination for a longer period of time than ceiling- or
bulkhead-mounted lights. However, no testing was conducted with actual
passengers due to the toxic properties of the smoke being used.

CAMI, recognizing the problems with smoke stratification in the cabin,
conducted human subject evacuation testing on July 20 and August 10, 1978,
tc evaluate evacuation problems with obscured vision. Four tests were
conducted using 40 subjects on each of two test dates. Resuits were
preliminary in nature, having been reported in the July-September 1978
Research Task Quarterly Report under task AM-B~-78-PRS-38. For these
tests, 40 test subjects, in a epresentative mix of the flying public,

B-1



Pe TTT

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS

sage

INTRODUCTION yy
METHODS 2
Subjects 2
Cabin Configuration and Lighting 2
Layered Smke 10
Photometric Instrumentation 1
Evacuation Alarm and Timing System 12
PROCEDURE 12
RESULTS 13
DISCUSSTON 13
CONCLUSION 19
REFERENCES 20
APPENDIX A. Smoke Optical A-1

eS Density Measurements
APPENDIX B. Test Protocol B-i
APPENDIX C. Test Subject cl
Questionnaires

APPENDIX D. FAA Southern Region Certification of D-1

Gulfstream American's G-1C Aircraft

Dat eet



APPENDIX D

Gulfstream American Corporation's Gulfstream 1C (Stretched) G-159
Aircraft Emergency Aisle Lighting System Test Results.

The following is a narrative description of the aisle lighting system
test results obtained from FAA/ASO-213 records of the FAA Conformity
Inspection and Certification approval on the first Gu fstream 1C (G-1C)
to be modified with seat-mounted aisle lighting.

The extended fuselage of the G-1C modification necessitated the
installation of additional cabin emergency lighting. Commercially avail-
able lights were installed under aisle seats on seat rows 1, 4, 7 and 10
of the first aircraft to be modified. Lights were round incandescent
dome units made by Grimes,* P/N B-7545, containing both a 28-volt bulb for
normal illumination and a 6.5-volt bulb for emergency illumination. The
frosted lens cast light down and out into the aisle. Tests were conducted
using aircraft battery power only.

Measurements of general emergency cabin illumination were taken at
seat armrest height with e Spectra Photometer, Model FC-200 supplied by
the FAA Technical Center The lens of the photometer was oriented down-
ward and fixed at armrest height for initial readings. The photometer
was then rotated 90° up and aft at the same height to record additional
readings. Illumination readings were taken in accordance with FAR
Part 25.812(c) and (d) at 14 positions along the aisleway, Table D-1.
The average illumination measured, looking down at armrest height, was
0.96 lux (0.089 foot candles) and viewing aft was 1.02 lux (0.095 foot
candles), which were both well above the minimum FAR requirements of
0.54 lux (0.05 foot candles}. Light cast in the cross aisles from the
exit liahts also far exceeded the minimum 0.215 lux (0.02 foot candle)
requirement.

The illumination measurements were made during the FAA Conformity
Inspection of the Gulfstream 1C, S/N 116 on October 28, 1980, by the
manufacturer, FAA Southern Region and FAA Technical Center personnel. The
report on the installation and testing of the emergency lighting system
was published as Gulfstream American Report No. 159-GER-14 on November 13,
1980. The FAA Form 8110-3, Statement of Compliance with Federal Aviation
Regulations, was also issued on November 13, 1980, and recommended
approval of data gathered during the Conformity Inspection. Gulfstream
American Corporation submitted the report and the FAA Form 8110-3 to the
Southern Region by letter dated November 25, 1980. FAA/ASO-213 Engineering
and Manufacturing Branch acknowledged receipt of the letter December 2,
1980, and approved the recommendation for certification with the aisle-
mounted lighting system installed.

*Grimes Manufacturing Co., Urbana, Ohio

D-1



Layered Smoke. The inert, white, nontoxic smoke was generated by a
Pepper Fog (TM).* ‘smoke generator. The discharge nozzle was placed. into
the intake of a. smoke distribution system which consisted of a squirrel
cage fan and 110v motor which forced the smoke into a plenum forming a
"Y" into two.6-inch diameter ducts (Figure 7). The orifice of the upper
duct directed smoke towards the aft cabin. The lower orifice was equipped -
with vanes giving the smoke a counterclockwise vortex in the ferward
cabin. Preliminary. work, including smoke optical density measurements,
had‘'shown this to be an effective. and reproducible method for creating a

‘layéred smoke environment in the cabin of the evacuation simulator {see:
Aspendix A). . . .

Figure 7. Smoke distribution system ductwork shown
with white smoke being discharged.

*smith & Wesson, General Ordnance Equipment Corp., ‘Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 7
Model MK X11 B_ :

10



The forward camera faced aft and covered the subjects as they arose from
their seats, stepped into the center aisle, and moved toward the exit.
The 16mm motion picture cameras were operated at 24 + 1/2 frames per
second.

Evacuation Alarm and Timing System. The evacuation alarm Lell, flash-
bulbs, and the timing clocks were interconnected to form the timing system
which was controlled from the aft cabin by a master switch. The switch
activation started the timing clocks, fired the flashbulbs to identify
the first film frame of the trial, and activated the remote alarm bell in
the forward cabin signaling the start of the trial to the subjects. The
lapsed time from start of the trial to the time the last subject moved from
the seat row into the main aisle was recorded on hand-held stopwatches.

PROCEDURE

The subjects were given a briefing about the purpose of testing, the
general nature of the task they would be required to perform, the potential
minor hazards they might be exposed to, and the general experimental
environment. No information was given about the specific nature of the
project or what lighting or smoke condition they could expect on a given
trial. The primary instructions were to listen to the CAMI flight
attendant's instructions, do as they were told, and evacuate the simulator
as rapidly as possible. Each subject wore a numbered vest for identifica-
tion and occupied an assigned seat with a corresponding number for each
trial.

Following the test protocol (Appendix B), full bright cabin lighting
was employed on the two control evacuation trials in each series. The
full bright lighting was also used on the third and fourth trials with
smoke until after the smoke had been introduced into the cabin for 60
seconds and had layered uniformly in the upper half of the cabin. The
bright cabin lights were then turned off and the emergency lighting appro-
priate for that particular trial was turned on. As the lavered smoke
began to settle into the lower half of the cabin, the evacuation bell was
sounded. The time the lights were switched to emergency until the
bell sounded was approximately 10 to 15 seconds, limiting time for visual
dark adaptation by the subjects.

The use of each emergency lighting system was counterbalanced throughout
the six series of evacuations to minimize bias resulcing from presentation
order, residual learning effects, and subject fatigue or boredom. Upon
reboarding from the previous trial, the subjects were briefed on their
performance on the previous trial and were encouraged to imagine them-
selves in a real emergency during the upcoming trial. Different versions
of a basic questionnaire were given to each subject after each trial to
record their subjective impressions of various aspects of the just com-
pleted trial, including their feelings and evaluations of a number of
environmental features in the cabin (see Appendix C). In addition to the
CAMI flight attendant, at least three additional test personnel supervised
the subjects to insure their safety.


7 oe i.B = ft
orf oz - - 7 “sarseag tt soy
Fa ars ad ius perereae = Zz = z “es mF
oe oe | oe] ove = = |
re 906 By 4 sa |
3 —B = einyesad
eS oe susie, 4
ays 20.04 (ze per sniesaduny =
1 aquomes wou $6 emsye9 > . = i
ns ECOTERT ETS
2S - tunes 21482 9-0 spiek qn oo f
= o syoisa £070 1a 29h a
. c= : ve se0}06 i
Ye 7S 1 $670 »
“ 2 oro ‘6 f
t ~__ = ' 920 2
' ee of ou .
« = rs “ say
= o $ an
soc TWATOA ;
° a1 0002) +
$40 vous ve 49 00041 s2u001 1 . = o S001 vgs P
a spur ra swei6o» oe : 2 " spunod a
Py sono sero SuR6 8 = 6 99un0 Ps
FS = ce}
a a
. 2 7B 5 om
. ns tLe ¢ m
t 25 o
o stare esenbs ie rd x Gi semana onents, a
‘ur soyau: a1e0hs a0 ‘sirounuas asends wo ° FoF a e 2
Wiev ~ a
Fa 2 > wy w
o “ bb ’ ms
o u 8 a 3 feoveunes M '
¥ o = “ uw
“ sayout ro “ s =
" snyou wo ou = B ——_———
= WASNT
8 =
WioWay i
° _ 1equas, pug oy mmOUy ROA WONM tequdg.
soquag pong oy Ag MeO Mmouy ROK vOHM = eRUUAS " os
SasnseOWy INNER] Wor, SUOISOAUED PLewIXerddy . _

SHOLIV4 NOISHIANOD JINLIW



How well could you see the exit when you first moved into the aisle after
the bell rang?

80 Not at all 16_ Barely 3. Distinctl’

How much did the presence of smoke in the cabin affect ycur access to
the exit?

4 Not at all 16 Very li.tle
30 Moderately 36 Severely
13_ No Answer

How much did the smoke affect the lighting in the cabin?
1 Not at all 4 very little

29 Moderately 52 Severely
13_ No Answer

How much did the smoke affect the visibility of the exit signs?
lL Not at all 7 Very little
20 Moderately 58 Severely
13. No Answer
Did you experience any physical reactions to the smoke?
1g Yes @g_ No

If yes, hew so: (Please describe reaction)


APPENDIX A

*but{Teo |yz zeeu AjtTsuep ayous butseezout Aq

MATA WOTZ paxoTq AToJaTdWOD jsouTe SPM TAAe[ STYR SACGe paqzRd0T WYATT 70 ubts Auy ‘azaybty zo wW/O'Z
payovoadde Ajisuap syous ‘aqyhtay peay Hulpurjs ‘uoggl Je pue w/O'T sAcge OF pesPoezoUT Aqtsuep Teotzdo
ayous ‘QUubTey avptnoys HuTpuejs ynoge ‘wozgst W (7 7/OT) ‘w/O*T MOTAEq 40 Je TTTIS sem AZTsUBp SxoUS
‘qubtey peoy paqeos AleqeuTxordde ‘Z00TJ Oyy aAOge WOZZT JW ‘poTszed UOTRZENOeAD BATAUS BYF FOF MOT
poureuied AyTSuap ayous ‘LOOT5 94} aAcge woTO ‘jUbTeEY ysezwae Jeas Fe JeYR SAANO WOZRZO GYR UO BION
spaqeoTpuT se pajeTduco azom suoT}enoRAe puke spucdses 09 4S41J 9YR HuTANP uTGeo ayy OUT peonporzUT SEM
ayoug ‘axOUS azTYM YITM STLTIZ uOTRWNOLAS HuyAnp sOOTJ ay eAcge suCT}eASTe ANoJ Ze pedusTzedxe
sattjord axous azeARSNTTT sAoge squaulsinsvou AjTsuep exXowS oy, ‘SeTTJord Aqtsuaeq exoug pezoAeT

SAINOD3AS N! AWIL
ane . Bne me) az! as
1 Oo
a a
3 [wei | soa
._ = “wg | A
al a
Fa “a OT
9
m 2 To elt | ba
Z sg
_ . 5
4 a ese py } 2
<2 ! | ae
t
I ! n
a ' 1 2 2
U weet i sez Mm
Mossad H | x
a *LINW “ON 221A: 1 1 z
7 402 23h! sc iee 1 t ae
Qo Be-s8 1-88 'aLud { 1 4
O ,., + S88098 "ON 18aL prouenreaaiy nm
g 1 Ww t& > 1 t we a

A-1L



?:

Technical Repert Gocumentation Page

T. Repo No. 2 Government Accession No. 3 Recipient's Covalog No.

FAA-AM-81- , i |AD-Aso3 792 i

4. Title and Subtitle S_Report Dave ~~ ~~

EMERGENCY CABIN LIGHTING INSTALLATIONS. AN ANALYSIS Febsmmyerrps] !

UF CEILING- VS. LOWER CABIN-MOUNTED LIGHTING DURING Performing Orgonizanion Code

EVACUATION TRIALS . j
LL _J 8. Pertormng Orgamzarion Report No. i

7 aumor's! Burton P. Chesterfield, Paul G. Rasmussen, foe {

and Robert D./ Dillon Laka
[9 Peclomming Organs sation Nama ond Address . TO Work Unst No /TRAIS) }
} FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute }
|p. 0. Box 25082 TH Contract Brant No i
| Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 i
L TS. Type of Report ond Periad Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Nome ond Address ~

Office of Aviation Medicine i

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Ta” Sponsoring Agency Code

Washington, D.C. 20591

15. Supplementary Notes 1
Reported research was conducted under Task AM-B-78/79/80-PRS-38 and Request fcr
RD&E Effort (FAA Form 9550-1) enzitled Technical fuprert for Transport Emergency
Lighting Evaluation (ARD-500-76-2).

16. Abstract

Six series of human subject evacuation tests were conducted to compare the evacua-
tion rates with two different emergency lighting systems in an aircraft cabin

filled with nontoxic white smoke. Cabin emergency lighting and exit signs mounted
near the ceiling were almost completely obscured by smoke, which layered most
heavily in the upper one-half of the cabin. A comparison lighting system mounted
below layered smoke in aisle seat armrests, with exit sians mounted at and helow
the cabin midpoint, provided light directly in the aisle and cross aisle. Results
indicated that lights and signs mounted lower in the cabin were more readily visible
in smoke and enabled subjects to evacuate from a smoke-filled cabin more rapidly
than conventional ceiling-mounted lights and signs.

17. Key Words 18, Distribution Statement
Lighting, Exit signs, Smoke Document is available to the public
stratification, Vision in smoke, through the National Technical
Aviation safety, Postcrash fire, Information Service, Springfield,
Aircraft accident Virginia 22161

19. Security Clossif. (of this report) WD. Security Clossif. (of this poge) Ti. No. of Pages

Unclassified Unclassified

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

a . 7



Did you feel disoriented or confused at any time during the test?
64 Yes 153 No 2_ No Answer
If you felt disoriented or confused, when was that feeling strongest?

154 Not applicable

9 When first seated in simulator
38 When bell sounded
While moving through the cabin
Ne Answer

bw
Late

While you were seated, before the bell rang, were you aware of the exit
signs?

138 Yes 74 _ No 6 Don't remember 1 No Answer

After the bell rang and you got up from your seat, were you aware of the
exit signs?

80 Yes 126 No 12 _ Don't remember 1 No Answer

Did the type of lighting affect your confidence and speed of evacuation?

52, Yes 103 No 42 Don't know 2_ No Answer

Do you think the lighting was:
More than
17_ Inadequate 60 Barely adequate 150 Adequate 2 No Answer

for a quick and safe evacuation?

How well could you see the exit when you first moved into the aisle after
the bell rang?

96 Not at all 61 Barely 60 Distinctly 2 No Answer



TRIAL 4. Ceiling Lighting

NAME: VEST NO. TEST NO.

Please respond to every item on the questionnaire according to your best
judgment on each item for the test just completed.

Did you have a feeling or an impression that a real emergency existed
during the evacuation?

88 Yes 30_ No

If you answered yes to above question, how strong was the feeling

or impression?
13 Slight 39 Moderate 36 Strong
Did you feel disoriented or confused at any time during the test?

63 Yes 55 No
If you felt disoriented or confused, when was that feeling strongest?

_55_ Not applicable
0 When first seated in simulator

4 When bell sounded

59 While moving through the cabin

While you were seated, before the bell rang, were you aware of the exit
signs?

96 Yes 20_ No 1 Don't remember _ 1 No Answer

After the bell rang and you got up from your seat, were you aware of the
exit signs?

50 Yes 64 No 3_ Don't remember 1 No Answer

Did the type of lighting affect your confidence and speed of evacuation?

84 Yes 25. No 9 Don't know

Do you think the lighting was:

59 Inadequate 43 Barely adequate 16 More than adequate

for a quick and safe evacuation?

c-12


were all brought up to the same learning level by four trial runs earlier
in the afterncon. From this baseline, subjects participated in four tests
of various lighting levels and visibility conditions as follows:

1978 Emergency Lighting Tests

Visibility Evacuation Evacuation
Limitation Lighting Conditions Times, July 20 Times, August 10
Smoke goggles } Full cabin lighting 32.25 30 s

Smoke goggles | Ceiling-mounted emergency 42.8 s 43.05

light system (0.05 FL)

Smoke goggles | Armrest-mounted fluorescent 35.6 s 34.0 s
light system from American
Optic Light, Inc. (Plumbly
Industries)

White smoke Ceiling-mounted emergency 37.2 s 34s
light system (0.05 FL)

Data on the smoke goggles used to limit vision have been published in CAMI
Memorandum Report AAC-119-78-11(E), December 11, 1978.

Using these tests and the work conducted by the FAA Technical Center as
background, the present test series has been programed to begin June 1980.

Equipment and Facilities: The evacuation simulator nas been configured
with double and triple seats the full length of the aft cabin. Every other
seat row is equipped with a fluorescent light assembly manufactured by
American Optic Light which lights the aisle as well as provides a lighted
surface area at knee height to illuminate the aisle passageway and mark
seat positions.

Overhead cabin incandescent lighting provides the minimum 0.05 FL of
illumination at armrest height typical of FAR Part 25.812 requirements.
Standard commercially available incandescent exit signs will be provided
above three exits and one cross-aisle light will be installed at the inter-
section of the main aisle with the cross aisle. The incandescent lights
will be evaluated as a complete lighting system and compared to the fluores-
cent lighting system under smoke conditions.

Trials 1 and 2 will be with the 2.43m fluorescent light fixtures in the
ceiling of the simulator. Trial 3 on June 17 will use the incandescent
ceiling-mounted lighting system and Trial 4 will be with the aisle-mounted
fluorescent system. On June 19, Trial 3 will be fluorescent and Trial 4
incandescent (counterbalanced). The test series on June 24 and July 1
will be the same as June 17 and June 26 and July 2 will be the same as
June 19.

B-2



The lighting system used for comparison was composed of ceiling-mounted
fixtures with incandescent bulbs providing general aisle illumination cf
1.2 lux (0.11 foot candle) at seat armrest height without smoke in the cabin.
This value is more than twice the minimum value reauired by FAR 25.812(c) (9).
A single incandescent cross-aisle exit locator sign and two exit identifica-
tion signs were also used as part of the conventionally mounted emergencv
lighting system. The cross-aisle sign (Figure 5) was a Luminator (TM)* unit
located 245cm (96.5 in) above the floor and provided 0.32 lux (0.03 foot
candle) on the cross aisle which is also above the minimum specified by FAR
25.812(d). One of the two exit identifier signs was a cabin sidewall-
mounte@ Luminator (TM)** unit Located 137cm (54 in) above the floor. The
other exit identifier was a Grimes*** unit mounted 198cm (7@ in) above floor
level and above the Type A exit (Figure 6).

Figure 5. Cross-aisle exit locator sign mounted above the
intersection of main and cross aisle at ceiling
height.

*Luminator Div., Gulton Industries Inc., Plano, Texas. Model L-20419-3
**Luminator Div., Gulton Industries Inc., Plano, Texas. Model L-20482-7
***Grimes Mfg. Co., Urbana, Ohio. Model 10-0067-9


Photometric Instrumentation. Each trial of each evacuation series
was recorded on 16mm motion picture film with one exterior and two: interior
cameras. .During the trials with smoke, the interior cameras were equipped
with Javelin Medel 220 Night Viewing Devices* to permit low light level
Photography. A timing clock was placed in the field of view of the exterior
camera and the rear interior camsra was-equipped with numeric timing along’
the film margin. . the rear camera angle covered the subjects as they. reached
the end of the 12.5m (41 foot) main aisle, turned into ‘the cross aisle, and’
exited through-the Type A exit (Figure 8, interior view). °

Figure 8. Interior view of cross aisle at the Type A

exit showing entrance into exit shroud (darkened
tunnel).

*Javelin Electronics Div., Apollo Lasers Inc,, Los Angeles, California.
ll