A380 Passenger EVAC announcement
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In the dark
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone comfirm what the evac tests consisted of in the past? I seem to remember seeing a documentary which suggested that the 747 test consisted of students lining up on a platform OUTSIDE the aircraft doors and running through and out the other side. The reason being that it was only intended to demontrate the rate at which people could get out the doors and down the slides.
Not much of an indication of what would happen in a real life emergency!
The same documentary also mentioned Plastique's point about giving "prizes" to try to get some realism in the student's behaviour.
Not much of an indication of what would happen in a real life emergency!
The same documentary also mentioned Plastique's point about giving "prizes" to try to get some realism in the student's behaviour.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh,
The 747 was done with full EVAC tests. Nothing flying in the US was done by analysis and is why Airbus will be running a full fledged test if they want it flying here as a passenger airplane.
eal401,
Limited abilities eh? If you had the ability to spell and do a search you may notice I have already done just that and posted the full EVAC requirement. Read it and you will understand why this is going to be a very interesting day for the aviation community.
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.
(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.
(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?
The 747 was done with full EVAC tests. Nothing flying in the US was done by analysis and is why Airbus will be running a full fledged test if they want it flying here as a passenger airplane.
eal401,
Limited abilities eh? If you had the ability to spell and do a search you may notice I have already done just that and posted the full EVAC requirement. Read it and you will understand why this is going to be a very interesting day for the aviation community.
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.
(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.
(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?
Last edited by 747FOCAL; 15th Feb 2005 at 12:01.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does that answer your question?
As someone pointed out, with 16 pax doors, that makes 53 pax/per door, or 106 if 50% or doors are disabled.
What's the absolute maximum capacity of the 744 main deck? Shall we say 500? (We'll ignore the upper deck, you usually do in such arguments) With 10 maindeck doors, that works out at, er, 50 per door, or 100 if 50% disabled.
Assuming average, real world use, the A380 will have 550 passengers. Making the total per door 35 (70). Compared to the 744 which has on the main deck, shall we say 350? Making the total per door, um, 35 (70).
Clearly, reality will be different based on the fit of the aircraft, but as a rough and ready comparison.....well.....there doesn't actually seem to be a comparison.
If you do a search you'll find all sorts of interesting Goodrich patents.
Suffice it to say that if the A380 doesn't sell, they'll be able to use it as the central feature in a waterpark.
But why does everyone get so excited about 850 pax? Even when the A380 operates at max pax load (which nobody plans to do for years) it's a smaller relative jump in size than the 747, in its day.
Have we all turned into nervous Nellies in this business? Or have some people taken too generous a swig of the tainted Starbucks?
Suffice it to say that if the A380 doesn't sell, they'll be able to use it as the central feature in a waterpark.
But why does everyone get so excited about 850 pax? Even when the A380 operates at max pax load (which nobody plans to do for years) it's a smaller relative jump in size than the 747, in its day.
Have we all turned into nervous Nellies in this business? Or have some people taken too generous a swig of the tainted Starbucks?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Age: 60
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plastique - your description of how they get the volunteers out fast (with beer chits) is spot on ... I did it many years ago and found that you can run over seats with people still strapped in and get through the overwing exit quite easily when money is at stake!
747focal,
The 747-400 was not tested in a full evac. What has been demostrated in a real emergency with the 747-400 is that these slides will inflate inside the cabin during an emergency, this happened with teh SQ006 accident pinning crew in the cabin between the inflated slide and the fuselage.
Not all exit types on the 747-400 were test in demostrated tests, alayss was used to say.
In some configurations, the 747 is certified to use "19 persons on upper deck equipped with emergency descent reels and harnesses" these were never demostrated.
If you look at "TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET NO. A20WE" for the 747 you will note that the FAA wrote a "letter" known as "Special Condition No. 25-71-NW-3" which allows for increased numbers on the upper deck.
Correct me if I am wrong, the 747-100 was demostrated with 4 pair of Type "A" exits on main deck, by anaysis this was increased to 550 pax by using 5 pair of Type "A" exits on main deck.
e.g
4 pair 440 pax
5 pair 550 pax
i.e 1 pair 110 pax, counting 50% loss of doors, 110 people per door.
eal401,
Main deck 747 capacity is dependant on the number of pairs of Type "A" exits on main deck, 440 for four pair, 550 for 5 pair.
The 747-400 was not tested in a full evac. What has been demostrated in a real emergency with the 747-400 is that these slides will inflate inside the cabin during an emergency, this happened with teh SQ006 accident pinning crew in the cabin between the inflated slide and the fuselage.
Not all exit types on the 747-400 were test in demostrated tests, alayss was used to say.
In some configurations, the 747 is certified to use "19 persons on upper deck equipped with emergency descent reels and harnesses" these were never demostrated.
If you look at "TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET NO. A20WE" for the 747 you will note that the FAA wrote a "letter" known as "Special Condition No. 25-71-NW-3" which allows for increased numbers on the upper deck.
Correct me if I am wrong, the 747-100 was demostrated with 4 pair of Type "A" exits on main deck, by anaysis this was increased to 550 pax by using 5 pair of Type "A" exits on main deck.
e.g
4 pair 440 pax
5 pair 550 pax
i.e 1 pair 110 pax, counting 50% loss of doors, 110 people per door.
eal401,
Main deck 747 capacity is dependant on the number of pairs of Type "A" exits on main deck, 440 for four pair, 550 for 5 pair.
Howcanwebeexpectedtoflylikeeagles
whensurroundedbyturkeys
There was an interesting test done some years ago which was much more realistic.
The aim of the "standard" test is to get everyone out in 90 seconds. To this end, everyone contributes to the task and helps everyone else to achieve the goal.
In a real accident, the goal is to get YOURSELF (and maybe your family) out and to hell with everyone else. To try and simulate this, the "pax" where told that only the first third of the group out of the aircraft would get $50. The remainder would get nothing.
The result of the test was significantly different to the "standard" with a much longer evacuation time.
Can't remember who carried out this test and maybe I have some of the numbers wrong but the principle is there. I also seem to remember a test when all the cabin crew jumped first and left the "pax" to themselves. can't remember the result of that one. Can anyone provide further details?
The aim of the "standard" test is to get everyone out in 90 seconds. To this end, everyone contributes to the task and helps everyone else to achieve the goal.
In a real accident, the goal is to get YOURSELF (and maybe your family) out and to hell with everyone else. To try and simulate this, the "pax" where told that only the first third of the group out of the aircraft would get $50. The remainder would get nothing.
The result of the test was significantly different to the "standard" with a much longer evacuation time.
Can't remember who carried out this test and maybe I have some of the numbers wrong but the principle is there. I also seem to remember a test when all the cabin crew jumped first and left the "pax" to themselves. can't remember the result of that one. Can anyone provide further details?
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On this and other forums, we see a lot of people with agendas of one form or another (airline XXX is about to go bankrupt, aircraft YYY is unsound, country ZZZ favours its own airline).
747FOCAL has brought up the question of EVAC of A380 several times before. Now he is saying deaths will occur from it. This is the kind of stuff journos feed on and we know such journos read PPRuNe.
I think people should have the freedom to think these things, and to say them, but 747FOCAL has done nothing to spread FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) about 380 for some time now in a way WA based Microsoft would be proud.
I challenge 747FOCAL to remove himself from PPRuNe for 1 month from the day of the 380 evac if it is carried out without any fatalities. I offer to remove myself from PPRuNe for the same period if a fatality occurs.
Fair enough?
747FOCAL has brought up the question of EVAC of A380 several times before. Now he is saying deaths will occur from it. This is the kind of stuff journos feed on and we know such journos read PPRuNe.
I think people should have the freedom to think these things, and to say them, but 747FOCAL has done nothing to spread FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) about 380 for some time now in a way WA based Microsoft would be proud.
I challenge 747FOCAL to remove himself from PPRuNe for 1 month from the day of the 380 evac if it is carried out without any fatalities. I offer to remove myself from PPRuNe for the same period if a fatality occurs.
Fair enough?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh,
The 747-400 claimed equivelency to a lot fo the 747 Classics EVAC test. The A380 has no like airplane to claim equivelency on.
MarkD- I will be just as happy as the rest if the A380 passes and nobody dies trying to prove it. But, I don't see why either of us has to leave for being wrong in opinion. Over here in the USA we are allowed to have a different opinion than the rest and not be punished or persecuted for it either.
The 747-400 claimed equivelency to a lot fo the 747 Classics EVAC test. The A380 has no like airplane to claim equivelency on.
MarkD- I will be just as happy as the rest if the A380 passes and nobody dies trying to prove it. But, I don't see why either of us has to leave for being wrong in opinion. Over here in the USA we are allowed to have a different opinion than the rest and not be punished or persecuted for it either.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Currently on the left side of the pond
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the problems with a more realistic test is that the injury risk increases dramatically. Isn’t it better to have a simplified test that even though not completely realistic gives a good idea of what you would get in a realistic situation and keeps the risk at a level where you can get participants? I for one would not participate in a test where you evacuate in to a burning field.
Since all tests have approximately the same error the result should be valid. Then you can argue if it is enough to bring everyone out in 90 seconds using half the doors. My best guess is that for situations where it isn’t enough a lower time would not make a real difference.
Since all tests have approximately the same error the result should be valid. Then you can argue if it is enough to bring everyone out in 90 seconds using half the doors. My best guess is that for situations where it isn’t enough a lower time would not make a real difference.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM_Falcon,
The truth is that 90 seconds is generous. Everyone in aviation that truly knows the reality understands that 20 seconds is generous in an uncontrolled landing with survivors trying to get out of a gradually building fire within the cabin.
The truth is that 90 seconds is generous. Everyone in aviation that truly knows the reality understands that 20 seconds is generous in an uncontrolled landing with survivors trying to get out of a gradually building fire within the cabin.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ultimately, no simulation of this type can ever accurately portray reality. Any aircraft can pass a test (Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, whoever) and subsequently crash causing people to die because they can't get out. It is a fact of life, the same as cars, buses, trains, buildings etc. Designers can only try their best. And Airbus have done this.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Effective EVAC's?
Folks,
Wan't going to post a reply on here but after reading through all your comments, I felt I had to.
First, I have to say that I don't favour Airbus over Boeing or vice versa. (I'm a turboprop driver). But this is not really my point.
I have to agree with EAL401 when he says that designers can only try their best. No-one at Airbus or Boeing wants a fatality on their aircraft during operations, drill or evacuations. No aircraft engineer has sat down and deliberately thought up a compromised, dangerous design.
I was reminded of this very recently when going through my late father's notes and papers. As an aircraft designer for over 30 years with BAe he was one of several tasked with looking at safety and evac systems following the B737 fire at Manchester in the '80s.
Reading through his papers, which included the accident reports, I was reminded of the utter chaos and panic on board as people scrambled to get out, ignoring serviceable exits. Many of those people ran forwards, ignoring closer, usable exits behind them and died because of it.
Recently on BBC radio I listened to a woman who had escaped from that flight. Seated right at the back, she described how she fought her way halfway down the cabin to use one of the overwings to escape. Her description of what it was like on board was hair-raising. I really don't think anyone can build for these circumstances. If they did, the planes might never leave the ground.
Its not how many exits you have or chutes that matter. Its how well the people can cope with what's happening to them. Remeber how dis-orientating the fire and smoke drills are. Now imagine a few hundred people who have never done that drill, panicking and trying to get out. There isn't really a perfect solution to this is there?
These are my feelings on this - I'm not looking for a flaming. But remember that, regardless of who make the aircraft, no static drill in a hangar can ever come close to the real thing and all the designers can do is their best.
Wan't going to post a reply on here but after reading through all your comments, I felt I had to.
First, I have to say that I don't favour Airbus over Boeing or vice versa. (I'm a turboprop driver). But this is not really my point.
I have to agree with EAL401 when he says that designers can only try their best. No-one at Airbus or Boeing wants a fatality on their aircraft during operations, drill or evacuations. No aircraft engineer has sat down and deliberately thought up a compromised, dangerous design.
I was reminded of this very recently when going through my late father's notes and papers. As an aircraft designer for over 30 years with BAe he was one of several tasked with looking at safety and evac systems following the B737 fire at Manchester in the '80s.
Reading through his papers, which included the accident reports, I was reminded of the utter chaos and panic on board as people scrambled to get out, ignoring serviceable exits. Many of those people ran forwards, ignoring closer, usable exits behind them and died because of it.
Recently on BBC radio I listened to a woman who had escaped from that flight. Seated right at the back, she described how she fought her way halfway down the cabin to use one of the overwings to escape. Her description of what it was like on board was hair-raising. I really don't think anyone can build for these circumstances. If they did, the planes might never leave the ground.
Its not how many exits you have or chutes that matter. Its how well the people can cope with what's happening to them. Remeber how dis-orientating the fire and smoke drills are. Now imagine a few hundred people who have never done that drill, panicking and trying to get out. There isn't really a perfect solution to this is there?
These are my feelings on this - I'm not looking for a flaming. But remember that, regardless of who make the aircraft, no static drill in a hangar can ever come close to the real thing and all the designers can do is their best.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a true aircraft designer hopes for is to design an aircraft where there is good chance of surviving initial impact, but has a fuselage that will crack open like an egg and spill all the people into the grass so they can run away before the fire kills them.
If you look at some of the biggest aircrashes in history where there were survivors, the majority got spilled out onto the grass. Very few survivors make it off the plane when there is fire and the fuselage remained intact.
If you look at some of the biggest aircrashes in history where there were survivors, the majority got spilled out onto the grass. Very few survivors make it off the plane when there is fire and the fuselage remained intact.
If you look at some of the biggest aircrashes in history where there were survivors, the majority got spilled out onto the grass. Very few survivors make it off the plane when there is fire and the fuselage remained intact
Actually there have been more than a few folks deplane safely from a burning aircraft.
Valujet engine failure in Atlanta comes to mind for an example.
I can't say what mode for deplaning I would choose before each flight. As a survivor I am quite happy to use either one.
Regarding the planned test of the A380 as discussed here. I would believe that taking the same 850 passengers and sending them down escalators in a fire drill would result in some injuries and of course some risk of death if the folks who reach the bottom wait for family members to arrive before leaving the area.
I wouldn\'t take issue with what 747Focal has predicted since there is a real risk in conducting such a test.
I wonder how many pilots would consider doing an inflight reverse deployment to prove out the aircrafts capability.