Full evacuation test "too dangerous" on A380!
Guest
Posts: n/a
But can you get everyone to DON their life vest AND get out in 90sec? Gonna need even more exits for that approach to make up for the initial loss of time while everyone gets dressed and that adds more weight to an already overweight aicraft...
Cheers
Wino
Cheers
Wino
Guest
Posts: n/a
Seems to be OK for 568 pax to get out of the 747-400D?
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747-400d/product.html
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747-400d/product.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
My two bobs worth:
If Airbus want the certification then I feel that they should have to also prove - like other manufacturers - that their aircraft can meet the requirements. There should be NO exception to these regardless of wether it's Boeing or Airbus. As someone well pointed out, if 600 - 800 pax can't get out in "ideal" simulated conditions (ie in a hangar, no wind, no fire, rain etc) how do Airbus expect pax to do the same in the craap, from 30ft in the air when. Are they going to ban elderly, disabled and those with a fear of heights fromt he upper deck? I also feel that there is a difference between Boeings upper deck and that of Airbus's purely because of the difference in the number of pax in that compartment. ie: there are less pax to get histerical and frightened.
It's a good idea (even though I will confess a preference to Boeing Aircraft) but if they don't make the grade then they don't get the certification - PERIOD. They are obviously worried and so it is obviously a weak point in their aircraft which means they should be forced to do it more than ever.
Twin
PS - how about ejector seats for teh entire upper deck - that'll solve teh problem
If Airbus want the certification then I feel that they should have to also prove - like other manufacturers - that their aircraft can meet the requirements. There should be NO exception to these regardless of wether it's Boeing or Airbus. As someone well pointed out, if 600 - 800 pax can't get out in "ideal" simulated conditions (ie in a hangar, no wind, no fire, rain etc) how do Airbus expect pax to do the same in the craap, from 30ft in the air when. Are they going to ban elderly, disabled and those with a fear of heights fromt he upper deck? I also feel that there is a difference between Boeings upper deck and that of Airbus's purely because of the difference in the number of pax in that compartment. ie: there are less pax to get histerical and frightened.
It's a good idea (even though I will confess a preference to Boeing Aircraft) but if they don't make the grade then they don't get the certification - PERIOD. They are obviously worried and so it is obviously a weak point in their aircraft which means they should be forced to do it more than ever.
Twin
PS - how about ejector seats for teh entire upper deck - that'll solve teh problem
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but I'm from enginering. Surely the problem that needs fixing here is a better evacuation method than primitive slides?
Engineering -- making the world a better place...
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Engineering -- making the world a better place...
**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Guest
Posts: n/a
I fully understand them not testing the procedures fully. I'm currently designing a new type of seatbelt - out of spaghetti. Now, there may be a small possibility that someone might get injured during live tests. So I'm not going to test it properly and instead I’ll use my expensive computer to demonstrate just how safe my new Pasta Safety Harness really is.
The words “Titanic” and “…but there’s not enough life boats Jack!” spring to mind.
The words “Titanic” and “…but there’s not enough life boats Jack!” spring to mind.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As I see it, evacuations are dangerous. People get injured. Only a few months ago a colleauge of mine was injured (not too seriously, thankfully) doing the slide from 146!
The real issue is what are the benefits of doing the practice evacuation? I don't view a regulatory tick-in-the-box as having any inherent worth, instead we should ask the following question:
Is the format of the tests likely to permit the discovery of information that will (a) allow changes to be made that will cause less people to be injured in the event of a real evacuation, and (b) is there truly no other way of gaining the information.
As far as I'm concerned, there can be no reliable test of a full evacuation - unless people are in genuine fear for their lives, and unless the test group contains a worst case load out of special assist passengers, with half the plane on fire (for real) etc. etc. then the test conditions are too poor for the data to have any reliable value.
As such, the certainty of getting people injured so as to gather useless data is reprehensible.
CPB
The real issue is what are the benefits of doing the practice evacuation? I don't view a regulatory tick-in-the-box as having any inherent worth, instead we should ask the following question:
Is the format of the tests likely to permit the discovery of information that will (a) allow changes to be made that will cause less people to be injured in the event of a real evacuation, and (b) is there truly no other way of gaining the information.
As far as I'm concerned, there can be no reliable test of a full evacuation - unless people are in genuine fear for their lives, and unless the test group contains a worst case load out of special assist passengers, with half the plane on fire (for real) etc. etc. then the test conditions are too poor for the data to have any reliable value.
As such, the certainty of getting people injured so as to gather useless data is reprehensible.
CPB
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is just insane frog sh!t.
The usual gobbledegook you can expect from somene trying to defend the indefensible.
If you can't ensure the safety of "pax" in a relatively 'controlled' scenario what chance in a real emergency.
And why then bother in the first place.
Anyway I'm off to start rearranging the deck chairs guys.
The usual gobbledegook you can expect from somene trying to defend the indefensible.
If you can't ensure the safety of "pax" in a relatively 'controlled' scenario what chance in a real emergency.
And why then bother in the first place.
Anyway I'm off to start rearranging the deck chairs guys.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can we open our minds a bit re evacuation problems? – Are there not two issues?
1 What goes on INSIDE the aeroplane prior to passing through the exits
2 What goes on OUTSIDE having passed through the exits
Professor Helen Muir at Cranfield led the way, post Manchester, in sorting out the variables of human behaviour inside the aircraft, leading to an understanding of how the interior and the exits need to be designed to improve flow rates. She initially did this using gantries built outside an old Trident for the people to exit onto. I don’t see why the internal arrangements such as door sizes and positions, lighting, effects of smoke, bulkhead layout, etc cannot be tested for the 380 (or any other large aircraft) using this (safer) technique.
For complete certification of an aircraft the slides, tubes or whatever have also to be developed and tested for satisfactory deployment in some very demanding circumstances. It seems to me this is a separate subject and can be dealt with as such.
Assuming this external work can be done to everyone’s satisfaction why do you have to stuff a full load of real (but probably totally unrepresentative people) down the system? Would that prove anything that that could not be better and more safely shown in the R&D lab?
64-dollar question:
Do we really feel any past certification evacuation demonstration has been fully representative of a real emergency evacuation in the same type?
Personally, I don’t think so.
For my money if we really want to improve evacuation safety we should be insisting on more realistic certification demonstrations of what happens inside the aeroplanes (present and future) and leave the external escape system development and testing to R&D labs using trained test subjects and or dummies or whatever. Just like car crash testing.
1 What goes on INSIDE the aeroplane prior to passing through the exits
2 What goes on OUTSIDE having passed through the exits
Professor Helen Muir at Cranfield led the way, post Manchester, in sorting out the variables of human behaviour inside the aircraft, leading to an understanding of how the interior and the exits need to be designed to improve flow rates. She initially did this using gantries built outside an old Trident for the people to exit onto. I don’t see why the internal arrangements such as door sizes and positions, lighting, effects of smoke, bulkhead layout, etc cannot be tested for the 380 (or any other large aircraft) using this (safer) technique.
For complete certification of an aircraft the slides, tubes or whatever have also to be developed and tested for satisfactory deployment in some very demanding circumstances. It seems to me this is a separate subject and can be dealt with as such.
Assuming this external work can be done to everyone’s satisfaction why do you have to stuff a full load of real (but probably totally unrepresentative people) down the system? Would that prove anything that that could not be better and more safely shown in the R&D lab?
64-dollar question:
Do we really feel any past certification evacuation demonstration has been fully representative of a real emergency evacuation in the same type?
Personally, I don’t think so.
For my money if we really want to improve evacuation safety we should be insisting on more realistic certification demonstrations of what happens inside the aeroplanes (present and future) and leave the external escape system development and testing to R&D labs using trained test subjects and or dummies or whatever. Just like car crash testing.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hear Hear!
John Farley hits both nails on the head IMHO.
John, any chance of pointing me in the right direction so I can find & read some of what Prof Muir has written on this subject?
Thanks in advance.
------------------
Singularly Simple Person........
John Farley hits both nails on the head IMHO.
John, any chance of pointing me in the right direction so I can find & read some of what Prof Muir has written on this subject?
Thanks in advance.
------------------
Singularly Simple Person........
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just my 2pence worth.
I was a student at the time the tests were carried out on the Trident. It was set up at Teeside airport; money was offered for volunteers to perform the said evacuations. I couldn't go at the time due to studies (honest!), but one or two of my friends got on the payroll.
They evacuated the a/c safely several times with the doors working - no problem. Then they evacuated with some doors jammed - no problem again. Then they did it with (fake) smoke (having been told it would happen) - again no problem. Eventually they found a scenario which caused people to panic - become aggresive - fight - and cause actual bodily injury to several people. How did they achieve this? Simple, they offered an extra 10 pounds to the first 15 people thru the exits! (Actual figures may vary - but you get the picture)
Now - if that widespread pandemonium can be generated for a few quid - what do you think happens when your life is at stake? John got it absolutely correct - we should focus on what happens inside the cabin with people trying to get out rather than the actual method of getting someone to the ground without hurting themselves. A few broken bones - even the odd fatality - from falling a bit too far or too awkwardly is far more preferable than being gassed - burned - crushed - or whatever - inside the hull, which, by the way, is where most fatalities occur before the victims even get chance to use the slides!
Anyway, hoping it never happens....
Underdog
I was a student at the time the tests were carried out on the Trident. It was set up at Teeside airport; money was offered for volunteers to perform the said evacuations. I couldn't go at the time due to studies (honest!), but one or two of my friends got on the payroll.
They evacuated the a/c safely several times with the doors working - no problem. Then they evacuated with some doors jammed - no problem again. Then they did it with (fake) smoke (having been told it would happen) - again no problem. Eventually they found a scenario which caused people to panic - become aggresive - fight - and cause actual bodily injury to several people. How did they achieve this? Simple, they offered an extra 10 pounds to the first 15 people thru the exits! (Actual figures may vary - but you get the picture)
Now - if that widespread pandemonium can be generated for a few quid - what do you think happens when your life is at stake? John got it absolutely correct - we should focus on what happens inside the cabin with people trying to get out rather than the actual method of getting someone to the ground without hurting themselves. A few broken bones - even the odd fatality - from falling a bit too far or too awkwardly is far more preferable than being gassed - burned - crushed - or whatever - inside the hull, which, by the way, is where most fatalities occur before the victims even get chance to use the slides!
Anyway, hoping it never happens....
UnderdogGuest
Posts: n/a
I always wonder about the overwing exits, relatively small and a lot of very oversized people. Our way of escaping our freightdog are 3 ropes, one above each pilotsseat (try to get through that little window) and one at the forward entry door (the only door if there is cargo on board). Maybe Airbus needs to go to a system like the militairy uses on helicopter troopships
Guest
Posts: n/a
Neither Boeing nor Airbus give the height of the emergency exit doors in their Web specs. However, the height from the ground to the top of the tail is 16.7 meters in a 340, 19.4 meters in a 744, and 24.1 meters in a 380.
The FAA's certification criteria for demonstrating commercial transport evacuations using emergency exits can be found at:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...3?OpenDocument
The composition of the 'passenger' manifest for the demonstration is rather interesting:
"A representative passenger load of persons in normal health must be used. At least 30 percent must be females. At least 5 percent must be over 60 years of age with a proportionate number of females. At least 5
percent, but not more than 10 percent, must be children under 12 years of age, prorated through that age group. 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. Crewmembers, mechanics, and training personnel who maintain or operate the airplane in the normal course of their duties may not be used as passengers."
The demonstration must be done at night, or in conditions (inside the aircraft) simulating night The plane's normal electrical power systems are to be de-energized. Only half the exits can be used, and the aisles are to have normal clutter (carry-on baggage, pillows, blankets, etc.).
Given these criteria, the height of the upper deck exits, and the age distribution of the passenger population in the demonstration, could Airbus seek a FAA certification that prohibited carriage on the upper deck by passengers who were infants, minors under 12, or elderly over 60, believing it could demonstrate evacuation within the required time if these passengers were excluded from the upper deck? I can just see a 7 year old stop at the door and simply refuse to go down a 40 foot slide, and stopping the whole evacuation.
The FAA's certification criteria for demonstrating commercial transport evacuations using emergency exits can be found at:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...3?OpenDocument
The composition of the 'passenger' manifest for the demonstration is rather interesting:
"A representative passenger load of persons in normal health must be used. At least 30 percent must be females. At least 5 percent must be over 60 years of age with a proportionate number of females. At least 5
percent, but not more than 10 percent, must be children under 12 years of age, prorated through that age group. 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. Crewmembers, mechanics, and training personnel who maintain or operate the airplane in the normal course of their duties may not be used as passengers."
The demonstration must be done at night, or in conditions (inside the aircraft) simulating night The plane's normal electrical power systems are to be de-energized. Only half the exits can be used, and the aisles are to have normal clutter (carry-on baggage, pillows, blankets, etc.).
Given these criteria, the height of the upper deck exits, and the age distribution of the passenger population in the demonstration, could Airbus seek a FAA certification that prohibited carriage on the upper deck by passengers who were infants, minors under 12, or elderly over 60, believing it could demonstrate evacuation within the required time if these passengers were excluded from the upper deck? I can just see a 7 year old stop at the door and simply refuse to go down a 40 foot slide, and stopping the whole evacuation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
All emergency evacuation scenarios are different. The circumstances surrounding any real event are constantly changing, therefore a certification demonstration under semi-controlled conditions doesn't prove anything.
Survival is the name of the game. Injuries on egress are unavoidable.
Survival is the name of the game. Injuries on egress are unavoidable.
Guest
Posts: n/a
These emergency evacuation criteria (written in 1978) are really a design standard: how many egress doors are needed to get x number of people off the aircraft within a specified time. Theoretically, increase the time, decrease the number of doors.
The issues with the upper deck of the 380 seems to be human factors and p.r. Assuming the doors are 13-14 meters high (a fall from that distance, if not fatal, will usually cause severe injury) and such a height will invariably induce hesitation and reluctance, on the part of some people to go out the door and onto the slide. I expect fire brigades could give you approximate percentages of how many people will hesitate before stepping to safety on a rescue ladder (with the fireman right there to assist) as the building burns about them.
The public relations nightmare that Airbus seeks to avoid, hence the computer simulation idea, is media headlines screaming of the 50 people who were hospitalized after testing the slides during a demonstration.
Computer simulations of proof of concept won't help lessen the pucker factor if its your life on the line. How many fighter pilots would take great comfort in a manufacturer's assurance that it had tested the functioning of the ejection seat on the computer and it seemed to work fine there.
From an acturial standpoint, the number of emergency evacuations using the slides is substantially greater than the number of crashes. The insurance payments for quadraplegia, paraplegia, and other severe injuries resulting from an actual emergency evacuation of the upper deck of a 380 could be astoundingly high. And might that lead to hseitation and delay on the part of the cockpit crew before ever ordering an emergency evacuation?
The issues with the upper deck of the 380 seems to be human factors and p.r. Assuming the doors are 13-14 meters high (a fall from that distance, if not fatal, will usually cause severe injury) and such a height will invariably induce hesitation and reluctance, on the part of some people to go out the door and onto the slide. I expect fire brigades could give you approximate percentages of how many people will hesitate before stepping to safety on a rescue ladder (with the fireman right there to assist) as the building burns about them.
The public relations nightmare that Airbus seeks to avoid, hence the computer simulation idea, is media headlines screaming of the 50 people who were hospitalized after testing the slides during a demonstration.
Computer simulations of proof of concept won't help lessen the pucker factor if its your life on the line. How many fighter pilots would take great comfort in a manufacturer's assurance that it had tested the functioning of the ejection seat on the computer and it seemed to work fine there.
From an acturial standpoint, the number of emergency evacuations using the slides is substantially greater than the number of crashes. The insurance payments for quadraplegia, paraplegia, and other severe injuries resulting from an actual emergency evacuation of the upper deck of a 380 could be astoundingly high. And might that lead to hseitation and delay on the part of the cockpit crew before ever ordering an emergency evacuation?
