Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Airbus to stage massive drill to test exits -- and humans -- on giant plane

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Airbus to stage massive drill to test exits -- and humans -- on giant plane

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 6th Apr 2005, 05:10
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This type of test is of little practical value. I believe that the 744 was certificated on the basis of a computer model evacuation test. Also, when the 742 doors 3 were sealed by some carriers in the 1980s a re-evaluation of evacuation conditions was not carried out. Rest assured, the A380 will enter service as planned.
BUMPFF is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2005, 05:41
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Cathay, who blocked off their 747 over wing exits to make room for 12 more passengers took a number of goes with 400+ very small well practiced locals to exit in under 90 seconds.
Standby Scum is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2005, 05:46
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Burgess Hill
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Talking

Look ...get things in perspective:

a. This part of the aircraft certification process is not on the critical path to first flight.

b. It has to be done with a fully furnished aircraft ( SIA #1 probably) .....so thats not NOW....right

c. They'll do the exercise at the number of seats that the customer wants configured ..ie not necessarily the max...so the first exercise ( my guess) will be at the 500 whatever number of seats that SIA want. That will be sufficient to get the aircraft certificated for that number of pax.
Lower Hangar is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2005, 05:57
  #24 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lower Hangar, Limit any aircraft and you cannot grow the airframe in the future as the manufacturer. This is critical to all airframe OEMs.

BUMPFF, No doubt she will enter service. Large package freighter.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2005, 06:25
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,829
Received 273 Likes on 111 Posts
More BS from 747F***ALL......

Do you really think that this test hasn't been considered very carefully for many years? There won't be a problem - and the A380 will soon begin to dominate the large a/c market whilst Boeing attempts to get its plastic plane 7E7 developed.

No prizes for second place!
BEagle is online now  
Old 6th Apr 2005, 06:46
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Burgess Hill
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Talking

BEagle is right....these cunning chaps in TLS will have given this whole process considerable thought and careful analysis. They ( Les Engineers Francais) have a track record on matters of this scale ( Airbus, Ariane and TGV can't be wrong).

As to F747 comments..I did not mean to imply that following this procedure would limit the growth.....just that as the longest journey begins with the smallest step (Mao) I'll bet Airbus don't jump in and demo for DGAC benefit the maximum seating evacuation . Want a tenner on it ???
Lower Hangar is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2005, 07:26
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well at least they are trying with max predicted load.
I think you will find that Boeing did not do an actual test on the B747 with the maximum number of passenger flying today
GotTheTshirt is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2005, 17:44
  #28 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The 747 was tested, just not the upper deck to full capacity. The FAA and JAA allowed them to prove it by analysis at the time. They wont do that anymore.

Of course Airbus thought this through ahead of time, but we all know the best laid plans can go incredibly wrong at the least oportune of times.

If you think all test participants are going to walk away unharmed your fooling yourself.

Yes, I will bet you a tenner that they faill the first test if they use 853 PAX.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2005, 19:23
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More BS from 747F***ALL......
Do you really think that this test hasn't been considered very carefully for many years? There won't be a problem - and the A380 will soon begin to dominate the large a/c market whilst Boeing attempts to get its plastic plane 7E7 developed.
BEagle, you're quite the nasty chap, aren't you?

What do you have against Boeing?

I'm curious, you've obviously flown both, Boeing and Airbus, so what Boeing a/c have you Captained, and when was the last time you flew one for compensation?



No prizes for second place!
What contest are you talking about -- please expound.

Mo
zehutiman is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2005, 21:06
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Down south, USA.
Posts: 1,594
Received 9 Likes on 1 Post
TheOtter'sPocket: The unthinkable almost happened soon after the dual flameouts on the Air Transat A-330 near the Azores and onboard the BA 747-400 (all engines lost power for a short while?) due to the volcanic ash cloud in the western Pacific years ago.

Those cabins probably had many personal items lying around, and had only healthy people who were quite "bloated" from years of fried food.
Ignition Override is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2005, 21:18
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think that the point that was being made was that you don't go from a "sleeping" cabin to a cabin that needs to be evacuated in a split second.

In both the incidents you mention, the cabin was prepared for an emergency landing and there was enough time to do so.....i.e. seat backs up, aisles cleared, pax briefed, stations manned etc.

If you go from a reclining sleeping state to a "landing" in a split second, whether or not you get out of the aircraft is immaterial, seeing as you will have probably hit the side of a hill.
BahrainLad is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2005, 00:40
  #32 (permalink)  

Rebel PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
indeed BahrainLad - 19 minutes from flameout #2 to touchdown at Lajes for AT236 so the passengers would have been well briefed and floors etc. cleared by then.

http://www.transat.com/en/media_cent...tre.asp?id=827

As for the simulated upper deck test on the 747 - I imagine Boeing are quietly hoping the 380 passes or the 747 Advanced might have to be forgotten.
MarkD is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2005, 05:23
  #33 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I dont think they plan on lengthing the upper deck of the advanced.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2005, 06:44
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
B747,

errr yes that was my point Boeing used the percentage increase that was available at that time.

The L1011 was done with 400 pax which is the max certified
Which considering the relationship in size and exits is not far off the 380
GotTheTshirt is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2005, 09:33
  #35 (permalink)  

ex-Tanker
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lightbulb Level Playing Field

Skimming through this thread, one is struck by the many references to the fact that the test situation is unrealistic.

I have two comments to that:

1. The authorities know that is is unrealistic but it gives them a point of reference to know that in ideal circumstances the cabin will be evacuated in a specified time. They can then work backwards to the probable exit time with unfit, other language, drunk (see doctors' outing on the Swissair DC-8 crash at Athens) or otherwise not "ideal" passengers.

2. This same principle has been used for previous aircraft now in service. If the rules were to be altered now, they should by the same logic reasonably then be applied to aircraft already in operation.

Or are we demanding a progression in the rules - a new set of standards for a new aircraft?

FC.
Few Cloudy is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2005, 09:48
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Perhaps someone could compare the A380 and the 747 by number of passengers per door?




Again.
eal401 is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2005, 16:13
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: middle england
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
747FOCAL is sure it will fail, is this because he knows it would fail on a 747, hence the FAA and JAA allowed them to prove it by analysis at the time.
inaspin is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2005, 16:34
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kelowna Wine Country
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes on 10 Posts
"Airbus to stage massive drill to test exits -- and humans -- on giant plane"


Obviously we're missing the point. If the test fails they will have to modify the humans.
ChrisVJ is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2005, 03:35
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: las vegas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OLd BEans - this is not as amuzing as it seems - this airplane is so hugh - it will be like asking for volunteers to parajump off the twin-towers !! Ive heard the visuals of looking down the slide are not for the faint-of-heart ! Hence the "on-ramp" sized escape slides by BFG - these are so big ( and heavy ) they occupy a false floor under the PAX DOORS. THis is a good example of diminishing returns on a design - IE you can only scale things so much - until the practical realities overwhelm the engineering "numbers"..BUT, AGAIN, this is an example of a too big to fail European programme ....like the TGV... like the Concorde... like the Chunnel ...
used2flyboeing is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2005, 09:16
  #40 (permalink)  
jafo33
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
747FOCAL just doesn't want to leave this alone. More to the point it's pretty obvious he wants it to fail.

As so many posters have said on his threads in the past, the 74 was done by analysis, not by an actual drill.

I'm sure that the 380 will pass. Some injuries will be inevitable on any aircraft evac whether under test conditions or the real thing.

People are not programmed and will panic or go the wrong way even if they know it's a drill.

You don't put this much money into a new aircraft design just to see it fail here.

Its a pity our friend here can't let it drop.
 


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.