A380 Evacuation Test

[Uncle Leo]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060326/ap_on_re_eu/germany_airbus_drill

 

[Patriot328]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060326/ap_on_re_eu/germany_airbus_drill

While I wouldn't consider a broken leg, if it were mine, a minor injury, I guess the 380 did good...

You can head over to www.airliners.net for the rest of the story. I'm sure they're 3ft deep in spooge over this airplane's passing it's evac test...

 

[dogismycopilot]

I wonder how much they paid for volunteers? Hope they had those folks sign waivers!

 

[Whale Rider]

I guess better a broken leg than a broken wing.

 

[Dizel8]

873 people out in less than 90 seconds, that is pretty impressive!

One broken leg, that is a shame, but then again, considering all, that really isn't too bad. I am sure there were minor injuries when the B-747 was test evacuated.

 

[firstthird]

I love how 99% of news stories before this one were about the 550 seat A380, and now the evacuation test is with 870+ people. No real surprise to those of us in the industry, I think the 747 was similar (bars, casinos, etc; but then in reality lets cram in as many coach as we can fit). Can you imagine the size of the waiting area/boarding are for one of these things.

 

[2000flyer]

I realize that tests are to be done in certification, and not to be a lone skeptic, but my thought is all 870 people knew this was a test. All, probably, knew exactly which exit they were to go to. All knew exactly when the evacuation was to begin. All were thorougly briefed (more so than a regular flight) and knew how to operate the doors. Crap...show me a door, yell evacuate, and I'd get out pretty quickly too.

Now, had this happened after 14 hours of flying, smoke or possibly fire in the cabin, dust, debris, possibly a violent landing, I'd bet a C note no more than 500 would have gotten out in 90 seconds. Have you ever noticed more than a handful of people actually listening to the flight attendant (or watch the video) and reading the safety card? On any given flight I bet less than 10% actually know how to open an emergency exit or door.

 

[firstthird]

All true, but many if not most of the actual evacuations have gone pretty well, especially after the bad one in the 70s(?) with the smoke on landing where most of the passengers died. I'm pretty sure that the current evacuation testing is a result of that accident. I'm sure someone more erudite can fill us in.

For instance, the airbus (?) that landed in Toronto about a year ago in a thunderstorm and went off the end into a ravine. I'm pretty sure that everyone got out in a rapid fashion. The 90 seconds is a certification number and obviously real world events may be different but it is a place to start and seems to be an appropriate blend of reality (half the exits blocked) and repeatable testing so that planes can be certified on a level playing field.

 

[Cpt. Underpants]

They (Airbus) are OBLIGED by both the FAA and JAA to demonstrate the evacuation of the MAX certified numbers of pax. When the B747 was certified at 650 max pax, they had demonstrated the evacuation with that amount.

I am no fan of airbus but good for them.

 

[2000flyer]

For instance, the airbus (?) that landed in Toronto about a year ago in a thunderstorm and went off the end into a ravine. I'm pretty sure that everyone got out in a rapid fashion. The 90 seconds is a certification number and obviously real world events may be different but it is a place to start and seems to be an appropriate blend of reality (half the exits blocked) and repeatable testing so that planes can be certified on a level playing field.

Well said, firstthird. I had forgotten about that accident and you make an excellent point.

 

[ptarmigan]

The pax and crew on the test do NOT know which exits are useable, etc. They find out the hard way.

 

[RVSM]

Don't forget that that test is done with 1/2 the exits blocked / random, as in no notice as to which ones will be blocked./ in 90 secs.
That is actually an impressive feat.

I still think it is a waste of aluminium but to each his own. I say this due to all the ancillary costs associated with operating this type into a given airport. Special runway, taxiway and ramp certifications. Custom boarding bridges and gate areas to accomodate 873 pax. Lots of additional expenses.