Flying the Airbus A380

FloatsomNJetsom writes "So the largest passenger airplane in the world actually is pretty large inside — Popular Mechanics has a great article and video from their test flight on the brand new double-decker Airbus A380. This includes footage of takeoff, interviews with the pilot and test engineer, a rundown on the bar, the two staircases, and an attempt to walk down a crowded aisle from one end of the plane to the other without having to say 'excuse me.'"

Comments

Re:Wing Flex

[polar red]

I think the wings on every plane do that. If they wouldn't, they would break.

Re:Too big - simultaneous boarding on both decks

[wakaranai]

Apparently, many airports are planning to use 3 jetway bridges for simultaneous boarding on both decks of the A380

This paper discusses A380 boarding efficiency:
http://www.math.washington.edu/~morrow/mcm/alex_ev an_harkirat.pdf

Re:First Air Disaster

[jb.cancer]

seems as unreasonable as saying tht we shudn't have cities, cos there are too many ppl in there. A large enough city could as well be a target for a terrorist and result in similar casuality figures (same case with disasters). it's just economical to deploy something like this monster airbus (read *mass* transport).

Gotta love meaningless PR junkets...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It took a mere 16 seconds for the largest airplane in the world to lift off runway 4L at JFK International Airport."

Well, no duh. 62% of available seating empty, less-than-average hand luggage, next-to-no checked luggage, no freight, and only enough fuel for a two hour flight plus margins.

Of course, it makes it sound great in the press, but it's hardly an indicator of the performance of the aircraft out here in the real world.

Re:Gotta love meaningless PR junkets...

[flappinbooger]

From my traveling experience, the time it takes from hitting the gas at the start of the runway to "wheels up" is meaningless. It could take 16 seconds or 160 seconds.

What really matters to travelers are the 45 minute "air traffic control" delays into O'Hare, or the 9+ hours stuck on the runway in a JetBlue, or the hour it takes to check in and the 2nd hour to get through security. It's the hours waiting at the beginning of the trip followed by the sprint across the airport because your 45 minute layover was consumed by delays, followed by the wait to (hopefully) get your luggage at the end.

It's not a powerful airframe that would impress me or any other frequent flyer, it would be a quick and smooth trip.

I wonder what kind of review this new jet would get if they had to park it and wait for 30 minutes after pushing back, or had to pay $2 for a bag of nuts on a 3 hour flight, or arrived at your connecting airport and found out their next flight was cancelled for no reason, their luggage nowhere to be found.

I'm an engineer so I certainly appreciate any new piece of shiny kit like this, but even a posh jet can suck if the airline that buys it makes your trip miserable.

Re:Too big:

[Anonymous Coward]

What you say is completely wrong.
1. The required time for evacuating an aircraft is 90 seconds. They made it in 78. This is definitely not barely.
2. The volunteers represented the typical passenger mix (except from people using wheel chairs). This is required by the FAA/EASA.
3. Minor or moderate injuries are acceptable when evacuating a burning aircraft, better a broken arm then beeing burned.

the roominess is only temporary

[phayes]

walk down a crowded aisle from one end of the plane to the other without having to say 'excuse me.'

As it was on the first 747... The spacing on these showroom models is setup to show them off. Once the airlines start buying the real models, the spacing will be set back to the "stack em in like cordwood" norm to make as much money as possible off each airframe.

Re:the roominess is only temporary

[Rich0]

If you've ever flown a long-haul international flight you may have noticed that the plane always struggles to get off the ground. That is because for every pound of luggage somebody doesn't pack, they go ahead and load freight. And if you look at a freight aircraft variation you don't get much more compressed than that...

The planes have a certified max takeoff weight, and they takeoff with almost exactly that weight on many if not most flights.

More passengers just means a little less freight - and the passengers certainly make more money.

NIH and patriotism

[Anonymous Coward]

For a country that prides itself on making everything bigger, there sure is a lot of not-invented-here antipathy and patriotic vitriol against the first major upsizing of passenger airplanes in a long time.

Re:"seat map" and Weight and balance programs

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about imbalance ? You could end with one side moreheavier than the other (latterally or longitudinally).

Well... I guess they just have to make sure Americans are evenly distributed inside the plane.

Re:Too big:

[mikkelm]

This is complete and utter bullshit. I saw the demonstration. The people taking part were average people, not especially fit people like you make it out to be. The FAA has -strict- control over the tests and the people participating in the A380 tests were the same kind of people who'd participate in any other test of any other aircraft. You'd have to be seriously ignorant to think that the FAA would allow anything else.

78 seconds is a good time. It's better than the 90 seconds that the FAA in all their strictness mandates.

If a complete seal of approval from the FAA isn't good enough for you, then why are you using FAA testing parameters to justify your argument that the aircraft is a "death trap"?

Re:First Air Disaster

[stunt_penguin]

Computer control can work quite smoothly, and the human brain is very, very far from perfect, but when shit meets fan (or a flock of geese meets engines #1 & #2), there is no current computing substitute for 3 pounds of meat trying to figure out how to land the thing.

It won't look spacious ...

[Anonymous Coward]

when filled with Americans!

Try the super-sized veal burgers. I'm here all week.

Airbus 380 - Bug Report #213571.

[Glonoinha]

Bug report #213571.
Description : Airbus 380 went inverted and then went into a tailspin when flying at 32,768 feet. Airbus crashed.

Comments ---
Code looks correct. Please attempt to recreate and describe precisely the process by which the issue was recreated.
If the problem does not happen repeatedly this is an incident and not a bug.

Bug log closed.

Did anyone see the "Landing Anomoly" on CNN (LAX)?

[alien-alien]

Did anyone else notice the CNN video that showed the US LAX arrival earlier this week. The mains touched down and the plane aircraft slewed to the right requiring immediate (and large) correction - watch the rudder deflection. Looked like a problem with uneven braking. Both mains touched down twice, the second touch was followed by the slew. On final touchdown the left main touched fractionally first followed by the right main followed by the nosewheel. The correction was needed between the right-main touch and the nosewheel. It did not seem to be crosswind related, though that's a little difficult to tell (have to use wheel smoke etc. which is tough to gauge).

Don't know if the automated systems or the pilot made the correction but with that large an aircraft there's very little room for error.

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/v ideo/business/2007/03/19/vo.ca.airbus.landing.cnn