This door?

http://www.adastron.com/aviation/vault/A380-doors.jpg

There are two Rs on each side.

No.

givemewings has given a good enough reason. Post # 97

At engine start I once used the P.A. to brief the passenger cabin on the wrong route to the wrong destination - can't remember why now, maybe just a Senior Moment ( and yes, Senior Captains do get Senior Moments - just like everyone else - tough ) and the co-pilot told me so as soon as I'd finished ! I chose not to correct it, that would only draw attention to my error, and I guessed that no one had noticed - correct, not even the Cabin Crew !

No one listens, so you might as well think OK, go ahead as DX suggested, but it would only worry anyone who might accidentally be paying attention.

If you've nothing to say, don't say it.

Yes, the central (over-wing), port-side, lower door, as identified in post #101.

M3L in Airbus-speak.

SQ A380 emergency landing in Baku due to low cabin pressure
 

Does anyone know which door(s) where involved in previous incidents ? It is indeed somewhat surprising that M3L would fail rather than some much more used exits. Also anyone with the number of cycles of this airframe - could not locate the info ?

massiveheed -thank for reply
 

quote
Having just operated to Baku in the last couple of weeks a couple of points.
Prior to Baku travelling east MSA reaches up to 18400' so depending on where it happened choices of diversion are limited after a descent due to decompression.
Take a look at Tblisi Odesa Simferopol or Ganja. Where wold you rather go. Again depending on where it occurred there is a lot of terrain and distance between Baku and other airports outside this area.


cheers for reply re my asking about where they could have gone elsewhere at low level/MSA if Baku was unavailable -could they have got back to Istanbul

Just have a look at a map.

yes thanks i am good at maps and geog lol

my question was whether an A380 flying at low level/MSA at heavy weights if Baku was unavailable -could they have got back to Istanbul?

perfectly reasonable question - i have no idea what the fuel penalty for this a/c would be over such a time period at low level

Thanks for your reply Bergerie1.

DaveReidUK would you happen to know who makes the M3L doors?

Airbus helicopters (previously known as eurocopter, now rebranded airbus like all eads companies) makes all a380 doors, in Donauwörth, Germany. Subcontractors include Latécoère (France) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan).

Apart from composite materials, one of the touted novelties in a380 doors are the electromechanical actuators, a servo motor and a planetary gearhead, complete with electronic controls. Not sure if that also applies to emergency doors?

My understanding is that M2/M3/M4 are identical, other than the absence of a slide on M3 of course.

http://aviation-safety.net/photos/ex...-E-d-3-750.jpg

http://aviation-safety.net/photos/ex...-E-d-2-750.jpg

All cabin door are identical, the only difference is the slide location. Main deck doors have a door mounted slide raft with the exception of MLR 3 doors. These 2 have it on belly, hence it is not visible on the door, see the first picture in the previous post. (That is ML3 door).

Upper deck doors are also the same but they have the slide raft fuselage mounted, under the door.

I've had the pleasure of sitting near these doors on flights to and from Singapore, and its worrying just how often they buzz. More so now than before, as the potential consequences are apparent. The buzzing merely used to ruin any chance of sleep during the flight. Now there's a good chance it'll pull the same trick the night before the flight.
Another engineer where I work reported vibration so extreme from a door it was shaking the deck and seats some three rows back. Someone from the flight deck was called. Blankets were stuffed in gaps, earplugs were offered and on it went. Loud, unnerving but uneventful. Looking at the photos begs the question is what is seemingly from experience a routine decision to just ignore it and carry on, allowing vibration and cyclic loading to chomp through the doors service life. When you're shaking the deck there's some energy going through the system.
I'm back on another A380 in a fortnight, pre-booked unfortunately. Will probably switch airlines for future trips now though, and watch for a while.

All a380 doors in default operation will be opened using the handle then moved using the open/close button due size/weight of door.

do SIA cc perform opening completely (a la EK) or do the ground staff (as at QF?).

Or, more accurately, the operation of all the doors is identical. The profiles of M1 and M5 differ from the others, for obvious reasons.

Its the same operation and the same door design for all of them. The differences are only when it comes to slide location, slide raft capacities, gust lock location.
There are a few more small diferences but I wont go into specifics.

I'd have thought that the fact the M1 and M5 doors won't physically fit in the M2/M3/M4 apertures (nor vice versa) due to the fuselage taper would qualify as more than just a "small difference".

Try interchanging them and you won't get as far as having to worry about pressurisation leaks :O

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2503/...bfb0ef00a0.jpg

Except for the loading. All doors see cabin pressure. Over wing doors additionally see the low pressure of the wing upper surface, hence they are higher and more dynamically loaded. On the other hand the overwing structure is much stiffer, so mainly the aft fuselage doors see the highest deformation of the surrounding structure and hence the highest realtive movement of the door stops and locks.
Therefore the doors may look identical, but might have small differences in wallthickness or dimension of internal structural items.

There are small differences, of course, but it is the same door structure, same door components, aside from the ones mentioned.
We are talking here about type doors, this is how its categorised in Airbus. E.g. In A330/340, we have type A doors and type I doors (which are LR3).
In A380 is the same door type and Airbus doesn't differentiate between them.

I dont belive those small differences have anything to do with this incident, since this is what we are talking about. We have to wait and see what exactly failed there.

Correct - all the doors on the A380 satisfy the criteria of a Type A exit. Though of course those criteria relate solely to the dimensions and not to the structure or design.

Agreed.

Around about post 66, it was mentioned that it was a LHR engineer that signed the door off as serviceable...


I wonder if he was a tall, or short, engineer.


Would he have needed to put a ladder on the wing to see on top of the door?