Ready4Pushback
Topic Author
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 8:27 pm

Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:38 am

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?
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:28 am

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

N
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:25 pm

What would be the Presurisation setting differences.Are you referring to the Rate of pressurisation.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
Santhosh
Posts: 543
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 5:14 am

RE: Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:24 pm

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

Thanx
George
Happy Landings :)
 
dl757md
Posts: 1482
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:32 am

RE: Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:34 pm

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!
 
Ready4Pushback
Topic Author
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 8:27 pm

RE: Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:14 am

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

 
Tod
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:51 am

RE: Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:15 am

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.
 
stealthpilot
Posts: 502
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 4:28 am

RE: Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:28 am

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
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8588
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:34 am

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.
 
nwafflyer
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:29 am

RE: Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:10 am

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 avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:48 pm

What would the Rate of Pressurisation on the A380 be.considering its size.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4978
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:30 am

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!
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:14 pm


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
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4978
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:07 pm


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!
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
Ready4Pushback
Topic Author
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 8:27 pm

RE: Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Sat Feb 19, 2005 1:55 am

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 avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Airbus Cabin Pressurisation

Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:30 pm

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
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests