Caring for Precious Cargo, Part II: 

Behavioral Techniques for Emergency 

Aircraft Evacuations With Infants 

Through the Type III Overwing Exit 

Cynthia L. Corbett

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

March 2005

Final Report

This document is available to the public through: 

• The Defense Technical Information Center

 Ft. Belvior, VA. 22060

• The National Technical Information Service

 Springfield, Virginia 22161

 

Office of Aerospace Medicine

Washington, DC 20591

DOT/FAA/AM-05/2
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of

the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of

information exchange. The United States Government

assumes no liability for the contents thereof.
i

Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

���������������� � � �

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

������������������������������������������������������������������������� �����������

��������������������������������������������������������������������� 6. Performing Organization Code 

 

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

����������� 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

�������������������������������������� 

��������������� 11. Contract or Grant No. 

������������������������ 

12. Sponsoring Agency name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

����������������������������� 

�������������������������������� 

���������������������������� 

��������������������� 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplemental Notes 

������������������������������������������AM-B-01-PRS-93. 

16. Abstract 

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������

 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

 

 

���������������������������������������������������������

��������������������

������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������

������������������������������� 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 

������������� ������������� ���

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author gives special thanks to Charles B. Chittum for the initial conception and preparation for this 

study. Without his focus on Precious Cargo, this study would not have been forthcoming.

A hearty thank you goes to Donell Pollard, retired, and Nancy Claussen, of the FAA Flight Standards 

Service, for both personal and professional support for this activity.

Thanks also to the Cabin Safety Research, Biodynamics Research, and Bioinformatics Imagery Teams 

who helped make this project a success.

iii

1

CARING FOR PRECIOUS CARGO, PART II: BEHAVIORAL TECHNIQUES FOR

EMERGENCY AIRCRAFT EVACUATIONS WITH INFANTS

THROUGH THE TYPE III OVERWING EXIT

Children younger than 2 years can fly on U.S.-registered carriers, seated on an adult’s lap and without the 

purchase of a ticket (14 CFR 121); thus, neither the 

government nor the airlines can easily track the number 

of child passengers in this age group. The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) submitted a report to Congress 

in May 1995 that estimated infant enplanements to be 

approximately 1% of all passenger enplanements. This 

estimate was based on a combination of air carrier surveys, industry experience, and a sampling of passengers. 

Applying this rate, the FAA has projected 80 million 

infant enplanements for the 10-year period 2000-2009 

(Department of Transportation [DOT], 1998). Furthermore, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) cites 

an estimated 4.6 million children younger than 2 years 

who fly on U.S. domestic airlines annually in their policy 

statement regarding the use of restraint devices (AAP, 

2001). The importance of these “invisible” passengers 

in emergencies is generally unknown; similarly, recommended procedures for emergency management of such 

precious cargo are few. 

When an emergency evacuation is required, passengers 

must engage in rapid and appropriate behaviors under 

stressful conditions. Parents may feel even more stress 

during an emergency than other passengers who do not 

have the responsibility of caring for a child. Since providing detailed information and specific instructions to 

people before and during an emergency has been shown 

to prompt action, reduce stress, and support the problemsolving process, it is clear that passenger knowledge is a 

key factor in determining how they will respond in an 

accident (Baddeley, 2001; Fritz & Marks, 1954; Johnson, 1997; Quarantelli, 1954; Weisaeth, 1986). Further, 

responses can be developed that will be automatically 

performed without conscious thought. Overt automatic 

behaviors (commonly referred to as habits), though they 

require a substantial amount of training (i.e., consistency 

and repetition) to develop, once learned, are difficult to 

change (Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977). Therefore, when 

appropriate responses are needed for emergency survival, 

they must be fully developed so that they are automatically activated at the appropriate time. 

A review of accident/incident data collected by the 

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) identified 29 

transport airplane accidents between 1970 and 1995 that 

required the evacuation of 67 infants (Chittum, 1998). 

Thirty-four percent of those children were injured: six 

infants received minor injuries, nine infants received 

serious injuries, and eight infants received fatal injuries. 

In addition, between January 1, 1988, and November 1, 

1996, there were 519 precautionary emergency evacuations involving 42,835 transport airplane passengers and 

crew (Hynes, 1999, 2000). Based on the FAA estimates, 

these evacuations could have included as many as 1,500 

infants; unfortunately, comprehensive infant passenger 

and injury statistics are not available.

In an accident investigation report for the May 10, 

2001, accident of a Spanair McDonnell-Douglas MD83 at Liverpool Airport, the Air Accident Investigation 

Branch (AAIB) of the United Kingdom (UK) Department for Transport recommended that the FAA, the Civil 

Aviation Authority (CAA) of the UK, and the European 

Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) “should provide guidance 

as to the recommended best practice for the evacuation 

of infants and small children down escape slides with 

minimum delay” (AAIB, 2003). The reports states that 

there was some delay during the evacuation because of 

uncertainty as to the best method for evacuating small 

children or infants down the escape slides. Neither the 

passenger safety briefing nor the safety cards provided 

guidance for this type of evacuation. While the evacuation 

proved to be successful, there were only 45 passengers on 

the flight; the AAIB suggested that unacceptable delays 

might arise on an airplane with a full complement of 

passengers. (The airplane was configured with 170 passenger seats.) 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has 

recommended that the FAA “...[r]eview air carriers’ procedures to ensure that for those situations in which crews 

anticipate an eventual evacuation, adequate guidance is 

given to both pilots and flight attendants on providing 

passengers with precautionary safety briefings” (NTSB, 

2000). Nevertheless, a telephone survey of major airlines 

conducted for this study revealed that, in general, there 

are few recommended procedures for the emergency 

evacuation of infants. 

Except for aircraft manufacturer demonstrations of 

an airplane’s evacuation capability, in which infant dolls 

are included but not studied, evacuation research rarely 

includes infants and young children. Only one published 
2 

study has specifically addressed the rescue of infants and 

children between the ages of 2 and 24 months (Garner 

& Blethrow, 1966). In that study, participants who were 

holding infant dolls in the emergency evacuation tests 

reported difficulty releasing their seatbelts and getting 

out of their seats.

To address the gaps in knowledge about evacuations 

with infants, preliminary demonstrations were conducted 

at CAMI to gather information on safe ways to evacuate small children from a crashed airplane (Chittum, 

1998). Adults used a Type I floor-level exit fitted with 

an escape slide or a Type III overwing exit to perform 

simulated emergency evacuations while they carried 

dummies representative of six-month and two-year-old 

infants. Participants favored jumping onto the escape 

slide, while holding the dummy in an upright position 

with both arms around it, and cradling the dummy as 

they climbed through the overwing exit. Chittum noted a 

potential for injury to infants, observing that the head and 

limbs of the larger infant dummies often struck the side 

of the floor-level and overwing exit frames as they passed 

through. In addition, one participant almost dropped the 

infant dummy she was carrying as she attempted to sit 

down to board the evacuation slide. 

While Chittum’s (1998) observations and interviews 

with subjects participating in the evacuation demonstrations were useful, they did not adequately address the 

risk of injury to infants being carried by adults during 

emergency airplane evacuations. For example, infants 

may suffer mild to severe head trauma as a result of 

impact with the exit frame or being dropped during an 

airplane evacuation. Nor did Chittum consider the effects 

of egress with infants on the safe and efficient egress of 

other passengers.

The present study was conducted to identify a procedure or set of procedures to recommend to passengers with 

infants evacuating an airplane. The information obtained 

is intended for use in developing passenger education 

materials and pre-evacuation briefings that will inform 

passengers with infants and small children about the safest 

and most efficient methods for evacuating an airplane in 

an emergency. The study consisted of two parts, using 

two of the most common exit types installed on airplanes 

operated by airlines. The simulated evacuations were conducted in the CAMI Aircraft Cabin Evacuation Facility 

(ACEF) in Oklahoma City, OK. The first experiment of 

the study examined evacuations using a Type I exit with 

a single-lane evacuation slide. (See Corbett, 2001, for 

full description and detailed analyses.) 

The second experiment, presented here, was expected 

to identify the most efficient, most comfortable, and 

safest techniques for an adult to carry an infant while 

evacuating an airplane through a Type III overwing exit. 

Participants carried infant dummies horizontally or vertically through the exit, or passed the dummy through the 

exit to another participant who had already exited the 

airplane simulator.

The age/size of the dummy was expected to affect the 

preferred carrying orientation/maneuver, as the head or 

limbs of the larger dummies could strike the frame of 

the exit opening as the carrier maneuvered through the 

exit. The heavier dummies were expected to be more difficult to carry and pass to someone outside the airplane, 

which would also slow evacuation. Egress with infants 

through the Type III overwing exit was expected to be 

significantly slower, overall, than egress through the Type 

I floor-level exit.

Since the use of theatrical smoke to obscure visual cues 

in previous research has been shown to produce differential 

effects on egress through floor-level and overwing exits 

(McLean, Higgins, Lyne & Vant, 1989; McLean, George, 

Funkhouser & Chittum, 1996), it was used on the final 

evacuation trial for each exit type. McLean et al. (1989) 

showed significant smoke-related egress slowing through 

the relatively small Type III exit opening. In contrast, 

McLean et al. (1996) failed to find an effect of smoke on 

egress through Type I floor-level exits with escape slides. 

These results were expected to be replicated. The effects 

of smoke on egress with infants through both exit types 

are evaluated and discussed here, as the effect of smoke 

was not addressed in Corbett (2001).

METHOD

Subjects

Six groups of 32 adult evacuees participated in the 

evacuation trials: four groups of U.S. Air Force and Navy 

personnel attending egress training at CAMI under a 

Memorandum of Agreement between the DOT and 

the Department of Defense (DOT, 1994a, 1994b), and 

two groups of airline industry representatives attending 

CAMI Cabin Safety Workshops. Thirty-two males and 16 

females (eight participants from each group), ranging in 

age from 19 to 45 years (mean age = 31.9), were selected 

to carry anthropomorphic dummies on five evacuation 

trials. Thirty-nine of the infant carriers were parents.

Apparatus 

A Boeing 720 Type III exit assembly, installed on the 

right side of the CAMI ACEF, was used for the simulated 

evacuations. The exit opening measured 20” wide and 

38” high, with a step-up distance of 19” inside and a 

step-down distance of 27” outside the ACEF. To protect 

participants, tumbling mats were placed on the ground 
3

outside the simulator (see Figure 1). The interior was 

configured with six-abreast seating (e.g., Boeing 737), 

using two triple-seat assemblies, with a cabin interior 

aisle of 19 inches. The passageway leading from the main 

aisle to the exit was 20” wide with a 5” aft seat encroachment. Pitch for the remaining seats was set at 31 inches. 

An overhead lighting system was used during all trials, 

adjusted to minimum allowable emergency lighting level 

(0.05 foot-candle).

Materials 

Eight dummies, representative of 2- to 24-month-old 

infants, were used. Table 1 summarizes the anthropometry 

for infants and children, newborn through 42 months, 

and Table 2 lists the measurements of the dummies used 

in this study.

A demographics survey (Appendix A) was used to screen 

all participants for potential infant carriers, based on the 

participants’ stated physical ability to carry a 30-pound 

infant dummy, willingness to participate, and required 

gender mix for the sample. All group members were 

required to provide informed consent (Appendix B), in 

accordance with CAMI Institutional Review Board policy. 

Cabin Safety Workshop attendees were also required to 

obtain approval from their company supervisors to participate in the research project.

On the first and last trials for each group, no instructions were given as to how the dummies should be carried 

through the exit. The three intervening trials included 

instructions, printed on index cards, to carry the dummy 

either horizontally or vertically or to pass the dummy to 

a participant already outside the ACEF.

A post-test questionnaire, Emergency Aircraft Evacuations With Infants Survey (Appendix C), measured the 

infant carriers’ perceived degree-of-ease and their preferred 

carrying orientation/maneuver with regard to comfort, 

safety, and recommended technique for parents.

Procedure

Demographic surveys were distributed to the groups 

as they arrived for class. The completed surveys were 

screened to identify potential infant carriers; eight were 

selected from each of the six groups.

Following the classroom training presentation, participants were briefed (Appendix D) as to the nature of 

the research, and the informed consent document was 

completed. Numbered vests were distributed to all participants, and dummies were given to the infant carriers. 

Participants were escorted to the ACEF, directed to sit 

in the seats that corresponded with their vest numbers, 

and given a safety briefing (Appendix E). Each group 

evacuated the simulator twice, without infant dummies, 

before the experiment began, in fulfillment of training 

requirements.

On the first experimental trial, infant carriers were 

instructed to hold the infant dummies on their laps, while 

seated, and to evacuate when the start buzzer sounded. 

A research team member removed the exit cover from 

outside the ACEF to preclude interference of exit-opening with the evacuation. Another team member acted as 

the “flight attendant,” commanding the evacuation from 

behind the passenger queue, at the rear of the simulator. 

Participants reboarded, were seated, and infant carriers 

were given instruction cards that described how to carry 

the infant dummies for the next trial. Each infant carrier 

received a different specific instruction for each of the 

three instruction trials. Theatrical smoke was introduced 

in the cabin on the final trial, with no instruction as to carrying orientation. Following the evacuation trials, infant 

carriers completed the Emergency Aircraft Evacuations 

With Infants Survey.

Scoring

Speed-of-egress data. Speed-of-egress was operationally defined in two ways. First, individual egress time was 

calculated as the time (in seconds) it took for each evacuee 

to completely clear the exit opening after the previous 

evacuee was clear. This “total time” measure was comprised 

of any delay that might occur before the evacuee reached 

the exit after the previous evacuee had cleared the opening and the time it took to climb completely through the 

exit opening. Use of this measure was intended to allow 

for comparison of egress times between the exit types. 

Second, exit negotiation time, i.e., the time (in seconds) 

it took for each participant to climb through the exit 

opening (measured from the point in time at which the 

individual’s or the dummy’s body entered the exit opening until the individual’s entire body had completely 

cleared the exit opening), was measured separately from 

individual egress time. The use of these two measurement 

techniques was based on previous research by McLean 

et al. (1996), using floor-level exits, and McLean, Corbett, Larcher, McDown, Palmerton, Porter, Shaffstall, 

and Odom (2002), using the Type III overwing exit. The 

passengers’ ability to maneuver through the exit opening 

was the greater determinant of evacuation performance 

with the relatively small Type III overwing exit, with 

its bottom sill 19” above the floor. In contrast, passenger hesitation in using the escape slide predominated 

when using a floor-level exit, since movement through 

the exit opening itself was not restricted by exit size or 

orientation. Additionally, smaller exit openings and a 
4 

smoke-filled environment have been shown to produce 

significant evacuation delays at overwing exits, especially 

when one’s “personal ergonomic space” requirement is 

enlarged (McLean et al., 1989), as might be the case when 

an individual evacuates through the relatively small Type 

III overwing exit while carrying an infant. 

Degree-of-ease data. Degree-of-ease was measured 

on a continuous scale labeled Very Difficult on the left 

and Very Easy on the right (see Appendix C). Infant carriers were instructed to mark an “X” at the point on the 

6” line that corresponded with their perceived difficulty 

of each carrying orientation/maneuver (i.e., horizontal, 

vertical, pass). The distance from the Very Difficult end 

was measured in increments of eighths of an inch, with 

the higher score representing a higher degree of ease. This 

technique, where only the end points were anchored, provided participants with more flexibility in their responses 

(Bordens & Abbot, 1996).

RESULTS

All data screening and statistical analyses were performed using SPSS® version 12.0. Prior to analysis, the 

egress time and questionnaire data were examined for 

accuracy of data entry, missing values, and fit between 

their distributions and the assumptions of multivariate 

analysis. Normality of sampling distributions, homogeneity of variance, and linearity were acceptable.

The speed-of-egress data were analyzed with a 3 x 

4 (Carrying Orientation/Maneuver x Dummy Size) 

multivariate analysis of variance, using a general linear 

model (GLM), with carrying orientation as a repeated 

measure. The main effects reached statistical significance, 

with no interaction effects: Carrying Maneuver, F(2, 88) 

= 34.04, p< .001; Dummy Size, F(3,44) = 3.62, p = .02. 

The main effects accounted for 64% of the variance (η2 

= .44 and .20, respectively; see Table 3). Carrying the 

infant dummy through the exit, either horizontally or 

vertically, gave significantly faster egress than passing the 

infant through the exit to another person, especially with 

the smaller dummies (see Figure 2).

Degree-of-ease data were analyzed in the same manner 

as speed-of-egress data. Multivariate analysis of variance 

confirmed a significant main effect of Carrying Orientation/ Maneuver, F(2, 88) = 9.52, p < .001, but not 

Dummy Size (see Table 4). Overall, participants rated 

carrying the infant dummy vertically as easiest, with the 

exception of the 24-month dummy, which was considered to be (slightly) easier to pass out the exit to another 

person (see Figure 3). 

Infant carriers chose the vertical carrying maneuver 

significantly more often than the horizontal carrying or 

passing maneuver for the carrying orientation/maneuver 

that they considered to be the most comfortable, the safest 

for the infant, and the one they would recommend to parents 

(see Table 5). Neither the participant’s parental status, nor 

the size of the dummy, was associated with their choices. 

Gender was significantly associated with the carriers’ recommendations to parents, as more females recommended 

that parents pass the infant,χ2(2, N= 4) = 6.49, p = .04, 

especially those who carried the larger dummies. A summary 

of infant carrier comments is included in Appendix F.

Eighteen of the 48 (38%) carriers remarked that 

passing the infant dummy was time-consuming and 

required prior coordination with another passenger, 

and that a parent would never hand off his/her child to 

anyone other than another family member. Those who 

selected the passing maneuver for comfort, safety, and 

to recommend to parents, commented that the dummy 

(18/24-month size) was too heavy to carry through the 

exit and that they were concerned about injuries that 

might be incurred by striking the infant’s head or limbs 

on the exit frame. Carrying orientations and maneuvers 

are illustrated in Figures 4 through 7.

The design of this experiment allowed individuals to 

carry the infant dummies through the Type III overwing 

exit in the manner that they chose on the first trial, to 

experience different carrying maneuvers on the next three 

trials, and to choose a maneuver on the final trial. On 

the first trial, when no instruction as to how to carry the 

infants was given, 34 (71%) chose to carry the dummies 

vertically, and 14 (29%) carried them horizontally. On 

the final trial, 31 (65%) of the infant carriers carried 

the dummies vertically, 14 (29%) carried the dummies 

horizontally, and 6% (3) chose to pass the dummy to 

another person. One each of the 6-, 18-, and 24-month 

dummies was passed, with the carriers changing from the 

vertical orientation on the first trial to passing on the last 

trial. An equal number (13%) changed from vertical to 

horizontal and horizontal to vertical. Sixty-seven percent 

used the same maneuver on the first and final trials. Of 

the 12 who changed between vertical and horizontal, 8 

carried the 2- or 6-month dummies.

Results for Exit Type Comparisons 

Smoke. The infant carriers’ mean individual egress 

times and exit negotiation times for the Type III exit for 

each trial are included in Table 6. The effects of smoke 

were evaluated by comparing both time measures for 

the final trial with those measures for the first trial in 

clear air. Smoke did not significantly increase the time 

it took for infant carriers to approach or climb through 

the overwing exit. As a matter of fact, overall egress was 

faster for the final trial with smoke than for the first trial 

without smoke. Recall that both trials were uninstructed 

regarding carrying orientation/maneuver.
5

The infant carriers’ mean individual egress times for 

the Type I floor-level exit evacuations are included in 

Table 7. The infant carriers took significantly longer to 

egress in smoke than in clear air, with a mean difference 

of about 1/3 second, t(47) = 5.11, p < .001. The time 

for the first trial was, however, significantly shorter than 

all the other trials, not just the smoke trial.

Comparison of egress through both exits reveals that, 

on the first trial, egress with infants through the Type III 

overwing exit was significantly slower than egress through 

the Type I floor-level exit, t(94) = 4.29, p < .001. In 

contrast, the individual egress times were essentially the 

same through both exit types on the final trial.

Infants and other passengers. The effect of egress 

with infants on the egress of other passengers was assessed 

by comparing the individual egress times of participants 

exiting just before the infant carriers, those exiting just 

after the carriers, and all other participants for each trial. 

The mean egress times for these evacuees did not differ 

significantly ( = 1.16, 1.14, 1.10 seconds, respectively). 

Participants exiting just before carriers were often the 

receiver for the passing maneuver, but that did not slow 

their egress. For participants in the Type I evacuations, 

the egress time for those exiting just after infant carriers ( = 1.48) was longer than for others who were not 

carriers ( = 1.20), but not significantly so. Participants 

immediately behind infant carriers were observed helping 

them sit down on the slide, but that assistance did not 

significantly slow group egress.

DISCUSSION

The results supported the expectation that carrying an 

infant dummy and climbing through the Type III overwing exit produces faster egress than passing the dummy 

through the exit to a person outside the airplane. Waiting 

for someone to help with the dummy proved to take more 

time than simply climbing through the exit and there 

was no guarantee that someone would take the infant 

dummy, unless the maneuver had first been coordinated. 

Those carriers who had difficulty climbing through the 

exit with the larger dummies on the instruction trials, 

and then actually used the passing maneuver on the final 

non-instructed trial, made a point of enlisting help from 

another evacuee in advance, thereby minimizing the exit 

negotiation time during the final trial in smoke. This 

planning strategy would not be apparent to the average 

passenger who has not been informed of its benefit. 

The carriers’ preference and recommendation of the 

vertical carrying orientation appeared to come from their 

concern for the infant’s safety. Their comments revealed 

that they either thought they would, or actually did, 

strike some part of the infant dummy on the exit frame 

when carrying it horizontally, particularly with the larger 

dummies. 

The ability to hold the dummy against themselves 

and to enfold and protect its head, arms, and legs was 

also important to the carriers. For the 2-month infant 

dummies, this could be accomplished with either the 

horizontal or the vertical orientation and was probably a 

matter of personal comfort for those carriers. Some of those 

who carried the largest and heaviest dummies reported 

that they had greater difficulty maneuvering through the 

exit with the dummy, however, and preferred the passing 

method. These statements confirmed the Degree-of-Ease 

ratings and underscored the carriers’ selection of carrying 

orientation/maneuvers on the non-instructed final trial, 

as discussed above.

Comparing the individual egress times of the participants shows that egress with infants did not significantly 

influence the individual egress times of the other individuals evacuating through the overwing exit. Unfortunately, 

this does not speak to the addition of critical seconds to 

the evacuation time of the group as a whole. In an actual 

emergency, a delay caused by a parent waiting for someone 

to take his or her child could very well mean that passengers still in the plane would not survive. The impact 

of egress with infants on other passengers evacuating 

through the Type I exit was also shown to be negligible. 

While participants did occasionally help infant carriers 

into the sitting position to board the evacuation slide, 

the delays were minor. Such delays could become major 

in an actual evacuation, though, if a significant number 

of passengers sat to board the escape slide and they all 

required help.

The presence of smoke in the cabin did not appear to 

increase egress time for infant carriers. It is quite likely that, 

by the fifth and final trial, the infant carriers had become 

well practiced at maneuvering with the infant dummy to 

and through the exit. Previous research on egress through 

the Type III overwing exit has identified an asymptotic 

learning curve for speed of egress, where asymptote was 

achieved by the third trial (McLean & George, 1995; 

George & Corbett, 1999). This being the case, the infant 

carriers had probably become familiar enough with the 

weight and bulk of the infant dummies that they were 

able to simply follow the passenger queue to the exit and 

climb out, without the smoke-related decrease in visual 

perception significantly slowing their egress. Additionally, 

without instruction requiring a third of the carriers to pass 

their infants, only three chose to pass the infant outside. 

Thus, the infant carriers were able to select the carrying 

orientation/maneuver that best suited them on the final 

trial, likely resulting in more efficient egress.
6 

Egress with infants through the Type III overwing exit 

was expected to be significantly slower, overall, than egress 

through the Type I floor-level exit. This was the case on 

the first trial when all infant carriers were evacuating 

the first time with the infant dummies and without any 

instruction as to how to manage the dummies. After 

experiencing several techniques for egress with the infant 

dummies, however, the infant carriers performed almost 

identically on the final trial, even with reduced visibility 

produced by smoke.

The mean egress times for each trial in the Type I 

evacuations give further support for identifying jumping 

onto the escape slide as the preferred and recommended 

boarding maneuver in Corbett (2001). In a pattern similar 

to that seen in the Type III trials, adding specific instructions for carrying orientation and boarding maneuver for 

the second through the fifth experimental trials increased 

the egress time over the first trial, probably because the 

sitting maneuver was required for half of the infant carriers. 

The third, fourth, and fifth trial times were progressively 

shorter than the second trial; this effect was likely due 

to progressive experience. The egress time for the final 

trial increased slightly over the fifth trial. While a further 

reduction in egress time on the last trial might be expected, 

the decreased visibility produced by the smoke appeared 

responsible for egress slowing, unlike egress times in the 

final Type III exit trial.

The increased egress time on the last trial of the Type 

I evacuations was almost a third of a second longer than 

that of the first trial, the only other non-instructed trial. 

One of the infant carriers elected to sit to board the slide 

on the first trial, and only four of the 48 carriers sat on 

the last trial. Thus, even with experience (and with a 

minimum of sitting), boarding the evacuation slide with 

an infant took longer in smoke. McLean et al. (1996) did 

not find such an effect of smoke on boarding the slide. 

In the design of their study, the smoke trial also followed 

the clear air trial. However, their participants were much 

less experienced than those in this study. Consequently, 

the “...delay produced by passenger queuing at the slide 

masked the smoke-induced slowdown” (p. 10). Here, 

the infant carriers had become very experienced at slide 

boarding, as indicated by the progressive reduction in 

egress time for the instructed trials, and the smoke effect 

is likely to have become more obvious as their hesitation 

times in boarding the slide were reduced.

The infant carriers’ performance on the final trials of 

both experiments is a noteworthy demonstration of the 

beneficial effects of education and “hands-on” experience 

in airplane evacuations. Egress through the Type III exit 

appeared to benefit the most, which is particularly significant, as this small exit is the closest means of escape 

for as many as two-thirds of the passengers on many 

airplanes.

CONCLUSION

The results from previous research highlight the premise that the best chance passengers have of surviving an 

airplane accident is to be fully knowledgeable of, and 

especially proficient at, appropriate emergency procedures and behaviors. The more passengers know about 

the emergency situations they might encounter, and how 

to escape from them, the more likely they will be able 

to “make that perilous journey from seat to sanctuary” 

successfully (Snow, 1970).

This study examined evacuation procedures for which 

little or no information is currently being provided. To 

safely and efficiently evacuate with an infant from an 

airplane, it is necessary that the infant’s head, neck, 

and limbs be protected. As asserted by Corbett (2001), 

protection would include cradling the infant’s head and 

neck with the hand (for vertical positions) or in the arm 

(for horizontal positions), and keeping the infant’s arms, 

legs, and feet enfolded as much as possible by the parent’s 

arms. The size of the infant will likely dictate whether 

protection is best achieved by holding the child vertically 

or horizontally. 

When evacuating by way of the Type III overwing 

exit, the infant carrier should climb quickly through the 

exit opening. If the size of the infant will inhibit egress 

through this small exit, and passing the infant is preferred, 

a strategy to accomplish this maneuver (i.e., “passing 

and receiving”) should be planned well in advance of 

the need to evacuate. When evacuating by way of the 

Type I floor-level exit, jumping onto the escape slide is 

the preferred boarding maneuver (c.f. Corbett, 2001). 

These recommendations should be included in passenger 

education materials, training programs, safety cards, and 

pre-evacuation briefings. 

It is known that passengers are not well-informed when 

it comes to emergency evacuation procedures, and they 

do not take steps to become more aware, e.g., attending 

to oral and written safety briefings (Corbett & McLean, 

2004; Johnson, 1979). Therefore, future research should 

seek to identify the best methods for providing information about the techniques for “caring for precious cargo” 

during emergency aircraft evacuations. 
7

REFERENCES

Aircraft Accident Investigation Branch (2003). McDonnell-Douglas MD-83, EC-FXI: Main document, 

Aircraft Accident Report No. 4/2003 EW/C2001/

5/10. London: Department of Transport.

American Academy of Pediatrics (2001). Policy Statement: 

Restraint use on aircraft. Volume 108, Number 5, 

November 2001, pp. 1218-21. Available at http:

//www.aap.org/policy/re0101.html.

Baddeley, A.D. (2001). Selective attention and performance in dangerous environments. Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 5, 86-91.

Bordens, K.S. & Abbott, B.B. (1996). Research design and 

methods: A process approach, 3rd Edition. Mountain 

View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.

Chittum, C. (1998). Caring for Precious Cargo. Unpublished manuscript.

Corbett, C.L. (2001). Caring for Precious Cargo, Part 

I: Emergency aircraft evacuations with infants onto 

inflatable escape slides (DOT/FAA/AM-01/18). 

Washington, DC: Office of Aerospace Medicine.1

Corbett, C.L. & McLean, G.A. (2004). Passenger safety 

awareness: Still ignorant after all these years. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 75(Suppl.), 

B65.

Department of Transportation (1994a). Memorandum 

of Agreement between DOT and Department of 

Defense, U.S. Air Force, 552nd Air Control Wing, 

No. ACO289CM9. Washington, DC: FAA, Federal 

Air Surgeon, AAM-1.

Department of Transportation (1994B). Memorandum 

of Agreement between DOT and Department of 

Defense, U.S. Navy, Strategic Communications 

Wing One, No. ACO302CM9. Washington, DC: 

FAA, Federal Air Surgeon, AAM-1.1

Department of Transportation (1998). Child Restraint 

Systems (Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, 

Notice No. 98-2). Federal Register: February 18, 

1998, Vol. 63, No. 32, pp. 8323-8. Available at 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs.

Fritz, C.E. & Marks, E.S. (1954). The NORC studies 

of human behavior in a disaster. Journal of Social 

Issues, 10, 26-41.

Garner, J.D. & Blethrow, J.G. (1966). Emergency evacuation tests of a crashed L-1649 (AM-66/42). Washington, DC: Office of Aviation Medicine.1

George, M.H. & Corbett, C.L. (1999) Effects of cabin 

crew location and passenger motivation on aircraft 

evacuations. Proceedings, 1998 International Aircraft 

Fire and Cabin Safety Research Conference, November 

16-20, 1998, Atlantic City, NJ (DOT/FAA/AR-99/

68). CD-ROM (Federal Aviation Administration, 

European Joint Aviation Authorities, Transport 

Canada Civil Aviation, Japanese Civil Aviation 

Bureau, 1999). Washington, DC: FAA.

Hynes, M.K. (1999). Frequency and costs of transport 

airplane precautionary emergency evacuations

(DOT/FAA/AM-99/30). Washington, DC: Office of Aviation Medicine.1

Hynes, M.K. (2000). Evacuee injuries and demographics 

in transport airplane precautionary emergency evacuations (DOT/FAA/AM-00/11). Washington, DC: 

Office of Aviation Medicine.1

Johnson, D.A. (1979). An investigation of factors affecting aircraft passenger attention to safety information 

presentations. Washington, DC: DOT. (NTIS No. 

ADA082358)

Johnson, D.A. (1997). How people behave in aircraft 

accidents. Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 2, 71-80.

McLean, G.A., Corbett, C.L., Larcher, K.G., McDown, 

J.R., Palmerton, D.A. Porter, K.A., Shaffstall, R.M., 

& Odom, R.S. (2002). Access-to-egress I: Interactive 

effects of factors that control the emergency evacuation 

of naïve passengers through the transport airplane TypeIII over-wing exit (DOT/FAA/AM-02/16). Washington, DC: Office of Aerospace Medicine.

McLean, G.A., & George, M.H. (1995). Aircraft evacuations through Type-III exits II: Effects of individual 

subject differences (DOT/FAA/AM-95/25). Washington, DC: Office of Aviation Medicine.1

McLean, G.A., George, M.H., Funkhouser, G.E., & Chittum, C. B. (1996). Aircraft evacuations onto escape 

slides and platforms I: Effects of passenger motivation

(DOT/FAA/AM-96/18). Washington, DC: Office 

of Aviation Medicine.1

1

This publication and all Office of Aerospace Medicine technical reports are available in full-text from the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute’s 

publications Web site: http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/index.html
8 

McLean, G.A., Higgins, E.A., Lyne, P.J., & Vant, J.H. 

(1989). The effects of wearing passenger protective 

breathing equipment on evacuation times through Type 

III and Type IV emergency aircraft exits in clear air 

and smoke (DOT/FAA/AM-89/12). Washington, 

DC: Office of Aviation Medicine.1

National Transportation Safety Board (2000). Emergency 

Evacuation of Commercial Airplanes, Safety study 

NTSB/SS-00/01. Washington, DC: NTSB.

Quarantelli, E.L. (1954). The nature and conditions of 

panic. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 267-75.

Shiffrin, R.M. & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and 

automatic human information processing: II Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general 

theory. Psychological Review 84(2), 127-90.

Snow, C.C., Carroll, J.J., & Allgood, M.A. (1970). 

Survival in emergency escape from passenger aircraft

(DOT/FAA/AM70-16). Washington, DC: Office 

of Aviation Medicine.1

Weisaeth, L. (1986). Human stress reactions and their 

relationship to survival in a catastrophe. Training 

for Survival and Rescue at Sea. Proceedings of the 

IASST Conference: Aberdeen, Scotland, 1986.
9

FIGURES

Figure 2. Speed of Egress Main Effect for Carrying Orientation and Dummy Size.

Figure 1. Test area shows Type III overwing exits 

and padded egress route. A canvas “hatch” was 

opened by a research team member.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Horizontal Vertical Pass

Carrying Orientation/Maneuver

Mean Individual Exit Negotiation Time in Seconds

2-mo.

6-mo.

18-mo.

24-mo.

Dummy

Size
10 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Horizontal Vertical Pass

Carrying Orientation/Maneuver

Average Score

2-mo.

6-mo.

18-mo.

24-mo.

Dummy

Size

Very

Difficult

Very

 Easy

Figure 3. Degree of Ease Main Effect for Carrying Orientation

Figure 4. Infant carrier holds 18-month dummy 

horizontally and steps through the exit.

Figure 5. Infant carrier holds 2-month dummy 

horizontally as she climbs through the exit.
11

Figure 6. The head and neck of two 18-month 

dummies are well supported by infant carriers as 

they hold the infants vertically while evacuating.

Figure 7. A 24-month dummy is passed through the 

overwing exit. 

13

TABLES

Table 1. 

Infant Anthropometry 

Age in 

months 

Mean 

Weight/kg s.d. Weight range/lb Mean Length/cm s.d. Length range/in 

0  2 5.1 1.1 8.82 - 13.67 56.3 3.9 20.64 - 23.71 

3  5 6.9 1.0 13.00 - 17.42 63.1 3.6 23.42 - 26.26 

6  8 8.1 0.9 15.88 - 19.84 68.5 2.6 25.95 - 27.99 

9  11 9.2 1.1 17.85 - 22.71 73.0 3.3 27.44 - 30.04 

12  15 10.1 1.2 19.62 - 24.92 76.5 3.2 28.93 - 31.45 

16  19 10.6 1.2 20.72 - 26.02 79.2 3.4 29.84 - 32.52 

20  23 11.5 1.5 22.04 - 28.66 82.6 4.0 30.92 - 34.08 

24 - 42 14.1 1.9 26.89 - 35.27 93.4 5.0 34.80 - 38.74 

Note. From Anthropometry of infants, children, and youths to age 18 for product safety design, Final 

Report, May 31, 1977, Highway Safety Research Institute, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 

Michigan 48109. Richard G. Snyder PhD, Lawrence W. Schneider PhD, Clyde L. Owings MD PhD, 

Herbert M. Reynolds PhD, D. Henry Golomb MS, M. Anthony Schork PhD. 

Table 2. 

Dummy measurements 

Dummy number Weight/lb Length/in Estimated age 

representation 

1 10.91 16.75 2 months 

2 10.51 16.75 2 months 

3 17.04 24.50 6 months 

4 18.06 26.00 6 months 

5 24.76 33.00 18 months 

6 25.65 31.00 18 months 

7 28.96 31.00 24 months 

8 29.92 31.00 24 months 
14 

Table 3. 

Analysis of Variance for Speed-of-Egress 

Type III Over-wing Exit 

Source df F �2 p

Between Subjects 

Dummy Size (D) 3 3.62 .20 .02 

 Error 44 (0.21) 

Within Subjects 

Carrying Orientation/ 

 Maneuver (C) 

2 34.40 .44 <.001 

C x D 6 0.49 .03 .82 

 Error (C) 88 (0.58) 

Note. Mean square errors are in parentheses. 

Table 4. 

Analysis of Variance for Degree-of-Ease 

Type III Over-wing Exit 

Source df F �2 p

Between Subjects 

Dummy Size (D) 3 2.161 .13 .11 

 Error 44 (2.33) 

Within Subjects 

Carrying Orientation (C) 2 9.52 .18 <.001 

C x D 6 1.81 .11 .11 

 Error (C) 88 (2.67) 

Note. Mean square errors are in parentheses. 
15

Table 5. 

Distribution of Responses to Emergency Aircraft Evacuations With Infants Survey 

Type III Over-wing Exit 

Carrying Orientation/ Dummy Size 

Maneuver 2 months 6 months 18 months 24 months Total 

Which maneuver was the most comfortable? 

Hold infant vertically 7 9 8 6 30 

Hold infant horizontally 4 3 1 2 10 

Pass infant through exit 1 0 3 4 8 

Total: 12 12 12 12 48 

Which maneuver do you think is safest for the infant? 

Hold infant vertically 7 7 8 7 29 

Hold infant horizontally 4 2 1 1 8 

Pass infant through exit 1 3 3 4 11 

Total: 12 12 12 12 48 

 

Which maneuver would you recommend to parents? 

Hold infant vertically 7 7 8 7 29 

Hold infant horizontally 4 2 1 2 9 

Pass infant through exit 1 2 3 3 9 

Total: 12 11* 12 12 47 

*One carrier did not answer this question 

Table 6. 

Infant Carrier Egress Time 

Type III Over-wing Exit 

Exit Negotiation Individual Egress 

Trial Mean Time 

In Seconds SD Mean Time 

In Seconds SD

Trial 1: Without instruction 1.50 .40 1.82 .46 

Trial 2: With instruction 1.86 1.04 2.18 1.07 

Trial 3: With instruction 1.74 .87 2.01 .89 

Trial 4: With instruction 1.67 .94 2.00 .97 

Trial 5: Without instruction 

 With smoke 1.43 .34 1.75 .50 
16

Table 7. 

Infant Carrier Individual Egress Time 

Type I Floor-level Exit 

Trial

Mean

Time 

In 

Seconds

SD

Trial 1: No instruction 1.39 .52 

Trial 2: With instruction 1.79 .59 

Trial 3: With instruction 1.74 .57 

Trial 4: With instruction 1.68 .57 

Trial 5: With instruction 1.59 .59 

Trial 6: No instruction 

 With smoke 1.70 .65 
A1

APPENDIX A

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TYPE III EXIT EVACUATIONS

Participant number: ____________________(First and last initials, and last for digits of SSN)

Do you have any physical disabilities, i.e. back, neck, arms, legs?___________

Are you capable of climbing through a Type III over-wing exit with a 30 pound dummy? ______

Sex: Male _______ Female _______

Age: ________ Height: ________ Weight: ________

Do you have children? ________ If yes, what is/are their age(s)? ________________________

Have you ever participated in an evacuation exercise here at CAMI before? Yes No

Highest year of education completed: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

For Researcher Use: Infant dummy # __________ Vest # ____________

B1

APPENDIX B

INDIVIDUAL’S CONSENT TO VOLUNTARILY 

PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH PROJECT

(Type III overwing exit in clear air and smoke)

I, ________________________________________, understand that this research project entitled Emergency Aircraft 

Evacuations with Infants is being sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and is being directed by 

Cynthia L. Corbett of the Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI), under the supervision of G. A. McLean, PhD. I am an attendee of 

CAMI’s Military Egress Training/Cabin Safety Workshop and volunteer of my own free will to participate in the project.

PURPOSE: I understand that this project is designed to look at ways to improve aircraft safety. The specific areas of concern are 

evacuating through a Type III overwing exit while carrying an infant dummy. The project is designed to identify the fastest and safest 

way to evacuate an aircraft under emergency conditions while carrying an infant.

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY: I understand that this research will be conducted in the CAMI Aircraft Cabin Evacuation Facility 

(ACEF), and will involve military or workshop personnel, who will be required to evacuate the simulator cabin as many as six times. 

I understand I will be seated in the simulator holding an infant dummy and when the start signal is given I will evacuate the facility, 

as instructed, as quickly and safely as possible. I understand that it is important to follow the instructions given by the research team. 

Between trials, I will remain outside of the simulator until receiving instructions from the research team. I understand that all of the 

trials that I participate in will be videotaped.

RISKS: I understand that there are possible injuries I could receive from my participation in this study. Such injuries could include, 

but are not limited to, bruises, lacerations, strains, sprains and/or broken bones. These usually result from slipping, tripping, or falling. 

In previous studies at this facility the most serious injuries have been lacerations, contusions, strains, sprains, and broken bones. 

These were principally caused by lack of subject attention, and participation by subjects whose day-to-day activities do not include 

physical exertion. The estimated incidence of such injuries is typically less than one per 100 performing evacuations using a Type III 

overwing exits. I have been briefed and shown pictures and videos about how to properly accomplish these activities, and I have had 

opportunities to ask any questions I have concerning the research and my participation. All of my questions have been answered to 

my satisfaction.

 Participant’s Initials __________________

PARTICIPANT’S RESPONSIBILITIES: I certify that I have no physical disabilities that would prevent me from being able to 

evacuate an aircraft cabin, nor any illnesses such as heart disease, or other conditions, such as pregnancy, that restrict my ability to 

exercise, move nimbly, or which could make this activity additionally hazardous. 

I further certify that I am NOT under the influence of any medication or chemical substance, including alcohol, that may compromise 

my own safety or the safety of others directly associated with the research. I also acknowledge that I must withdraw NOW from 

participation in the project if I have any such condition or am under any such influence.

I understand that it is important to be accurate and honest with my responses on the subject questionnaires and any other questions the 

researchers may have about the research and my participation during the project.
B2

I understand that it is very important to pay attention and follow all instructions from the researchers. I hereby release the FAA from 

any and all claims that may arise as the result of my own negligence and/or failure to follow the instructions of the CAMI personnel.

 Participants’s Initials _________________

CONFIDENTIALTY: I agree to allow still photographs and/or videotapes to be made of me as required during the research, with 

the understanding that these records are the property of the U. S. Government, and that I am not entitled to monetary or other benefits, 

now or in the future, for the use of this material. I understand that all records of this study will be kept confidential, and that I will not 

be identified by name or description in any reports or publications about this study, except where photographs may include my picture.

 Participant’s Initials ________________

BENEFITS: The major benefit to me will be the satisfaction of participating in a project that will improve passenger safety on 

commercial aircraft. The FAA will have a documented account of evacuating aircraft with adults carrying infants. This will allow the 

FAA to provide guidance to the airline industry on how carried infants should be held when evacuating aircraft in states of distress. 

These procedures could reduce severe injuries and deaths to young infants involved in aircraft accidents.

COMPENSATION AND INJURY: I have been made aware that accident insurance coverage for this activity will be provided by 

the military health care system or my employer. I have been made aware that my personal accident insurance might not cover me 

while I am on duty. I have been made aware that necessary immediate care of any resultant medical problems may be provided by the 

CAMI Clinic until, or unless, transportation to another medical facility is obtained. Follow-on care would be provided by local clinics 

and hospitals that would require verification of my insurance. I agree to provide CAMI, if requested, with copies of all insurance and 

medical records arising from any such care for injuries/medical problems. 

 Participant’s Initials __________________

SUBJECT’S ASSURANCE: I understand that my participation in this project is voluntary. I have not given up any of my legal 

rights or released any individual or institution from liability for negligence. I understand that I may withdraw from this project 

at any point during or between trials. I understand that if new findings develop during the course of this research that may relate to 

my decision to continue participation, I will be informed.

 Participant’s Initials __________________

I have read this consent document. I understand its contents, and I freely consent to participate in this study under the conditions 

described. I understand that I may request a copy of this consent form. If I have questions about this study, or need to report any 

adverse effects from the research procedures, I will contact Ms. Corbett at (405) 954-7528.

Do you understand that participation in this research project involves risk of injury and that there are things you can do to 

reduce that risk? (Initial one) Yes __________ No __________

______________________________________ _____________

Research Participant’s Signature Date

______________________________________ _____________

Investigator Date

______________________________________ _____________

Witness Date
C1

APPENDIX C

Emergency Aircraft Evacuations With Infants Survey

Participant number: _________________ (First and last initials, and last four digits of SSN)

Indicate the degree of ease or difficulty of evacuation for each maneuver by marking an “X” on the scale:

1. Holding infant vertically

|_____________________________________________________________________________|

Very difficult Very easy 

 

2. Holding infant horizontally

|_____________________________________________________________________________|

Very difficult Very easy 

3. Passing infant through the exit

|_____________________________________________________________________________|

Very difficult Very easy 

Circle your answer to the following questions:

5. Which maneuver was the most comfortable?

a. Holding infant vertically

b. Holding infant horizontally

c. Passing the infant through the exit

6. Which maneuver do you think is safest for the infant?

a. Holding infant vertically

b. Holding infant horizontally

c. Passing the infant through the exit

7. Which maneuver would you recommend to parents?

a. Holding infant vertically

b. Holding infant horizontally

c. Passing the infant through the exit

Remarks: ______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

D1

APPENDIX D

INITIAL SUBJECT BRIEFING

Overwing Exit groups

Today you will participate in a research project designed to investigate the safest way to evacuate an 

aircraft to improve safety in air travel. Your participation is greatly appreciated, and of the utmost 

importance. You can take a great deal of satisfaction in knowing that the results of your actions 

today may save lives and reduce serious injuries to small children traveling on aircraft. You will be 

required to perform six evacuations using the Type III overwing exit. The opening for the exit is 

approximately 38” high and 20” wide. The sill of the exit is approximately 19” above the floor and 

27” above the ground outside. On five of the evacuations some of you will carry an infant dummy 

weighing between 10 and 30 lbs.

To participate in the trials today, you must not have any physical disabilities that would prevent 

you from moving freely and stepping through the overwing exit. And - you must NOT have any 

illness that would restrict your ability to exercise such as heart disease, or other conditions such as 

pregnancy. You cannot be under the influence of alcohol or any drug, including some prescription 

drugs. If you have any questions about medical or physical conditions, or the use of medications, one 

of the members of the research team will answer them. You can decide at any time not to participate 

in the project.

Although injury risks are minimal, there is a possibility of injuries, which may include, but are not 

limited to: bruises, lacerations, strains, sprains and/or broken bones. The estimated incidence of 

such injuries is typically less than one per 100 people performing evacuations using the Type III 

overwing exit. These usually result from slipping, tripping, or falling. In previous studies at this 

facility the most serious injuries have been lacerations, bruises, strains, sprains, and broken bones. 

These were principally caused by lack of subject attention to the task at hand, and participation by 

subjects whose day-to-day activities do not include physical exertion. 

Members of the research team are providing you with an informed consent form. This document 

will let us know that you have been told about the tests, understand the procedures, and are willing 

to participate. I will read the consent form aloud, and answer any questions you may have. Also - 

remember that you may withdraw from the tests at any time.

Turn in your consent form and you will get your vest.

Once you get your baby and/or vest, you may go down the west staircase and meet at the doors. Baby 

carriers, carry your babies outside and place them on the cart. Wait for Jerry before you board the simulator.

E1

APPENDIX E

SAFETY BRIEFING FOR TYPE III EXIT

Deliver just before trials, inside the simulator

The experiment that we are conducting today is very important to the future of aviation safety. 

You will be required to perform six group evacuations through an exit 38 inches high by 20 inches 

wide. The sill of the exit is 19” above the floor and 27” above the ground outside. On five of those 

evacuations some of you will have to carry an infant dummy that weighs between 10 and 30 lbs. 

The researchers will advise you about the evacuation procedure for each experimental trial.

When you hear this buzzer (sound buzzer), get up and exit the facility, carrying the dummy, as 

quickly and safely as possible. Please handle the dummy as carefully as you would a human infant.

Should an unsafe condition occur, this bell will ring (sound bell). If the bell rings, stop all 

movement and wait for instructions. The bell will also ring at the end of each trial.

You will be videotaped while participating in this research. Please move away from the area outside 

the exit as soon as you are through the exit. Do not obscure the video cameras.

You are free to withdraw from this experiment at any time.

F1

APPENDIX F

Summary of Infant Carrier Remarks from

Emergency Aircraft Evacuations With Infants Survey

“Horizontal doesn’t work for a larger baby”

“Horizontal, vertical depends on size of baby. When I held my infant vertically, I knocked its head on the 

exit!”

“A parent would never pass their child to another person.”

“My baby was long so it was easier to carry horizontal. When I carried her vertically, her head kept getting 

caught and I could not distribute weight as well.”

“Suggest assigning an able-bodied person/buddy to assist parent. Vertical is most natural for small infant, 

holding head in hand, much like brace position recommended by many airlines.”

“Passing the baby and getting them out first was the easiest; otherwise, the baby’s head can hit on the exit 

frame.”

“The baby will get his/her head injured in the horizontal position.”

“Passing the baby to someone else takes time and prior coordination.”

“If horizontal, you need to tuck head under arm to protect.”

“I told the person exiting ahead of me to grab my baby once outside and he ran off. This was only simulated. 

I can imagine that an untrained person faced with an emergency would be too consumed with selfpreservation and maybe panic to have the desire to help you or even comprehend your request. I think any 

attempt to do this would delay evacuation and could add to the confusion.”

“Holding vertically for infants is good, but with larger children, it can be difficult.”

“Holding infant horizontally was much more awkward. Infant dummy’s arm was dislodged from socket from 

catching on frame of exit.”

“Passing the larger infant was easier, though time consuming.”

“Hold vertical. Can protect head with one hand and maneuver legs with other in case of a large child.”

“Vertically allows for baby to turn with parent’s torso. Horizontally takes longer due to having to turn baby 

through door, then exiting.”

“Passing the infant slows the evacuation for other passengers.”

“With the larger baby, it was too easy to injure his head or limbs going through the exit. Recommend 

passing.”

“Didn’t think it was going to be so hard to travel with an infant and go through an evacuation.”