Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus To Re-Test A380 Separations  
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 10851 times:

Manufacturer aims to convince ICAO to relax restriction

Airbus is to conduct a fresh series of wake vortex-encounter flight trials to persuade the International Civil Aviation Organisation to relax recommended separations on approach for aircraft trailing its A380 ultra-large airliner...


http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...+to+re-test+A380+separations+.html

94 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5763 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 10822 times:

I wonder if some airlines have told Airbus that the sep rules are unacceptable?


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 10819 times:

This is getting ridiculous and personally, I think Airbus is playing loose with our safety to make their product look better at this point. After all, it's not the A380 that might crash if Airbus is wrong, but the plane behind it.

Two sets of tests were conducted so far and the spacing is based on those results. The extra set was conducted by Airbus to prove the first set wrong, but it didn't. Will a third be conclusive, or just add more data?

The more prudent approach at this point is to relax the restrictions if and when they warrant it after see how the jet performs in service. By the end of 2008, there are only going to be a handful of A380s flying anyway.

I would assume that the only real urgency here is that potential customers are balking due to this issue, and it's hurting sales?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKaneporta1 From Greece, joined May 2005, 740 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10760 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
This is getting ridiculous and personally, I think Airbus is playing loose with our safety to make their product look better at this point. After all, it's not the A380 that might crash if Airbus is wrong, but the plane behind it.

That's why you should only fly in A380s

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
I would assume that the only real urgency here is that potential customers are balking due to this issue, and it's hurting sales?

Wake turbulence is the last thing customers care about, especially with an amazing airplane such as the 380. Let ATC worry about that.

Since the delivery delay is now 2 years, Airbus has plenty of time to get more data and test more vortex reduction devices/systems/methods



I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10042 posts, RR: 96
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10752 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
I think Airbus is playing loose with our safety to make their product look better at this point

Conversely, the A380 might well end up with more definitive wake data than any other airliner in the history of aviation, with which to make more robust judgements than have ever been made before  Smile.

They might also cause the same level of data to be demanded of every other airliner type too, which a) may well make aviation even safer, and b) quite possibly have some interesting consequences for airliner types already flying.

An alternative view, perhaps......

Regards


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5763 posts, RR: 47
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10704 times:

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 3):
Wake turbulence is the last thing customers care about, especially with an amazing airplane such as the 380. Let ATC worry about that.

What are you talking about...of course they would have to worry about it for more reason than you think.

1) Wake vortex can affect the flight stability of trailing aircraft which can cause them to lose control..AA587 (5 years ago) is a case in point.

2) The separation rules can tie up take off and landing slots and effectively the airline with the A380 would have to pay more and the effected airports would have reduced capacity due to fewer slots.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10686 times:

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 3):
Wake turbulence is the last thing customers care about, especially with an amazing airplane such as the 380. Let ATC worry about that.

Tell that to AA 587. tombstone 

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 4):
Conversely, the A380 might well end up with more definitive wake data than any other airliner in the history of aviation, with which to make more robust judgements than have ever been made before Smile.

They might also cause the same level of data to be demanded of every other airliner type too, which a) may well make aviation even safer, and b) quite possibly have some interesting consequences for airliner types already flying.

An alternative view, perhaps......

And a very good set of points. Well said.
 checkmark 


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31008 posts, RR: 86
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10642 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Honestly, if Airbus is willing to fund a third (or fourth or fifth or fiftieth) set of tests, what harm is there in doing so?

At best, they prove that the proposed rules are too restrictive and a more accurate, whilst still safe and prudent, set of rules are drafted.

At worst, they prove the proposed rules are the safe and prudent ones, and A388 customers need to adjust their schedules as necessary.


User currently offlineKaneporta1 From Greece, joined May 2005, 740 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10642 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 5):
1) Wake vortex can affect the flight stability of trailing aircraft which can cause them to lose control..AA587 (5 years ago) is a case in point.

I don't recall JAL having to deal with lawsuits for that crash. It was after all, their Jumbo that cause the turbulence.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 5):
The separation rules can tie up take off and landing slots and effectively the airline with the A380 would have to pay more and the effected airports would have reduced capacity due to fewer slots.

It's up to ATC to separate airplanes efficiently so the impact would be minimal. Also, the A380 takes 1 slot, just like every airplane, despite all the misinformation on this board.



I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10610 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
This is getting ridiculous and personally, I think Airbus is playing loose with our safety to make their product look better at this point. After all, it's not the A380 that might crash if Airbus is wrong, but the plane behind it.

Well, some people have hinted at it before, but we have finally had someone come out and say it - apparently Airbus doesnt care about our safety.

Do you really think that is the case? Do you really think Airbus would place anyone in undue danger just to sell some aircraft? Why?


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5763 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10563 times:

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 8):
It's up to ATC to separate airplanes efficiently so the impact would be minimal. Also, the A380 takes 1 slot, just like every airplane, despite all the misinformation on this board.

And what about the aircrafts who have to follow the A380 into and out the airport. they are governed by wider rules of separation which means that airport losses slots based on the wider rules following the A380. Therefore to compensate those airports will charge A380 operators higher landing and take off fees.

The overall net effect is that airports lose take of fand landing slots. This reduces the capacity at said airports. In turn, airports become more crowded.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5763 posts, RR: 47
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10549 times:

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 8):
I don't recall JAL having to deal with lawsuits for that crash. It was after all, their Jumbo that cause the turbulence.

And what about the poor souls on AA587? Wake turbulence cost them their lives. Do you think any ATC will be putting that out of their mind when they determine the separation between the A380 and any trailing aircraft?



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10510 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 6):

Tell that to AA 587. tombstone



Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 8):

I don't recall JAL having to deal with lawsuits for that crash. It was after all, their Jumbo that cause the turbulence.



Quoting NYC777 (Reply 11):
And what about the poor souls on AA587? Wake turbulence cost them their lives. Do you think any ATC will be putting that out of their mind when they determine the separation between the A380 and any trailing aircraft?

Just out of curiosity were stricter wake turbulence rules applied after the AA 587 crash?

Did they end up increasing the distance between the B747 in relation to other smaller airplanes?

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5763 posts, RR: 47
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10494 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 12):
Just out of curiosity were stricter wake turbulence rules applied after the AA 587 crash?

Did they end up increasing the distance between the B747 in relation to other smaller airplanes?

Regards,
Wings

Well first we should ask if the ATC apply the existing separation rules at the time or did they release the A300 before the JAL 747 was at minimum separation. That I don't know. What were the minimum separation rules at the time and what were they after the crash? Those are valid questions.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10477 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
I would assume that the only real urgency here is that potential customers are balking due to this issue, and it's hurting sales?

 checkmark 

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 3):
Wake turbulence is the last thing customers care about, especially with an amazing airplane such as the 380.

Amazing in what way?

Quoting Poitin (Reply 6):
Tell that to AA 587.

And US-427

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Honestly, if Airbus is willing to fund a third (or fourth or fifth or fiftieth) set of tests, what harm is there in doing so?

At best, they prove that the proposed rules are too restrictive and a more accurate, whilst still safe and prudent, set of rules are drafted.

At worst, they prove the proposed rules are the safe and prudent ones, and A388 customers need to adjust their schedules as necessary.

Keep testing until you can get the results you want? Two different wake turbalance tests to date have come to the same conclusion.  covereyes 
 crossfingers 

Airbus really needs to consider here what they are doing. Are sales of the WhaleJet more important than the safety of the passengers and crew of the airplane behind it? Let's face the facts, now. Airbus has built a White Elephant. It sold about 159 production positions, and FedEx has already canceled their order. Fuel prices are still to high to fly the WhaleJet economicly. If it was, they would be raking in orders like the B-787 is. Airports don't want to put the A-380 support infaststructure in place because it is expensive. Airbus's new break even point is now up around 420 units from the original 250, or so. Maybe Airbus should consider cutting their losses here, and cancel the A-380 program altogether, then go full force to design and build an A-350 that can actually compete with either the B-777 or the B-787, but not both.  ashamed   box 


User currently offlinePlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6811 posts, RR: 77
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10477 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
I think Airbus is playing loose with our safety to make their product look better at this point.

How do they "play loose with our safety" by starting another test series? It's not Airbus to decide in the end, but the authorities. And it's very likely those are neither incompetent nor naive.


PH



Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!
User currently offlineKaneporta1 From Greece, joined May 2005, 740 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10455 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 11):
And what about the poor souls on AA587? Wake turbulence cost them their lives.

Actually, poor AA pilot training cost them their lives. If you want a real wake turbulence accident, look at DL's 3305L. Caused by a wake encounter in VFR conditions, with no real ATC separation, just a caution.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 10):
Therefore to compensate those airports will charge A380 operators higher landing and take off fees.

Landing fees are mostly charged by aircraft weight.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 10):
The overall net effect is that airports lose take of fand landing slots. This reduces the capacity at said airports. In turn, airports become more crowded.

Having an airplane on approach, a further 1-2nm behind a 380, will certainly not make airports more congested.

The bottom line is, if air traffic control want to run things more efficiently they can always have the 380 land on the take-off runway, and take off in between landings from the landing runway.

Any Anet member with ATC knowledge, please give your thoughts on this.



I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
User currently offlineKaneporta1 From Greece, joined May 2005, 740 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10435 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
And US-427

From www.aviation-safety.net

PROBABLE CAUSE :" The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the USAir flight 427 accident was a loss of control of the airplane resulting from the movement of the rudder surface to its blow down limit. The rudder surface most likely deflected in a direction opposite to that commanded by the pilots as a result of a jam of the main rudder power control unit servo valve secondary slide to the servo valve housing offset from its neutral position and over travel of the primary slide."



I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10359 times:

From the NTSB report, which you all should read
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...130X02321&ntsbno=DCA02MA001&akey=1


    About 0911:08, the local controller cleared the Japan Air Lines airplane for takeoff. About 0911:36, the local controller cautioned the flight 587 pilots about wake turbulence and instructed the pilots to taxi into position and hold for runway 31L. The first officer acknowledged the instruction. About 0913:05, the local controller instructed the Japan Air Lines pilots to fly the bridge climb and to contact the departure controller at the New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON). About 0913:21, the flight 587 captain said to the first officer, "you have the airplane."

    About 0913:28, the local controller cleared flight 587 for takeoff, and the captain acknowledged the clearance. About 0913:35, the first officer asked the captain, "you happy with that [separation] distance?" About 3 seconds later, the captain replied, "we'll be all right once we get rollin'. He's supposed to be five miles by the time we're airborne, that's the idea." About 0913:46, the first officer said, "so you're happy."


while the plane did crash due to the tail seperating because of excessive loading caused by the copilot, it was caused by flight AA 587 running into the wake turbulence of the JAL 747 not once but twice.

Had the captain say, "No, let's wait a minute." they would have had no problems.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10300 times:

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 16):
Actually, poor AA pilot training cost them their lives.

Both poor pilot training and IMHO the fact that the flight computer allowed the pilots to put that much stress on the blame is to blame. The pilots should have known better, but the plane itself should have stopped them from doing it too.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4462 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10285 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Poitin (Reply 18):
About 0911:08, the local controller cleared the Japan Air Lines airplane for takeoff



Quoting Poitin (Reply 18):
About 0913:28, the local controller cleared flight 587 for takeoff

Tha's more than 2 minutes' separation, both aircraft starting from the same position. Actually, that separation would have been legal between the JAL 747 and a B-737.

Quoting Poitin (Reply 18):
Had the captain say, "No, let's wait a minute." they would have had no problems.

Unfortunately, wake turbulence could have a vastly more different dissipation characteristics, depending on area, wind,temperature and temperature inversion....etc... Your statement is only a supposition.



Contrail designer
User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10252 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 19):
Both poor pilot training and IMHO the fact that the flight computer allowed the pilots to put that much stress on the blame is to blame. The pilots should have known better, but the plane itself should have stopped them from doing it too.

Flight AA 587 was a A 300. It was not fly-by-wire but fly-by-cable/hydralics.

There is a long list of things that went wrong that day, which has been beaten to death on several other threads, but the computer was not to blame because it wasn't there.

And there wasn't "poor" pilot training, but incorrect pilot training. The copilot was well trained in how AA wanted him to react to such a circumstance, and he did it. The reason for that was another debate.

The issue I raise is not why the copilot used the rudder in turbulence, but why he was in the turbulence. It should never have happened.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5763 posts, RR: 47
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10224 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 21):
The issue I raise is not why the copilot used the rudder in turbulence, but why he was in the turbulence. It should never have happened.

 checkmark 

Correct. If ATC released him too soon then he was going to fly into the wake. That's the point of the whole thread....if a smaller aircraft is flying behind an A380 what is the minimum distance to avoid going out of control. It is not just an ATC issue but it is an issue facing the customer who bought it as well as Airbus.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7233 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10224 times:

Quoting Planhunter reply 15
"How do they "play loose with our safety" by starting another test series? It's not Airbus to decide in the end, but the authorities. And it's very likely those are neither incompetent nor naive."

Just to play devils advocate here, but those same competent authorities looked at the first two test and came up with the current seperation limits. Airbus seems to have some issue with their competence if they are going for a thrid test, no?


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5165 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10192 times:

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 17):
PROBABLE CAUSE :" The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the USAir flight 427 accident

Dude, have some sensitivity and maturity here. In trying to defend a pretty-hard-to-defend comment ("Customers don't care about wake turbulence..."), now you're treading all over a lot of dead people.

The NTSB finding regarding USAir is a source of dispute and dissatisfaction among many, many people in the aviation community. And whether wake turbulence alone caused a loss of control in the USAir and AA incidents, it was certainly the triggering event.

I know that you want to show your enthusiasm for the A380, but I'd respectfully implore you to be civil.


25 Poitin : Of course I made a supposition, as did the captain when he said, "okay". However, if he waited 3 minutes instead of 2, he would have had a better cha
26 Post contains images Osiris30 : If you say so, I'll take you word for it.. I've never been really clear on what is and isn't FBW on which A300s. I thought the later 300s had at leas
27 Wjcandee : While I understand your math, there is more accurate information available. The NTSB expressly determined that there was one minute and 40 seconds be
28 Poitin : Read the report -- it starts: On November 12, 2001, about 0916:15 eastern standard time, American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus Industrie A300-605R,
29 Post contains links NYC777 : Ok an article just out (ironically) on Bloomberg stating that BA chief, Willie Walsh believes that the A380 WILL REDUCE HEATHROW CAPACITY: http://www.
30 Kaneporta1 : The hard to defend statement on this thread is that Airbus doesn't care about safety. As far as my statement is concerned, I stand by it. Wake turbul
31 NYC777 : See the reply above yours and you'll see how wrong you are.
32 Osiris30 : I wasn't arguing with you. I meant it when I said if you said so I would take your word for it. I lways thought the later 300s had some FBW on them.
33 Curmudgeon : You don't need FBW to have proportional hydraulic pressure available to flight controls. the 737 series aircraft have rudder pressure reducers that li
34 Kaneporta1 : I'm sure SQ and QF will be greatly affected by this statement. 3 A380 flights to LHR per day (initially) will really screw the airport operations up.
35 Poitin : The A320 was the first FBW airliner in production. As I remember a A310 or A300 was used as a FBW test bed, but it never went into commercial service
36 NYC777 : Yes according to Willie Walsh. You are wrong to think that airlines won't be worried about sep rules flying into and out of airports. It's not just a
37 OMA2FAI2SAV : First off, other peoples "facts" seem to disagree with yours. As has been documented and posted in replies before yours. Second, While wake might not
38 Post contains images Poitin : true -- but the A300 didn't -- It had a mickey mouse stop. oh, you are mean --- you mean you wouldn't trust them? Shameful!
39 Post contains links Kaneporta1 : www.ntsb.gov www.aviation-safety.net People can disagree all they want, the official causes are there to stay. A burnt lightbulb was the catalyst for
40 Post contains images Glideslope : NOTHING is going change the way this airframe throws the wind. Unless there is some new wing modifications we are unaware of? IMO, they knew this was
41 NYC777 : If the ICAO sticks with these rules then what is the propect for the A380? I think you could forget about the A380-900 unless you're going to build a
42 RedFlyer : Well, they obviously didn't like the overall results from the initial round of testing. And while it could look like they are shopping for results, t
43 Pihero : Don't play the semantics game with me . Separation between departing aircraft is taken at the start point. Every crew will start a stopwatch when the
44 Poitin : I agree. In addition, the proposals from Airbus about different sized aircraft having many different separation distances is getting far too complex.
45 Danny : You are getting ridiculous in this blind Airbus bashing.
46 PolymerPlane : Of course it is ATC's concern. ATC with ICAO has recommended a larger separation based on two Airbus's tests. What Airbus wants to do now is to do a
47 EbbUK : It is sad to see that some members would ever suggest that Airbus cares less about safety than any other leading plane manufacturer on this earth. Sh
48 Post contains links Poitin : Hey, man, read the NSTB report. It's in there. http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.pdf The National Transportation Safety Board’s airplane pe
49 Poitin : Are you naive? You mean that we can trust Airbus? I don't trust ANY company, having worked in too may areas where money is on the line. As for the av
50 EbbUK : Are you another that is saying that Airbus cares ANY LESS than any other company manufacturing planes and in business to make money?
51 Curmudgeon : I'd like to learn more about how Airbus designed for the wake vortices. Vortex formation is largely a function of lift being produced by the wing, and
52 NYC777 : That's a good one!
53 EbbUK : those mad europeans eh? let's see
54 Curmudgeon : Well no. Non, in fact. I like Europe just fine, and the people who live there. I don't mistake Les Follies Airbus as being broadly representative of
55 Ikramerica : What do you mean "finally." This is the first I've heard of this news, and frankly, Airbus is behaving like a spoiled child at this point in a lot of
56 Poitin : No, just about the same, which is zero. Get real EbbUK. Airbus will lie like they have over the the last year about Airbus problems. If you want a li
57 Glideslope : There is no Warp Drive Core involved here. It's a Big, Fat (thick) airfoil generating the expected results of lifting a huge mass. Airbus wants a dif
58 Pihero : So read my post and tell me where I erred, then. A twin has a better acceleration than a fully loaded quad, the 20 sec difference is coherent with th
59 Prebennorholm : Wrong (or 50% right). Vortex is largely a function of mass and wingspan inverted. If we cut wingspan in half on a given plane, then vortex will a lot
60 Post contains links NAV20 : I get so tired of hearing this stuff. Nothing is certain about AA587, one can only talk in terms of probabilities. For information, the Flight Data R
61 Post contains images Lightsaber : Very well written. If I may expand, there is another aspect to the wing vortex strength, the more efficient the wing, the theoreticlaly smaller the v
62 Jasond : This issue isn't just about the A380 or the small number of airlines who have ordered it. As far as ICAO are concerned they also have to take into acc
63 Curmudgeon : Lightsaber, thanks very much. I appreciate the lucidity of your post, as always. Now, a question: How many data points would you expect to comprise a
64 OldAeroGuy : If I can jump in for Lightsaber here, based on my experience with wake vortex testing, I'd put the number of repeat tests for a given condition at ar
65 Glacote : Have you got a hand on the data? The ICAO conclusions are an interpretation on what's supposedly safe based on them. There is no data which tells you
66 Post contains links NAV20 : Have to correct something I posted earlier - apologies, I was working from memory:- The FDR on AA587 did in fact partially record pedal positions - bu
67 OldAeroGuy : The ICAO Wake Vortex Steering Group consisted of the following bodies: Eurocontrol JAA FAA Airbus Do you think that the three EU members were bamboozl
68 Post contains images Jacobin777 : When I did research in medicine, we needed at mininum 6 data points...the fact Airbus is only commencing on a third set of data points is a bit intri
69 OldAeroGuy : I suspect that Airbus has quite a few conditions from the earlier tests for the basic A388 configuration. It would be a surprise if there weren't 20
70 Post contains images Jacobin777 : At the end of the day, they are probably going to get the same set of general numbers...I'm willing to bet they will not find anything which is subst
71 Wjcandee : Okay, so I'm NOT arguing semantics? Good. The fact is that poor Sten Molin, who the CVR transcript makes clear was pretty stressed over the wake enco
72 Johnny : The question is: Are the B744 or 748I really making the same low wake turbulences as the original certified B741 - or is every version certified by it
73 Scbriml : A quote from this week's FI article on this subject. Airbus plans to take additional data to the ICAO by October 2007.
74 Albird87 : Take LHR here for example. That airport already has congestion in the air and on the ground. If you were to add A380s into the picture then you would
75 Post contains links and images Leelaw : In a related story FI reports: A340 assesses vortex effect Airbus last week began wake vortex visualisation flight trials using its A340-300 testbed a
76 Poitin : Thank you for reading the report, not just the summary, and understanding what the data actually said. They blame the copilot for pushing the peddles
77 Post contains images Lightsaber : Well said. From someone who knows this issue better than I! 20 tests isn't cheap. Not in a running aircraft. I wonder what new information are they l
78 Poitin : While 20 tests is better than 2 or 3, from a statistical viewpoint, there is the issue of raising the N to the point of causing spurious variations t
79 Johnny : @ Poitin Airbus wants the ICAO to EXPLAIN why the seperation-minima between a Boeing 744 and a small airplane is 6nm and between an A388 and an A320 8
80 KC135TopBoom : Since there is valid additional data into the cause of the AA-587 accident, it may reopen. The pilot error finding was not listed as the cause of the
81 RichardPrice : Actually shouldnt greater number of tests reduce the statistical anomaly caused by spurious or erronous results?
82 Shenzhen : Why would the Feds listen to anything Airbus have to say about the 747 in regards to its separation? If they are, then it is a slippery slope they (A
83 Johnny : @ Shenzhen They would not only have to listen, they will have to EXPLAIN WHERE the difference between a B744 followed by a light airplane in compariso
84 Astuteman : Only if it's a safety issue that arises as a result of the data Airbus are able to provide, in which case Airbus's "meddling" might well ultimately b
85 Shenzhen : Maybe the Feds will increase the separation between 747 and any trailing A320 type airplanes. I suppose that would make Airbus happy. LOL I doubt the
86 Johnny : @ Shenzhen You really miss the point... The Feds have to explain WHY.They are not in the position to discuss with Airbus! They simply have done a big
87 Post contains links Kaneporta1 : From www.flightglobal.com The manufacturer insists that a medium-category aircraft such as an A320 can safely fly 7nm (13km) behind a "super" category
88 Poitin : Common misconception, Richard. What you are doing when you do a statistical experiment - say flipping two coins 100 times and counting the number of
89 PolymerPlane : He is disingenuous. He said in earlier article: 4 NM is the current separation requirement between two heavies. Wait, I thought the first and second
90 Prebennorholm : Some contributors on this thread (not just Shenzhen) seem to indicate indirectly that the ruling body is "the Feds" or the FAA. It is ICAO, the Inter
91 Post contains images Poitin : Well, if they do do the tests 100 times, they better get the result they want in 95 of them.
92 Shenzhen : Sorry, my intent for stating "Feds" was not the FAA, but rather those in charge of this issue. The Fed statement really had little to do with what I
93 Shenzhen : Maybe Airbus have already completed the test 100 times, and got good results once. Anyway, its Airbus' money, therefore they can spend it on as many
94 Poitin : While I have no issue with Airbus spending money for such tests, I do if they go around the mathematical assumptions of statistics. All too often, pe
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...
Airbus To Announce New A380 Customer In Paris posted Mon Jun 13 2005 15:04:06 by Keesje
Airbus To Test A380 At Addis Ababa, Ethiopia? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 01:57:06 by ETStar
Airbus' Williams: Seven Ways To Fix The A380 posted Sun Jul 16 2006 18:03:16 by Leelaw
Airbus To Strengthen A380 Wing posted Mon May 22 2006 09:46:41 by Scbriml
FI: Airbus To Keep A380 On Revised Schedule posted Tue Sep 6 2005 06:39:14 by Leelaw
Airbus Has Begun The A380’s Flutter-test Campaign posted Tue Aug 16 2005 16:03:36 by Keesje
Airbus To Use 853-seat A380 For First Escape Trial posted Mon Jan 10 2005 12:29:42 by Ants
WSJ: Airbus To Boost A320 Series Production posted Mon Nov 20 2006 06:46:56 by PanAm_DC10
Airbus To Outsource 3.5bill$ A-350XWB Work! posted Tue Nov 14 2006 07:50:05 by Bringiton
SIA Says Airbus To Build The 787-9 For Them posted Wed Nov 8 2006 03:10:54 by Jimyvr