Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Now Compliant To 45m Runways  
User currently offlineBjornstrom From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 329 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11581 times:

Airbus A380 approved to operate on 45m runways
31 July 2007

Airbus’ A380 has received approval from both the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to be operated on runways with a width of 45 metres (150 feet) or more. Most of the world airports have 45m runways as standard width.

"This aircraft has been shown to be safely controllable and to be compliant with applicable airworthiness requirements when operating on runways with a width of 45 meters (150 feet) or more", stated James J. Ballough, FAA Director Flight Standards Service in an official correspondence to Airbus, dated July 19, 2007.

This approval is yet another great achievement for the A380 Programme and the result of a unique operational evaluation including airport compatibility checks, route proving campaigns and dedicated flight-testing together with the Authorities.

http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre..._31_a380_approved_45m_runways.html



ICAO recommends the new aircraft be provided with 60m-wide runways, and some airports at which many A380 movements will take place are carrying out widening work to be compliant.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ate-on-standard-width-runways.html

[Edited 2007-07-31 18:50:20]


Eurobonus Gold | BMI Gold | http://my.flightmemory.com/bjornstrom/
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11549 times:

Has anyone actually widened the runway to accommodate the A380? I was under the impression that the 45m was not the issue, but the turning radius and the taxiway separation.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6914 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11275 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Has anyone actually widened the runway to accommodate the A380? I was under the impression that the 45m was not the issue, but the turning radius and the taxiway separation.

This was my impression as well; my understanding is that the biggest problem is gates that will accommodate the beast.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31011 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11219 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Has anyone actually widened the runway to accommodate the A380? I was under the impression that the 45m was not the issue, but the turning radius and the taxiway separation.

I think it was more an issue of things on the edges of the runways that could be within reach of the A388's wings or outboard engines that needed to be moved/checked.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11146 times:

FOD could be an issue if the engines hang out a little too far.

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6914 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11069 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 4):
FOD could be an issue if the engines hang out a little too far.

That's why God painted centerlines (to quote one of my flight instructors); if they follow them 45M should protect the engines.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineBoogyJay From France, joined May 2005, 490 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10913 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 5):
That's why God painted centerlines

This is a good one  laughing  ... simple but effective.

Anyway, this is again a good news for Airbus and the A380, congratulations to the Airbusmen !
It removes one more inconvenient the a/c had and we won't hear "... and it can't even land on a standard runway... " again.

And it suddenly opens a whole lot of A380-capable airports, because the taxiway separations and terminal facilities are only recommendations, whereas the runway width was regulatory. Am I right ?

So yes, it's better to have bigger runway separations and 2 or 3 jetbridge gates but even if an airport does not have them, the A380 is still ALLOWED to fly there... Look at all the place the B747 flies, even until recently SXM didn't have a decent terminal.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10846 times:

Quoting BoogyJay (Reply 6):
Anyway, this is again a good news for Airbus and the A380, congratulations to the Airbusmen !
It removes one more inconvenient the a/c had and we won't hear "... and it can't even land on a standard runway... " again.

No it doesn't. It's a red herring announcement.

It can't just "land on normal runways" if those runways don't have proper separation or if they have insufficient taxiway turning radius. That's the whole point. But the airports that it was planned to go to have mostly upgraded to fit the jet, or will be finished shortly. LAX, for example moved a runway, but still hasn't finished the center taxiway. But at least the spacing is there, and the airport can now (or soon can) handle 3 A380s at main gates (1 at T2, 2 at TBIT) as well as 3 at remote stands (IIRC).

And many airports didn't need upgrades at all.

The A380 was designed with only 2 reverse thrusters to comply with the 45m runway from the start. Is it actually an accomplishment that should be applauded when a plane does what it was designed to do? Is that what the A380 program has come to, that it is remarkable that it does the things it is supposed to do? Honestly?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineHB88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 816 posts, RR: 31
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10846 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 2):
This was my impression as well; my understanding is that the biggest problem is gates that will accommodate the beast.

The 380 fits inside an 80 by 80m box and doesn't occupy a significantly larger footprint than the 747. Gate dimensions have never been much of an issue AFAIK.


User currently offlineBoogyJay From France, joined May 2005, 490 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10736 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
The A380 was designed with only 2 reverse thrusters to comply with the 45m runway from the start. Is it actually an accomplishment that should be applauded when a plane does what it was designed to do? Is that what the A380 program has come to, that it is remarkable that it does the things it is supposed to do? Honestly?

Stop the sarcasm.  Yeah sure Yes it is an "accomplishment that should be applauded", it is an event for the program (maybe not a milestone, though I don't really know the extent of the 'milestone' definition).

When IAD787 provides us with information (btw great infos) on the shipment of ship #3 or whichever fuselage section to Everett, it's an event in the 787 program and some (inc. myself) enjoy it and inherently congratulate Boeing...

So keep your bad mood (  Angry ) for yourself and let us enjoy good aviation news...  Smile

P.S : I'd be more than happy to bring you out for some drinks and enjoy life should you come to Paris...


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6914 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10683 times:

Quoting BoogyJay (Reply 6):
And it suddenly opens a whole lot of A380-capable airports, because the taxiway separations and terminal facilities are only recommendations,

They'll be more than recommendations when two of them shake hands (read wingtips) while passing....

Quoting HB88 (Reply 8):
The 380 fits inside an 80 by 80m box and doesn't occupy a significantly larger footprint than the 747. Gate dimensions have never been much of an issue AFAIK.

Doesn't the A380 require double level ramps? If not, why all the discussion of gates at LHR Terminal 5 being A380 capable?



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineBoogyJay From France, joined May 2005, 490 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10621 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 10):
They'll be more than recommendations when two of them shake hands (read wingtips) while passing....

It has nothing to do with the A380, it depends upon the ground controllers ability to cope with aircraft, be it an A380 or a ERJ.
Several times a year aircraft do 'shake hands' as you say, and they aren't all A380s.
Ground controllers will only need to learn to be a tidbit more careful when they'll receive the beast, that's all.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 10):
Doesn't the A380 require double level ramps?

Again, it's not a requirement, it's a recommendation. The A380 has 2 sets of wide stairs that people can use to board the U/D, should the jetways not reach the U/D or should the a/c being planed/deplaned at a remote stand.
People do it everyday in B747s...


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10415 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
I was under the impression that the 45m was not the issue, but the turning radius and the taxiway separation.

It is just the turning radius and the general tightness of most 23m taxiways. Taxiway separation is the same issue as gate space. If it complies with the 80m box and two B744s can pass each other it won't be a problem either. There might be a problem with the load-bearing strength of taxiway bridges though, due to weight. The required load-bearing strength of the taxiway or runway itself is less as with other airplanes if I recall correctly.

Quoting HB88 (Reply 8):
Gate dimensions have never been much of an issue AFAIK.

The real problem is gate capacity. Boarding bridges, waiting areas etc ...


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5671 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8759 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
Has anyone actually widened the runway to accommodate the A380? I was under the impression that the 45m was not the issue, but the turning radius and the taxiway separation.

YES. Both MEL & AKL, to name two have done so. SYD on the other hand has not, AFAIK, but has eased some taxiways and is constructing a number of double decker gates.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
The A380 was designed with only 2 reverse thrusters to comply with the 45m runway from the start. Is it actually an accomplishment that should be applauded when a plane does what it was designed to do?

The point is it IS a milestone in the project, a very important one, just as important as the rejected takeoff tests. Because if AB didn't get this certification the A380 would not be CERTIFIED to use any runway a B744 can, which it now is. I would call that a milestone in the project!

Taxiways & terminals AFAIK are NOT certified. So the A380 is NOW certified to use any airport that the B744 is certified to use. Taxiways & terminal are NOT within that statement. One would of course expect common sense to apply and an airline wishing to use an A380 to a specific airport will work out a feasable, but not certified, solution with that airport. Something similar happen when PA flew its first B741s into SYD, only certain turnoffs, taxiways and terminal gates could be used until upgrades were done.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineNavymmw From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8214 times:

hmmm, I got to admit, im starting to like the A380 more and more. Look I'am a Boeing fan but I have to say congrats to Airbus, the A380 will be a nice plane.

User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7957 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 5):
That's why God painted centerlines (to quote one of my flight instructors); if they follow them 45M should protect the engines.

The span from engine 1 to engine 4 is about 50 meters. They will overhang no matter what.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stewart Andrew



User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6829 times:

How many of the 70 odd A380 airports have 60m runways? Even DUB is building a 60m wide runway in a few years.

User currently offlineQ330 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1460 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6258 times:

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 13):
SYD on the other hand has not

They actually have... to some extent. They added to the paved area along the edges, though the usable runway surface was unchanged. I think that in the case of the A380 this is the main issue anyway, since it's the outboard engines that are a concern, not the aircraft's ability to actually fit on the runway.

-Q



Long live the A330!
User currently offlineSKA380 From Norway, joined Jun 2005, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5423 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 20):
NOTE: I have registerd in the Airbus Press Room, see following estract. I therefore would expect an answer of my very short anf precise question !!

What is the short and precise question??

Leif


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4930 times:

Quoting BoogyJay (Reply 6):
And it suddenly opens a whole lot of A380-capable airports, because the taxiway separations and terminal facilities are only recommendations, whereas the runway width was regulatory. Am I right ?

That seems to be the case BJ. It does begin to appear as if the monster will appear to become more and more "normal" over and above it becoming more common.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
Is that what the A380 program has come to, that it is remarkable that it does the things it is supposed to do?

Not like your usual sunny self Ikra? I see what you mean, but it is a tough standard against which to judge all programs. By this standard a program is only worthy of praise if the produce does something (good, presumably) that they were not designed to do. Were you really arguing that?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4745 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 16):
How many of the 70 odd A380 airports have 60m runways? Even DUB is building a 60m wide runway in a few years.

DFW has both 60m (200') and 45m (150') wide runways. But, the issue with the A-380 operating on a 45m wide runway is the runway must have 10.5m (35') wide shoulders on each side. The 60m wide runways can have the standard 7.5m (25') wide shoulders on each side.

The standard 23m (75') wide taxiways are still an issue here, even with their 10.5m wide shoulders. We still also have to add fillets to each intersection of 75' and 75' or 75' and 100' (33m) wide taxiways.

Here at DFW, any A-380 operation will be restricted to stay on and use 60m wide runways and 33m wide taxiways (after we install the fillets at the 33m to 33m wide taxiway intersections).


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4544 times:

Quoting BoogyJay (Reply 9):
P.S : I'd be more than happy to bring you out for some drinks and enjoy life should you come to Paris...

Hell, I'll take you up on the offer  goodvibes  . I've never been to Paris. My girlfriend has and fell in love with it. Now if AF can bring one of their 380's (when they receive them) to BNA, i'll be obliged to take you up on the offer!  biggrin 

As for the 380 news, congrats to the program. One question tho, if they didn't put thrust reversers on the outboard engines because of the debris blown, aren't operators and airports alike worried about sucking up debris on takeoff. How far of the runway are the outboard engines???



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineBoogyJay From France, joined May 2005, 490 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4076 times:

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 21):
I'll take you up on the offer

No prob !  Smile

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 21):
My girlfriend has and fell in love with it.

Ooops ! Seeing where you're from, I think I might have dated your girlfriend sorry, Big grin and indeed she liked Paris, as much as myself ...

(Don't worry, just kidding...  Wink )

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 21):
aren't operators and airports alike worried about sucking up debris on takeoff.

I'd guess the outboard engines are high enough not to suck rabbits or standing objects on take off. The problem with the thrust reversers is that you blow debris in the air (as opposed to standing) in front of the engine intake.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mario serranò



User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21642 posts, RR: 55
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4057 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 10):
Doesn't the A380 require double level ramps?

No. It doesn't even require a jetway - you can board it with one set of airstairs, just like any other plane. Double-level ramps do, however, expedite and simplify the process, so a lot of airports are fitting them. But they don't have to.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3966 times:

Quoting BoogyJay (Reply 22):
Ooops ! Seeing where you're from, I think I might have dated your girlfriend sorry, Big grin and indeed she liked Paris, as much as myself ...

(Don't worry, just kidding... Wink )

Haha  Big grin Well now it's my turn to go to Paris. I really want to get over there.

Quoting BoogyJay (Reply 22):
I'd guess the outboard engines are high enough not to suck rabbits or standing objects on take off. The problem with the thrust reversers is that you blow debris in the air (as opposed to standing) in front of the engine intake.

Makes sense. Actually as soon as I posted that, I realized that it wouldn't be a big problem on takeoffs like it would with reversers. On a side note, how do I post pictures each of my posts like you have and many others on here do??



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
25 CygnusChicago : The lack of thrust reversers is not due to the dust. Airbus actually designed the A380 to be operated without any thrust reversers (I guess because t
26 SailorOrion : About the upper level airbridges. Some people apparently haven't read the Airbus manuals thoroughly. The problem is not having two passenger bridges t
27 Helvknight : And of course this would have nothing to do with the bridges. The catering trucks would need to have the reach to get to the upper deck, however. Any
28 SK736 : Yes it is, and your comment sounds like sour grapes. I look forward to hearing lots of praise for the 787 when it is also proven to do the things it
29 Baroque : Can the internal lifts shift material from level 2 to the top floor?
30 SailorOrion : Yes, they can move the trolleys, but afaik only one at a time. If you have to move 50 trolleys down and 50 trolleys up, it's going to take a while ...
31 Ncelhr : The A380 can operate from 45m runways, but most airports with regular A380 traffic will want to widen their runway to close to 60m. One-off operation
32 Baroque : Thanks SO, possible but more time. Obviously better to use the appropriate air-bridges and trucks, but if needs must, the devil could drive!
33 Viscount724 : I can't recall any plans by LHR to widen its runways from the current 45m (09R/27L) and 50m (09L/27R).
34 Glareskin : What a good illustration! Now I also understand why separation was such a big deal. Not because of wake turbulence but because of wake debris.......
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...
Sterling - You Now Have To Pay For Your Luggage posted Sat Jul 28 2007 13:39:28 by Mortyman
Alitalia Cargo Now Flying To Miami posted Wed May 16 2007 17:53:20 by MAH4546
Why Is A380 Now A 525 Seater? posted Tue May 15 2007 05:46:41 by Ruscoe
A380 Now A 525 Seat Aircraft? posted Fri Apr 27 2007 10:17:58 by XT6Wagon
Is It Likely The A380 Will Fly To SEA posted Thu Apr 5 2007 03:45:12 by Flybynight
Win A Trip On A380 With LH To Hong-Kong 50 People posted Tue Mar 6 2007 14:24:32 by LHStarAlliance
LH A380 Test Flights To USA & Asia posted Tue Feb 13 2007 14:35:19 by Stevesdream69
Official: TG Increasing US Now Daily To JFK! posted Mon Feb 5 2007 19:52:15 by AirlineFanatic
Another Blow To Airbus A380, AA Unlikely To Buy posted Thu Jan 18 2007 14:58:34 by Keesje
A380-900 Worth To Develop? posted Sat Dec 9 2006 21:00:10 by LHStarAlliance