All it's going to take is something like a decompression with the designated Commander of the aircraft stuck down the back of that massive cabin on oxygen, and then perhaps unable to get through carts, rubber jungle etc, for maybe 10-15 minutes. Or even longer. Or even at all....... A serious inflight fire doesn't even bear thinking about. Then the questions will be asked. The litigation will be ruthless. EK, Airbus and "the regulator" (what ever that means in the UAE) will be seriously on the back foot.
How can those parties have pushed for and allowed such a latent safety flaw? Have they no concept of the noose they are sticking their heads through and how tight it'll feel if there is a disaster?
They will be in the courts for years. Prosecutor: "Why exactly did you either design, or approve the design of this aircraft, whereby the CAPTAIN couldn't get back to the flight-deck before it crashed?"
OH and S issues notwithstanding, positioning the crew rest in such an exposed area would make the fight crew more vunerable to anyone looking for opportunities to disable/hyjack an aircraft.
Ok, I'll bite...So, you've overwhelmed the crew in the rest area, how does that mean you control the aircraft when, I believe, there's another capable individual (at least) sitting in the cockpit behind a secure door?
Ok I'll reply then. Taking the commander of the aircraft hostage, may or may not give a hostile person/group enough leverage to convince junior crew to open the door. There are no absolutes here Hyman, only risk assesments.
Last edited by Setright : 6th December 2008 at 01:50.
Reason: spelling
A serious inflight fire doesn't even bear thinking about. Then the questions will be asked. The litigation will be ruthless. EK, Airbus and "the regulator" (what ever that means in the UAE) will be seriously on the back foot.
It's called risk assessment, Ron & Edna. They honestly believe they've put a system in place where nothing will go wrong, go wrong, go wrong...
Let's not go near the "mandatory use of the highest level of automation at all times" debate.
To me this should be approached as a security issue. Any time a crew member has to open the cockpit door, it creates a security vulnerability, which can be exploited if planned for.
At my last airline, the crewrest was positioned behind the bullet proof cockpit door to keep cockpit door openings to an absolute minimum.
Out of site out of mind. The flight crew were never visible unless absolutely necessary.
If the media were to discover the increased risk to security with the EK crew rest configuration, I think there could be a rethink on EK's part.
Not knowing if there is an EK pilots group, these types of organisations are what bring issues like this to managemants attention.
Umm, on a probability basis, an in-flight technical emergency is far more likely than an attempt to take over the flight deck! Or have we truly let emotion take over when we think the security aspects of all this are more important than off-duty crew proximity to the flight-deck?!
On ships they don't put Captains' wardrooms in the engine-room, for some good reason...!
But if you are looking for a way to convince managemant to reverse a decision or change direction, security concerns will give you more bang for your buck, especially when it comes to news headlines and the paying passenger.
The following headline "Emirates Vulnerable to Attack", on international news systems would certainly get managements attention.
How would you explain that you are the only airline with this configeration, and on what basis was it selected. The media would have a field day.
Last edited by Setright : 6th December 2008 at 04:02.
Interesting problem with a simple solution. Earplugs. Or if you want to get real cute, we can design a noise cancellation system by nulling out the audio frequency's below say..16KHz. How do we accomplish this? By generating a audio signals of equal amplitude and opposite phase.
Such a system has been installed on the Saab2000. The big props had some vibrations that were uncomfortable. The sound system to counteract worked for the passengers, however it gave the standing cabin crew headaches.
So what, it's only crew.....
One more question: How do you confine the noise generation to the CRC? Why not just tear some insulation out of the 380, it's too heavy anyway.
Simple...have the system confined in the CRC. In other words mic and speaker in crew rest facility. The most difficult part of this project would be the signal processing but it's do able (and has been done in other applications...). I'll let airbus figure out the rest. Got the sytsem blocks in my head right now but that's airbus's job. Not mine
PS In my system set up, cabin crew members and pax would not be affected.
I've been told by an "expert" that Noise cancelling headsets that create white noise can cause permanent damage to your Ears if you use them too much?
So I guess the SAAB 2000 and Q system on the Dash could also cause damage over time????
Aren't we 'canceling/reducing' audio levels here with NC headphones? I don't believe damage is done to the human ear If you reduce sound waves to relatively low db levels. Am I wrong?
However, if one were exposed to 'white noise' by itself (@ reasonable db levels...), then, I could see where possible damage may occur..
I've been told by an "expert" that Noise cancelling headsets that create white noise can cause permanent damage to your Ears if you use them too much?
Not a pilot, am a retired electrical engineer, and a serious amateur audio guy.
If you amplified the white noise NC headsets produce high enough, of course it could damage your hearing. Also true if you amplified the sound of a baby breathing high enough.
But that white noise is not the way they cancel noise, but a result of imperfections in the the implementation. The moderate amounts I've heard are likely no more harmful at equal level than cabin noise from the engines. And, as in fact lower level, less harmful.
The introduction of MORE NOISE into the CRC in an effort to improve rest is farcical and ridiculous. White noise, simulated engine noise, equal amplitude opposite phase noise cancellation - these wonderful ideas all miss the critical point that NOISE CAUSES FATIGUE. Click the link and read about it. What imbecile decided that MORE noise would be better?
Ok, let's try this again.
Problem
EK crew members are experiencing random noise due to location of CRC. Mistake is already made. So, we learn from it and correct it. No? What I am trying to do hear is come up with solutions.
Possible Solutions
1. Insulate room (Already ruled out...)
2. Move CRC (Not practical at this stage)
3. Earplugs, Headsets etc...(Simple and effective)
4. Noise cancelling audio system (More elaborate but effective)
Here's how it (4) would work (from an engineering point of view):
With this system audio levels will be reduced (LOW db levels). You won't be HEARING anything! The idea isn't farcical or ridiculous. It's the engineering/scientific solution to the problem.
Regards,
Bradda G (Engineer/Rec. Pilot) aka the imbecile one
Last edited by Bradda G : 6th December 2008 at 15:55.
perhaps EK could modify their order for the next 45+ A380's they have on order and ask for the crew rest to be in the usual position directly behind the cockpit? Since other airlines have it here the engineering issues would be minor, and I wouldn't have thought having a "mixed" fleet would cause any training/SOP issues etc etc......
could finally show the lose face mentality has gone.....
Of course, having crew rest at the far end of the plane does force the flightdeck to mix with the stewardesses and customers, which might be a good thing. The worst thing in customer service is to never go face to face with the people you are serving, think of call centers... totally remote..
The other consideration is whether or not the active equipment will have a blocking effect on the noise the pilots need to hear. (The cabin inter-phone chime and any emergency messages or signals.)
Yes and No. I have a fix for that already. Don't wanna give away my ideas tho' without some compensation. Airbus gotta figure it out.
As for the spatial and source capture issue, I have my own creative approaches but again I will leave it up to airbus.
Have a good one...
Last edited by Bradda G : 6th December 2008 at 17:28.
I would have thought that at the levels we're talking about, noise as such does not really cause fatigue.
If anything, a bit of low-level, expected and familiar noise will help you to go to sleep.
When you're asleep, you're not totally unconscious.... Sudden unexpected noises, or even the sudden stopping of a familiar noise (dare I mention engine noise?) are quite capable of waking you up.
Active noise cancelling becomes relevant when the noise level is such, that it actually causes fatigue, or otherwise interferes with the work you're doing.
It seems to make little sense in a CRC.
I would far prefer the iPod idea, with an under-pillow loudspeaker so you're not bothered by the earpieces or the wire.
Put on something you like, something relaxing you enjoy. Listening to it will then drown out your perception of other noises, and should send you to sleep in no time.
Maybe I am underestimating the problem, since I rarely have trouble going to sleep? At one time, a few years ago, I did, so I just listened to one or the other of my favourite cassettes.... I never heard them to the end.
. Airbus gotta figure it out. 
Linear Mode
