Roger that Toulouse. There was/were aircraft manufacturers which in the past (in the US?) allowed passengers to rehearse some part of the evac drill, or at least plan/be briefed on some part of it in advance, and I saw it on either the 'Discovery' or 'Discovery Wings' Channel. This was certainly allowed by the regulatory "authorities", to use the word authorities very loosely (other than creating and enforcing what is on legal documents)... Has this never happened with foreign companies? From what I remember, the people in the certification drill had practiced it until it was performed in the required time. Some worked for the company, and many were family members (probably more familiar with airline cabins and safety features than our typical 'local yokels') in some cabin seats. If an aircraft is sold all over the world, then it meets the requirements of all certification standards, unless built to more than one configuration etc.
My comments were not to suggest that a real-world evacuation which involves a collapsed landing gear or high winds, could only happen to an A-380. But the A-380 is the topic here, however awkward it is for Airbus staff to read certain questions or remarks. Boeing people might feel the same way about their products. It must be a very unique experience to take part in the drills and very rewarding should it happen while flying 'the line'. May God help the poor flight attendants on any plane when those people turn into a herd of panicked sheep, often rushing forwards to the main cabin door.
My concerns are not with the manufacturers, but how regulatory "authorities" can promote certain short cuts in certification of any aircraft type, not to mention many things-most having nothing to do with evacuation. One of the FAA's former mandates was to "promote aviation", while it attempted to regulate it. Bit of a conflict?
Are 'foreign' regulatory authorities never labeled 'the Tombstone Agency"?
