zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9794 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 52336 times:
Quoting StTim (Reply 250): Also has official certification flying started yet?
I do not think so, it is from what I understand due to start within the next 2 weeks. One of the aircraft is going to Hamburg for 2 weeks, that should be an indication it has started. In terms of hours, Airbus has presented some slides which give an indication of how much development and certification flying is planned for each airframe.
Numerous systems were already test flown prior to the A350 first flight, not all the testing will need to be demonstrated on the A350, the certification process is like an iceberg, the visible test flying is only part of it, a lot of aircraft is already met certification requirements, e.g. wing bending tests.
I assume that both battery types will be certified, the 787 solution is basically what Airbus already had on the A350. They are going for NiCad as a risk mitigation measure as they did not know how regulators would react to the Li issue.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
StTim From UK - England, joined Aug 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 49644 times:
A350 size is not unique, layout isn't unique, doors I bet are standard. I wonder if an evacuation test will really tell them much. I am sure the individual cabin alyouts will have a bigger influence on evacuation times.
The A380 however definitely required an evacuation test.
CrimsonChin From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2014, 289 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 49534 times:
Long flight, 9h+? for CF.
Quoting hivue (Reply 16): Can a new passenger aircraft type be exempted from pax evacuation testing?
If I remember correctly, wasn't Boeing granted exemption on the 787 on the basis that since it carries about the same amount of passengers as the 767 had been tested to(?) and has more or less the same amount of doors, they had sufficiently proven it can be evacuated in time, so there's no need to do a 787 evac test. My recollection is probably not 100% and there's probably more to the story, but I think that's more or less it.
hivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 49452 times:
Quoting CrimsonChin (Reply 18): If I remember correctly, wasn't Boeing granted exemption on the 787 on the basis that since it carries about the same amount of passengers as the 767 had been tested to(?)