Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
No Wake Constraints For The A380  
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 11093 times:

This was an aside to an article in the WSJ. i wonder why it's not getting more attention in the press?

Quote:
Airbus said Thursday that ongoing studies into wave vortexes behind the double-decker airplane have found that the vortex from an A380 en route is very similar to that of a Boeing Co. (BA) 747. The study by representatives of the Joint Aviation Authorities, Eurocontrol, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and Airbus found that there are no wake constraints for the A380 following other planes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...928-710581.html?mod=moj_industries

101 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAtnight From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 605 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 11061 times:

Interesting article BoomBoom.... I am also surprised at the lack of attention to this subject... however, here on a.net, this thread will most likely grow a lot.... I suspect some here will give more details on this subject.....

I have a question, what does it say that "there is not wake constrains for the A380 FOLLOWING other planes"? I thought the major problem was other planes FOLLOWING the A380 and not vise-versa.... could someone explain this to me?



B707 B727 B733/5/7/8/9 B742/4 B752/3 B763/4 B772 A310 A318/319/320 A332 A343 MD80 DC9/10 CRJ200 ERJ145 ERJ-170 Be1900 Da
User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 11041 times:

That's only a small part of the issue. A bigger problem is that, at certain airports such as San Francisco, they will not be able to do parallel approaches with the A380. They will also not be able to pass it with anything on a parallel taxiway. That will really screw me out of getting home on time. San Francisco has enough problems with the weather without having the Sky Cow throw another wrench into the works.


09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 11024 times:

Also it says:

Quote:
the vortex from an A380 en route is very similar to that of a Boeing 747

I thought the concern was takeoff and landing?


User currently offlineEDDB From Germany, joined Aug 2006, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10996 times:

That's funny cause just yesterday I thought of the touch and goes in ETSI with a LH 747 and the A380 and what the results might be...

That's certainly good news! One problem less...


User currently offlineMiCorazonAzul From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10996 times:

Quoting Atnight (Reply 1):
I am also surprised at the lack of attention to this subject...



Quoting BoomBoom (Thread starter):
i wonder why it's not getting more attention in the press?

Maybe the lack of attention is due to the fact that this is actually something POSITIVE about the A380.....any negative news is IMMEDIATELY reported.

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 2):
A bigger problem is that, at certain airports such as San Francisco, they will not be able to do parallel approaches with the A380. They will also not be able to pass it with anything on a parallel taxiway. That will really screw me out of getting home on time. San Francisco has enough problems with the weather without having the Sky Cow throw another wrench into the works.

Righhhtt because there will be an A380 arriving every hour on the hour at SFO specifically.  Yeah sure


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10996 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Thread starter):
no wake constraints for the A380 following other planes.

In addition to the "en route" thing...

Um... Wasn't the concern for other planes following the A380... not the A380 following other planes?


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10931 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 3):
Also it says:

Quote:
the vortex from an A380 en route is very similar to that of a Boeing 747

I thought the concern was takeoff and landing?

Thats what I thought as well.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10913 times:

Quoting MiCorazonAzul (Reply 5):
Maybe the lack of attention is due to the fact that this is actually something POSITIVE about the A380.....any negative news is IMMEDIATELY reported.

Or maybe it's the fact that this isn't actually news?

"Airbus has completed more back-to-back tests of the A380 and other aircraft types as it seeks to accumulate data on wake vortices to back up its effort to have the separation distances recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organisation reduced.

"Airbus flight operations chief Claude Lelaie says that, in recent months, back-to-back tests of the A380 were carried out for take-off and the cruise phase against a Lufthansa Boeing 747-400, as well as other Airbus types including an A318 and A340. The cruise tests also involved aircraft flying in trail at distances of up to 15nm (28km).

"In the cruise, we looked at how the vortices descended," says Lelaie. "From our data we can see no visual difference between the 747 and A380."

"Lelaie says all the data has been presented to the ICAO working group and analysis is on-going, with a final conclusion expected by mid-November.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...7/209043/+Wake+database+grows.html

see thread: A380 Wake Database Grows (by Leelaw Sep 19 2006 in Civil Aviation)#ID2995031


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 3580 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10887 times:

The strange phrasing is because it is part of an Airbus press release and they are trying to highlight the positive aspects. According to what I have heard, the A-380's operations will require 2-4 minute increased spacing (depending on the size of the following aircraft) on take-offs and landings between itself and following aircraft.

I cannot find the link at this time, but it should be published by Airbus shortly.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 3580 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10863 times:

Here's a link for you:

http://www.skycontrol.net/business-g...-a380-wake-vortex-study-completed/

I was pretty close.

On approach, the spacing for the following aircraft is increased compared with the existing separation rules for aircraft currently in service, by two nm for another “heavy”, by three nm for a “medium” sized aircraft, and by four nm for a “light” aircraft. However, because there are no constraints for the A380 following another aircraft, the A380 can land as close as practicable to the preceding aircraft. This can compensate for the additional spacing required for the following one.

On departures, a “heavy” aircraft following the A380 will have to wait two minutes, and the “medium” sized and “light” aircraft will have to wait three minutes. But here again, the A380 can take-off as close as possible to any preceding airliner. (See details in table below)



No wake constraint for the A380 as a following aircraft

A380 followed by Heavy = +2nm extra to existing ICAO separation (6 nm absolute distance)

A380 followed by Medium = +3nm extra to existing ICAO criteria (8 nm absolute distance)

A380 followed by Light = +4nm extra to existing ICAO separation criteria (10 nm absolute distance)

[Edited 2006-09-28 19:57:48]

[Edited 2006-09-28 19:59:14]

User currently offlineCharliejag1 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10845 times:

Quoting Khobar (Reply 8):
Or maybe it's the fact that this isn't actually news?

Agreed!

Enroute wake vortices are almost never a concern. I'm not sure why that was mentioned in the article, but my guess is that they are trying to quantify the 380's vortex profiles (in general) to that of the 744. Unfortunately, just because they are similar enroute doesnt mean that they are similar when it really matters near the airports.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21416 posts, RR: 60
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10806 times:

Quoting Khobar (Reply 8):
Or maybe it's the fact that this isn't actually news?

No, it isn't news. The article says nothing new other than when the data will be submitted.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 9):
The strange phrasing

Actually, it's careful phrasing.

The first line is an Airbus claim, the second is a finding by the authorities. But the way it is written, it sounds as if the first claim is from the authorities. It is NOT. It is from Airbus PR department.

The A380 vortex is "very similar" and that has been Airbus's claim for a while now. Before it flew, the claim was "less than" or "the same as" but has changed to "very similar." This is because testing has determined it is not the same.

In flight spacing was never really in question. The A380 was never thought to need greater follow spacing, nor was it thought that other planes would have to follow behind it differently in cruise.

It was the approach and takeoff spacing that was in question, and this little blurb says nothing about that. WSJ is a subscription site, so a link to a free article with any new information would be appreciated. This article doesn't look to have any new information.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 3580 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10759 times:

Ikramerica,

Please read the article that I linked to.

The results of the study do say that additional spacing will be required for following aircraft.

The article was just published today.

Cheers


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5668 posts, RR: 48
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10722 times:

Prvious to the ICAO interim recommendation from Nov. 05. Airbus stated the the separation rules for the A380 would be no different than for the 747-400. Now with this they are confirming in fact that the separation distance will be greater for aircraft following compared to the 744 in a similar circumstance. Actually this all in all in not good news for the A380 as it will place trailing aircraft farther behind the A380 thus increasing congestion at the airports.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10709 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):
This thread title is not factual but is very, very, very misleading. It should be changed.

Absolutely.... checkmark , I thought new wake data came out which showed it to be no different than a 747....but there is nothing new here..and this hasn't changed....

"Approach / Landing: No wake constraint for the A380 as a following aircraft. A380 followed by Heavy = +2nm extra to existing ICAO separation (6 nm absolute distance). A380 followed by Medium = +3nm extra to existing ICAO criteria (8 nm absolute distance). A380 followed by Light = +4nm extra to existing ICAO separation criteria (10 nm absolute distance)"

this is where the debate on A.net was mostly about...



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10709 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 15):
Actually this all in all in not good news for the A380 as it will place trailing aircraft farther behind the A380 thus increasing congestion at the airports.

But the A380 can follow an aircraft with no restrictions, allowing them to close up that 'extra' seperation required.

Its all much of a muchness.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10664 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 17):

But the A380 can follow an aircraft with no restrictions, allowing them to close up that 'extra' seperation required.

Won't make a difference...it will still have the same "bottleneck effect"...it was already assumed that the A380 won't have any wake constraints...



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21416 posts, RR: 60
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10650 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 14):
The results of the study do say that additional spacing will be required for following aircraft.

Our posts were close together, and yours wasn't up when i started responding.

So your article agrees that the title of the thread is 180 degrees wrong.

What is interesting is that the A380 is clearly inferior to the 744 for spacing, as the 744 can also follow any other aircraft on takeoff and landing closely (except for the A380). So the A380 introduces a problem on both ends, and the proposal to "compensate" also applies to the 747. Any scheme used to compensate for an A380 could also be used to further improve ops at an airport for the 747. The 744, under this scheme will ALWAYS have and advantage, and that advantage, when multiplied by the seating in service of the 744 vs. the 388, makes the A380 a wash in terms of operations at slot constrained airports.

Thus, for airlines like BA, JL, NH, etc., there is no benefit to be had by using the A380 at this time in terms of slots. For airlines with only 1 slot into a slot controlled airport, there is a benefit as it allows them to carry more pax into that airport with that slot. But if there is a negative impact on ops, that slot may have to be valued differently, and the benefit may be negated there as well.

Sticky wicket...

quote from article:
"These values are subject to review and possible reduction based on further study or changes in aircraft categories and operational experience. A significant aspect of this new guidance is that it has revealed the need for a future review of the existing aircraft categories, also taking into account operational experience."

This is what I've been saying all along. The current categories are so broad and pointless, they need to be reviewed.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineJdevora From Spain, joined Aug 2006, 351 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10650 times:

EADS's press release:

http://www.eads.com/web/main/en/1024...F00000040950509/2/52/41478522.html
Vertical Spacing:
  • Vertical spacing in all cases to be the same as for other aircraft.
  • Evidence and data from encounter flight tests at cruise altitude, supported by airborne LIDAR measurements, have demonstrated that the A380 wake characteristics are equivalent to those of the B744 (chosen as the benchmark aircraft) for this phase of flight. Therefore, the current ICAO vertical separations are confirmed to be appropriate for A380 operations.

Horizontal spacing en-route:
  • En-route horizontal spacing to be the same as for other aircraft

Holding:
  • Vertical spacing to be the same as for other aircraft

Approach / Landing:
  • No wake constraint for the A380 as a following aircraft
  • A380 followed by Heavy = +2nm extra to existing ICAO separation (6 nm absolute distance)
  • A380 followed by Medium = +3nm extra to existing ICAO criteria (8 nm absolute distance)
  • A380 followed by Light = +4nm extra to existing ICAO separation criteria (10 nm absolute distance)

Departure following A380:
  • No wake constraint for the A380 as a following aircraft.
  • Same radar spacing as for Approach / Landing
  • Or, for time based operations: Heavy = 2 minutes; Medium, Light = 3 minutes.


User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10609 times:

The title isn't misleading, it's just consise to the point that it opens up multiple interpretations, which means people are confused.

The title is "No Wake Constraints for A380". The article says that the A380 has no restrictions on the kinds of wakes IT can fly into. Therefore, it is accurate. Since most people are still thinking about the kinds of seperation constraints the A380 puts on other aircraft because of the wake it generates, they're interpreting it that way. That doesn't make the title misleading however, it just means you need to read the content carefully.

I find this interesting by the way. Are there normally arrival and departure constraints for two of the current generation heavys? i.e. two 744's following each other in for landing, or departing one after another? Also, does this apply to two A380's in series on both arrival and departure? It's not clear to me...



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineEDDB From Germany, joined Aug 2006, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10589 times:

Guys, let's not mix up everything...

They get the same enroute seperation, that's the only 'new' fact!

The approach and landing separation minimas are temporary restrictions untill they found out if the A380 creates stronger vortex than the 747 or not, and this will be done by november as stated somewhere above!

So no good news/bad news/bottleneck or whatever here...


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 3580 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10542 times:

Quoting EDDB (Reply 22):
They get the same enroute seperation, that's the only 'new' fact!

The approach and landing separation minimas are temporary restrictions untill they found out if the A380 creates stronger vortex than the 747 or not, and this will be done by november as stated somewhere above!

So no good news/bad news/bottleneck or whatever here...

No EDDB, the approach, landing, and take-off separation minimas outlined are the new recommendations by the cognizant organizations based on the new vortex studies that have now been completed.

Please read the article.


User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10526 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 19):
Thus, for airlines like BA, JL, NH, etc., there is no benefit to be had by using the A380 at this time in terms of slots.

Not entirely true...if you sequence enough consecutive A380 flights together, you only lose out on time on the back end of that series of flights. That would require quite a number of them flying in and out however, with favorable schedules. Highly unlikely, but not impossible with a big enough fleet out of your own hub. The problem then becomes the customs and checkin nightmares. Deplaning 10 of those monsters in such short order will not fun for anyone on the ground.  Big grin



There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineEbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10508 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 2):
That will really screw me out of getting home on time. San Francisco has enough problems with the weather without having the Sky Cow throw another wrench into the works.

it's just me me me with you! Love the name sky cow moooowooosh

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 15):
Actually this all in all in not good news for the A380 as it will place trailing aircraft farther behind the A380 thus increasing congestion at the airports.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 19):
What is interesting is that the A380 is clearly inferior to the 744 for spacing......

The 744, under this scheme will ALWAYS have and advantage, and that advantage, when multiplied by the seating in service of the 744 vs. the 388, makes the A380 a wash in terms of operations at slot constrained airports.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 19):
The current categories are so broad and pointless, they need to be reviewed.

You start off slating the 380 then by the end of it you come round saying that rules are aginst it. I think you were in a bad mood.

ATC and Airports around the world are filled with clever creative people, they'll work out new procedures that ensure profitability and maximum useage for all.


25 Post contains images EDDB : Oops, missed the last posts before my own (or do I hack my thoughts into the computer this slow? )
26 Zeke : About time the USA spent some time upgrading its airports. If a third world country like Thailand can spent billions building a new international air
27 TrevD : Moderators - have to agree, please change this title as it is indeed very mis-leading. This news is indeed quite a set-back for the A380 operationally
28 Post contains images EDDB : You know what you're talking about!
29 Ikramerica : Exactly. That's a LONG way off. Which is why I say "at this time." In theory, if all you were flying was the A380, you'd get a huge amount of capacit
30 EDDB : Why not? Usually one rwy at LHR is used for take offs, one for landing... Only thing ATC must do is let the A380 land on the take off rwy! And since
31 Post contains images Zvezda : So, a WhaleJet following an Eclipse doesn't need extra spacing. What a relief! I know we had all been so worried about that. The thread title definite
32 Lemurs : Another question on this: Who is responsible for setting and communicating spacing between a/c in the patern? I assume ATC. If so, that may be one re
33 Post contains images Jacobin777 : It was in response to this comment..
34 Post contains links EbbUK : I read with great sadness that following my post you lost your marbles. You are right, I didn't spend too much energy reading your posts in this thre
35 Post contains images Astuteman : As I understood it, although the A380 requires greater separation from the aircraft behind (than the 747, say), it can actually operate a reduced sep
36 Jacobin777 : Astuteman, I do understand what you are saying..however..I think the quote below was the point I was attempting to make.....
37 Glacote : Quick thoughts... No it has not. 1) because it can fly closer to preceding aircrafts than other aircrafts can 2) because obviously if you pipeline sev
38 WingedMigrator : I think you may be jumping to conclusions. Heavy behind Heavy: 4 nm Heavy behind A380: 6 nm A380 behind Heavy: no restriction (i.e. 2 nm is okay) If
39 727forever : Generally takeoff and landing wake is the larger concern because wake is greatest at low speed and high angles of attack, ie takeoff and landing. How
40 N908AW : Another thing to consider about the A380. Since it will requires longer runway than other heavies, it will be on the runway a good distance more than
41 PlanesNTrains : Nice post. Upgrades cost money as much as time. Many markets are fragmented. If SEA spends the money, and no A380 visits, what was the point? If SFO
42 TrevD : Absolutely wrong... Am amazed how many people are not getting the picture here. The issue isn't how close behind another aircraft the A380 can follow
43 RayChuang : They already have that restriction in place for all 747 landings on Runways 28L/28R, so the effect is much less than you think.
44 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..........I've seen parallel landings with a 747 and 737.....now if you are talking about 2 parallel 747's landings...that would be a sight to see...
45 Zvezda : Than a Jumbo? Just have it circle for a few hours until the next one shows up.
46 Zeke : DERA installed LIDAR at TLS, the have been measuring the wake characteristics of just about every aircraft landing there for a long time. A similar i
47 PlanesNTrains : If you are saying that SEA doesn't meet current requirements for 747's, then I guess it is working because I haven't heard a major uproar about their
48 Zvezda : What are you talking about? The WhaleJet doesn't need more runway than other heavies. SFO is already ready for the WhaleJet. There are about 5000 air
49 WingedMigrator : You've got a point when something small is following the A380. But when an A380 is slotted into a steady stream of heavies, there is no impact to the
50 PlanesNTrains : So are the parallel taxiways passable by two A380's, or is that not a requirement? Just curious. I'm guessing, then, that the comments about the A380
51 Zvezda : My recollection is the runways at SFO are spaced 750 feet apart so, yes, two WhaleJets could pass each other if there were ever two at the airport at
52 727forever : Zeke, Thanks for the information. I still must ask who did the research on the A380? I would not consider Airbus to be a good source for reasons I me
53 Zeke : You guessed incorrectly, US airports have had problems for a long time, well before the 380. A lot of airports in the USA need a lot of upgrades to m
54 SkyHarborsHome : HAHAHAHAHA. I LOVE that nickname. WAAAYYYYY too funny.
55 Post contains images Zeke : Many people did, and it was overseen by EASA, FAA, and EUROCONTROL and ICAO. Airbus did some of its own work, and provided aircraft and facilities fo
56 Post contains links and images BoomBoom : From the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1159...777355.html?mod=home_whats_news_us Sorry for the misleading title. I guess I should have written
57 Post contains links and images WingedMigrator : From the Western Mail (UK): ...granted, not WSJ caliber http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0300b...pe-of-plane-sailing-name_page.html BoomBoom, your threa
58 PlanesNTrains : My question was concerning taxiways, as that was what someone else was referring to (complaining about). In the end, I guess it doesn't sound like SF
59 Zvezda : For 40 years, Jumbo has meant the B747. Airbus has been trying to piggyback off that by calling their WhaleJet: Superjumbo. Not a good example of an
60 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Just messin' with you Zvezda, I figured I'd get a rise out of you. 'Ethical business practice', huh? That's like raising it to a whole new level!
61 Post contains images Astuteman : Except it's not Airbus giving the A380 the appelation the "superjumbo", but (just about) everyone else, particularly the media. Can't really blame Ai
62 Post contains images Leelaw : How about WhaleBus so it's not confused with the 744 LCF?
63 Zeke : LHR and SIN already have separation standards that exceed existing ICAO requirements. I have said this a number of time before, it falls on deaf ear
64 PlanesNTrains : There are plenty of A supporters on here who would (and should) be trumpeting this. I doubt that the B crowd is somehow suppressing it. So if LHR is
65 Zeke : Good question, dont know. Last time they implemented the same 10nm for testing as ICAO suggested.
66 Zvezda : Airbus started it and have continued it. One can certainly blame Airbus for that.
67 PlanesNTrains : I think that would be reasonable. -Dave
68 Baroque : Gee, I am glad I had been following this quite closely otherwise I might have got confused. Some gems of information as is often the case, so thanks Z
69 EDDB : I still can't see what it's all about... In the end it's all but a problem for ATC to manage air movements considering separation minima, that's their
70 Post contains images DistantHorizon : The A380 DOES NOT need longer runways than an 747. Airbus did not started it. Press did. But it does not really matter: the A380 will be (already is)
71 Post contains images DistantHorizon : No... Have you read the rest of the thread? Why don't those Airbus bastards make those things simplier? Kind of "Following the Superjumbo: a problem?
72 Post contains images EDDB : No one...?
73 Morvious : Not really... Following another aircraft has no restrictions. So flying 2nM behind a B747 instead of 4nM can compromise the gap for the 3rd heavy air
74 Post contains images AutoThrust : Wrong, only you and some A.netters call it whalejet (wich isnt a offensive name), the whole media (not Airbus) in the world call it Superjumbo. I see
75 Birdbrainz : Not necessarily. Standard visual approach spacing is 3 nm. Even at that spacing, one still sees missed approaches when the first plane doesn't clear
76 BillReid : I read the article. What an absolute waste of time. The A380 is does not have to delay its departures because of wake turbalence. Well DUH. The increa
77 DLPMMM : If you would actually read the thread: The A-380 will have additional restrictions placed on it that are more stringent than the restrictions placed
78 Lemurs : I fail to see an ethics problem here, really. It's a name, it's derivative at worst, entirely new at best. Not creative, but it gets the point across
79 Art : This does seem to throw a different light on the problem. If it takes no longer for say 20 planes to take off and land whether one of them is a 747 o
80 Hb88 : Thanks Zeke for your excellent posts on this topic/thread. A glimmer of rational science in a post with a very poor signal to noise ratio. It's a sha
81 Hb88 : So what. As far as I'm aware, Boeing do not have a trade mark for the word "jumbo" or "jumbo-jet". In any case some would say it's become generic dep
82 Post contains links Khobar : AIRBUS A380: A WHALE OF PLANE! Despite looking a bit like a Whale with wings, this is a species of the air that will be flourishing by 2006. http://w
83 Hb88 : [snip] Indeed you are quite correct. Problem is, that doesn't stop them from looking like cretins either.
84 RayChuang : I've rarely seen 747's and 737's land side-by-side at SFO on Runways 28L/28R, mostly because of the strong wake turbulence from a 747. When I was liv
85 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I got one for you I took just a couple of weeks ago @ SFO.....
86 Osiris30 : And that was constructive how exactly? It's one thing to gripe when folks make something up that's untrue, or spread FUD about the 380. But anyone sa
87 RayChuang : I've not seen that commonly at SFO unless the wind speeds at the airport are very low. If there's a strong wind from the Pacific 747's usually land b
88 Hb88 : Constructive? It was critical of the use of what I think is a liguistically/idiomatically poor name. I don't think your pot comment is fair. My criti
89 Post contains images Jacobin777 : I agree..its quite the rare thing..nonetheless, it does happen...
90 Osiris30 : Hb88: Well you see that was the root of my pot v. kettle comment. To an 'outsider' who has read and lurked here for a while, your A380 posts are exact
91 Hb88 : Um, look, sorry you're wrong here. If you look at my post, I haven't actually anywhere criticised anyone for talking about the 380 separation issue.
92 Osiris30 : You're quite right. You haven't said anything on this thread. I apologize. My brain lumped some other threads in with this one when I saw the origina
93 Hb88 : Hey, no problems at all. Regarding the other threads, I probably was disagreeing with what I thought was some half-assed anti-Airbus comment. I think
94 Post contains images Baroque : I thought insults were banned, mods where are you!!!! Oh no you have not, or at least I have not!! Well one result is curious, if I were writing abou
95 Katekebo : In my opinion the biggest issue is not the quantitative impact of the new rules on airport operations (which given the small number of A380 that will
96 Post contains images Leelaw : There may be more than a PR/image problem at bottom here: namely, money damages. Clearly, Airbus thought it was possible to design and engineer a VLA
97 NAV20 : I think that it may have been more complicated than that, Leelaw. Airbus has plenty of capable professional engineers. I'm quite certain that this is
98 Post contains links Hb88 : Oh man, I surely have! Anyway, on the wake issue topic, have a read of Sabenapilots post in this thread: So What -- A380 Vortex Question. (by MrComet
99 Beech19 : Am i the only one who is finding this thread a waste? The article is obviously not clear or the thread title is not (i can't tell anymore!!), the EADS
100 Post contains images WingedMigrator : It is quite a tempest in a teacup. There was a huge uproar last year when the ICAO issued its interim separation criteria (10 nm across the board and
101 Post contains images Beech19 : I'm right there with ya. Even as a Boeing guy myself, I really have been trying to keep an open mind about the possibilites of the A380 to succeed bu
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Narita To The US: Not A Market For The A380 posted Thu Aug 31 2006 20:01:23 by Incitatus
If It Wasn't For The A380 Where Would Airbus Be? posted Wed Jun 28 2006 16:49:57 by Art
EK-no Intention To Cancel The A380 Orders... posted Wed Jun 21 2006 14:33:44 by Beaucaire
"Heavy-Heavy" Callsign For The A380? posted Sat May 27 2006 23:31:16 by RIXrat
KLAX Getting Ready For The A380...Finally! posted Mon Apr 24 2006 11:15:05 by EK413
Breaking News: Another Delay For The A380 posted Thu Apr 6 2006 13:41:02 by NorCal
What Will SQ's Initial Routes Be For The A380? posted Sun Feb 19 2006 05:25:01 by KDTWFlyer
Johannesburg Airport Prepares For The A380 posted Fri Feb 17 2006 10:44:17 by Andz
Finding A Good Nickname For The A380 posted Thu Nov 24 2005 05:39:15 by GoldenArgosy
What Was The Chase Aircraft For The A380? posted Fri Apr 29 2005 04:13:01 by CitationJet