-
AD.COM BOATPERSON 2001 - 2008 -
Originally posted by busfan View PostUncontained engine failure and random, widespread collateral damage, that's how. Once this occurs, is there anything that can protect an airframe from this kind of damage, on any aircraft? Short of revising the engine issues, what can really be done?Originally posted by SpiegelComment
-
I am surprised to hear that the A380 has only two main hydraulic lines. I always thought that it was standard for commercial airliners to have at least three? Does anyone know the reason for this deviation from the norm?Comment
-
The hydraulic system on the A380 is significantly different to those found on other aircraft. Instead of having 3 hydraulic systems for redundancy operating at 3000PSI, it has two main systems at 5000psi, and Electro-Hydrostatic Actuators, or Electrical Backup Hydraulic Actuators.
These EHA's or EBHA's use electric power, and generate hydraulic power themselves to move a flight control. They're independant and have their own hydraulic fluid reservoir.
So, while there are only two main systems, a total loss of both systems will not result in loss of flight control power.Comment
-
In other words, other than the two main hydraulic systems, each critical control surface has its own dedicated mini-hydraulic system powered by electricity.
And there are at least two of each critical control surface, and the dedicated hydro system of each one in each pair is powered by a different electrical system, of which there are two of them independent of each other.
That means that you have 4 systems (two hydro, two electrical), and you can loose any 3 of those and still have positive (but degraded) control authority.
And then, you have the RAT (ram air turbine) that can provide both essential hydro power and essential electrical power in the event that all of the original sources of power for all the other hydro and electrical systems (that is, the 4 engines + the APU) are lost, like in a fuel depletion event.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
Another Spiegel article indicated that they only had 90 seconds to evacuate 837 people in order to pass certification testing.
Between the holes, fuel leak and run-away engine the decision making skills of all parties were put to the test.
Just staging the fire truck to douse the #1 engine places the forward slide out of use.
Foam all over the wing plus the force of the fluid forces the wing exit out of commission.
Just the streaming of the foam must have delayed any evacuation since all of the exits are on the port side.
If there was any fire or explosion they would have been lost for lack of exits on the starboard side of the aircraft.Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.Comment
-
And that is why the certification is done using 50% of the exits...Comment
-
Why place all of the exits on one side? That in itself looks like it is courting disaster.
Please don't give me "The Sky Is Falling" award for the month but that was the first thought when I saw the pictorial of the evacuation plan.
Even two exits on the starboard perhaps? The picture may have been inaccurate but the article said eight and that matched.
"More is not always better" but in this case?
conventional loading/unload and jetway combined with weight ??
Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.Comment
-
Guamaniac,
What have you been smoking? I think you could make a mint if you sold it...
The aeroplane has symmetrical emergency exits. 8 on the left, 8 on the right.Comment
-
AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008
Originally posted by orangehuggyComment
-
Well thanks for that vote of confidence. The article mentioned that there were eight exits. The sketch shows eight.
"The picture may have been inaccurate" .. so what have you been shooting, snorting or did you fail to learn to read for content?
When you said 50% for the certification tests I thought you meant four exits may have been used. Yes, I could have done the math I suppose but it was a question that was deferring to your knowledge.
If I fudge up, I usually just ooops it, standing corrected. Or did I rise to your "half answer" bait? And, yes, I could have looked for a pic of the starboard, bad dog and all that.
You may know more. Good for you, gold star and atta' f'ng boy.
Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.Comment
-
now now gua.... let's be cheery
Comment
-
RR now wants to replace ALL A380 engines?! sounds like a pretty damn big defect to me. now i may be proven wrong in the end, but i still believe this will end up being proven to be a DESIGN DEFECT. the way i'm thinkin, if it were a defective part manufactured by a 3rd party, RR would've ratted them out already.Comment
-
I've heard tell of a bearing box issue.Comment
-
The smoking bit was a light hearted comment at the rather amazing inaccuracy of what you had said. I don't expect people to be experts, particularly on here. But if you're going to criticise an aircraft manufacturer for a safety design...
My 50% answer was correct, but I didn't think that you thought all exits were on one side. I thought you were alluding to the fact that you had lost a lot of the exits, and so wouldn't be able to meet evacuation standards. 50% of exits are used so that if one side of the aircraft is blocked, you can still get everyone off in the requried time. Obviously with all exits availbale it will be a lot faster.Comment
Tweet
Comment