For anybody else who is wondering if this would always go so smoothly in a real emergency: <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/do-aircraft-evacuation-tests-work-315093/" rel="nofollow">http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/do-aircraft-evacua...</a><p>Some notable points from that article:<p>Trials assume that passengers have no friends/family on board and further ignores the presence of passengers with disabilities<p>Full-scale evacuations [tests] remain a costly headache at around $2 million, not to mention the risk of litigation when things go wrong. While most common injuries to volunteers range from cuts and bruises to broken bones, the industry is haunted by the McDonnell Douglas evacuation certification trial for the MD-11 in October 1991 when one volunteer was left permanently paralysed.<p>In one real life 737 crash, the last passenger came out 5.5min after the burning aircraft had ceased moving, while in the 737 certification trial, the entire load of passengers and crew evacuated the aircraft in 75 seconds.<p>Under the current "make or break" single-test regime, the aircraft will pass as long as the result is below the 90 second threshold and it is argued that the current procedures are designed with the sole purpose of passing the test - even if that does not necessarily mean they will work in real situations.<p>Certification based on a combination of computer simulation and real world testing is suggested as a way forward.