Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Cabin Pressurisation  
User currently offlineReady4Pushback From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 364 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5358 times:

I recently flew on one of LHs 343s MUC-LAX and my friend (who knows nothing about planes) complained of feeling headachy and dizzy from about 6 hours into the flight. The next flight was a UA 763 LAX-HNL, and he said it was much better - didn't feel bad at all.

I used to have a flat mate who worked for Airtours (before it changed to My Travel) and when he trained from the 757 to the A320, he said that loads of passengers were complaining about dizzyness on the Airbus a/c.

I just wondered if there was a difference in the cabin pressurisation from a/c to a/c (or possibly from A to B), or another reason for this?


15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5282 times:

KLM had a similar problem with the introduction of the 777. It was a problem with a setting.

N


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5230 times:

What would be the Presurisation setting differences.Are you referring to the Rate of pressurisation.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineSanthosh From India, joined Sep 2001, 545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5200 times:

Aircraft pressurisation is done automatically by the onboard computers right?Or is there anything done manuelly by the pilots?

Thanx
George



Happy Landing
User currently offlineDl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5187 times:

Aircraft pressurisation is done automatically by the onboard computers right?Or is there anything done manuelly by the pilots?

Pressurization is normally controlled by computers(auto mode) but there is also a standby(manual mode) in case of failure of the auto mode.



757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
User currently offlineReady4Pushback From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5148 times:

I wonder if there is a benefit to an airline if they change the "default" settings - I mean a financial benefit.



User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1724 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5125 times:

wonder if there is a benefit to an airline

The higher the cabin altitude, the less bleed air required and the less fuel burned.

FAR's require a max pax cabin altitude of 8000ft.
Some operators stay well below that (5400 - 6200).
Unfortunately, at least one occasionally exceeds 8000.


User currently offlineStealthpilot From India, joined May 2004, 510 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4992 times:

Ready4Pushback :
That's one of the differences of the 787. The cabins wont have 8000ft cabin pressure (or whatever level, it will be lower) and the engines wont require bleed air.

Aircraft cabins are maintained at lower pressure, if it’s 7000 feet then it’s like living in a town on a hill 2133.6 meters up (duhhh). It would obviously be more comfortable to keep the pressure higher (say SLP) but as Tod mentioned it's less 'efficient'.

-Nikhil



eP007
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4984 times:

KLM had a similar problem with the introduction of the 777. It was a problem with a setting.

Do you mean setting or seating... because some people have had alergic reactions to the odors from newly installed cabin fittings, or brand-new cars.


User currently offlineNwafflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1050 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4968 times:

Normally, landing don't bother me at all, but once in a while, on a Continental 737, my ears bother me -- does Continental use a different setting than other airlines? I also used to occasionally have problems on a USA MD80. I've never had problems on NWA -- a dc-9, and airbus 319-320, or an airbus 330, or on a 757

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4914 times:

What would the Rate of Pressurisation on the A380 be.considering its size.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4913 posts, RR: 43
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4885 times:

Airbus pressurization rates are the same as any Boeing aircraft I have flown.

However, in an Airbus aircraft, you can, if you wish, reduce the pack flow setting. This can be done on reduced passenger loads, as it slows the refresh rate of the cabin. It will reduce fuel burn slightly, as the bleed demand is less.

It really comes down to the airline, and their desire for fuel savings,as when demanded, even with a full passenger load there is nothing that says you can not use a low pack flow setting. Perhaps that is what your friend encountered.

My own personal feeling is NEVER to use low (econ) flow on the packs, as I feel that even if there were only one passenger on board he paid for full air, and if any airline can not afford the extra 0.01% fuel burn, then they probably shouldn't be in business!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4808 times:


Quoting LongHauler (reply 11):
My own personal feeling is NEVER to use low (econ) flow on the packs, as I feel that even if there were only one passenger on board he paid for full air, and if any airline can not afford the extra 0.01% fuel burn, then they probably shouldn't be in business!


What about the use of Recirculating Fans providing Recirculating air in modern Aircraft.
Should Recirculated Air be provided.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineLonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4913 posts, RR: 43
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4790 times:


Quoting HAWK21M (reply 12):
What about the use of Recirculating Fans providing Recirculating air in modern Aircraft.
Should Recirculated Air be provided.
regds
MEL


The recirc fans are always on. They are only shut down for checklist/emergency procedures. "Cabin fire", or "fire of unknown origin" comes to mind.

However, the packs are the source of fresh air to the cabin. Airbus recommends that the packs can be set to "LO" if the passenger count is less than 85 on the A319 or A320, or less than 140 on the A321, to save fuel. Like all procedures, I assume Airbus has tested this ad nauseum. But, they also state the cabin can become stuffy or humid, the main reason I refuse to use Pack Flow LO.

It reminds me too much of the "old days" when I was a DC-8 Second Officer, and we used to shut down one Turbo Compressor on Atlantic Flights to save fuel. The smoking in the cabin, (it was allowed then) made the air blue and almost unbreathable!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineReady4Pushback From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4695 times:

Well, it doesn't surprise me with LH to be honest.

This was an A343, and towards the end of the flight I had a real headache, myself. I'd never felt like that on an aircraft before, but that was the longest flight I've ever done (12.5 hrs), so at the time I put it down to that. The next flight on the UA 763 - I was fine.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4644 times:

Quoting Ready4Pushback (reply 14):
This was an A343, and towards the end of the flight I had a real headache, myself. I'd never felt like that on an aircraft before, but that was the longest flight I've ever done (12.5 hrs), so at the time I put it down to that.


Did you rest on that Flt.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airbus Cabin Pressurisation
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cabin Pressurisation posted Tue Jan 10 2006 13:07:15 by TOGA
Cabin Pressurisation posted Wed Jul 13 2005 15:08:29 by PMN
Airbus Cabin Doors, How To Open From Inside posted Fri Oct 25 2002 04:34:05 by Flyboy80
Why Airbus For Start-ups? posted Mon Nov 13 2006 18:27:42 by AirWillie6475
US Cabin Crew Question posted Tue Oct 24 2006 10:22:52 by Icelandair
Airbus Payload/Range Charts posted Mon Oct 23 2006 03:39:30 by Ruscoe
Airbus Fly By Wire And Viruses posted Wed Oct 18 2006 18:56:21 by Airfoilsguy
Left Seat / Right Seat Joysticks In Airbus A/C posted Fri Oct 13 2006 17:13:52 by BOACVC10
How Do Boeing/Airbus Conduct Pressurization Tests? posted Fri Oct 13 2006 08:02:04 by Brenintw
Airbus And Boeing Trim System Differences. posted Fri Sep 29 2006 05:37:17 by JetMech

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format