DOT/FAA/AM-01/18 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Caring for Precious Cargo, Part I: 

Emergency Aircraft Evacuations With 

Infants Onto Inflatable Escape Slides 

Cynthia L. Corbett 

Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

November 2001 

Final Report 

This document is available to the public 

through the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 
N O TICE 

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. 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. 2. ent Accession No. 3. 

DOT/FAA/AM-01/18 

4. itle and Subtitle 5. eport Date 

Caring for Precious Cargo Part I: Emergency Aircraft 

Evacuations With Infants Onto Inflatable Escape Slides 

November 2001 

6. erforming Organization Code 

7. uthor(s) 8. erforming Organization Report No. 

Corbett, C.L. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

P.O. Box 25082 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

10. ork Unit No. (TRAIS) 

9. erforming Organization Name and Address 11. ontract or Grant No. 

FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

P.O. Box 25082 13. ype of Report and Period Covered 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

12. ponsoring Agency name and Address 14. ponsoring Agency Code 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 

15. upplemental Notes 

This research was supported by Subtask Number AM-B-00-PRS-93. 

16. bstract 

Purpose. Twenty-nine survivable aircraft accidents between 1970 and 1995 required the emergency 

evacuation of 67 infants. Thirty-four percent of the infants received minor to fatal injuries. With the 

exception of full-scale Type Certifications in which infant dolls are included but not studied, simulated 

emergency evacuations and evacuation research rarely include infants and young children. The purpose of 

this study was to determine the most favorable protocol for the evacuation of infants via an inflatable 

emergency evacuation slide. Method. Simulated emergency evacuations were conducted from the Civil 

Aerospace Medical Institute Aircraft Evacuation Facility, using a Type I exit fitted with a Boeing 737 

evacuation slide. Six groups of 32 adult evacuees participated in six evacuation trials. Eight evacuees in 

each group carried one of eight dummies representative of infants ranging from two to 24 months old. On 

the first and last trials, no instructions were given as to how the dummies should be carried or how to 

board the slide. The intervening trials included instructions to carry the dummy horizontally or vertically 

and to jump onto the slide or sit on the slide to board. Results were analyzed with respect to speed of egress 

relative to the effects of the carrying and boarding positions. Subject responses to a questionnaire regarding 

comfort and safety were also analyzed. Results. For speed of egress, MANOVA revealed a main effect for 

slide boarding (p<.001), with no effect for carrying position and no interaction effects. 

that jumping onto the slide was easier than sitting to board the slide. Conclusions. Results confirmed the 

expectation that jumping onto the evacuation slide would produce faster egress rates than sitting and 

sliding while carrying an infant. Results also suggested that appropriate carrying and boarding positions 

would be those most comfortable for the parent and those providing support for the child’s head and neck. 

17. ey Words 18. istribution Statement 

Infants/children, Evacuations, Pre-evacuation 

Briefings 

Document is available to the public through the 

National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, Virginia 

19. ecurity Classif. (of this report) 20. ecurity Classif. (of this page) 21. o. of Pages 22. rice 

Unclassified Unclassified 20 

Report No. Governm Recipient's Catalog No. 

T R

P

A P

W

P C

T

S S

20591 

S

A

Subjects reported 

K D

22161 

S S N P

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

i 

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, of the FAA Flight Standards Service for 

both personal and professional support for this activity. 

Thanks also to the Cabin Safety Research and Imagery Teams, who helped make this 

project a success. 

iii 

1

CARING FOR PRECIOUS CARGO, PART I: EMERGENCY AIRCRAFT EVACUATIONS 

WITH INFANTS ONTO INFLATABLE ESCAPE SLIDES 

Safety is one of the highest goals of public transportation. To that end, several modal administrations of the Department of Transportation (DOT),

including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

have organized public conferences, entitled Moving 

Kids Safely, designed to promote injury-prevention

activities for children. The program has become a

national initiative aimed at educating America’s communities in child transportation safety. In 1999, FAA

Administrator Jane Garvey committed the FAA to

“making air travel safer for everyone—young and old

alike...assuring that children are accorded the same

level of safety in aircraft as are adults.” Garvey also

stated that the FAA would mandate the use in transport airplanes of approved child restraint systems for

small children and infants under 40 pounds (Garvey,

1999). This followed several years of accident and

incident investigations, including cabin safety and

biodynamics research.

Garvey’s statement responds to a recommendation made by the White House Commission on

Aviation Safety and Security and follows an Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ([ANPRM] DOT,

1998) that was issued by the FAA in February 1998.

According to the ANPRM, the proposed rule would

ensure that “each passenger is properly restrained by

an approved restraint system during movement on

the surface, take-off, landing, and when the seat belt

sign is illuminated, thereby increasing the safety of

the traveling public. In addition, the proposed rule

would require affected certificate holders to develop a

child restraint program to ensure that all children under

40 pounds are in an approved child restraint system.”

In May 1995, the FAA submitted a report to

Congress that estimated infant enplanements to be

approximately 1% of all passenger enplanements,

based on a combination of air carrier surveys, industry experience, and a sampling of passengers. Applying this rate, the FAA estimated 80 million infant

enplanements for the 10-year period 2000-2009

(DOT, 1998). Additionally, a review of accident/

incident biomedical data collected by the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) identified 29 transport

aircraft accidents between 1970 and 1995 that required the evacuation of 67 infants. Thirty-four

percent of those children received minor to fatal

injuries: no injuries were reported for 44 infants, six

infants received minor injuries, nine infants received

serious injuries, and eight infants received fatal injuries. Applying the historic accident rate forecasts an

increase in infant fatalities and injuries by as much as

46% for the referenced10-year period.

In its effort to ensure one level of safety for every

occupant in an aircraft, the FAA has also questioned

how adults with infants evacuate airliners when emergencies occur. With the exception of full-scale Type

Certifications in which infant dolls are included but

not studied, simulated emergency evacuations and

evacuation research rarely include infants and young

children. Thus, few data exist regarding this issue. A

review of the evacuation literature found only one

report (Garner & Blethrow, 1966) that specifically

addressed the rescue of infants and children between

the ages of 2 and 24 months. Furthermore, 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 both to pilots and flight

attendants on providing passengers with precautionary safety briefings” (NTSB, 2000). A telephone

survey of major airlines regarding emergency evacuation procedures with infants revealed that, in general, there are no recommended procedures. A briefing

for a course of emergency action beyond recommended brace positions for an impact is not standardized nor described in most flight attendant

emergency procedures manuals. One airline’s manual

does specify that an adult carrying a small child or infant

should jump onto the evacuation slide, arms locked

around the child, who is cradled on the adult’s lap.

To address the gaps in these minimal findings, preliminary demonstrations were conducted at CAMI to

gather information on the best ways of safely evacuating

small children from a crashed airplane (Chittum, 1998).

While these performance observations and interviews
2

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

injury to infants being carried by adults, or the effects

of egress with infants on safe and efficient egress of other

passengers during emergency aircraft evacuations.

The present study was conducted to address these

issues. The information obtained from this study is

intended for use in developing pre-evacuation briefings. This first phase of the study examined evacuations using a Type I exit fitted with a Boeing 737

evacuation slide. A follow-up phase will include

evacuations via the Type III overwing exit.

The hypothesis was that jumping onto the evacuation slide facilitates faster egress than does sitting

and is more comfortable (or easier) for boarding, as

was observed in the 1998 demonstrations. The age/

size of the dummy was expected to affect the preferred

carrying orientation, as larger dummies appeared

more likely to cause the person carrying them to lose

his or her balance.

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

Department of Transportation and the Department

of Defense (DOT, 1994a, 1994b) and two groups of

airline industry representatives attending CAMI

Cabin Safety Workshops. Twenty-seven males and

21 females, ranging in age from 18 to 43 (mean age

= 29.32 years; eight subjects from each group), were

selected to carry an anthropomorphic dummy on six

evacuation trials. Twenty-five of the infant carriers

were parents.

Materials 

 Eight dummies, representative of 2- to 24-monthold 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 was used to screen members

of the military and workshop groups for potential infant

carriers, based on the subjects’ stated physical abilities,

willingness to participate, and required gender mix for

the sample. All group members were required to provide

informed consent in accordance with CAMI Institutional Review Board policy.

The CAMI Aircraft Cabin Evacuation Facility

(ACEF), elevated to a sill height of 9 1⁄2 feet, (with a

5° left roll, and 3° up-pitch) was used for the simulated evacuations conducted through the right front

Type I exit. On the first and last trials, no instructions

were given as to how the dummies should be carried

or how to board the slide. The four intervening trials

included individual instructions printed on index

cards to carry the dummy horizontally or vertically

and to jump onto the slide or sit on the slide to board

(i.e., vertical/jump, vertical/sit, horizontal/jump,

horizontal/sit). Typical carrying orientations are illustrated in Figures 1 through 4. Additionally, the

aircraft cabin was filled with theatrical smoke on the

last trial. All evacuation trials were videotaped and

time-coded for subsequent analysis.

A questionnaire was used to measure the subject’s

perceived degree-of-ease of each carrying/boarding

maneuver. Subjects were also asked which maneuver

they considered to be the most comfortable and the

most safe, and which maneuver they would recommend to parents. Additional comments were solicited (see Appendix A).

Procedure 

Demographic surveys were distributed to the military and workshop groups as they arrived for class.

The completed surveys were screened for potential

subjects to carry the infant dummies, and eight infant

carriers from each subject group were selected.

Following the classroom presentation, numbered

vests were distributed to all members of the subject

groups, and infant dummies were given to those

selected to be infant-carriers. Subjects were escorted

to the ACEF and directed to sit in the seat that

corresponded with their vest number. Each group

evacuated the simulator twice before the experiment

began, once in clear air and once in smoke, without

infant dummies, in fulfillment of military training

and workshop activities.

For the first experimental trial, infant carriers were

instructed to hold the infant dummies on their laps

and to evacuate carrying the dummies when the start

buzzer sounded. A member of the research team acted

as the “flight attendant,” removing the door cover at
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

3

Table 1. Infant Anthropometry 

Age in Mean Weight Mean Length 

months Weight/kg s.d. range/lb Length/cm s.d. 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 

Source: UM-HSRI-77-17, 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 

10.91 16.75 

10.51 16.75 

17.04 24.50 

18.06 26.00 

24.76 33.00 

25.65 31.00 

28.96 31.00 

29.92 31.00 

2 months 

2 months 

6 months 

6 months 

18 months 

18 months 

24 months 

24 months 
4

Figure 1. 2-month infant dummy held Figure 2. 18-month infant dummy held 

horizontally. vertically. 

Figure 3. 18-month infant dummy held Figure 4. 6-month infant dummy held 

horizontally. horizontally. 
5

the start signal and aggressively encouraging the

quick evacuation of the plane. Subjects reboarded,

were seated, and given the instruction cards that

described how to carry the infant dummy and how to

board the evacuation slide. Each infant carrier received a different instruction for each of the four

instruction card trials. On the last (sixth) trial, smoke

was introduced into the cabin, but no instructions

were given as to carrying and boarding maneuvers.

Following the evacuation trials, infant carriers

completed the carrying/boarding maneuvers questionnaire.

Scoring 

Speed-of-egress data. The video recordings were

reviewed to obtain individual egress times, these

being defined as the time it took for a subject to

completely clear the exit opening after the previous

subject was clear.

Degree-of-ease data. Degree-of-ease was assessed

for each carrying/boarding maneuver on a continuous scale labeled “Very difficult” on the left and

“Very easy” on the right. Infant carriers were instructed to mark an “X” on the line that corresponded

with the ease of the maneuver. 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.

RESULTS 

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 considered to be acceptable.

The speed-of-egress data were analyzed with a 2 x

2 x 2 x 4 (Subject Gender x Carrying Orientation x

Boarding Maneuver x Dummy Size) multivariate

analysis of variance (MANOVA), with carrying and

boarding serving as repeated measures. A significant

main effect of Boarding Maneuver was obtained (see

Figure 5), F(1, 40) = 173.4, p < .001, which accounted for 81% of the variance (η2

). There were no

interaction effects and no other main effects (see

Table 3). Jumping onto the evacuation slide gave

significantly faster egress than sitting on the slide to

board. When the military groups were compared

with the workshop groups (Group Type x Carrying

Orientation x Boarding Maneuver x Dummy Size),

the main effect of Boarding was still evident, F(1, 40)

= 159.8, p < .001, as was a Group Type main effect,

F(1, 40) = 7.07, p = .01 (η2

 = .15; see Table 4). The

difference in the sample size did not significantly

affect the statistical analysis, as the observed power

was .74. The military subjects were quicker at boarding

the slide than the workshop attendees for both the

jumping and sitting maneuvers, with jumping onto the

slide significantly quicker overall (see Figure 6). Individual mean egress times and standard deviations (collapsed across Dummy Size) are listed in Tables 5 and 6.

Degree-of-ease data were analyzed in the same

manner as speed of egress. MANOVA (Subject Gender x Carrying Orientation x Boarding Maneuver x

Dummy Size) confirmed a significant main effect of

Boarding Maneuver, F(1, 40) = 50.62, p < .001 (η2

 =

.56), and revealed a significant interaction between

Subject Gender and Dummy Size, F(3, 40) = 4.26, p 

= .01. All subjects rated jumping onto the slide as

easier. Females found it easier to carry and board the

slide with the 24-month dummies than did the males.

This interaction (see Figure 7) accounted for 24% of

the variance.

The Boarding Maneuver x Group Type x Dummy

Size interaction for degree-of-ease reached statistical

significance, F(3, 40) = 3.815, p = .02. Figure 8

illustrates the interaction, which shows that Workshop Groups rated sitting on the slide to board with

the 18-month dummies as being significantly easier

than jumping onto the slide.

Dummy size was not associated with infant carriers’ choice of boarding maneuver and carrying orientation regarding comfort (χ2

(9) = 9.79, p = .37), or

safety for the infant (χ2

(9) = 13.86, p = .13). However, dummy size was significantly associated with

the boarding and orientation positions that infant

carriers would recommend to parents, χ2

(9) = 18.00,

p = .04 (see Table 7). Subjects recommended the

vertical and horizontal jumping maneuvers almost

equally for the 2-, 6- and 24-month dummies, while

they more often recommended the vertical sitting

maneuver for the 18-month dummies. No other

subject characteristics (e.g., gender, group type, parenthood) were significantly associated with infant

carrier choices regarding the most comfortable and

safest technique for infants or recommendations for

carrying/boarding maneuver.
6

3.0 

2.5 

Mean Individual Egress Time in Seconds Mean Individual Egress Time in Seconds 2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

Male 

Female 

Subject 

Gender Boarding p < .001 

Vertical/Sit Vertical/Jump Horizontal/Sit Horizontal/Jump 

Carrying Orientation/Boarding Maneuver 

Figure 5. Speed of Egress Multivariate Analysis of Variance 

Boarding Maneuver Main Effect 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

Military 

Workshop 

Boarding p < .001 Group Type

Group p = .01 

Vertical/Sit Vertical/Jump Horizontal/Sit Horizontal/Jump 

Carrying Orientation/Boarding Maneuver 

Figure 6. Speed of Egress Multivariate Analysis of Variance 

Boarding Maneuver and Group Type Main Effects 
7

Table 3. Analysis of Variance for Speed of Egress: Subject Gender x Carrying Orientation x 

Boarding Maneuver x Dummy Size. 

Source df F

Between subjects 

Dummy Size (D) 3 1.353 

Subject Gender (G) 1 3.019 

D x G 3 .437 

Error 40 (.507) 

Carrying Orientation (C) 

C x D 

C x G 

C x D x G 

Error (C) 

Boarding Maneuver (B) 

B x D 

B x G 

B x D x G 

Error (B) 

C x B 

C x B x D 

C x B x G 

C x B x D x G 

Error (C x B) 

Within subjects 

1 .626 

3 .316 

1 .882 

3 1.088 

40 (.095) 

1 173.400** 

3 .576 

1 .090 

3 1.788 

40 (.117) 

1 .453 

3 .958 

1 .090 

3 1.950 

40 (.0898) 

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. 

** p < .01. 
8

Table 4. Analysis of Variance for Speed of Egress: Group Type x Carrying Orientation x Boarding 

Maneuver x Dummy Size 

Source df F

Between subjects 

Group Type (T) 1 7.065* 

Dummy Size (D) 3 1.426 

T x D 3 0.344 

Error 40 (0.467) 

Carrying Orientation (C) 

C x T 

C x D 

C x T x D 

Error (C) 

Boarding Maneuver (B) 

B x T 

B x D 

B x T x D 

Error (B) 

C x B 

C x B x T 

C x B x D 

C x B x T x D 

Error (C x B) 

Within subjects 

1 0.249 

1 0.045 

3 0.147 

3 0.527 

40 (0.100) 

1 159.800** 

1 1.311 

3 0.736 

3 1.682 

40 (0.115) 

1 0.259 

1 0.266 

3 0.600 

3 .128 

40 (0.102) 

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. 

*p < .05. **p < .01 
9

Table 5. Individual Mean Egress Time in Seconds for Carrying Orientation and Boarding Maneuver By 

Subject Gender 

Carrying/Boarding Gender Mean SD N

Male 2.02 .38 27 

Vertical/Sit 

Female 2.21 .57 21 

Male 1.32 .28 27 

Vertical/Jump 

Female 1.52 .54 21 

Male 1.99 .52 27 

Horizontal/Sit 

Female 2.15 .45 21 

Male 1.38 .35 27 

Horizontal/Jump 

Female 1.44 .49 21 

Table 6. Individual Mean Egress Time in Seconds for Carrying Orientation and Boarding Maneuver By 

Group Type 

Carrying/Boarding Group Mean SD N

Vertical/Sit 

Military 

Workshop 

2.01 

2.27 

.41 

.56 

32 

16 

Vertical/Jump 

Military 

Workshop 

1.30 

1.62 

.32 

.52 

32 

16 

Horizontal/Sit 

Military 

Workshop 

2.00 

2.18 

.47 

.52 

32 

16 

Horizontal/Jump 

Military 

Workshop 

1.29 

1.64 

.28 

.53 

32 

16 

Table 7. Distribution of Responses to “Which Maneuver Would You Recommend to Parents?” 

Dummy Size 

Carrying/Boarding Maneuver 2 months 6 months 18 months 24 months Total 

Vertical/Sitting 2 0 6 0 8 

Vertical/Jumping 5 6 2 5 18 

Horizontal/Sitting 0 1 2 1 4 

Horizontal/Jumping 5 5 2 6 18 

Total: 12 12 12 12 48 
10

6 

Very 

Easy 

5 Male 

Female 

Subject 

Gender 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Very 

Difficult 

0 

Average Score Average Score 

2-months 6-months 18-months 24-months 

Dummy Size 

Figure 7. Degree of Ease of Carrying Orientation and Boarding Maneuvers 

Subject Gender by Dummy Size Interaction 

6 

Very 

Easy 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

Very 

Difficult 

0 

2-months 

6-months 

18-months 

24-months 

Military Groups Workshop Groups 

Dummy Size 

Sit Jump Sit Jump 

Boarding Maneuver 

Figure 8. Degree of Ease of Carrying Orientation and Boarding Maneuvers 

Boarding by Group Type by Dummy Size Interaction 
11

Carrying orientations and boarding maneuvers from

all trials are illustrated in Figures 9 through 18. On

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

the infants or how to board the evacuation slide was

given, 75% chose to carry the dummies vertically and

jump onto the slide, 23% held the dummies horizontally and jumped, and 2% held the dummies horizontally and sat to board the slide. On the final trial,

which included theatrical smoke in the cabin, 52% of

the infant carriers held the dummies vertically and

jumped, 40% held the dummies horizontally and

jumped, 8% held the dummies vertically or horizontally and sat to board the slide.

Four subjects reported that they thought sitting on

the evacuation slide to board would probably be safer

than jumping, even though they indicated that sitting

took longer and they considered it easier to jump. Six

subjects, one for each dummy size, commented on the

importance of giving support and protection to the

infant’s head and neck. A summary of subject comments is included in Appendix B.

DISCUSSION 

An integral part of aviation safety is often the rapid

evacuation of aircraft when emergencies occur. With

the expected growth of air travel and increase in the

number of infant and child passengers, the question

of how to safely evacuate infants and children becomes even more important.

The results of this study indicate that jumping

onto an evacuation slide produces faster egress than

sitting and sliding, confirming the observations of the

NTSB safety study (NTSB, 2000) and the 1998

infant evacuation demonstration (Chittum, 1998).

Jumping was also considered to be easier than sitting

to board. Some subjects described difficulty in getting to the sitting position because of people pushing

them from behind, and some indicated that they had

more momentum on the slide when they jumped.

Both boarding maneuvers carry some injury risk,

however. Comments by subjects suggest a concern

that, although sitting and sliding seemed very slow,

some parents may have anxiety about jumping onto

the slide while holding a child. This was shown by

subjects thinking that they could better protect the

child’s head and neck from injury by sitting to board

the slide, even though they were afraid of being

trampled or thrown off balance as they attempted to

sit. Figures 13 through 17 show subjects getting into

the sitting position. As they put a hand out to steady

themselves, they were no longer able to adequately

support the dummy with their other hand.

The heightened efficiency of the military subjects,

as compared with the workshop subjects, was expected, and it should be noted that the differences in

efficiency were nearly equal in both boarding maneuvers. Although the workshop attendees were more

familiar with evacuation procedures in general and

probably had more practice at boarding an evacuation slide, they were still significantly slower than the

military groups, which could be attributed to the

physical fitness of the military subjects. Comments

from the military subjects addressed safety issues for

the infant while those from the workshop subjects

focused more on the technique of slide boarding.

The 18-month dummy posed a problem for infant

carriers in the workshop groups, as they rated the

sitting maneuver to be easier than jumping (see

Figure 8). A review of the individual responses revealed a difference in ratings between carriers of the

two 18-month-size dummies. It is unclear why members of the workshop groups found it easier to sit with

one dummy than the other, but their comments

supported the degree-of-ease rating. If the interaction is anomalous, only the main effect of boarding

maneuver remains. Their preference for the sitting

maneuver may also be observed in their recommendations to parents regarding the vertical/sitting maneuver,

although 38% of the military infant carriers of the 18-

month dummies also recommended this strategy.

The design of this study allowed individual subjects to carry the infants and board the slide in the

manner that they chose on the first trial, to experience

different combinations of carrying orientation and

boarding maneuvers on the next four trials, and to

choose a maneuver on the final trial. Sixty-four

percent of those who held the dummy vertically and

75% of those who held the dummy horizontally

jumped onto the slide on both first and final trials.

The majority of those who changed positions changed

from the vertical to the horizontal orientation, but

they still jumped. Only four subjects changed to the

sitting position.

While statistical analysis of time and rating data

may lead to a recommendation of jumping onto an

escape slide, it is also critical to consider how a parent

might react in an emergency. Those who are not

confident in their ability to jump safely with their

children onto the slide will be more likely to take the
12

Figure 9. Infant carrier hold 18-month dummy Figure 10. Infant carrier hold 6-month dummy 

vertically and jumps onto slide. vertically and jumps onto slide. 

Figure 11. Infant carrier hold 18-month Figure 12. Infant carrier hold 24-month 

dummy horizontally and jumps onto slide. dummy vertically and jumps onto slide. 
13

Figure 13. Infant carrier with 24-month dummy Figure 14. Infant carrier holds 6-month 

sits on slide to board. dummy horizontally and sits on slide to board. 

Figure 15. Infant carrier holds 24-month Figure 16. Infant carrier steadies himself as he 

support or protection. 

dummy horizontally and sits on slide to board. sits on slide to board; dummy's back is without 
14

Figure 17. Infant carrier holds newborn 

dummy vertically with one hand while 

steadying herself with the other. 

Figure 18. Infant carrier holds 6-month dummy 

vertically, supporting head, neck, and back, 

and jumps to board slide. 

time to sit down on the slide to board, thereby

slowing the progress of the evacuation. Results of this

study suggest that jumping onto the slide should be

the favored boarding maneuver. The carrying position should provide the most protection for the child.

Protection would include cradling the child’s head

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

the arm (for horizontal positions), and keeping the

child’s arms, legs, and feet enfolded as much as

possible by the parent’s arms. The aim, then, for an

emergency evacuation briefing would be to instruct

parents about properly boarding the slide to increase

their confidence and proficiency.

REFERENCES 

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

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.

Department of Transportation (1998). Child Restraint 

Systems (Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking,

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

1988, Vol. 63, Number 32, Page 8323-8328.

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

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

No. AD 645423)

Garvey, J. (1999, December). Remarks by Jane Garvey:

National Transportation Safety Board Child Restraint Roundtable, Dec. 15, 1999, Arlington,

VA. Available at http://www.faa.gov/apa/speeches/

1215spjg.htm.

National Transportation Safety Board (2000). Emergency Evacuation of Commercial Airplanes, Safety

Study NTSB/SS-00/01. Washington, DC: NTSB.
A1

APPENDIX A 

Emergency Aircraft Evacuations With Infants Survey 

Subject 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, sitting on slide 

|_____________________________________________________________________________| 

Very difficult Very easy 

2. Holding infant vertically, jumping onto slide 

|_____________________________________________________________________________| 

Very difficult Very easy 

3. Holding infant horizontally, sitting on slide 

|_____________________________________________________________________________| 

Very difficult Very easy 

4. Holding infant horizontally, jumping onto slide 

|_____________________________________________________________________________| 

Very difficult Very easy 

Circle your answer to the following questions: 

5. Which maneuver was the most comfortable? 

a. Holding infant vertically, sitting on slide 

b. Holding infant vertically, jumping on slide 

c. Holding infant horizontally, sitting on slide 

d. Holding infant horizontally, jumping on slide 

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

a. Holding infant vertically, sitting on slide 

b. Holding infant vertically, jumping on slide 

c. Holding infant horizontally, sitting on slide 

d. Holding infant horizontally, jumping on slide 

7. Which maneuver would you recommend to parents? 

a. Holding infant vertically, sitting on slide 

b. Holding infant vertically, jumping on slide 

c. Holding infant horizontally, sitting on slide 

d. Holding infant horizontally, jumping on slide 

Remarks: _______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________
A2
B1

APPENDIX B 

Summary of Subject Remarks From 

Emergency Aircraft Evacuations With Infants Survey 

“Horizontal for small child; vertical for larger child”

“Depends on parent’s comfort with jumping”

“Sitting slow and awkward”

“Worried about being trampled while sitting, though sitting seemed safest for baby”

“Less stress sitting”

“Parent would probably have anxiety over jumping; sitting took longer, but probably safer”

“Urgency should dictate sit or jump; jumping faster”

“Kept balance well holding vertically and jumping”

“Felt baby’s head snap when jumping, unless instructions for support of neck/head, sit/vertical safer”

“Off balance when jumping and holding baby horizontally; almost dropped baby”

“Sitting slowed me down; prefer jumping; depending on size of child, horizontal/vertical didn’t pose

difference”

“Baby’s leg hit on side with vertical jump”

“Vertical provided better control and balance; horizontal made head vulnerable to contact with door”

“Sitting deterred fast movement and felt unsafe”
B2