8 ms·

Airbus A380 Emergency Evacuation Test (2007) [video]

36 points by hberg 12y ago

FatalLogic 12y ago
For anybody else who is wondering if this would always go so smoothly in a real emergency: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/do-aircraft-evacuation-tests-work-315093/ http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/do-aircraft-evacua... Some notable points from that article: Trials assume that passengers have no friends/family on board and further ignores the presence of passengers with disabilities Full-scale evacuations [tests] remain a costly headache at around $2 million, not to mention the risk of litigation when things go wrong. While most common injuries to volunteers range from cuts and bruises to broken bones, the industry is haunted by the McDonnell Douglas evacuation certification trial for the MD-11 in October 1991 when one volunteer was left permanently paralysed. In one real life 737 crash, the last passenger came out 5.5min after the burning aircraft had ceased moving, while in the 737 certification trial, the entire load of passengers and crew evacuated the aircraft in 75 seconds. Under the current "make or break" single-test regime, the aircraft will pass as long as the result is below the 90 second threshold and it is argued that the current procedures are designed with the sole purpose of passing the test - even if that does not necessarily mean they will work in real situations. Certification based on a combination of computer simulation and real world testing is suggested as a way forward.
- ams6110 12y ago
  A big problem with real emergency evacuations is that passengers try to take their carry-on luggage with them.
  - tmd83 12y ago
    I see a lot of people jogging smoothly forward which is not going to happen. And beyond disability just not everyone being as fit and bouncy like the video will slow things down a lot. The speed of a passengers through a particular exit will not be average speed of the passengers but the slowest one out. Also the confusion, trying to get ahead in fear that will surely contribute. There are also likely to be people who are inexperienced flier or haven't thought about how important it is to evacuate orderly or hadn't really listened to the instruction. For countries like mine where orderly lines or safety drills are not really practiced it will only be worse. I find 5.5 min surprisingly good even if it should be better.
  - chx 12y ago
    I have a very simple idea that would help: install an electromagnetic lock in the overhead lockers. If emergency lights can work then there's a way to supply electricity to those as well. Noone will grab a bag or anything.
    - ohashi 12y ago
      I can see people banging, waiting, pulling, struggling to get them open anyways and blocking even more people from getting out in a real world scenario.
- chx 12y ago
  "I mean, at the end of the day, how could anyone really test for the real panic experienced by real passengers?"
lucio 12y ago
The "demo" is not representative of real conditions. They should offer money to the first persons out. See minute 40 of: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x18vhzz_mayday-s09e01-manchester-runway-disaster-panic-on-the-runway_shortfilms http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x18vhzz_mayday-s09e01-manch...
- lchengify 12y ago
  Thank you very much for posting this, I found it very informative. For those of you who don't want to watch the whole thing, here are a few changes to aircraft that came about because of this study: - Distance between bulkheads (clearance in the aisles) must be at least 30" to stop bottlenecks during an evacuation - The guide lights in the aisles (for exit markers in case of smoke) - Crew members should take a aggressive tone when directing passengers, especially when telling them to "jump" onto the slides coming off of the aircraft. It's interesting to think that before 1985, there hadn't been any studies on people on aircraft in smoke situations. Maybe it's specifically the density of people in passenger jets that causes issues, but you'd think the military would have done studies about smoke in airplanes prior to the 80's. It's also interesting how much catastrophe investigation resembles bug hunting. The crash had four distinct features that made it such a disaster: - A internal piece of the engine, a combustor can, had a crack manually repaired via welding. Since the documentation to the mechanic didn't specify the maximum crack length that could be repaired, the weld was insufficient. - The combustor can exploded during takeoff, which broke through the wing's fuel line - The engine lit the leaking fuel line on fire - The fire caught a wind updraft, which engulfed the (otherwise fire-retardant) fuselage, causing poisonous smoke to fill the cabin in minutes. If any one of the 4 issues hadn't occurred, catastrophe could have been avoided. Piecing all that together really gives new meaning to the term "cascading escalating failure". Finally, the video mentioned how one door got stuck because the inflatable ramp failed to deploy. On modern aircraft, those ramps are no joke. If you've ever heard "Cross-check and verify" on a flight, it means to verify that the ramps (which explosively inflate) are activated [1]. The 'red strip' on a flight door means that opening said door with trigger the ramp. These things are pretty powerful and can be dangerous in their own right, if opened in the wrong situation [2]. [1] http://www.quora.com/What-do-all-the-controls-in-an-airplanes-cockpit-do http://www.quora.com/What-do-all-the-controls-in-an-airplane... [2] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/30/326919223/emergency-slide-deploys-inside-u-s-jetliner-forcing-a-landing http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/30/326919223/eme...
mkhpalm 12y ago
Where were all the elderly, disabled, overweight, and children? I wonder if the a380 is going to survive operation after the first crash happens.
dmfdmf 12y ago
People complaining that these escape methods aren't 100% effective or the testing isn't real enough are losing sight of the fact that it is an EMERGENCY escape. You can't control all the variables or insure everyone gets out alive, that's the nature of a plane crash or landing fire or whatever. The airlines and the airplane engineers have designed a system that seems reasonable to me and made efforts to train the crew and deal with reasonable contingencies but they can't guarantee 100% safety in an accident by definition or it wouldn't be an accident.
cm2187 12y ago
I can't help thinking that culture plays a big part. If you look at the tube in London, people are getting in and out smoothly by queuing and letting passengers get out first. Same exercise in Paris, people outside are pushing to get into while people inside are pushing to get out, the whole thing looks like cattle in a farm. They seem to have made this test in Germany. That choice might not be innocent!
jonjenk 12y ago
I wish every flight I was on would deplane this way.

36 points by hberg 12y ago

For anybody else who is wondering if this would always go so smoothly in a real emergency: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/do-aircraft-evacuation-tests-work-315093/ http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/do-aircraft-evacua... Some notable points from that article: Trials assume that passengers have no friends/family on board and further ignores the presence of passengers with disabilities Full-scale evacuations [tests] remain a costly headache at around $2 million, not to mention the risk of litigation when things go wrong. While most common injuries to volunteers range from cuts and bruises to broken bones, the industry is haunted by the McDonnell Douglas evacuation certification trial for the MD-11 in October 1991 when one volunteer was left permanently paralysed. In one real life 737 crash, the last passenger came out 5.5min after the burning aircraft had ceased moving, while in the 737 certification trial, the entire load of passengers and crew evacuated the aircraft in 75 seconds. Under the current "make or break" single-test regime, the aircraft will pass as long as the result is below the 90 second threshold and it is argued that the current procedures are designed with the sole purpose of passing the test - even if that does not necessarily mean they will work in real situations. Certification based on a combination of computer simulation and real world testing is suggested as a way forward.

ams6110 12y ago
A big problem with real emergency evacuations is that passengers try to take their carry-on luggage with them.
- tmd83 12y ago
  I see a lot of people jogging smoothly forward which is not going to happen. And beyond disability just not everyone being as fit and bouncy like the video will slow things down a lot. The speed of a passengers through a particular exit will not be average speed of the passengers but the slowest one out. Also the confusion, trying to get ahead in fear that will surely contribute. There are also likely to be people who are inexperienced flier or haven't thought about how important it is to evacuate orderly or hadn't really listened to the instruction. For countries like mine where orderly lines or safety drills are not really practiced it will only be worse. I find 5.5 min surprisingly good even if it should be better.
- chx 12y ago
  I have a very simple idea that would help: install an electromagnetic lock in the overhead lockers. If emergency lights can work then there's a way to supply electricity to those as well. Noone will grab a bag or anything.
  - ohashi 12y ago
    I can see people banging, waiting, pulling, struggling to get them open anyways and blocking even more people from getting out in a real world scenario.
chx 12y ago
"I mean, at the end of the day, how could anyone really test for the real panic experienced by real passengers?"

lucio 12y ago

The "demo" is not representative of real conditions. They should offer money to the first persons out. See minute 40 of: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x18vhzz_mayday-s09e01-manchester-runway-disaster-panic-on-the-runway_shortfilms http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x18vhzz_mayday-s09e01-manch...

lchengify 12y ago
Thank you very much for posting this, I found it very informative. For those of you who don't want to watch the whole thing, here are a few changes to aircraft that came about because of this study: - Distance between bulkheads (clearance in the aisles) must be at least 30" to stop bottlenecks during an evacuation - The guide lights in the aisles (for exit markers in case of smoke) - Crew members should take a aggressive tone when directing passengers, especially when telling them to "jump" onto the slides coming off of the aircraft. It's interesting to think that before 1985, there hadn't been any studies on people on aircraft in smoke situations. Maybe it's specifically the density of people in passenger jets that causes issues, but you'd think the military would have done studies about smoke in airplanes prior to the 80's. It's also interesting how much catastrophe investigation resembles bug hunting. The crash had four distinct features that made it such a disaster: - A internal piece of the engine, a combustor can, had a crack manually repaired via welding. Since the documentation to the mechanic didn't specify the maximum crack length that could be repaired, the weld was insufficient. - The combustor can exploded during takeoff, which broke through the wing's fuel line - The engine lit the leaking fuel line on fire - The fire caught a wind updraft, which engulfed the (otherwise fire-retardant) fuselage, causing poisonous smoke to fill the cabin in minutes. If any one of the 4 issues hadn't occurred, catastrophe could have been avoided. Piecing all that together really gives new meaning to the term "cascading escalating failure". Finally, the video mentioned how one door got stuck because the inflatable ramp failed to deploy. On modern aircraft, those ramps are no joke. If you've ever heard "Cross-check and verify" on a flight, it means to verify that the ramps (which explosively inflate) are activated [1]. The 'red strip' on a flight door means that opening said door with trigger the ramp. These things are pretty powerful and can be dangerous in their own right, if opened in the wrong situation [2]. [1] http://www.quora.com/What-do-all-the-controls-in-an-airplanes-cockpit-do http://www.quora.com/What-do-all-the-controls-in-an-airplane... [2] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/30/326919223/emergency-slide-deploys-inside-u-s-jetliner-forcing-a-landing http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/30/326919223/eme...

mkhpalm 12y ago

Where were all the elderly, disabled, overweight, and children? I wonder if the a380 is going to survive operation after the first crash happens.

dmfdmf 12y ago

People complaining that these escape methods aren't 100% effective or the testing isn't real enough are losing sight of the fact that it is an EMERGENCY escape. You can't control all the variables or insure everyone gets out alive, that's the nature of a plane crash or landing fire or whatever. The airlines and the airplane engineers have designed a system that seems reasonable to me and made efforts to train the crew and deal with reasonable contingencies but they can't guarantee 100% safety in an accident by definition or it wouldn't be an accident.

cm2187 12y ago

I can't help thinking that culture plays a big part. If you look at the tube in London, people are getting in and out smoothly by queuing and letting passengers get out first. Same exercise in Paris, people outside are pushing to get into while people inside are pushing to get out, the whole thing looks like cattle in a farm. They seem to have made this test in Germany. That choice might not be innocent!

jonjenk 12y ago

I wish every flight I was on would deplane this way.