2WingsOnMyWagon,

They can't do that in the real cert test. :)

The fuselage has a lot of stretch potential, probably enough for 1000 passengers. Big wings and short fuselage just to start out with.

Hello 747FOCAL. Are manufacturers in other countries (outside US) required to do the final evacuation certification on any aircraft type with people who have not received any special briefings or training before the final timed test? This is really hard to believe.

Do they only hear a standard briefing from the flight attendants, as I was told on a previous page? :hmm:

Ignition Override,

If they want it to fly in the EU and the USA and everybody else gives reciprocity to those bodies, yes they have to do the full evac test. The test participants get the standard briefing from the stews that any flight gets. Other than that, it follows the FAR 25 PAX Evac requirements. You can find them here or on the FAA website.

Who knows they may pull it off, but it's gonna have it's injuries during the test. They all do accept the very small ones. DC-10 test turned one gal into a quad. 757 test had two broken legs and a few broken arms. Always a few rug burns from people touching their elbows down. What I see happening with the A380 is a bottle neck not at the door but on the ground once some person falls and the next person lands on their back and so on and so on. They are going to be going close to 20 mph or greater at the bottom. 90% of the population can't run that fast so they are going to fall down. Then the pile of humanity starts.

:hmm:

747Focal
 

I have it on good authority that EADS have indeed given pax evac a lot of thinking about, despite your obvious dislike of anything coming out of Toulouse.

1: The top part of the slides from the upperdeck will have sort of a roof on it, the purpose of which is to block the view to the bottom, thereby reducing the risk of vertigo.

2: The slides will be covered in a material designed to retard the "slide" gradually, so the pax won't arrive at the bottom at 30+ km/h, but at a rather more tolerable speed.

Unlike you, I have little in the way of doubt that Airbus have some very technical capable guys and gals on the payroll, and that they will indeed pull the evac test off. Will someone be injured during the test? Well, yes, but as you yourself say that happens on almost all tests. Finally, the slides are designed and built in the USA, by Goodrich if memory serves me right.

It's ugly as f., but this is the "base" version. It will in all likelihood be stretched and then it might, just might, become less revolting to behold. Anyway, it's built to make money not win beauty contests. Speaking of which, it would seem that Boeing has had to rethink the design of the 7E7 tail. Graceful as it might be, it offered less than optimum efficiency and as with all other things ruled by bean counters, style must give way to efficiency. Too bad, really, that tail does look rather cool.

Funny comments from some supposedly savvy people out there! She looks just gorgeous! Even the A300 and A320, unpainted, panels and fairings missing, look ugly. When this baby is painted up and ready to go, she will be the pride of the lucky airlines to operate her! True, there will be a few early faults and hickups, all of which will be reported here as if they are fatal flaws, then she will settle down and give the world the only very high capacity longhaul jet for the next 50 years. Roll on Airbus- I wish I could fly her (and that from a 747-400 Captain!). Congratulations!

Click here for an interesting and very detailed report on testing of the computer modelling software for pax evacuation.

It's a long report, but a few highlights include the comparison of a modelled evac to a real one, in a CAA test. In various scenarios the software was asked to predict the time required to evacuate the a/c, "real world" tests were then carried out, with a difference between predicted and actual times of 2.8%

Mention is also made of the injuries sustained in previous tests, including the unfortunate girl permanently paralysed in the MD11 test as stated previously.

Well worth a quick read.

As an aside, my old systems instructor swore blind that in the original 747 evac test the "pax" were all members of sports clubs in and around the Boeing facility, and all wearing sports shoes...

pilot-lite

PS Is it just me or does that fuselage not just cry out for a stretch...;)

Flip Flop Flyer,

Somewhere back earlier in the thread I said I have no problems with Airbus products nor am I taking pot shots at them.

You also point out what I think will be a hindrance not a savior by shrouding the slide. During the test it will be dark. How many people do you think will jump without hesitation into a blackhole without seeing the bottom? Out of the 200 on the upper deck, what are the chances that one will hesitate and blow the test? You answer those questions to yourself. I care not what your answers are.

Thats great that they will slow you down at the bottom so the fat heffer behind you kicks you in the back.

And just so you know, they told the world the tail was less efficient, but in reality it was highly more efficient. It just cost a ton to build. Your right the bean counters got their hands on that and put the stopper on it. Boeing, not wanting to give the highly subsidized competitor any free ideas, poo poo’d the idea so that they might not check it out for themselves.
:E ::E

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7.../747in-flt.jpg

...if you thought the A380 was ugly...

pilot-lite

Test Rig

Theres no mention of Airbus, EADS or A380 unfortunatly.

:ok:

Well I agree, but there will be only 3 and very few people will ever have to see them. :}

If you read that page on the Cranfield test facility, the upper deck does not acurately represent the A380 with a sill level of 24 feet. The A380 will have an upper deck sill level of around 40 ft.

And further here is a quote from the page seeking volunteers:

"Please note that for health and safety and insurance reasons, all volunteers for group evacuations must be aged between 20 and 50. In addition, you should be normally fit and healthy, weigh no more than around 15 stones/95.25 kg, and should not be excessively overweight.

Some of our group evacuation trials may be physically demanding, so we would ask you not to volunteer if you have any history of the following:

heart disease, high blood pressure, fainting or blackouts, diabetes, epilepsy or fits, deafness, chronic back pain, ankle swelling, depression, anxiety, other nervous/psychiatric illnesses, fear of enclosed spaces, fear of heights, fear of flying, brittle bones, asthma, bronchitis, breathlessness, chest trouble, allergy, lumbago sciatica, or any other serious illness.

Women who are pregnant, or who think they may be pregnant, should not take part in our trials."

Aren't a few of those people on every flight?

FAR 25 cert requirements require people over 50 to be used as well. Primarily women over 50.



:ugh:

Yeh, like scared of heights.;)

Flight International - Farnborough issue:

"The planned exit limit of the A380-800 is more than 800 seats and, in a break with recent tradition, Carcaillet [A380 marketing director] says Airbus intends to run an actual evacuation trial during the certification programme for this level of occupancy".

747Focal
 

Fair enough, but your endless tirade of mocking the A380 is getting a little old hat.

As for the evacuation test, I'm sure that Airbus will follow the rules to the letter, officially that is, whilst ensuring that the test dummies being used have been properly vetted before being allowed to jump off the upper deck. As such, I have little in the way of worries that they will indeed go down the slide in something resembling order. In real life, I have little doubt that when faced between a raging fire snipping at your ar*e and a jump down a black hole to safety, the black hole will win.

Actually, I've read in FI that Airbus plans a full evacuation test of the A380 "breaking with tradition" whatever that means. I'm not by a long shot an expert in evac certification requirements. Also read that the computer simulations of evacuations are within 3%ish of actual timings.

As for the 7E7 tail, your story about it being efficient is opposite to what I've read, but who cares. It is interesting to read in FI this week, that John Lehay, CCO of Airbus, stated something along the lines of "nobody ever told me they bought our aircraft because it was pretty" or words to the same effect.

Finally, speaking of the 7E7, Airbus claims that it will not be much cheaper, or actually more expensive depending on how you calculate it, to operate than an A332. However, they're quietly talking to GE and RR about the possibility of fitting the bleed version of the 7E engines to a so far unofficial A332 Lite, which indicates to me that they're being a bit economical with the truth re. operating costs A332 v 7E7. Boeing have been told, it also says in FI, that the GE and RR engines can be modified for a bleed system for possible installation on a possible 747 Advanced. Could be interesting, a bleed version of the GENX and Trent 1000, both for Boeing on the 747 Advanced and Airbus on the A330.

I for one am very pleased that Boeing is finally putting a new a "revolutionary" product on the market, and am looking forward to seeing what response Airbus will have. Competition is good!

When it comes to repairs and dispatch, the 7E7 will go down in history as the cost leader and I do not mean that it will be better.

Composites will cost more than a exact copy metallic. Will the fuel burn reduction from weight reduction overcome this. We will have to wait and see. :)

747 Focal, I have done the Cranfield exercise. We were told to evacuate as fast as possible and try to be out first. People were climbing over seats and other people to be out first, hence the 'reasonably fit' clause. Simulates mass panic and hysteria.
As for the slide heights, if youyr arse is on fire you would jump into the dark!

You can keep knocking the 380, but it will still be a success. The arguments about size were used on the first 747, and that was successful. The airlines and airports will adapt for the 380,(as they did for the 747), and the 380 will be a success also.

yakker,

you may have done the "exercise" but you have not done it under certification requirements and they are way more strict. You can't have people climbing over the seats, etc. Can only climb over the seats if their is luggage in the isle.

We are also not talking about being on fire here. We are talking about the test. There will be no fire.

Also, the Cranfield test bed is just over half the height of the actual A380 height so next time you are up there think about what it would be like from double that height.

I never said the A380 would not be a success. I only pointed out there is significant tests that the A380 may have trouble passing. In this test, somebody may actually be maimed for life or killed.

:\

Quick question - if the risk of a serious injury or even a fatality is perceived to be greater for an A380 evacuation than for other types do you think that a PIC might be less likely to order an evacuation under a particular set of circumstances on an A380 than on other types?

Whether or not this is a rational strategy depends partly on whether the perception is accurate - i.e. that an A380 evacuation is more dangerous.

stagger,

Not to be attacking you or anything, but how smart would that be? There are two reasons for the PAX evac test. One, the obvious, to see if it can be done in the 90 seconds alloted. Two, so that airport support staff that respond to emergencies can be trained on what to expect from an actual evacuation. You don't want the airports to be learning exactly what may happen and what they will need under actual emergency conditions. This is why the FAA and the JAA(or EASA) told them no simulation.

:)

747FOCAL - not sure what any of that has to do with my question. I wasn't asking about tests. I was asking about the likely behaviour of a pilot-in-command of an operational A380 full of passengers.

Nothing to do with tests vs simulations or how tests should be conducted. I was wondering about how a PIC might adjust his/her threshold for ordering an evacuation in a given set of real circumstances knowing (or at least believing) that evacuations on this type were much more likely to result in serious injury than on others.