A380 Evacuation

No, I concur with you.

Most disturbing, and an indication of future practice across the board perhaps?

No, I concur with you.

Most disturbing, and an indication of future practice across the board perhaps?

This link agrees with the information seahawk links too.

It would appear the situation is slightly different, in that the FAA changed its guidelines prior to Boeing applying for a type cert. In the A380’s case, it would seem from the initial FI report that the rules where simply being bent, although seahawks info says otherwise now.

That being said, I’m quite disturbed that any airliner should be certified to carry pax without a physical test.

However, this source states:

The FAA certified the Boeing 777-300 based on an evacuation test of just the new passenger compartment added to the airliner, plus an analysis of data gleaned during full-scale passenger evacuations on shorter versions of the airplane.

Not exactly the tried and tested way.

This link agrees with the information seahawk links too.

It would appear the situation is slightly different, in that the FAA changed its guidelines prior to Boeing applying for a type cert. In the A380’s case, it would seem from the initial FI report that the rules where simply being bent, although seahawks info says otherwise now.

That being said, I’m quite disturbed that any airliner should be certified to carry pax without a physical test.

However, this source states:

The FAA certified the Boeing 777-300 based on an evacuation test of just the new passenger compartment added to the airliner, plus an analysis of data gleaned during full-scale passenger evacuations on shorter versions of the airplane.

Not exactly the tried and tested way.

If (and it’s a big if) the content of the links that seahawk has posted are accurate, then it seems that Boeing only carried out a “paper” evacuation test of the B777-300 rather than the full-scale test that was being mentioned earlier in the context of the A380.

Hmm…… anyone care to comment?

If (and it’s a big if) the content of the links that seahawk has posted are accurate, then it seems that Boeing only carried out a “paper” evacuation test of the B777-300 rather than the full-scale test that was being mentioned earlier in the context of the A380.

Hmm…… anyone care to comment?

the main problem with these evac tests is accidents to testees, in fact people have been killed testing the evac system of an airliner. Evac testing is no little thing, lots of quite serious injuries can and do occur from just using the slides.

Airbus have worked with the CAA on computer simulated evac tests and i believe that airbus will be using the a380 to validate some of these results.

I see that airbus are validating what they expect to be the maximum capacity of the aircraft for a large part of its life, There is the opportunity to stretch the fuselage of the a380, but i doubt it will happen as we are stressing the structure to a max weight of 600 tons total and as the heaviest -800 is operating at about 580 tons mtow there is probably 20 tons of structure, in a 7 m fuse plug, at least.

the main problem with these evac tests is accidents to testees, in fact people have been killed testing the evac system of an airliner. Evac testing is no little thing, lots of quite serious injuries can and do occur from just using the slides.

Airbus have worked with the CAA on computer simulated evac tests and i believe that airbus will be using the a380 to validate some of these results.

I see that airbus are validating what they expect to be the maximum capacity of the aircraft for a large part of its life, There is the opportunity to stretch the fuselage of the a380, but i doubt it will happen as we are stressing the structure to a max weight of 600 tons total and as the heaviest -800 is operating at about 580 tons mtow there is probably 20 tons of structure, in a 7 m fuse plug, at least.

Another interesting fact :

Responsibility for the testing of the evacuation system lies by one british, one french and one german member of the european test team.

However I found an interesting document in the web, which states that the FAA has changed their requirements for such tests and generally allows the slides to be deployed before the evacuation begins.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20050202/airbus_escape_hatch2.pdf

And that

In 1969, when the 90-second evacuation drill was run for certification of Boeing’s new 747-100, there were 499 volunteers on the plane. In 1986, the 747-400, the current version of the plane with a bigger upper deck, was certified with 540 passengers for the evacuation test.

The 747 has a small upper deck just behind the cockpit, in the jumbo jet’s signature “hump. “

Last month, the FAA adopted changes in its rules that have been in place since before the 747 for an evacuation demonstration.

The new rules allow pre-deployment of slides. But passengers cannot know the location of the emergency exits to be used before the drill begins. “The pre-deployment and inflation of slides allows the proper placement and opportunity for inspection of safety mats around the slide prior to the start of the demonstration,” the FAA said.

In addition, the revised rules allow low-level lighting outside a plane during an evacuation demonstration.

This will help those observing from the ground to react more quickly if there are problems, the FAA said, noting the risk of injury.

An FAA review of 19 full-scale evacuation demonstrations between 1972 and 1991 involving 5,797 participants found that 269, or about 4.5 percent, were injured.

In one of the demonstrations involving the McDonnell Douglas MD-11 with 410 passengers, a participant was seriously injured, resulting in paralysis.

“The FAA believes that a 4.5 percent injury rate during an emergency evacuation demonstration is not an acceptable safety practice,” the agency said in its comments that accompanied the recent rule changes.

“The potential for injuries is obviously a concern to both Airbus and the authorities and will be taken into consideration when the details are worked out,” the FAA said in one of the agency’s written responses to questions about the A380 evacuation.

Even though injuries do occur, this is a critical safety demonstration, said Snyder, the risk-analysis expert. The demonstrations are valuable to crew members for developing evacuation procedures, he said. That is especially important on the A380, he said.

“Do you want to do this in the testing stage, ” Snyder said, “or do you want the first full test to be one in which the cabin is filled with smoke and fire.”

from here : http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050213/NEWS/50212012/1006/BUSINESS

It might alos be of interest that doubts about such tests have also become public for a Boeing product :
http://www.cincypost.com/business/1998/airsut070498.html
http://old.hartfordadvocate.com/articles/flightsafe.html

Another interesting fact :

Responsibility for the testing of the evacuation system lies by one british, one french and one german member of the european test team.

However I found an interesting document in the web, which states that the FAA has changed their requirements for such tests and generally allows the slides to be deployed before the evacuation begins.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20050202/airbus_escape_hatch2.pdf

And that

In 1969, when the 90-second evacuation drill was run for certification of Boeing’s new 747-100, there were 499 volunteers on the plane. In 1986, the 747-400, the current version of the plane with a bigger upper deck, was certified with 540 passengers for the evacuation test.

The 747 has a small upper deck just behind the cockpit, in the jumbo jet’s signature “hump. “

Last month, the FAA adopted changes in its rules that have been in place since before the 747 for an evacuation demonstration.

The new rules allow pre-deployment of slides. But passengers cannot know the location of the emergency exits to be used before the drill begins. “The pre-deployment and inflation of slides allows the proper placement and opportunity for inspection of safety mats around the slide prior to the start of the demonstration,” the FAA said.

In addition, the revised rules allow low-level lighting outside a plane during an evacuation demonstration.

This will help those observing from the ground to react more quickly if there are problems, the FAA said, noting the risk of injury.

An FAA review of 19 full-scale evacuation demonstrations between 1972 and 1991 involving 5,797 participants found that 269, or about 4.5 percent, were injured.

In one of the demonstrations involving the McDonnell Douglas MD-11 with 410 passengers, a participant was seriously injured, resulting in paralysis.

“The FAA believes that a 4.5 percent injury rate during an emergency evacuation demonstration is not an acceptable safety practice,” the agency said in its comments that accompanied the recent rule changes.

“The potential for injuries is obviously a concern to both Airbus and the authorities and will be taken into consideration when the details are worked out,” the FAA said in one of the agency’s written responses to questions about the A380 evacuation.

Even though injuries do occur, this is a critical safety demonstration, said Snyder, the risk-analysis expert. The demonstrations are valuable to crew members for developing evacuation procedures, he said. That is especially important on the A380, he said.

“Do you want to do this in the testing stage, ” Snyder said, “or do you want the first full test to be one in which the cabin is filled with smoke and fire.”

from here : http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050213/NEWS/50212012/1006/BUSINESS

It might alos be of interest that doubts about such tests have also become public for a Boeing product :
http://www.cincypost.com/business/1998/airsut070498.html
http://old.hartfordadvocate.com/articles/flightsafe.html

I’m sure that no-one in their right mind would disagree with you! 🙂

I’m sure that no-one in their right mind would disagree with you! 🙂

Ahem…..I’m not too keen on the slight soupcon of anti-European sentiment there, Sandy. Quite a lot of our colleagues in the Forum are from the Continent.

There’s a time and a place, mate. 🙂

Not anti European mate.
I have countless friends who hold German and French passports.
The comment was directed at the officials who have made these decisions.
But as Seahawk says, it would seem that the FI article is not 100% correct.

Looking at the info seahawk has provided, I would support the plan, if it turns out to be true. If the half assed test is just a preliminary one, then thats fine. But if it turns out the half assed test is THE test Airbus use to get the A380 certified, I would see it as no less than criminal.

Ahem…..I’m not too keen on the slight soupcon of anti-European sentiment there, Sandy. Quite a lot of our colleagues in the Forum are from the Continent.

There’s a time and a place, mate. 🙂

Not anti European mate.
I have countless friends who hold German and French passports.
The comment was directed at the officials who have made these decisions.
But as Seahawk says, it would seem that the FI article is not 100% correct.

Looking at the info seahawk has provided, I would support the plan, if it turns out to be true. If the half assed test is just a preliminary one, then thats fine. But if it turns out the half assed test is THE test Airbus use to get the A380 certified, I would see it as no less than criminal.

Ahem…..I’m not too keen on the slight soupcon of anti-European sentiment there, Sandy. Quite a lot of our colleagues in the Forum are from the Continent.

There’s a time and a place, mate. 🙂

Ahem…..I’m not too keen on the slight soupcon of anti-European sentiment there, Sandy. Quite a lot of our colleagues in the Forum are from the Continent.

There’s a time and a place, mate. 🙂

The general context of the FI article is that Airbus are not breaking the rules, but being allowed to by pass them.

A decision that no doubt was reached by a bunch of people with a vested interest in the A380, namely European, or dare I say it French officials.

1. the test will done in Hamburg Germany

2. the rules have been changed for the first tests to reduce the danger to the test persons

3. a full test is still required

4. FI article might be a bit wrong

The general context of the FI article is that Airbus are not breaking the rules, but being allowed to by pass them.

A decision that no doubt was reached by a bunch of people with a vested interest in the A380, namely European, or dare I say it French officials.

1. the test will done in Hamburg Germany

2. the rules have been changed for the first tests to reduce the danger to the test persons

3. a full test is still required

4. FI article might be a bit wrong

They shouldn’t be, Sandy.

But perhaps Boeing are just as ready to bend inconvenient rules – if, indeed, any rules have been broken at all?

And so far, no-one is saying they have, are they?

The general context of the FI article is that Airbus are not breaking the rules, but being allowed to by pass them.

A decision that no doubt was reached by a bunch of people with a vested interest in the A380, namely European, or dare I say it French officials.

They shouldn’t be, Sandy.

But perhaps Boeing are just as ready to bend inconvenient rules – if, indeed, any rules have been broken at all?

And so far, no-one is saying they have, are they?

The general context of the FI article is that Airbus are not breaking the rules, but being allowed to by pass them.

A decision that no doubt was reached by a bunch of people with a vested interest in the A380, namely European, or dare I say it French officials.