# Airbus A380 safety test injures 33

1. Mar 29, 2006

### Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Oops!

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Airbus_A380_safety_test_injures_33

March 27, 2006
I have found this story at the Orlando Sentinel - hopefully they got it from a reliable source - http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2006/03/a380_drill_lead.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
2. Mar 29, 2006

### Staff: Mentor

I read it on USA Today online.

My take is that it isn't a big deal. So a few people got a-burn sliding down the tallest evacuation ramps in ever made. In a real emergency, the options may just be that or buring to death. The ramps served their purpose.

3. Mar 29, 2006

### Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Well, apparently there is one broken leg. The point being - Was that necessary - in a test?

Certainly a broken leg is better than being burned/incinerated.

On the other hand, what could one expect in a 'real' emergency?

4. Mar 29, 2006

### FredGarvin

Was it necessary? Not really. The test is kind of bogus IMO. However, this was one major hurdle for the certification of this airframe. Getting that many people out in such a short amount of time is quite a feat. I personally did not think they were going to be able to do it.

5. Mar 29, 2006

### scott1

I would never get on that plane.When I frist saw it looked very unsafe.How are they soppsed to have 1,000 passengers and keep that plane form crashing.
Airbus shouldn't of made it when it chrashes there will be 1,000 people and the airliner will have billons dollars in the lawsuit.Then no airliner will buy and the ones they did they will get rid of.

6. Mar 29, 2006

### Cyrus

Why is it unsafe? I think one crash could be the possible death for it though. Although a fully loaded 747 crash can kill almost 500 people. They have crashed many times in the past. But everyone uses them for the last 30 years. Now if you want to talk unsafe, then talk about the DC10. That thing is horrible.

Just as a comparison. The romans built the colosseum in 70AD. It held 45,000 spectators and could be emptied in an emergency in 5 mins. Thats 9,000 people per minute leaving, 20 seconds faster than the airbus, and over 9 times the amount! Smart people, those romans.

Last edited: Mar 29, 2006
7. Mar 29, 2006

### chroot

Staff Emeritus
How on earth can you compare the colosseum, which certainly doesn't fly, with an aircraft? It's a totally meaningless comparison.

I'm sure the ancient Romans could have built a much better aircraft. That explains their enduring legacy of incredible feats of aeronautical engineering, yes?

- Warren

8. Mar 29, 2006

### Staff: Mentor

It looks unsafe? Setting aside the irrelvancy of how something looks, it looks pretty much exactly the same as every modern airliner, just bigger.

Scott1, airliners are about the safest means of travel there is. Even if they crashed at a rate of one a week, they'd still be safer than cars, yet there hasn't been a crash of a commercial airliner in the US in several years. They are therefore orders of magnitude safer than cars.

The A380 will be no different.

9. Mar 29, 2006

### FredGarvin

I'm sorry, but what the heck does the number of people have to do with the safe flying of the aircraft?

10. Mar 29, 2006

### Cyrus

It was just an intersting fact that also had to do with moving a massive amount of people out in a short period of time.

Was there any point to that other than to be rude? It was not a strict comparison, that was sloppy on my behalf; however, it was to show a similar case of mass evacuation, that's all.

Last edited: Mar 29, 2006
11. Mar 29, 2006

### scott1

The more people there on a plane the more people get hurt.
Yes it is but,The problem is:
1)more people on plane when it crashes the more people get hurt
2)How is it is soppsed to be able to carry 1,000 people on a flight?Simple they use bigger engines but the biggers engines the more maintance it requires the more mantiance the more likely somthing might get missed and if there's engine faliure the plane crashes
3)How they soppsed get 1,000 people out of the plane fast engough during an emergancy.

12. Mar 29, 2006

### Cyrus

Well,

(1) yes, that is true. If one of these airplanes crash killing all on board (even if by pilot error) and it gets plastered al over the news that 1000 people were killed, it might be the end of that airplane. But too few, concorde, and the plane is not economically fesable for airline service.

(2) There are MUCH bigger airplanes that are used all the time, and they are just as safe. Being big is not a downside. It can help to dampen out instabilities in flight due to gusts\turbulence. The engines are bigger, but that does not mean they are less safe. They are made with better technology. The idea of more parts getting missed is not true, as even a small airplane has literaly millions of parts, if not more.

(3) well, they got them out in 80 seconds. So that's not an issue either. (less the road rash and broken legs :rofl:)

Last edited: Mar 29, 2006
13. Mar 30, 2006

### Staff: Mentor

Sure, so if a 747 carriers 500 people and is 1000 times safer than a car, then an A380 that carries 1000 people would be 500 times safer than a car. Still seems pretty safe to me...
That isn't true.
Not to worry - in the worst emergencies, everyone will already be dead, so the ramps won't be needed. But see your first point: that still makes it much, much, much, much safer than driving.

14. Mar 30, 2006

### Staff: Mentor

If it didn't hurt the 747, why would it hurt the A380?
The A380 will be mass produced and most certainly will be economically feasible (bigger is typically more efficient).
I don't know about "much", but otherwise, yeah.

15. Mar 30, 2006

### FredGarvin

I really think you need to step back and learn something about the situation. I really don't want to get into how many things are wrong with what you just said.

16. Mar 30, 2006

### FredGarvin

How the heck did they figure out that the Romans could get that many people out in that short of time? I think the geologists/historians are making some stuff up...I would like to know how they came up with that though.

17. Mar 30, 2006

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
That doesn't sound right at all!

Shouldn't it be said that the A380 is still 1000 times safer than a car, just that twice as many people can take the risk in one plane?

To look at it another way, twice as many people would die in the A380, but you'd only get half as many crashes. (Because only half as many A380s are flying as would 747s)

18. Mar 30, 2006

### Cyrus

Well, the A380 is a very new airplane. The media attention would be horrible. The 747 has been in use for a long time now.

I don't think airbus can afford to 'mass' produce any aircraft. They are made for order, or they will go broke.

Bigger is more cost effective, which is why I made the comment about concorde.

The number of people sitting in the airplane should not change the probability of being safer than a car. The number of plane crashes relative to car crashes out of the total cars/airplanes on the road should.

I first heard it on the history channel. Then I did a search on wiki and got a similar result. I don't know how they got the number though. Maybe they did a 'fire drill.'

Last edited: Mar 30, 2006
19. Mar 30, 2006

### Staff: Mentor

Wasn't the Colleseum made out of stone? Probably more like an escaped lion drill?

20. Mar 30, 2006

### Cyrus

Ok, fine, 'escaped lion drill'........mumble mumble wise guy :rofl:

21. Mar 30, 2006

### FredGarvin

It's brand new to be precise.

That is one thing the A380 has to endure that the 747 didn't to some extent. The media attention is astronomical in comparisson. However the 747 did have a lot of fanfare asssociated with it. The one thing that Airbus brought on themselves in going this large is the attention garnered because of the mass infrastructure modifications required to allow this aircraft to operate. The 747 required very few things in this area.

Well, they are mass produced in the scale of production numbers we talk about in this industry. Indeed they are made to order though. I don't think anyone wants to have that kind of money tied up in an aircraft sitting in a salesman's parking lot so to speak. The one thing for sure (much to Boeing's protest) is that, even though it is not supposed to happen, Airbus has the French government backing it. This aircraft is such a huge political statement by the French. It is analagous to our landing on the moon in the political arena. Airbus will not be going broke.

Concorde wasn't bigger. It was faster. If they could have made them bigger for the same cost, they may have been self sustaining.

Roman fire drill? Did they have to run around the Colisseum and then get back to their original seats?

22. Mar 30, 2006

### Cyrus

I know that. I never said it was bigger. I said it held fewer people.

Huh?

Last edited: Mar 30, 2006
23. Mar 30, 2006

### FredGarvin

Nevermind.

24. Mar 30, 2006

### Staff: Mentor

Hmm, same crash rate and half the planes equals same risk. Yeah, you're right. I forgot about the half the planes part.

25. Mar 30, 2006

### scott1

I think it would make a good cargo plane.