BA 747 Emergency Exits - 8 not 10
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA 747 Emergency Exits - 8 not 10...???
Could someone please assist ?
I am trying to clarify and confirm:
a) that BA does or did operate 747's with 2 of the 10 emergency exits closed off. I think this was on its Jumbo's other than the 400's;
b) when BA stopped operating any Jumbo's with this configuration, i.e. when BA stopped flying Jumbo's with only 8 exits operational.
Many thanks to you folks for your assistance on this. I am a student at PPL and this matter has come up just as a discussion point.
TPR
I am trying to clarify and confirm:
a) that BA does or did operate 747's with 2 of the 10 emergency exits closed off. I think this was on its Jumbo's other than the 400's;
b) when BA stopped operating any Jumbo's with this configuration, i.e. when BA stopped flying Jumbo's with only 8 exits operational.
Many thanks to you folks for your assistance on this. I am a student at PPL and this matter has come up just as a discussion point.
TPR
Last edited by The Phoenix Rises; 6th Aug 2003 at 02:53.
Usual disclaimers apply!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of years ago!
The door 3 was locked out after Boeing and the FAA/CAA said that evacuation tests proved satisfactory. KLM (I believe) was another operator that went down the same route. One of the other reasons was the poor performance of the slide arrangement. The classic had a two piece slide, a door operated ramp and an off wing slide, the off wing slide being stored under a wing/body fairing and therefore subject to wide temp. differences, it was deployed using small cable operated thrusters (pyrotechnic cartridges).
The -400 series has all 10 doors on the main deck fully operational and has a much better (simpler!) one piece slide arrangement, stored on the door.
The door 3 was locked out after Boeing and the FAA/CAA said that evacuation tests proved satisfactory. KLM (I believe) was another operator that went down the same route. One of the other reasons was the poor performance of the slide arrangement. The classic had a two piece slide, a door operated ramp and an off wing slide, the off wing slide being stored under a wing/body fairing and therefore subject to wide temp. differences, it was deployed using small cable operated thrusters (pyrotechnic cartridges).
The -400 series has all 10 doors on the main deck fully operational and has a much better (simpler!) one piece slide arrangement, stored on the door.
Last edited by gas path; 4th Aug 2003 at 06:35.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there are technically 12 emergency exits on a 747-400, 10 main deck and 2 upper deck. on the -400 fleet, all have always been armed and have slide packs fitted. the classic fleet of -100 and -200 aircraft were retired during 2002. some were sent to the mojave desert in arizona and some were sold to bea aviation and are still in active service. door 3 left and right were deactivated due to seat configuration. with less seats, less exits were legally needed and removal of two slide packs is a great weight saving I can tell you!
hope that helps
hope that helps
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Gas Path:
Thanks a lot!
I was sure I had seen the BA Jumbo's with the closed exits around until fairly recently!
I wonder why all the operators close off the Door 3? I presume there is a financial plus to closing them, and - without meaning to be unkind at all to BA - that was the prime reason why they closed them?
TPR
Hi Moo:
Yes, it helps a lot. Thanks.
TPR
Thanks a lot!
I was sure I had seen the BA Jumbo's with the closed exits around until fairly recently!
I wonder why all the operators close off the Door 3? I presume there is a financial plus to closing them, and - without meaning to be unkind at all to BA - that was the prime reason why they closed them?
TPR
Hi Moo:
Yes, it helps a lot. Thanks.
TPR
Too mean to buy a long personal title
IIRC, the primary driver for the move was, as you rightly surmise, financial. I think CX was another operator who did this. But whatever you may think of the detail of what this roll call of airlines does operationally, they don't really fall into the category of shysters of the aviation world.
There is a continuing fallout from this. After the move happened, airworthiness rules were changed to impose a maximum linear distance between adjacent emergency exits (60m?). This would stop any further door 3 sealings, because the distance between doors 2 and 4 would exceed that limit. But aircraft already converted could stay converted.
This rule bit Airbus when it was finalising the layout of the A340-600 (poss the -500 as well). Airbus also wanted to avoid having an overwing exit, but it would have breached that rule. They pressed for a waiver, but failed to get one, so had to install the overwing exits you now see.
There is a continuing fallout from this. After the move happened, airworthiness rules were changed to impose a maximum linear distance between adjacent emergency exits (60m?). This would stop any further door 3 sealings, because the distance between doors 2 and 4 would exceed that limit. But aircraft already converted could stay converted.
This rule bit Airbus when it was finalising the layout of the A340-600 (poss the -500 as well). Airbus also wanted to avoid having an overwing exit, but it would have breached that rule. They pressed for a waiver, but failed to get one, so had to install the overwing exits you now see.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, England
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another reason for the change was, if I remember rightly, down the the change in seating config. Ordinarily you need one door for every fifty pax (I could be wrong, I'm remembering this from a long way back) but since the BA -236s had Club class seating all the way through the C-section there wasn't any need for the overwing exits on that basis.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When BA reduced the o/w exits on the B747 they did it by meeting the evacuation time requirement in a demo.
The CAA accepted that as it was all done in accordance with the then rules and BA did block the exits. This was all due in part to the then new rules requiring the assist space by the exit to help jettison the door and aircraft that had the "disposable" exits.
The FAA adopted a very different approach as they could see some flack approaching on disabling emergency exits ( Shock Horror!
)
Sooooo in addition to all the other requirements on exit size, evac etc they made a new rule( FAR 121 and later FAR 21) that said no exit shall be more than 60 feet from the next exit. (The 60 foot rule)
If you read the preamble to the FAR the FAA admit that this 60 feet is an arbitary number with no basis in fact.
It obviously prevented US operators from blocking the o/w exit on the B747 but it caught one other aircraft - the L1011-500.
The -500 being shorter than all other L1011 variants had only one mid fus exit instead of 2 like earlier variants.
Delta, being the only -500 operator at the time obviously got a "grandfather" exemption but both Rich and ATA had to put additional exits in their aircraft. ( approx $1m each !!)
As Delta were in the process of taking the AC aircraft their FAA Exemption Order lists ALL L1011-500 serial numbers including the RAF ones
'
Yep the FAA is looking after passenger safety
The CAA accepted that as it was all done in accordance with the then rules and BA did block the exits. This was all due in part to the then new rules requiring the assist space by the exit to help jettison the door and aircraft that had the "disposable" exits.
The FAA adopted a very different approach as they could see some flack approaching on disabling emergency exits ( Shock Horror!
)Sooooo in addition to all the other requirements on exit size, evac etc they made a new rule( FAR 121 and later FAR 21) that said no exit shall be more than 60 feet from the next exit. (The 60 foot rule)
If you read the preamble to the FAR the FAA admit that this 60 feet is an arbitary number with no basis in fact.
It obviously prevented US operators from blocking the o/w exit on the B747 but it caught one other aircraft - the L1011-500.
The -500 being shorter than all other L1011 variants had only one mid fus exit instead of 2 like earlier variants.
Delta, being the only -500 operator at the time obviously got a "grandfather" exemption but both Rich and ATA had to put additional exits in their aircraft. ( approx $1m each !!)
As Delta were in the process of taking the AC aircraft their FAA Exemption Order lists ALL L1011-500 serial numbers including the RAF ones
'Yep the FAA is looking after passenger safety
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the background, folks, very interesting reading.
Could you please fill in on timing? I gather the latest BA Jumbo's, the 747-400's, have all 10 exits on that level operating and have been around for 11 (or was it 14) years. How did the phasing out of the other Jumbo's take place? I presume the 400's weren't delivered all at once in one batch but over the 11 years, and so the phasing out went on until 2002, as mentioned above. So, for that period, BA was presumably still operating the 8-exit 747's quite widely. Have I got this right?
Thanks again!
TP
Could you please fill in on timing? I gather the latest BA Jumbo's, the 747-400's, have all 10 exits on that level operating and have been around for 11 (or was it 14) years. How did the phasing out of the other Jumbo's take place? I presume the 400's weren't delivered all at once in one batch but over the 11 years, and so the phasing out went on until 2002, as mentioned above. So, for that period, BA was presumably still operating the 8-exit 747's quite widely. Have I got this right?
Thanks again!
TP
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, England
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember flying as a passenger on the BA 200s as recently as 1999/2000 on both the LHR-MIA and LHR-LOS routes.
Does anyone know if European have re-activated the doors on the aircraft they took from BA or if they have reduced capacity?
Does anyone know if European have re-activated the doors on the aircraft they took from BA or if they have reduced capacity?
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BA -200s were sold to EAAC shortly after '911'. Most of them had eight double lane slides on the main deck and two single lane slides on the upper deck. The slides at doors 3L/R were removed to save weight as they were not required when the capacity of the aircraft was reduced.
The -400 has twelve double lane slides, ten on the main deck and two on the upper deck. Nothing has changed since the day that they were delivered.
Perhaps one of our EAAC PPRuNers can say what the current state of the aircraft is?
Airclues
The -400 has twelve double lane slides, ten on the main deck and two on the upper deck. Nothing has changed since the day that they were delivered.
Perhaps one of our EAAC PPRuNers can say what the current state of the aircraft is?
Airclues
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In The Sky
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The B747-200 that operate with European are:
G-BDXE, XF, XG, XH & XJ
All of the main deck doors are now active, Doors 1, 2, 4 & 5 all have dual lane slide rafts and doors 3 are fitted with one piece over wing dual lane slides (note: NOT slide rafts), the one piece slides are aparently the same as what the 747-400 has. there are also 2 one peice slide's on the upper deck.
G-BDXE, XF, XG, XH & XJ
All of the main deck doors are now active, Doors 1, 2, 4 & 5 all have dual lane slide rafts and doors 3 are fitted with one piece over wing dual lane slides (note: NOT slide rafts), the one piece slides are aparently the same as what the 747-400 has. there are also 2 one peice slide's on the upper deck.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Airclues:
The BA -200s were sold to EAAC shortly after '911'. Most of them had eight double lane slides on the main deck and two single lane slides on the upper deck. The slides at doors 3L/R were removed to save weight as they were not required when the capacity of the aircraft was reduced. The -400 has twelve double lane slides, ten on the main deck and two on the upper deck. Nothing has changed since the day that they were delivered.
Perhaps one of our EAAC PPRuNers can say what the current state of the aircraft is?
Airclues
I wonder whether the timing over selling them after 911 was sheer co-incidence, or associated because, for example, of possible bad flack on safety issues - 'BA Jumbo's have only 8 emergency exits, everyone else has 10' sort of thing?
TP
The BA -200s were sold to EAAC shortly after '911'. Most of them had eight double lane slides on the main deck and two single lane slides on the upper deck. The slides at doors 3L/R were removed to save weight as they were not required when the capacity of the aircraft was reduced. The -400 has twelve double lane slides, ten on the main deck and two on the upper deck. Nothing has changed since the day that they were delivered.
Perhaps one of our EAAC PPRuNers can say what the current state of the aircraft is?
Airclues
I wonder whether the timing over selling them after 911 was sheer co-incidence, or associated because, for example, of possible bad flack on safety issues - 'BA Jumbo's have only 8 emergency exits, everyone else has 10' sort of thing?
TP
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Phoenix Rises
I assume that you are a journo, and that it's a slow news week. I really don't think that you'll get very far with this. It's very old news. No doubt you'll still try though!
Airclues
I assume that you are a journo, and that it's a slow news week. I really don't think that you'll get very far with this. It's very old news. No doubt you'll still try though!
Airclues
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note the title has changed- there is now no longer '???' at the end of the title. Therefore, this thread is now giving a fact ,that is totally incorrect! No BA 747 flies with 8 exits on the maindeck. Is there anyway I can put that fact clearer so that you can understand? Can we kill this one please? The Classics that were configured thus were retired in the cutbacks post 911, and I think went roundabout Nov 2000. Don't you think it slightly unfair that BA is getting false adverse publicity about this? There were reasons the Classics were so configured- that was not the reason they were retired- the publicity at the time had dissipated. They were old and less efficient and BA needed to lose some hulls.
As this has now been adequately answered I really think this thread should be removed because of its title.
As this has now been adequately answered I really think this thread should be removed because of its title.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, England
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Odd that the question marks disappeared but anyway it's clear that BA did not dispose of its classics because of any safety issue regarding the blocked exit.
The fact is that the type of mission that BA would have tasked a B747-200 with at the time they were ordered and delivered is now covered more efficiently by newer aircraft.
It's also a mistake to assume that the B742s were directly replaced by B744s. The B777 and B767 are also used on missions now that were the sole province of the B747 classics ten or fifteen years ago.
The fact is that the type of mission that BA would have tasked a B747-200 with at the time they were ordered and delivered is now covered more efficiently by newer aircraft.
It's also a mistake to assume that the B742s were directly replaced by B744s. The B777 and B767 are also used on missions now that were the sole province of the B747 classics ten or fifteen years ago.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Airclues:
Oh, please. I see no reason to insult me.
I am a businessman who has been flying for 20 years, with a great love of flying, now a student PPL, with a modest 35 hours or so under my belt. I made a comment about the 8-exit BA Jumbo's recently, and was pounced on by someone and called, basically, an idiot and a liar. I have posted this thread to seek clarification (and thus verification) from professionals in the business. I have seen and travelled on these Jumbo's; the person who made the remark to me could not believe that BA - or any airline - could ever close off emergency exits.
If you do not wish to assist me further, fine. But please, no more insults. I have enough dealings with the press regularly in my business life to have to take a breath of fresh air regularly. I don't need to be tarred with that brush.
TP
Hi Notso Fantastic:
Well I can assure you I didn't take the question marks off. I didn't even know you could.
Look I have no axe to grind over this. I am only seeking clarification of something. Why so touchy about this? I mean no offence to anyone. If you don't want to assist by responding to my posting in a positive and friendly manner, then fine.
I guess there is an administrator on this site and I am pm'ing to ask about the question marks. I agree that, like that, it looks as a statement. If I can edit them and put them in, I will do so.
TP
Oh, please. I see no reason to insult me.
I am a businessman who has been flying for 20 years, with a great love of flying, now a student PPL, with a modest 35 hours or so under my belt. I made a comment about the 8-exit BA Jumbo's recently, and was pounced on by someone and called, basically, an idiot and a liar. I have posted this thread to seek clarification (and thus verification) from professionals in the business. I have seen and travelled on these Jumbo's; the person who made the remark to me could not believe that BA - or any airline - could ever close off emergency exits.
If you do not wish to assist me further, fine. But please, no more insults. I have enough dealings with the press regularly in my business life to have to take a breath of fresh air regularly. I don't need to be tarred with that brush.
TP
Hi Notso Fantastic:
Well I can assure you I didn't take the question marks off. I didn't even know you could.
Look I have no axe to grind over this. I am only seeking clarification of something. Why so touchy about this? I mean no offence to anyone. If you don't want to assist by responding to my posting in a positive and friendly manner, then fine.
I guess there is an administrator on this site and I am pm'ing to ask about the question marks. I agree that, like that, it looks as a statement. If I can edit them and put them in, I will do so.
TP