FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1985
1985 - 2212.PDF
LETTERS Exit cuts: the reasons why SIR—I was astonished to read within your columns a letter ("The case of the disappearing exits", June 8), so rambling and inaccurate, from the president of an organisation presumably purporting to have an authoritative opinion on aviation matters. Mr Newman says: "It is not only British Airways which has plugged the (747) over- wing exits," and: "We have no doubt that this is a Boeing- approved modification". He is quite correct; in fact the modification was initiated by Boeing, having realised that many of its customers were operating the aircraft on long routes and were unable to exploit its full passenger capacity. It was originally certificated to carry up to 550 passengers with ten main and two upper deck doors (n.b. all 747s have an upper deck ... ). The modification has been taken up not only by BA but also by BCal, Cathay Pacific, CP Air, Korean, Air Gabon, and Varig, among others. It was initiated not "... so that 12 more fare-paying passengers could be carried", but to permit redistribution of the existing seating, enabling more flexible arrangements for passenger amenities. Licensed aircraft mainten ance engineers and others know that aviation law limits the numbers of passengers carried in relation to the number of useable exits. After witnessing a successful trial evacuation of 550 passengers within 90sec via only five of the ten main doors, the Federal Aviation Authority set a limit (approved by the CAA) of 55 passengers per operative main door. This means that with doors 3 left and right deactivated (which were never normally used, anyway) the new limit is 440. British Airways has a typical max load of just over 400. The upper deck exits have always been regarded only as secondary exits. Mr Newman continues by saying: "We would like to see a modified 747 be evacuated"; and goes on to make unobjective and emotional conjectures of various evacu ation incidents. In his peroration he states: "It is our opinion that, in the event of a cabin fire, it is impossible to have a complete evacuation of all passengers", and he then draws comparison with the football disaster at Bradford. The film of the original 747 trial evacuation shows that many of the events he visualises actually occurred. Many of the "guinea pigs" were elderly people or children, but there was no need for special training, contortionists, or a "good head for heights". During the last serious cabin fire in the UK (a BOAC 707 in 1968), two passengers only were not evacuated, a disabled old lady and her companion. A stewardess also perished in attempting to get them out of their seats. Such events as took place in Bradford occurred in the absence of such stringent safety requirements as apply in civil aviation, and it is disgracefully unprofessional to make such a comparison, which can only add to the low esteem in which engineers are held in this country. P. A. MORRIS British Airways Engineering Training 11 Meadow Rise Lacey Green Aylesbury. Bucks HP 17 0QY Facts on exit legislation SIR—Mr Newman's over- dramatic letter on behalf of the "Airline Engineers International" (Flight, June 8) requires a response to reas sure those as unfamiliar with the legislation as Mr Newman seems to be. Fact No 1 BA's 747 aircraft are approved for a maximum of 550 passengers, and require five main exits per side. Fact No 2 BA operates with 410 passengers and requires four exits per side. Fact No 3 FAA approval was based on the demonstration Mr Newman seeks, and assumes that the upper deck doors were excluded (to be considered as a secondary escape source only). I assume that the AEI has some evidence to support its lightly veiled suggestion that the evacuation tests were "rigged". Fact No 4 There is nothing new in this—it is an accepted practice where a layout is below the "max approved". I suggest that the AEI reads the relevant sections of the BCAR and FAR—you will find that British Airways more than meets these mandatory requirements, and these, operators are as safety conscious as the AEI. Comparison with the Brad ford disaster is ludicrous. In fact, if the football grounds were required to meet the equivalent standards of civil aviation, many more people would have escaped. If the AEI thinks that the passenger/exit ratio is wrong, then it should address itself to the CAA or the Minister and seek a change. An emotional outburst in Flight will not do much good, particularly where it is obvious to those who know that the legislation cannot fault British Airways and "others" who are doing better than the law requires. JOHN R. FINNIMORE Conifers 45 Beddington Gardens Carshalton Surrey SM5 3HL Encouraging response SIR—Richard Noble's re sponse to my humble remarks about light aircraft in general and his courageous ARV Super2 venture (Flight, June 1) was encouraging indeed, particularly when compared with the petulant attitude of some of the established general-aviation manufac turers. I think he has three major design considerations absolutely right: the light weight liquid-cooled engine, the decision to aim at home building and, not least, the easy derigging to allow storage on a trailer. Most modern gliders are stored this way; it only takes lOmin to rig them, and as a consequence you won't hear many glider pilots complaining about the cost of hangarage. I am looking forward to the opportunity of flying Super2. 46 In fact, in a few weeks time I will be able to return Mr Noble's courtesy and offer him an exchange, of rides and notes, on my just completed Long-Ez. G. F. H. SINGLETON Milthorpe Lane Holmesfield Sheffield S18 5SA Cover appeal SIR—In Flight for March 23 you very kindly carried an article in "Who's selling" for No 24 Squadron flown covers. The sale of No 24 Squad ron's flown Royal Mail "Famine in Africa" covers has contributed £1,200 to Royal Air Force Lyneham's Ethi opian Appeal, which now stands at £28,000, and I am grateful to all who purchased the covers to make 24 Squad ron's project a success. (I have a few pilot-signed covers in stock, at £2 each). £25,000 will finance a "Save the Children Fund" project in Ethiopia to build a water/irrigation system in Bulbuloi, a village located in an area where the Hercules flew in their mercy missions. The balance, plus monies from FDCs, prints, and badges in stock, will partly fund the maintenance for the complete scheme. MALM A. BAIN No 24 Squadron Royal Air Force Lyneham Chippenham Wiltshire IN BRIEF # International Air Tattoo 85 at RAF Fairford, Glos, on July 13 and 14 will feature 50th anniversary celebrations for the Spitfire and Dakota and a Sky Tanker 85 symposium on inflight refuelling techniques. • No 1 (F) Squadron, RAF, is respraying Spitfire Mk 21 LA255, which the unit main tains as a static exhibit. Unfortunately the canopy and centre and upper windscreen transparencies are beyond refurbishment, and the squad ron would be pleased to hear from anybody who can donate replacements. Write to Fit Sgt A. J. Chaplin, No 1 (F) Squadron, RAF Wittering, Peterborough, Cambridge shire, or telephone him on 0780-64501 ext 3404 . FLIGHT International, 6 July 1985
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
