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

Airbus to stage massive drill to test exits -- and humans -- on giant plane
Monday, March 28, 2005
By Daniel Michaels, Wall Street Journal

TOULOUSE, France -- The new Airbus A380 jetliner is so enormous that it will take almost one hour for its maximum load of 853 passengers to board. In an emergency, those same people must be able to escape within 90 seconds.
This summer, Airbus will see if it can meet that target. Inside a cavernous plant in Hamburg, Germany, volunteers playing the role of passengers and 20 crew members will board the two-deck airliner, sit down and buckle up. Organizers will toss blankets and baggage about to simulate the mess onboard after a survivable accident. Some participants representing parents with babies will receive lifelike dolls to cradle. Airbus technicians will retreat to observation points hidden inside dummy toilets and galleys, as regulators from Europe and the U.S. get in place to witness controlled chaos.
Airbus will then turn out the lights. Only half of the plane's 16 doors will open, replicating problems that complicate aviation emergencies. Slides will shoot out and inflate to the size of flatbed trailers. Flight attendants will yell in their best drill-sergeant voice: "Get out! Get out! Get out!"
Like everything else about the largest passenger plane ever built, the A380 evacuation test will happen on a grand scale. The engineers are pretty sure the mechanical equipment will work, but predicting how the humans will behave, particularly on such a large airplane, is what makes the planning so difficult. Because the plane's upper deck is two stories high, regulators are particularly interested to see what happens when the volunteers emerge at the edge of the high doorway and realize they must jump onto the steep and slick nylon slide. Will they balk and slow others' escape? Will they pile up in a human traffic jam at the bottom?
The A380, slated to make its first test flight by mid-April, must pass the cabin evacuation test before it can enter commercial service next year. If it fails, aviation authorities might force Airbus to limit its maximum passenger load. That could affect the A380's sales prospects for heavily traveled routes in Asia and the Middle East.
Most airlines buying the plane have announced plans to install around 550 seats, including first-class and business-class sections. But some carriers may want to create high-capacity versions, as some have done with Boeing Co.'s 747 jumbo jet. The 747 can carry as many as 524 passengers in a two-class configuration but usually carries around 416. The A380s with fewer seats won't have to undergo an evacuation test so long as Airbus can pass the test with the maximum 853 passengers.
In recent decades, aircraft manufacturers have worked closely with regulators to improve the odds of a successful evacuation. Many of those changes came in response to lessons from actual accidents. Despite the improvements, evacuation planning still vexes manufacturers because it's impossible to fully control or predict passenger behavior. In real evacuations from smoke-filled cabins, for example, some people still try to get their bags from the overhead bins.
Equally vexing is the design of the evacuation test itself: It must be a realistic simulation of an accident, but after a test in 1991 that left a volunteer with a broken neck, everyone is careful to avoid excessive risk for the participants. Setting up the A380 test has required years of debate among regulators and months of planning.
Airbus is owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., a Franco-German company, and Britain's BAE Systems PLC. The two, together with industrial partners and European governments, are investing more than $12 billion in the A380. Airbus has 137 orders for the passenger version of the plane.
U.S. and other authorities require that for every commercial jetliner with more than 44 seats, all passengers in an evacuation test must be able to get off in 90 seconds using half the available exits. Authorities figure that's about how long most passengers would have to escape a fiery airplane wreck before succumbing to flames or smoke.
Evacuation testing became a serious issue after two accidents in the 1980s. In 1983, half of the 46 people on board an Air Canada plane died after an emergency landing in Cincinnati. Two years later, 55 of the 137 people on a British Airtours plane at Manchester Airport in England died in a fire after an aborted takeoff even though more than half of the plane's exits were available for more than two minutes. Regulators realized that their tests hadn't simulated real chaos.
One of the people who pushed for greater reality was Helen Muir, a professor of aerospace psychology at England's Cranfield University. Standing in her office she flipped on a videotape of a traditional evacuation test. The crowd looked rushed but orderly. Then she popped in footage of a test in which several people frantically try to squeeze into an escape hatch at once. The difference: Participants in the second test were offered a GBP 5 note for being among the first to leave the airplane.
"Horrific, isn't it? And this is just for five pounds," says Prof. Muir. "Put a little smoke in the cabin and you think you're going to die."
From experiments such as these, manufacturers modified aircraft. On single-aisle jetliners, the rows next to the exits over the wing have more space between them so passengers have extra room to escape. Jet makers are now required to install emergency floor lighting. To reduce the chance of toxic smoke, airplane makers have upgraded the plastics and synthetic fibers in walls and seats.
Evacuation tests can be dangerous. According to Federal Aviation Administration data, nearly 15 percent of volunteers get injuries such as sprained ankles. Yet regulators have balked when plane makers advocated using computer simulations. "All of the computer modeling in the world is not going to give you what you'll get in a test," says the FAA's top official, Marion Blakey.
In a 1991 test of a McDonnell Douglas MD-11 inside a darkened hangar at Long Beach, Calif., one attempt took 132 seconds and resulted in 28 injuries. McDonnell Douglas did the test over and got people to move faster. But in the mayhem, a 60-year-old woman caught her foot on a slide. She flipped, crashed headlong against a pile of people at the bottom, and broke her neck. She was left paralyzed for life. McDonnell Douglas failed the test and the FAA denied its request to put up to 421 people on the MD-11. (It eventually approved up to 410.)
The centerpieces of any evacuation are the giant inflatable slides. Each slide must shoot from its tightly packed container and be ready for use within six seconds of a door opening, even after freezing at minus 65 degrees Fahrenheit. The slides must stay usable amid high winds and flames. They must not collapse if passengers pile up at the bottom. Some also must double as life rafts.
The slides for the A380's upper deck have an added feature. Normally they stretch about 40 feet. But that might be insufficient if the plane comes to rest at a strange angle or tips up on its tail. In such cases onboard sensors will automatically trigger 13 additional feet of slide to inflate on some of them.
Airbus awarded its A380 slide contract in July 2001 to Goodrich Corp. of Charlotte, N.C. Goodrich built a hall at its Phoenix plant to test the A380 slides including chambers for extreme hot and cold and a swimming pool outside to test the slides as rafts. Six Hollywood wind machines simulate storms. Test rigs replicate sections of an A380 exterior, including one with a platform 26 feet up, equal to the height of an upper-deck door.
Goodrich has conducted simulated evacuations on each type of slide for more than a year as part of its own testing. The company brings in employees for some runs. But regulators demand novices for important tests, since most people never go down an airplane slide in their life. By the time regulators certify the slides, they will have been deployed a combined 2,500 times, says Christine Probett, president of Goodrich's aircraft-interior-products division.
Test jumpers wear helmets and tape their ankles like football players to prevent injuries. Goodrich is allowed to intervene only to help subjects clear away from the bottom of slides so others don't crash into them. Regulators say passengers spontaneously do this in real evacuations.
Goodrich's tests have inspired several tweaks. Designers built inflatable side rails to prevent passengers from falling off and adjusted the length of some slides to make them less steep. They also found that adding a small porch-like area just outside the jet doorway on some upper-deck slides lets passengers gather their courage to jump and prevents queues inside the plane.
Last weekend, Goodrich was testing another feature that is now mandatory on new planes: built-in light strips that illuminate the chute so passengers don't feel as if they're jumping into a bottomless pit. In the latest tests, it turned off all the lights in its test hall to simulate "dark of night" conditions.
Still, A380 planners realize the upper-deck slides may prove imposing, especially to frail or novice fliers. An elderly woman, for example, would be assisted by cabin crew if she balked at the door, "but at some point she would just be pushed," said Manfred Bischoff, co-chairman of Airbus parent EADS.
As slide tests proceeded last year, a trans-Atlantic debate simmered about how to conduct the full-scale A380 mock evacuation. The plane's two decks are connected by two staircases. The upper deck can carry up to 315 economy class passengers and the lower deck can hold up to 538.
Airbus A380 Safety Director Francis Guimera says that in assessing the two cabins, Airbus looks at the plane "like two separate aircraft." It works on the assumption that in an accident, the stairs wouldn't be usable and all 315 upper-deck passengers would have to leave from that deck.
Mr. Guimera and his colleagues thought a classic one-shot evacuation test might not be the best method for the A380. Airbus worried that if lots of test participants on the upper deck ran down the internal stairs before escaping, the lower deck might get too congested, while top-deck exits wouldn't show their potential. Airbus proposed instead conducting separate tests for the upper and lower decks.
European officials agreed but U.S. regulators balked. Considering the A380's size, says Ms. Blakey, the FAA administrator, a full-scale test carries a "certain show-me quality" that will add to public confidence in the plane. In December, Airbus relented and agreed to a single test of the whole plane. It is still working with regulators to figure out what to do if many people use the stairs. In that case Airbus might have to repeat the test or shut the stairs and do a test of the upper deck alone.
Airbus engineers in Hamburg began conducting preliminary trials late last year. More recently they have distributed fliers in health clubs across town seeking volunteers for the big test. Mr. Guimera says Airbus is targeting people in good physical shape to avoid injuries. At least 40 percent of the passengers must be women and 35 percent must be over age 50 to simulate a typical planeload. Each participant will receive about $65.
As a precaution, Airbus may place cushions beneath some upper-deck slides before starting the test in case a slide collapses and people fall over the side. And to avoid accidents it will be allowed to place dim lights at the bottom of slides.
On the big day, which is yet to be set, volunteers and crew will board the plane as almost 250 regulators, Airbus technicians and medical staff get into position to observe and assist. On a signal, flight attendants -- recruited from a real airline -- will throw open doors and herd passengers to the nearest available slide. For 90 seconds, Airbus executives will hold their collective breath.
:E

Hmmm, I getting the feeling that someone here would love to see this exercise fail... :rolleyes:

I think you are correct, but his name says it all...to be expected from a worried boring, oops sorry, boeing person. Chances of this test failing are almost nil.

Do they video/record these evac's and give them to airlines to use as training aids??

I would really like to take part in something like this!!!

FMB

Care to explain why?

A question of the obvious coming up ... what percentage of the test pax need to be:-

• Overweight
• Obese
• Using crutches
• Simulated bad hip movement
• Simulated poor eyesight
• Simulated deaf

Also, once the pax are all on and settled, could they feed them and show them a movie, before simulating an emergency landing and evacuation.

These questions are for any evac test on any commercial a/c.

Yes, and a few drinks and soft lighting might help them relax before yer proverbial fecal matter hits the fan... :hmm:

And another yes, in this day and age one hopes the various types of common physical disabilities/limitations would be represented. Agreed, for all simevacs.

When they hit the bottom of them slides, the ladies from the upper deck are gonna be wearing fur collars.

I think it amusing how the Airbus rep stated how they will "push" or "shove" people that hesitate at the slide..... That will get them to sign up.

What they should have done was go find all the luny bins in the EU and sign them up for the test and then just forget the slides......:E


ps. An hour to load and then 90 seconds to disembark??? I bet Southwest or Ryan would pay big buks to have someone show them how to safely unload 850 people in 90 seconds...... :p

I think what he meant was that if it was for real not on the test....

This sounds almost ridiculous. Then you work it out and find it is ridiculous.

A380 will always use double deck jetways, so 426 each door. If it takes an hour that's just 7 pax per minute. Somehow I think we normally achieve quite a bit more than that. bear in mind that an 853-pax load implies all high density seating, no premium "relaxed" boarding needed.

Existing 747s often hold 426 pax and do single door boarding. And yes, they take much less than an hour to do it.

just in case the charter airlines get them,surely a percentage should be wearing shell suits,have consumed 10 pints of lager and start a fight just before the test commences!:O

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

I hope Airbus do a separate study on deplaning using smoke hoods.

Umm, might be just thinking outside the square here, but would have thought that they would have conducted this test ages ago, even before the plane hit the manufacturing stage.

They definitely have alot riding on it, that is for sure, and if it doesn't pass, then what?

The test needs a real aircraft, not a mock-up, with full working safety equipment (including slides that deploy when the doors open).

If it doesn't pass, then they'll keep trying again with less pax, until they can come up with the max number of passengers that can safely evacuate the aircraft.

Why feed and water them and then play a movie and dim the lights to make people sleepy.

Do you think that the aircraft will be flying along and then all of a sudden the sleepy passengers are going to have to evacuate?

Get a grip.

Then again I would like to be one of the staff running up and down the aircraftthrowing blankets about and banging luggage off peoples bonces. Now that would be fun

Should be a piece of cake though if they have already tested it in a mock environment. I wonder what the times where for those tests.

Also wonder how times they are going to practise the exits, and whether or not the people are going to be sitting in the same seats for each time they try.

Because the test pax will be sitting waiting to start the test with their adrenaline already running and their own personal strategy for getting out. The objective would be to dull that by not letting them know when the test will begin.

It is correct that, in many evacs, the pax will already be wide awake and ready to make the evac but in an RTO due to a fault unseen by the pax? There are more than one kinds of evac situation. For example, end of 14 hour sector and a problem on the roll out? Many pax will be inebriated or hung over and not yet have put their shoes back on. Etcetera.

By the way, Otter, I surmise that in telling me to 'get a grip', you are already gripping yourself? Please remember to discuss the topic and not make childish personal remarks.

They had better have a BCF handy, just imagine, all that friction on the slide and the nylon shell suits... :E

Raggyman,

They are not allowed to practice the test at all. If the test fails the first time they have to replace the entire load of passengers that have not been in a test for at least 6 months.

The test conducted at Cranefield only used 200 people and the first time 25% of those went to the hospital with various injuries.

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.