Upsmd11 From United States of America, joined May 2003, 799 posts, RR: 4 Posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2710 times:
There is a post in the Civil Aviation forum regarding aircraft people feel safe on and don't feel safe on. Someone commented about the A320 and the fly-by-wire design of it's controls.
After looking at the information on the Air France crash at the air show I wonder how did so many people survive this crash? The report says that only 3 of 136(?) perished. While any loss of life is a grim reality of the dangers of flight, this is amazing that the aircraft was totally destroyed and so many people lived.
Does anybody have any ideas on why this is the case? There was a huge fireball too -- usually fire kills people.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2611 times:
N777UA is correct. The fuselage stayed intact for at least a little while until it was destroyed by fire, although geeze....the video of the explosion was unreal, it's hard to believe the airplane could have survived that long. Also, I think a typical evacuation takes somewhere on the order of a minute or two--I'm sure there are some flight crews browsing the forums who would be able to tell you a lot better than I could.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2600 times:
I believe it is an FAA / JAA requirement that any passenger aircraft must be able to be evacuated in full (i.e. at maximum capacity) within 90 seconds with half the emergency exits blocked. They do tests to prove it for any design.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2542 times:
I thought the chief problem on the A380 was the large number of upper deck doors and slides - which aren't terribly wind resistant on the 744, for example... I remember someone mentioning that the Singapore Airlines crash (admittedly in the middle of a hurricane) showed that passengers from the upper deck weren't able to deplane until they went downstairs - the wind just blew the slide to the side.
They better ensure they only use test subjects who aren't afraid of heights at all for those tests...
Lstc From Canada, joined Jun 2003, 320 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2324 times:
The large fire ball in the famous video was due to the wings being sheared and the fuel spilling out. Fortunately for many of the people on board, that meant that much of the burning fuel was left behind the fuselage wreckage as it made its way through the forest.
Aircraft accidents that occur close to the ground at low speeds, in normal attitudes are typically very surviveable.
Those who say A-320s are less safe than corresponding non-FBW aircraft are addressing a gut feeling they have about technology that is false and they are ignoring the design data. You simply can't certify an aircraft that is inherently unsafe. If anything, the A320 was subject to higher standards than many "conventional" aircraft such as the 727/737/747/767 as it was certified to later more stringent standards.
Airbus_A340 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1555 posts, RR: 21 Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2238 times:
I'm no expert, but perhaps the aircraft being a 320-100 without the centre fuel tank helped?
But then again since it was a flying display even if there was a centre fuel tank, it wouldn't have been filled as the wing tanks usually have to be full before filling the centre tank on the 320 Family.
It did appear the trees played a roll in cushioning the aircraft.
What I want to know is why was the aircraft full of passengers on a flying display?