Cruising From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 258 posts, RR: 0 Posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1421 times:
Aerospace Notebook: FAA turns down Airbus
request to omit some exits
Seattle Post-Intelligencer 02/26/01
author: James Wallace
Executives with Boeing Commercial Airplanes would never say so
publicly, but they are probably smiling at a recent decision by the Federal
Aviation Administration that went against rival Airbus Industrie.
Call it a little payback for past rulings by the European Joint Aviation
Authorities ( the JAA is Europe's equivalent of the FAA) that went against
Boeing regarding emergency exits on its jetliners.
In a decision that received little attention, the FAA has turned down a
request from Airbus for an exemption to a rule that requires adjacent
emergency exits be no more than 60 feet apart.
It's a rule that came about after Boeing, at the request of some of its
customers, removed overwing exits on 747s back in the 1980s and was
stopped by the JAA after the FAA initially approved.
Airbus had sought the exemption to the 60-foot rule for its new
380-passenger A340-600, which is scheduled to enter service next year.
At 246.4 feet in length, the A340-600 will be the world's longest
commercial jetliner, taking the title by a mere four feet from Boeing's
777-300 that has been flying passengers since May 1998. Airbus sees the
A340-600 as a competitor to the 416-passenger 747.
Airbus wanted to increase the distance between adjacent doors on the
A340-600 to 74 feet by eliminating overwing hatches.
That would have saved about 1,100 pounds and allowed room for an extra
row of seats. It also would have saved Airbus production costs by
allowing a standardized center fuselage section to be used by both the
A340-600 and the A340-500, which will be a smaller but longer-range
After Airbus petitioned the FAA for an exemption to the 60-foot rule, the
Association of Flight Attendants' union warned last August that its
members might refuse to fly on the Airbus plane if the exemption were
The union, which represents nearly 50,000 flight attendants, said fewer
exits would pose a safety threat because it could mean delays in evacuating
passengers from the plane in an emergency.
"We thought Airbus and all the people who may order this plane should
know that if the petition goes through, they are going to have a tough time
getting flight attendants to fly on it," a union spokesman said at the time.
The first A340-600 was rolled out of the Airbus factory in Toulouse,
France, in December to begin ground testing.
That plane did not have the two overwing hatches, but an Airbus
spokesman said it will be retained as a testbed and will not be delivered to
an airline. All future A340-600s for delivery to Airbus customers will
have the overwing exits, the spokesman said.
Airbus had argued that removing the overwing exits would actually
improve safety because those exits could become blocked during an
The European airplane maker said the four type "A" doors on the
A340-600, which are wide enough to allow two people to pass through
simultaneously, provide adequate safety in an emergency.
In its submission to the FAA, Airbus said that data from controlled tests, as
well as analytical techniques that did not exist when the 60-foot rule was
adopted, are now available to better substantiate evacuation capability,
and the data shows that the rule does not add to safety.
In rejecting the Airbus petition, the FAA said:
Distance between exits is more critical in an arbitrary accident scenario
than during controlled test conditions.
The arguments put forward by Airbus were not substantively different than
those put forward at the time the rule was written.
While Airbus made some arguable points, the issues need to be discussed
in a wider forum before the FAA would consider regulatory changes.
It is not lost on some people at Boeing that Airbus had raised safety
concerns over the 747 door issue that led to the present 60-foot rule. The
flight attendants union had also raised objections to removing the overwing
hatches on the 747.
A few years later, Boeing again faced a similar door issue, this time with
its next generation 737.
Before Boeing could win European certification for the next generation
planes, the JAA required that overwing exits be installed.
That ruling by the JAA, which was supported by Airbus, cost Boeing
dearly because it had already started building the next generation models
following certification by the FAA.
Those planes had to be modified at considerable expense and at a time
when Boeing was already struggling with serious production problems.
When Airbus petitioned the FAA for an exemption to the 60-foot rule for
its A340-600, Boeing did not take a position.
A person familiar with the matter who asked not to be quoted by name said
Boeing executives did meet to discuss what they should do.
"Because the flight attendants were already against this, the decision was
made just to trust the system and not get involved, which would have
looked like we were just being spiteful," this person said.
Widebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1333 times:
Slightly misleading........the petition was rejected because Airbus did not apply early enough, and therefore did not have the time to perform the tests asked for by the FAA.....if you want more info, I posted this about 3 or 4 weeks ago, with a more detailed explanation.........search for 'Overwing exit' in the last month, I dunno how to link messages yet.....!!
Crosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2621 posts, RR: 57
Reply 3, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1282 times:
----- [T]he FAA has turned down a request from Airbus for an exemption to a rule that requires adjacent emergency exits be no more than 60 feet apart.
It's a rule that came about after Boeing, at the request of some of its customers, removed overwing exits on 747s back in the 1980s and was stopped by the JAA after the FAA initially approved
Pretty misleading all around...the JAA didn't exist at the time the 60ft rule was made. The JAA wasn't formed until 1990...
The standards of accuracy on a matter involving Boeing and Airbus are about all you can expect given the source!
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6116 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1202 times:
Hate to burst your "I am more of an authority figure than this guy" bubble, but look at the source again. It's not him. It's a quote from the media. And we all know how discreditable (or is it uncreditable? Whatever.) the media is, they generally don't have a CLUE as to what they are reporting on. The Alaska Air crash of N963AS comes to mind- you know, that 737-400 that crashed, just as other 737s have crashed due to rudder problems? Well, we all know that it was an MD-83 that crashed, not a 737 BUT- that's what they told us.
I think it's good that the FAA turned it down. Think about it- the more exits, the better. Okay, so let's say that hypothetically, you build a plane with one door that can evacuate everybody in time. BUT- what if that door is blocked? Everybody dies. So, if you look at it that way, I think there should be doors every other row!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We cannot allow manufacturers- Boeing or Airbus- to weigh OUR LIVES against costs and weight. I am sorry, but my life is more valuable than 1100 pounds.
I also think it's fair that Boeing had to redesign the doors over the 737. This is another place where the article was wrong- Boeing ALWAYS had doors over the wings, but the JAA required them to be ATTACHED to the plane- to hinge up and outward. That, I think, could also save lives.
Widebody From Ireland, joined Aug 2000, 1152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 1151 times:
DL_Mech......"Airbus had argued that removing the overwing exits would actually improve safety because those exits could become blocked during an emergency. "
The argument is as follows...Airbus has dual lane slides installed at all it's 8 large doors.....at the overwing exit, there is a small hatch with a single lane slide.....it has been researched, and proven, that this exit can lead to massive congestion in the wake of a crash...passengers tend to move to the exit closest to them.....dual lane slides allow approaches from both sides......the over wing in comparison, situated bang slap in the middle of the aircraft, would be handling most of the traffic, and from both sides. The Airbus argument is that these exits should be removed, and that the 8 dual lane exits (or 4 with the 90 sec rule) could handle the traffic in less time....think of the A310...if pax move to the exit closest to them , then the overwing exit will be catering for twice as many pax as the other doors......IMHO, these hatches should be removed from all aircraft......