BA 747 Emergency Exits - 8 not 10

[The Phoenix Rises]

Could someone please assist ?

I am trying to clarify and confirm:

a) that BA does or did operate 747's with 2 of the 10 emergency exits closed off. I think this was on its Jumbo's other than the 400's;

b) when BA stopped operating any Jumbo's with this configuration, i.e. when BA stopped flying Jumbo's with only 8 exits operational.

Many thanks to you folks for your assistance on this. I am a student at PPL and this matter has come up just as a discussion point.

TPR

[Mode7]

a) No, not any more
b) When the 747-236's retired

[The Phoenix Rises]

Hi Mode7:

Thanks.

When were the 747-236's retired?

TPR

[gas path]

A couple of years ago!
The door 3 was locked out after Boeing and the FAA/CAA said that evacuation tests proved satisfactory. KLM (I believe) was another operator that went down the same route. One of the other reasons was the poor performance of the slide arrangement. The classic had a two piece slide, a door operated ramp and an off wing slide, the off wing slide being stored under a wing/body fairing and therefore subject to wide temp. differences, it was deployed using small cable operated thrusters (pyrotechnic cartridges).
The -400 series has all 10 doors on the main deck fully operational and has a much better (simpler!) one piece slide arrangement, stored on the door.

[moo]

there are technically 12 emergency exits on a 747-400, 10 main deck and 2 upper deck. on the -400 fleet, all have always been armed and have slide packs fitted. the classic fleet of -100 and -200 aircraft were retired during 2002. some were sent to the mojave desert in arizona and some were sold to bea aviation and are still in active service. door 3 left and right were deactivated due to seat configuration. with less seats, less exits were legally needed and removal of two slide packs is a great weight saving I can tell you!
hope that helps

[The Phoenix Rises]

Hi Gas Path:

Thanks a lot!

I was sure I had seen the BA Jumbo's with the closed exits around until fairly recently!

I wonder why all the operators close off the Door 3? I presume there is a financial plus to closing them, and - without meaning to be unkind at all to BA - that was the prime reason why they closed them?

TPR

Hi Moo:

Yes, it helps a lot. Thanks.

TPR

[spannersatcx]

Don't forget the crew escape hatch from the flt deck as well!

Sorry just being a smarty pants! :ok:

[Globaliser]

IIRC, the primary driver for the move was, as you rightly surmise, financial. I think CX was another operator who did this. But whatever you may think of the detail of what this roll call of airlines does operationally, they don't really fall into the category of shysters of the aviation world.

There is a continuing fallout from this. After the move happened, airworthiness rules were changed to impose a maximum linear distance between adjacent emergency exits (60m?). This would stop any further door 3 sealings, because the distance between doors 2 and 4 would exceed that limit. But aircraft already converted could stay converted.

This rule bit Airbus when it was finalising the layout of the A340-600 (poss the -500 as well). Airbus also wanted to avoid having an overwing exit, but it would have breached that rule. They pressed for a waiver, but failed to get one, so had to install the overwing exits you now see.

[Gordinho]

Another reason for the change was, if I remember rightly, down the the change in seating config. Ordinarily you need one door for every fifty pax (I could be wrong, I'm remembering this from a long way back) but since the BA -236s had Club class seating all the way through the C-section there wasn't any need for the overwing exits on that basis.

[ReginaldSpotter]

When BA reduced the o/w exits on the B747 they did it by meeting the evacuation time requirement in a demo.
The CAA accepted that as it was all done in accordance with the then rules and BA did block the exits. This was all due in part to the then new rules requiring the assist space by the exit to help jettison the door and aircraft that had the "disposable" exits.
The FAA adopted a very different approach as they could see some flack approaching on disabling emergency exits ( Shock Horror!:* )
Sooooo in addition to all the other requirements on exit size, evac etc they made a new rule( FAR 121 and later FAR 21) that said no exit shall be more than 60 feet from the next exit. (The 60 foot rule)
If you read the preamble to the FAR the FAA admit that this 60 feet is an arbitary number with no basis in fact.
It obviously prevented US operators from blocking the o/w exit on the B747 but it caught one other aircraft - the L1011-500.
The -500 being shorter than all other L1011 variants had only one mid fus exit instead of 2 like earlier variants.
Delta, being the only -500 operator at the time obviously got a "grandfather" exemption but both Rich and ATA had to put additional exits in their aircraft. ( approx $1m each !!):eek:

As Delta were in the process of taking the AC aircraft their FAA Exemption Order lists ALL L1011-500 serial numbers including the RAF ones ;) ;) '

Yep the FAA is looking after passenger safety :mad:

[The Phoenix Rises]

Thanks for the background, folks, very interesting reading.

Could you please fill in on timing? I gather the latest BA Jumbo's, the 747-400's, have all 10 exits on that level operating and have been around for 11 (or was it 14) years. How did the phasing out of the other Jumbo's take place? I presume the 400's weren't delivered all at once in one batch but over the 11 years, and so the phasing out went on until 2002, as mentioned above. So, for that period, BA was presumably still operating the 8-exit 747's quite widely. Have I got this right?

Thanks again!

TP

[Gordinho]

I remember flying as a passenger on the BA 200s as recently as 1999/2000 on both the LHR-MIA and LHR-LOS routes.

Does anyone know if European have re-activated the doors on the aircraft they took from BA or if they have reduced capacity?

[The Phoenix Rises]

Hi Gordinho:

And I take it that means the ones with the 8 exits?

TP

[Captain Airclues]

The BA -200s were sold to EAAC shortly after '911'. Most of them had eight double lane slides on the main deck and two single lane slides on the upper deck. The slides at doors 3L/R were removed to save weight as they were not required when the capacity of the aircraft was reduced.
The -400 has twelve double lane slides, ten on the main deck and two on the upper deck. Nothing has changed since the day that they were delivered.
Perhaps one of our EAAC PPRuNers can say what the current state of the aircraft is?

Airclues

[Spitfire PRXIX]

The B747-200 that operate with European are:
G-BDXE, XF, XG, XH & XJ
All of the main deck doors are now active, Doors 1, 2, 4 & 5 all have dual lane slide rafts and doors 3 are fitted with one piece over wing dual lane slides (note: NOT slide rafts), the one piece slides are aparently the same as what the 747-400 has. there are also 2 one peice slide's on the upper deck.

[The Phoenix Rises]

Hi Airclues:

The BA -200s were sold to EAAC shortly after '911'. Most of them had eight double lane slides on the main deck and two single lane slides on the upper deck. The slides at doors 3L/R were removed to save weight as they were not required when the capacity of the aircraft was reduced. The -400 has twelve double lane slides, ten on the main deck and two on the upper deck. Nothing has changed since the day that they were delivered.
Perhaps one of our EAAC PPRuNers can say what the current state of the aircraft is?

Airclues

I wonder whether the timing over selling them after 911 was sheer co-incidence, or associated because, for example, of possible bad flack on safety issues - 'BA Jumbo's have only 8 emergency exits, everyone else has 10' sort of thing?

TP

[Captain Airclues]

The Phoenix Rises

I assume that you are a journo, and that it's a slow news week. I really don't think that you'll get very far with this. It's very old news. No doubt you'll still try though!

Airclues

[Notso Fantastic]

I note the title has changed- there is now no longer '???' at the end of the title. Therefore, this thread is now giving a fact ,that is totally incorrect! No BA 747 flies with 8 exits on the maindeck. Is there anyway I can put that fact clearer so that you can understand? Can we kill this one please? The Classics that were configured thus were retired in the cutbacks post 911, and I think went roundabout Nov 2000. Don't you think it slightly unfair that BA is getting false adverse publicity about this? There were reasons the Classics were so configured- that was not the reason they were retired- the publicity at the time had dissipated. They were old and less efficient and BA needed to lose some hulls.

As this has now been adequately answered I really think this thread should be removed because of its title.

[Gordinho]

Odd that the question marks disappeared but anyway it's clear that BA did not dispose of its classics because of any safety issue regarding the blocked exit.

The fact is that the type of mission that BA would have tasked a B747-200 with at the time they were ordered and delivered is now covered more efficiently by newer aircraft.

It's also a mistake to assume that the B742s were directly replaced by B744s. The B777 and B767 are also used on missions now that were the sole province of the B747 classics ten or fifteen years ago.

[The Phoenix Rises]

Hi Airclues:

Oh, please. I see no reason to insult me.

I am a businessman who has been flying for 20 years, with a great love of flying, now a student PPL, with a modest 35 hours or so under my belt. I made a comment about the 8-exit BA Jumbo's recently, and was pounced on by someone and called, basically, an idiot and a liar. I have posted this thread to seek clarification (and thus verification) from professionals in the business. I have seen and travelled on these Jumbo's; the person who made the remark to me could not believe that BA - or any airline - could ever close off emergency exits.

If you do not wish to assist me further, fine. But please, no more insults. I have enough dealings with the press regularly in my business life to have to take a breath of fresh air regularly. I don't need to be tarred with that brush.

TP

Hi Notso Fantastic:

Well I can assure you I didn't take the question marks off. I didn't even know you could.

Look I have no axe to grind over this. I am only seeking clarification of something. Why so touchy about this? I mean no offence to anyone. If you don't want to assist by responding to my posting in a positive and friendly manner, then fine.

I guess there is an administrator on this site and I am pm'ing to ask about the question marks. I agree that, like that, it looks as a statement. If I can edit them and put them in, I will do so.

TP

[Notso Fantastic]

Well you have eyes in your head. What you titled this thread with was a statement (that is incorrect). The multiple question marks achieved little to dispel the impression. It looks worse now. So are you now quite satisfied that BA has no 747s without a full compliment of emergency exits? If so, this thread is beyond its sell-by date, so why not delete your original posting?

[The Phoenix Rises]

I am, I believe, entitled to post what I wish, and not what you wish. I do it with respect to others, and with courtesy.

You, on the other hand, are breaking the rules of membership by your writings and discourtesy - nay rudeness - towards me.

TP

[Notso Fantastic]

Well what if I started a thread "The Phoenix Rises- low IQ???" You may well not have a low IQ, but I would have stated a fact followed by question marks- how would you like it? You could have titled it "BA747- How many exits?" and got an answer. It seems bizarre to me to state a false fact as a way of asking a question. If I was a Moderator, I would remove the whole thread because of your idiotic assertion.

[The Phoenix Rises]

Don't be so silly. The heading is entirely justifiable. It doesnt say, or imply, that there are 8, or 10, exits. Hardly a statement.

And after all, BA did operate 747's for a number of years with 2 exits closed off. It would seem to me that your energy is mis-directed. I wasn't the one that ran a fleet of aircraft with 20% fewer exits than most other airlines around the world. That really is not my fault.

As far as I am concerned, please feel free to write what you like. I couldn't care less. You are painting a picture of yourself very, very clearly, and I am happy to remain a level-headed gentleman.

TP

[scroggs]

Calm down, children!

BA could, and did, legally de-activate the No. 3 door emergency exits on their 747-200s because their maximum passenger capacity allowed them to do so. While I don't know what the seating capacity on those aircraft was, it was considerably less than that of some of their competitors, who could therefore not reduce the exits. As an example, some of Virgin's high-density-fit Classics (used for Orlando and Caribbean flights) were capable of carrying 500 or so passengers; no way could they have lost those exits.

As I remember, BA's decision to reduce the number of exits did cause some controversy at the time, but, as others have shown, it was declared legal and acceptable by the CAA at the time. There were, of course, both weight and staffing advantages.

Most operators retained the 10 lower-deck exits. I'm only aware of BA having de-activated any, though I may be wrong. There are, of course, many Classic 747s still in service around the world, but BA's last 9 were withdrawn between September 2001 and Jan 2002, as far as I can remember.

[Jetdriver]

I have just returned home after a long couple of days to find no less than 12 e-mails and or private messages on this subject. I have reviewed the thread in its entirety and cannot really see the problem.

The complaints broadly fall into two categories one concerns the grammatical composition of the thread title. This is a questions forum for professional pilots. Those of you who have been around here long enough will know that I have no hesitation in moving threads that are not questions or indeed that are not questions best answered by professional pilots. This thread seems best answered by such folk and notwithstanding the lack of a question mark it clearly is a question and as such it stands.

The other complaint is best summarised as who is being rude to who. Most of the time you will only find ladies and gentlemen in the questions forum. Sometimes comments will be posted that may be perceived as rude but generally they convey an emotion and although the wider excesses that may be tolerated elsewhere are not to be found here, there must exist an acceptable degree of latitude for the forum to function. Again I cannot see any real violation of site rules and the posts all stand.

I will continue to monitor the thread, however I would remind all posters that they can always edit there own posts and are invited do so if they wish.

[HZ123]

Whatever and whoever have made the numerous comments regarding the 747's with 8 exits the exercise was entirely approved by the FAA and the CAA with evacuation times within those legally stated. It seems to be a deal of fuss about something historic.

[The Phoenix Rises]

Yes, we know.

But that wasn't the thrust of the questions.

TP

[Redstripe]

5 of the ex-BA 747-236s were acquired by EAAC in early 2002. 4 were in 440 seat 2-class configuration; 1 was in 376 seat 3-class configuration. The 440 seat configuration was the maximum permitted by the CAA due to the deactivation of the No. 3 doors.

EAAC are currently operating the 5 aircraft in the same configuration. The No. 3 doors have been reactivated to allow reconfiguration to a higher density (~472) seating when required. The higher density configuration will be used for the Hajj for example. A 440 seat configuration will be used for most charter operations ex-UK as it allows a more comfortable 31" minimum seat pitch.