flyinghippo
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:31 pm

Official Title is this: Change in Rules Needed for Wake Of Big New Jet

(Doesn't fit into the topic line...)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1132...0803825.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo

This reaffirms the letter by ICAO posted on A.Net earlier.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:34 pm

Can you cut and paste the salient points? I don't have a subscription. Thanks.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:43 pm

Interesting is that it noted the study is very "conservative", and hopefully it will be modified next year so it won't have that much of a negative affect on traffic.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:43 pm

Thanks. Here's another article I found. Seems the press is getting into this. I wonder who's feeding the media trolls?  Wink

Airbus A380 could worsen traffic headache in airports: Report
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Halibut
Posts: 943
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 8:43 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:02 pm

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 2):
But if the final air-traffic procedures end up close to ICAO's initial proposal, they could undermine one of Airbus' top selling points for the largest passenger plane ever built: greater efficiency at congested hub airports.

How significant is that ?

Halibut
6 million Jews were slaughtered-Do you see Jews flying planes into buildings in Germany to kill 1000s of innocent, NO !
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:03 pm

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 3):
Interesting is that it noted the study is very "conservative", and hopefully it will be modified next year so it won't have that much of a negative affect on traffic.

Airbus needs to do what it can to speed things along towards a relaxation of the initial guideline. If they can squeeze an extra aircraft out and reschedule a single delivery in order to dedicate an aircraft for wake turbulence testing and research, I think they ought to do it. They should have something to show ICAO and others before entry-into-service next year.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:23 pm

Quoting N79969 (Reply 6):
Airbus needs to do what it can to speed things along towards a relaxation of the initial guideline.

Amen to that. I've only seen these two articles so far, but if this story gets "legs" in the media, especially if its a slow newsday, then it becomes a public relations nightmare and Airbus will be in the position of defending the aircraft in public. At this point, someone in Congress will completely over react and demand an investigation into the "cover up".  Yeah sure
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:20 am

The article brings up some good/interesting points.

Can Airbus significantly lessen the wake of the A380 at this point, to match the 747?

Missed approaches are going to be a sore spot, particularly during busy periods/waves.

I can't believe this isn't getting much attention.

I would think to lessen the "footprint" of an a/c of this size, you'd be looking at several noticable physical changes. Thoughts?
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:29 am

The capability of this becoming entirely political versus a sfety issue is high. The EU has already attacked the FAA for suggesting (how dare they) before the ICAO report was out that it might be prudent to change the spacing even with Airbus's very public promises that the wake would not be worse then the 747. Now that the ICAO report seems to confirm the FAA's initial concerns, I expect the EU to once again attack.

On the other hand, it will become known real quick as a death jet if a plane happens to crash in it's wake which is not extended because of political pressure. That will kill the entire program rather efficently.
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:32 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 4):
Seems the press is getting into this. I wonder who's feeding the media trolls?

Most likely the officials from a certain aerospace company headquartered in Chicago, which shall remain nameles...  Smile  Smile
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PLEASE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, K.O.D.
 
n1786b
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:10 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:41 am

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 9):
Now that the ICAO report seems to confirm the FAA's initial concerns, I expect the EU to once again attack.

The French press has reported it as "American Press Attacks the A380 Again"

http://fr.biz.yahoo.com/22112005/202...esse-americaine-contre-l-a380.html

To their credit, they talk mostly about the ICAO recommendations but the headline is very misleading.

The French and in general the EU press got this information the same time the NYT did (even I got it last week and published the full text here on a.net) - so MY question is why didn't the EU press publish this story - instead they elected to wait for the NYT to run the story then attack the report as part of some half-baked American anti-A380 conspiracy theory (in the title at least)

- n1786b
 
airfrnt
Posts: 2002
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:05 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:42 am

Quoting DIA (Reply 8):
The article brings up some good/interesting points.

Can Airbus significantly lessen the wake of the A380 at this point, to match the 747?

Missed approaches are going to be a sore spot, particularly during busy periods/waves.

I can't believe this isn't getting much attention.

I would think to lessen the "footprint" of an a/c of this size, you'd be looking at several noticable physical changes. Thoughts?

I don't think it's realistic at this point to change the "footprint" of the airplane. It might be possible that all of the pretty tricks Airbus was going to use to minimize the A380s vake vortexes might be coaxed into working, but all of this is surely not good news for a plane that already has two black eyes for being badly over budget and late.
 
TPEcanuck
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:24 pm

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:29 am

Quoting N79969 (Reply 6):
Airbus needs to do what it can to speed things along towards a relaxation of the initial guideline.

N79969, I think this is implied by your comments, but I think what Airbus and the regulators really need to do is make a considered study of the SAFETY and risk of the eventual guidelines. A thorough study may provide direction for the guidelines, whether they need be relaxed, maintained, or even strengthened.

Given that they are conservative now, obviously further study ought to suggest a relaxation. But given the financial pressure for the project to have them relaxed, safety and caution ought to be kept at the forefront of this decision-making process.

Quoting FlyingHippo (Thread starter):
we are still in the Stone Age for modeling" wake turbulence, said Robert Lafontan, the A380's chief engineer

This comment indicates the degree of uncertainty in modeling wake turbulence, thus we must also assume uncertainty in the tests and analysis performed to date. (And this is in NO way a slam on the engineers!) It's simply prudent to be aware of this uncertainty and make cautious choices and adjust standards as the data become more extensive, and by extension, more reliable.
 
soylentgreen
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:33 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:36 am

Quoting N1786b (Reply 11):
The French press has reported it as "American Press Attacks the A380 Again"

How pathetic is this?
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:43 am

Quoting TPEcanuck (Reply 13):
N79969, I think this is implied by your comments, but I think what Airbus and the regulators really need to do is make a considered study of the SAFETY and risk of the eventual guidelines. A thorough study may provide direction for the guidelines, whether they need be relaxed, maintained, or even strengthened.

It is implied. I do not think it would be wise to raise risk tolerances to accomodate the A380...current levels of safety must be maintained or hopefully improved if possible. However, I do make the assumption that the standard can be relaxed as it was in the case of the B747.
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:50 am

"current levels of safety must be maintained or hopefully improved if possible. However, I do make the assumption that the standard can be relaxed as it was in the case of the B747."

So what do you want, relaxed a bit, or maintained? Wink
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
YULMRS
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:10 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:52 am

Quoting N1786b (Reply 11):
The French press has reported it as "American Press Attacks the A380 Again"

The french press ? It's yahoo.fr, the French version of an american website ...

 Wink

[Edited 2005-11-22 18:53:09]
To any North American carrier, send us a regular flight in MRS !!!!!
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:52 am

Quoting N1786b (Reply 11):
The French press has reported it as "American Press Attacks the A380 Again"

http://fr.biz.yahoo.com/22112005/202...esse-americaine-contre-l-a380.html

To their credit, they talk mostly about the ICAO recommendations but the headline is very misleading.

I am surprised because it was put out by Agency France Presse which is a generally respected wire service. I think the headline they chose reflects a widely felt insecurity.

I think it is indeed a better question to ask why the European press did not report this fairly important piece of news about Europe's industrial crown jewel whereas they report most of everything else about the A380. (Or do they not?)

Anyway an international organization based in Francophone-Canada issued the guidance about A380 separations and not the Wall Street Journal. Maybe the writer should complain about the Canadian attempts to smear their airplane.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:52 am

Again:

Quoting FlyingHippo (Reply 2):
Airliners may have to fly twice the normal distance behind the new Airbus A380 superjumbo jet to avoid potential hazards from its unusually powerful wake, according to preliminary safety guidelines.

The standards released to the industry by the International Civil Aviation Organization earlier this month are tentative and almost certainly more cautious than the formal rules expected next year
.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:54 am

Quoting YULMRS (Reply 17):
The french press ? It's yahoo.fr, the French version of an american website ...

Check it again...the source of the story is AFP. Yahoo just picked it up.
 
boeingbus
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 12:37 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:57 am

Quoting Soylentgreen (Reply 14):
How pathetic is this?

It's amazing how they feel this way... The US will have more airports to support the A380 than any other country on this planet. JFK, MIA, LAX, SFO, Memphis... did I miss any others? Spending millions on the infrastructure and all... so why would the FAA want this bird to fail??? A380 is 40% American... creates tons of jobs... Everyone has a vested interest that she flies...

So, YES very pathetic journalism...
Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:18 am

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 21):
The US will have more airports to support the A380 than any other country on this planet. JFK, MIA, LAX, SFO, Memphis... did I miss any others?

ANC.
ORD

[Edited 2005-11-22 19:43:36]
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:20 am

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 9):
The capability of this becoming entirely political versus a sfety issue is high.

I hope not - wake turbulence is a serious thing!
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:23 am

I'd like to see them 're-film' the movie "Pushing Tin" using an A380 for those scenes! Try to do that runway stunt now, tough guy... Wink

...not that it was real in the first place....just a fun thought...
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8005
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:27 am

If I remember correctly, the FAA and ICAO implemented almost as conservative wake turbulence separation criteria when the 747 first went into service. It only only after 747's flew in service for a while that the FAA and ICAO reduced this separation criteria because the wake was not as bad as people thought.

That's why I think if Airbus were smart they should fly a modified Dassault Mirage III jet fighter just behind the A380-800 prototype so the Mirage pilot can "feel" the wake turbulence (and he could "punch out" with ejection seats in case the wake turbulence causes the following Mirage III to go out of control). Once we determine the real wake turbulence the FAA and ICAO can issue finalized guidelines for separation from other planes.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:30 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):
I hope not - wake turbulence is a serious thing!

Especially in a country with a huge RJ proportion (USA). How would you like to be next in line on a Comair CRJ @ JFK behind one of these things? I get a little on-edge taking off behind any widebody (A OR B) when I'm sitting in an RJ... this thing won't make me feel any better, that's for sure.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:40 am

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 26):
Especially in a country with a huge RJ proportion (USA). How would you like to be next in line on a Comair CRJ @ JFK behind one of these things?

I am no controller but my guess is that they won't even chance it by consecutively sequencing RJs and the A380s onto the same runway.
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:24 am

lol.. There's a guy who started a thread a couple of days ago disputing the issue with A380 wake turbulence. I bet he has already read this thread and reserved his comments  wink 
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
PlaneDane
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:08 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:12 am

Quoting N79969 (Reply 15):
Quoting TPEcanuck (Reply 13):
N79969, I think this is implied by your comments, but I think what Airbus and the regulators really need to do is make a considered study of the SAFETY and risk of the eventual guidelines. A thorough study may provide direction for the guidelines, whether they need be relaxed, maintained, or even strengthened.

It is implied. I do not think it would be wise to raise risk tolerances to accomodate the A380...current levels of safety must be maintained or hopefully improved if possible. However, I do make the assumption that the standard can be relaxed as it was in the case of the B747.

N79969 and TPEcanuck,
As I think I understand it, the standard was never really relaxed for the B747.

Rather, a far more accurate measurement system was later employed that yields consistent and predictive test results. I also thought that it is this same improved testing regimen that has produced the results that ICAO recommendations are based on.

So, in my opinion at least, the separation numbers for the A380 are unlikely to to be lessened without actual improvements being made to the aircraft itself.

Let me know, if I got this all wrong.

[Edited 2005-11-22 22:13:46]
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:18 am

PlaneDane,

I think we may saying the same thing in two different ways. I did not mean to imply the margin of safety was reduced. Rather the allowable separation was reduced because the tighter spacing was subsequently determined to be safe. I think the B747 also started out with a 10 nm separation.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:19 am

Quoting N79969 (Reply 26):
I am no controller but my guess is that they won't even chance it by consecutively sequencing RJs and the A380s onto the same runway.

How many airports that will have A380 service will even have an RJ following an A380?

I can see the wake issue affecting landing fees as a 1.5 - 2.0 x separation would decrease the number of movements an airport can handle an hour. On the other hand, the gross weight of the aircraft already means that it's paying a larger landing fee so the net economic effect may net to zero or close to it.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:19 am

Airbus has officially responded to the report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051122...p/franceairlinesector_051122191340

Humbert seems to suggest that increased separation may be necessary when the 380 first enters service; although, that separation could be decreased eventually.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
n1786b
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:10 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:21 am

Quoting YULMRS (Reply 16):
Quoting N1786b (Reply 11):
The French press has reported it as "American Press Attacks the A380 Again"

The french press ? It's yahoo.fr, the French version of an american website ...

Bon d'accord gugusse.

The article picked up here by Yahoo FR is the Agence France Press (AFP) version - not some American site reproducing some
'American' wire report such as Reuters (UK if I remeber correctly)  Wink

Here is the entire text in French:

++++++++++++++++++++++++


Nouvelles accusations de la presse américaine contre l'A380


PARIS (AFP) - L'avion géant d'Airbus (Paris: NL0000235190 - actualité) , l'A380, pourrait alimenter la congestion des aéroports internationaux en raison des turbulences qu'il provoque selon des observations de l'Organisation de l'aviation civile internationale (OACI) rapportées mardi par le Wall Street Journal Europe.

Selon le quotidien, qui s'appuie sur un rapport intermédiaire de l'OACI basée à Montréal (Canada), le superjumbo cause "des turbulences (de sillage) beaucoup plus importantes" que les autres gros avions en service actuellement, ce qui "suscite des inquiétudes" concernant la sécurité.

L'organisation, chargée de définir les normes de sécurité du transport aérien civil au niveau mondial, recommande en conséquence de doubler la distance de sécurité à observer pour un avion atterrissant derrière l'A380, et, une fois en vol, de la tripler pour tout appareil évoluant à la même altitude que l'avion géant, selon le WSJE.

Le quotidien précise toutefois que ce rapport intermédiaire est "très strict" et "certainement beaucoup plus prudent" que les normes de sécurité définitives, attendues à la mi-2006.

Ces informations "pourraient toutefois mettre à mal l'un des principaux arguments commerciaux du plus gros avion civil jamais construit, à savoir sa plus grande efficacité supposée face à la congestion des aéroports", conclut le quotidien.

Et de citer un porte-parole de la compagnie allemande Lufthansa (Xetra: 823212 - actualité) : "Il est vital pour nous que les normes soient les mêmes que pour un (gros porteur) Boeign 747."

Un porte-parole d'Airbus, interrogé par le journal, n'a pas voulu commenter.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11825
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:34 am

Quoting N79969 (Reply 15):

It is implied. I do not think it would be wise to raise risk tolerances to accomodate the A380...current levels of safety must be maintained or hopefully improved if possible. However, I do make the assumption that the standard can be relaxed as it was in the case of the B747.

Folks, after the business jet was flipped at SNA due to less conservative rules on the 757, you had better believe that the FAA is going to be conservative with any new jet that is breaking new ground.

That said, I'm still waiting to see turbulence numbers. From what I can tell, the FAA has just set rules that are conservative as the A380 cruises around the world on its introductory tour.

I started a topic in Tech forums discussing a bit of how to model turbulence. Since there are a few thousand CFD experts who *could* do it, I somehow doubt airbus really blew it that much. But if airbus was lazy and used a K-E or RANS turbulence model in their CFD, they would have predicted smaller wake vortices than actual...

Why isn't Airbus countering this with good PR and numbers? This has got to have potential buyers a little concerned...

I expect once the A380's characteristics that the spacing will go back to 1,000 feet and that the holding distances can be made tighter. The same as the 747? I don't know (Haven't seen the data); but there is no aerodynamic reason a 35 year newer wing couldn't do it.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
wingman
Posts: 2793
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:03 am

Does that mean that AFP thinks Montreal is a US city and that the ICAO and US government agency? That french news piece is remarkably unfactual, it's really not even journalism. I thought AFP was a legitimate news organization but I suppose not.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9046
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:33 am

If the ICAO is conservative think how the ATCs will be. I believe that Airbus will have to clearly prove that the separation can safely be reduced before things are going to change.

It might work out that a larger plane (like a 777 or 747) can safely have a reduced separation, while the smaller ones need to maintain the proposed separation. A bit of schedule shifting might then take care of the problem.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:37 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 35):
A bit of schedule shifting might then take care of the problem.

That's fine and dandy if the planes all arrive on schedule. But when that A380 catches some unfavorable winds on its 12 hour trek and ends up 90 minutes late... it's probably going to be in the middle of all the smaller stuff that was scheduled around that time window 90 minutes ago when the A380 was supposed to show. Can you really depend on airline schedules that much, especially on flights that long?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13827
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:39 am

Quote:
"It's possible that they (regulators) say 'let's have entry to service of the A380 with longer separation times' as a precautionary measure and then reduce them," the European aircraft maker's chief executive told journalists on the sidelines of the Dubai air show.

And it's also possible the seperation times are never reduced, or that they are increased...

Quote:
The report quoted a spokesman for the German airline Lufthansa as saying that the airline operated at congested airports and that "it is crucial for us that the separation is the same as for a (Boeing) 747".

Crucial? Wow! Talk about putting pressure on Airbus.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:41 am

Relevant quote:

Quote:
Gumbert said that longer separation distances had also been introduced when the 747 jumbo was launched by Boeing in 1970.

"Even if at the beginning they do it like for the 747, we should not be surprised," he said.

The report in the WSJE said that the standards put out by the aviation organzation this month were provisional and probably more cautious than formal rules expected next year.

Provisional, which should be revised with better data. There is nothing wrong with being cautious as caution prevents accidents and deaths, as can be pointed to with corners cut on certain aircraft projects in the past.

There may also be some changes in data with regard to the wing modification done as a result of flight testing. The buffeting of the tail section obviously will impact on wake turbulence, so that issue will help smooth out airflow once it's tackled.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
abba
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:49 am

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 3):
Thanks. Here's another article I found.

"another"? It is just quoting the first!

Abba
 
BG777300ER
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:22 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:01 am

Quoting DIA (Reply 23):
I'd like to see them 're-film' the movie "Pushing Tin" using an A380 for those scenes! Try to do that runway stunt now, tough guy...

Wasn't he flying up because of the engine thrust, not the wake turbulence?
Koi mi sra v gashtite?
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2453
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:04 am

In the end, what is the real impact of this? Will airlines operating the A380 have to pay higher landing fees? Will they have to agree to specific arrival time frames rather than schedule at their convenience? I don't know, I'm just asking. I don't think that this will cause airports that have upgraded to handle the whalejet to change their minds and I don't think airlines will cancel orders for it either. So that's what I mean by what is the real impact when all is said and done?
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:08 am

Quoting Wingman (Reply 34):
Does that mean that AFP thinks Montreal is a US city and that the ICAO and US government agency?

"American press" obviously refers to the Wall Street Journal. AFP never claimed that the ICAO is a part of the American "press." If you read the article, they clearly state that ICAO is located in Montreal, Canada.

But incidentally, Canada is actually a part of America!

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 36):
But when that A380 catches some unfavorable winds on its 12 hour trek and ends up 90 minutes late... it's probably going to be in the middle of all the smaller stuff that was scheduled around that time window 90 minutes ago when the A380 was supposed to show.

It's not a big problem. Just schedule the A380 to land at the runway where take-offs are going on at the moment. A 737 can take off from a runway even if an A380 landed only a few seconds before.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37):
And it's also possible the seperation times are never reduced, or that they are increased...

What you are actually saying here is that the ICAO has given a reckless preliminary advice on the vortex situation during the test phase. I'm 100 percent sure that the ICAO has taken the position of "better safe than sorry." They don't want to issue recless advices for a test aircraft and possibly cause a crash during the test phase.
Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
 
irelayer
Posts: 929
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:12 am

Quoting Soylentgreen (Reply 13):
Quoting N1786b (Reply 11):
The French press has reported it as "American Press Attacks the A380 Again"

How pathetic is this?

May I remind you of "Freedom Fries". It goes both ways. It is just vitriol being thrown about recklessly.

IMO, I think the whole thing with Wake Turbulence is going to work itself out in time. On one hand it isn't going to be as severe as a lot of people make it out to be. and on the other hand I don't think it is an issue that should be taken lightly by the FAA or any other agency. It looks like Airbus has some work to do and on the whole the A380 is far from refined and it is for sure a product with a lot of shortcomings as it stands, but the whole spirit of "mine is bigger than yours" on this board makes me sick. Are some people jealous that Airbus has and will probably have for a long time the title of "largest passenger plane"? YES. Do people have legitimate long-term concerns about the program and its safety, specifications, and performance? YES. Let us try to seperate the people who have legitimate gripes and those who are just spewing garbage.

-IR
 
Byrdluvs747
Posts: 2375
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:25 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:14 am

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 33):
Why isn't Airbus countering this with good PR and numbers?

According to Airbus' CEO, it's because the "numbers" are saying there's an issue. You can't spin safety.
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
 
schipholjfk
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 4:11 pm

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:37 am

Quoting YULMRS (Reply 16):
The french press ? It's yahoo.fr, the French version of an american website ...

It's not the american web site... each country site is edited and content filled with numerous local sources. Get your facts straight.
The fun of flying... love it !!!
 
ual747den
Posts: 1472
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:29 pm

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:16 pm

Quoting N1786b (Reply 10):
The French press has reported it as "American Press Attacks the A380 Again"

Obviously just another worthless organization that has no idea what they are doing. They have it all wrong as the American Press is just reporting the news and they are the ones attacking the American press....
It is funny that they fail to realize (or just don't have the education) that the information that the ICAO used to issue the separation guidelines come from AIRBUS!
/// UNITED AIRLINES
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:28 pm

The Airbus dude who said that they were still in the stone age with turbulence predictions is 100% right....and that is the way it will always be. Even the world's fastest supercomputers cannot predict this stuff to any real degree of accuracy.

Turbulence is chaos....chaos cannot be accurately predicted....because if it could it would no longer be chaotic, by definition.

I think the wing, wingbox, and undercarriage will need to be modified to even see a minor reduction in wake turbulence (my opinion), so I bet the engineers will opt to leave it as it is and accept whatever spacing is allocated to it. A lesson learned toward future designs like this one is....will benefit Airbus in the long run.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:20 pm

Predictions for future A380 mods?

1) outer gear assembly will be moved further outboard and the center bogies will no longer tilt forward (767 style)...probably will be locked level like the MD-11 (presents a smaller cross section to the wind)

2) a leading edge/slat design that will allow for smoother airflow over the topside

3) the cockpit will be moved to the top deck, and a longer....less blunt nose will be implemented (747 style)
 
AirbusDriver
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2001 8:01 am

RE: WSJ: Changes In Rules Needed For [A380]

Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:57 pm

The B757 also has to follow wake separation as if it was a bigger because of it's very efficient wings (lift=wake) not just size. The B757 make a lot bigger wake than a B737-900 but that never stop the stop Boeing from selling 1050 B757.
The Ignorance on this site never stop to amaze me...

Next topic is going to be What if the A350 can not get airborne on it's first take off???

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alski, ba319-131, Baidu [Spider], cougar15, deltal1011man, Fedupjohn, hayzel777, jupiter2, KarelXWB, keesje, Rdeggendorfer, sassiciai, SelandiaBaru, starbucks, Steelhead, theobcman, Thule, VSMUT, Yahoo [Bot] and 196 guests