World Forums

The Spectator's Notes

Charles Moore

In Paris this week I entered into a conversation about French anti-Semitism. This fuss about Holocaust Day, said the woman next to me, it is ridiculous: ‘They keep saying we are so anti-Semitic, but it is not true. It is just that the Jews control the papers, and they are very clever and put anti-Semitism on the front page.’ I felt she had told me more than she intended about French attitudes on the subject.

Funny how one woman's idiotic generalisation is generalised so idiotically.

Uhu, one woman...One President Supporting Hezbollah...One Ambassador insulting Israel...One Arab burning a synagogue... Those Arabs are swell guys, especially on a battlefield, but even a mighty Arab can destroy only one tombstone with one blow of hammer. One Petain...One everything..

Perhaps one day we'd come up with a final solution for those whores, just one and once.

In the meantime - one Bourbon, one Scotch, one beer.

Boye

Salut mon ami


Léonid "Sharon"

merci for the laughs

Tronche

Salut! Bienvenu de retour! Ça va?

In my book it's better to be Sharon than Petain, alas Ariel Sharon is a pale shadow of 1973 himself.

You may return now to waiting arab tables, spineless frog:)

The 18% or so (I don't know the exact percentage, sue me) of the French voters that opted for Le Pen aren't such a small minority. How many millions of people voted in that election? Either way it's a few million people voting for a racist. hmmm

Perhaps one day we'd come up with a final solution for those whores, just one and once.

Silly me, I thought they were both the sons of Abraham, a patriarch of the Semites and revered by both Jews and Arabs. To wit, being antisemitic is difficult for a Semite, most Arabs will tell you.

Of course, a bit of demagogy never hurt a forum did it? Especially when it arouses the baser spirits.

How many millions of people voted in that election? Either way it's a few million people voting for a racist. hmmm

French elections are like most elections ... how many people voted "for" LePen as "against" the prevailing French candidates. A vote "for" can also be motivated by a contrary opinion against another.

Fair enough, Synthese, but I can't ever see myself voting for a racist party like the BNP because I don't like the other candidates. If I don't like the main 2/3 parties here, I simply don't vote at all (as in 2001).

Those people who voted for Le Pen knew exactly who and what they were voting for as far as I'm concerned. There are no excuses for such a thing IMO.

To be honest, I don't generally care for the French people and their politics. It's just they get so self-righteous, and always call us xenophobic and racist (probably because many of us want nothing to do with the EU, which is not racist, but you can't teach a lame dog to walk so I'm not inclined to explain my reasons very often), so it's always nice to rub it in when they act in the very manner they accuse others of doing

Marko:

If I don't like the main 2/3 parties here, I simply don't vote at all (as in 2001).

Why? Not voting at all is the same as saying you don't care who gets elected.

If you don't like any party, you should vote blank to register that you disapprove of all alternatives.

Better yet, vote for the lesser evil. They can't all be just as bad. And then at least you'll reduce the chances of an election success for such parties as the BNP or the UKIP. The lower the turn-out, the bigger the chance for an extremist or special-interest party to do well.

Fair comment, Boye. My gf always says the same to me (voting is compulsory in Argentina), that I should vote. I personally can think of no better protest than to register my disapproval by not turning up to the ballot at all. If I don't like any party, then there really is no point casting my vote. It's not like it was worth anything in 2001 anyway; Labour won by a landslide.

I do agree about UKIP and BNP though, don't want them elected. Not now or ever. I have faith in my fellow citizens that they won't be stupid enough to allow such a travesty to occur.

I do agree about UKIP and BNP though, don't want them elected. Not now or ever. I have faith in my fellow citizens that they won't be stupid enough to allow such a travesty to occur.

Well, with the first-past-the-post system, they face a huge hurdle at national elections. Although I favour proportional representation, there's no doubt that PR makes it easier for parties like UKIP and BNP to win representation. And you just have to look at the European elections last summer to see what a combination of proportional representation and low turn-out can do for a party like UKIP.

I personally can think of no better protest than to register my disapproval by not turning up to the ballot at all.

But the registered absenteeism does not distinguish between those who don't care about who gets elected (meaning they have no opinion at all or disapprove of democracy as a system), and those who are unhappy with the alternatives offered to them. The way to register your disapproval while signalling support in the system of democracy, is to vote blank.

If I don't like the main 2/3 parties here, I simply don't vote at all (as in 2001).

Yes, that is equally as good as a "protest" vote. You are not alone, since it appears that a great many citizens are not motivated to vote in most elections - in southern Europe, at least.

I sense that it has something to do with the politicians themselves, who are seen as the same people, year after year, mouthing the same platitudes. How many times have we seen the promises to reduce unemployment in the past ten or fifteen years?.

The only unemployment they succeed in reducing is their own.

The way to register your disapproval while signalling support in the system of democracy, is to vote blank.

And, what does that tell us about the motivation of the elector. That he/she is upset with list presented or with the political process as a whole.

How can you tell? Voting blank does not necessarily indicate the former and not the latter.

Synthese:

I see voting blank as a signal of faith in the system of democracy. The voter either does not know whom to vote for, or does not like any of the options available, but still chooses to participate in the most important event of the representative democracy through casting a blank ballot.

Those who are upset with the political process as a whole, either sit home or vote for an extremist party. However, the majority of home-sitters are just indifferent about politics.

But there is another option if you do not like the alternatives on offer or are upset with the political process as a whole: namely to run for election yourself. But that takes more than an average interest in politics.

The Wall Street Journal

An Exemplary Scandal

By JONATHAN FENBY
February 28, 2005

Speak to French politicians and chances are that they will bemoan the lack of trust and respect they receive from the public. Opinion polls, voting abstention rates and switchback voting at elections bear them out. Shaking their heads sadly, they say they do not understand why this should be so. Then along comes the scandal that forced Finance Minister Hervé Gaymard to resign on Friday, and the responsibility for this sad state of affairs becomes all too evident.

The 44-year-old protégé of President Jacques Chirac joins a line of prominent political figures marred by scandals going back to the Socialist administration of François Mitterrand in the 1980s. Mr. Chirac's previous protégé, former Prime Minister Alain Juppé, was handed a suspended prison sentence and barred from public life last year after being found guilty of paying political party staff out of municipal funds when working with the president at the mayor's office in Paris. Mr. Chirac himself is surrounded by allegations of wrong-doings from his days as mayor. A court ruling that the head of state cannot be charged, or even called as a witness, is one reason behind speculation that Mr. Chirac will run for a third term in 2007, though he will then be 74.


The Gaymard saga is exemplary, in the worst sense of the word. First of all, his appointment to run French finances had all the marks of the sub-Machiavellian maneuvers so typical for the nation's politics. He was moved from the agriculture portfolio to the finance ministry last year to replace the popular Nicolas Sarkozy who became head of the main party of the center-right. Mr. Sarkozy is Mr. Chirac's main rival for the presidential nomination in two years, something the man in the Élysée Palace, who loathes him, is intent on blocking. A successful performance by Mr. Gaymard would have taken some of the sheen off Mr. Sarkozy. Mr. Gaymard could then have succeeded the lackluster Jean-Pierre Raffarin as prime minister, and re-invigorated the government behind Chirac in the run-up to the 2007 poll.

Such shadow-play is par for the course in French politics, so nobody was surprised. But then the satirical weekly Le Canard Enchainé spoiled the game by reporting that Mr. Gaymard had moved into a duplex apartment in central Paris for which the state -- that is the taxpayers -- paid €14,000 a month. The French do not want politicians to live a hair shirt existence, but the Gaymard housing extravaganza made an embarrassing contrast with his pledges to wage war on government waste and over-spending.

That contrast between private life and public pronouncements could not have been starker. And it was yet another example of a politician using his position to live in a different world from that of the average citizen. Such hypocrisy has fuelled alienation, boosting the xenophobic National Front, which delights in portraying mainstream politicians as corrupt, and far left protest parties.

Another reason why the French feel such disdain for their politicians came into view as Mr. Gaymard tried to find wriggle room. In interviews, he claimed that his humble origins as the son of a shoe shop owner meant he could not afford suitable lodgings in Paris. The media quickly found that he owns an apartment in Paris, which he lets out, and property in Brittany and his native department of Savoie. After the minister pleaded that he "had no money," it emerged that he was liable to France's wealth tax.

The French do not expect their politicians to be as pure as driven snow. They accept a degree of untruth. What turns them off is being taken for fools.

Yet another element came into play as Mr. Gaymard ended up looking stupid himself -- the equivalent of a jewel thief who persists in denials as the cops pull stolen necklaces and rings from his swag bag. The more his wife protested that they had no regular household servants, apart from the nanny for their eight children, the more people chortled, particularly when it became known that, as well as the 600-square-meter flat off Champs Elysées, Mr. Gaymard had three parking places in a nearby garage.

Seeing that his minister had gone over the line, Mr. Chirac was noticeable in his silence. Brutal political reality came into play. Things are not going well for the president. His supporters did badly in regional and European elections last year. There is a substantial current for a "no" vote in the referendum due to be held this summer on the European Union constitution. On the day Mr. Gaymard went, unemployment crossed the 10% threshold, making a mockery of government job pledges.

In France's quasi-monarchical system, heads of state know when to let the axe fall, and summon reinforcements -- in this case, Thierry Breton, the chief executive of France Telecom who took over the finance ministry. Mr. Chirac can also count on a degree of inhibition from the Socialist opposition on the matter of political scandals, given the backdrop of the seamy Mitterrand court in which some would-be leftist presidential candidates held favored positions.


The Gaymard affair may have descended into farce as the minister whirled round a revolving door of excuses and revelations. Still, it marks another nail in the coffin of a political class which prefers not to take its public responsibilities seriously, but to regard office as an invitation to lifetime perks and status. This has created an authority vacuum that makes it near impossible to carry through much needed reforms if they risk arousing unpopularity with sectional interests.

Successive governments of right and left have tacked with the prevailing wind, living from one crisis to the next. The electorate has reacted with a long series of sanction votes that further undermined the confidence of politicians. Though Mr. Gaymard will not merit more than a footnote in the history books; his case is an all too telling example of what is wrong with the state of France at the top today.

Mr. Fenby is editor of earlywarning.com and author of "On the Brink: The Trouble with France" (Abacus).

Marko wrote:The 18% or so (I don't know the exact percentage, sue me) of the French voters that opted for Le Pen aren't such a small minority. How many millions of people voted in that election? Either way it's a few million people voting for a racist. hmmm

Smells of a good ole American Buchanan or David Duke. Doesn't it?

"France has a glorious military tradition..." - Ms. Alliot-Marie, defense minister of France in the Wall Street Journal.

I sinserely hope, for France dignity's sake, the paper wouldn't publish all readers' e-mails with which I'm sure editor's inbox is already filled:)

Belmont Club

France's National Library has airbrushed Jean-Paul Sartre's trademark cigarette out of a poster of the chain-smoking philosopher to avoid prosecution under an anti-tobacco law. ...

The library's president, Jean-Noël Jeanneney, confirmed that the cigarette had been discreetly smudged to comply with the 1991 loi Evin - a law banning tobacco advertising - but also so as not to frighten away potential sponsors from the exhibition, which opened yesterday.

The practice of historical revisionism, which was a central theme to George Orwell's 1984, was extensively practiced by Joseph Stalin. The NewsMuseum documents the "before and after" photographs of Lenin with Leon Trotsky, among others, redacted from the image.


Who controls the past
Controls the future.
Who controls the present
Controls the past.

George Orwell

Leo wrote:"France has a glorious military tradition..." - Ms. Alliot-Marie, defense minister of France in the Wall Street Journal.

I sinserely hope, for France dignity's sake, the paper wouldn't publish all readers' e-mails with which I'm sure editor's inbox is already filled:)

Those who may send any e-mail would probably be simply ignorant that their very country has a debt to the French who have foght for US independence alongside the continentals' revolutionary troops against the red coats and had largely been responsible for bringing about an end to the English resistance.

Besides, how can one expect to know anything about history, if their idea of war of 1812 does involve Borodino or Berezina...

Owe it to Hollywood, Eugene, from which Americans learn most of their history. No one ever heard of General Leclerc who, far beyond de Gaulle, was a brilliant military tactician.

Another fault of history is to look at the war footage of the French people greeting enthusiastically the "allies".

The Free French forces, that did not land in Normandy (aside from some commandos that attacked Ouiestriham), but came across two days later where all dressed in US military uniforms and helmets, riding American tanks, carrying American guns, manning American canons. They fought across France and were the first onto German soil, just after liberating Strasbourg. To look at the footage, one would think they were the Yanks.

Of course, none of this is interesting to Hollywood. Still, it IS an integral part of the liberation of France.

We indeed heard about the General, as we did about his boss, another "general".

Both of them were brilliant indeed...in the myth creative writing department.

"Brilliant military tactician", translation from French - 1. clown, 2, stooge, 3. nobody, 4. male whore:)

Synthese

Of course, none of this is interesting to Hollywood. Still, it IS an integral part of the liberation of France.

You are about as knowledgable with regards to military history as you are in discussing the particulars of the modern American economy. I suggest you actually study WWII, paying special emphasis on the conflict in France.

One, review the firepower and force the US committed to free Western Europe, especially in the Normandy invasion.

Two, if French forces were so proficient that they were given an integral role in all of this, why did France require liberation in the 1st place?

Three, discuss why there is this notion of free French forces. How did they relate to, say, those unfree French forces? Which were greater in number, the former or the latter?

Educate me please!

I'm still laughing...."Brilliant military tactician"...In what battle/s, if I may ask?.

And I thought, foolishly so, that nobody beats Russian politicians and generals in the wild fantasy flight field:)

Chicago Boyz

Flying on National-Prestige Airframes

So last Sunday, an Airbus 310 flying from Cuba to Quebec lost the entire control surface of its rudder. According to BitsBlog (via Instapundit), even though the plane was in US airspace at the time, the pilot elected to return to Cuba rather than declare an in-flight emergency. He did so after conferring with the plane's owner, Air Transat.

This is the third incident involving a A300-series's rudder. One of the incidents resulted in the crash of American Airlines flight 587 in November of 2001, which resulted in the deaths of all 265 lives aboard. This raises legitimate questions about the safety of the A300 airframe's revolutionary use of composite materials. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Airbus or any competent authority is taking the matter seriously. I think they are not tackling the problem because of matters of national prestige.

The Air Transat decision not to declare an emergency and land in the US probably had more to do with their fear of the bad press that would result if the plane landed in media saturated American instead of media controlled Cuba (the company has a history of maintenance problems) but as a Francophone owned airline, and a heavy user of A300s, the desire to protect the reputation of the A300 can't be ruled out. Both Airbus and European regulators also have an intense interest in sweeping problems under the rug.

The main problem here is that Airbus isn't just a manufacturer of aircraft. Rather, it is a political creation of the European Union and one which Europeans are very proud of. Failure at Airbus doesn't just cost investors money but tarnishes the political class and cultural self-esteem of Europe. When Airbus unveiled its new mega-plane, the A380, the ceremony was attended by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac. They are not going to look favorably on the idea that the A300 series may have a design flaw.

This represents one of the systemic problems with State intervention in economic matters. Once the political class bets its own reputation on the success of an enterprise, the State ceases to be an honest regulator of that enterprise. In effect, the State becomes an investor potentially more concerned about the appearance of success than with safety or economic efficiency. We saw this happen in the post-WWII era with nationalized industries in Europe and with Cold War era defense contractors in the US.

As even the most ardent free-market advocates from Adam Smith onward have recognized, the profit seeking behavior of private companies only produces a greater public good in the aggregate. Over time and the breadth of the entire economy, the positive effects of profit seeking outweigh the negative effects, but the negative effects do occur and sometimes they cost lives. The modern State has carved out a role of trying to ameliorate the negative consequences of the free market. (Whether it has been successful or efficient in doing so is another argument.) However, in order to fulfill this role, the State cannot have an interest in the actual success or failure of an enterprise.

Not only does State investment, financial or otherwise, disrupt the State's regulatory role, it also shields the enterprise from the free-market influences that correct negative behaviors. Freed of all constraints, the enterprise becomes reckless, pursuing its self-interest with no regard for the possible negative consequences. The general populace ends up with the worst aspects of socialism combined with the worst aspects of the free market.

If the A300 does have a rudder problem, it may be very difficult and expensive to fix due to the extensive use of composite material in the airframe's construction. Airbus could be looking at a very expensive and very public retrofit program. The question is: Will the European political system be able to accept the humiliation of having to do so before more people die?

lol Mate. Perhaps Synthese, like another fine gentleman we all know and love, is a "trained military historian"? :O In that case, we're all for it.

I must stress that "trained military historian" in this instance means "knowing how to use a search engine, like Google"

"... it is a political creation of the European Union and one which Europeans are very proud of."

Quite right. But, so what? Where’s the harm if EADS (the mother company) is now a publicly owned military-aerospace conglomerate quoted on a stock exchange? Europe consolidated the industries, just as America did, to better compete.

What American aerospace company has not been breast fed by the Pentagon or NASA contractual subsidies – billing the Air Force for hundred-dollar hammers? These "private" companies depend upon government handouts, sometimes for survival. The consolidation in the industry came none too early.

European pride comes from the fact that Airbus is, in fact, a company composed of five different national manufacturers of aircraft components. This sort of thing is difficult to do in Europe, and its success gives hope that further cross-national ventures will take root. Europe understands that this has to happen for its national companies to survive in an international market place.

"Failure at Airbus doesn't just cost investors money but tarnishes the political class and cultural self-esteem of Europe."

Quite wrong, and no less than failure at Boeing shows up on Wall Street. And, the American "political class" is not tarnished by the fact that the Pentagon went to war with humvees that had insufficient armor? Apparently not. Not enough bodybags showing up on TV evidently.

Boeing was afflicted by hubris in the nineties and rested on its laurels assured by revenues largely feathered by the 747. It introduced into the commercial aircraft market nothing of any remarkable technology and its costs per seat skyrocketed accordingly.

Airbus garnered more than 50% of this market simply by introducing aircraft that had cockpit technology that was consonant across its aircraft, meaning that pilot certification was much easier to obtain, which meant further than more pilots were certified on more aircraft varieties, which meant lower costs of operation.

"This raises legitimate questions about the safety of the A300 airframe's revolutionary use of composite materials."

Yes, Airbus took more than 50% of the commercial aircraft market away from Boeing by having problems with the "revolutionary use of composite materials". This sort of statement simply does not compute.

The incidence of rudder loss in Airbus aircraft is no more or less than any other company when looking at the historical records. Furthermore, there is no evidence that composite materials are at the heart of the failure and SYSTEMATICALLY provoke rudder failure.

For the moment, anyway. Because, like most incidents of aircraft failure, there is simply not yet enough information to arrive at that conclusion. This does not mean that composite materials are not the culprit. It simply means that no one knows for sure.

I suggest that there is more risk in taking a low-cost flight on a geriatric jet than on an Airbus. It was just that sort of 747 that self-destructed off Long Island in 1996.

Just what is your beef, Leo? That Airbus will take that tanker contract away from Boeing? Not in a million years will the Pentagon favour a foreign business for such a crucial contract. But, Boeing is running scared, which is just what the Pentagon wants. (Talk about hi-level scandal, just look a Boeing.)

"B

rilliant military tactician", translation from French - 1. clown, 2, stooge, 3. nobody, 4. male whore:)

Keep your family out of the discussion, Leo. Nobody cares.

I suggest you actually study WWII, paying special emphasis on the conflict in France.

Is this senselessness all you have to say, Mate?

LeClerc fought beside Montgomery in Africa, Patton in Sicily, in Italy and across France. France lost 250,000 lives in battle (including the resistance), whilst the US lost 300,000. http://crdp.ac-reims.fr/memoire/bac/2gm ... 5morts.htm

And:

The country-by-country medians for military personnel killed in the war are:
USSR: 10.0M
Germany: 3.5M
China: 2.05M
Japan: 1.5M
USA: 0.4M
Romania: 0.3M
Yugoslavia: 0.3M
UK: 0.28M
Italy: 0.23M
France: 0.21M
Hungary: 0.14M
Poland: 0.125M
TOTAL: 19.0M

The French soldiers must have all died eating infected cheese in thier barracks?

Synthese

So, the French suffered 250k casualties so quickly in such compressed space...as opposed to the US who suffered 300k casualties across a few years of fighting on multiple fronts, winning on both of them, obtaining unconditional surrender.

At least even the Russians fought on, despite facing an even more concentrated and numerically greater Wermacht assault...with much less warning than the Frech received...waiting and secure behind the so called Maginot line!

And this is supposed to reinforce the notion of French military prowess?


:P :P :P

LOL

Leo

I updated the last message just so that Synthese knows something about what real resistance is.

Mind you, I wouldn't want to resist the way the Soviets did, but hell, at least fight they did...however badly and maniacally.

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me." - General George S. Patton

Leo

Come on! Who would you rather believe...Patton or LeClerc?

Patton commanded the victorious 3rd Army. What was it that LeClerc commanded? Forgive me, I was thinking of Napoleon. Long time ago.

:P :P :P

On Its Giant Plane, Airbus Tests Exits -- And Humans, Too

By DANIEL MICHAELS in Toulouse, France, and J. LYNN LUNSFORD in Phoenix
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
March 22, 2005

The new Airbus A380 jetliner is so enormous that it will take almost one hour for its maximum load of 853 passengers to board. In an emergency, those same people must be able to escape within 90 seconds.

This summer, Airbus will see if it can meet that target. Inside a cavernous plant in Hamburg, Germany, volunteers playing the role of passengers and 20 crew members will board the two-deck airliner, sit down and buckle up. Organizers will toss blankets and baggage about to simulate the mess onboard after a survivable accident. Some participants representing parents with babies will receive lifelike dolls to cradle. Airbus technicians will retreat to observation points hidden inside dummy toilets and galleys, as regulators from Europe and the U.S. get in place to witness controlled chaos.

Airbus will then turn out the lights. Only half of the plane's 16 doors will open, replicating problems that complicate aviation emergencies. Slides will shoot out and inflate to the size of flatbed trailers. Flight attendants will yell in their best drill-sergeant voice: "Get out! Get out! Get out!"

Like everything else about the largest passenger plane ever built, the A380 evacuation test will happen on a grand scale. The engineers are pretty sure the mechanical equipment will work, but predicting how the humans will behave, particularly on such a large airplane, is what makes the planning so difficult. Because the plane's upper deck is two stories high, regulators are particularly interested to see what happens when the volunteers emerge at the edge of the high doorway and realize they must jump onto the steep and slick nylon slide. Will they balk and slow others' escape? Will they pile up in a human traffic jam at the bottom?


The A380, slated to make its first test flight by mid-April, must pass the cabin evacuation test before it can enter commercial service next year. If it fails, aviation authorities might force Airbus to limit its maximum passenger load. That could affect the A380's sales prospects for heavily traveled routes in Asia and the Middle East.

Most airlines buying the plane have announced plans to install around 550 seats, including first-class and business-class sections. But some carriers may want to create high-capacity versions, as some have done with Boeing Co.'s 747 jumbo jet. The 747 can carry as many as 524 passengers in a two-class configuration but usually carries around 416. The A380s with fewer seats won't have to undergo an evacuation test so long as Airbus can pass the test with the maximum 853 passengers.

In recent decades, aircraft manufacturers have worked closely with regulators to improve the odds of a successful evacuation. Many of those changes came in response to lessons from actual accidents. Despite the improvements, evacuation planning still vexes manufacturers because it's impossible to fully control or predict passenger behavior. In real evacuations from smoke-filled cabins, for example, some people still try to get their bags from the overhead bins.

Equally vexing is the design of the evacuation test itself: It must be a realistic simulation of an accident, but after a test in 1991 that left a volunteer with a broken neck, everyone is careful to avoid excessive risk for the participants. Setting up the A380 test has required years of debate among regulators and months of planning.

Airbus is owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., a Franco-German company, and Britain's BAE Systems PLC. The two, together with industrial partners and European governments, are investing more than $12 billion in the A380. Airbus has 137 orders for the passenger version of the plane.

U.S. and other authorities require that for every commercial jetliner with more than 44 seats, all passengers in an evacuation test must be able to get off in 90 seconds using half the available exits. Authorities figure that's about how long most passengers would have to escape a fiery airplane wreck before succumbing to flames or smoke.

Evacuation testing became a serious issue after two accidents in the 1980s. In 1983, half of the 46 people on board an Air Canada plane died after an emergency landing in Cincinnati. Two years later, 55 of the 137 people on a British Airtours plane at Manchester Airport in England died in a fire after an aborted takeoff even though more than half of the plane's exits were available for more than two minutes. Regulators realized that their tests hadn't simulated real chaos.

One of the people who pushed for greater reality was Helen Muir, a professor of aerospace psychology at England's Cranfield University. Standing in her office she flipped on a videotape of a traditional evacuation test. The crowd looked rushed but orderly. Then she popped in footage of a test in which several people frantically try to squeeze into an escape hatch at once. The difference: Participants in the second test were offered a £5 note for being among the first to leave the airplane.

"Horrific, isn't it? And this is just for five pounds," says Prof. Muir. "Put a little smoke in the cabin and you think you're going to die."


From experiments such as these, manufacturers modified aircraft. On single-aisle jetliners, the rows next to the exits over the wing have more space between them so passengers have extra room to escape. Jet makers are now required to install emergency floor lighting. To reduce the chance of toxic smoke, airplane makers have upgraded the plastics and synthetic fibers in walls and seats.

Evacuation tests can be dangerous. According to Federal Aviation Administration data, nearly 15% of volunteers get injuries such as sprained ankles. Yet regulators have balked when plane makers advocated using computer simulations. "All of the computer modeling in the world is not going to give you what you'll get in a test," says the FAA's top official, Marion Blakey.

In a 1991 test of a McDonnell Douglas MD-11 inside a darkened hangar at Long Beach, Calif., one attempt took 132 seconds and resulted in 28 injuries. McDonnell Douglas did the test over and got people to move faster. But in the mayhem, a 60-year-old woman caught her foot on a slide. She flipped, crashed headlong against a pile of people at the bottom, and broke her neck. She was left paralyzed for life. McDonnell Douglas failed the test and the FAA denied its request to put up to 421 people on the MD-11. (It eventually approved up to 410.)

The centerpieces of any evacuation are the giant inflatable slides. Each slide must shoot from its tightly packed container and be ready for use within six seconds of a door opening, even after freezing at minus 65 degrees Fahrenheit. The slides must stay usable amid high winds and flames. They must not collapse if passengers pile up at the bottom. Some also must double as life rafts.

The slides for the A380's upper deck have an added feature. Normally they stretch about 40 feet. But that might be insufficient if the plane comes to rest at a strange angle or tips up on its tail. In such cases onboard sensors will automatically trigger 13 additional feet of slide to inflate on some of them.

Airbus awarded its A380 slide contract in July 2001 to Goodrich Corp. of Charlotte, N.C. Goodrich built a hall at its Phoenix plant to test the A380 slides including chambers for extreme hot and cold and a swimming pool outside to test the slides as rafts. Six Hollywood wind machines simulate storms. Test rigs replicate sections of an A380 exterior, including one with a platform 26 feet up, equal to the height of an upper-deck door.

Goodrich has conducted simulated evacuations on each type of slide for more than a year as part of its own testing. The company brings in employees for some runs. But regulators demand novices for important tests, since most people never go down an airplane slide in their life. By the time regulators certify the slides, they will have been deployed a combined 2,500 times, says Christine Probett, president of Goodrich's aircraft-interior-products division.

Test jumpers wear helmets and tape their ankles like football players to prevent injuries. Goodrich is allowed to intervene only to help subjects clear away from the bottom of slides so others don't crash into them. Regulators say passengers spontaneously do this in real evacuations.

Goodrich's tests have inspired several tweaks. Designers built inflatable side rails to prevent passengers from falling off and adjusted the length of some slides to make them less steep. They also found that adding a small porch-like area just outside the jet doorway on some upper-deck slides lets passengers gather their courage to jump and prevents queues inside the plane.

Last weekend, Goodrich was testing another feature that is now mandatory on new planes: built-in light strips that illuminate the chute so passengers don't feel as if they're jumping into a bottomless pit. In the latest tests, it turned off all the lights in its test hall to simulate "dark of night" conditions.

Still, A380 planners realize the upper-deck slides may prove imposing, especially to frail or novice fliers. An elderly woman, for example, would be assisted by cabin crew if she balked at the door, "but at some point she would just be pushed," said Manfred Bischoff, co-chairman of Airbus parent EADS.

As slide tests proceeded last year, a trans-Atlantic debate simmered about how to conduct the full-scale A380 mock evacuation. The plane's two decks are connected by two staircases. The upper deck can carry up to 315 economy class passengers and the lower deck can hold up to 538.

Airbus A380 Safety Director Francis Guimera says that in assessing the two cabins, Airbus looks at the plane "like two separate aircraft." It works on the assumption that in an accident, the stairs wouldn't be usable and all 315 upper-deck passengers would have to leave from that deck.

Mr. Guimera and his colleagues thought a classic one-shot evacuation test might not be the best method for the A380. Airbus worried that if lots of test participants on the upper deck ran down the internal stairs before escaping, the lower deck might get too congested, while top-deck exits wouldn't show their potential. Airbus proposed instead conducting separate tests for the upper and lower decks.

European officials agreed but U.S. regulators balked. Considering the A380's size, says Ms. Blakey, the FAA administrator, a full-scale test carries a "certain show-me quality" that will add to public confidence in the plane. In December, Airbus relented and agreed to a single test of the whole plane. It is still working with regulators to figure out what to do if many people use the stairs. In that case Airbus might have to repeat the test or shut the stairs and do a test of the upper deck alone.

Airbus engineers in Hamburg began conducting preliminary trials late last year. More recently they have distributed fliers in health clubs across town seeking volunteers for the big test. Mr. Guimera says Airbus is targeting people in good physical shape to avoid injuries. At least 40% of the passengers must be women and 35% must be over age 50 to simulate a typical planeload. Each participant will receive about $65.

As a precaution, Airbus may place cushions beneath some upper-deck slides before starting the test in case a slide collapses and people fall over the side. And to avoid accidents it will be allowed to place dim lights at the bottom of slides.

On the big day, which is yet to be set, volunteers and crew will board the plane as almost 250 regulators, Airbus technicians and medical staff get into position to observe and assist. On a signal, flight attendants -- recruited from a real airline -- will throw open doors and herd passengers to the nearest available slide. For 90 seconds, Airbus executives will hold their collective breath.

Marko wrote:lol Mate. Perhaps Synthese, like another fine gentleman we all know and love, is a "trained military historian"? :O In that case, we're all for it.

I must stress that "trained military historian" in this instance means "knowing how to use a search engine, like Google"

Don't be so hard on Mate. If there is anything he is truly trained in it must be self-imploding.

mate wrote:Synthese

So, the French suffered 250k casualties so quickly in such compressed space...as opposed to the US who suffered 300k casualties across a few years of fighting on multiple fronts, winning on both of them, obtaining unconditional surrender.

At least even the Russians fought on, despite facing an even more concentrated and numerically greater Wermacht assault...with much less warning than the Frech received...waiting and secure behind the so called Maginot line!

And this is supposed to reinforce the notion of French military prowess?


:P :P :P

And US fought an enemy greatly inferior tactically (Japan) and numerically (Germany). So?

And why is it any time someone accusing French of cowardice, based on the 1940 Blietzkrieg, forgets that the British were mauled there too and were actually forced to run, while the French, just as defeated, were left to their own devices? Oh yeah, and with the US being on the sidelines, even though her ships were already being attacked by German U-boats!!!

You know Mate, you never seize to amaze me. Your belief in your knowledge of history is never matched by reality.

And US fought an enemy greatly inferior tactically (Japan) and numerically (Germany). So?

Because the victors write the history, Eugene. Most Americans obtain thier knowledge of history from Hollywood. A bit of a shame, since any commercial treatment of history cannot possibly do it justice.

Bzzzt! Synthese & Eugene...Aka Beavis & Butthead

You both should take a look at the particulars of the Battle of Midway in WWII, the most decisive engagement of the Eastern Theatre war. The US...with inferior numbers of ships, plane, and men...utterly destroyed the Japanese, knocking out 3 aircraft carriers.

Gentlemen, you are making this way to easy. Just who do you think you're fooling?