Agreed…
They used to. I remember taking flights many years ago where they used multiple exists. As little as 10 years ago I took a KLM 747 from Chicago to Amsterdam and they used multiple exits.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Even if the airlines tried to do this….
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHbLRjF0vo&pp=ygUgSGl3IHRvIGxvYWQgYW5kIHVubG9hZCBhaXJwbGFuZXM%3D
…the passengers wouldn't follow instructions.
What I'd rather the airports do is use more than one door, like with the A380 below.
View attachment 769216
But instead use bridges/fingers at one fore and one aft door. Like this.
View attachment 769218
It's inefficient to have passengers at the back of the plane walk all the way to the front of the plane when there's a door at the back of the plane. Like Ryan Air below when loading with stairs.
View attachment 769217
Even if the airlines tried to do this….
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHbLRjF0vo&pp=ygUgSGl3IHRvIGxvYWQgYW5kIHVubG9hZCBhaXJwbGFuZXM%3D
…the passengers wouldn't follow instructions.
What I'd rather the airports do is use more than one door, like with the A380 below.
View attachment 769216
But instead use bridges/fingers at one fore and one aft door. Like this.
View attachment 769218
It's inefficient to have passengers at the back of the plane walk all the way to the front of the plane when there's a door at the back of the plane. Like Ryan Air below when loading with stairs.
View attachment 769217
I suppose having a bridge aft of the wing would require changes at the airport. As it is, examples of dual bridges seem to be just to keep the first class passengers away from us mucky mucks, rather than to facilitate rapid boarding.I remember debarking a 747 fore and aft on rollaway staircases, gathering into an accordion-bus or three to get to the gate. Can't remember the airport, maybe Heathrow in 1976?
As little as 10 years ago I took a KLM 747 from Chicago to Amsterdam and they used multiple exits.
Easy, wait for door to remove itself then jump out - WARNING - for safety reasons, do not jump whilst
still airborne.
The reason we had the USAF A-7D's grounded in October 1975 was because the TF-41 engines had so many problems (quite possibly caused by flawed USAF overhaul practices) that they had to be removed and inspected frequently. Forced to undertake this greatly added workload the USAF mechanics figured out how to avoid removing the bleed air ducts by wrapping safety wire around the ducts and twisting them over so they could remove the engine.
There brains weren't good enough to understand "protect yourself even if no one is telling you to".Why do you call them idiots if there was no sign to keep the belt on?
That must be why live exports are being banned.Sheep that do nothing they aren't told to do, aren't smart.
There brains weren't good enough to understand "protect yourself even if no one is telling you to".
Any experienced air traveler has experienced sudden turbulence with no warning from the cockpit - so they keep their belts buckled unless they are visiting the restroom, NO MATTER WHAT THE SIGN SAYS!
Sheep that do nothing they aren't told to do, aren't smart.
My thoughts exactly.I never heard of USN A-7Es, which also used the TF41 (albeit the TF41-A-2, a marinized subvariant, and not the TF41-A-1 of the A-7Ds) having any such problem, so I would think you may be right about those overhaul practices.
Hopefully they will select a new CEO with a technical background this time. They had too many of the money-dangling bank-people that did no good to the company (just to their shareholders)
And the 737 MAX crashes caused by using cheap and crummy outsourced software to implement a half-assed solution to a serious design problem while very deliberately hiding the problem from pilots in order to avoid admitting it to the FAA WAS NOT A WATERSHED MOMENT?As you all know, the Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 accident was a watershed moment for Boeing.
And the 737 MAX crashes caused by using cheap and crummy outsourced software to implement a half-assed solution to a serious design problem while very deliberately hiding the problem from pilots in order to avoid admitting it to the FAA WAS NOT A WATERSHED MOMENT?
But a door falls off and no one was killed or even seriously injured.....