Security Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 963–978 | Cite as

Human behaviour in emergency situations: Comparisons between aviation and rail domains

  • Alex StedmonEmail author
  • Glyn Lawson
  • Laura Lewis
  • Dale Richards
  • Rebecca Grant
Original Article


This article presents a comparative review of the knowledge base regarding human behaviour in emergencies for both aviation and rail domains. Generic models of human behaviour in emergency situations are introduced and specific attention is then focussed on methods of behaviour prediction, exhibited behaviours in emergencies and methods of aiding evacuation across both modes of transport. Using established knowledge from the aviation domain, it has been possible to make observations and comparisons about the rail domain. Traditionally, the aviation domain has been a major focus of research attention and this is used to inform and interpret the rail domain. By drawing comparisons across these domains for human behaviour in emergency situations, the observations are discussed along with recommendations for future policies/planning for emergencies and future research areas.


rail aviation emergency situations human behaviour models of behaviour 


  1. Aguirre, B.E., Wenger, D. and Vigo, G. (1998) A test of the emergent norm theory of collective behavior. Sociological Forum 13(2): 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Air Accidents Investigation Branch. (1988) Aircraft Accident Report 8/88. Report on the Accident to Boeing 737-236 series 1, G-BGJL at Manchester International Airport on 22 August 1985. London, UK: Department for Transport.Google Scholar
  3. Blake, S.J., Galea, E.R., Gwynne, S., Lawrence, P.J. and Filippidis, L. (2002) Examining the effect of exit separation on aircraft evacuation performance during 90-second certification trials using evacuation modelling techniques. The Aeronautical Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society 106(1055): 1–16.Google Scholar
  4. Capote, J.A., Alvear, D., Abreu, O., Lazaro, M. and Cuesta, A. (2008) Evacuation modelling of fire scenarios in passenger trains. In: W.W.F. Klingsch, C. Rogsch, A. Schadschneider and M. Schreckenberg (eds.) Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2008. Wuppertal, Germany: Springer, pp. 705–711.Google Scholar
  5. Capote, J.A., Alvear, D., Abreu, O., Lazaro, M. and Cuesta, A. (2009) An evacuation simulation method for a high speed passenger train. 4th International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire Conference Proceedings. Cambridge, UK: Interscience Communications, pp. 613–618.Google Scholar
  6. Cocking, C., Drury, J. and Reicher, S. (2009) The psychology of crowd behaviour in emergency evacuations: Results from two interview studies and implications for the fire and rescue services. The Irish Journal of Psychology 30(1–2): 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System for the rail industry (CIRAS). (2009) Crowd control at kings cross. Report no. 40749,, accessed 10 March 2015.
  8. Drury, J. (2004) No need to panic. The Psychologist 17(3): 118–119.Google Scholar
  9. Feinberg, W.E. and Johnson, N.R. (2001) The ties that bind: A macro-level approach to panic. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 19(3): 269–295.Google Scholar
  10. Galea, E.R., Blake, S.J., Gwynne, S. and Lawrence, P.J. (2003) The use of evacuation modelling techniques in the design of very large transport aircraft and blended wing body aircraft. The Aeronautical Journal 107(1070): 207–218.Google Scholar
  11. Galea, E.R. and Gwynne, S. (2000a) Estimating the flow rate capacity of an overturned rail carriage end exit in the presence of smoke. Fire and Materials 24(6): 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galea, E.R. and Gwynne, S. (2000b) Evacuating an overturned smoke filled rail carriage, From Fire Safety Engineering Group, School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences, University of Greenwich,, accessed 3 May 2010.
  13. Gwynne, S., Galea, E.R., Owen, M., Lawrence, P.J. and Filippidis, L. (1999) A review of the methodologies used in the computer simulation of evacuation from the built environment. Building and Environment 34(6): 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jong-Hoon, K., Kim, W.-H., College, K., Roh, S.-K., Lee, D.-H. and Jung, W.-S. (2009) Experiment of the subway car egress. 4th International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire Conference Proceedings. Cambridge, UK: Interscience Communications, pp. 619–622.Google Scholar
  15. Kangedal, P. and Nilsson, D. (2002) Fire Safety on Intercity and Interregional Multiple Unit Trains. Lund, Sweden: Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund University.Google Scholar
  16. Leach, J. (2004) Why people ‘freeze’ in an emergency: Temporal and cognitive constraints on survival responses. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 75(6): 539–542.Google Scholar
  17. March, J.G. (1994) A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York: Freepress.Google Scholar
  18. Mawson, A.R. (1978) Panic behaviour: A review and a new hypothesis. Paper presented at the 9th World Congress of Sociology; August, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
  19. Mawson, A.R. (1980) Is the concept of panic useful for study purposes? In: B. Levin (ed.), Behavior in Fires. National Bureau of Standards, Special Publication, Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Behavior in Fire Emergencies, 29 October 1978. NBS Report NBSIR-902070. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  20. Mawson, A.R. (2005) Understanding mass panic and other collective responses to threat and disaster. Psychiatry 68(2): 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mott MacDonald. (2010) STEPS software,, accessed 3 May 2010.
  22. Muir, H.C. (1996) Research into the factors influencing survival in aircraft accidents. Aeronautical Journal 100(995): 177–181.Google Scholar
  23. Muir, H.C., Bottomley, D.M. and Marrison, C. (1996) Effects of motivation and cabin configuration on emergency aircraft evacuation behaviour and rates of egress. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 6(1): 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muir, H.C. and Thomas, L. (2004) Passenger safety and very large transportation aircraft. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology 76(5): 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (2010) Loss of Thrust in Both Engines After Encountering a Flock of Birds and Subsequent Ditching on the Hudson River, US Airways Flight 1549, Airbus A320-214, N106US, Weehawken, New Jersey, 15 January 2009. Washington DC: National Transportation Safety Board.Google Scholar
  26. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1993) Aircraft Evacuation Testing: Research and Technology Issues. Background Paper, Technical Report OTA-BP-SET-121: NTIS order #PB94-107620. New Jersey, NY: Office of Technology Assessment Congress of the USA.Google Scholar
  27. Oswald, M., Kirchberger, H. and Lebeda, C. (2008) Evacuation of a high floor metro train in a tunnel situation: Experimental findings. In: W.W.F. Klingsch, C. Rogsch, A. Schadschneider and M. Schreckenberg (eds.) Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2008. Wuppertal, Germany: Springer, pp. 67–81.Google Scholar
  28. Oswald, M., Lebeda, C., Schneider, U. and Kirchberger, H. (2005) Full-scale evacuation experiments in a smoke filled rail carriage – A detailed study of passenger behaviour under reduced visibility. In: N. Waldau-Drexler, P. Gattermann, H. Knoflacher and M. Schreckenberg (eds.) Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2005. Vienna, Austria: Springer, pp. 41–55.Google Scholar
  29. Owen, M., Galea, E.R., Lawrence, P.J. and Filippidis, L. (1999) An aircraft accident database of human experience in evacuation derived from aviation accident reports. Fire and Materials 23(6): 363–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pan, X., Han, C.S., Dauber, K. and Law, K.H. (2006) Human and social behavior in computational modelling and analysis of egress. Automation in Construction 15(4): 448–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Railway Group Standard Board (RGSB). (2009) GM/RT2130 Vehicle Fire, Safety and Evacuation. London: RSSB.Google Scholar
  32. Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB). (2007) Passenger Containment: A Review of Research Carried out by RSSB on Behalf of the Rail Industry and Core Recommendations. London: RSSB.Google Scholar
  33. Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB). (2009) Review of Injury Causation and Human Factors in Vehicle Accidents. Detailed Data Analysis. London: RSSB.Google Scholar
  34. Sime, J.D. (1980) The concept of ‘panic’. In: D. Canter (ed.) Fires and Human Behavior. London: Wiley, pp. 63–81.Google Scholar
  35. Sime, J.D. (1983) Affiliative behaviours during escape to building exits. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3(1): 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Snow, C.C., Carroll, J.J. and Allgood, M.A. (1970) Survival in emergency escape from passenger aircraft (DOT/FAA/AM70-16). Washington DC: Office of Aviation Medicine.Google Scholar
  37. Turner, R. (1964) Collective behaviour. In: R.E.L. Paris (ed.) Handbook of Modern Sociology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 382–425.Google Scholar
  38. Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S. (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorisation Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  39. Wickens, C.D. (1992) Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, 2nd edn. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alex Stedmon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Glyn Lawson
    • 2
  • Laura Lewis
    • 2
  • Dale Richards
    • 1
  • Rebecca Grant
    • 1
  1. 1.Human Systems Integration Group, Coventry UniversityCoventryUK
  2. 2.Human Factors Research Group, The University of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations