By Fons Schaefers

Introduction

Which subjects are shown on safety cards? There is a minimum set of mandatory subjects appearing on all safety cards. Additionally, there are subjects many airlines add, and some only a few carriers choose. Particularly the latter appetizes collectors who seek unique samples. This article is a structured examination of the common items, complemented with examples of those one-offs.

The mandatory items can be divided into those that apply to each flight (the routine subjects) and those for emergencies only.

Routine Subjects

The routine subjects often appear first on the cards. They include baggage stowage, seat belt use, and subject to much recent development, the use of electronic devices. Some airlines add regulations about not smoking, specifically in lavatories.

Almost all cards show baggage stowage under seats, and some also show putting it in overhead compartments. The fastening and unfastening of seat belts is a standard item on all cards. Recent restraining developments now found on cards are shoulder harnesses and seatbelt-mounted airbags. They result from stricter safety regulations introduced since the late 1980s, generally known as the “16 g” rules.

Some airlines add instructions to keep the safety belt fastened, or fasten it, during turbulence. Canadian North uses a telling symbol for turbulence.

Another routine subject increasingly shown on safety cards is the restraint method for children and infants. Here, a difference exists between the U.S. and other continents (including Europe). The FAA prohibits the use of infant loop belts, while it is promoted in Europe. In either case, the better option is the use of a “child restraint device,” but this requires a separate seat, which not everyone is willing to buy.

An area in which safety card contents changed significantly over the past few decades is transmitting devices. In the 1980s TVs and remotely-operated toys appeared as prohibited items on safety cards. More devices were prohibited in the 1990s and 2000s, such as illustrated on a 737-400 card from an unidentified Spanish operator (believed to be Air Europa, c. 2000).

Other companies listed them in text format only, such as Cubana.

In those decades there was a specific concern about such devices as Nintendo games as they could affect the airplane’s navigation equipment. The prohibition was extended to mobile telephones when they appeared, and their successor, the smartphone. The mobile phone industry reacted and created the “airplane mode” option that switches off signal transmission. This allowed passengers to use them on board. From 2010 onwards, tablets have been popular. As they also have an “airplane mode” their use onboard was also allowed. The information displayed on safety cards for electronic devices varies from virtually nil to extensive lists of what is allowed. Typically, this is split into taxi/take-off/landing phases and the cruise phase but VLM in 2017 recognized six distinct flight phases.

Emergency Subjects

Emergency subjects on safety cards address four scenarios: (1) the in-flight decompression, (2) the crash landing, (3) escape on the ground and (4) escape and survival on water. Additionally, some cards include other emergency equipment.

Oxygen

For the in-flight decompression emergency, the main concern is the provision of oxygen. Most airplanes have a system that deploys automatically. The card shows how to grab and don the mask, often with an extra panel showing an adult administering a mask to a child, but only after first securing their own mask. Some airlines add a clock to these diagrams explaining the time needed for each step. Typically, the final step – an adult donning the mask of a child – should be concluded within 10 to 15 seconds.

Oxygen masks should be available wherever passengers may be during the flight. Some cards specifically show oxygen masks in lavatories. An airline that grouped the lavatories on the lower deck (below the main cabin) added a page with safety instructions specific to that deck, including the use of oxygen masks in the waiting area.

Airplanes with limited ceilings, typically turboprops, may have a non-drop-out system. Passengers need to plug a mask into an overhead outlet connected to a piping system. The masks are either handed out or need to be retrieved from under the seat.

Yet, other airplanes do not even have that and their cards therefore lack any oxygen instructions. Next to airplanes that stay low, this also applied to some early European jets such as the BAC 1-11 and the Caravelle, in spite of their ceilings of up to 35,000 ft. Even though these airplanes suffered decompressions, the absence of oxygen did not lead to fatalities.

Brace For Impact

The main instruction associated with a crash landing is the “brace for impact” position. Airlines use a range of different positions. This not only varies for the type of person (adult, child, adult with infant, pregnant woman) but also the method of bracing varies. While most agree the body should be flexed forward, instructions on how to hold arms, hands, and feet differ. These reflect the results from various research studies into this area and the absence of internationally agreed standards. This concerns forward-facing seats; for aft-facing seats, there is more consistency.

Evacuation on Land

Instructions for escape on the ground typically address four elements: (1) the path from a passenger seat to the exits, (2) the locations of the exits, (3) the opening and use of the exits, and (4) the use of a slide or other descent device.

Path to the exits

The escape path from a passenger seat to the exit is formed by the aisle, the same as used during normal operations. Many cards show a diagram of the airplane revealing the aisle, or aisles in the case of a wide body. An aisle is typically identified by a red line (rarely, it is green or another color) leading to and through the exits. For twin-aisle airplanes, some airlines identify each aisle, while others do not care and show one line symbolizing both aisles. American Airlines shows something in between. Some airlines go further and show in their diagram the floor-mounted emergency lighting which runs along the aisle, with offsprings in exit rows. Where the airplane diagram does not show the floor lighting, often the card has a separate panel explaining it.

Exit signs help passengers identify where the exits are. The only cards I am aware of showing them are those of the Boeing 787. This airplane type has the symbol of the green running man instead of the traditional red, lettered, EXIT sign which is common in the U.S. To explain the symbol to the American audience, the FAA required the safety card explain it. Other countries, even those where the green symbol is very common, adopted this condition. EU country Poland is an example.

The largest airplane without an aisle is the Trislander, a development of the ubiquitous Islander. In its absence, it has as many as five emergency exits for 16 passengers. Each exit serves one or two rows, as Aurigny (the Guernsey airline) correctly displays. Other Islander users such as OFD, which serves the Frisian islands of Germany, incorrectly suggest there is an aisle.

The overall airplane diagram often is a bird’s eye-view rendering from the left front. Another way to show the aisle and exit location is a top view, either displayed horizontal or vertical. In 1984, Transavia rarely rendered an elevated view from behind.

Exits

The next step in the escape journey to outside safety is the exit, where the main challenge is how to open it. Airliners typically have two kinds of emergency exits: non-floor level exits which are located in passenger seat rows, and floor level exits, where cabin crew sit adjacently. The non-floor level exits are always located over the wing and have a hatch that comes free from the fuselage. It is to be opened by a passenger and is therefore also known as a “self-help exit.” The exits with cabin crew next to them consist of a door, often of the hinged type.

Particularly for the first category, the hatch-type exits, instructions vary significantly. Until the mid-1980s, these exits were underrated on safety cards. But an accident on a Boeing 737-200 in Manchester, UK, in August 1985 revealed these exits are vulnerable to passengers not knowing how to open them. This highlighted the importance of properly instructing passengers seated adjacently. Some airlines, mainly in the UK where the accident had happened, ordered cabin crew to verbally brief those passengers before the flight. Other airlines, in Europe and beyond, introduced separate cards with detailed instructions, only given to passengers in those rows. They form an interesting find for collectors.

In yet other cases the all-airplane cards are enhanced with detailed overwing exit opening instructions. In the U.S., as discussed in Part 6, the cards display criteria for who may sit in those rows. Where in most cases the cards explain how the exits are opened, U.S. cards focus on who may open them.

The hatch-type self-help exits that come completely free are not ideal, especially when they are heavy. They can weigh as much as 30 kg/66.14 lbs (on a 767). This important information is rarely mentioned on the card. Gradually, airplane manufacturers applied designs where the weight of the hatch no longer needed to be negotiated by the passenger. They hinge open and thus require less of an effort. The first airplane type so equipped was the Boeing 737 New Generation in the late 1990s. More recently, new types such as the Airbus A220, Embraer E2 and A321neo are also so equipped. More often than not, the hinge feature is not well shown on cards, but Panamanian carrier Copa does this well.

While the self-help exits are in view of the passengers, the door exits often are not. They are meant to be opened by cabin crew. However, safety cards still show how to open them. This is to cover the remote case that cabin crew are unable to do so. Some airlines do this in an abbreviated form, but companies that make cards for a living take pride in explaining every step. For older airplanes, this amounted to up to six or seven steps, such as shown on a Falcon Express 727 card.

Slides and Other Descent Means

On all airplanes where the exit sill is higher than 6 feet (1.8 m), there is a slide or an alternative descent means such as a set of steps. Similarly, where the escape route over the wing exceeds this distance, off-wing slides are provided. Cards show these slides twice: on the airplane diagram and in a close-up meant to emphasize their proper use: jump into the slide rather than sit on the sill and then move forward. Few airlines manage to convey this clearly, but Singapore Airlines’ attempt is a good one. The most dominant color of the slide on cards is yellow. However, since the mid-1980s, when it was found that an aluminium coating would make the slide more fire resistant, they are actually silver or grey. Some cards correctly represent this, but many still show yellow.

A good post-sliding practice for evacuees is to move away from the airplane. Very few airlines show this. I found one where the text instructs passengers to move away at least 300 meters. On propeller-equipped airplanes, a warning to stay away from the propellers is common.

Evacuation and Survival on Water

Much of what is described above, also applies to the emergency scenario where an airplane has come down in water. But there are differences: some exits cannot be used as they would be below the (theoretical) water line, life vests are provided for individual flotation and for collective flotation the slides can be used. On twin aisle airplanes the slides are formally certified for that use and then called slide-rafts. Some airlines still use separate rafts.

Many cards dedicate a separate section for the water scenario, displaying an airplane diagram similar to that for the land scenario, but now with a blue background instead of green or blank (see Czech Airlines above). Typically the same exits are shown. The slides now float, serving as rafts. For some aircraft types, the diagram shows blocked exits as they will not be above the waterline. This applies to most high-wing airplanes such as the Antonovs, ATR 42 and 72, Fokker 50, Dash 6 (Twin Otter), Dash 7, and some Dash 8 series. The high-wing BAe 146 has a different flotation pattern, as its cards show both aft exits as unusable as opposed to the forward pair, although one airline admits that the airplane may alternatively float nose low so that the forward exits may not be usable.

As high-wing airplanes would list to one side, with one wing tip down in the water and the other up, they render exits on the low side unusable. On their Antonov-24 card, Air Moldova International shows this nicely with a cross section of the fuselage, but they forgot to add whether the view is looking forward or aft. In the seating diagram they added dotted lines, the meaning of which I do not understand. Any ideas?

On the Fokker 50 and Dash 8 series, even the exits on the high side may be below the waterline. Their manufacturers improvised dams or sill raisers in an attempt to prevent massive water influx during the evacuation. Some of these operate automatically, but the Fokker 50 has loose boards that need to be secured in place before opening the doors. Some Fokker 50 users show them, others do not. The right forward exit of the Q400 has a split hatch. In case of a water landing, the passenger next to it needs to secure its lower part so that it stays in place and forms a sill above the water line. This is shown on the safety card, but I doubt whether naïve passengers will obey.

To my knowledge, these water barriers have never been put to practice as there were no water landings where they could have been put to use.

Interestingly, quite a few cards of airplanes regularly flying over water have no escape instructions specific to the water landing scenario at all. An example are Winair’s Twin Otters that commute between the Dutch Caribbean islands of Sint Maarten and Saba, both prone to an emergency landing on water.

Many cards use a lot of space for explaining how to don the life vest and occasionally that of children and infants. An alternative to life vests are flotation cushions. They are particularly popular in the United States.

They are inferior to life vests as they do not passively support the wearer but require the passenger to actively hold on to it, which in cold water is a challenge. The U.S. fondness for flotation cushions can be traced back to a ditching accident in 1956 near Seattle when a stewardess impromptu advised passengers to use their seat cushions for flotation. It prompted a U.S. requirement for seat cushions to be equipped for such use. On many domestic flights in the U.S., they are the only flotation devices on board. Few airlines have any flotation devices at all. An example is Ethiopian Airlines which does not carry them on airplanes flying only domestically. Ethiopia is landlocked and only has a few lakes.

Emergency Equipment

Airlines rarely display other emergency equipment than those described above. When they do, it is for smaller airplanes (where no cabin crew is required) or VIP airplanes. The location of fire extinguishers, first-aid kits, and portable oxygen bottles is then indicated. Russian-made aircraft form an exception. They often have a diagram showing all emergency equipment on board, including axes, ropes, ladders, megaphones, emergency beacons, and transmitters. Although dated, Balkan’s Tupolev Tu-154 1980s card is an interesting example.

Unusual Features

Some airlines add items that are unique or rare, making them special finds for collectors. This includes unusual language scripts. The Latin script is not the only script that is widely used. Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic, Indic, and Japanese scripts are used by many people and thus frequently found. Rarer scripts include those from Arctic Canada, Georgia, and Laos. They only appear on a few cards.

Examples of safety-related unusual subjects spotted on cards are how to use a slide with a child or infant, the prohibition to sleep on the floor, the prohibition to wear nylon stockings (for which the card is too late, as the passenger is already on board and will not change), or what to do if a smartphone is lost in a seat, or damaged.

Other finds include a person reading the safety card, information about service initiation and termination times, and a warning not to take away life vests.

Following a 2003 federal law, U.S. safety cards must mention the airplane’s country of assembly. The aim is protectionist: discourage imports from outside the U.S. (and specifically Airbus aircraft from Europe). But the world is not black-and-white. The rule backfired when, in 2016, Airbus started an assembly line in Mobile, Alabama, negating its original intent. As more and more aircraft are built there, safety cards saying the final assembly of an Airbus was in the USA become less unusual.

On a final note, I invite collectors to examine their safety cards and report which unusual features their collections hide.

---

Fons Schaefers / November 2024

e-mail: [email protected]

By Fons Schaefers

This part is the final chronological edition of the history of safety cards, which, as we will see below, is now a century old. The next and last part will examine in-depth the subjects shown on the cards. The previous part ended around 1990. This part gives an overview of how safety cards evolved since then. It reviews developments in their general appearance, layout, artwork, and the special cards that emerged.

General Appearance

Under general appearance, I sort such characteristics as size and weight, orientation, folds, and paper quality. I’ll start with the latter – paper quality. Until the 1960s, safety leaflets were part of a package of documents that included menus, stickers, maps, postcards, and advertisement brochures. They were collectively held in a folder, called a flight kit, which was handed out to passengers. The safety leaflets were made of thin paper. As they were not subject to repetitive consultation by many passengers, this worked well. But when they became more common, and even mandated (see Part 4), they were no longer issued in the folder but stowed in seatbacks for repeated consultation by multiple passengers. This exposed them to wear and tear, so they needed to be more sturdy. Initially, this was done by using heavier paper. Later, cards were wrapped in plastic to provide durability, but were more commonly laminated, and eventually, printed on synthetic paper.

Size and weight – there is no standard for the size of safety cards. Many different sizes are in use, as long as they fit the seatback pocket. One of the largest was those by Ethiopian Airlines, measuring 22.5 cm by 33 cm (8.9 by 13 inches). Air France probably tops the smallest cards, at only 10 cm by 21 cm (4 by 8.3 inches). To ensure they do not disappear in the large seat pocket, Air France specifies a separate holder on seatbacks that uniquely fits their card.

Consistent with size and choice of material, the weight of cards varies. Most weigh between 20 to 40 grams (0.71 to 1.41 ounces), with outliers as light as 5 grams (0.18 ounces) as is the case with Aerogaviota’s An-26) or as heavy as 88 grams (3.1 ounces) with the Qantas 747-400.

Orientation – as none of the cards are square, they have a long side and a short side. This presents a choice between displaying the contents ‘portrait’ or ‘landscape’. The former is by far the most popular; few airlines use a landscape orientation. In some cases, a combination is used, with the front being portrait and the back (or the inside in the case of folded cards), landscape.

Folds – the multi-fold leaflets of the 1960s were replaced by cards with a double or a single fold or, more frequently, no fold at all. Some airlines use a folding method resembling French doors. In the Western world, where one reads from left to right, the fold is on the left side. In countries that read from right to left, such as some Arabic countries and China, cards may be folded on the right.

Layout

Layout is a generic term including the choice of text and illustrations, the type of illustrations (photographs, drawings, etc.), color, order of presentation, headings, use of space, etc. The trend of illustrations replacing text continued in the 1990s. All cards use illustrations, most with a minimum of text and some with text in support of illustrations.

Text-only cards have disappeared. However, all U.S. airlines use a large amount of text to explain who may sit next to overwing exits. This is a direct result of a regulation that was introduced in 1990. Although many believe this regulation was aimed at instructing passengers how to open these self-help exits, its origin was different. That was a federal law that prohibited discrimination in air transportation based on handicap. There was an exception, though, and that was safety. The FAA defined the agility criteria exit row occupants must have to open the exit.

The airlines copy-pasted these written criteria on their safety cards. Some other countries adopted this practice and now such criteria are found on cards from Singapore Airlines, Brazilian, and Chinese airlines. Few of these airlines realize that the rule was aimed at hatches that come loose and are difficult to handle rather than easy-to-operate, powered doors such as on the A380. The text “awkward to lift, push, pull and manoeuvre,” used by Singapore Airlines, does not apply to such doors.

The use of photographs, which was quite popular in the 1970s through 1990s, particularly with U.S. airlines, has subsided. Among the last airlines to use them were American Airlines and China Eastern, but they also stopped using them. Cards using only black and white illustrations were still in limited use in the 1990s but have since disappeared. Color is the norm for the illustrations, with the card’s background normally white. In some cases, colors are used to link exit operation instructions to the exit locations on the airplane diagram.

The front page carries the name of the airline (or other organization, as the case may be), typically at the top, together with a description of the purpose of the card (safety information/for your safety/safety card/passenger briefing card/safety on board/safety instructions/important passenger safety information, etc).

Some airlines do not print their name. This challenges the collector to look for clues to identify the airline. This may be a code (e.g. ATL for Air Atlanta) or even a language script. Normally, the front page has safety information, but in a few cases, it is decorative only, such as by Canadian North, which uses photographs reflecting the Canadian North.

The most common form of illustrations are still drawings made by graphical designers. A new trend is computer-generated animations. An example of a computer baby is on the Xiamen 737-700 card.

Artwork

Artwork is about the style of the illustrations. One would think that the number of ways to show how to open a door or grab an oxygen mask is limited, but a study of safety cards proves the opposite. Each graphic artist has his or her way of rendering reality. This allows the collector to gather a nice collection of styles and fashions.

The most distinctive feature is how they portray humans. Overall, there is a slight preference for females over males. This may have to do with the dominant gender of cabin crew. The majority of persons being portrayed are white. While this makes sense for the Western world, even airlines in many other countries follow this, notably in Africa. Conversely, Japanese, Indian, and Iranian airlines are among the airlines representing local ethnicities and dress habits. In the U.S. and the UK, there is a tendency to portray persons of color. Most artists use photographs to make their drawings. As a result, some draw well-recognizable humans. The “Southwest woman” might be familiar to those who know her.

Other airlines apply more generic humans or even what some call “humanoids,” figures resembling humans. In the early 1990s British Aerospace sketched humans in black with a perfect ball as head. EasyJet copied this style 35 years later. Some airlines have managed to reduce humans to just a few lines.

Other artwork expressions consist of grouping the drawings over the cards. Most use a grid pattern which allows an orderly presentation of subjects. Air Baltic on its Avro RJ 70 card uniquely uses a different, relational ordering.

Artists also set their signature through the use of color. A nice example is the 2019 generation of Aer Lingus cards, designed by an Irish graphic designer.

Special cards

New Equipment

In the early 1960s airplanes were introduced with drop-out oxygen masks, and some airlines issued separate cards to explain these (see Part 3, TCA). Twenty years later, Delta printed a unique card to explain the floor lighting system, which they called “emergency exit indication.”

Categories of Operator

The use of safety cards is not restricted to regular airlines but extends to other cases where persons are transported by air. As with other collectibles with a vast range of samples, some collectors focus on subsets. This may be certain airplane types, operators from specific countries only, certain periods, or categories of operators. As to the latter, there are safety cards for government operators, business and VIP operators, military transport operators, and nostalgic operators, flying such classic airplanes as the Constellation, Catalina, or even a converted B-25 bomber. Additionally, there are cards for special operations such as zero gravity flights, research flights (e.g. the SOFIA 747SP), and the flying hospital (Orbis DC-10). Airplane manufacturers make safety cards for use during demonstration flights or as an example for their clients. They even make dedicated cards for evacuation certification tests, which are a one-off.

Often, non-airline cards display unique cabin elements. The VIP airplanes display luxury
arrangements, including bedrooms with showers. One military card mentions bailout instructions.

User Group

Initially, airlines only used one card per airplane type which was good for all passengers.
Gradually, cards came about aimed at specific passenger groups. These groups include cockpit
riders, non-cockpit jumpseat riders (with a warning that unauthorized access to the cockpit may be
met with deadly force!), passengers in exit rows, 747 upper deck passengers, passengers in seats
with seat belt mounted airbags, the sight impaired (with the card, or a book, in braille), physically handicapped, and children and infants. In the latter case, the cards are specific to life vests and handed out to the accompanying adult.

Kind of Operation

Few cards are specific to the kind of operation. In the 1950s there were leaflets specific for overwater operations explaining the ditching and life rafts. In the early 1960s extra cards appeared to explain the new oxygen drop-out systems were needed for high altitude operations. These are no longer in use. A more recent area of operation-related example is the Arctic survival card as used by Greenlandair.

First safety leaflet?

Finally, I recently obtained a safety leaflet I believe is among the oldest ever. It was made in 1924 by KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, but it does not say so explicitly. How do I know it was from that year? The leaflet gives several clues. It describes a method of communication using ground signals that pre-dated the use of onboard radios, which KLM introduced later that year. The leaflet, which is in English, is a literal translation of an earlier Dutch version which claims KLM never had a fatal accident. But by the time it had been translated into English, this was no longer true and thus now omitted. The first KLM fatal accident was in April 1924. This confirms the first safety card was issued a century ago.

Fons Schaefers / November 2024

e-mail: [email protected]

By Fons Schaefers

Introduction

In the previous issue, we saw that in the mid-1960s safety cards became mandatory. This caused a proliferation of safety cards and parties being involved in their design and production. It set in motion some trends and developments that shaped the appearance of safety cards until this day. Let’s review them.

Expansion

The first trend was that, now that safety cards were mandatory, all airlines applied them. This included smaller airlines such as regional and air taxi operators which before did not have them. The USA led, but many other countries followed suit. A US example is Texas International Airlines, a local airline operating Convair 600s and DC-9s. It earned its “international” nomer because it flew across the border to Mexico. Its 1970 Convair 600 card has a mix of drawings and text, in English on one side and Spanish on the other. A revision of the card 2.5 years later is identical except for the evacuation slide. This is now of the inflatable kind, but who noticed?

An early example from Europe is a card for the Fokker F.27. Although it does not say so, this card was in use with NLM. That stands for Nederlandse Luchtvaartmaatschappij – Netherlands Airlines, which started in 1966 and was affiliated to KLM. Initially, it flew domestic routes only with two F.27s leased from the Royal Netherlands Air Force, but gradually expanded into a regional carrier. It exists today as KLM Cityhopper. The card reproduced was its first card and dates back to about 1970. Its design did not follow the style in use by KLM at the day. Rather, it was copied from a sample made by Fokker, the aircraft manufacturer. Text prevailed, in Dutch and English on the front side, German and French on the back. The title however was only in English – on both sides.

A trend that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s was leasing of aircraft between airlines. There are many varieties of leasing. For the safety card collector, the most interesting one is where there is a mix of features on it from both the lessee (the airline that leases in) and the lessor (the airline that leases out). An example is the Aeroflot Ilyushin 62 that was leased out to Air India in the late 1980s. For the passengers, it should have the look of Air India, hence the Air India logo. All text is in three languages: Hindi, English and Russian, except that the header has three more languages: German, Polish and Greek, probably a remnant from the Aeroflot example. Note the distances to the ground from exit sills. Only Russian cards have this useful information.

Safety cards also found their way on non-commercial transport aircraft. An example is the Gulfstream 1 operated by Pittsburgh National Bank from 1983 to 1985. This aircraft sat less than 20 passengers so there was no cabin staff on board. The card explains where passengers can find the refreshments and that cockpit jump-seat rides are allowed!

In some countries the introduction of safety cards was delayed. In the UK it remained common well into the 1970s to have safety information included in the company’s in-flight magazine instead of having a separate safety briefing card. See the British Eagle sample in the previous part, and the exit diagrams for the Britannia and the ample-exited Viscount below.

But when indeed a separate safety card was used in Britain, the American rule prohibiting mixing aircraft types with different exit layouts was not always followed. This mid-1970s Dan-Air card showed both the 727-100 and the 727-200. Although seemingly of the same length, the -100 was actually significantly shorter and had a different exit layout. Some of you probably spotted the error for the 727-100: side exits aft of the wing! These were only on the -200, weren’t they? Actually, this was not an error. In the early 1970s Dan-Air obtained short body 727s from Japan Airlines and converted them into a high-density seating layout. For that, two extra, opposite exits were required by the British Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).Below photo, courtesy of I Spashett, shows G-BAEF’sleft side with the new exit just added, awaiting painting in Dan-Air colours. Reportedly, they could sit 153 passengers, but I doubt whether that figure is correct. An already very cramped layout on Seating Plans – DAN AIR REMEMBERED shows 144 seats. Perhaps the 153 figure included the crew?

In China, aviation safety was not a priority until well into the 1990s. It was common for airliners not to have any safety card on board, or the wrong one, stowed away in a hat rack, as the author experienced in 1989 when flying on a CAAC Hawker Siddeley Trident but finding a CAAC BAe 146 card. Another airline that did not take safety cards too serious was Aviaction from Germany. One side of its card shows the bare minimum of safety features, the other side presents the destinations of this holiday charter airline and a beach lady in bare minimums as well, clad only in sunscreen. Aviaction flew three Fokker F.28s between February 1971 and October 1973.

Pictorials and Pictograms

Another trend, developing slowly, was that of pictures replacing text. Already in the 1950s, airlines started to add illustrations to their text-based safety leaflets. Still, even two decades later, there were many safety cards where text prevailed with illustrations in a supportive role only. Gradually, this reversed into the opposite. Pictures became primary and text became supporting. There were several reasons for that. One is the adage of “a picture is worth a thousand words.” Another is the multitude of languages. Whilst for domestic US airlines, English was the dominant language. Airlines that flew internationally used many more languages. This took up much space. As we saw in the previous part, Pan Am in 1969 translated all text in eight languages and needed a booklet for this. It bundled all the illustrations on one fold-out sheet so that passengers could consult it alongside the text. A third reason is that the power of illustrations was recognized by the authorities and became formally recommended, as we will see below.

An early reverser was Lufthansa. Its 1973 Boeing 737 card combines texts in six languages with photos.

The next year they introduced an illustrations-only format. At the top of the card they added an index using pictograms. These pictograms were explained by text appearing in no fewer than 13 languages. See the Boeing 707 example, dated June 1974. Lufthansa thus became a trend-setter.

Not only was the concept of pictograms copied by many others, but often also Lufthansa’s unique drawing style itself was copied. See for instance Hungarian’s airline Malev with its 1988 card for their new 737. Until then their fleet was dominated by Soviet types.

Other airlines used the pictograms concept but developed their own presentation style, such as British Airways, formed in 1974 out of a merger between BOAC and BEA. See their card for the “Super 737” which was just a first generation 737-200. These pictograms were widely copied by other airlines.

Some small airlines continued to use text based cards. In July 1989 I flew on a TWA affiliate CASA 212 from New York JFK to Atlantic City to visit the FAA Technical Centre. It was a hot day and take-off queues were long. As an alternative to air conditioning, the captain lowered the aft ramp to make us more comfortable. Its safety card, which does not show the ramp as it is not an emergency exit, is reproduced. It lists Jet Express as the operator, even though this small TWA Express carrier never operated jets, only the CASA 212.

Some airlines, like American, Northwest and United preferred photographs over drawings. In the majority of cases however drawings prevailed. They have the advantage that essential actions and features can be emphasized, and backgrounds can be omitted. Compare the window exit opening presentation on an American Airlines 727 card with that of National Airlines. Which one is clearer?

Inflatables Innovation

Aircraft escape chutes were invented in 1947. Ten year later, the first inflatable slides appeared. Another ten years later, the first wide-bodies were being developed. These were, initially, the Boeing 747 (four engines), the Douglas DC-10 and Lockheed Tristar (both with three engines) and, from Europe, the twin-engined Airbus A300. These aircraft sat higher off the ground so their slides had to be taller. Exits over the wing led to escape routes down the wings, with heights too high for jumping. So, special off-wing slides were made. On the first 747 cards, these were all nicely and clearly explained. Many initial operators used the same drawings, supplied by Boeing. I show panels from the Continental May 1970 card, which were identical to those of American, United or Wardair. Early 747s had separate life rafts, typically stowed in ceiling lofts, as shown by Continental. Wardair even showed a raft launching scheme. Later, the explanations got more terse, or disappeared completely, leaving only graphics, with passengers possibly puzzled as to their meaning.

Late in the 1960s, the combined slide/life raft was invented, called slide/raft. It just missed the first 747s, but all overseas DC-10 and Tristar cards show slide rafts. Nigeria Airways’ DC-10 card had the best explanation: “in case of ditching the slides are used as rafts.”

Gradually, also 747s were so equipped and separate life rafts became rare on long haul aircraft. Short haul aircraft did not need them, but there were exceptions. In the mid-1980s, East West was an Australian Fokker F.28 operator that served Norfolk Island, which is in the Pacific about 1,400 km (870 miles) from Australia. For that route, it carried life rafts near the front doors, but the safety card explains that for launching they should be carried to the overwing exits. They never had to put this to practice.

Effectiveness and Dedicated Companies

Few, if any airlines, tested the effectiveness of their cards, be it text-based or illustrations-based. The same applied to the manufacturers of aircraft, with one exception. Douglas Aircraft Company, a leading manufacturer of airliners since the 1930s, in 1967 hired two psychologists to do research in passenger safety systems and the effects of panic in crashes. They studied passenger behavior and experimented with passenger education methods. The safety systems that they studied were those typically appearing on safety cards such as exits and their operation, seat belt use and oxygen systems. But they also improved exit signs and lighting in the cabin and placards. After six years, they left Douglas (which now was McDonnell Douglas) and started a company making safety cards. They named it Interaction Research Corporation (IRC). This name reflected their modus operandi, which was to develop safety cards by means of research. They had their cards reviewed by members of the public (‘naïve subjects’) for comprehensibility of its contents. Poor scores needed improving the contents until a satisfactory score was reached. The two psychologists were Beau Altman and Daniel Johnson. Daniel also sat in the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) panel for cabin safety and was instrumental in developing the first set of guidelines for cabin safety cards, published by the SAE in August 1976 as Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) 1384.

IRC started in a garage in the Long Beach, California area, where Douglas was based, but later moved to the state of Washington – Boeing territory. Their registered trade mark (™) was Just in case. The same tagline had been used by Pan Am on their 1950 safety leaflets, then not trademarked. Incidentally, Pan Am was one of the users of IRC material so their safety cards carried the Just in case line again.

Neither Beau nor Daniel were artists, so they hired illustrators for drawing the pictorials. Unintentionally, they thus created a pool of professionals who later started on their own. This explains why today there are quite a few safety card making companies in the state of Washington. At one stage, Beau Altman had its own company. I reproduce the 1988 Air Ontario Convair 580 card. Note the tagline: For Your Safety, not trade marked.

On the East Coast, male flight attendant and vivid collector of safety cards – probably holding the world record in number of unique samples – Carl Reese, was an artist himself and started in 1981 a one-man safety card producing company. He named it Cabin Safety Inc., trademark Cabin Safety. His garage was his own home in Lester, PA, near Philadelphia. After having lived for a while in nearby, quiet Cecilton, MD and renaming his company as Cabin Safety International, he emigrated to Calgary, Canada. Readers of the Captain’s Log will recognize his name, or may even have met and traded with him. He ran the Log’s safety card section in the 1980s and often visits Airliners International^TM conventions. An early safety card of his hand is for Altair’s Fokker F-28, drawn November 1981. Carl also tested his drawings on naïve subjects, but not at the same scale as IRC.

Whereas IRC mainly served large airlines and heavier equipment, Carl’s clientele primarily consisted of smaller airlines and private operators, with associated lighter aircraft. Where Pan Am used IRC, Pan Am Express (formerly Ransome Airlines) used Cabin Safety. Its ATR42 flew routes both in the USA and, before the wall fell, between West Germany and Berlin. For the latter, Carl made a version with German as primary language.

Regulatory Actions

The 1970s’ spike in survivable, yet fatal accidents caused concern with the US congress. Its members, coming from all of the US states for meetings in Washington, D.C., were frequent flyers and could well relate to it. The House of Representatives organized a series of hearings aimed at improving cabin safety, occurring almost annually between 1976 and 1990. In July 1977, the focus was on passenger education. Witnesses interviewed included a survivor of the 1974 Pago Pago crash and Beau Altman and Daniel Johnson. For those interested, search for: Aviation Safety: Aircraft Passenger Education, the Missing Link in Air Safety : Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Review of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-fifth Congress, First Session, July 12, 13, and 14, 1977. Coincidently or not, the FAA had published just a few weeks before its first set of guidelines for briefing cards: FAA Advisory Circular (AC) No. 121-24. These guidelines augmented the requirements in force since the previous decade. The entire AC can be found on page 118 of the NTSB 1985 Special Study on Airlines Passenger Safety Education (https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/pages/ss8504.aspx).

Both the SAE ARP and the FAA AC set standards for what to present in the cards. Both said that ‘the primary method of presentation should be pictorial’. This accelerated the trend of going away from text and use graphs instead. The list of subjects to be explained does not contain any surprises:

• exits/slides/oxygen/seatbelts/brace positions/individual flotation devices.

Additionally, for extended overwater operations:

• exit awareness and location/life preservers/life rafts, slide rafts/emergency locator transmitters (ELT)/survival equipment.

Note that both the exit awareness and location and the ELT guidance was limited to the overwater operations section. This is strange as they would equally apply to overland flights. This was corrected in later updates. The AC also addressed the briefings by flight attendants to passengers, including handicapped passengers. Both the ARP and the AC exist today, updated with many subjects added since the original version, as we will see in the next part of this series.

Comparison

Comparing 1970s and 1980s cards to the ARP and AC reveals some interesting facts.

In many cases, airlines covered more subjects than the minimum prescribed. Often, emergency equipment and their locations were displayed even though not prescribed. This also applied to equipment that should not be used on board, such as radios, television sets and cigarette lighters. It was not uncommon to show passengers the crash axe in the rear of the cabin, as Avianca did on their 707. Would they still do that today? Remember, these are the 1970s and 1980s.

Some 1970s cards still had the emergency landing preparation instructions that were en vogue in the 1950s, instructing passengers to remove glasses, sharp objects and much more. See the sample taken from the Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA) Caravelle leaflet. Libyan Arab Airlines was the new name of Kingdom of Libya Airlines, following the coup in late 1969 by Muammar Gadaffi which ended the monarchy. This leaflet likely dates from 1970 or soon after.

The 1970s saw the phrase “Do not remove from the aircraft,” “Leave on board,” or similar messages gradually appear on more and more safety cards. It is believed that smaller airlines, with lower budgets, started with this, possibly in an attempt to stop having to replenish whole loads of cards after each flight. Larger airlines then took up this practice as well and today it will be hard to find a card without such a text. It is believed that IRC, whose business was to sell cards to airlines, initially only used the phrase when their customers so specified. Cabin Safety had it from their start in 1981.

Both card makers diligently met all the recommendation of the ARP and AC. The only item they typically added that was neither on the ARP nor the AC were instructions for the stowage of hand luggage and the seat back table.

Some airlines that had long stretches over water were late with including instructions for evacuation on water and the use of life rafts. Lufthansa did not have separate water evacuation panels, but showed the use of life rafts or slide rafts where so equipped. The original Laker Airways, which was British and became famous for their no-frills, very cheap “Skytrain” flights between London and New York from 1977 until 1982,only showed life vests and nothing else that would facilitate a ditching evacuation.

(The later US Laker Airways also used DC-10s and had cards made by IRC, with ditching instructions). Conversely, British Island Airways, which flew the high-winged Dart Herald only a short sector over water between England and the European continent in the 1970s, did show on their cards how to evacuate on water: via the roof of the aircraft and with ropes attached to the wings to hold onto once outside!

In the next part, I will cover the trends in safety cards in the period 1990 to now.

---

Fons Schaefers / August 2023

Email: [email protected]

By Fons Schaefers

Pioneers

Until the early 1960s survivability of transport aircraft accidents was not an issue. The attitude towards accidents was that they were a fact of life. All funds for safety should be allotted to learning from them so as to prevent future accidents. Investigations focused on the causes of accidents, not on their consequences in terms of survivability. It took two pioneers a decade or more to teach the aviation world it was worthwhile to expand the focus to survival factors, also known as “passive safety.” They proved that many improvements could be made in making aircraft more crash-worthy.

Those pioneers were Hugh DeHaven (1895-1980) and Howard Hasbrook (1913-2000). In 1942, DeHaven started the crash injury project at Cornell University (New York). In 1953, this was split into an automobile section, which he further developed (and which inspired car safety belts and Ralph Nader’s “unsafe at any speed”), and an aviation section. The latter was run by Hasbrook, who in the 1950s and early 1960s did pioneering work in investigating survival factors of major aircraft accidents. One of his earliest investigations was that of the National Airlines DC-6 crash near Newark in February 1952. He was the first to make sketches of the crash kinematics illustrating how and why aircraft broke up. Curious? Then go to https://archive.org/details/dtic_AD0030398/mode/2up

Not only were his methods innovative and his findings unprecedented but he also spent much time and effort in advocating them to airframe manufacturers, airlines, and aviation authorities, not only in the US but also abroad. His recommendations were well ahead of their time. Already in 1952, he suggested passenger seats be tested dynamically. It would take more than four decades before this became mandatory, first in the USA and later worldwide.

His safety campaign was successful. In 1963, the FAA proposed rulemaking for a host of cabin safety measures, ranging from improved exit signs and markings to mandatory evacuation demonstrations by airlines, and passenger briefings. Of course, it was not only Hasbrook who triggered the FAA to come into action. Less than three years after the first jets entered service in the US, the first crash of a jet with survivability issues happened: a United Airlines DC-8 at Stapleton Airport in Denver, CO, on July 11, 1961. Hasbrook investigated the circumstances in the cabin, which were painfully shocking [¹]. To understand what follows, I reproduce the exit plan of United’s safety leaflet next to a sketch of the accident’s wind-steered smoke and fire pattern. The safety leaflet is dated 6/61, so released just weeks before the crash.

---

[¹] FAA CAMI AM 62-9, Evacuation pattern analysis of a survivable commercial aircraft crash

---

The crash itself was mild, but a fuel fire erupted, gradually entering the cabin. All passengers in the first class section, which was large and extended from the front back to the wing and included all four overwing exits, survived. In the tourist class section, however, 16 passengers died of smoke inhalation. In that section, there were only two exits, only one that could be opened. The aisle was narrow and the divider between the two classes reached from floor to ceiling, obscuring the view forward. There was no indication, such as a sign, that there were exits beyond it. No passenger briefing had been given, even not after it had become clear that the landing would not be normal.

Whether the tourist passengers had boarded aft and were thus unaware of the forward section and the exits there, is not reported but it would not surprise me.

This accident was the first of a jet that should have been survivable to all occupants. It provoked a lot of attention. Four months later, a survivable, yet fatal accident occurred with a Lockheed Constellation on a military charter with young army recruits, many of whom died. That accident got much less attention for reasons unknown. In any case, the time was ripe for improved cabin safety measures. Something had to be done to increase the chances of passengers who survive the impact to escape from an aircraft before a fire overtakes them. The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) came into action and, as said, in 1963 proposed a plethora of new cabin safety regulations. [³]

---

[²] FAA CAMI AM 70-16, Survival in emergency escape from passenger aircraft

[³]NPRM 63-42, Federal Register October 29, 1963

---

1965 – First Safety Card Rule

Although in 1962 Hasbrook recommended passengers be instructed in evacuation procedures prior to “any anticipated, unusual landing situation,” he did not go as far as asking for safety cards. Neither, in 1963, did the FAA. But, at a hearing in June 1964 on the proposed regulations, somebody suggested safety cards as an additional measure. By whom, I could not find, but I would not be surprised if it was one of those operators already voluntarily using them. United Airlines, perhaps?

When the final rule was issued in March 1965, the FAA mandated printed safety cards for all US airlines per June 7, 1965. Here is the text of the regulation – focus on section (b):

As you can see, the requirements for the card were simple. They must show:

• diagrams of the emergency exits;
• methods of opening emergency exits;
• other instructions necessary for use of emergency equipment.

These requirements were broadly worded. The first was generally interpreted as showing the location of the exits on an airplane plan. The second was met by illustrating how to open the exit. The third one was quite vague – does this include emergency equipment like fire extinguishers or first-aid kits? Not so if we look at the safety cards of the time. They showed oxygen masks, escape slides and for overwater operations, life vests and, occasionally, life rafts, but nothing more.

1965 Safety Cards

The new rule must have triggered several US airlines to issue a new range of safety cards. I will discuss some that directly resulted from it and some that were simply continuations of what was already there. Eastern Airlines issued new cards immediately, in June 1965. Eastern was one of the airlines that had separate cards for each aircraft type, as opposed to fleet cards. For an example see the DC-7 card in Lester Andersons’s July 2020 contribution below. Eastern’s Constellation card was a bit hybrid, as it showed three variants, each having a different exit layout. I reproduce the trio here, rotated 90 degrees to allow easier reading of the exit captions.

Ozark Air Lines had a fleet card labeled “OP-65,” which may have been in response to the new rule. It showed exit locations for three aircraft types: DC-3, Martin 404, and Fairchild F-27. This mix indeed uniquely reflects their 1965 fleet composition so it was likely released that year. But other than exit locations, nothing else was shown so it did not fully meet the new rule. On the reverse side, it said “occupied” in large letters, for passengers to reserve their seats during transit stops.

Delta Air Lines used fleet cards before the cabin safety card rule came into effect. I present the card used in the period 1962-1965, copied from the internet. It was called “Special Procedures for Emergencies.” This shows aircraft plans for the Convair 340/440, Douglas DC-6, DC-7/7B, DC-8, and Convair 880. Note the cockpit is on the right. The emergency exits consisted of either doors or window exits and were well indicated, with the means of opening explained in small panels.

This card survived the June 1965 regulatory change, as it already met it.

The single card was replaced about six months later by a leaflet with four vertical folds, like an accordion. It was issued in conjunction with the introduction of the new DC-9. In appearance, it was a complete makeover. The rather technical presentation was gone and replaced by a more attractive and modern look, making optimum use of the Delta logo. Other than that, it featured the same types as the previous card. I reproduce the front, but see also Brian Barron’s July 2017 entry.

Northwest Orient Airlines renewed its leaflets in September 1965. Northwest re-issued the “emergency water landings” leaflet in use since the early 1950s. While it indeed included diagrams of four different types showing exit locations, it lacked the method of opening them. This would rate it as not meeting the new rule. However, Northwest, while continuing this line of overwater leaflets, augmented them with a separate leaflet explaining the automatic oxygen system, exit locations, and opening method. Thus they met the new rule. On that leaflet, the Boeing 727 was added to the overwater types, but not the Lockheed Electra and DC-7C. Apparently, separate cards were made for those, non-automatic oxygen-equipped types (see Lester Anderson, July 2020).

Western Airlines changed its cards in December 1965. They were fleet cards, showing three types on one leaflet: Boeing 720B, Lockheed Electra II, and Douglas DC-6B. It had airplane plans, exit operation method panels, and more. I reproduce the plan for the Electra as that has some interesting features, which could easily have led to passenger confusion:

• the main cabin entrance door, forward left, was not shown as an emergency exit. This was allowed under the period regulations;
• the door on the left aft side is marked as “forward door exit,” even though it was well aft, being situated behind the wings.

1967 – First Amendment to the Safety Card Rule

I could not find any cards dated 1966. That year however stands out as it saw a proposal by the FAA for already modifying the new briefing card rule. Two new requirements were presented for public consultation, which the FAA believed would improve passenger knowledge and avoid confusion:

• each passenger over 12 years of age must be given one copy of the printed briefing card upon entering the airplane;
• the cards must be pertinent to the type and model of airplane being used on the flight. 

The first proposal met with resistance from the airlines and was not adopted. The second, however, was well received and took effect on October 24, 1967:

This meant the end of fleet cards, at least in the USA.

Delta responded quickly and first issued type-specific cards in September 1967, one month before the rule deadline. They diligently made separate cards for each type and model, as the new regulation stipulated: one each for the DC-9-14, DC-9-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-51 (shown), CV-880, etc.

Five years later (8/72), they joined the two short DC-8 models (DC-8-33 and DC-8-51) on one card, as the exit locations and method of operation were identical. Yet, on the cover, a different type appeared. Delta later corrected that.

1968 and 1969 Safety Cards

The revised regulation led to an abundance of cards. Like Delta, the major carriers, aware of the upcoming rule, had already started re-issuing their cards in 1967. Scroll below to the articles by Barron and Anderson in this Captain’s Log safety card section to see some examples.

The next two years saw many more airlines introducing or revising them. Let me reproduce a selection to illustrate the artwork and methods of presentation.

in March 1968, Ozark Air Lines issued this Fairchild FH-227B card. On one side it has some technical data, plus text cautions about electronic devices, lighters, and a notification about flotation cushions. On the reverse side, there is graphic safety information showing exit locations and their operation.

Pacific Southwest Airlines introduced the Boeing 737 in September 1968, a brand new aircraft type. They had the safety cards prepared well in advance, as evidenced by the issue date: June 21, 1968. Emergency exit location, operation, and the slide were shown on one side; oxygen, bracing position, and flotation equipment were on the other. Note the rather primitive way of portraying the cabin.

Air West was formed in April 1968 by a merger of Pacific Air Lines (which started in 1941 as Southwest Airways, not to be confused with the later Southwest Airlines), Bonanza Air Lines, and West Coast Airlines. They all operated the Fairchild F-27. Their operating area covered the eight westernmost United States, so the new name, Air West, was apt. Air West’s December 1968 card was identical on either side, but for the language: English on one side, Spanish on the other. Safety information was limited to bracing position, flotation seat cushions, exit locations, and operation of the window exits plus the exit in the lavatory. The F-27 (both as built by Fokker and Fairchild) was probably unique in that one exit could only be accessed via the lavatory! For that purpose, its door needed to be secured open during take-off and landing. How the oppositely located integral stair-equipped entrance door opened was not shown. The illustrations were black on red, which would not have helped in conditions of poor lighting. When former TWA-owner Howard Hughes bought Air West in 1970, it became Hughes Airwest. In 1980 it was bought by Republic Airlines, which itself was absorbed by Northwest Airlines in 1986, which, in turn, was acquired by Delta Air Lines in 2008.

In February 1969, TWA issued an extensive 18-page booklet for their 707 “Starstream” in five European languages. Large in size and print, and well-illustrated, not only are exit locations and their operation explained as well as oxygen, life vests, and rafts, but also seat belts, smoking, and portable radios and TVs. It had separate pages for infant life vest use and even how rescue is organized. The exit plan shows internal escape routes which are confusing in the overwing exit area. The longitudinal arrow lines are not connected between the two pairs of overwing exits. Was there a barrier? No, actually, there were seats between these exits. Probably TWA wanted to stress the importance of the overwing exits for passengers seated in the center cabin and omitted this detail.

Braniff had much simpler cards, two sides only, with “quick exit locations” on one side and exit operation (plus smoking, seat belts, oxygen, and bracing opposition) on the other side. On the April 1969 card, two variants of the 727 are shown: “cargo-passenger” and “all passenger.” Would this meet the regulatory qualification for same type and model? The cargo-passenger version shows the cargo compartment forward of the wing. The only exits available for passengers are those over the wing plus the tail exit, which is ranked as a “primary exit.” For the all-passenger version, that exit is a “secondary exit.”

Like TWA, Pan American issued a booklet for their Boeing 707. It covered the same subjects as TWA did, but was smaller and in three more languages (Portuguese, Chinese, and Japanese). I reproduce from their July 1969 edition the front page and the illustration page. The latter folds out so it can be read along the subject page of the selection.

Outside the USA

The new rules directly affected US carriers. But they also inspired other countries to adopt the same, or similar regulations. I highlight three airlines from three European countries.

In Switzerland, Swissair replaced its fleet leaflets with type-specific leaflets around 1965, so actually before the US did. I show the type-specific leaflet for the Convair Metropolitan, the name that the Swiss used for the Convair 440. It is undated but I estimate it to be from around 1965.

Sometime in the 1950s, KLM of the Netherlands introduced a generic leaflet with emergency preparation instructions in six languages and included illustrated life vest instructions. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy to show. It was not a fleet card as it lacked type-specific information, like aircraft diagrams, but was likely used on all types. Exit information was limited to one line:

    “The escape hatches are marked ‘Emergency exit’ and the method of opening them is clearly indicated.”

It must have been used well into the next decade. For the DC-8, DC-9 and “Super DC-8” (DC-8-63), introduced in 1960, 1966, and 1967 respectively, it was augmented with separate leaflets for oxygen use, in no fewer than 12 languages, reflecting KLM’s standing as a global airline serving passengers of many tongues. Here is a poor-quality internet reproduction of the top portion of the DC-9 oxygen card.

Later, and likely prompted by the developments in the USA, KLM replaced the generic leaflet and oxygen supplements by type-specific cards. That change was drastic. From nearly text-only, KLM went for a low-text, all-graphic presentation, quite possibly to avoid the burden of having to translate in so many different languages. The new cards showed exit locations and their operation plus the brace position, oxygen use, and life vests. None of the early cards had an issue date making it difficult to determine a year. My best guess is 1968. There were separate cards for two versions of the DC-8 as well as two versions of the DC-9, all uniquely coded. The DC-9 cards carried the striped KLM logo which lasted until 1972. The DC-8 cards did not have any logo, possibly because they regularly flew for partner airlines such as Garuda Indonesia and Viasa (Venezuela) and KLM wanted to avoid confusion on the part of the passengers. I reproduce two panels from the DC-9 series 10 card.

The UK was one of the few countries with a strong civil aviation industry and authority, which had its own agenda. It did not follow the US as closely as many other countries. Many of the cabin safety measures invented in the US took a long time before they landed in the UK. In Britain, the airlines presented passenger safety information in their traditional in-flight magazines until well into the 1970s without issuing separate cards. I show the 1968 example of British Eagle, one of the independent airlines of the time. On the front cover, there is a reference to the safety on board pages, in three languages. The instructions are extensive and clear, but in text only, except for pictures of life jacket use. Further down the magazine technical data appears for the airplane types, with exit diagrams. I reproduce those for the Britannia (top) and the abundantly-exited Viscount (bottom).

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Fons Schaefers / January 2023

Email: [email protected]

By Fons Schaefers

Trammel Again

World War Two confirmed the United States (US) as the leader of world civil aviation. The war, which started in Europe and lasted the longest there, caused the European players to lose the dominant position they had gained in the pioneer years of the 1920s and 1930s. In the United States, civil aviation could develop fairly uninterrupted. The Douglas DC-3 became the norm in air travel from 1936 onwards and throughout the war years. It solidified the dominant position that the United States, by now, had reached in civil aviation not only in terms of technology and traffic volume but, also in terms of safety regulatory standards. A position that it has kept ever since.

In the first part of this series, we saw the very first signs of what we now know as cabin safety. An improvement in exit marking and lighting was made in response to the 1943 Trammel accident, but there was also the issue of the exit handles not being apparent to passengers. Coming back to the question about the first safety card in the US, it was brought to my attention that two airlines introduced specific printed instructions to passengers. Presumably, they were inspired by Trammel.

United Airlines added to its flight information folder an item on the location of the control of the ‘auxiliary exits’ in their DC-3s.

What caused this surge of safety leaflets and why were they all about ditching? The answer is threefold.

Still fresh in contemporary minds was a notable water accident that occurred just before the war. On its way from New York to Bermuda on January 21, 1939, an Imperial Airways Short Empire flying boat named Cavalier had to make a forced landing halfway along its oceanic journey. It broke up upon impact and sank shortly after. All 13 occupants had survived the impact, but three drowned. The flying boat had no life rafts on board and, for that matter, neither did it have seat belts. The only life-saving equipment on board was 22 ‘seat-type’ and six ‘crew-type’ ‘rubber life belts’ (life vests)[1]. Of these 28 life vests only eight were used, four of each. The survivors clung to them for 10 hours in the water, which was moderately warm, before rescue came. The British Air Ministry Inspector of Accidents made a list of recommendations for safety improvements on flying boats, including life rafts as standard equipment and instructing passengers on the fastening of seat belts on take-off and landings, the pointing out of emergency exits and how to fasten life-belts. It was noted that ‘an illustrated notice showing how life-belts should be put on was displayed in each cabin of the flying boat. This, I assume was a fixed message similar to those carried on ferry boats.

---

[1]Press summary of Report of the Investigation of the Accident to the Imperial Airways aircraft G-ADUU (Cavalier) on January 21, 1939, Office of the Air Attaché British Embassy, Washington D.C., March 25, 1939.

---

During the war considerable experience had been gained with transoceanic flying, albeit with military transport aircraft. In about 1 per 1,000 crossings[1] they had to make a water landing on the ocean, which became known as a ‘ditching’. The survivability rate was about 30%. This experience, together with that of Cavalier, may well have inspired the US Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) to issue a regulation for increasing the chances of surviving a ditching:

‘The crew of aircraft used in overwater flights shall be drilled periodically in “abandon ship” procedures. Passengers shall be acquainted with the location of emergency exits, with emergency equipment provided for individual use, and with the procedure to be followed in the case of an emergency landing on the water.’[2]

This regulation, which was part of a whole set of new regulations, applied from September 1945 but only to U.S. carriers flying ‘outside the continental limits of the United States.’ At the time, they were only PAWA, AOA and TWA. In 1947 they were joined by United Airlines which started to fly to Hawaii and Northwest Airlines which connected the US with Japan and China.

---

[1]Human Factors in Air Transport Design, Ross A. McFarland, 1946, p. 534

[2]U.S. Civil Air Regulations, 41.507 Use of emergency equipment, effective September 1, 1945

---

Thirdly, the Search and Rescue (SAR) division of the then still provisional International Civil Aviation Organization issued in December 1946 recommendations for the briefing of passengers: before take-off, on the use of safety belts and the location of emergency exits; after take-off, on life jackets and other emergency equipment. In the case of an in-flight emergency, passengers should be further briefed in anticipation of an impact that, more likely than not, would be on water.

Thus, the focus of the new requirement and recommendations for briefing passengers was on overwater flights and an emergency landing on water. There was no equivalent requirement for an emergency landing on land. Why not? To answer that question, we have to study accidents of the time. They typically occurred during the cruise portion of a flight. Even in the cases where the aircraft remained controllable, impact landings on land tended to be fatal to all. The 1943 Trammel case had been an exception, but only partial, with two survivors out of 20 occupants. The Cavalier accident and the military services however had demonstrated that a ditching could be well survivable.

So, now that the war was over and commercial air transport was to grow in size and span oceans, a ditching was recognized as the principal survivable accident scenario. They were therefore prone to regulatory support. The form chosen was to mandate that airlines ‘acquaint with’ or brief passengers about ditching procedures. Nowhere were leaflets or booklets mandated, but airlines found they served the purpose.

A Closer Look

Studying these instructions and keeping in mind current practices, a number of differences in tone and directions stand out. The key message was that of aviation being safe, the crew having been thoroughly trained and always in control in which its authority was never to be questioned (see PAWA illustrations above and below).

A ditching, it was believed at the time, would not come sudden but announced, with plenty of time to prepare for it. On the part of passengers, that meant loosening the tie, removing sharp objects, taking off spectacles and high-heeled shoes, putting on warm clothes and then a life vest, sit tightly strapped in and, when so ordered, brace for impact. There was no common opinion on what to do with seatbacks: some airlines said upright, others said recline as much as possible. For some airlines, the brace position for forward row passengers was to sit on the floor with the back against a bulkhead (see illustration Air France 1953).

Opening exits, if even mentioned at all, was to be left to the crew. The American airlines typically added a layout of the aircraft with exit and raft locations, while in Europe this was less common. PAWA included a detailed graph of the life raft and the survival pack contents on their leaflets (see illustration below).

PAWA and BOAC issued new versions of their safety leaflets almost every year. United, TWA and Northwest, on the other hand, stuck to their original designs for at least a decade, only changing them to match fleet updates. For the other airlines, changes were more random.

BOAC’s 1946 folder explained life jackets and rafts, called ‘dinghies,’ but did not have a layout of the aircraft, nor any explanation about where the exits were or how they opened. Yet, seat belts were explained. Contrary to the Americans, who only advised the use of seat belts in preparation for an emergency landing, BOAC advised that the seat belts ‘should be fastened when the aircraft is taxiing[1], taking off or landing’. Clearly, that stemmed from the Cavalier accident recommendations.

---

[1]The addition of taxiing is particularly noteworthy as that was many decades ahead of becoming common practice in the rest of the world, except that SAS also had this in their safety instructions.

---

For aircraft not equipped with pressurized cabins, oxygen masks were explained by BOAC.

In the 1947 BOAC folder exits were mentioned for the first time, but not depicted. It said, “there are ample emergency exits on all Speedbirds which will be pointed out to you by a member of the crew before take-off.” Also added was a single text line about desert packs ‘containing rations and water’ being carried, as well as ‘very comprehensive First-Aid Packs.’ The portion about the oxygen mask now cautioned ‘please don’t confuse this with a gas mask. It does not have to fit tight.’ With the war still fresh in people’s minds, passengers apparently had made this comparison when reading the earlier version.

Aircraft Diagrams

The summum bonum of 1950s luxury flying was the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser. To give an impression of how cabin diagrams were rendered in safety leaflets, here are five of them, by as many different airlines, so you can compare. BOAC chose to only show the aircraft from outside, with the exits marked with arrows. Conversely Northwest did not point out any exit, but only emergency equipment, using an engineering drawing of the cabin. Yet, on a closer look, the escape ropes gave a hint as to where exits were, at least for those not over the wings. Over-wing exits needed no ropes. The other three airlines also used cabin plans, all in their own fashion, showing both the exits and emergency equipment. They were oriented with the front of the aircraft at the top, matching the compass of a forward-facing passenger. All Stratocruisers had the lower lobe lounge, but only one airline, PAWA, marked its exits, plus that of the storage area ahead of the wings. There are many other interesting features in these layouts such as the spacious, gender-specific washrooms. They are clearly identified in the AOA layout and can also be recognized in the United and Northwest samples.

Cozy Rafts and Duck Landings

The texts in the safety leaflets were light-hearted so as not to put off passengers by emphasizing the dangers of flying. Phrases were used like:

‘life vests are fashionable in emergency landings. Yours is bright yellow and quite handsomely tailored’

and

‘Brace for impact – careful the order is not embrace!’                                                       

Similarly, entertaining cartoons were used, often showing a life raft as a cozy place to be. Here is a collection. Click on each image to enlarge.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Other airlines preferred the analogy to ducks. Shown are Northwest, 1952, and Hawaiian, 1963.

• 

• 

Ditching experience

So, with all the focus on ditching, did they indeed occur, and were life rafts lifesavers? The first recorded use of a life raft, ironically, was not on water, but in a desert, giving shade and shelter. That was following the crash on June 18, 1947 of Clipper Eclipse, a PAWA Lockheed Constellation, in Syria. Star Trek aficionados will likely know this accident. Its creator, Eugene Roddenberry, was the third officer and took a leading role as the two pilots were killed upon impact. In this crash, out of 37 occupants, 22 survived and were rescued.

The first reported ditching was in 1949. Until about 1963, on average one ditching occurred per year, worldwide, making the 1950s the ditching decade. In all cases, it involved piston-engine airliners. Other than as initially predicted and thus advertised in the safety instructions, most were sudden with no time for preparation. On the positive side, many were close to shore rather than mid-ocean, facilitating quick rescue. The survival rate was high; in some cases even 100%.

A new accident scenario

But another accident scenario quickly overtook that of the ditching in terms of numbers and survivability issues and, thus, the need for cabin safety measures. That scenario is the survivable accident involving a fire, at or near an airport.

It first happened three weeks before the Syrian crash, on May 29, 1947. United Airlines flight 521, a DC-4, failed to lift off at New York-La Guardia. It crossed the airport perimeter and half bounced, half flew until it came to rest 800 ft beyond the runway. It caught fire immediately and many occupants perished as they were unable to escape. In a congressional hearing in February 1950, it was testified that ‘passengers were seen by witnesses drumming on the inside of cabin windows, burning to death.’[1] The formal accident investigation by the CAB did not go into any of the survivability issues. Its report, issued after many preventive measures had been taken, concluded that ‘all action that it seems sensible to take has already been taken’. In hindsight, this was quite a cynical comment, as no cabin safety measure had been taken at all, let alone even considered. It needed a second accident before the CAB realized that their focus should not only be on preventing accidents to happen in the first place, but also when they do occur, on survivability issues. In their report on the January 21, 1948, Eastern Constellation crash at Boston they said that ‘this accident forcibly points to the necessity for the development of more suitable passenger evacuation facilities’. In that accident, some passengers survived but, had to jump a distance of more than 15 feet from the airplane to the ground.

---

[1]Hearings before a subcommittee of the (U.S. Congress House) committee on interstate and foreign commerce, February 14, 1950.

---

Many similar accidents would follow and in numbers and dramatic impact soon eclipsed the forced ditchings. From two different angles, scientists recognized this serious trend and started tests to collect data to understand the mechanisms of fire spread and airliner evacuation respectively. The Medical Division of the Office of Aviation Safety of the US Civil Aeronautics Administration (now FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute) organized evacuation studies and live tests in 1951 and 1952, jointly with the George Washington University, the US Air Force and three airlines: American Airlines, PAWA and TWA. This gave insight into the limitations imposed by exit sizes, sill-to-ground distance and descent assist means as well as human performance and interaction during evacuations. A new regulatory formula was drafted for prescribing exit numbers, sizes and locations which in essence is still in use today.

In the same period, NACA (now NASA) conducted full-scale tests in which self-propelled Curtiss C-46 and Fairchild C-82 aircraft sped along a monorail into concrete obstacles to study fuel fire ignition and propagation patterns and their effect on survival time for occupants.

Although the two scientific programs were done in isolation from each other, their results were merged and ripened the idea of a maximum evacuation time. Even before that, already in December 1951, the CAB had proposed a 90-second evacuation time limit but, this met with resistance from operators. The scientific evidence, aggravated by many more accidents, was needed to overcome that. Eventually, more than one and a half-decade later, a firm evacuation demonstration time limit was introduced, with conditions tighter than those proposed in 1951. More about this in a later part.

The airlines did not pick up the new accident trend as quickly. Rather, over the decade more airlines issued ditching safety instructions. In North America, these were Braniff, Canadian Pacific, Delta Air Lines, Eastern Airlines and Trans-Canada Airlines. In Europe, Iberia (Spain), LAI (Italy), KLM (Netherlands), Olympic Airways (Greece), Sabena (Belgium) and TAI (France). In the rest of the world such major airlines as Avianca (Colombia), Cathay Pacific Airways (Hong Kong), Civil Air Transport (Taiwan), JAL (Japan) and TACA (El Salvador) educated their passengers on ditching preparations.

Three front pages of typical 1950s ditching leaflets are reproduced: Iberia, Eastern Air Lines and KLM.

United’s egress

There was one airline that did recognize at an early stage the land evacuation scenario as serious and dedicated a safety leaflet to it. Not surprisingly, this was United Airlines, the airline of the 1947 La Guardia accident. Its president since 1934, William Patterson was known to care about the happiness and welfare of others and, like others, must have been deeply touched by that accident. From a 1981 biography: ‘Concern for safety had always been a major deterrent to airline travel, and improved safety was one of “Pat” Patterson’s major goals. During his 36 years with United, he personally inspected close to 70 percent of United’s accidents in order to obtain a personal feel for the extent of loss and the hardships brought upon the persons involved[1].’

When the ‘coach’ class was introduced in 1952 under strict CAB regulations, this meant lower fares, which would reduce revenue. To compensate for that, aircraft passenger capacities had to be increased. US airlines were happy to do so, but one: United Airlines. Patterson used the ‘evacuation card’ (no pun intended) to try and reverse this trend which in his view was unsafe. He staged, with the help of Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory of Buffalo, New York, a series of full-scale evacuations of a 66-seat DC-4 (the normal seating on a United DC-4 was 44, so a 50% increase). Passengers were offered a scenic ride over Niagara Falls, then land back at Buffalo where a surprise evacuation was ordered. In one case, the aircraft actually did develop a major engine problem and reportedly landed at Syracuse![2] The results he would then use to try and convince the CAB that increasing capacities would be hazardous. This plan did not work out[3]^,[4]. Yet, possibly as a follow-on to those tests, United Airlines introduced in early 1953 a safety folder specific to the land evacuation scenario for its domestic, non-overwaterDC-4s and DC-6s. This leaflet, in style and appearance, was completely different from the ditching leaflet used for the overwater fleet. It was called ‘the egress’ and issued in both a yellow as well as a blue version. A later revision (c. 1956) is also known. Note that the main doors are equipped with an escape chute but others only have a rope.

---

[1]William A. Patterson of United Airlines, Richard E. Hattwick, Journal of Behavioral Economics, Volume 10, Issue 2, Winter 1981.

[2]transcript of Emergency Evacuation Technical Conference, Seattle, September 6, 1985, Volume IV, p. 622.

[3]Aviation Week December 8, 1952.

[4]Regulation of Air Coach Service Standards, Stanley Berge, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Volume 20, Issue 1, 1953.

---

Chutes replace ropes

Towards the end of the decade airlines did add safety instructions for emergency landings on land in addition to, or instead of, those on water. At the same time, passengers were no longer briefed to wait for the crew to open exits, they were instructed how to open them themselves (see Sabena illustration below), or how to deploy and use escape chutes.

The chutes needed to be held taut by two ‘able bodied persons’ who had to jump down first. Still, they formed an improvement over the escape ropes and Jacob’s ladders that were the only descent assist means a few years before. A glance at the instructions for attaching floor straps to ensure that the chute would work will tell you that this would not be easy, especially for novices under stressful conditions. Yet, that was the state-of-the-art in 1957. Self-supporting, inflatable escape slides were about to be invented.

Souvenir

How were the safety leaflets circulated? The pre-war practice of issuing flight information packets (‘kits’) to passengers with a host of promotional material was continued well into the 1950s. In a pocketed folder were stacked such items as postcards, route maps, timetables, suggestion forms, stationary, destination brochures and even small dictionaries. Somewhere inconspicuously hidden in between was the safety folder. All was for the passenger to keep as a souvenir. No ‘do not remove from aircraft’ caveats yet. That would come later, as we will see in a future edition of this series. But before that we will look in the next edition what the beginning of the jet age meant for safety cards.

---

Illustrations reproduced from author’s collection, except for United and TWA 1943 and United ‘s ‘The Egress.’

March 2022
Email: [email protected]