ED Decision 2022/019/R
The objective is for no passenger to be in a worse position than the second person to egress through an exit in the event of a capsize. The time available for evacuation is very short in such situations, and the provision of sufficient underwater emergency exits and ensuring that no occupant should need to wait for more than one other person to escape before being able to make their own escape will minimise the passengers’ time to escape. The provision of an underwater emergency exit in each side of the fuselage for each unit (or part of a unit) of four passenger seats will make this possible, provided that the seats are positioned relative to the exits to maximise the probability of safe egress.
With regard to the location of the seats relative to the exits, the most obvious layout that maximises the achievement of the objective that no passenger is in a worse position than the second person to egress through an exit is a four-abreast arrangement with all the seats in each row located appropriately and directly next to the emergency exits. However, this might not be possible in all rotorcraft designs due to issues such as limited cabin width, the need to locate seats such as to accommodate normal boarding and egress, and the installation of items other than seats in the cabin. Notwithstanding this, an egress route necessitating movement such as along an aisle, around a cabin item, or in any way other than directly towards the nearest emergency exit, to escape the rotorcraft is not considered to be compliant with this provision.
[Issue: 26/4]
GM1 26.415(b) explains underwater emergency exit requirements for rotorcraft capsizes, aiming to ensure no passenger waits for more than one other person to egress, with exits on each side per four seats and direct egest
* Summary by Aviation.Bot - Always consult the original document for the most accurate information.
Loading collections...