A380 Passenger EVAC announcement

[747FOCAL]

From SpeedNews:

AIRBUS plans in 2005 to perform evacuation tests for A380 with 850 pax; all 850 must exit aircraft within 90 seconds. :E

I would pay a pretty penny to be able to watch what is certainly going to be one of the most interesting aviation events in recent history as well as be responsible for the most deaths from an airplane that never left the hanger or even started its engines. :(

[Vee One...Rotate]

I think 747FOCAL was being sarcastic :O

V1R

P.S. Hmmm...850 passengers in 90 seconds? That's about 10 per second...crikey.

P.P.S. The above post has dissappeared meaning this reply now makes no sense, oh well.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

This is using only 50% of the exits on the aircraft.
I have read that this time they will be using aircraft lighting (not in the dark) and will have the slides inflated before the doors are opened.

[Vee One...Rotate]

Anyone know how many exits there are?

V1R

[catchup]

If it doesn't work, regulations will be changed.

regards

[hobie]

with 16 passenger doors thats 53 pas. per door or approx 1.7 seconds per pas. (with all doors used)

Still sounds fast? .....

[Vee One...Rotate]

Especially if 50% of those 16 exits aren't used...! :{

V1R

[747FOCAL]

6 on top so they get to use 3 of them. I believe the max capacity of the lower deck is around 500 so the other 350 will be up top.

[catchup]

16 ? better think of 8 !

regards

[747FOCAL]

catchup,

They may change them over there, but in the USA everyone knows changing a FAR to be LESS restrictive is like getting the USA government to accept we are no longer a democracy.


"Who cares about democracy, it was getting old anyway.........." G.W Bush at his graduation speach

[catchup]

@747focal


:O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O

that's a good one.

;)

[hobie]

this is worth reading .....

http://www.atca.org/singlenews.asp?item_ID=2270

[ayrprox]

to quote Mr Gunson's air traffic after dinner speech
a la generation game
" you've got 90 seconds to get 850 people out through 8 doors..... Good game good game"

[747FOCAL]

What I want to know is where are they going to get 20 of the meanest, ugliest and strongest flight attendants on the job? :E

[catchup]

@747focal

Weel, that's pretty easy. First choice would be the big US carriers I guess....

:)

[747FOCAL]

Yah maybe from the USA, but I can think of a few others that will I won't name...............

[catchup]

Maybe the irish have a few left.....

[Huck]

No argument here....

[RatherBeFlying]

A more realistic test would be with a retracted nose gear.

People evacuating the Gimli Glider at the rear had a vertical drop and several were seriously injured:(

The rear exits from the A380 upper deck with a retracted/broken nose gear may be even more exciting:uhoh:

[catchup]

Yeah, but that's not part of the game. Isn't it?

[747FOCAL]

Catchup,

Actually it can be part of the game. Read the FAR on EVAC. It is up to the administrator to decide if a collapsed gear test is warranted. The FAA at this time is assessing that fact. :cool:

[surely not]

Did the 747 have a retracted nosewheel test evacuation? genuine question, not an attempt to be partisan one way or the other.

[nooluv]

:confused: Isn't the max passenger capacity 555?
Where will they put the the other 300?

nooluv...........

[Caslance]

It would certainly be interesting to see a realistic evacuation test on a JAL B747-446D in the 568 pax "high density" configuration, too. :ooh:

[STANDTO]

I Wouldn't get on an A380 unless my life depended on it. The crowd dynamics of 850 people alone scare the pants off me. This thing is just too big. I have half a view that despite the millions spent designing and building it, it either won't take off, or be such a pig in the air that it will be a liability in the pattern.

Position of ignorance, but we will see.

[JackOffallTrades]

I seriously doubt the simulation will involve stereotypical passengers. How many infants will be involved? How many old feeble folk? and how much cash are the 850 evacuees getting at the bottom of the slide??

I reckon Airbus are worried about this test.:\

[sixmilehighclub]

400 VOLUNTEERS REQUIRED FOR UPPER DECK EVACUATION TEST.

Please bring with you:
1 x Parachute
1 x Crashmat
1 x Health Insurance Policy
1 x Life Insurance Policy
1 x Ambulance
1 x Bottle of Brandy (for dutch courage and minor abrasions)

[Mr @ Spotty M]

It’s not only Airbus getting worried, but Boeing also, as they have the 787 to come in a few years time.
I think I can remember reading a long time ago, Boeing saying that it might have done the last full evacuation tests on a test aircraft.
This was because the serious injuries being counted on the volunteers and how much the law suites were costing.

[Rwy in Sight]

A somewhat irrelevant question. How does Airbus find volunters - pax (sp) for the trial?


Rwy in Sight

[DingerX]

Come on folks, those evac tests are set up as cakewalks.
Sure half the exits don't work. The other half do. Only half the exits have cameras over them. What do you think they train the "volunteers" to do?
There's no way you can "simulate" an evacuation of untrained passengers using live persons, without being sued for traumatizing someone. So you set up the "Best case" scenario, show that the system works, and hope the airframe designers haven't forsaken common sense in the hope of making a buck.


And I'll take bottom deck, exit row in the tailcone, please (be a good chap and don't break the nosegear).

[rotornut]

The real scoop is this: Airbus will be using US Airways fight attendants, noted for their abilities to get pax off planes as quicky as possible with their rude and "I don't give a damn attitude". The latest word is that it will take about .2 secs per passenger to evacuate the whole plane.

[Ontariotech]

Are elderly people part of this test, or children, or people in wheelchairs? Is that factored in to the test in any way?

[747FOCAL]

Ontariotech,

Yes there are required percentage of passengers that represent certain demographics. The FAR for it is around here somewhere if you search for it. :)

They use dolls for the babys not real ones.

[Jodiekeyz]

Are they planning on beaming them out in a star trek style? Interesting to see this event!
\:ooh:

[Anti Skid On]

I used to think I was a cynical bar steward, but after reading some of your comments I realise I am quite sane in comparison.

Lest we forget the number incidents where people have perished despite the so called test results - they don't really mean that much.

Let's see what the test proves and if it is a farce, then what Airbus does about it.

[surely not]

Why is everyone focusing on just the A380, surely these tests are now more rigourous than they have been in the past, therefore we should be applying them retrospectively to all wide bodied a/c currently in service carrying passengers, in any part of the world. I seem to recall reading that none of the older wide bodies would meet the new regulations.

[eal401]

Perhaps 747FOCAL could provide us with detailed information about 747 upper deck trials.

Or would that involve not slagging off Airbus* and so be beyond his limited capabilities?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

*I speak as someone who will happily fly A or B and am not one of these sad little "if it ain't Boeing I ain't going" no-lifes.

P.P.S. How many passengers have died aboard B747s?

[swh]

I understand that the FAA is reconsidering the regs as after the SQ006 accident, two slides in that 744 inflated in the cabin pinning cabin crew against the walls of the aircraft.

The slides on the 744 have not been tested, everything since the 747-100 was done "by anaysis" only.

Seem to remember that the 777-300 didnt have a full blown demo, just "analysis".

However...its a level playing field right

:rolleyes:

[chippy63]

RWY in sight,
They will hire all the jockeys, acrobats and stuntmen that they can find!:sad:

[Plastique]

On the Cranfield University evac rig, the only way to get the test subjects (mostly postgrad students) to evac as if their life depended on it was to give a 20pound bar tab to the first 10 to evacuate. That was back when 20quid would get you a heavy night on the tiles.

This resulted in the types of behaviour seen in real evacs (people climbing over seats and pushing past others).

[Flying_Frisbee]

Can anyone comfirm what the evac tests consisted of in the past? I seem to remember seeing a documentary which suggested that the 747 test consisted of students lining up on a platform OUTSIDE the aircraft doors and running through and out the other side. The reason being that it was only intended to demontrate the rate at which people could get out the doors and down the slides.
Not much of an indication of what would happen in a real life emergency!
The same documentary also mentioned Plastique's point about giving "prizes" to try to get some realism in the student's behaviour.

[southernmtn]

I would like to name the A380, appropriately,
"SPRUCE GOOSE II":}

[747FOCAL]

swh,

The 747 was done with full EVAC tests. Nothing flying in the US was done by analysis and is why Airbus will be running a full fledged test if they want it flying here as a passenger airplane.

eal401,

Limited abilities eh? If you had the ability to spell and do a search you may notice I have already done just that and posted the full EVAC requirement. Read it and you will understand why this is going to be a very interesting day for the aviation community. :E


Part 25 AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
Appendix J--Emergency Evacuation

Sec. J25.1

Emergency [Evacuation]

The following test criteria and procedures must be used for showing compliance with Sec. 25.803:
(a) The emergency evacuation must be conducted either during the dark of the night or during daylight with the dark of night simulated. If the demonstration is conducted indoors during daylight hours, it must be conducted with each window covered and each door closed to minimize daylight effect. Illumination on the floor or ground may be used, but it must be kept low and shielded against shining into the airplane's windows or doors.
(b) The airplane must be in a normal attitude with landing gear extended.
(c) [Unless the airplane is equipped with an off-wing descent means, stands or ramps may be used for descent from the wing to the ground. Safety equipment such as mats or inverted life rafts may be placed on the floor or ground to protect participants. No other equipment that is not part of the emergency evacuation equipment of the airplane may be used to aid the participants in reaching the ground.]
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this Appendix, only the airplane's emergency lighting system may provide illumination.
(e) All emergency equipment required for the planned operation of the airplane must be installed.
(f) Each external door and exit, and each internal door or curtain, must be in the takeoff configuration.
(g) [Each crewmember must be seated in the normally assigned seat for takeoff and must remain in the seat until receiving the signal for commencement of the demonstration. Each crewmember must be a person having knowledge of the operation of exits and emergency equipment and, if compliance with Sec. 121.291 is also being demonstrated, each flight attendant must be a member of a regularly scheduled line crew.]

(h) A representative passenger load of persons in normal health must be used as follows:
(1) [At least 40 percent of the passenger load must be female.
(2) At least 35 percent of the passenger load must be over 50 years of age.
(3) At least 15 percent of the passenger load must be female and over 50 years of age.]
(4) Three life-size dolls, not included as part of the total passenger load, must be carried by passengers to simulate live infants 2 years old or younger.
(5) Crewmembers, mechanics, and training personnel, who maintain or operate the airplanes in the normal course of their duties, may not be used as passengers.
(i) No passenger may be assigned a specific seat except as the Administrator may require. Except as required by subparagraph (g) of this paragraph, no employee of the applicant may be seated next to an emergency exit.


(j) Seat belts and shoulder harnesses (as required) must be fastened.
(k) Before the start of the demonstration, approximately one-half of the total average amount of carry-on baggage, blankets, pillows, and other similar articles must be distributed at several locations in aisles and emergency exit access ways to create minor obstructions.
(l) No prior indication may be given to any crewmember or passenger of the particular exits to be used in the demonstration.
(m) The applicant may not practice, rehearse, or describe the demonstration for the participants nor may any participant have taken part in this type of demonstration within the preceding 6 months.
(n) The pretakeoff passenger briefing required by Sec. 121.571 may be given. The passengers may also be advised to follow directions of crewmembers but not be instructed on the procedures to be followed in the demonstration.
(o) If safety equipment as allowed by paragraph (c) of this appendix is provided, either all passenger and cockpit windows must be blacked out or all of the emergency exits must have safety equipment in order to prevent disclosure of the available emergency exits.

(p) Not more than 50 percent of the emergency exits in the sides of the fuselage of an airplane that meets all of the requirements applicable to required emergency exits for that airplane may be used for the demonstration. Exits that are not to be used in the demonstration must have the exit handle deactivated or must be indicated by red lights, red tape, or other acceptable means placed outside the exits to indicate fire or other reason why they are unusable. The exits to be used must be representative of all the emergency exits on the airplane and must be designated by the applicant, subject to approval by the Administrator. At least one floor level exit must be used.

(q) [Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, all evacuees must leave the airplane by a means provided as part of the airplane's equipment.
(r) The applicant's approved procedures must be fully utilized, except the flightcrew must take no active role in assisting others inside the cabin during the demonstration.]
(s) The evacuation time period is completed when the last occupant has evacuated the airplane and is on the ground. Provided that the acceptance rate of the stand or ramp is no greater than the acceptance rate of the means available on the airplane for descent from the wing during an actual crash situation, evacuees using stands or ramps allowed by paragraph (c) of this Appendix are considered to be on the ground when they are on a stand or ramp.

Does that answer your question?

[eal401]

Does that answer your question?
Yes. So the A380 will have to abide by those, which I am sure it will.

As someone pointed out, with 16 pax doors, that makes 53 pax/per door, or 106 if 50% or doors are disabled.

What's the absolute maximum capacity of the 744 main deck? Shall we say 500? (We'll ignore the upper deck, you usually do in such arguments) With 10 maindeck doors, that works out at, er, 50 per door, or 100 if 50% disabled.

Assuming average, real world use, the A380 will have 550 passengers. Making the total per door 35 (70). Compared to the 744 which has on the main deck, shall we say 350? Making the total per door, um, 35 (70).

Clearly, reality will be different based on the fit of the aircraft, but as a rough and ready comparison.....well.....there doesn't actually seem to be a comparison.

[LowObservable]

If you do a search you'll find all sorts of interesting Goodrich patents.
Suffice it to say that if the A380 doesn't sell, they'll be able to use it as the central feature in a waterpark.
But why does everyone get so excited about 850 pax? Even when the A380 operates at max pax load (which nobody plans to do for years) it's a smaller relative jump in size than the 747, in its day.
Have we all turned into nervous Nellies in this business? Or have some people taken too generous a swig of the tainted Starbucks?

[eal401]

But why does everyone get so excited about 850 pax?
Especially as most will not operate at that density. Not on the -800 model anyway.

[Llademos]

Plastique - your description of how they get the volunteers out fast (with beer chits) is spot on ... I did it many years ago and found that you can run over seats with people still strapped in and get through the overwing exit quite easily when money is at stake!

:p

[swh]

747focal,

The 747-400 was not tested in a full evac. What has been demostrated in a real emergency with the 747-400 is that these slides will inflate inside the cabin during an emergency, this happened with teh SQ006 accident pinning crew in the cabin between the inflated slide and the fuselage.

Not all exit types on the 747-400 were test in demostrated tests, alayss was used to say.

In some configurations, the 747 is certified to use "19 persons on upper deck equipped with emergency descent reels and harnesses" these were never demostrated.

If you look at "TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET NO. A20WE" for the 747 you will note that the FAA wrote a "letter" known as "Special Condition No. 25-71-NW-3" which allows for increased numbers on the upper deck.

Correct me if I am wrong, the 747-100 was demostrated with 4 pair of Type "A" exits on main deck, by anaysis this was increased to 550 pax by using 5 pair of Type "A" exits on main deck.

e.g
4 pair 440 pax
5 pair 550 pax
i.e 1 pair 110 pax, counting 50% loss of doors, 110 people per door.

eal401,

Main deck 747 capacity is dependant on the number of pairs of Type "A" exits on main deck, 440 for four pair, 550 for 5 pair.

:ok:

[HughMartin]

There was an interesting test done some years ago which was much more realistic.

The aim of the "standard" test is to get everyone out in 90 seconds. To this end, everyone contributes to the task and helps everyone else to achieve the goal.

In a real accident, the goal is to get YOURSELF (and maybe your family) out and to hell with everyone else. To try and simulate this, the "pax" where told that only the first third of the group out of the aircraft would get $50. The remainder would get nothing.

The result of the test was significantly different to the "standard" with a much longer evacuation time.

Can't remember who carried out this test and maybe I have some of the numbers wrong but the principle is there. I also seem to remember a test when all the cabin crew jumped first and left the "pax" to themselves. can't remember the result of that one. Can anyone provide further details?

[eal401]

HughMartin, it was most likely Cranfield University.

[MarkD]

On this and other forums, we see a lot of people with agendas of one form or another (airline XXX is about to go bankrupt, aircraft YYY is unsound, country ZZZ favours its own airline).

747FOCAL has brought up the question of EVAC of A380 several times before. Now he is saying deaths will occur from it. This is the kind of stuff journos feed on and we know such journos read PPRuNe.

I think people should have the freedom to think these things, and to say them, but 747FOCAL has done nothing to spread FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) about 380 for some time now in a way WA based Microsoft would be proud.

I challenge 747FOCAL to remove himself from PPRuNe for 1 month from the day of the 380 evac if it is carried out without any fatalities. I offer to remove myself from PPRuNe for the same period if a fatality occurs.

Fair enough?

[747FOCAL]

swh,

The 747-400 claimed equivelency to a lot fo the 747 Classics EVAC test. The A380 has no like airplane to claim equivelency on.


MarkD- I will be just as happy as the rest if the A380 passes and nobody dies trying to prove it. But, I don't see why either of us has to leave for being wrong in opinion. Over here in the USA we are allowed to have a different opinion than the rest and not be punished or persecuted for it either. :rolleyes:

[Caslance]

MarkD- I will be just as happy as the rest if the A380 passes and nobody dies trying to prove it. Yes, and I'll be the next Pope. :rolleyes:

[CM_Falcon]

One of the problems with a more realistic test is that the injury risk increases dramatically. Isn’t it better to have a simplified test that even though not completely realistic gives a good idea of what you would get in a realistic situation and keeps the risk at a level where you can get participants? I for one would not participate in a test where you evacuate in to a burning field.

Since all tests have approximately the same error the result should be valid. Then you can argue if it is enough to bring everyone out in 90 seconds using half the doors. My best guess is that for situations where it isn’t enough a lower time would not make a real difference.

[747FOCAL]

CM_Falcon,

The truth is that 90 seconds is generous. Everyone in aviation that truly knows the reality understands that 20 seconds is generous in an uncontrolled landing with survivors trying to get out of a gradually building fire within the cabin.
:(

[eal401]

Ultimately, no simulation of this type can ever accurately portray reality. Any aircraft can pass a test (Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, whoever) and subsequently crash causing people to die because they can't get out. It is a fact of life, the same as cars, buses, trains, buildings etc. Designers can only try their best. And Airbus have done this.

[747FOCAL]

And I would agree with you on that..........:E :E :E

We aren't a very forgiving lot now are we? :}

[jafo33]

Folks,

Wan't going to post a reply on here but after reading through all your comments, I felt I had to.

First, I have to say that I don't favour Airbus over Boeing or vice versa. (I'm a turboprop driver). But this is not really my point.

I have to agree with EAL401 when he says that designers can only try their best. No-one at Airbus or Boeing wants a fatality on their aircraft during operations, drill or evacuations. No aircraft engineer has sat down and deliberately thought up a compromised, dangerous design.

I was reminded of this very recently when going through my late father's notes and papers. As an aircraft designer for over 30 years with BAe he was one of several tasked with looking at safety and evac systems following the B737 fire at Manchester in the '80s.

Reading through his papers, which included the accident reports, I was reminded of the utter chaos and panic on board as people scrambled to get out, ignoring serviceable exits. Many of those people ran forwards, ignoring closer, usable exits behind them and died because of it.

Recently on BBC radio I listened to a woman who had escaped from that flight. Seated right at the back, she described how she fought her way halfway down the cabin to use one of the overwings to escape. Her description of what it was like on board was hair-raising. I really don't think anyone can build for these circumstances. If they did, the planes might never leave the ground.

Its not how many exits you have or chutes that matter. Its how well the people can cope with what's happening to them. Remeber how dis-orientating the fire and smoke drills are. Now imagine a few hundred people who have never done that drill, panicking and trying to get out. There isn't really a perfect solution to this is there?

These are my feelings on this - I'm not looking for a flaming. But remember that, regardless of who make the aircraft, no static drill in a hangar can ever come close to the real thing and all the designers can do is their best.

[747FOCAL]

What a true aircraft designer hopes for is to design an aircraft where there is good chance of surviving initial impact, but has a fuselage that will crack open like an egg and spill all the people into the grass so they can run away before the fire kills them.

If you look at some of the biggest aircrashes in history where there were survivors, the majority got spilled out onto the grass. Very few survivors make it off the plane when there is fire and the fuselage remained intact. :(

[lomapaseo]

If you look at some of the biggest aircrashes in history where there were survivors, the majority got spilled out onto the grass. Very few survivors make it off the plane when there is fire and the fuselage remained intact

well I would assume that all survivors got off, else they must still be in their seats.:p

Actually there have been more than a few folks deplane safely from a burning aircraft.

Valujet engine failure in Atlanta comes to mind for an example.

I can't say what mode for deplaning I would choose before each flight. As a survivor I am quite happy to use either one.

Regarding the planned test of the A380 as discussed here. I would believe that taking the same 850 passengers and sending them down escalators in a fire drill would result in some injuries and of course some risk of death if the folks who reach the bottom wait for family members to arrive before leaving the area.

I wouldn\'t take issue with what 747Focal has predicted since there is a real risk in conducting such a test.

I wonder how many pilots would consider doing an inflight reverse deployment to prove out the aircrafts capability.

[eal401]

well I would assume that all survivors got off, else they must still be in their seats.
I think what 747FOCAL was refering too is the unfortunates who survive the impact but are unable to get out of the wreck, for whatever reason.

[MarkD]

JAFO33

very interesting post. Worth considering whether seats would be better placed facing in the direction of the nearest exit.

F = facing forwards, R = facing rear

Exit Exit
FFF FFF
FFF FFF
FFF FFF
RRR RRR
RRR RRR
RRR RRR
Exit Exit
FFF FFF
FFF FFF
FFF FFF etc.

This would also have the effect of creating more exit row seats :D Has anyone done trials of something like this?

[747FOCAL]

Good idea, but people hate riding backwards. Ever fly Southwest?

[Jerricho]

Oh pick me. I bloody loathe travelling backwards. Makes me feel crook.

Tisn't a bad idea though.

[lhr_slots]

Although the A380 is an extreme case, the evac tests of all aircraft fall short of a true test of the chaos of a real crash and risk injuring the testers.

When the DeHavilland was certifying the Dash 8, the pilot escaped through the roof-hatch on a rope. During the test, he snagged his b@lls on the pitot tube!! Not a happy man, and his wife wasn't pleased either.

If you are concerned about dodgy certification tests, what about the idea of ditching a large jet! Fortunately it is done by simulation, but the idea that the airrcaft could actually ditch intact is ridiculous.

[CM_Falcon]

The truth is that 90 seconds is generous. Everyone in aviation that truly knows the reality understands that 20 seconds is generous in an uncontrolled landing with survivors trying to get out of a gradually building fire within the cabin.

747FOCAL
Your first post stated that this test will result in the deaths of some of the participants. Later posts, by others, stated that the test is not realistic enough.

What I tried to say is that this test is not supposed to be realistic but rather to provide data that will confirm what would happen in a realistic situation under risks we can accept.

I also ventured to say, and I think we agree, that for situations where you don’t have 90+ seconds to evacuate everyone any lower number will actually only make a difference of a few persons, important to them but not to the statistics…. Possibly the time it takes to get the first person out will be too long.

[qwertyuiop]

lhr-slots

Why do you say to ditch is ridiculous? I seem to remember a nimrod doing it very well and saving (probably) all onboard.

[Onan the Clumsy]

or people in wheelchairs? They have a special test for them...instead of a slide they have a ramp made of plywood :\ :ooh: :eek: :} :ouch: :{ :zzz:

[ShotOne]

...If only we could get rid of 50% of 747 focal's tedious anti-airbus posts every 90 seconds. Change the record. you don't seem to do anything but trawl for any item to do with the 380 and try to put a negative slant on it. Why not stop wasting everyone's time.

[jafo33]

Onan - Shame on you!;)

MarkD - for years most engineers have known that rearward-facing seats are safer. It works on trains. But as many other posters said, most people don't want to face backwards. Me, I'm quite happy to, but I don't think you could sell it to the vast majority.

And as for ditching, well surely opening the doors all depends on how well the fuselage stands up to the impact. I wonder how much impact would distort the fuselage and prevent doors being opened?

[Onan the Clumsy]

Facing backwards really only a problem on climb out and has the added advantage of affording you the opportunity to look up someone's skirt :}

Why don't they just put the seat on gimbals?




As for "how well would the a/c stand up to a ditching?"

look here: http://zeeb.at/oops/oops9.jpg

[EasyBaby]

What jaffo33 said is quite true. Pax boarding through one door happens regularly. The pax who boarded the British Midland Kegworth flight all boarded on a jet bridge from the front. And when it came to evacuating the a/c most tried to leave through the door they came in (ie the front) as that is what they were familar with. Even though there was a great big hole at at the back of the cabin.
Doing the demo day in day out, very few actually look at the other exit doors, only the door they boarded through and familarise themselves with that door regardless of which exit is nearer. And that makes me wonder if human nature inhibits people to use exits that they have not boarded through, or taken the time to visualise, because they are not familar with that exit route?

So perhaps Mark D susgestion of facing the seats so they point to their nearest exit would help?

Human nature is funny at the best of times so understress and confussion we opt for the eaisest solution to our problems, using the door they came in through would spring to mind first for planning their evacuation in an emergency. Would any phsycologist (is that even spelt right?) agree?

EB;)

[XTRAHOLD]

This is a interesting thread forgetting the ever present Boeing vs, Airbus positions. What is new to all of us, is that this A-380 megajumbo airliner is an aircraft made mostly of materials that have very particular flashpoints and incendiary properties. Don't assume that your aircraft hull will stand after an emergency landing as some other jumbos do. It would be interesting to hear the opinion of the Australian Aviation Authority who I know, have done extensive research into dealing with fires of aircraft with composites and carbon fibers. Maybe this exercise in the evacuation in 90 seconds will only be an academic one and the realworld scenario will have to deal with a plastic fireball like the one you see when a Corvette hits a tree at 90 mph.

[surely not]

and the Boeing 787 will suffer similarly from the problem you highlight Xtrahold.

[meatball]

LETS NOT KID OURSELVES...MONEY PREVAILS OVER SAFETY, CALL IT WHAT YOU WILL, COMPANIES PURCHASING THE 380 OR 787 THINK ECONOMICAL RETURN AND RESULTS FIRST AND DEATH STATISTICS SECONDARY (AT BEST)...LET THE INSURANCE COMPANIES SORT OUT THE MESS LATER...HEY, HAS EVERYONE FORGOTTEN THE BOOK " FLYING BLIND, FLYING SAFE "NO LONGER AVAILABLE ONLY A MONTH AFTER ITS PUBLICATION BACK IN 1997?
QUOTE: "THE BIBLE MAY TEACH THAT HUMAN LIFE IS PRICELESS, BUT WE ALL KNOW THE VALUE OF THE BODY´S MINERALS IS ABOUT EIGHT DOLLARS." TO SUM IT UP, " WE REGULATE BY COUNTING TOMBSTONES, AN FAA OFFICAL TOLD A JOURNALIST A FEW YEARS AGO."
:yuk:

[RatherBeFlying]

The interesting thing behind this article is that there are scientific studies on crowd behavior and exits.

What I haven't seen is any effort by aviation authorities or the a/c designers to take advantage of this knowledge or direct research to improving evacuations -- I will be most pleased to be proved wrong.

Guardian article on IKEA Crush (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1415686,00.html)

[747FOCAL]

ShotOne,

If you looked around I say far more around here on other topics than the A380 or any other airbus product. When I see something interesting to me from an aviation standpoint I post it. By the amount of responses I would say that a lot of other people find them interesting as well.

Where are all your exciting posts? :E

[What Red Line?]

Anyone have an e-mail address for the folks at Airbus so we can send them a copy of this and other anti-'bus threads.

Who knows, after the 'bus management takes takes look at the wisdom posted by the "experts" in this forum the 380 program just might be scrapped.



WRL

[stagger]

RatherBeFlying - there is some interesting scientific research on evacuation dynamics. Take a look at this thread...

Smaller seat pitch leads to faster evacuation? (http://www.pprune.com/forums/showthread.php?&threadid=54628)

[RatherBeFlying]

Missed that one stagger

Good information -- Thanks:)

[ShotOne]

Don't have any problem with your exciting posts, 747 just that all those I've seen recently have been sniping at airbus one way or another. Surely you should be pleased that someone's designed a new very large airliner now Boeing have decided not to, and vacate that section of the market

Aircraft evacuation tests on any big aircraft have an element of risk and usually produce some injuries. Why are you predicting death and mayhem particularly in the case of the A380? As for the nose gear failure scenario, I've just watched the rollout of a very smart -and very long bodied -B777. I'd imagine it would be a long hard drop from the rear of that

[jafo33]

Just a thought, but what sort of drop are we talking about from the upper deck of the 380 and 747?

What sort of pitch are these slides?

Strikes me that it could be like the drops you get at a water park! Pretty much straight down and without the soft impact.;)

Oh, and I hope Airbus stagger the exits from above and below. That would be rough...managing to get out and be going down the slide, only to have someone drop on you from the upper deck!:p OK, just kidding!

[Onan the Clumsy]

Why don't they...switch the cargo and the pax so the pax are on the two bottom layers with the cargo above them?


It'd give them less of a drop at least.

[Old Aero Guy]

From another aviation forum, it seems the 853 pax evacuation test has been postponed until early 2006.

Even given the delay in the delivery date of the first Singapore airplane, I find this test change rather curious. Why delay a test of this nature, since it makes it more difficult to recover from any issues that might arise during the demonstration?

I would have thought Airbus would have wanted to get this out of the way as soon as possible.

[MMEMatty]

Could they not have something like i have seen on oil Rigs where the slide Zig-Zags down, allowing the speed (of Pax) to be kept down, but still getting them down very quickly?

Just a thought

Matty