A380 -- The Reveal

[theavonlady 2]

in reaction, to above.

go take a look at http://www.airdisaster.com/

who knows maby i am wrong...

13 years ago today, on January 20, 1992, an Air Inter Airbus A320-111 crashed while on approach to Strasbourg, France. 87 of the 96 passengers and crew aboard were killed.

Look here.

EDIT: DC10s are FBW?

And that particular case was just plain tragedy. I don't think it was essentially FBW related in any case.

[dm 9]

hydraulic's:

If they are threathed currectly, nothing happends.

lets take as example a air alaska MD80, that wasnt maintaind for one year. a hydraulic pipe snapped, causing it to overstress and expload in air.

Fly by wire crash example: once a swissair MD-11/DC-10's video intertainment system caused a fire, what snapped all electrycall systems, what caused smoke in cockpit, what caused 2 pilots that are terrified, what caused them to overreact, what caused them not to find the fire at time, what caused 300 peapoles live's.

edit: lol. sorry you are right. c. fly-by-wire ---> one wrong wire snaps, the whole fusalage snaps.

A perfect example, thankyou

Now to explain it.

In your first situation, the hydraulics failed, causing catastrophic failure of the airframe - nothing ANYONE could have done to save that situation. That was down to the hydraulic system failing, pure and simple.

In your second situation, the video entertainment system failed, causing smoke in the cabin - a drill that pilots SHOULD be trained for. The pilots over-reacted, causing the aircraft to crash - human error. As avon pointed out, the MD-11/DC-10 is not a "fly-by-wire" aircraft, and it was not an electronic CONTROL system that caused the failure, it was the entertainment system for the passengers...

Seriously, digital flight control systems or DFCS (to give them their correct name) are a hundredfold safer than traditional flight control systems.

[aviel 0]

in reaction, to above.

go take a look at http://www.airdisaster.com/

who knows maby i am wrong...

13 years ago today, on January 20, 1992, an Air Inter Airbus A320-111 crashed while on approach to Strasbourg, France. 87 of the 96 passengers and crew aboard were killed.

Look here.

EDIT: DC10s are FBW?

And that particular case was just plain tragedy. I don't think it was essentially FBW related in any case.

lol avon... it was a MD-11 i just found it out.

and this:

13 years ago today, on January 20, 1992, an Air Inter Airbus A320-111 crashed while on approach to Strasbourg, France. 87 of the 96 passengers and crew aboard were killed.

was just ironical to find on the main page.

edit: wait deadmeat, let me find exact cause. i saw it on Discovery channel. Btw lol! nice knowledge

[dm 9]

and this:

13 years ago today, on January 20, 1992, an Air Inter Airbus A320-111 crashed while on approach to Strasbourg, France. 87 of the 96 passengers and crew aboard were killed.

was just ironical to find on the main page.

You might be interested to know the "score" for last years crashes.

Boeing 3 (not counting McDonnell aircraft)

Airbus 0

(and this is a game where low scores win)

Source

And 2003's "score"

Boeing 4

Airbus 1

Source

Ofcourse these cases even out over the years, and the "scores" do end up even fairly even...

[aviel 0]

and this:

13 years ago today, on January 20, 1992, an Air Inter Airbus A320-111 crashed while on approach to Strasbourg, France. 87 of the 96 passengers and crew aboard were killed.

was just ironical to find on the main page.

You might be interested to know the "score" for last years crashes.

Boeing 3 (not counting McDonnell aircraft)

Airbus 0

(and this is a game where low scores win)

Source

And 2003's "score"

Boeing 4

Airbus 1

Source

Ofcourse these cases even out over the years, and the "scores" do end up even fairly even...

I cant argue with facts . but over the years yes quite eaven

[denoir 0]

Fly-by-wire is a far safer alternative, especially in the case of a damaged plane. The flight control computer can compensate for changes in the aerodynamics of the plane, allowing the pilot to steer the plane as usual.

In addition, computer control allows for optimized fuel consumption or maneuvrability if needed.

Anyway, newer Boeings are fly-by-wire, so it isn't exclusive to Airbus.

[denoir 0]

And 2003's "score"

Boeing 4

Airbus 1

Source

Hmm:

Quote[/b] ]

Date of Accident: 22 November 2003

Airline: DHL Cargo

Aircraft: Airbus A300B4-203F

Location: Baghdad, Iraq

Accident Description: The aircraft was impacted by a surface-to-air missile shortly after takeoff from the Baghdad International Airport on a cargo flight. The flight crew successfully returned to Baghdad and landed the aircraft despite serious damage to the wing and wing devices, and the aircraft came to a stop in the dirt off Baghdad International's main runway.

That's where computer driven flight control systems come in. You can blow off half the wing and it will still fly.

[aviel 0]

Fly-by-wire is a far safer alternative, especially in the case of a damaged plane. The flight control computer can compensate for changes in the aerodynamics of the plane, allowing the pilot to steer the plane as usual.

In addition, computer control allows for optimized fuel consumption or maneuvrability if needed.

Anyway, newer Boeings are fly-by-wire, so it isn't exclusive to Airbus.

well i will give again a example about a non fly by wire wonder:

one. a Boeing 747-400 cargo door was open during flight, becuse a human error on the ground... later on the flight a LARGE pice of the 747's fusalage was litiarly RIPPED away. sucking out the plane 9 passangers... But the plane savetly landed!:

United Airlines flight 811 experienced an explosive decompression as it was climbing between 22,000 and 23,000 feet after taking off from Honolulu, Hawaii, en route to Auckland and Sydney. The airplane made a successful emergency landing at Honolulu and the occupants evacuated the airplane. Examination of the airplane revealed that the forward lower cargo door had separated in-flight and had caused extensive damage to the fuselage and cabin structure adjacent to the door. Nine of the passengers were ejected from the airplane and lost at sea.

I belive in boeing, as the most used and trusted plane.

poor peapole who fell to death    

picture:

[Akira 0]

Seems to be a little mis-information here:

Regarding the Swiss Air MD-11 that crashed off of Nova Scotia. I have the accident report and I have done an accident report on it so I feel I can rightly speak of this with some knowledge.

The crash was NOT caused by any FBW technology (as the MD11 didn't have it). It was caused by the the IFE (In Flight Entertainment System) which almost every airplane (including Boeing) have. It's main cause was inadequate wire shielding (blamed on the KAPTON shielding) which caused arcing from two wires and subsequent fire behind the main instrument panel.

THE PILOTS DID NOT OVER-REACT and for you to insinuate such a slight without obviously knowing the facts of the case is despicable.

The pilots did everything correctly. The fire, right behind the aft upper breaker panel, caused all instruments, one after another to fail. The CVR clearly hears the pilot (who was not PIC at the time) state that his entire side just went blank...ie lost power. Soon after that the CVR itself lost power. It is likely the co-pilot lost his instruments as well, and flying an MD11 at night at 1000 feet with no instruments is not easy (they were preparing to land at Halifax).

The entire tragedy, from first hint of smoke to impact with water took about 25 minutes.

The Swiss Air crash set new standards for KAPTON wiring, and wiring shielding. It also forced airlines to look at their IFE wiring, where numerous checks showed a number of instances of wire shielding failure and scorch marks.

And technically the MD-11 is a Boeing plane.

Also consider that Airbus has been producing planes since the 1970s. Boeing has been around since the 1920s. To compare accident rates will get you no where, and would take far more than a casual glance at returned figures. One also has to take into account airframes flown, comparatively, versus accident rate. One would also have to download multiple databases of accident's (available at NTSB.gov and FAA.gov and various other accident agencies) and start doing some high-powered statistical number crunching for a true representation.

United Flight 232 should show you that anything is possible with hydraulic systems. When the engine exploded in an uncontained failure, all three hydraulic systems were severed. Also look up the number of accidents and the survivability rate of accidents involving hydraulic failure. That should open your eyes a bit.

As of right now, Airbuses have not crashed due to uncommanded rudder defllections. As of now Airbuses have not crashed due to jackscrew failure. As of now Airbuses have not crashed due to engine separation and hydraulic failure. As of now Airbuses have not crashed due to uncommanded inflight reverser deployment. In fact I find it hard to locate an Airbus crash that was machine or mechanical based and not human error based. The same can not be said of Boeing planes.

I think you need to read up on aviation. Your knowledge is a little lacking:

Quote[/b] ]c. fly-by-wire ---> one wrong wire snaps, the whole fusalage snaps.

Quote[/b] ]in reaction to Ex-RoNiN ---> Boeing still is the most populair

If you are wrongly basing it on airframes flying, you are looking at misleading data, since there are airframes still flying from the 60s and 70s....before Airbus started making planes.

[EiZei 0]

I once saw a 1 hour documentary on the nova scotia incident, the comission (or whatever the group of folks investigating it was called) concluded that it was a combination of many factors but none of them was in any way related to fly-by-wire.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

B. biggest suplyer of Air-arms --> More expiriance than airbus with aironautic's

c. fly-by-wire ---> one wrong wire snaps, the whole fusalage snaps.

Boeing will stay the best, no mather what airbus is making, ---> we will see if thats true when the SSt comes out

software on simulators---> never tested in real live, its simulated, pilots are never prepared for the real thing... believe me

You know the things you type make me laugh so much. But showing your ignorance on this scale is rather sad.

Regarding your comments about more experience...

Airbus is made up of BAE Systems and EADS. Which in turn are made up from nearly 100years of experience from engineering companies dating the mid 1800's, usually specialists automotive and weapons manufacturers. Just like Boeing, although I think the history of Boeing is a little shorter.

I think you'll find that a large percentage if not most of the innovations in military technology in the last hundred years comes from the parent companies that now make up BAE, EADS and Airbus. I'd suggest reading the history sections on the company websites.

Re Fly by wire...you're showing in your ignorance of aviation engineering in a big way if you think it’s down to single wires anywhere in an aircraft.

The Airbus FBW system now employs 5 separate computers - 5 separate Data buses with distributed architecture throughout the airframe. Each actuator on all the airbus aircraft has 3 redundant shielded and armoured connections equivalent of the NATO spec for military aircraft. Each hydraulic system has at least one back up and sometime up to 3 on critical systems.

I signed the production release for 36x A320 14x A319 and 9x A321 wing sets when I worked at Airbus Chester. Believe me it would take a lot more than a snapped wire to bring down an Airbus.

Finally the software; actually they are tested on real live aircraft. Each new software upgrade is flown extensively on the Test bed aircraft (the ones you see in Airbus Family colours) for hundreds of hours in all conditions. In the event of a software failure one of the backup systems loaded with an earlier version of the software takes over almost immediately.

Aviel please stop posting crap. You're just making yourself look even more ignorant and stupid.

[dm 9]

Finally the software; actually they are tested on real live aircraft. Each new software upgrade is flown extensively on the Test bed aircraft (the ones you see in Airbus Family colours) for hundreds of hours in all conditions. In the event of a software failure one of the backup systems loaded with an earlier version of the software takes over almost immediately.

Never doubted that, but 99% of the time the software is tested in a simulator (as well as in simulations run on non-human input devices) before it goes anywhere near an aircraft. Especially when the DFCS is involved, since it is such a critical part of the system it would be rather niaeve to put untested software into a Åmillion airframe.

@Akira - I didn't really know much (well anything) about that accident, so I assumed that the crash was due to human error. Thanks for clearing that one up.

[shinRaiden 0]

There was a particular accident out of Honolulu on an older refurb'ed 737 (links not included due to fundamental technical accident details focus on the gruesome loss of life. In this case it was the involuntary motion and impact of a human body that accentuated the damage.) IIRC, the 747 one was due to improper securing of the cargo bay door pins (closed the pins but not the latches over the pins, so the pins sheared off under stress), and they retrofitted them for extra failsafe operation afterwards.

Anyway, the accident I'm thinking of was one where due to salt-induced metal corrosion and old-age metal fatigue, the door came off and peeled off the skin up over the top.

The immediate result was severe damage to the flight control systems, I don't remember if they lost an engine or not. Between the loss of physical control surfaces and some if not all of the power assist, the flight crew was limited to the manual backup cables.

In addition, the instabilities caused by the damage and loss of power and control obviously started causing a severe loss of flight performance. IIRC, the crew finally cooked up a steering method on the fly using only the throttles and ailerons, as the tail was unusable. They landed safely, with only one fatality and 8 serious injuries. The pictures are pretty astonishing though, as you have about a half dozen rows of people sitting still buckled in their seats with no frame or skin surrounding them, and they'd descended from 700mph @ 24K ft to land like that. The plane was effectively 50+% decapitated.

Now of course this was a pre-FBW controls system, but the question is would the control computers have enough brains to handle that kind of seat-of-the-pants flying, and is their sufficent roll-over capability for the crew to shut-off the compensators and tell specific controls to do exactly as the pilot commands.

The second major issue is the construction and durability of the substituted composites used inplace of metal. As far as we know, composites do not have as much environmental sensitivity as legacy metals. However, metal refining and fatigue analysis is a tried and proven legacy science, and composites is still quite new.

In the case of composites, because there is not a predicatable 'grain' as there is in metal, and other structural characteristics, defects such as insufficently joined layers can and have easily slipped past classic inspection and quality control proceedures.

(Annecdotal story from dinner table conversation follows:) In one particular case, a critical composite part was damaged due to operator error. Engineering took advantage of the opportunity to analyze the part, and discovered a critical lack of bonding between layers of the composites. Production was immediately stopped and it was determined that some critical sensors had failed, without giving indication of failure. Approximately 2 dozen units were recalled from planes in various stages of final assembly, and they had to do some mad cannibalization and scavanging to meet their production guarantees.

The critical logical difference however is that metal is repairable, and has greater tolerances physically for mistakes in engineering and production. Composites do not, either it is perfect, or it doesn't work. When companies have environmental compliance as priority number one, and aircraft engineering and safety as number two, there will continue to be problems. Unfortunately, due to the repressive regulatory nature of Washington State, Boeing is far more worried about the ecologically friendly handling of the composites productions materials then they are about the safety engineering. And with the kind of financial penalties that are threatened, it does seem cheaper to payoff survivors of horrific preventable accidents, than to incure the punitive wrath of the greenies.

-edit-

My understanding was that even with redundant FBW and glass-cockpit equipment, the FAA at least still requires a set of classic instuments as well as a last-ditch emergency manual flight controls backup system.

-edit-

The MD-11 was a significant McDonnell overhaul of the Douglas DC-10, see my previous comments regarding Harry Stonecipher for more insight as to why that was a non-technical failure.

On a lighter note, there's some things you can do with a three-holer that are hard to do with two. My dad was flying out of Philidelphia one time, forget where he was headed. Anyway, Philly is way lower on airspace priority compared to DC, Baltimore, Newark, New York, etc, all overlapping. So they sat in this gassed up 1/3 full DC-10 on the runway forever. Pilot came on the intercom and said "Well folks, we finally got our slot from the controller, and it's straight up. Better make sure your buckle is on tight." With that he slammed all three throttles forward and pulled that plane up at a gastly angle. My dad's flown alot in the past 25 years, but that was the only time he ever got anxious.

One flight I took, the pilot of the 737 was tailgating the DC-10/MD-11? in front of us, and had to keep jamming on the brakes when he got too close. It was raining a little, and if you've ever flown through Seattle you'll know that there's no grass at the north end of the runways, it immediately drops off into a steep couple hundred foot embankment. Anyway, the pilot thought we were a little heavy so he gunned the throttle to get some momentum to go around the corner. He gunned it too much, and jammed on the brakes and cranked the nose wheet over to avoid rear-ending the tri-holer. We left some serious lateral skidmarks on the taxiway, and it was really interesting to see just how flexible those wings really are flapping away.

[lukemax 0]

Its lighter then the jumbo jet!

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, the accident I'm thinking of was one where due to salt-induced metal corrosion and old-age metal fatigue, the door came off and peeled off the skin up over the top.

That would be Aloha Flight 243, a 737-200. This was really the first instance where people became aware of the effect salty air coupled with frequent pressurization cycles had on airplane metal. Hawaiian inter-island flight are rarely more than 45 minutes. I took a flight from Lihue to Honolulu. We climbed, the FA's came out and quickly handed everyone a drink, and then went back up the isle collecting it, and then we landed. We reached "cruising" altitude for about 2 minutes and then descended again. Whole flight was about 15 minutes.

Also it should be noted (and this is the case for the previously mentioned United flight as well) that of the pilots who attempted to recreate the Aloha crews aeronautical feat of daring in the simulator, none were able to safely land the plane. Alot of airplane survivability has to do with the people up front and a crap load of luck.

Quote[/b] ]My understanding was that even with redundant FBW and glass-cockpit equipment, the FAA at least still requires a set of classic instuments as well as a last-ditch emergency manual flight controls backup system.

Correct. That is why when you see high-tech glass cockpits, usually in the middle between the captain station and first officer station there is a line of old fashioned dial gauges.

Quote[/b] ]The second major issue is the construction and durability of the substituted composites used inplace of metal. As far as we know, composites do not have as much environmental sensitivity as legacy metals. However, metal refining and fatigue analysis is a tried and proven legacy science, and composites is still quite new.

Which is why many are interested in the American Airlines flight 587 that crashed into New York. American and Airbus are in a row over the use of composite materials in the rudder, and whether or not Airbus was forthcoming in design and operational limits. You can download a PDF of the accident report from the NTSB site, but I'm waiting for my paper copy to arrive.

Given that the 7E7 will be built substantially of composites and in a "all-one-section" method, it will be really interesting to see what the NTSB has to say about composites, particularly about composites that make up flight controls.

Quote[/b] ]Its lighter then the jumbo jet!

By the information I have, the A380 is some 90,000Kg heavier empty weight than the 747-400, and I know that it came out slightly over the original weight.

EDIT: Information Overkill

Quote[/b] ]Title 14: Aeronautics and Space

PART 121—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS

Subpart K—Instrument and Equipment Requirements

Browse Previous | Browse Next

§ 121.305 Flight and navigational equipment.

No person may operate an airplane unless it is equipped with the following flight and navigational instruments and equipment:

(a) An airspeed indicating system with heated pitot tube or equivalent means for preventing malfunctioning due to icing.

(b) A sensitive altimeter.

© A sweep-second hand clock (or approved equivalent).

(d) A free-air temperature indicator.

(e) A gyroscopic bank and pitch indicator (artificial horizon).

(f) A gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator combined with an integral slip-skid indicator (turn-and-bank indicator) except that only a slip-skid indicator is required when a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360° of pitch and roll is installed in accordance with paragraph (k) of this section.

(g) A gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).

(h) A magnetic compass.

(i) A vertical speed indicator (rate-of-climb indicator).

(j) On the airplane described in this paragraph, in addition to two gyroscopic bank and pitch indicators (artificial horizons) for use at the pilot stations, a third such instrument is installed in accordance with paragraph (k) of this section:

(1) On each turbojet powered airplane.

(2) On each turbopropeller powered airplane having a passenger-seat configuration of more than 30 seats, excluding each crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds.

(3) On each turbopropeller powered airplane having a passenger-seat configuration of 30 seats or fewer, excluding each crewmember seat, and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less that is manufactured on or after March 20, 1997.

(4) After December 20, 2010, on each turbopropeller powered airplane having a passenger seat configuration of 10–30 seats and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less that was manufactured before March 20, 1997.

(k) When required by paragraph (j) of this section, a third gyroscopic bank-and-pitch indicator (artificial horizon) that:

(1) Is powered from a source independent of the electrical generating system;

(2) Continues reliable operation for a minimum of 30 minutes after total failure of the electrical generating system;

(3) Operates independently of any other attitude indicating system;

(4) Is operative without selection after total failure of the electrical generating system;

(5) Is located on the instrument panel in a position acceptable to the Administrator that will make it plainly visible to and usable by each pilot at his or her station; and

(6) Is appropriately lighted during all phases of operation.

[shinRaiden 0]

In any case, there are still lots of plane and airport combinations that don't always match up. Why airlines try to fly planes in and out of Seattle without full ILS bells and whistles is beyond me, as there is normally heavy cloud cover down to a few hundred feet above the runway. Normal approaches into Seattle-Tacoma International Airport are completely blind at best for over half the year, and you better hope the controllers have a good idea of how much water is on the runway.

When I flew back from a trip to Houston in early December, I popped into the cockpit to chat with the pilot about some stuff that I noticed retrofitted onto the control panels. He pointed out all the spiffy features that they had put into the HUD and a couple pop-in modules, but it was interesting to notice the contrast between the legacy controls and layout (it was an older 737) and the newer modules patched in.

One other bit of trivia, PanAm, the launch customer for the 747, had originally requested a wraparound window for the nose of the main body. However, it wasn't practical to implement due the obscene amount of weight from a piece of glass large enough to be useful, yet still withstand the dead chicken test.

I'd have to see some more better detailed pictures, but looks as though the A380 cockpit is offset a bit upwards, though not as much as the 747's. Keeping it low on the body though could make it less efficent to load cargo though. Any ideas how they intend to do that on the frieghter versions? The 747, like a lot of military transports, can lift the nose since the cockpit is out of the way. I presume that if they want nose access on the A380, they're going have to do a full swing-away. The idea there of a seperation of frame continuity if that's the case though is a bit concerning.

[Akira 0]

Well in case anyone cares. Boeing is about to roll out the 777-200LR.

-200LR Rollout

EDIT: Also on the airbus website are pics of the A380 going through wing-stress testing.

[killagee 0]

Well i think the A380 will be a huge success. Especiall ythe Version that will be made into a MRTT Multi-role Tanker Transport

An Airbourne Loiter time of 24hours is expected

THe A400m will also be a massive success, with 270 sold already. and with the C-130j failing its entry into service tests with 4 airforces (USAF,RAF,RAAF,Italy), it could be in a position to monopolise on this...

[shinRaiden 0]

For all the hype that they try to drag on to this ~15 yearold plane, and with all the fuss of "designed in partnership with valued customers" - this is the closer to what those alleged "valued" customers had been asking for 15 years ago in response to the botched messes of the 767, ie not bothering to design it to handle standard-sized containers for one.

There was an article somewhere I saw yesterday that said that Las Vegas had just decided not to accept the A380 because there is a highway tunnel under a significant portion of the runway that they don't feel is structurally strong enough to withstand repeated usage or even 'officially designated' emergancy use. Now if the wings were on fire and engines falling off, that's a different story, but Las Vegas was declined 'routine' diversions.

Seattle's SeaTac also has a similar tunnel, and I'm thinking Logan in Boston does too. The article mentioned that there was only a couple airports on the east coast plus LAX that were going to handle it.

Bear in mind that it's not so much as to whether the tunnels can actually hold the impact from a strictly engineering standpoint, as it is more for putting failure probability so far into the absurd as to prevent litigation.

Internationally you have other airports with weight or length issues. Some places like Honolulu, the Hong Kong and Taipei airports, Tokyo-Haneda (yes it's chiefly domestic but just a case in point), and others are on manmade islands, and have had weight and settling issues in the past. Additionally expanding them is often difficult to maintaining the structural integrity of the groundbase.

As it now stands, there is no designated diversion airport for the A380 between the west coast and the east coast of the US. That may or may not be a crucial factor in deployability and marketability.

[denoir 0]

As it now stands, there is no designated diversion airport for the A380 between the west coast and the east coast of the US. That may or may not be a crucial factor in deployability and marketability.

Does that matter? As I understand it Airbus is not aiming at the intra-American air routes. Are there 747 flights between cities in America?

My understanding of it is that the primary market is the Europe-Asia lines, a secondary the Europe - America lines and on the third place America-Asia.

I'm pretty sure there's no need for such a beast for flights for instance between European countries.

[raedor 8]

As it now stands, there is no designated diversion airport for the A380 between the west coast and the east coast of the US. That may or may not be a crucial factor in deployability and marketability.

Does that matter? As I understand it Airbus is not aiming at the intra-American air routes. Are there 747 flights between cities in America?

My understanding of it is that the primary market is the Europe-Asia lines, a secondary the Europe - America lines and on the third place America-Asia.

I'm pretty sure there's no need for such a beast for flights for instance between European countries.

it wouldn't make much sense to do such flights between european countries. it is still cheaper to do that by train.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

As it now stands, there is no designated diversion airport for the A380 between the west coast and the east coast of the US. That may or may not be a crucial factor in deployability and marketability.

Does that matter? As I understand it Airbus is not aiming at the intra-American air routes. Are there 747 flights between cities in America?

My understanding of it is that the primary market is the Europe-Asia lines, a secondary the Europe - America lines and on the third place America-Asia.

I'm pretty sure there's no need for such a beast for flights for instance between European countries.

He is right about one thing though - I don't know about the States, but in Europe, if your plane is malfunctioning, you have a suitable airport within 50 miles range to land. This won't be the case with the A380...the question is - what happens in case of an emergency?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Does that matter? As I understand it Airbus is not aiming at the intra-American air routes. Are there 747 flights between cities in America?

My understanding of it is that the primary market is the Europe-Asia lines, a secondary the Europe - America lines and on the third place America-Asia.

Correct. More specifically it is designed for inter-hub operations ie LAX-LHR/NRT or the like, not to smaller hubs.

Before the gas crunch of the 70s there were 747's on inter-America routes. Now those are being filled with 767s, 757s (usually), or even as small as A319. American airlines I know has 777s on a few select inter-America routes, those being on hub to hub also (ie DFW-MIA).

The A380s greatest success will be in the inter-Asia routes once dominated by 747SR's. Boeing is going to go ahead with the ill-advised 747Adv, but with a few years lead by the A380, it will be difficult if not impossible to dislodge any in-roads the A380 has made.

Quote[/b] ]He is right about one thing though - I don't know about the States, but in Europe, if your plane is malfunctioning, you have a suitable airport within 50 miles range to land. This won't be the case with the A380...the question is - what happens in case of an emergency?

Well, if it is on a route that it is designed for the nearest airport will be teh hub its heading to. But most likely, if an airport can handle a 747 in an emergency, it can handle an A380. No airport in its right mind will reject an airplane in distress as long as they have hte runway length to handle it.

One of the more interesting things are these casinos and gyms airlines say they are going to have (a gym?? How much extra weight is THAT gonna add??). What happens in unexpected turbulence? I'm guessing those get pulled the first time someone bumps their head and sues.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

1 question, does this one finally come with a disintegrating hull, ejector seats and parachutes for all? Now THAT'S what I'd call safety... I'd prefer having a good old 'chute rather than crashing, be it with an Airbus, Boeing, or Douglas DC-3

P.S.: Although... should Murphy's Law strike... I guess I wouldn't necessarily survive as well...

[shinRaiden 0]

SAS operates non-stops from Seattle to Europe on the polar route. Northwest and United go all sorts of weird places out of here, not to mention Areoflot.

While you may think of SFO, LAX, JFK, and such as portals, and rightly they commonly are, you also have a lot of non-stop traffic originating out of Chigago-O'Hare, Dallas-Ft.Worth, I heard of a Phoenix to some bizarre place the other day as well.

For example, when I flew to Israel in 2000, my flight went from Seattle (via Salt Lake City for an orientation meeting) then on to Saint Louis, JFK, then to Tel Aviv. Other's got a flight direct from Salt Lake City to Chigago, then to Frankfurt, and met us in Tel Aviv. Coming home was the same. I had a friend heading home to Alaska, a lot of flights originating in the central and east parts of the US headed for Asia top-off in Anchorage.

Obviously they will make exceptions if the wings are on fire and the engines have fallen off mid-country, what I was pointing out was two things:

1) Lets take a sample flight, first random combo. UAL, Seattle to Munich. Two options going out, Seattle-San Fran-Munich, or Seattle-Chigago-Munich. There's O'Hare, in the central area, but afaik not planning to support the A380 unless it comes with a snowplow, tie-down chains, and a patronage fee for the mayor's office. Coming back, you have your choice of San Fran again or DC Dulles. You've got 3 big airports there that do international, does DHS want something that big near DC airspace? It's a rather tempting bait for conspiracy freaks who read too much Clancy. This is also a marketability reason, the more hops I have to sit through the crankier I get.

2) Lets take the next scenario, designated diversion airports. A couple months ago there was a polar non-stop that flew in - or was supposed to - from Amsterdam to Seattle. Well, it was raining again and this particular plane didn't have the blind-flight gear needed to fly into Seattle. (I know the A380 has this gear, this is a hypothetical exercise in diverted destinations.) Since they didn't have a whole lot of gas left, they put down instead at friggin' Moses Lake. It might as well be one of those places you have to buzz the field first to chase off the cows, except it also was the main test center for B-47 and B-52 development, so it has a long hard runway. The plane landed fine and taxied off to the side. Minor problem, this was a non-stop so they hadn't gone through US customs. You know those Dutch people, got to check for dope and stuff... Anyway, the nearest place was the border patrol station in Okanagon, which is always short-handed as it's an arm-pit of a backwater town. Several hours later, border customs finally shows up, and just in time, as the flight attendants almost had to lock the lavatories since they wouldn't flush anymore, and Moses Lake doesn't have big commercial flight services. It's pretty much "pump your own" there. So they finally got an INS booth setup, processed everyone, deplaned them all, and many hours after that finally got them flown into Seattle on another plane. 13 hour flight became something like 26~30.

The moral of this story is that your intended airport may not always be available on arrival, and if the plane's 1/2 over the US heading to LA on a nonstop from Europe when Michael Jackson decides to lay down in the middle of the runway or something, you need some place to divert to, that can have access to unload bags, dump sewage, and fill gas back up, and be on-call 24x7. Peanuts anyone?

-edit-

Japan might use it as a commuter plane. According to one schedule I have from a while back, of the 45 daily flights from Tokyo (Haneda) to Sapporo (similar to SFO-LAX run), 16 are japanese seating versions of the 747-400, 3 747-SP's, 9 are 777-200, and 3 are 777-300's along with some 767's and A300's. That's an hour and thirty minute total flight. And of the 43 flights from Tokyo(Haneda) to Fukuoka (another hour and 30 min) daily, 13 are 747-400's, 3 777-300's, 15 777-200's, and 2 747-SP's. These are all capacity operations, but in order to juggle the fleets and airspace these planes are often routed through remote areas on parts of the daily flight cycle.

There again, Tokyo(Haneda) is setup beautifully for domestic travel, while the international airport in Narita is a royal pain getting in and out of for just domestic puddle-jumping. However, Haneda is one of the airports that's built on a dirtfill that has weight and length problems.

The only ones that are going to really bank immediately are the Gulf states airlines. They got the US to build them new jumbo airports for GW2, that gives them hubs and cuts their upgrade costs right out of the box.

-edit-

Pan-Am and some of the other early 747 customers toyed with having a lounge in the bubble, but they ended up pulling it shortly after launch to add more seats. Simple return on investment. It would make sense maybe on a Europe-Asia or Europe-Carribean (any planned service down there?) routes where you have time and interest to make up for lost seats. It all depends on the routes and markets.