While flying has remained the safest mode of transportation for years now, of late, there has been an undeniable increase in incidents, close calls, and accidents worldwide. As such, it is worth evaluating whether the safety standards for procedures, such as emergency evacuation, remain relevant today or require updates.

The above question is considered following the release of the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) report regarding a 2025 incident in the US, which saw passenger noncompliance and a reaction during an emergency evacuation, damaging the aircraft’s safety slides.

The Incident: United Airlines’ Airbus A319 Evacuation After Engine Failure

Credit: Shutterstock

This incident occurred in February 2025, when an Airbus A319 operated by United Airlines suffered an engine failure during its takeoff roll at George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH). This prompted the flight crew to initiate a high-speed takeoff rejection at 115 knots (213 kmph) and to request that emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks, meet the aircraft on the runway.

The aircraft involved, N837UA, is over 25 years old and was operating the flight UA1382, bound for LaGuardia Airport (LGA). While the aircraft can accommodate 126 passengers, on that day the flight reportedly carried 107 passengers and five crew members. All passengers and crew members evacuated the aircraft with no reported injuries.

The engine failure reported occurred on the aircraft’s number two engine (the right engine), and the aircraft was met by fire trucks. While it was reported that passengers were panicking due to a fire in the engine, it was later confirmed that there was no fire for emergency responders to put out. While the aircraft was grounded after the incident, it returned to service around a month later.

The NTSB Findings: Miscommunication & Passenger Non-Compliance

Credit: Shutterstock

Following the incident in February 2025, the NTSB released the final incident report last week, shedding light on several important points. One was a miscommunication between cabin crew and flight crew, while the other was passengers panicking and not complying with crew instructions.

Crew miscommunication

The NTSB report states that after the aircraft came to a halt, the cabin crew initiated the passenger evacuation using the aircraft’s emergency slides. However, this decision to evacuate the passengers was not communicated to the flight crew, nor was the evacuation alarm activated. Due to a lack of coordination between the two sets of crew, the report indicated that the aircraft’s left engine (engine one) remained running during the evacuation, which was very risky and compromised safety.

Passenger non-compliance

The report also found that passengers were in a state of panic, creating a stressful and chaotic environment for both passengers and crew members, and that multiple passengers reportedly shouted that the engine was on fire. Some passengers were reportedly standing and retrieving their belongings, while three passengers pushed past a crew member manning the exit and jumped down the slide before it was fully deployed, causing it to deflate and become unusable.

The passengers are always instructed during the safety briefing (by safety video or crew members) that it is imperative that they should leave their bags and belongings when evacuating the aircraft, and yet, as seen in many scenarios, a small portion of the passengers unfortunately do not comply, putting themselves and fellow passengers or crew members at serious risk.

Only 90 Seconds To Evacuate The Aircraft

Credit: Shutterstock

One of the key aspects considered during the certification of any aircraft type is the ability for passengers to evacuate the aircraft within 90 seconds of the process commencing, using only 50% of the aircraft’s exits. This is affected by factors such as the number of exits the aircraft was designed with and the types of exit doors used.

Subsequently, these metrics determine the number of seats an airline can accommodate in each aircraft cabin, based on its onboard product and cabin configuration, ultimately dictating the aircraft’s passenger capacity for that airline. This can further influence the seat dimensions an airline might choose for its products, because the more exits available, the more passengers an airline can fit in the cabin.

Perhaps the best example to explain this in real-life operations could be the Boeing 737 MAX 8-200 operated by airlines such as Ryanair. While the typical 737 MAX 8 aircraft can accommodate up to 189 passengers, the MAX 8-200 variant features an additional exit on each side of the fuselage, allowing carriers to configure a high-density layout seating up to 210 passengers while meeting evacuation regulations.

Door Types Affect The Evacuation Flow Rate

Credit: Shutterstock

As mentioned above, the number of doors, as well as the door categories installed on the aircraft, can influence the number of passengers that can be accommodated onboard. This is primarily because the different door categories have varying regulatory ratings when it comes to the number of passengers it can accommodate during an evacuation.

According to Aviation Services company Sofema and the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Flight Standardization Board Report for the A350, the dimensions of various door categories influence the maximum number of passengers an aircraft can handle.

It is worth noting that the door categories listed in the above table also include doors used onboard smaller private aviation aircraft and even general aviation light aircraft. Regardless of aircraft type, the 90-second evacuation regulation remains applicable, and the door category still limits the maximum number of passengers allowed onboard, known as the “exit limit.”

Are The Current Evacuation Rules Outdated?

Credit: Shutterstock

After evaluating a string of incidents over recent years, the FAA began conducting research and studies to determine whether the existing evacuation regulations and protocols remain viable for today’s operations. According to an NBC News report, the FAA has already instructed airlines to re-evaluate their emergency evacuation procedures and all related crew training.

In a number of recent incidents, the evacuation procedure exceeded the 90-second requirement, and a key contributor to the longer evacuation was that several passengers spent time retrieving their carry-on luggage from the overhead lockers. This can be particularly concerning onboard narrowbody aircraft, where a block anywhere within the aircraft’s single aisle can cost passengers stuck in line valuable seconds. The time element is critical, which is why passengers are instructed to familiarize themselves with the cabin layout and identify the nearest exit to their seat.

Another finding was that, in a study conducted by the FAA, aging demographics and passengers with limited mobility can also impact the cabin evacuation time. In one trial with a group of passengers over 60, the evacuation time was 141 seconds,51 seconds longer than the current recommended 90 seconds. However, it is worth noting that it is not all down to passenger behavior.

Cabin Configurations & Layouts Are Also A Factor

Credit: Shutterstock

Beyond passenger behavior, it is worth noting that the existing 90-second evacuation regulation is decades old, and during this period, aviation has evolved significantly, with one key area being how airlines design their onboard products. As the aviation market shifts, carriers have been continuously densifying their economy cabins (especially low-cost carriers on narrowbody aircraft).

While this is limited by the door category and the aircraft’s overall exit limit, it is worth noting that the space allocated per passenger within the economy cabin (which also accommodates the majority of the passengers) is noticeably smaller than what was available decades ago. Naturally, this reduction in space can also impair the speed at which passengers can move about the cabin, which can be critical during an emergency evacuation.

That being said, there are a number of airlines, such as Japan Airlines, that opt to configure their economy cabins in a less-dense layout by removing one seat per row. By doing so, the airline not only allows passengers to have a more comfortable flight experience (especially on long-haul journeys), but also provides additional space in the cabin, which positively contributes to the outcome of an emergency evacuation, improving passenger flow within the cabin and through the emergency exit.