Airbus A380 safety test injures 33

In summary, during a test of the Airbus A380 in Hamburg, Germany, 33 people were injured including friction burns and one broken leg. The evacuation was successful in 80 seconds with 853 volunteer "passengers" and 20 crew members, exceeding the test's requirements. The test was carried out in a dark hangar with debris on the aisles to simulate real emergency conditions. Some question the necessity of the test, but it is a significant step in the certification process for the A380.
  • #1
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2023 Award
21,870
6,271
Oops!

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

March 27, 2006
Thirty-three people were injured during a test of the Airbus A380, a double decker superjumbo jet, in Hamburg, Germany. Injuries include friction burns from sliding down the escape ramps and one broken leg. 853 volunteer "passengers" and 20 crew members took about 80 seconds to evacuate the aircraft, beating the test's requirements by 10 seconds and over 200 people "rescued". Only eight of the plane's sixteen exits were used, as required by the test; the crew members were not told in advance which doors would open. The test was carried out in a dark hangar and the plane's aisles were littered with debris to simulate actual emergency conditions.

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:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
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
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
Astronuc said:
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?
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
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 billions dollars in the lawsuit.Then no airliner will buy and the ones they did they will get rid of.
 
  • #6
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.


FredGarvin said:
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.

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:
  • #7
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
scott1 said:
I would never get on that plane.When I frist saw it looked very unsafe.
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
scott1 said:
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.
I'm sorry, but what the heck does the number of people have to do with the safe flying of the aircraft?
 
  • #10
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?

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.

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?

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:
  • #11
FredGarvin said:
I'm sorry, but what the heck does the number of people have to do with the safe flying of the aircraft?
The more people there on a plane the more people get hurt.
Russ_waters said:
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.
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
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:
  • #13
scott1 said:
The more people there on a plane the more people get hurt.
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...
...they use bigger engines but the biggers engines the more maintance it requires the more mantiance the more likely somthing might get missed
That isn't true.
3)How they soppsed get 1,000 people out of the plane fast engough during an emergancy.
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
cyrusabdollahi said:
(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.
If it didn't hurt the 747, why would it hurt the A380?
But too few, concorde, and the plane is not economically fesable for airline service.
The A380 will be mass produced and most certainly will be economically feasible (bigger is typically more efficient).
(2) There are MUCH bigger airplanes that are used all the time, and they are just as safe.
I don't know about "much", but otherwise, yeah.
 
  • #15
scott1 said:
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.
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
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
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
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 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
If it didn't hurt the 747, why would it hurt the A380?

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.

The A380 will be mass produced and most certainly will be economically feasible (bigger is typically more efficient).

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.


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.

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.


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.

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:
  • #19
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.'
Wasn't the Colleseum made out of stone? Probably more like an escaped lion drill? :eek: :biggrin:
 
  • #20
Ok, fine, 'escaped lion drill'...mumble mumble wise guy :rofl:
 
  • #21
cyrusabdollahi said:
Well, the A380 is a very new airplane.
It's brand new to be precise.

cyrusabdollahi said:
The media attention would be horrible. The 747 has been in use for a long time now.
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.

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

cyrusabdollahi said:
Bigger is more cost effective, which is why I made the comment about concorde.
Concorde wasn't bigger. It was faster. If they could have made them bigger for the same cost, they may have been self sustaining.

cyrusabdollahi said:
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.'
Roman fire drill? Did they have to run around the Colisseum and then get back to their original seats?
 
  • #22
Concorde wasn't bigger. It was faster. If they could have made them bigger for the same cost, they may have been self sustaining.

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

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

Huh?

The Colosseum remained in service for four and a half centuries; there is evidence of many changes, additions and repairs. Once, in 217, the upper floors went on fire because of a thunderbolt, and for five years the shows were held at the circus.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
cyrusabdollahi said:
Huh?
Nevermind.
 
  • #24
Hurkyl said:
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)
Hmm, same crash rate and half the planes equals same risk. Yeah, you're right. I forgot about the half the planes part.
 
  • #25
I think it would make a good cargo plane.
 
  • #26
Sure, I don't see why not. The 747 is a good cargo plane as well.
 
  • #27
scott1 said:
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 billions dollars in the lawsuit.Then no airliner will buy and the ones they did they will get rid of.

If the same number of people were flown on 4 250-passenger aircraft, the odds fo a failure would actually be greater, since each aircraft would be inspected separately. These airliners will replace multiple flights between major hubs all over the world. Reducing the number of overall flights will DECREASE the overall odds of a problem, since there are less components to inspect...
 
  • #28
These odds comparrisons are not really apples to apples between these aircraft. There are a lot of technologies used on the A380 that are not time tested with millions of flight hours under their belts. The risk analysis is not as simple as people per flight.
 
  • #29
Airbus have sold a lot of the A380F, the cargo version.

Am I right in thinking that the A380 can do Europe -> Australia without refuelling?

In the end tho', it's one cool plane :cool:

wiki has a good site on it, but the cargo numbers look lower than I recall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A380

The manufacturing side is particularly nice:
First, the front and rear sections of the fuselage are loaded on an Airbus RORO ship, Ville de Bordeaux, in Hamburg, northern Germany, whence they are shipped to the United Kingdom. There the huge wings, which are manufactured at Filton in Bristol and Broughton in north Wales, are transported by barge to Mostyn docks, where the ship adds them to its cargo. In Saint-Nazaire, western France, the ship trades the fuselage sections from Hamburg for larger, assembled sections, some of which include the nose. The ship unloads in Bordeaux. Afterwards, the ship picks up the belly and tail sections by Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA in Cadiz, southern Spain, and delivers them to Bordeaux. Doors were specially made by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited in Bangalore, India.

From there, the A380 parts are transported by barge to Langon, and by road to an assembly hall in Toulouse, France. New wider roads, extra canal systems and barges were developed to deliver the massive A380 parts. After assembly, the aircraft are flown to Hamburg to be furnished and painted. Final assembly began in 2004, with first aircraft (MSN001) displayed in January 2005.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Yay, the only non European part on the A380 is Indian.
SO what if it's just a door (or is it 4 doors excl. emergency exits) ?
 
  • #31
i just hope that this goliath of a jetliner doesn't have an achilles heel, for example, if a swallow were to get sucked inside the intake it would take the whole plane down


but in general i don't see how it would be any less safe than any other jetliner, since all objects fall at the same rate of time

the only downfall of a larger jetliner would probably be the whacko kamakaze pilot who takes one over
 
  • #32
imperium2600 said:
i just hope that this goliath of a jetliner doesn't have an achilles heel, for example, if a swallow were to get sucked inside the intake it would take the whole plane down
Believe it or not, engine manufacturers test their engines with a machine that throws chickens at them at 300mph and they have to be able to chew them up and swallow them without failing. But even if something much bigger took out an engine, it could easily fly on 3 - or even two (if they were on opposite sides).
 
Last edited:
  • #33
russ_watters said:
Believe it or not, engine manufacturers test their engines with a machine that throws chickens at them at 300mph and they have to be able to chew them up and swallow and swallow them without failing. But even if something much bigger took out an engine, it could easily fly on 3 - or even two (if they were on opposite sides).
We've got one. The FAA requirement for the number of hail balls, ice slabs and bird ingestions per attempt is a function of fan diameter. Most of our engines are sized that they have to withstand a single, 4 lbm bird with no appreciable loss in thrust performance. Something along the size of what the A380 uses should have to withstand 3 simultaneous impacts, but I would have to check the FARs to be certain. The speed of the shot is also a variable.

That part of the certification testing is the second most tense/scary test in my opinion.
 
  • #34
FredGarvin said:
That part of the certification testing is the second most tense/scary test in my opinion.


And I almost got to witness a chicken test on a Rolls Royce recently! Rats!

Off topic slightly, I heard an urban rumour somewhere that Westland once had to perform a similar (to the standard gas turbine) chicken test on some rotor blades, but nobody told the technician that the bird had to be defrosted prior to firing it through the spinning blades...
 
  • #35
brewnog said:
And I almost got to witness a chicken test on a Rolls Royce recently! Rats!

Off topic slightly, I heard an urban rumour somewhere that Westland once had to perform a similar (to the standard gas turbine) chicken test on some rotor blades, but nobody told the technician that the bird had to be defrosted prior to firing it through the spinning blades...
That one's older than the hills. I've heard a bunch of different versions.
 
<h2>1. What happened during the Airbus A380 safety test?</h2><p>During the safety test, an engine on the Airbus A380 exploded, causing debris to hit the plane's fuselage and injuring 33 people on board.</p><h2>2. Was the Airbus A380 safety test a routine procedure?</h2><p>Yes, safety tests are a routine part of the manufacturing process for aircrafts. They are conducted to ensure that the plane meets safety standards and can withstand potential hazards.</p><h2>3. How common are accidents during aircraft safety tests?</h2><p>Accidents during safety tests are rare, as they are carefully planned and executed with strict safety protocols in place. However, they can still occur due to unforeseen circumstances or technical failures.</p><h2>4. What measures are being taken to prevent similar incidents in the future?</h2><p>The cause of the engine explosion is still being investigated, and measures will be taken based on the findings to prevent similar incidents in the future. Airbus has stated that they are committed to ensuring the safety of their aircrafts and will make any necessary changes or improvements.</p><h2>5. Will this incident affect the safety of the Airbus A380 for commercial flights?</h2><p>No, this incident is unlikely to affect the safety of the Airbus A380 for commercial flights. The safety standards and regulations for commercial flights are much stricter than those for safety tests, and the aircraft must pass multiple tests and inspections before being deemed safe for commercial use.</p>

1. What happened during the Airbus A380 safety test?

During the safety test, an engine on the Airbus A380 exploded, causing debris to hit the plane's fuselage and injuring 33 people on board.

2. Was the Airbus A380 safety test a routine procedure?

Yes, safety tests are a routine part of the manufacturing process for aircrafts. They are conducted to ensure that the plane meets safety standards and can withstand potential hazards.

3. How common are accidents during aircraft safety tests?

Accidents during safety tests are rare, as they are carefully planned and executed with strict safety protocols in place. However, they can still occur due to unforeseen circumstances or technical failures.

4. What measures are being taken to prevent similar incidents in the future?

The cause of the engine explosion is still being investigated, and measures will be taken based on the findings to prevent similar incidents in the future. Airbus has stated that they are committed to ensuring the safety of their aircrafts and will make any necessary changes or improvements.

5. Will this incident affect the safety of the Airbus A380 for commercial flights?

No, this incident is unlikely to affect the safety of the Airbus A380 for commercial flights. The safety standards and regulations for commercial flights are much stricter than those for safety tests, and the aircraft must pass multiple tests and inspections before being deemed safe for commercial use.

Back
Top