Taken from: http://www.flightinternational.com
A380 poised for crucial exit trial
Airbus confident of safely evacuating over 750 people during full-scale test monitored by FAA and EASA observers
Airbus is to undertake the full-scale evacuation test of the A380 on 26 March, and is confident that it will be able to demonstrate that it can show the safe egress of more than 750 passengers, having set itself a maximum target of 853. The manufacturer is prepared to repeat the exercise a week later if the figure is significantly lower than its forecast minimum, or if it has to abort the test for any reason.
Airbus says European and US regulators could refuse to accept the raw numerical result if they are unhappy with any aspects of what they observe during the test.
The demonstration in Hamburg will use 853 volunteer “passengers” drawn from Airbus staff and local gym members, plus 18 cabin crew provided by Lufthansa and two flightcrew. The 873 occupants have to be safely evacuated in 90s using half the exits on each deck.
Airbus says 16 observers from the US Federal Aviation Administration and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) will watch using 40 infrared cameras inside and outside the aircraft.
It is planned they will rule on the initial approved load for type certification within days, after which Airbus will decide whether it needs to repeat the test, which requires 1,100 volunteers.
“If it is below 650 we will definitely have to do it again. But we are confident of it being above 750,” says A380 safety director Francis Guimera.
One concern is that a technical fault or injury to a participant could negate the test. Guimera says: “There are two or three things that could be an issue – either we have one slide that does not inflate or deflates during the test, in which case we have to stop for safety reasons. Or if we have an untimely safety event for the evacuees, in which case again we have to stop.”
He says that, even if a particular number of people are evacuated, that might not be the final certificated figure if the regulators are dissatisfied with the way the evacuation proceeded.
“What we cannot suffer is that inside the cabin we have some congestion in some doors, which fortuitously for us is solved by the cabin crew but [the regulators] say ‘you are lucky to achieve that figure’,” Guimera says. Apart from that degree of discretion, the details of the test – which is more ambitious than anything previously attempted by an airframer – have been agreed. Key points are:
Although Airbus will be told 48h before the test which doors to disable, the cabin crew will not know;
the test will take place in the dark, with only minimal safety lighting outside;
the crew and volunteers must be “naive” – in that they must not have taken part in any similar exercise within the last six months;
35% must be aged over 50, a minimum 40% must be female and 15% female and over 50;
for safety reasons, the upper deck slides will be predeployed, the regulators having agreed that this gives no advantage because of the time taken for the doors to open. The occupants enter the aircraft through a tunnel and cannot see which slides are in place.
Regulators will dump soft obstacles such as baggage into the aisles and elsewhere before the test.
By: Schorsch - 29th March 2006 at 15:09
In this case, will the average slide delpoyment time then be added on to the total time it took for the evacuation?
I reckon the deployment time is between 5 and 10 seconds, after seeing a few videos of some slides being deployed. Perhaps the larger ones on the top deck and those on the overwing exits could take up to 15 seconds?
So the test is failed, that what you want to say? :rolleyes:
The slide deployment time depends on the slide. I don’t have a number, but after the EASA and FAA approved the test (official time 78 seconds) it seems to be OK. The A380 evacuation slides were object of lots of development. I saw early slides when I was trainee in Hamburg in 2000, already with a moke-up in the real size of the A380 (of course only a section).
I heard of deployment times between 3 and 6 seconds.
By: Bmused55 - 29th March 2006 at 15:03
Slides were deployed before the test commenced due to safety considerations. Half of the exits was blocked with neither the flight attendants nor the passengers being aware of their locations.
In this case, will the average slide delpoyment time then be added on to the total time it took for the evacuation?
I reckon the deployment time is between 5 and 10 seconds, after seeing a few videos of some slides being deployed. Perhaps the larger ones on the top deck and those on the overwing exits could take up to 15 seconds?
By: Schorsch - 29th March 2006 at 14:24
i would think they would have to prove that all the slides did deploy, after being pre-soaked and frozen down to -65 degree’s for 8 hours
Slides were deployed before the test commenced due to safety considerations. Half of the exits was blocked with neither the flight attendants nor the passengers being aware of their locations.
There will be some additional tests , that have to prove passanger behaviour inside the cabin, especially the stairs in the end and the front of the aircraft. Other test with slide deployment are done also, it is not just this single test. This test was just the most spectacular.
By: Bmused55 - 29th March 2006 at 14:22
i would think they would have to prove that all the slides did deploy, after being pre-soaked and frozen down to -65 degree’s for 8 hours
That makes sense. 🙂
By: Dantheman77 - 29th March 2006 at 13:28
Is it me, or does it look like they used all of the exits?
I thought 50% spread over both sides were to be inop?
i would think they would have to prove that all the slides did deploy, after being pre-soaked and frozen down to -65 degree’s for 8 hours
By: fightingirish - 29th March 2006 at 13:14
Maybe after the test they opened all doors and extended all slides to show that they also work.
I want that A380 with all those slides at my nearest playground. 😀
By: Bmused55 - 29th March 2006 at 13:05
Is it me, or does it look like they used all of the exits?
I thought 50% spread over both sides were to be inop?
By: fightingirish - 29th March 2006 at 10:42
Click image to maximize!
Source: Airbus.com – A380 SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETES EVACUATION TEST
Flight International – Pictures: Airbus A380 clears European and US certification hurdles for evacuation trial
By: wysiwyg - 28th March 2006 at 05:01
…Upper deck – 315 pax plus 7 cabin crew
Lower deck – 538 pax plus 11 cabin crew.
(This is a 340 put on top of a 747!)…
A small 340 (300 series) is certified for 440 passengers!
By: rdc1000 - 27th March 2006 at 15:47
According to an article about the test in todays’ Guardian, “(of) those on board, 45% were women and 35% were aged over 50. Some carried plastic dolls to represent babies.”
So the plane wasn’t entirely full of hand-picked super-fit yoga experts in their 20s after all. 😀
No, your right, there were a number of dummies….though I’m not referring to the German volunteers of course :dev2: . I’m still not convinced, although I guess elements like that are better than nothing.
By: Grey Area - 27th March 2006 at 15:18
According to an article about the test in todays’ Guardian, “(of) those on board, 45% were women and 35% were aged over 50. Some carried plastic dolls to represent babies.”
So the plane wasn’t entirely full of hand-picked super-fit yoga experts in their 20s after all. 😀
By: Bmused55 - 27th March 2006 at 15:05
I KNOW its the same for all aircraft evacuations, but I just wonder what would happen without the yoga-esk antics, and the strict selection based on agaility and health?! Perhaps to make it represenative of a flight with EK to OZ via DXB they should throw in 20% of the cabin as over 65s off to visit the grandchildren in Brisbane, and a further 5% as under 5, and a few more under 16s splattered around the cabin.
Whilst I know that they have to use the fit and able to prevent unnecessary injury, I think the truth is, and based on past experience (although not always), there has to be a realisation that in some accidents not everybody WILL get out, and so perhaps such tests are to see how many fit and able bodied people could be likely to evacuate safely, rather than how many would evacuate full stop. I think the AF A340 at YYZ is interesting though in this respect, and I’d be interested to know the demographic breakdown of passengers on that flight.
I agree. I also agree with Schorch when he says a key point that is missing is a sense of urgency. At the end of the day the volunteers knew what was expected of them.Knowing there was no real danger would stop them fighting to preserve their own life.
I saw how once a bunch of volunteers were packed into a plane (an A320 or 737, I never got a good look at it, a narrowbody with 2 overwing exits anyway). They were then told over the intercom that a considerable cash prize was waiting for the first person to grab it outside.
This was done to add urgency to the situation, and it gave precisely that effect. Mayhem thus ensued when the evac signal was given, and the plane, which met the 90 second rule, failed. There were people climbing over other to get to the exits. The overwing exits being particularly clogged.
It was a fascinating experiment.
By: chornedsnorkack - 27th March 2006 at 15:00
There are thousands of buildings with more than 5 levels in the world with require every “passenger” to walk down in case of emergency, which may be an issue if you have to travel 40 levels down and are not an athlete.
Was there ever an evacuation test for the World Trade Center? How good do evacuation procedures work for trains, public buildings, busses, underground train stations.
By and large, most of those do not require for propulsion to have half or a third of their total mass to consist of highly flammable and liquid fuel that breaks out of tanks and bursts into fire at crashing.
By: Schorsch - 27th March 2006 at 14:19
I KNOW its the same for all aircraft evacuations, but I just wonder what would happen without the yoga-esk antics, and the strict selection based on agaility and health?! Perhaps to make it represenative of a flight with EK to OZ via DXB they should throw in 20% of the cabin as over 65s off to visit the grandchildren in Brisbane, and a further 5% as under 5, and a few more under 16s splattered around the cabin.
Whilst I know that they have to use the fit and able to prevent unnecessary injury, I think the truth is, and based on past experience (although not always), there has to be a realisation that in some accidents not everybody WILL get out, and so perhaps such tests are to see how many fit and able bodied people could be likely to evacuate safely, rather than how many would evacuate full stop. I think the AF A340 at YYZ is interesting though in this respect, and I’d be interested to know the demographic breakdown of passengers on that flight.
The most unrealistic issue is the lack of real panic! That speeds up the whole issue normally and will lead also to some unsdesirable results. I must say that for the unlikely case of an evacuation necessary in 90 seconds the requirements are as hard as can practically be proved. Of course, in a real emergency with a high percentage of old people (and overweight) there will be some left behind. Sorry, life’s a bitch.
There are thousands of buildings with more than 5 levels in the world with require every “passenger” to walk down in case of emergency, which may be an issue if you have to travel 40 levels down and are not an athlete.
Was there ever an evacuation test for the World Trade Center? How good do evacuation procedures work for trains, public buildings, busses, underground train stations. Experience shows that if those catch fire, the death toll is much higher than for an aircraft evacuation with realistic chances of survival.
By: rdc1000 - 27th March 2006 at 14:11
I KNOW its the same for all aircraft evacuations, but I just wonder what would happen without the yoga-esk antics, and the strict selection based on agaility and health?! Perhaps to make it represenative of a flight with EK to OZ via DXB they should throw in 20% of the cabin as over 65s off to visit the grandchildren in Brisbane, and a further 5% as under 5, and a few more under 16s splattered around the cabin.
Whilst I know that they have to use the fit and able to prevent unnecessary injury, I think the truth is, and based on past experience (although not always), there has to be a realisation that in some accidents not everybody WILL get out, and so perhaps such tests are to see how many fit and able bodied people could be likely to evacuate safely, rather than how many would evacuate full stop. I think the AF A340 at YYZ is interesting though in this respect, and I’d be interested to know the demographic breakdown of passengers on that flight.
By: pierrepjc - 27th March 2006 at 12:10
Yea thanks for that, no doubt we’ll get a look at a flim of it in the future, must have been some sight to see
Paul
By: Bmused55 - 27th March 2006 at 11:55
Fascinating blog 🙂
By: fightingirish - 27th March 2006 at 09:20
Interesting blog at Flightinternational.com:
http://www.bizbuzzmedia.com/blogs/flight_international/archive/2006/03/26/1684.aspx
By: Grey Area - 27th March 2006 at 06:48
They are there for a reason. 😀
Amen to that…… 😮
By: greekdude1 - 27th March 2006 at 06:14
It would be fairer to have a better mix of people on the test, to get a more realistic picture, not everybody is going to be super fit men and women…
Surely not everybody that goes to a gym is super fit, at least not the one that I’m a member at. They are there for a reason. 😀
Sign In
March 22, 2006 at 2:14 pm