Last night I was traveling on a DL A321, and noticed that at door 2L and 2R the seats in the row in front of the exit (I believe row 12) were partially blocking the door. The back of the seat came to approximately the window of the exit door, roughly covering 1/3 of the door and exit. How is this legal? I was under the impression that all exits had to have full unobstructed entry/exit in case of emergency. Thanks in advance.

This is a good question, and one I have posed on here before. I think we have learned through the 737MAX crisis that the self-regulation system that intensified in the U.S. in the mid-2000s can have unintended consequences, as the manufacturers have too much leeway letting financial considerations drive the design process. With seats partially blocking both 2L/R and 3 L/R, only the far forward and far aft exits have full egress. The SV Superjet crash (and the Air France "Toronto miracle") reveal how important fast egress is, and I think we should remove those rows of seats on the A321.

tsbooker wrote:

Last night I was traveling on a DL A321, and noticed that at door 2L and 2R the seats in the row in front of the exit (I believe row 12) were partially blocking the door. The back of the seat came to approximately the window of the exit door, roughly covering 1/3 of the door and exit. How is this legal? I was under the impression that all exits had to have full unobstructed entry/exit in case of emergency. Thanks in advance.

This is very interesting, I'd love to see a photo of what you were talking about though! I don't know if I've seen anything quite like you mentioned

tsbooker wrote:

Last night I was traveling on a DL A321, and noticed that at door 2L and 2R the seats in the row in front of the exit (I believe row 12) were partially blocking the door. The back of the seat came to approximately the window of the exit door, roughly covering 1/3 of the door and exit. How is this legal? I was under the impression that all exits had to have full unobstructed entry/exit in case of emergency. Thanks in advance.

Because it's not a full door. You can't board through it. Look at it as an overwing exit door.

777Mech wrote:

tsbooker wrote:

Last night I was traveling on a DL A321, and noticed that at door 2L and 2R the seats in the row in front of the exit (I believe row 12) were partially blocking the door. The back of the seat came to approximately the window of the exit door, roughly covering 1/3 of the door and exit. How is this legal? I was under the impression that all exits had to have full unobstructed entry/exit in case of emergency. Thanks in advance.

Because it's not a full door. You can't board through it. Look at it as an overwing exit door.

I hear you, but that is my problem with it. The A321 is 23 feet longer than an A320. If you imagine 2 L/R and 3 L/R as overwing exits, you have a much longer tube with the same exit capacity as an A320. 32 more people than an A320 with similar exit capacity and a far longer travel distance to an unimpeded exit. The A321 is only 9 feet shorter than a 757-200, and at least that aircraft has an unimpeded exit at 2L in addition to the forward and aft exits. In the US we have a lot of older passengers, a lot of large passengers, and a lot of limited mobility passengers. Delta and the feds obviously care about safety and evac standards. I am just saying that it is never good to become complacent, and I fear that the 321 layout is close to crossing a line.

TW870 wrote:

777Mech wrote:

tsbooker wrote:

Last night I was traveling on a DL A321, and noticed that at door 2L and 2R the seats in the row in front of the exit (I believe row 12) were partially blocking the door. The back of the seat came to approximately the window of the exit door, roughly covering 1/3 of the door and exit. How is this legal? I was under the impression that all exits had to have full unobstructed entry/exit in case of emergency. Thanks in advance.

Because it's not a full door. You can't board through it. Look at it as an overwing exit door.

I hear you, but that is my problem with it. The A321 is 23 feet longer than an A320. If you imagine 2 L/R and 3 L/R as overwing exits, you have a much longer tube with the same exit capacity as an A320. 32 more people than an A320 with similar exit capacity and a far longer travel distance to an unimpeded exit. The A321 is only 9 feet shorter than a 757-200, and at least that aircraft has an unimpeded exit at 2L in addition to the forward and aft exits. In the US we have a lot of older passengers, a lot of large passengers, and a lot of limited mobility passengers. Delta and the feds obviously care about safety and evac standards. I am just saying that it is never good to become complacent, and I fear that the 321 layout is close to crossing a line.

The a321 has to undergo evacuation certification (all passengers in 90 seconds with half the exits). While other aircraft may have larger exits, this seems to be sufficient as the aircraft is in operation. The MAX crash exposed issues with self regulation, but that is immaterial to this, IMO. There is no way Airbus could get the aircraft certified if the exits were obviously and visibly blocked.

I wouldnt worry. In the event of an emergency, a bigger issue is someone trying to take their worldly possessions with them while you try to evacuate.

14 CFR 25.807 is the answer. It defines minimum exit door size requirements and also the maximum number of occupants you're allowed to exit through a particular door. Airlines can voluntarily de-rate exit doors to something less than what they we're built for to allow encroachment into the egress path.
This is a rather complicated subject though, because you also need to account for the size of the escape slide and also the assist space requirements and the total number of occupants (and considering for blocked exits).
The simple answer is Delta needed a few more inches to get in that extra row of seats and didn't need 4 full pairs of Type C exits. Without knowing the ins and outs of the A321, I'd guess they de-rated from a Type C to a Type III.

I was shocked to see British Airways had the same door blocking on their mid-haul A321s. It’s either an emergency exit or it’s not, in a real emergency, I wouldn’t want to be facing that one in a darkened fuselage on fire or sinking. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
I read the British Airtours accident report on the burning 737 on the runway at MAN, why do lessons keep needing to be re-learned?

The British Airways aircraft that have seating in the vicinity of Doors 2 have a reduced capacity. These aircraft have the “mid haul” configuration with a total of 23J and 131Y. Doors 2 are partially obstructed by the seating at Row7, however power is disabled to these during taxi/takeoff/landing to prevent the seat leg rest being extended.

Can’t speak to DL’s 321s or 753s but UAs new configuration seems similar to what you describe. There are seats directly in front of 2R with space to go around ahead of and behind the seats. The same for 3L/R.

77H

catiii wrote:

TW870 wrote:

This is a good question, and one I have posed on here before. I think we have learned through the 737MAX crisis that the self-regulation system that intensified in the U.S. in the mid-2000s can have unintended consequences, as the manufacturers have too much leeway letting financial considerations drive the design process. With seats partially blocking both 2L/R and 3 L/R, only the far forward and far aft exits have full egress. The SV Superjet crash (and the Air France "Toronto miracle") reveal how important fast egress is, and I think we should remove those rows of seats on the A321.

Before you go jumping to conclusions, you do know that the airline sets the LOPA, correct? You also know that the LOPA has to pass an evac test?

Let the professionals handle this rather than arhair quarterbacking. The airline, and the US airline industry as a whole, has a historically remarkable record of safety. You think they did that by cutting corners?

The same could have been asked of Boeing up until October of last year.

We now see how well that same line of thought has since worked out.

i guess the tests have been done in a single class version

they actually have a lower density because of first and business class
so maybe they can de-rate the overwings, cant they?

Don’t forget in the US, they have the added bonus of allowing people to put their luggage under the seats at over wing emergency exits. No other country permits this.

KFLLCFII wrote:

catiii wrote:

TW870 wrote:

This is a good question, and one I have posed on here before. I think we have learned through the 737MAX crisis that the self-regulation system that intensified in the U.S. in the mid-2000s can have unintended consequences, as the manufacturers have too much leeway letting financial considerations drive the design process. With seats partially blocking both 2L/R and 3 L/R, only the far forward and far aft exits have full egress. The SV Superjet crash (and the Air France "Toronto miracle") reveal how important fast egress is, and I think we should remove those rows of seats on the A321.

Before you go jumping to conclusions, you do know that the airline sets the LOPA, correct? You also know that the LOPA has to pass an evac test?

Let the professionals handle this rather than arhair quarterbacking. The airline, and the US airline industry as a whole, has a historically remarkable record of safety. You think they did that by cutting corners?

The same could have been asked of Boeing up until October of last year.

We now see how well that same line of thought has since worked out.

I fully agree. Aircraft evacuation times do not reflect the reality of the size and fitness of day to day passengers, especially in the US. It appears we are going to have to kill some of them before the industry agrees.

tsbooker wrote:

Last night I was traveling on a DL A321, and noticed that at door 2L and 2R the seats in the row in front of the exit (I believe row 12) were partially blocking the door. The back of the seat came to approximately the window of the exit door, roughly covering 1/3 of the door and exit. How is this legal? I was under the impression that all exits had to have full unobstructed entry/exit in case of emergency. Thanks in advance.

I'm guessing its been years since you've been on a 757 or you've never flown on a 757?
This seating arrangement is nothing new and has been used on 757's at door 2R and/or 2L since I can remember and there have been no issues with emergency evacuations.

bgm wrote:

Don’t forget in the US, they have the added bonus of allowing people to put their luggage under the seats at over wing emergency exits. No other country permits this.

You made this same declaration in a thread in 2013 posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=21497375. Here in the U.S. since 2013 we've had quite a few emergency evacuations all without issue.

So while passengers are allowed to place an item underneath the seat in front of them in the emergency exit row the aisle or passageway between those seats still must be clear. Your carry on bag is not allowed to block the exit row it must be able to fit fully underneath the seat or FA's are supposed to place it in the overhead bin. On UA I've seen FA's make sure they check floor and if a customers bag is partially protruding into the passageway between the 2 rows ask or demand the passenger put their bag in the overhead bin.

The greatest threat to a successful emergency exit isn't a passengers bag underneath the seat in front of them or the location of seats in the emergency exit the greatest threat to a successful emergency exit is passengers grabbing their bags out of the over head bins and sliding down evacuation slides with their bags in tote. It doesn't matter what the airline is in almost every emergency evacuation their is a large number of passengers who evacuate with their carry on bags that is what slows down an evacuation and could cost people their lives.

jayunited wrote:

tsbooker wrote:

Last night I was traveling on a DL A321, and noticed that at door 2L and 2R the seats in the row in front of the exit (I believe row 12) were partially blocking the door. The back of the seat came to approximately the window of the exit door, roughly covering 1/3 of the door and exit. How is this legal? I was under the impression that all exits had to have full unobstructed entry/exit in case of emergency. Thanks in advance.

I'm guessing its been years since you've been on a 757 or you've never flown on a 757?
This seating arrangement is nothing new and has been used on 757's at door 2R and/or 2L since I can remember and there have been no issues with emergency evacuations.

What are you talking about ?! I've flown dozens of 757s, and the vast majority have boarded at 2L, and there has been bulkheads / galleys / closets forward of 2L/R, and seats AFT of the doors. Only legs encroach on the space. DL, UA, Avianca, Jet2....

Maybe you misunderstood what the OP was trying to say? A physical seat encroaches on the exit space.

SwissCanuck wrote:

jayunited wrote:

tsbooker wrote:

Last night I was traveling on a DL A321, and noticed that at door 2L and 2R the seats in the row in front of the exit (I believe row 12) were partially blocking the door. The back of the seat came to approximately the window of the exit door, roughly covering 1/3 of the door and exit. How is this legal? I was under the impression that all exits had to have full unobstructed entry/exit in case of emergency. Thanks in advance.

I'm guessing its been years since you've been on a 757 or you've never flown on a 757?
This seating arrangement is nothing new and has been used on 757's at door 2R and/or 2L since I can remember and there have been no issues with emergency evacuations.

What are you talking about ?! I've flown dozens of 757s, and the vast majority have boarded at 2L, and there has been bulkheads / galleys / closets forward of 2L/R, and seats AFT of the doors. Only legs encroach on the space. DL, UA, Avianca, Jet2....

Maybe you misunderstood what the OP was trying to say? A physical seat encroaches on the exit space.

The 2R door on DL has a seat that partially blocks the door. changing that evac slide is a real pain because of it. It has been that way since the Song configured aircraft and was continued with the 199 pax mod.

I'm pretty sure this is what the OP is talking about. Seen same on JetBlue and (this example) Vietnam Airlines. It is kinda surprising how much it protrudes into the exit and blocks the observation window.

http://imgur.com/gallery/Cj3FzET

SwissCanuck wrote:

What are you talking about ?! I've flown dozens of 757s, and the vast majority have boarded at 2L, and there has been bulkheads / galleys / closets forward of 2L/R, and seats AFT of the doors. Only legs encroach on the space. DL, UA, Avianca, Jet2....

Maybe you misunderstood what the OP was trying to say? A physical seat encroaches on the exit space.

Again another person who has no idea what they are talking about. On DL and UA depending on the cabin configuration on the 757 here are 2 seats at door 2R, on AA depending on the configuration there are 2 seats at door 2R and some configurations have 2 seats at 2L. I haven't miss understood anything there are 757s that actually flying today with the US3 with seats in front of doors 2L/R. On UA row 7 on the 753 has 2 seats that row is in front of door 2R on AA and DL the row number varies because they have different configuration for their 752s and DL on their 753s.

It has been shown in evacs overwing window exits are not as effective as full size doors. People back up and have trouble getting out in smoke filled cabins.

The L1011 has full sized floor level door exits.
The DC 10 did too and what seems like the added advantage of an overwing exit.

Though I preferred the L1011 deign and exit location, this DC 10 design feature probably is the better one as it has been proven time and time again, planes do go into the “drink,” on occasion.

Short of, but mostly off the end of a runway; in a water landing.... I guess no rafts will be getting out of this exit!

To me this is just another example of the FAA allowing the airlines to get away with marginally safe aircraft configurations. Door 3L and R on an AA321 has 2 seats at the front row of that cabin section ( Aisle and middle...no window) That means that the window seat in the next row has great legroom but no place to store anything. When I sit in my jumpseat I am practically wedged up against the 3L door. I'm a larger guy so i must always excuse myself and crawl over the two people to get in my seat. You almost bump knees in the person in the center seat. It's an extremely claustrophobic seat. In an emergency (i have already briefed the pax on what they need to do), they would get out of my way and I would open the door. I would be clearing that row and the row behind. Then I cross over and do the same thing at 3R. After evacuating those 2 rows, i am supposed to elevate in the second row, aisle seat, where i can assess conditions outside and direct the flow. It's an obstacle course,that, just like on the 757 seems to have the effect of slowing things down, because of the limited space the crew has to work with since the seats partially block the exits

jayunited wrote:

SwissCanuck wrote:

What are you talking about ?! I've flown dozens of 757s, and the vast majority have boarded at 2L, and there has been bulkheads / galleys / closets forward of 2L/R, and seats AFT of the doors. Only legs encroach on the space. DL, UA, Avianca, Jet2....

Maybe you misunderstood what the OP was trying to say? A physical seat encroaches on the exit space.

Again another person who has no idea what they are talking about. On DL and UA depending on the cabin configuration on the 757 here are 2 seats at door 2R, on AA depending on the configuration there are 2 seats at door 2R and some configurations have 2 seats at 2L. I haven't miss understood anything there are 757s that actually flying today with the US3 with seats in front of doors 2L/R. On UA row 7 on the 753 has 2 seats that row is in front of door 2R on AA and DL the row number varies because they have different configuration for their 752s and DL on their 753s.

The criticism I have, though, is that as the airlines have been allowed ever the greater leeway to self-regulate (this was a big push for Elizabeth Dole as Reagan's transport secretary in the 1980s), the configurations have gotten tighter with less egress. The original 4-door 757 configuration at Eastern had fully clear exit paths at all three full size sets of doors, plus a relatively clear path (just feet blocking) at the 3 L/R drop-down doors. Then the "supermod" configuration came around at UA with, as you say here, 2-seats in front of 2R but with 2L fully unimpeded. Now you have a similarly-sized A321 with only the far forward and far aft exits unobstructed, and with seats blocking 2L/R and 3 L/R. In fact I believe on the new 191 seater at DL, they are actually putting two seats in as row 27D/E to block 3R - which had been open until the reconfiguration. All new ships are being delivered like this. It is a trend toward ever less egress, despite the age and size of passengers increasing.

I travel DL a lot and my favorite seat is 13 F. I promise you there is tons of room to get out of that door. You compare this to window exits or the 1R "baby door" on the 717 and there is plenty of room to get out of the aircraft.

Also, if you do not like this then you will really not like the A321neo which I believe does not even have the doors at all! This is how they put more seats in the plane.

TW870 wrote:

777Mech wrote:

tsbooker wrote:

Last night I was traveling on a DL A321, and noticed that at door 2L and 2R the seats in the row in front of the exit (I believe row 12) were partially blocking the door. The back of the seat came to approximately the window of the exit door, roughly covering 1/3 of the door and exit. How is this legal? I was under the impression that all exits had to have full unobstructed entry/exit in case of emergency. Thanks in advance.

Because it's not a full door. You can't board through it. Look at it as an overwing exit door.

I hear you, but that is my problem with it. The A321 is 23 feet longer than an A320. If you imagine 2 L/R and 3 L/R as overwing exits, you have a much longer tube with the same exit capacity as an A320. 32 more people than an A320 with similar exit capacity and a far longer travel distance to an unimpeded exit. The A321 is only 9 feet shorter than a 757-200, and at least that aircraft has an unimpeded exit at 2L in addition to the forward and aft exits. In the US we have a lot of older passengers, a lot of large passengers, and a lot of limited mobility passengers. Delta and the feds obviously care about safety and evac standards. I am just saying that it is never good to become complacent, and I fear that the 321 layout is close to crossing a line.

757's have operated for years with the port side D2 partly blocked so it's not a good example just check out seat maps from AA, DL, UA on them. Also was done are rear starboard door on 727-200

skyharborshome wrote:

I travel DL a lot and my favorite seat is 13 F. I promise you there is tons of room to get out of that door. You compare this to window exits or the 1R "baby door" on the 717 and there is plenty of room to get out of the aircraft.

Also, if you do not like this then you will really not like the A321neo which I believe does not even have the doors at all! This is how they put more seats in the plane.

The A321neos with the ACF fuselage have 4 wing exits to make up for the lack of a door 2 ahead of the wing.

My how times change. A Boeing 727-100 with aft floor level exits for unimpeded egress. No not a photo shop young people.

727-200 with extra forward of wing exit.

Guess old people who designed airplanes “when seating wasn’t as dense,” knew nothing about leaving airplanes, compared to new people.

Another potential MAX lesson here for aviation maybe?

Cubsrule wrote:

KlimaBXsst wrote:

727-200 with extra forward of wing exit.

Guess old people who designed airplanes “when seating wasn’t as dense,” knew nothing about leaving airplanes, compared to new people.

Another potential MAX lesson here for aviation maybe?

You've lost me completely. That 72S has fewer exits than a 739 or 321. What's the point?

You've lost me. That 72S actually has MORE exists than a 739 or 321. It's one of the 727HDs UAL had and has one additional exit vs. the 739 or 321. The rear.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

It has been shown in evacs overwing window exits are not as effective as full size doors. People back up and have trouble getting out in smoke filled cabins.

The L1011 has full sized floor level door exits.
The DC 10 did too and what seems like the added advantage of an overwing exit.

Though I preferred the L1011 deign and exit location, this DC 10 design feature probably is the better one as it has been proven time and time again, planes do go into the “drink,” on occasion.

Short of, but mostly off the end of a runway; in a water landing.... I guess no rafts will be getting out of this exit!

Here is an earlier post of mine for the person confused and lost. Yes this old,

UA 727-200 in an “un-dense” configuration had more exits than a new,
UA 737-900 in its present “dense” configuration.

Cubs... not discussing this with you. It’s not complex.

Blocked exits - BAD
Floor level exits - GOOD

KlimaBXsst wrote:

My how times change. A Boeing 727-100 with aft floor level exits for unimpeded egress. No not a photo shop young people.

9 passenger egress EXITS on a Boeing 727-200 “GOOD”
9 passenger egress EXITS on a Boeing 727-100 “BETTER”

(AFT Airstairs included)

Did the ventral stairs on the 727 even count as an emergency exit in terms of the number of seats you were allowed to put in? It’s not like the DC-9/MD-80 where you had the ability to blast out the tail cone and exit through it.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

Cubs... not discussing this with you. It’s not complex.

Blocked exits - BAD
Floor level exits - GOOD

Not discussing this with you. It's not complex.

The aircraft is flying in the US, on the US-registry; thus had been deemed to pass egress tests.
If you feel it's unsafe, write to the FAA and let them deal with it.

Or, even better: refuse to fly in that plane if you feel its seating arrangement does not provide the level of safety you seek.

This may be interesting for the youth here.
Not entirely sure about the answer to the airstair or tail-cone slide. Sorry about that.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TAndXzhgurI

Don't they have 2-2 instead of 3-3 for those seats thogh, thus leaving a boatload of room?

OA940 wrote:

Don't they have 2-2 instead of 3-3 for those seats thogh, thus leaving a boatload of room?

According to seatguru, 3-2 for doors 2L/2R and 2-3 for doors 3L/3R.

Polot wrote:

Did the ventral stairs on the 727 even count as an emergency exit in terms of the number of seats you were allowed to put in? It’s not like the DC-9/MD-80 where you had the ability to blast out the tail cone and exit through it.

viewtopic.php?t=775251

I did find this thread. It does show the aftermath of an MD 80 evac a few years back, but did not come across an answer to your question still.

jayunited wrote:

bgm wrote:

Don’t forget in the US, they have the added bonus of allowing people to put their luggage under the seats at over wing emergency exits. No other country permits this.

You made this same declaration in a thread in 2013 posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=21497375. Here in the U.S. since 2013 we've had quite a few emergency evacuations all without issue.

So while passengers are allowed to place an item underneath the seat in front of them in the emergency exit row the aisle or passageway between those seats still must be clear. Your carry on bag is not allowed to block the exit row it must be able to fit fully underneath the seat or FA's are supposed to place it in the overhead bin. On UA I've seen FA's make sure they check floor and if a customers bag is partially protruding into the passageway between the 2 rows ask or demand the passenger put their bag in the overhead bin.

The greatest threat to a successful emergency exit isn't a passengers bag underneath the seat in front of them or the location of seats in the emergency exit the greatest threat to a successful emergency exit is passengers grabbing their bags out of the over head bins and sliding down evacuation slides with their bags in tote. It doesn't matter what the airline is in almost every emergency evacuation their is a large number of passengers who evacuate with their carry on bags that is what slows down an evacuation and could cost people their lives.

Isn’t it odd that the rest of the world requires the emergency exits be kept clear but the US doesn’t? Kinda like how the FAA was the last agency to ground the MAX. You do realize that in an emergency landing bags will be tossed about as the plane may be subjected to some serious Gs. Do you honestly think those bags that pax put under the seats will remain there?

Do physics work differently in the US?

trex8 wrote:

skyharborshome wrote:

I travel DL a lot and my favorite seat is 13 F. I promise you there is tons of room to get out of that door. You compare this to window exits or the 1R "baby door" on the 717 and there is plenty of room to get out of the aircraft.

Also, if you do not like this then you will really not like the A321neo which I believe does not even have the doors at all! This is how they put more seats in the plane.

The A321neos with the ACF fuselage have 4 wing exits to make up for the lack of a door 2 ahead of the wing.

Exactly my point: some are worried that "part" of the massive door is blocked with seats. All the 321neos will not even have a door and is being replaced with a window exit which requires navigating around seats and exiting something much smaller. Not arguing that this is a good thing, only saying that if this is a problem in your eyes, it will get much worse in your eyes. I have long been questioning whether removing the doors are a good thing yet I am biased that I love to sit in that row with so much room. Like everything else, a lot less room to fit in more people.

From this video you can see the protrusion the OP is referring to: there are three seats each side at 2L/R and the window seats are encroaching on the door.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUNhohtzCQg

However, that does not seem to happen at 3L/R.

Tokyo777 wrote:

14 CFR 25.807 is the answer. It defines minimum exit door size requirements and also the maximum number of occupants you're allowed to exit through a particular door. Airlines can voluntarily de-rate exit doors to something less than what they we're built for to allow encroachment into the egress path.
This is a rather complicated subject though, because you also need to account for the size of the escape slide and also the assist space requirements and the total number of occupants (and considering for blocked exits).
The simple answer is Delta needed a few more inches to get in that extra row of seats and didn't need 4 full pairs of Type C exits. Without knowing the ins and outs of the A321, I'd guess they de-rated from a Type C to a Type III.

My money is on this. If I understand the regulation correctly, downgrading the 2L/R doors to type II doors (min 20"x44") with the rest three pairs being type C doors would mean the maximum seating capacity is 55+40+55+55=205. Deltas config seems to be 189 or 192 seats so its well within limits.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/25.807

KlimaBXsst wrote:

727-200 with extra forward of wing exit.

There actually is history behind those additional exits....

Early in their jet operations United Airlines had a few accidents where passengers survived the accident, but perished before being able to escape. With the introduction of the 727-200, UAL had these exits added for safety. The exit, is referred to as a "jetescape" door and was invented for the DC-8-54JT in case the combi configuration used blocked the overwing exits. Patented as the "Jetescape Evacuation System". (google it)

At the same time, UAL also added an addition pair of these doors in the aft section of their new DC-8-61 and when buying the DC-8-62, theirs were the only non-cargo/combi versions that had these exits.

United was serious about getting people out in an emergency!

Later in the careers of these aircraft, it was decided the extra exits were not necessary and were deactivated. Also, new 727-200s did not have these exits. The DC-8-62 did however, until their retirement from United.

Here, you can see the same aircraft with the extra exit deactivated:

longhauler wrote:

Here, you can see the same aircraft with the extra exit deactivated:

Question: is it a regulatory mandate or just a "common practice" to have the active Emergency Exists highlighted on the outside?
By highlighted, I mean that they are visible on the paint scheme (even if by just a white band around like this 727).

WayexTDI wrote:

Question: is it a regulatory mandate or just a "common practice" to have the active Emergency Exists highlighted on the outside?
By highlighted, I mean that they are visible on the paint scheme (even if by just a white band around like this 727).

I am not sure about the United States, but in Canada their are very definite regulations about how "visible" an active exit must be. Not just the width of the stripe around the exit, but also how contrasting the colours.

It is interesting to note though, being a safety card collector, I note the change in the actual safety cards on the DC-8-61 and 727-200 of United after these exits were deactivated.

WayexTDI wrote:

longhauler wrote:

Here, you can see the same aircraft with the extra exit deactivated:

Question: is it a regulatory mandate or just a "common practice" to have the active Emergency Exists highlighted on the outside?
By highlighted, I mean that they are visible on the paint scheme (even if by just a white band around like this 727).

It's a requirement. I can't recall which emergency it was, but fire crews had trouble locating the exits on the exterior, and therefore the rule of having them outlined came into practice.

Here is the actual text of this federal regulation:

14 CFR 25.811 (f) Emergency exit marking

(f) Each emergency exit that is required to be openable from the outside, and its means of opening, must be marked on the outside of the airplane. In addition, the following apply:

(1) The outside marking for each passenger emergency exit in the side of the fuselage must include a 2-inch colored band outlining the exit.

(2) Each outside marking including the band, must have color contrast to be readily distinguishable from the surrounding fuselage surface. The contrast must be such that if the reflectance of the darker color is 15 percent or less, the reflectance of the lighter color must be at least 45 percent. “Reflectance” is the ratio of the luminous flux reflected by a body to the luminous flux it receives. When the reflectance of the darker color is greater than 15 percent, at least a 30-percent difference between its reflectance and the reflectance of the lighter color must be provided.

(3) In the case of exits other than those in the side of the fuselage, such as ventral or tailcone exits, the external means of opening, including instructions if applicable, must be conspicuously marked in red, or bright chrome yellow if the background color is such that red is inconspicuous. When the opening means is located on only one side of the fuselage, a conspicuous marking to that effect must be provided on the other side