A380 evacuation trial seen for the first time (video clip)

[Julian Hensey]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/05/01/213632/video-a380-evacuation-trial-seen-for-the-first-time.html

[scruggs]

Some of this footage was shown on the Discovery Channel series: Worlds largest airliner. Interesting to see the full footage. Thanks for posting.

S

[Julian Hensey]

Sadly it is totally unrealistic and purely for certification purposes.

There were no:

1) People over the age of about 40.
2) Immobile people
3) Any bags anywhere blocking anything
4) People were all doing exactly as told (no trying to take hand luggage etc)
5) No wind/rain anything that would affect the slides useability.

I am sure other people will spot how highly planned it was!

J

[boeing boeing.. gone]

Julian, how on earth can they have a un-planned test for certification????????????????

[DrKev]

Julian - Yes, but only half the slides were used and the PAX did not know which slides were going to be used until the order to evac was given.

[Sinbad_633]

EASA and FAA regulations require that 35% of the participants must be aged over 50, a minimum 40% must be female, and 15% female and over 50.



Shows you know rather a lot about such tests Julian. :rolleyes:

[Julian Hensey]

Interesting about the ages criteria, I didn't know that. I put my hands up - however the video didn't seem to show many 50+ year olds. However it still leaves the fact that fit 50+ year olds are not representative of an overall full plane as to passenger make up. Anyone know the percentage of flights that have at least one wheelchair or disabled passenger on board? Quite high I would have thought.

An unplanned test for certification would be an interesting concept. Try bringing along your whole test hundreds of people. Get them in their seats on a "this is a trial on our safety demo pre talk flight and oxygen mask falling scenario - Advise they read the safety cards after the safety brief" Once they have listened to the talk then get them to expect something else to happen, not the evacuation.

Then go for the evacuation.

That is more realistic and would be an "unplanned" evacuation.

And before people say "oh yeah but you would be prepared on the plane prior to landing to evacuate" - not in all scenarios.

[Carnage Matey!]

However it still leaves the fact that fit 50+ year olds are not representative of an overall full plane as to passenger make up. Anyone know the percentage of flights that have at least one wheelchair or disabled passenger on board? Quite high I would have thought.

And your point is what? That we should artificially skew the test so that it includes at least one immobile person who can't get out of their seat and thereby perishes? That we should put somebody in the way to block everybody elses egress by their slower pace? What would such an exercise prove? That the wheelchair passengers are more likely to die in a crash?

An unplanned test for certification would be an interesting concept.

It certainly would

[/quote] Try bringing along your whole test hundreds of people. Get them in their seats on a "this is a trial on our safety demo pre talk flight and oxygen mask falling scenario - Advise they read the safety cards after the safety brief"[/quote]

What, you mean exactly like what happens now?

Once they have listened to the talk then get them to expect something else to happen, not the evacuation.

Like what exactly? How do you realistically simulate an event in a cabin designed for X hundred people?

Then go for the evacuation.
That is more realistic and would be an "unplanned" evacuation.

No it's not. It certainly isn't unplanned as all the volunteers know what is going to happen. I would question whether it was even realistic. How many evacuations have taken place recently which were accompanied by anything other than a catastropic break up of the aircraft or a raging inferno in the cabin, neither or which can be adequately represented by simulation?

And before people say "oh yeah but you would be prepared on the plane prior to landing to evacuate"

I don't think anybody who has the first idea about commercial aviation would say that!

[taildrag]

Good show! They managed to get 783 people off in 77 seconds, according to one account, out of half the exits. Quite amazing, despite criticisms.
You can see people piling up at the bottom of the slides. Might make for a mess in an actual situation.
Some US airlines show flight attendants how to train first off :D passengers to "shake hands!" with following evacuees, pulling them to their feet and directing them away from the aircraft.

[Mungo Man]

There were no:
3) Any bags anywhere blocking anything


If you read the article...

Two anonymous guys, presumably from the regulatory authorities, wander through throwing blankets and simulated baggage - lots of it - in the aisles.

:}

[Julian Hensey]

Ok stupid me hands up in the air - perception of the video is not the reality. It all looked so straightforward, but you guys are right. Assume nothing, read everything and hang your head in shame when you get it wrong for doing so....:O

So let me :{ and you can :ugh: and I will take a := and we wont have :* and we will all be :ok:

[FlexibleResponse]

Sadly it is totally unrealistic and purely for certification purposes.

There were no:

1) People over the age of about 40.
2) Immobile people
3) Any bags anywhere blocking anything
4) People were all doing exactly as told (no trying to take hand luggage etc)
5) No wind/rain anything that would affect the slides useability.

I am sure other people will spot how highly planned it was!

I wonder if Boeing do it any differently?

[Jimmy Macintosh]

It's funny that you should want a more realistic evacuation. I don't know who it was but one manufacturer offered a prize for first out. I don't remember the value or how many people actually got the prize but I think it led to an overly agressive evacuation. Passengers were clawing to get out first, where in an evacuation there would be an element of assistance from some passengers. Unfortunately, at least one woman was killed during these tests and some people were paralysed.

Nice one on admitting your error :ok:

[lomapaseo]

Regulations and certifications do not guarantee perfect safety, they only confirm an acceptable level of safety compared to the historical experience.

Random variations do affect our overall individual safety, based on the plane that you are on, the crew that is flying and the seat that you are allocated. Now couple this to the passenger themselves, are they infirm, intoxicated, or the type likely to freeze in the headlights.

A single test only seeks to confirm that on average most have a chance of making it out alive (no regulations on the injuries). If you really want a more realistic confirmation, then simply add in the infirm, and the drunks and see how many of these get trampled to death, but do be prepared to accept that you may have to force them at gunpoint to board the test vehicle.

[ARINC]

Like what exactly? How do you realistically simulate an event in a cabin designed for X hundred people?

You use this...
http://fseg.gre.ac.uk/fire/aircraft_evac_simulation.html

This CAA Paper Makes interesting reading...
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=1706

It was quite sobering to see the number of Ambulances parked up outside paint shop at Hamburg in antcipation of mass casualties due to this test.

.
To save you reading the whole paper I've pasted the conclusion page below.
Conclusions
Before computer models can reliably be used for certification applications they must
undergo a range of validation demonstrations. While validation will never prove a
model correct, confidence in the model’s predictive capabilities will be improved the
more often it is shown to produce reliable predictions.
A key component of the airEXODUS evacuation model is the use of the generalised
passenger exit hesitation time data and exit ready times. The generalised data is a
statistical composite of all available data from previous certification trials. The results
from the six test cases considered has shown that the same broad conclusions
concerning aircraft performance can be derived from simulations utilising the
generalised data for exit hesitation times and exit opening times as simulations using
the actual data. This suggests that the generalised data represents a good
approximation for how key aircraft components will perform under certification
applications. This provides the modelling and regulatory community with strong
evidence to support the use of the generalised data for aircraft certification
applications in which the standard configurations and components are being
considered.
This general approach can be extended to situations in which the generalised data is
not applicable, for example, when a new or significantly modified aircraft exit type is
being used. In this situation, rigorous testing of the exit component under certification
conditions is necessary in order to generate the appropriate data to use in the model.
This testing should be sufficient to provide data of similar quality to that used to
generate the existing generalised data. This approach is identical to that used in those
simulations that made use of the actual data rather than the generalised data.
This project has added an additional six test cases to the list of validation already
undertaken by airEXODUS. These cases have shown that the model is capable of
successfully reproducing the overall evacuation performance of both wide-body and
narrow-body aircraft under certification conditions. Using the mean of the airEXODUS
generated total evacuation time distribution for each aircraft and the single time
achieved by the aircraft in each of the trials to represent the typical evacuation
performance, airEXODUS is capable of predicting the total evacuation time to within
5.3% or 3.8 seconds on average. It was also shown that the model is able to reliably
predict the likely evolution of the evacuation from its start to its completion.
The analysis has also highlighted the inability of the current certification process to
meaningfully rank aircraft performance, on the basis of a single trial result due to the
probabilistic nature of the evacuation process. In order to rank aircraft performance it
is necessary to undertake repeated evacuation trials. Alternatively, computer
simulation could be used to generate the total evacuation time probability distribution
and base a ranking system on the statistical information provided by such a
distribution.
The analysis has also shown that even though an aircraft may pass a single one-off
certification trial, there may be a finite chance that the aircraft will fail to meet the
requirements of the certification process if the trial were repeated a number of times.
This information is invaluable when attempting to assess the true evacuation
performance of the aircraft. It provides insight into the design of the aircraft that can
only be practically provided through evacuation simulation.
Finally, the success of airEXODUS in predicting the outcome of previous 90 second
certification trials is a compelling argument of the suitability of this model for
evacuation certification applications.

[ChristiaanJ]

Julian,
I think you miss a point.

The purpose of an evacuation trial for certification is to obtain a baseline figure for evacuation under specified conditions (age groups, scattered luggage, half the slides blocked, etc.), that you can match to a requirement.

If you can't meet the requirement, it's usually indicative of a problem somewhere : bottlenecks in the evacuation path, insufficient signposting, people heading the wrong way (especially in a huge beast such as the A380), etc.

Making it too "realistic" (smoke, flares, panic, people with reduced mobility, blind people, etc.) introduces so many extra variables, that it rapidly becomes impossible to evaluate the result of the basic evacuation itself.
Not to mention that preferably you want to do the trial without people getting trampled underfoot or getting killed in other ways.

[luoto]

Since the tests are the same for Mr Boeing's aircraft and anyone else's (I presume in all jurisdictions, using the same baselines)at least there is an element of authenticity throughout.

[ChristiaanJ]

Luoto,

I wouldn't call it "authenticity" so much as "consistency".
The certification trial specifications are drawn up as a check on those items that the aircraft designers can do something about (evacuation paths, correct siting of exits, etc.).
And those rules should apply equally across the board.

[luoto]

Sorry, I used the wrong word. Was thinking of it and couldn't be sure.

[mrloop]

A further aspect to be considered during these tests is the ethical aspect - it is not acceptable to put people at risk of serious injury (there is plenty of evidence about how these tests can go wrong and, sadly, some permanently injured people).

There is a duty of care on the test organisers to minimise the injury risk (legally and moraly). I saw some of the video on the Arte documentary broadcast in France & Germany and noted that the participants also performed warm-up exercises first - like for any sporting event.

As others have said there is a standardised set of data produced that can then be used in a simulation for validation and scenario testing.

[The SSK]

I *should have* taken part in a Braniff Concorde evacuation test in the late 70s (*should have* because they switched the date and I couldn't make it:( ). We were specifically asked to bring kids clutching big teddies, etc. A mix of ages was required.

Quite a few of my colleagues did it, there were qute a fewseveral stories of broken bones and bad bruising.

[Flapping_Madly]

Many years ago my wife and I knew a man who worked on Eurostar and his wife. We were invited to a test run of the train months before it took paying SLF.

We arrived at Waterloo and they sprung a full blown security alert on us. Bag and body scans the works. After that we all relaxed because the word was they would not spring any more surprises. When we got under way we were told that the catering staff had never served anything to anyone before and we were to be their victims. God were they useless !!! Pathetic in fact but the people with clip boards were happy. After this we really were relaxed. They would not try a third trick on us . Right? Wrong.

In the middle of the tunnel the train stopped and we all had to pretend one end of the train was on fire and everyone had to cram into the "safe" end ready for the train to split as arranged. The people with clip boards were very happy.. Everyone else was knackered physically and certainly mentally. But by god it was realistic with knobs on. Mainly because of the craftiness of having us believe we could relax when we couldn't

Very sorry --nothing to do with aviation. I'll get my coat. Sorry

[v6g]

Why are these tests always filmed in black & white? It's not as if colour is expensive.

I thought it was something to do with filming in darkness but there seems to be plenty of light around in this test - particularly outside the cabin.

[Fredairstair]

I bet they wouldn't've got off so fast if they weren't being shouted at in German. It was all I could do to stay in my seat in front of the pc. ;)

[cwatters]

At one point people are seen running down a near "empty" gangway. Wonder how that happened. Did some people wait in their seats for a bit.

[Permafrost_ATPL]

Looks like boarding a Ryanair flight, in reverse :}
Couldn't help it...
P

[ayrprox]

right towards the end on one of the middle slides it looked like one of the cabin crew who were last off was turned sideways halfway down the slide and came off the bottom at a fairly high rate of knots. made me laugh at first but hope he wasnt hurt

[Antman]

They managed to get 783 people off in 77 seconds
Dislexia found for cure!!!:O :O
Two days later EASA confirmed that the 853 passengers, 18 cabin crew, and two pilots had indeed evacuated in 78s.

[av8boy]

right towards the end on one of the middle slides it looked like one of the cabin crew who were last off was turned sideways halfway down the slide and came off the bottom at a fairly high rate of knots. made me laugh at first but hope he wasnt hurt
Saw the same thing. Imagine doing THAT in the dark!

Why are these tests always filmed in black & white? It's not as if colour is expensive.

I thought it was something to do with filming in darkness but there seems to be plenty of light around in this test - particularly outside the cabin.
The article says it was dark, save the lights on the slides. Therefore, I think you're looking at IR that just happens to be of such high quality that you believe you're looking at a daylight-lit scene.

Dave

[SpannerInTheWerks]

I understand Julian's concerns, whilst at the same time appreciating the test is set against baseline criteria of 90 seconds.

However, I think the important point is the 'scale effect' of a large aircraft.

Evacuating a B737 with one exit inoperable is relatively easy, for example.

Maybe what Julian is getting at is, if things went wrong and got 'messed up' would it still be possible? You can argue all day about granny in the wheelchair or an aisle blocked.

It's a bit like a tech log with multiple entries, non of which in themsleves is a 'no-go' item. But what about the effect of each item on each other? That's never tested and has always been a concern with Captains having to carry multiple defects. It's alright in theory and perfectly legal. But what about the practice?

Same goes for these tests - alright in theory, but what about in reality? Slides seem to be coming from all directions?! Some of those slides are high! I remember when I first saw the B747 cabin simulator at Cranebank - it's big and scary for your average pilot let alone punter jumping off it!

The scale effect being if things do go wrong they're going to on a big scale!

Just a thought.

Kind regards

SITW :)

[Mike Tuck]

Did everyone like the background music. I feel like using the Command evac just to see if its fitted on our busses. Only joking you know ........ :p

[meadowbank]

The risk of injury, even sliding down a normal-length slide, is sufficient that the airline for which I work no longer permits crew to slide out of the cockpit-trainer. This decision followed a number of costly injuries in a controlled environment. The decision to evacuate an aircraft should not be taken lightly.

[taildrag]

Right you are, Meadowbank. Looking at the height of the slides, and the numbers of bodies descending in the video, one thinks perhaps more thought should be given in training as to when and when not to evacuate an aeroplane of this size.
On the other hand,I can't imagine crash/fire/rescue equipment at most airports being adequate to immediately contain serious problems in such a leviathan. Hard to envision "crowd control" successes in shepherding such a huge group of frightened, perhaps injured people away from a wreck, even if the event were just a "simple" evacuation with no fire.:(

[mickjoebill]

Thier is a dreadfull loophole in the certification.
The width of aisle at the galley and toilets has an impact on fast egress.
There is an excellent series of videos demonstrating this very point.

Best mimumum size enables two average sized people, not become stuck if they try to fit through the gap at the same time.

Since the way to some of the emegency doors is usually past a toilet or galley all the best planning and testing in the world at time of certification can be compromised by subesquent changes to interior layout of wider/more seats or different galley and toilet configurations.


Next time you fly take a look at the width of the aisle by the toilet and galley, you'll be surprised how narrow it sometimes is....


Mickjoebill