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.

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.

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, 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.

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 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 ???

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;)

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.

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?



What contest are you talking about -- please expound.

Mo

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. :=

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.

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.

I dont think they plan on lengthing the upper deck of the advanced.

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:cool:
Which considering the relationship in size and exits is not far off the 380;)

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.

Perhaps someone could compare the A380 and the 747 by number of passengers per door?




Again.

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.

"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.

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 ...

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.