Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380...How Big Is Too Big?  
User currently offlineCjuniel From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 146 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5765 times:

I initially started to respond to the post regarding emergency evacuations on the A380, but felt my response might be inappropriate for that thread. And this topic MAY have been discussed before. If so, I apologize and please bear with me. This is NOT intended to become another Boeing vs Airbus debate. From a SAFETY perspective (emergency evacuations, in flight emergencies, etc) how safe would you feel flying on an aircraft that holds 500+ passengers on a flight of 10-13 hours? I have always been somewhat leery of the A380, as I always felt it was entirely too large. But the post about an emergency evacuation really disturbed me. Am I the only person that thinks the A380 is a disaster of catastrophic proportions waiting to happen after it enters service?

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17015 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5641 times:

If the plane crashes into the ground at 500 kts, that's that. No change if it's a Piper Cub or an A380, apart from bodycount. But if you are a passenger, you do not much care if you die alone or not.

However, from the viewpoint of survivable emergencies, the 747 was considered safer that the contemporary competition since it incorporated many extra safety features (for example the third wing spar). Larger may well mean safer since there are (normally) more safety features in the form of more redundancy.

All accidents are different and it is hard to really come up with a correlation between size and safety. For sure, if an A380 came apart in flight, the body count would be higher than if an EMB-135 did, but it would be misusing statistics to conclude that the A380 is thus, by it's very size, less safe. This is why for example http://www.airsafe.com calculates statistics based on the proportion of passengers who died, not based on the absolute number. If 30 passengers die in an EMB-135 accident and 70 in an A380 accident (assuming that the accidents are comparable, and that's a big assumption), it can be argued that the A380 is safer because a larger proportion survived. So size does not matter in this case.

Certification requirements are the same for all planes carrying 35 (I think it's 35) or more passengers. So they should all be considered as safe imo.

If nothing else, would you rather go through severe turbulence in an A380 or an EMB-135? Think about which one has more inertia. Thought so.

If an A380 and an EMB-135 landed in very severe crosswind, which would be more stable? Thought so.

If an A380 and an EMB-135 experienced severe wake turbulence, which would be more likely to flip over? Thought so.

NOTE: I am not bashing the EMB-135. It's simply conveniently small for my comparison.


EDIT: Economic reasons limiting size will always be more important. These can mainly be divided into two categories:
1. Limiting size of airport facilities in the form of runways/taxiways/gates and so on.
2. Limited market as size increases, while production costs keep going up.

[Edited 2004-02-29 17:42:20]

[Edited 2004-02-29 17:49:03]

[Edited 2004-02-29 17:50:28]

[Edited 2004-02-29 17:51:04]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineKilavoud From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5557 times:

Just like a big bird in the past may look smaller now, a big bird in the near future may look smaller in a further future.

As the world population is increasing through the eras, so do the dimensions of the planes. Nothing to worry if in the future we will have to be suspended in the air together with more people.

Cheers. Kilavoud.


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3150 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5494 times:

Also consider two things:

1) Mass media loves death and destruction on large scales.

2) When a big airplane (A340, 777, 747, etc) does crash, lots of people usually die.

Based on this, and the fact that the fact that the airlines are a very safe way to fly and do not have many mishaps, when one does happen, it will be beat to death. The US Airways Express Beech 1900 last year is a prime example. While it was relatively small on a destruction or death toll when it would be compared to a larger aircraft, it still was the headline for about two weeks. Even today, you still hear references to it in stories that have developed in the aftermath.

You gotta love the media "experts"



DMI
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17015 posts, RR: 67
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5395 times:

Still, the average passenger could probably not differentiate between the plane that crashed and another one  Big grin


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineAdria From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5242 times:

The A380 is going to be more stable than an ERJ-135 because of its weight. Also in case of an emergency the same rules apply to the ERJ-135 or A380 so they are all safe, I would say the A380 will be even safer because of the new technology

User currently offlineFrontierA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 136 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5167 times:

Am I the only person that thinks the A380 is a disaster of catastrophic proportions waiting to happen after it enters service?

Yes.

As other have stated the A380 will be as safe (maybe safer if that's possible) as all current commercial aircraft flying.



Chris.



A Whole different Animal!
User currently offlineDC-10 Levo From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 3432 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5083 times:

Well the engine for the A380 has just left my local Rolls Royce factory here in Hucknall, Nottingham - the picture in the local newspaper shows the engine and it looks massive. It's been here for the last 6 weeks - being tested and we're about 1 mile from the factory - it was really loud! It has been shipped to France to be put on the A340 for a new phase of tests.

DC-10


User currently offlineNetdhaka From Bangladesh, joined Feb 2004, 183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5023 times:

I personally would feel safer flying in an A380 than small planes because of its extra safety features and weight. I would hate to wait much longer to board or get off the plane though.

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17015 posts, RR: 67
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4913 times:

Yes, but Richard Branson says there'll be a gym onboard. I wonder how you strap in to the stairclimber?  Big grin


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9769 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4767 times:

Pffff, after reading this thread, I thaught we would see another A380 bashing session, thanks for clearing things up fellow members  Wink/being sarcastic

All aircraft are safe, else they wouldn't be allowed to fly. Is that so hard to understand? If an aircraft crashes, okay, that's always bad, but in the '70's when the 747 came out, there would have been the same "problem" at that time and it didn't so why would the A380 be such a "different" case. Compared to the 747-400, the A380 isn't that much of a leap forward in terms of passengers carried....

Regards A388


User currently offlineAkumas From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 434 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4695 times:

Look at the size of the people inside the fuselage!



User currently offlineLonghaulheavy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 402 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4683 times:

Can you say "flying city"? I knew you could.

User currently offlineDAirbus From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 593 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4595 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am reserving judgment until I see it in person. I firmly believe that if it looks right, it will fly right.  Big grin


"I love mankind. It's people I can't stand." - Charles Shultz
User currently offlineKBUF737 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 779 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4560 times:

Its not that big. Those people are standing behind the railing you see in the background. People should not be that far below the windows. And if they were that small than those doors are absolutely massive. I feel sorry for the 120 lb F/A closing them.


The tower? Rapunzel!!!!!!
User currently offlineFlyingNanook From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 830 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4527 times:

Akumas--I believe that the picture has a trick of perspective in it. The people are actually standing on the platform well behind the fuselage so they look really tiny. If you notice that the people are also just a little bit larger than the windows, so that would lead me to believe that they are far away from the plane or that the windows are really big!

Anyways...I think that in the future the 380 will end up being regarded like the 747 is today...A big plane but not unsafe.



Semper ubi sub ubi.
User currently offlineAkumas From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 434 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4480 times:

Yes those people are behind the fuselage, it looks like they're standing on scaffolding.

You can see those people standing underneath in orange clothing.... that can give you a more accurate idea..


User currently offlineYhmfan From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 607 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4399 times:

Akumas you are, of course, correct.
If those people were inside the fueselage, it would mean that the windows in the A380 are higher than a person's height!



If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
User currently offlineQ330 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1460 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4314 times:

Very good post, Starlionblue. Well said.


You can see those people standing underneath in orange clothing.... that can give you a more accurate idea..

No, even the people in the orange aren't to scale with the fuselage section. The best way to get an idea of the size is to look at the exit door on the side of the fuselage.

-Q



Long live the A330!
User currently offlineIndustrialPate From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4222 times:

A380...How Big Is Too Big?

Airbus A380 & how big is too big... sounds like the perfect topic for ConcordeBoy!


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4205 times:

So I like big things okay... lemme alone already  Yeah sure Big grin

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17015 posts, RR: 67
Reply 21, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4077 times:

If Boeing ever decides to build the BWB, that will be really big, and it will be very different in the eyes of others than A.net members too. I imagine the authorities would have trouble with that one since they might have to rewrite the rules.

As A388 (nice nick!) says, the A388 not really such a huge leap compared to 707->747. And it's still a tube with wings, conceptually the same as a DC-3 in many ways.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Emirates, Etihad, Qatar...How Much Is Too Much? posted Thu Nov 24 2005 03:59:44 by DL021
How Much, Is Too Much On Board? posted Wed Nov 9 2005 19:16:05 by AA767400
How Old Is Too Old? posted Sun Feb 13 2005 06:30:28 by AirWillie6475
LCO's: How Many Is Too Many? posted Fri Nov 7 2003 04:53:43 by MSYtristar
Mean FA's - How Far Is Too Far? posted Mon Sep 22 2003 19:21:41 by Aircanada
How Old Is Too Old? posted Sat Jun 28 2003 16:47:29 by Sv7887
How Old Is Too Old? posted Tue Feb 19 2002 05:05:20 by Ual777contrail
How Much Is Too Much For An Airliner? posted Fri Aug 3 2001 01:10:28 by Lehpron
How old is too old??? posted Sat Dec 5 1998 08:22:54 by Bryan
Zoom How Big Is There Fleet? posted Sat Feb 7 2004 22:28:11 by Bmi330