The effect of overwing hatch placement on evacuation from smaller transport aircraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overwing exits are installed on a number of smaller transport aircraft. With a traditional overwing exit, once released, the hatch is not attached to the fuselage and will fall into the cabin. To operate, the hatch has to be brought inwards, manoeuvred and placed in a location where it does not obstruct egress. Accidents and experimental studies have shown that the hatch is not always disposed of into an appropriate location. Evacuation trials from a smaller transport aircraft cabin were conducted. The placement of the exit hatch was manipulated. The results indicated that hatch placement had a significant effect on passenger evacuation rates from a smaller transport aircraft, with the internal placement tested resulting in slower evacuation rates. The study has highlighted the importance of operators disposing of the hatch into a location whereby it does not impede egress. One way to ensure this would be the installation of an automatically disposed hatch. Statement of Relevance: It is important that all occupants can evacuate an aircraft rapidly if required. The influence of overwing hatch placement on evacuation from smaller transport aircraft was addressed Evacuation trials concluded that an inappropriately placed hatch can negatively influence evacuation rates. Improvements to exit design and passenger education were suggested.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".