Let's see, the WSJ says "It isn’t clear how long it took for the airliner to reach a standstill or when the formal evacuation order was given." while you say the former was "measured in seconds." Just how many seconds did it take? I can't find anyone giving a number, and all I can determine is "more than 20 seconds" since that's the longest relevant video clip I can see. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/key-moments-tokyo... suggests it took two-to-three minutes. (Yes, that can be measured as around 150 seconds, but a day can be measured in seconds too.)

You say "with half the exits randomly blocked as they were in this test", but the WSJ article points out the A350 certification test calls for four exits, while in this crash "Only two of the plane’s exits at the front and one at the back were initially deemed safe—one less than the total used in the certification tests." and "The exit at the back was also likely available only temporarily before the flames had spread, leaving passengers near the back of the plane needing to reach the front two exits".

Clearly this was more difficult than the certification test scenario.

You also failed to point out how the tests are run with a level floor, while this crash ended up with was nose down, resulting in a sloped floor that was likely harder to traverse. How much harder? I don't know - maybe the certification test should include this case?

You also failed to note that the 18 minutes includes the extra time for the captain to do a final sweep plane. That check is not required for certification. How much time did it add? I presume the captain had knowledge that it was safe to make that check.

And of course everyone in the certification test knows what's about to happen.

> What many fail to appreciate is that seconds matter when a plane crash lands.

Why do you think people don't fully appreciate that? It's even in the WSJ article: “The 90 second rule is there for a reason, because that aircraft can obviously be incinerated in seconds,” said Sara Nelson, international president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA

What you don't appreciate is that evacuation may not be the best thing to do after a plane crash, and as an untrained passenger you are not as well qualified to make that decision as the crew.

And most certainly the placards do not tell you to ignore the cabin crew, as you believe.

> and the slow evacuation, this time caused by selfish passengers opening overhead bins, caused deaths

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_1492#Evacuatio... says that's speculation, and "According to TASS, citing a law enforcement source, the majority of passengers in the tail end of the aircraft had practically no chance of rescue; many of them did not have time to unfasten their seat belts. He added that those passengers from the tail section of the aircraft who managed to escape had moved to the front of the aircraft before it stopped, and that he had no confirmation that retrieval of luggage had slowed the evacuation."

In any case, even if true, your point is only relevant if the crew had delayed calling for evacuation, while the video shows essentially immediate evacuation after the Aeroflot plane stopped moving. And you know who sits next to the doors that were used? The cabin crew.

> the legal maximum evacuation time

Legal maximum evacuation time for certification. The law does not require that everyone be able to evacuate from any crash within 90 seconds.

In the Gottröra crash in Sweden there were a few passengers who were stuck in the plane wreckage for over half an hour until emergency services could arrive. https://youtu.be/OR0WfTUDj-U?t=1421 .