A380 "Too Big" Say Two Airline Execs [Archive]

BahrainLad

19th Aug 2003, 02:33

I think maybe they are worrying that 250 people will not be able to make it off the upper deck in an emergency evac without maiming or killing most of them.

Of course! Because Europeans can't build aeroplanes, they'd obviously design one with upper deck exits that didn't work.

from http://denver.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2002/03/25/story1.html?page=2

"Since it's a double-decker aircraft, the escape slides are tremendously long in some instances. The walls of one section of the test facility will be 60-feet high," Oney said. "It's a clear-span structure. That means there are no posts. It's required because of the type of testing that we have to do with these very large slides."

Early models of the A380 aircraft will accommodate 550 passengers in a three-class, two-level structure. Later models are expected to carry as many as 650 passengers.

The aircraft is so large, it has 16 emergency doors and requires 16 escape slides, compared to a 747 aircraft which requires 12, Oney said. Later models will have 18 emergency exits and require 18 escape slides, he said.

The longest upper-deck slide for an A380 will exceed 50 feet, while the longest upper-deck slide on a 747 is 46 feet, he said.

The slides are made of a nylon-based fabric that is coated with urethane or neoprene. They have to be packed tightly into small bundles placed at the foot of emergency exit doors.

The FAA requires Goodrich to conduct between 2,000 and 2,500 tests on the slides to make sure they can accommodate a large number of passengers quickly and withstand wind, rain and other harsh weather conditions.

The upper-level slides, which are wide enough for two people, have to enable the evacuation of 140 people per minute, Probett said. It's also an FAA requirement that the slides enable a 90-second evacuation of 550 passengers from the A380, she said.

Huck

19th Aug 2003, 02:36

Well my (U.S.) company has bought ten, with options for ten more. I've already got a bid in on the right seat.

Gordon Bethune is a current 757 captain, and was probably just asked his opinion off-the-cuff. Ask Continental's marketing people and you might get a different answer. As for NWA, they run an old (and paid for) fleet - it has served them well so far.

A word about nationalism and aircraft: my city (Mobile, Alabama, U.S.A.) is one of several making a play for the assembly plant for Boeing's next jet. All cities have one thing in common: a seaport co-located with an airport. Why? The jets will be mostly be fabricated overseas, then shipped to America for final assembly. Much like cars - you can buy a Honda made in the US, or a Ford made in Japan....

Bubbette

19th Aug 2003, 03:03

El Al packs this many in every 747 JFK TLV flight--and doesn't JAL also? ;)

747FOCAL

19th Aug 2003, 03:11

Gordinho,

Not sure if I get the hidden meaning behind your question? :\ There is plenty of information available regarding the topic of PAX evac on the A380 from the upper deck. It has nothing to do with being good or not at building airplanes. It comes down to physical realities.

When they conduct the final cert test they are not going to have a bunch of soccer and rugby players filling those seats to see if they can get them safely off in 90 seconds, it will be a smattering of young, middle aged and old. Possible even some handicaps. The cabin will be dimly lit, they will step to a door that is some 40 ft in the air and brightly lit causing them to squint and check out just where they are going to fling themselves. Most people that high up are going to hesitate, looking around and at the bottom of the slide. The people just coming off the slide will be moving somewhere in the 26+ MPH range and piling up rapidly at the bottom.

I believe there has already been a test conducted with 200 people in France that sent 50 plus to the hospital. :E

Why do you think Airbus wanted to do PAX evac by analysis? Even they are a bit afraid they may not make it or maim or kill somebody to certify it. :yuk: :{

I think the A380 will make a great Freighter just so you know. :ok:

BEagle

19th Aug 2003, 03:15

More Boeing maskirovka. Or rather, bull****!

Come up with your evidence for the A380 evacuation test you refer to - or retract. Piss or get off the pot!

747FOCAL

19th Aug 2003, 03:19

I believe there is a thread regarding it somewhere here on PPRUNE. I said I believe because I am not exactly where I saw the information. The reality of PAX evac certification is real. They may very well pull it off......all I said was it will be no duck walk and will most probably need a little luck.

You ever jump off a 4 story building onto a slide before?

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :E

Capt BK

19th Aug 2003, 03:40

747FOCAL,

To quote BahraiLad's quote, the longest slide on a 747 is 46 feet! I'm sure thats just as daunting.

I do agree though that evac cetrification is a problem but in my view it's the fact that the 90sec requirement is tested with no smoke, no noise, no panic, no heat, no fire etc. I can only speak for myself but in such a senario i wouldn't give a damn if I was sliding 46 or 50 feet!

RatherBeFlying

19th Aug 2003, 03:45

When exiting the slide at 26+ MPH on to tarmac is the best hoped for outcome compared to falling off the side on the way down, it looks pretty bad:uhoh:

Helmet and full inline skating protection gear highly recommended (wrist, knee elbow, maybe even hip pads for us older folks).

Me, I feel much safer sliding down snow and ice slopes in the mountains -- I'm allowed to bring my ice axe to slow down with;)

More seriously the upper deck slides will need a deceleration pad at the bottom:ouch:

747FOCAL

19th Aug 2003, 04:18

I agree coming off the upper deck of a 747 is going to be about as bad, but there is no where near the amount of people on the upper deck of a 747 series aircraft. :\

If they are trying to move that many people off the upper deck there will be some anxiety involved, people just can't ho hum there way to the door and expect to make 90 seconds. Have a few of them fall and get landed on by somebody moving that fast will certainly get people hurt. Imagine the bad press if somebody happened to get killed during the test. :(

seacue

19th Aug 2003, 05:15

Back to the original subject, it is probably accurate to say that the A380 is too large for most US airlines. Many of the major US airlines don't fly 747s for that matter.

But the A380 better succeed for my nephew's sake, here in the USA, who is building parts for it.

When United first configured their DC-10s there was a little lounge at the rear of coach. They laid out "party platters" back there so you could have a snack. How times have changed.

Huck

19th Aug 2003, 05:19

no smoke, no noise, no panic, no heat, no fire etc.

What I would worry about is WIND. A good 20 knot wind and the slides will flap like big flags.

BAe 146-100

19th Aug 2003, 05:48

Hi,

So does nobody think airlines will go for this kind of cabin interior.

http://www.aviationboom.com/features/img/A380_interior5.jpg

BAe 146-100

PAXboy

19th Aug 2003, 06:04

146: No, they won't!!!

I would also say that the vast majority of these people couldnt tell an Airbus from a Boeing and is not even the smallest factor in their decision. Too right - they don't even notice how many of those big drums are slung under the wings. :rolleyes:

Having watched this evening the usual unbuckling-of-belts-and-standing-up "before the aircraft has come to a complete halt", I do look forward to watching a whole deck of 250 nosediving when the boss hits the end stop. :p

The A380 will work, of that I have no doubt, for all the reasons stated above. As to the much vaunted 'lounge areas' that the early 74's had, they vanished for seats and I predict that very few (if any) of the fancy new ideas will fly. They are just there for headlines. I recall Airbus oferring the cargo level crew rest kitted out as a Temple for ElAl or a Mosque with Mecca direction finder for their neighbours. I don't think anyone has yet taken up cargo space for the purpose. (I sit to be corrected)

dudly

19th Aug 2003, 08:21

Dan Winterland says:

Well, by the time several hundred A380s are operating, the main aviation market will be Asia. So what a couple of US CEOs think won't matter too much!

I am asking this question as I do not have a clue. Is there really a market for several hundred of these behemoths? I understand that Asia has very long haul routes, but the main aviation market?

BlueEagle

19th Aug 2003, 08:35

Yes dudly my point has always been that there may not be a big enough market for, "several hundred" aircraft, Bahrainlads mention of, "one or two arriving early morning" may be a bit nearer the mark, in which case Airbus won't break even. Aircraft the size of the B777 or Airbus 330 seem to be the current favourites.

Of JFK, LAX, ORD, SFO which ones have plans to cater specifically for the A380?

Sultan Ismail

19th Aug 2003, 09:14

Just my 2 sens worth.

Asia is the future market. or at least Asian carriers. It is significant that Malaysian, Singapore and QANTAS are among the lead purchasers.

Ever heard of the Kangaroo Route, all three operators thrive on this, and the numbers are not going down.

Have you tried a flight from South Africa to Asia, all the flights are full, I do this regularly and upgrades are becoming standard, there just aren't enough seats for the pax.

Good luck to the A380, Asia is the future.

Sultan Ismail

cyrano_de_bergerac

19th Aug 2003, 10:03

It has nothing to do with being good or not at building airplanes. It comes down to physical realities.

That is exactly why the A380 will be successful. The question isn't whether the airplane is too big for the airlines ... the question is whether the airports are too small for the future. The answer is "yes". What I refer to is the fact that many airports are highly limited to the number of additional flights that could be added. All airports can handle additional passengers (with modification to baggage/security/transportation facilities). But most high-volume airports to not have the real estate (on the ground, or in airspace) to expand to handle significantly more flights. Assuming a growth market in the travel industry, the only answer is to have more passengers per aircraft.

Wino

19th Aug 2003, 11:54

If you were to only account for 747s that were bought for their size then the 747 program would have been a giant flop that bankrupted boeing.

What people forget is the 747 was revolutionary not really for its size but its RANGE! By Boeing's own admission long before the A380 was even thought of, two thirds of all 747s were bought for their range, not their capacity. Now that there are aircraft like the 777 and the 340 that can do the same range with less people and make money, the demand for 747s has dropped off. The 777 was originally thought to be a medium range airliner, but the customers kept demanding more range. Boeing complied and increased the range of the 777, but they weren't happy about it, they knew they were killing the 747 in the process.

With Airlines now free to buy any number of aircraft with range that is for all practical purposes 1/2 the circumfrence of the earth, the demand for the A380 will be stictly based on traffic. With the continue fragmentation of routes with more point to point flying (Open skies coming to Europe and USA will be another example of this btw) requirements for larger aircraft will drop.

Will Airbus sell em? Of course they will. Will they sell them in greater numbers than the A300/310 (which lost money because they only sold a few hundred of them) not likely. But Airbus doesn't have to take financial considerations into effect when they launch a product.

When Boeing launches an aircraft they have to borrow the money at market rates to do the research, set up the line etc. Airbus got a ****pot of grants that made this part of the problem tough. Lets say Airbus sells 500 of em in 20 years (A VERY optomistic assessment) each aircraft already costs 60 million dollars before you clock in the first worker and cut the first piece of aluminum (principal+interest assuming around 5 percent interest) If you don't sell that many aircraft that quickly and deliver them, the interest compounds and things get REALLY out of control. OF course not having to make those calculations are a wonderful advantage airbus has...
Cheers
Wino

Burger Thing

19th Aug 2003, 15:18

For me it works like this:

A-380 = More passengers - less flights = LESS JOBS

B-7E7 = Less passengers - more flights = MORE JOBS

Who cares about the mine is bigger than yours bullsxxt

TurboJ

19th Aug 2003, 16:27

A380 - More passengers - Less Flights = Less Jobs ?

How does this work when the number of airports that will be able to cater for the A380 in the UK stands at about three, if you are lucky, about five years after it enters service ?

Initially, its use is going to be limited, but once more airports are able to cater for the beast, surely it would create more jobs.....more checkin staff, more baggage handlers, etc etc ?

Gordinho

19th Aug 2003, 16:38

B747FOCAL, are Boeing are any more scrupulous than Airbus when it comes to recruiting people for the evacuation test?

MarkD

19th Aug 2003, 18:04

Wino

so Boeing don't make money from sweetheart tanker lease deals and whatnot?

Funny there must be two Boeing Co.s out there :D

Basil

19th Aug 2003, 18:40

<<When Boeing launches an aircraft they have to borrow the money at market rates >>
I seem to recollect that the B747 design was part of a US government funded competition won by Lockheed.
Looking at the B747 cf the Galaxy it doesn't look to me as if Boeing had any intention of winning the government competition. :rolleyes:

(The foregoing is merely a personal opinion which may be quite erroneous.)

747FOCAL

19th Aug 2003, 21:22

Gordinho,

__________________________________________________
B747FOCAL, are Boeing are any more scrupulous than Airbus when it comes to recruiting people for the evacuation test?
__________________________________________________

If I understand the process, you are allowed to ask for volunteers. You can't go to a high school and get a bunch of hyperactive teens that will run and jump off of anything.

Here is what the FAA requires and I will assume the JAA is similiar:

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.:E
(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.:mad:
(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?

AirportsEd

19th Aug 2003, 21:24

BlueEagle,
You asked,

"Of JFK,LAX,ORD,SFO, which ones have plans to cater specifically for the A380?"

They all do, although non of them will be shouting from the rooftops about it. You can be sure that those you mention - and others - will be getting ready for A380.

Huck

19th Aug 2003, 22:11

The 747 passenger version was a stop-gap until the SST could be built.

The 747 was projected to end up being a freighter only aircraft - hence the elevated flight deck.

Gordinho

19th Aug 2003, 22:55

"Why do you think Airbus wanted to do PAX evac by analysis? Even they are a bit afraid they may not make it or maim or kill somebody to certify it...."

B747FOCAL, they may have wanted to use computer simulation but they weren't allowed to (correctly) so if and when the airplane passes the test it will be every bit as valid as the B747.

Will the upper deck slides on the A380 be single or double width?

goates

19th Aug 2003, 23:15

I seem to recollect that the B747 design was part of a US government funded competition won by Lockheed.

It took 20 years for Boeing to pay off the R & D costs for the 747, so I don't think they had too much funding from the government. The current 767 tanker order on the other hand looks like it is just a subsidy in disguise. Read "Flying High" for a good history of Boeing. The author covers everything, good and bad, about the company.

747FOCAL

20th Aug 2003, 01:16

Gordinho,

If it passes.........but it won't be as valid as the 747 until they sell 1500 plus units. :ouch:

The slides that I have seen pics of look double wide......or at least wide enough such that somebody does not jump a bit off to the side and miss the thing. :E

POL.777

20th Aug 2003, 03:07

Burger Thing.

Couldn't agree more.

Boeing forever.:ok:

Dan Winterland

20th Aug 2003, 04:47

From the beginning of next month, the 1.3 billion population of the People's Republic of China will be allowed to travel to Hong Kong unrestricted, i.e. without the restriction of being part of a tour group. Up to half a million are expected in HK during their national holiday in October. It won't be long before the restriction is lifted for other countries. Although many of them can't afford to travel overseas, with an economy which grew 8% this year (even after SARs), it won't be too long before they will be able to. And at this rate of growth, China will be the largest economy in the world in 25 years.

They will need lots of big aeroplanes. The A380 fills the requirement quite nicely. And as most of the worlds manufacturing is being outsourced to countries such as the PRC, large chunks of the A380 will probably be made there to offset the cost of the large numbers the Chinese will buy.

If Boeing want to stay ahead of the game, they need to start thinking a bit more laterally and look at ways they can economically develope a new mass air transport rather than try and re-generate the concept of the 767 and/or re-jig their jurrassic large aircraft design.

DW

(PS, I would like to point out that I fly 747s before the pro- Boeing lobby decides to take a pop.)

West Coast

20th Aug 2003, 13:03

Have to laugh when I see Beagle and his not invented here syndrome speach repeated ad nauseam in different threads. Well Beag's we have something in common as it relates to the A380, we can both say not invented here. We can also have sub contracting in common. To attract US buyers I believe the percentage of such is going up. Who's expense is that at?

Wino

20th Aug 2003, 13:56

Goates.

If the Airforce was buying 7e7 tankers then they would be subsidizing boeing. Keeping open a finished production line is hardly subsidizing passenger aircraft developement. Beoing kept building 707s well after they stopped offering them to the airlines in the form of AWACs and whatnot, but it didn't help boeing develope a new product.

Keeping the 767 line open with tankers will do nothing to help product developement.

Cheers
WIno

SU27

20th Aug 2003, 14:55

Boeings are real aeroplanes.

Airbus are JUST people carriers with JUST enough power to get them airborne.

I'd prefer to fly a Boeing any day over an airbus :)

PAXboy

20th Aug 2003, 18:09

Keeping the 767 line open with tankers will do nothing to help product developement I'm not so sure. If the manufacturer makes even a 1% profit - then that can contribute towards R&D of other products. It may not be a direct subsidy but if it helps the company retain staff in work, then it has political benefits. If, when the (say) tankers are finished, the staff then go on to work on the new project - it might be thought of as subsidy. If Boeing had to close a production line and cut the staff, they would not be in such a good positon when the new a/c was ready and they needed production staff.

However, the argument is a pointless one. EVERY govt will support it's own companies whenever it can irrespective of the area/type. Building weapons or aircraft, or constructing a new national building, they will try and help their own. Many would argue that is a prime and valid function of govt.

HotDog

20th Aug 2003, 19:26

SU27, I can hear the sounds of the Bruichladdich talking. Was it at the Drover's Inn or at the Globe where you arrived at this pearl of wisdom?:rolleyes:

answer=42

21st Aug 2003, 04:33

Continental USA (ie 48 states) has 4 time zones. Customers increasingly want more point to point flights. This has led to the use of smaller planes. So, demand for A380s from this market will be limited to a handful for the most popular routes and times.

The global picture is quite different:
1. As posters have noted, Asia is a large market that requires large planes.
2. Lots of long-distance routes have small daily 'windows' when flights are commercially possible. This situation is due to the interaction of timezones, flight times, night airport closures, airport slot availability and airport altitude issues. Perhaps it's not the best example but think of LHR-JNB. BA does 2 747s about 4 hours apart, then 20 hours till the next flight.
3. And there is a growing market for very cost-sensitive long-distance flight. Why else is Emirates buying A380s?

If US airlines and manufacturers think that the global market will inevitably converge to look like the USA domestic market, they are going to have to rethink.

answer=42

spagiola

21st Aug 2003, 04:47

If the Airforce was buying 7e7 tankers then they would be subsidizing boeing. Keeping open a finished production line is hardly subsidizing passenger aircraft developement.

Except look at the MD-11: If the KC-10 order had not kept the DC-10 production line going, there never would have been an MD-11, as the gap between the last orders for civilian DC-10s and the first MD-11 was far too big.

Similarly, keeping the 767 line open helps Boeing by (i) keeping buildings and employees going until such time as the 7E7 reaches production and (ii) provides a steady flow of income that can help finance R&D for the 7E7.

It's not exactly the same as a direct subsidy to 7E7 development, but it'll do.

Zoom

21st Aug 2003, 06:02

I seem to remember the B747 first being touted back in the 60s as a 500-seater and the Galaxy as a 700-seater? And if 'Non-stop is the real answer, not bigger', whatever happened to the B747SP and its 10,000nm worth of non-stop?

Anyone remember the double-decker VC10 proposal? Beags?

BEagle

21st Aug 2003, 15:19

As originally proposed, the Super VC10 was to have been the world's largest airliner at the time. It was to have carried 217 passengers on 4200 nm sectors; however, BOAC decided instead to opt for a smaller, more modest version with up to 174 seats.

The 'double deck' VC10 design (VC10 Superb) wouldn't have had the same range. However it would have been able to carry up to 285 passengers. But this was in the days of government subsidy, and 'Sleepy Fred' Mulley (who dozed off next to the Queen at the 1977 Silver Jubilee flying display at Finningley) announced 'with regret' in May 1966 that the government could not support the development costs of the Superb. In any case, BOAC was determined to fly American and wanted the 747. As is well known, however, many passengers insisted on flying in the '10 long after 'Fat Albert', as the '10 crews termed the 747, came into service with BA.

Oblaaspop

21st Aug 2003, 18:21

SU27

Quote"Airbus are JUST people carriers with JUST enough power to get them airborne."

Exactly how many hours do you have on Airbus aircraft to enable you to give this highly qualified opinion????????

There aren't many Boeings that will climb straight up to FL370 with a FULL load of pax (360) 10 tonnes of freight on an 10 hour flight from LGW to CUN, its always quite comical listenig to the 747's battling for FL320 to cross the pond, while we're already up at 370 in a nice A330 having breakfast on a nice sliding tray table!!!

BEagle

21st Aug 2003, 22:54

But would be doing the same in an A340? Is the inherent excess thrust in an ETOPS twin the feature which gives you the edge, or the superior wing design?

747FOCAL

21st Aug 2003, 23:36

I don't think a Boeing aircraft ever had the tail come off. :E At least not from a few little bumps.......

Han Special

22nd Aug 2003, 02:05

Fin came off a BA 707 a few years ago.Anyway it was only the airline's training program that encouraged crews to do a tap dance on the rudder pedals of a heavy transport.could hae happened to any of the AA crews.

Before calling Gordon Bethune full of cr*p, bear in mind he did manage to turn Continental around from certain bankruptcy, by doing deals with both airbus and boeing so I don't think he has an axe to grind against either of them. He is very straight talking.

747FOCAL

22nd Aug 2003, 02:35

I actually have a great amount of respect for Gordon. I have a hard time believing the tap dance caused the fin to tear off with all the flight tests I have been on. I have sat in the cockpit and watched the pilot in more than a few different aircraft doing deep stalls where he is wagging the tail back and forth like crazy. when your in the back it sounds like a bunch of monkeys beating the fuselage but other than breaking a few stringers that was it. :O

AhhhVC813

22nd Aug 2003, 04:33

The wing is identical between 330 and 340. As for performance, well a 330 will get there quicker (though a 340-600 will get to 370 with a full load (58t ish) in around 26 mins eastcoast bound); for a similar thrash across the pond with a full load (35t) the 340-300 will go straight to 370 ex JFK, (and 360 ex LHR. ISA conditions). Slowly though, about 34mins for a C2 powered a/c and 29mins C4.

Wino

22nd Aug 2003, 11:23

Zoom
the 747-400 had the same range as the SP and burned the same fuel to go the same distance. No brainer... The SP was killed by the 400.

Cheers
Wino

jafa

22nd Aug 2003, 11:41

Bahrain lad, 747 focal is on track. Have a look down a 747 upper deck slide, you will see what he means. On the day it ain't gonna work.

As for the restaurants showers swimming pools etc, airplanes have to be light, real light. If Marketing over at airbus is really in charge to that degree then they won't make it.

Burger Thing

22nd Aug 2003, 12:52

its always quite comical listenig to the 747's battling for FL320 to cross the pond, while we're already up at 370 in a nice A330 having breakfast on a nice sliding tray table!!!

Oblaaspop - Exactly. It is areally nice to be a pilot nowadays, isn't it? Let the computers do the job, play with the sidestick a bit on landing, and enjoy listening to the comedy show, when those poor bastards in their old dinosaurs struggle with weight.

Ah, thank goodness we don't need to bother at all. But of course at home we still tell everybody, how bloody difficult it is to be a pilot, and how much we enjoy to sit there for hours, fiddling with our thumbs... Imagine there was a time, when pilots handfly an airliner below 10000ft? Unthinkable....

Ok, enjoy your breakfast on your tray table. Your job sounds really a challenge.... :}

Fresca

22nd Aug 2003, 17:49

for a similar thrash across the pond with a full load (35t) the 340-300 will go straight to 370 ex JFK, (and 360 ex LHR. ISA conditions). Slowly though, about 34mins for a C2 powered a/c and 29mins C4.

An ATC buddy of mine has figured out how the A340 manages to climb. It is because of the curivture of the earth. :}

Pickled Props

25th Aug 2003, 07:43

Tacking slightly back towards the post subject re. certain folks who think the A380 is too large. Does anyone around today incharge of a major think the 744 is too large. For their own airlines maybe, but not for the likes of, Lufthansa, Singapore and Emirates etc. who seem confident (quite rightly) of filling the thing.

By early in the 2010's everyone will have forgotten about the whole size issue and be happily scooting through the sky without a second thought. Besides that stretch -900 is it? will probably be in the offing then if not already airbourne and It'll all start over, 650 in three classes. The "can't be done too big! and no-one will buy it" brigade will be out in force again.

Isn't it just part of the show when you launch a bigger aircraft of whatever type you get the same old chat?:}

BahrainLad

25th Aug 2003, 19:33

Have a look down a 747 upper deck slide, you will see what he means. On the day it ain't gonna work.

I've looked down an A340-height slide (in a cabin sim) and shat myself, so no doubt I would have similar feelings at the top deck of an A380/747.

But, emergency egress from a 737 is frightening enough if the aircraft behind you is on fire and people are desperate to get out. In that sort of situation, I would take my chances going down the slide, no matter how uninviting it looked.

(And by the way, how many passengers willingly chuck themselves down huge, high slides at water parks day-in, day-out on their holidays? Some of those are near vertical, without any form of enclosure, hardly even a barrier.)

jungly

25th Aug 2003, 20:32

The slides for the A380 are fully enclosed at the top (and for about 10m down either side)....not to keep the rain off....but rather to hide the horizon. That way the punters wont (supposedly) be able to tell just how steep and long the slide is.
Yahoo.

747FOCAL

25th Aug 2003, 20:48

Enclosed to hide the horizon....... Nothing like jumping into a black hole when your already terrified. Me thinks the covers will go away if they slow people down because they are afraid to jump into it.

When your at the water slides you are surrounded by an atmosphere nothing like an aircraft emergency. And..... likely a fine young scantily clad lass has just headed down in front of you and you want to catch up! :E :E

26th Aug 2003, 21:55

Oh my. I guess the chase for a new smoke screen is on, now that the Chronic Snoozer went on a much-deserved very early retirement.

Well, it is entertaining. Two tickets and a bucket of popcorn please!

(Government loans, defense research grants, whatever they elect to call it. A rose is a rose is a rose!)

Cheers,
Fred

747FOCAL

26th Aug 2003, 22:01

Ft,

Thats Sonic Loser to you!!! :p

The debate is not who is bigger or better between Boeing and Airbus. This is a discussion regarding the size of the A380 only. Personally, I think she will be a great freighter. :ok:
:hmm: :rolleyes:

MonarchA330

27th Aug 2003, 00:41

Have to agree with everyone with the slides. Just did my cabin crew training with Monarch, going down a single lane slide in their 757 mock up. That in itself was rather daunting, picking up a considerable speed before hitting the deceleration pad which really does get u up on your feet and throws you forward.

A number of people, even after a few times down the slide were falling over at the bottom, forcing us to slow down the evacuation at the top.

Change the scenario to that of the upper deck of a A380, fire, smoke, darkness... People will be crushed to death at the base of the slide.

747FOCAL

27th Aug 2003, 00:58

Hopefully, somebody around here will have oportunity to film the evac test and post it for all to see. :\ Maybe a Pay Per View event :}

Pontious

27th Aug 2003, 18:34

B747FOCAL

Re: Your comments concerning Airbusses and Tails. So no Boeing has ever lost a tail? Boeing DO build 737's and 747's don't they?

I've never heard of an Airbus's rudder throwing it out of control, or the rear pressure bulkhead ripping the fin off an aircraft, or a Airbus experiencing such a catastrophic depressurisation that it un-zips itself over the Pacific,or blows out a cargo door,complete with a section of fuselage and some pax.

We agree on that it would be a good freighter.It will also be a mighty fine Hub-to-Hub High Density Medium/Long Haul/Ultra Long Haul Pax and Pax/Freighter Combi aircraft. My employer has ordered 25 firm with about another 20 on option (it may even be 45 firm by now). I'll let you know what it flies like. :ok:

M.Mouse

27th Aug 2003, 18:48

or the rear pressure bulkhead ripping the fin off an aircraft

If you must get into childish argument at least get your facts right.

That incident was not a design fault but a repair incorrectly carried out.

747FOCAL

27th Aug 2003, 21:41

Pontious,

Please be logical......:E

Airbus does not have anywhere near as many older high cycle aircraft flying as Boeing does. When the day comes that they do I am sure that you will see various like type incidents that you have stated. Though I do pray they don't. :(

Pontious

27th Aug 2003, 23:02

747FOCAL

Some of the older A300's were manufactured in the mid 70's. That means that they are as old,if not older, as some of the 732's and 733's. I was taxying out just the other day and was treated to the sight of a 707 landing. Now that is still a good looking,well-built aeroplane and a tribute to the people who built her. I regret not having flown one of those.
I enjoyed my 6 years flying 757rockets and cut my teeth in ETOPS on 763ER's. 2 aeroplanes that I won't hear a bad word said against, but my current employer put me on the A330 and this aircraft will take some beating. I think Boeing will seize the initiative again with the 7E7. I certainly hope so.

I stand by my comments concerning the A380. But there will be enough aircraft orders for fleet replacements of older generation aircraft to go around for both Boeing and Airbus. I mean not every aircraft is as solidly built or as simple to maintain as a trusty old 707.

747FOCAL

28th Aug 2003, 00:47

Pontious,

They are as old, but there is nowhere near the numbers. The odds that you will have a catastrophic event go up exponentially when you have a lot more units.

When the US military stops flying their version of the 707 they will be almost 100 years old. :eek:

Zeke

28th Aug 2003, 22:25

Boeing has for some time been on the back foot in terms of aircraft design, they have not turned out anything new for ages, the 777, 747 QRX, 737NG are fairly old designs.

Friends of mine who were design engineers with Boeing have commented that Boeing have lost large numbers of their good engineers, and have pointed out their inability to make simple modifications is becoming a joke, like crew rests.

It literally takes thousands of people to get a new aircraft certified these days, and you cannot teach engineering experience at college.

Boeing has learnt lots from Airbus, they now use the same software that Airbus uses to design their aircraft (CATIA was used for the 777). Unlike Airbus, Boeing has not been investing in the future, but resting on past achievements. Boeing also has been applying Airbus technology to their products, the 737NGs employ a more optimised wing, however its still 4% less efficient than the older A320 wing, and has higher V speeds than the 737OG which was 15% less efficient than the A320.

It is interesting to note that Boeing manufactures A320 wing boxes, and the A330/A340 landing gear doors for Airbus.

I made several comments when the sonic cruiser was announced to the effect that it will not be built, its not a feasible engineering project, they have done no headworks on the ground to build the aircraft in, its just a marketing ploy, anyone in Seattle knows it was from day one.

The A380 is a feasible engineering project, the current debate in this thread is about escape slides, its and engineering challenge that has been met, just put enough holes in the tube to get the 52 t of passengers out in 90 seconds. The first centre wing box is complete, the manufacturing/assembly facility is looking good.

Whilst its great to see all the history around Boeing Field and the other plants in Washington state, seems most of the future is taking off from LFBO.

Time will only tell to see if Boeing has lost too much of its intellectual capital to get another new design out the door, the automotive industry just pays a lot better these days in the US.

In my view these comments were nothing short of a buy American call for the 747X stretch 504 pax against the European A380 555 pax, and to take some of the aviation press of Airbus which passed more milestones on the way to getting the A380 airborne.

747FOCAL

28th Aug 2003, 22:39

Zeke,

Nobody is trying to make a buy this or that ploy. :rolleyes: The discussion is around the size of the aircraft and do we think it is just too big.

You do have some good points and they are accurate surrounding all the Intellectuals flying the coop. :yuk:

You gone down that slide yet? :E

answer=42

29th Aug 2003, 02:30

Zeke

While I agree with most of your comments, I find it hard to believe that the Sonic Cruiser was just a marketing exercise.

On most heavily used international routes, slots are congested and there some slots are more valuable than others.

Obviously any airline is going to place its first SCs in the primetime slots. So they replace a 747 with a 250-seat SC, which will be mostly premium class plus fullfare eco. Either they give the surplus economy pax to the competition or they need a bigger plane to fly them off-peak.

Bigger plane = A380.

So the launching of the SC after the A380 inevitably supported the latter's sales among those airlines that face this trade-off.

What I have trouble believing is that Boeing would have risked supporting the A380's sales if they didn't think the SC was going to fly.

but I could be persuaded.

answer=42

Sheep Guts

29th Aug 2003, 07:03

Its all coming down to economics. It all stops with the buck and how its spent. For my own opinion, I like Boeing much better than Airbuses, and allways will. But when companies like EasyJet a stalwart 737 operator order Airbus. Or Emirates in the UAE order 45 A380S. The blame for Boeings slump , must come down to Marketing and Product affordability. Airbus seemed to have triumphed in this area totally.

Also the availability of second Machines parked in the Mojave Desert, surely must make a dent in their market also. But there are as many parked buses aswell arent there? Maybe not, as the Airbus is more economical to operate, hence the Airlines retiring their costly Types first.

Sheep

still prefer boeing though!:{ :uhoh:

xyz_pilot

29th Aug 2003, 21:32

still prefer boeing though!

Why?

used2flyboeing

31st Aug 2003, 13:27

The Europeans have proved once again as with the TGV & the Concorde & now the A380 - that this program is too big to fail - regardless of economics. However, in defense of the Europeans - I wouldnt mind a month off of vacation either !!

Concerning fiting into airports - AIRBUS has developed an interesting winf with minimal span increase - they are doing tricky things with their "tabbed" flaps - flaperon-ailerons to keep the wing span within 747 dimensions - while retaining low speed performance.

Dont know how they are going to kep the weight out of this bird - nor control the noise.

Based on the experiance with the LaGuardia A300 vertical stabilizer - I will stick with stodgy old Boeing - Boeing engineers are rediculously conservative ( and smart ) - not a bad trait for an airplane desiger ..

Concerning SU27's comment - I agree - the A340-100;200;300 were/are awful airplanes - they are underpowered & missed the payload range guarantee's since the get go ( poor aerodynamics, aero-elastics - you woun't find any weights bolted to Boeing spars to dampen aeroelastics - like the A340 has out board the outboard engines -) -

Concerning Oblaaspop's coment - The 747 has about a 74Kt speed advantage over the A340 due to its superior flutter suppression - SCREWW your climb performance babbay ! Ill park the barber poles @ .91 to make time - lets see the bus do that & stay together..

Concerning 747FOCAL's comment - a 747 tail DID "dishonorably" come off over Japan - killing all aboard ..

Concerning Burger THings' comment - The future AIRBUS crew will comprise a dog and a captain - the captain will be there to feed the dog & the dog will be there to bite the captain if he musses with the controls..

Concerning Zeke's comment - the 737NG STILL FLYS HIGHER, FASTER & LONGER than the A320 - its IS a fine old airplane.. The 777 has THE WORLDS MOST SUPERIOR Fly-by-WIRE system form a design standpoint - this is why Embraer copied it on the ERJ170 & Ive heard it will be in the next Bombardier aircraft. ..The 777 fbw has had a fraction of the ADs against it compared to AIRBUS.. I will grant you the 777 control column backdrive system is a bit hokey .. seems light alot of weight, cost & complexity - just to say they weren't following AIRBUS's sidestick lead ..

747FOCAL

2nd Sep 2003, 21:13

used2flyboeing,

The tail did not come off it was partially blown off when the pressure bulkhead let go right beneath it. :(

747FOCAL

8th Oct 2003, 22:27

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!! You will hit light speed before the bottom on an A380 with another 10 ft in Altitude. :E

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/433275/L/

yakker

14th Oct 2003, 02:47

747FOCAL

Skip the whinging, start planning the same sort of crap Concorde suffered because the USA could not make a supersonic airliner.
Only this time it will not work, the A380 is taking orders from major airlines and will be a success. I hear the same rubbish from Boeing people visiting the UK about why Airbus is no good, there are plenty of Seattle workers losing their jobs while Airbus recruit. Stop knocking the opposition and compete, if you can.

747FOCAL

14th Oct 2003, 03:06

I am not knocking the A380 or Airbus. In fact I like Airbus's way of doing things. The A380 will make a great freighter. It will also eventually set the record for the most deaths ever recorded post crash because people will die going down that slide from the upper deck. :(

GearDoor

15th Oct 2003, 23:45

Maybe if the airline execs see the seat-mile costs of the 380 compared to the 747 when it comes into service, they will change their tune. (Supposedly, the bigger the better.)

If that is the case, they wouldn't care if two or three A380's arrive at about the same time, and up to about 1600 are waiting for their baggage, in addition to all the other flights.

aviate1138

16th Oct 2003, 01:47

Edited

Personal attacks are NOT permitted here. How many times do people have to be told?

747FOCAL

16th Oct 2003, 02:18

Edited

ferrydude

16th Oct 2003, 04:40

You guys keep me greatly amused during my down times!

I have to play devil's advocate on this one;

aviate1138,
Boeing is not reinventing the wheel, nor copying Airbus by shipping 7E7 subassemblies by air. In fact, this was pioneered by Aero-Spacelines on Boeing aircraft in 1962.Boeing contributed to the engineering effort. Airbus procured some of the Super Guppys for A300 production in the 70's. Wonder where they got the idea for the Beluga?

747FOCAL,
you are correct in stating that the JAL 74 crash in which the tail was damaged as a result of the aft pressure bulkhead failure. Do you know the events that led to that? It was a faulty repair by BOEING that did not conform to the structural repair manual guidelines, AC4313, or any standard, accepted repair criteria.

747FOCAL

16th Oct 2003, 04:59

Thanks Ferrydude. I knew it was a faulty repair. I was only 5 when it happened. ;)

ferrydude

16th Oct 2003, 05:46

Edited

aviate1138

16th Oct 2003, 07:18

Ferrydude said....

"Boeing is not reinventing the wheel, nor copying Airbus by shipping 7E7 subassemblies by air. In fact, this was pioneered by Aero-Spacelines on Boeing aircraft in 1962. Boeing contributed to the engineering effort."

Aviate 1138 replied....

Yes, of course you are right historically, but wasn't it for NASA rockets on internal flights? It was Boeing lately who are claiming the principal as a new way of assembling aircraft[7E7] from worldwide sources. Not splitting hairs, just interested how Aerospace giants like Boeing and Airbus ladle out the media hype and bull****.
Historic note - Aero-Spacelines? Wasn't Clay Lacy the Chief Test Pilot? Boeing presumably supplied info on the Stratocruisers that formed the basis for the first machines.
Anyway the Beluga is almost a beautiful aircraft, not so the 747-400 bulged variant which looks plug ugly.

Aviate 1138

747FOCAL

16th Oct 2003, 22:28

Captain Stable,

I don't see how my posts here have been a personal attack nor why you saw fit to edit them. :confused: Even after I was personally attacked I did not decend to a level which I know is against the rules. What I posted was the truth. The regulators are giving Airbus a huge headache over upper deck PAX evac. Any fool can look at that and know even a full scale drill is going to maim or kill a bunch of people. :uhoh:

John Farley

17th Oct 2003, 17:08

Did anybody else enjoy watching the LIVE TV documentary programme broadcast August last year, from the College of Aeronautics at Cranfield University who are researching the general issue of cabin emergency evacuation?

During the programme there was a very successful mass evacuation of members of the public from the top deck of their A380 class simulator.

As anybody who has studied the airliner emergency evacuation business knows, there are two issues

1 How you get people from their seats and out of the exits.

2 How you get people who have gone through an exit down to the ground.

The first issue can be a real problem if people are in fear of their lives and from an engineering point of view is much harder to guarantee (or even provide a high chance of success) than the second.

747FOCAL

18th Oct 2003, 00:21

I heard when Airbus did it themselves that out of 200, 50 went to the hospital with severe injury.:uhoh:

aviate1138

18th Oct 2003, 01:38

747FOCAL says....
" I heard when Airbus did it themselves that out of 200, 50 went to the hospital with severe injury "

Aviate 1138 says.....

I would be prepared to believe the statement at face value IF it was backed up with facts that could be verified. Trouble is, it has that 747FOCAL obsessive slant to it.
Wonder how Cranfield Institute managed it live on TV and didn't hurt anyone?

Aviate 1138

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

747FOCAL

19th Oct 2003, 04:44

aviate1138,

Do you know PAX evac certification requirements? Since there was no A380 for Cranfield to use to test, their results can only be speculative at best. How many 55+ women were involved in the test? How many small children and babies? Was there baggage spilled in the aisleways? I bet they planned and coached the people who did the test, your not allowed to do that when it is for real.

How quick do you think you would be to jump off a 4-5 story building onto a slide knowing that the big heffa with heals is right behind you? :\

Ask somebody you know at Airbus in France, I heard it was quite the story. :E

Even Airbus knows people are going to be scared because they are putting a "horizon" barrier so people can't see how high up they are. Since nobody runs 30 MPH and that is the speed you will be coming off at pretty much everybody will face plant. One after the other on top of the people in front of them.

Ignition Override

20th Oct 2003, 13:44

Many factory evacuation demonstrations for the authorities in the past consisted of airline or manufacturer employees and their well-briefed family members. They practiced the drill a number of times in order for the aircraft to pass the certification test within so many seconds.

This is certainly a contrast to any real-world situation.

How about in an A-380 with a collapsed nose gear? I would not want to evacuate from a rear door of any widebody in that situation. If a main gear collapses and there is a wing fire, the folks should go out the other side or choose a very distant exit-if there is time to get to it in deadly smoke, at least if seated near the wings. Although on a much smaller 737 or DC-9, just ONE burning passenger seat creates such a thick, deadly smoke that there is not much time to escape, how about on an upper deck? One breath of these cyanide, CO gases etc might incapacitate you. Let's all be thankful for the polyester seats and their much lower costs....

What are the slides like on that other (non-burning) side of a widebody which had a main gear knocked off, just a bit steep? Do the slides dry out a bit after being stored for two to three years?

:ouch:

747FOCAL

20th Oct 2003, 21:34

Just think what it will be like if there is a decent wind....... You could be airborne again at the end of the slide......:ooh:

747FOCAL

18th May 2004, 14:14

From another site:

"Airbus is planning to introduce the world’s largest passenger plane, the A380 carrying up to 1,000 passengers, without conducting a full evacuation test.

The company says that it is afraid that people could be permanently injured in the exercise.

At least 200 passengers will sit 30ft above ground on the highest deck on a full Airbus A380. They would have to jump down an inflatable slide in an emergency.

Airbus fears that any injuries in a full evacuation test would be exploited by Boeing, its rival, and could undermine the whole project.

Instead, it is planning to conduct tests involving only a fraction of the total number of passengers.

Scientists will then use mathematical models in an attempt to demonstrate to the safety authorities — Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority and America’s Federal Aviation Administration — that the plane is safe.

The A380 marketing director, said: “If you subject more than 800 people to an evacuation test and someone comes off the bottom of the slide and someone else hits them from behind, you have to ask why we have maimed somebody. There will be questions asked if someone is left a paraplegic.”

A spokesman for the CAA said it was hoped that an evacuation simulator at Cranfield University would reduce the need for live tests. While at present a full evacuation test was required for all new aircraft, the simulator could be used by Airbus “to do a lot of the research on the safety of extremely large aircraft”. He added: “Obviously if you do full evacuations, you do run the risk of injuring people. In future there could well be a lot of work done with computer scenarios.”

Lu Zuckerman

18th May 2004, 14:38

To: 747FOCAL

Do you think they can quantify human nature and what one person would do to another to survive and what effect it would have on the evacuation process.

Also while they are at it have them quantify the loss in human lives when an A-380 is lost. I figure it would be around 4 Billion dollars US. There are not too many airline insurance companies that can take a hit like that. The 4 Billion figure is based on 5 Million per passenger and in the States it can go a lot higher. If blame can be assessed against one company it would bankrupt them.

Just a thought.

:E :E

A-FLOOR

18th May 2004, 14:40

Is it just me or are you actually looking to stir **** in every single topic that comes up when you search for "Airbus"? :suspect:

Ontopic: Airbus is already experimenting with other systems to evacuate passengers from the upper decks that are safer than the traditional inflatable slide, like the ones used on oil rigs and some high buildings to get people off safely from much greater heights. :O

I saw it on ZDF the other day on a docu about the A380... see if you can find it, it's bound to be in their mediathek on www.zdf.de somewhere. Pity if you can't read/understand German :sad: :ok:

747FOCAL

18th May 2004, 14:51

A-FLOOR,

It is in my nature to stir things up. I like to throw things out to see how people react. I do it to both Airbus and Boeing.

Is there a problem with pointing out the truth? :confused:

I thought this was a place of aviation discussion. PAX evac is something everybody on this forum is or should be concerned with.

It makes no difference, I was already told by the head of the SACO office that the FAA is not going for the simulation. They are going to make them do it just like everybody else regardless of the risk of injury. I say good. :ok:

You don't want the first actual test being done under actual emergency conditions.

BlueEagle

18th May 2004, 22:50

Lu, regarding the insurance aspect. The passenger legal liability insurance of most airlines will be thinly spread around the world insurance markets you can be sure of that! Those operating the A380 will be no exception. The premium payable is calculated on Revenue Passenger Kilometres, (RPK), travelled per annum for the airline concerned. The original placing of the insurance will be shared among many, many underwriters and then re-insured out a few times as well, this is so designed that when a disaster comes no one goes bust. Airlines with USA exposure have to pay a higher premium based on the extent of that exposure which has to be declared to underwriters when the policy is placed or renewed.

Chimbu chuckles

19th May 2004, 14:57

I have no doubt that the rules will be manipulated to get A380 certified evac wise. Beancounters and Pollies can be relied on for few things but this is one of them.

Airlines who have a need will buy A380 in sufficient numbers, I believe, to make the aircraft a commercial success...certainly when you take frieghters into consideration.

Beancounters will just not be able to resist puting twice as many/as much behind the same numbers of pilots. Once again Airbus are building a beancounters aeroplane..

HOWEVER!!!

I still think there will be a MASSIVE market for 'off piste' direct flights with 200-250 seaters....more than enough for boeing and sparebus to make a good living from.

And as the thought of crewing an A380 leaves me completely cold I'll happily see out my career 'off piste'...hopefully in a Boeing..I really like the 767-300er and the 777s/7e7s look the ducks nuts as well.

Chuck.

747FOCAL

19th May 2004, 15:52

Here are some links on the A380 and PAX evac:

Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) (http://www.faa.gov/ats/asc/nlaweb/Downloads/PPT/DCN%20ARFF%20for%20NLAFG%2005-13-03.ppt)

ICAO Paper (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/atb/fal/fal12/documentation/fal12wp090_en.pdf)

Airbus in fear of a full scale evac test (http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/airbus_in_fear_of_full_emergency.html)

The real doozy..... This link is of the simulation software in action. Look how many people they expect to be on a slide at one time. Fat chance of that happening.

Panic (http://fseg.gre.ac.uk/fire/movies/vr-aE-VLTA_cut_spdx3(512k).rm)

VLTA paper (http://www.gp.tu-berlin.de/users/j/helmut_jungermann/artikel/atlantic%20city.pdf)

:} :ooh:

ps. Chimbu chuckles - Unless the head of the Seattle FAA office is missinformed they have already decided. If Airbus wants the A380 to fly in the USA they must complete a full evac test per the FARs. Once you start down the path of cutting corners the dam bursts. They aren't going to go there with safety. :ok:

Here is the current FAR:

Sec. 25.803 Emergency evacuation.

(a) Each crew and passenger area must have emergency means to allow
rapid evacuation in crash landings, with the landing gear extended as
well as with the landing gear retracted, considering the possibility of
the airplane being on fire.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 44
passengers, it must be shown that the maximum seating capacity,
including the number of crewmembers required by the operating rules for
which certification is requested, can be evacuated from the airplane to
the ground under simulated emergency conditions within 90 seconds.
Compliance with this requirement must be shown by actual demonstration
using the test criteria outlined in appendix J of this part unless the
Administrator finds that a combination of analysis and testing will
provide data equivalent to that which would be obtained by actual
demonstration.
(d)-(e) [Reserved]

Appendix J to Part 25--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
the 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,

[[Page 556]]

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 airplane 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 the 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 of 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 the stand or ramp.

[Amdt. 25-72, 55 FR 29788, July 20, 1990, as amended by Amdt. 25-79,
Aug. 26, 1993]

If my info is correct there will be only 3 usable doors on the upper deck during the test. Without taking time to open the doors and deploy the slides 200 people through 3 doors will require each person to be up from their seat to the door and down the slide in 1.3 seconds. :uhoh:

BigHitDH

20th May 2004, 10:10

Christ. Let get real here.

I don't care how long/steep/deflated the slide is. If it's a choice between burning to death in an alloy tube, and breaking both my legs/pelvis/back/skull, well, I'll die trying to get out thankyou. Hell, I'd step out of that thing even if there were NO SLIDE. I suspect put in a real evac situation, most people would do the same.

I'm sure airbus will keep trying until they get it certified.

747FOCAL

20th May 2004, 12:21

BigHitDH,

I think they will run out of trial people since none of the test participants can have been involved in any practice or test for the prior 6 months. If they have a lot of injuries during the first test or heaven forbid somebody dies, they will have a real hard time finding participants. :{

Going by the math, it can't be done. Especially if they want to sell it in Japan where they won't have a three class setup it will be all cattle class and that means doing a test with 800 people on board. That probably means at least 300 will be up top. That makes the math even worse. :ooh:

ps. The test won't be conducted with an airplane that is on fire so the participants that are being asked to jump, in pitch black or very little light, into a black hole they can't see the bottom of, but they know they are almost 40 ft in the air. RRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHHHTTTTTTTT!!!!!!! :E

panda-k-bear

20th May 2004, 18:28

747Focal,

I note you haven't answered a non-technical question (on 747 sales before first flight) on another forum, so I'll try a different one here.

Care to tell us all about the exceptions through grandfather rights on the 744 and the 737NG?

Each time I ask a Boeing guy (with whom I'm in daily contact) about these things, the issue just gets skirted around.

It really starts to look a bit like glass houses and stones after a while, doesn't it?

747FOCAL

20th May 2004, 19:19

panda-k-bear- Not sure I understand what your asking? :confused:

panda-k-bear

20th May 2004, 22:19

Well there are those (and you have to admit it, 747Focal, you are one of the number) who hammer the A380 - and are perhaps justified in being a little sceptical. What's not justified is knocking it at every turn, really.

Especially when some Seattle products have been exempted from later legislation due to grandfather rights (or perhaps great-grandfather rights if we go back through the mid-life updates). That would mean that they aren't so perfect either and perhaps couldn't be certificated in today's environment.

I'm asking just what exemptions have been granted due to grandfather rights that would pose a challenge if the certification were to be done afresh today. The relevance? Well, Boeing has challenges to and would face more challenges with older designs today. Not so perfect....

Don't get me wrong - both Seattle and Toulouse churn out fantastic aircraft. Evac. on the A380 will be a challenge, I'm sure, but come on, let's not over-dramatise with guff about people being killed during the tests and therefore stopping anyone else from wanting to take part in further tests. This is the worst kind of journo. type scaremongering. Maybe you're biased, but it's in everyone's interest that there are 2 manufacturers out there (and preferably more), or Airbus wouldn't bother with the A380 and Boeing wouldn't bother with the 7E7 - everything would just stagnate.

And if we're talking about certification challenges, how about a TiGr composite fuse and wing in service by 2008?!

BahrainLad

21st May 2004, 09:14

I seem to recall Boeing getting a special exemption not to have to install a 3rd overwing exit on the 737-900.

Airbus on the other hand built a prototype A340-600 with no overwing exit but was forced to reinstate it on the production model by regulatory pressure.

As always, it cuts both ways.

Tinstaafl

21st May 2004, 14:29

How is it different evacuating a 747 upper deck configured for economy compared to the A380? Apart from 4'.

In both cases there's a large number of people sliding a long way. If it's do-able for the 747 then it's just as do-able for the A380. There's a limit in both cases for ratio of exits vs pax.

panda-k-bear

21st May 2004, 15:16

What about NG birdstrike protection? What about a fatigue tested wing? What about sudden decompression protection? What about cabin direct view rules? All, of course, to the mid-90s standards, and not those of the mid-60s.

Should I go on? These are all questions that I'd love to have an answer to.... and answers are not forthcoming from Seattle.

Now, let's talk again about the A380. It will HAVE to pass an evac test if it is to ever be sold to a U.S. airline. As there's really only 1 making use of 747s today in any decent numbers an who doesn't have most of it's fleet parked in the desert, maybe that's no big thing. However, I'm sure the EASA will insist as well, won't they? As BahrainLad sasy, the forerunner of the EASA demanded that the 346 be reworked, so they are tight about that sort of thing. If it has to be done, I'm sure it will be done.

I note with interest that the stones from the glasshouse have stopped (temporarily).

747FOCAL

21st May 2004, 15:57

panda-k-bear,

Your right, in todays environment, several of the older Boeing designs would have trouble certificating today. But, Boeing does not make those airplanes anymore. All of the newer models meet the latest standards.

Tinstaafl,

How different is the 747 passenger evac from the A380?

Try 180 more souls. If you do the math. Following the FARs for passenger evac certification. You will have:

3 of the six doors blocked. 3 working doors.
Half the baggage from the bins blocking half the aisles.
That means, and this is not taking into account that somebody has to get the doors open(maybe finding that the door they have opened is blocked), deploy the slides, and then 200 people have to make it to the ground. Broken down into numbers:

200 / 3(doors) = 66.67 people per door 66.67 / 90(seconds) = 0.7 people per door a second.

All the while this is in almost complete dark and you can't practice.

Regarding the composites of the 7E7. I think making the whole airplane out of composite is insanity. Everyone that has tried to do that has failed. A composite fuselage, yes. But the wings and nacelles, no. To many dispatch related problems everytime somebody has made a composite nacelle.

Intruder

21st May 2004, 17:45

I seem to recall Boeing getting a special exemption not to have to install a 3rd overwing exit on the 737-900.
I believe you recall incorrectly.

IIRC, Boeing asked for an exemption so they could keep the single overwing exits on the -900. However, the JAA (or whoever made the call in Europe at the time) refused, supposedly due to Airbus lobbying. Therefore, Boeing spent a huge amount of $$ re-engineering the -900 for the dual overwing exits. The structural aspect was NOT straightforward...

AFAIK, there was never a requirement for a 3rd overwing exit on the -900.

BahrainLad

22nd May 2004, 09:54

Nonsense....the -400 and -800 have two overwing exits (on each side) so Boeing never proposed only having one each side for the 900. What redesign!?

Despite the fact that the 737-900 has over 9% more cabin space than the -800, it's still limited to the -800 maximum of 189 pax for evac purposes, because of only having the 2 exits.

If Boeing want to stuff 220 pax into the 900X, they'll have to add another (3rd) overwing exit. But they've recognised this....

panda-k-bear

22nd May 2004, 11:50

But as far as I know, the -900X isn't proposed with a 3rd overwing, but rather an additional type I door aft of the wing deratable to type III with lower seating densities (i.e. true 2 class), is it not? Even with the additional door, surely the airplane isn't long enough to get 220 seats in, but more around 205-210, I'd have thought (and that in a European charter type configuration).

747Focal - I still maintain that the 737NG has exceptions due to grandfather rights in the areas that I mentioned - can you tell me with 100% certainty that that is not true? If so, then I fail to understand why the Seattle engineers have been cagey about answering exactly those points - i.e. what those exceptions actually are.

747FOCAL

24th May 2004, 00:21

panda-k-bear,

Not to be evasive, but if you read the FARs, aircraft that share the same Type Certificate, do not have to meat the latest ammendments in some cases. The rules were designed that way to help the manufacturers save money as well as the FAA on bookkeeping.

I say lets just wait and see though I think the mark is on the door. Anyone can build a great airplane that meets everything but one criteria and that criteria sinks the boat. :)

Lu Zuckerman

24th May 2004, 00:46

To: 747FOCAL

Not to be evasive, but if you read the FARs, aircraft that share the same Type Certificate, do not have to meat the latest ammendments in some cases. The rules were designed that way to help the manufacturers save money as well as the FAA on bookkeeping.

I worked on the certification of the Canadair CL 604 and Bombardier tried to grandfather it for certification on the basis of three previous designs. The 604 was a more advanced design and the Canadian certification authorities refused Bombardier and made them completely redo all of the certification documents including the reliability assessment, the FMECA and the safety hazards analyses.

I also worked on the A-310 and the A-320 and in order to gain Canadian certification the FMECAs and the safety hazards analyses had to go to the smallest part in a component. I may be wrong and quite often I am but I would assume that the Canadians would require that certification not be granted on the basis of similar design and that Boeing would have to redo the documents for the previous designs.

.:E :E

747FOCAL

24th May 2004, 01:38

Lu Zuckerman,

I agree with you. If you look at the stack of paperwork that is sent in to the authority for a new TC vs and old one I am pretty sure your going to see a large differece. :cool:

turbynetrip

24th May 2004, 14:13

All of this notwithstanding- it will be fun to see one fly.

TT

panda-k-bear

24th May 2004, 20:13

I believe it is not beyond the whit of man to get this thing certificated. If it needs another door or 2, then it shall have them. Airbus will do, I'm sure, whatever work is necessary to make the A380 pass - both in the U.S. and Europe (they already did with the A346 - a redesign was worked out).

So here's the really scarey part - if the TC is permitted to be the same by the FAA, then no retesting to the latest standards. So a 737-800 with winglets (circa 1999 or so) is certificated to the same standard as a 737-100 (circa 1965 or so). Now that worries me just a tad given what we've learned in the interim. I do believe that the much lauded "new wing" of the 737NG hasn't been fatigue tested to today's standards even though it is a "new design" (Inside quote marks are what Boeing are claiming - new wing and new design). That leads me to believe either:

1) it ain't new
or
2) it ain't up to the latest standards

Hmmm.

Old Aero Guy

25th May 2004, 00:14

panda-k-bear

I'm afraid you're wrong on both counts about the 737-800.

1) The wing is new.

2) It was certified to the Type Certificate standards in effect at the date of its TC application, which had to be no more than five years earlier than 1997, the date of its initial certification.

Those are the basic rules in effect. Almost no "grandfathering" is allowed in today's certification world.

If you make a significant change, it has to meet current standards.

Most Airbus and Boeing airplanes today are FAA/JAA/EASA certified on virtually the same day as this saves work down stream.

The only recent exception I know of to this generalization is the A340-500. The FAA required additional leak protection to the cargo hold fuel tank to protect against gear failure events and the FAA certification was delayed.

Blacksheep

25th May 2004, 03:41

In the midst of all this USA versus Europe banter its worth noting that the A380 escape system is being designed, rig tested and eventually manufactured by Goodrich at their Phoenix facility (http://www.goodrich.com/transformation2/imageLibrary/slideprototype.shtml).

Having studied 'O' level geography, I have good reason to suspect that the Phoenix facility is located in America. ;)

747FOCAL

25th May 2004, 12:27

That is the lower deck slide on the GE website.

panda-k-bear

25th May 2004, 15:16

Ah, I see, so then it definitely WAS fatigue tested - is that what you're saying?

747FOCAL

25th May 2004, 16:04

He is right. as long as you are within 5 years you can claim equivelency to the already standing certification.

panda-k-bear

25th May 2004, 21:37

Now I'm confused. Within 5 years of what? The NG certainly didn't go through a full certification procedure, did it? In the same way that a -600 didn't have a certification distinct from a -800 (or an A318 from an A320 even though they are the best part of 15 years apart).

What you're explaining is that the NG must have had a full certification done on it because it was more than 5 years from the certification of a previous model of 737? So it had a full evac. test, and all of the structure was therefore fatigue tested? Fuselage and wing included?

It boils down to this - was the wing fatigue tested or not? If yes, super. If not, why not, as it is a "new" wing?! (thanks for your patience - sorry about thread creep...)

Old Aero Guy

26th May 2004, 14:46

panda-k-bear

Let me provide a bit more detail about my reply to your statements regarding the "newness" of the 737NG wing.

1) "The wing isn't new" panda-k-bear

My reply is based on the published 737NG characteristics vs those of the 737 Classic. These include:

Increased span
Double slotted trailing edge flaps vs triple slotted
Increase in cruise Mach number of .05.

From an airplane performance standpoint, these features, particularly the cruise speed change support the claim that the wing is "new".

2) "The wing doesn't meet the latest standards" panda-k-bear

Your concern on this item appears to stem from questions about the fatique testing that was performed. I can't help you there as the certification compliance data Boeing had to submit to the FAA and JAA is not in the public record. This is normal as it will include intellectual property that all airplane manufacturers consider confidential.

What I can do is describe the process that insures that whatever data was submitted met the standards in effect during the mid '90s when the 737NG was certified.

When an airplane manufacturer begins the certification process of a new airplane or a major derivative, an application for a new Type Certificate or an Amended Type Certificate is submitted to the FAA/JAA. In doing this, the manufacturer commits to meeting the certification standards in effect at that time. At the same time it also frees the manufacturer from the need to comply with new certification standards that may be enacted over the next five years. This assurance is necessary since it's difficult to design an airplane if the requirements are constantly changing.

The types of changes described above in 737NG wing "newness" question would have required a step up to the regulations in effect in the 1992 or so time period since the 737NG certification date was 1997.

As to your specific question about fatigue testing, let's look at the relevant regualtion, FAR/JAR 25.571. This regulation states:

(a)(1)(iii) An analysis, supported by test evidence, of the principal structural elements and detail desigh points identified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section

(a)(2) The service history of airplanes of similar design, taking due account of differences in operating conditions and procedures, may be used in the evaluations required by this section.

Based on these words, it's entirely possible that little, if any, new fatique testing as required if the structural arrangement on the 737NG as sufficently close to the 737Classic. However, the application of these data would have had to meet the mid-90's structural standards.

If you have the concern that the FAA could have been offering Boeing a "sweetheart" interpretation, remember the JAA also certified the 737NG and they would have had no incentive to do so. From my own 25 years of airplane certification experience, I've seen no mercy from the FAA.

Hope this answers your concerns. Any other discussion should take place another thread

panda-k-bear

26th May 2004, 18:46

Old Aero Guy,

Thank you for your comprehensive reply. I appreciate it very much as it appears to answer to points that I've had troubnle getting out of Seattle. In essence, it seems that no independent fatigue testing was done, only by delta analysis of the 737 classic structure. I have no doubt that it DOES meet the criteria (it has to) - I was being a little facetious in order to prompt a response such as your own. I don't believe that Boeing gets a sweetheart deal as far as certification is concerned on things this important (though we could debate all day long the rudder issue resolution), but I thank you once again for your time and your explanation.

Best wishes,
p-k-b

Back to original thread......

Old Aero Guy

26th May 2004, 19:49

panda-k-bear

Please don't read too much into my explanation. I have no idea how much fatigue testing was performed on the 737NG.

desert_knight

26th May 2004, 19:57

These two airline execs are obviously real "experts" in predicting aviation trends and requirements .....just look at how well their airlines are doing!!

:p

747FOCAL

26th May 2004, 20:47

panda-k-bear,

If you read the Type Certificate Data Sheet you will see that the only thing they got exempted on for structures was bird strike velocity. The rest was brought to the latest ammendments.

A-FLOOR

27th May 2004, 13:45

Since I didn't want to open a whole new topic for it, I just put it here:

The first complete airframe (CN 5000) was rolled out this morning. :ok:

It will be used for static ground (fatigue) testing only.

http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/77774.jpg

Marcel_MPH

27th May 2004, 15:08

Looks great already. Wonder how it looks with those huge Trent 900 operating underneath it.

Marcel_MPH :cool:

panda-k-bear

27th May 2004, 19:30

Pretty wonderous - that's one big beastie. It sort of brings it home when you actually see it in the flesh, so to speak, doesn't it? It's no longer a paper aeroplane but a real thing you can reach out and touch. It stops the silly arguments dead, really.

Glad to see a new type out there!:D

BigHitDH

27th May 2004, 19:33

Ahhh, loooook, it's smiling!

It'll be interesting to see if it still looks so fugly when it has it's fairings on...;)

rotornut

27th May 2004, 19:35

Bet it won't fly, right 747FOCAL? (sorry, FOCAL, I just wanted to get back at you for that post the other day);)

BigHitDH

27th May 2004, 19:37

Bet it won't fly, right 747FOCAL? (sorry, FOCAL, I just wanted to get back at you for that post the other day)

The one above won't no. It's going to be tested to destruction. Proper Bo.

747FOCAL

27th May 2004, 19:56

No worries rotor. ;) They are going to break this one, then build one that flies. Then comes the tough part. :}

panda-k-bear

27th May 2004, 20:20

Ooh-ooh let me guess!

Not the darn evacuation chestnut again!

I reckon it looks like an A-7 on steroids :D

747FOCAL

27th May 2004, 20:33

Well now that you bring it up.......................:p

pogop

28th May 2004, 08:46

I'm rather suprised that it only appears to have two main landing gear legs. If this is the case, then for runways/taxiways to be able to cope with all that weight there would need to be about 10 wheels on each truck!!!????:confused:

A-FLOOR

28th May 2004, 09:01

The ground testing airframe is light enough to be supported by only two wing trucks on the main gear, but the real A380 will have 22 wheels in a configuration similar to the 747, but with two six-wheel trucks for body gear. :)

pogop

28th May 2004, 09:04

thanks for that, A-Floor

Marcel_MPH

28th May 2004, 09:23

For people interested: on the Airliners.net website information can be found about the A380.

Marcel_MPH :cool:

747FOCAL

7th Jun 2004, 15:35

Anyone for another go at the evac slide thing again? :E Just kidding......

steamchicken

7th Jun 2004, 15:59

Hell, they just have to send me an email. I trust them when I get into one of their aircraft - why shouldn't I trust them to build a slide?

747FOCAL

7th Jun 2004, 16:31

Your missing the point, it's not that they can't build the slide. it's getting that many people down the slide in 90 seconds that will be the sporty part. ;)

panda-k-bear

8th Jun 2004, 11:21

Set the bu%%er on fire. That'll get 'em out in 90 seconds. Let's face it, FOCAL, if they're all going to die anyway (and won't anybody PLEASE think of the children), what difference will it make?!

By the way, what happens if you can't actually see DOWN the slide (i.e. see the bottom) but it just appears like a tube or something from the top - you know, like they have in water parks?

747FOCAL

21st Jun 2004, 15:02

Interesting Study..............

http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/Abstracts/2000/FULLTXT/00_11.pdf

Evacuee injuries and demographics in transport airplane precautionary emergency evacuations.

Report Date: March 2000
Author: Hynes, M.K.

Abstract: During a nine-year period from January 1, 1988, through December 31, 1996, there were more than 500 transport airplane precautionary emergency evacuations (PEEvacs), occurring on average about once a week. Each year as many as 6,000 persons participated in these events. In many cases, passenger and crewmember injuries resulted from the PEEvacs, resulting in large personal costs to passengers and crewmembers, as well as financial costs estimated to be in excess of $11 million annually to airlines.

This study was undertaken to sample available evacuee and injury data related to a subset of those PEEvacs, including information on types and causes of evacuee injuries, and evacuee age and gender. Other demographics were sought, but that information was generally unavailable. Unique, direct contacts with airport management were used to supplement publicly available information on certain of the PEEvacs, including activation of emergency escape slides during PEEvacs, injuries caused by the PEEvacs, and outcomes.

Of the 136 airports identified as experiencing PEEvacs, 24 were selected to provide detailed data on injured evacuees for a 34-month interval lasting from December 1994 through November 1996. During this time frame, there were 109 precautionary evacuations at the 24 airports selected, i.e., approximately 70% of all reported evacuation events that occurred during the study period. Specific information on 193 persons injured during 19 of these evacuations was obtained and analyzed.

The results of this study confirm the need for improved incident reporting and continued research into preventing injuries associated with the use of emergency egress systems and precautionary emergency evacuations of transport airplanes. The results should be additionally useful when considering proposed changes to applicable regulations and to airline training programs and aircraft emergency operations.
:\

747FOCAL

2nd Aug 2004, 15:31

Emergency Evac at BKK today
http://www.news.com.au/common/story...55E1702,00.html

United Airlines plane evacuated
From correspondents in Bangkok
August 2, 2004

A UNITED Airlines jet aborted takeoff at Bangkok International Airport early today after a bird got caught in one of its engines, and four passengers suffered minor injuries as they evacuated the plane, the company said.

Flight UA838 headed for Tokyo also "experienced a tyre blow-out" during the aborted takeoff, United Airlines said in a statement. It wasn't clear what caused the tyre to burst.

"The takeoff was aborted due to a bird ingested into one of the engines," the company said. "For the safety of passengers and crew members, the pilot activated an immediate evacuation."

The Boeing 747's two pilots, 15 crew members and 346 passengers slid down evacuation chutes onto the tarmac, the statement said.

There endeth the story.

OK. It's at full chat TOGA and there's a bird strike. It's before T/O decision so there is room on the runway to stop. Slam on the brakes and blow a tyre or two.

Is that really enough reason for a full scale evacuation?

And yes. I must add a big "well done everyone for holding it all together"

rotornut

27th Aug 2004, 11:12

Well, you can criticise the 380 all you want but:

THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL SELECTS A380 AND ADDITIONAL A340S
AUGUST 27, 2004

Thai Airways International has taken another major step in its long term fleet expansion plan, by deciding to acquire six A380 double decker aircraft, which will be delivered in 2008/09, and herewith becoming a new customer for the type. The airline is also committed to expanding its new fleet of A340-500s and A340-600s, by deciding to acquire one additional aircraft of each type. The airline previously placed an order for three A340-500s and five A340-600s in August 2003, with all eight of these aircraft due for delivery in 2005. The additional A340-500 and A340-600 will be respectively delivered in 2007 and 2008.

Thai Airways International’s A380s are destined to operate on major trunk routes from Bangkok’s new Suvarnabhumi airport to destinations in Europe, whilst the A340-500s will be operated on a completely new network of ultra long-haul services from Bangkok to North America. The A340-600s will be deployed on services to cities in Europe and North America. Thai Airways International currently operates an Airbus fleet of 21 A300-600Rs and 12 A330-300s on regional and domestic routes.

All four A340-500s and six A340-600s in the Thai Airways International fleet will be powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 500 engines, which burn up to 20 per cent less fuel than older generation jet aircraft, whilst providing outstanding range and payload performance.

“The relationship between Thai Airways International and Airbus stretches back to the first A300 order in 1977 and I am naturally delighted to see the airline once again select our latest generation widebody A380 and A340 aircraft for its long haul fleet expansion. With Thailand’s strong domestic economy and booming tourism & trade, I am particularly confident of a bright future for Thai Airways International’s new Airbus fleet operating from the all new Suvarnabhumi hub airport.” said Noel Forgeard, Airbus President and Chief Executive Officer.

With Thai Airways International’s selection, Airbus has now 139 orders and commitments from 13 customers for the A380 programme. Built to the latest and most stringent certification requirements, the 555-seater A380 double decker embodies the most advanced technologies, providing 15 to 20 per cent lower operating costs than the largest aircraft flying today and 10 to 15 per cent more range.

Offering the highest degree of operational flexibility and economy combined with unmatched passenger comfort, Airbus’ A330/A340 Family of aircraft has established market leadership in the 240-380 seat category with more than 820 orders from 64 customers to date. This includes over 210 orders from 18 customers in the Asia-Pacific region.

All Airbus aircraft feature the latest technology at no extra charge – such as advanced fuel-saving aerodynamics, including wing tip fences, widespread weight-saving carbonfibre composites, and pilot and maintenance-friendly fly-by-wire controls and centralised maintenance.

Airbus is an EADS joint company with BAE Systems.