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.'"
Apparently, many airports are planning to use 3 jetway bridges for simultaneous boarding on both decks of the A380
v an_harkirat.pdf
This paper discusses A380 boarding efficiency:
http://www.math.washington.edu/~morrow/mcm/alex_e
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).
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.
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.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
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.
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.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name