Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:14 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 49):
SFO is already ready for the WhaleJet.

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 and SFO are irrelevant to actually being A380-compiant?

Thanks,

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:25 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 51):
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 and SFO are irrelevant to actually being A380-compiant?

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 the same time. The more likely issue is can a WhaleJet and a JumboJet pass each other on the taxiways.
 
727forever
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:50 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:27 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 47):
The testing has shown that the 380 does not have a "much larger in terms of wake signature than the B744". It has a lower vortex core velocity than the 744 which would lead to smaller induced rolling moments if encountered by a trailing aircraft. It does have a slight larger vortex diameter, with a smaller core velocity, and it has been found that the mixing of the cores from either side occur quicker on the 380 than 744, when they mix the two cores destroy each other.

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 mentioned above. If it was NASA that is a credible source. Where was this data published? Do you have a link?

727forever
727forever
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:36 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 48):
I guess I'm trying to draw the line between this thread on A380's and Bangkok having multiple reasons for building a new airport? Is your point that the US is somehow rolling in money and we should just be building airports so we have a great "first impression"?

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 make them ICAO compliant, people automatically assume every airport upgrade about is for the 380.

If all airports in the USA met the ICAO requirements for the 744/773ER little would need to be done for the 380.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 49):
There are about 5000 airports in the States. There are 210 airports in the world with everything in place for regular passenger DumboJet ops. Clearly, over 4000 airports in the States do not meet current requirements for DumboJets. So what?

I should have said, a lot of airports in the USA that handle 747 operations now do not meet current requirements in ICAO Annex 14 Volume 1, they operate on concession.

A lot of the infrastructure is very old, and were not designed with the 747/777/346/380 in mind, they were designed for 707, 737, 727 aircraft.

The real problem is that development has taken place right up to the perimeter of many airports giving them no room to expand years ago when they needed to.

This has been a nice little diversion, however its getting well off topic.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
skyharborshome
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:19 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:42 pm

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 2):
Sky Cow

HAHAHAHAHA. I LOVE that nickname. WAAAYYYYY too funny.
Fly CHD!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:59 pm

Quoting 727forever (Reply 53):
I still must ask who did the research on the A380?

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 for testing by external agencies.

You can have a google for wakenet, it will reveal some of the research that was done.

The organisational structure for the wakenet research body published years ago was this



DASA/NLR/DLR/DERA could be seen as european equivalents to NASA. NASA was involved providing data obtained from its research in the USA, and 747 data for baseline comparison.

NASA technical reports in the main can be found online.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
BoomBoom
Topic Author
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:00 pm

From the WSJ:

Quote:
Meanwhile, in another setback for Airbus's A380 superjumbo jet, an ad hoc committee including members of European and U.S. aviation regulators determined the A380's powerful wake requires permanent changes in air-traffic-control rules. The requirements could increase congestion at some large airports, reducing the attractiveness of operating the A380.

The decision regarding the A380's wake by the international aviation group could reduce the number of slots available for A380 arrivals and departures. The group called for maintaining significantly longer-than-normal distances between a landing superjumbo and airliners flying directly behind it, though it didn't require any changes in vertical or horizontal spacing for A380s during takeoffs or at higher altitudes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1159...777355.html?mod=home_whats_news_us

Sorry for the misleading title. I guess I should have written
"Mo' Wake Constraints For The A380"  Wink
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:18 pm

From the Western Mail (UK): ...granted, not WSJ caliber

Quote:

THE troubled Airbus A380 superjumbo plane programme received a timely boost yesterday when a study suggested air turbulence problems for the 555-seater aircraft may be resolved.

There were fears that the wake vortex - the degree of air turbulence created by the A380 - would mean other aircraft would have to keep a great distance between themselves and the giant plane. But a study from steering group yesterday said that there were no wake constraints for the A380 following any other aircraft, including another A380.

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0300b...pe-of-plane-sailing-name_page.html

BoomBoom, your thread title is safe.

[edit] oh, and why does everyone refer to the A380 as the Superjumbo? I'm getting confused!

[Edited 2006-09-29 08:21:41]
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:24 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 52):
The more likely issue is can a WhaleJet and a JumboJet pass each other on the taxiways.

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 SFO is going to have a major problem dealing with the 380.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 54):
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 make them ICAO compliant, people automatically assume every airport upgrade about is for the 380.

If all airports in the USA met the ICAO requirements for the 744/773ER little would need to be done for the 380.

Again, that stuff doesn't happen for free. I'm certainly not advocating that no improvements are made anywhere. What I'm saying is, why spend tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions, depending on what airports you feel should be made A380 compliant) when the airports are able to service existing operations today? I'm not saying they are perfect, but I am saying that the sums of money that I think you are suggesting would be difficult to allocate in today's environment.

In regards to the wake constraints topic, it seems that there are two camps: One that believes that requiring an increase in the spacing of other aircraft behind a landing A380 will require reduced arrivals, and another that says that it can all be managed, and may actually improve some airport operations.

So far, I haven't seen a clear winning point of view, one way or the other.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:28 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 58):
[edit] oh, and why does everyone refer to the A380 as the Superjumbo? I'm getting confused!

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 ethical business practice.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:36 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 60):
Not a good example of an ethical business practice.

Just messin' with you Zvezda, I figured I'd get a rise out of you.  biggrin 

'Ethical business practice', huh? That's like raising it to a whole new level!  Wink
 
astuteman
Posts: 7239
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:48 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 60):
For 40 years, Jumbo has meant the B747. Airbus has been trying to piggyback off that by calling their WhaleJet: Superjumbo

Except it's not Airbus giving the A380 the appelation the "superjumbo", but (just about) everyone else, particularly the media. Can't really blame Airbus for that.

Anyway, what else would you call it?  Wink

Regards
 
leelaw
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:54 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 62):
Anyway, what else would you call it?

How about WhaleBus so it's not confused with the 744 LCF? Big grin
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:58 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 59):
In regards to the wake constraints topic, it seems that there are two camps: One that believes that requiring an increase in the spacing of other aircraft behind a landing A380 will require reduced arrivals, and another that says that it can all be managed, and may actually improve some airport operations.

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 as it is not sensational and anti A380. I dont see any additional delays being incurred on the LHR-SIN-SYD route. SYD is just not that busy.

With the separation standards at LHR being greater than ICAO now, they still manage to have the best part of 100 wake encounters a year.

Generally traffic is managed well by ATC where arrivals and departures are arranged for the best use of time. It is not uncommon to see a CRJ/737/320 land/takeoff between two 747 movements, same can by done with a A380.

I think in time the standards will reduce well below what is currently being advocated when conditions are favourable. Real time wake monitoring will be introduced in the future where controllers will actively separate aircraft based on measured wakes rather than the current standards which do not take into account local conditions.

The science is interesting, and research will continue.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:06 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
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 as it is not sensational and anti A380

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 exceeding the standards, will they exceed the recommended standards of the A380 as well, or allow it to just "meet" the standards?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 64):
I think in time the standards will reduce well below what is currently being advocated when conditions are favourable. Real time wake monitoring will be introduced in the future where controllers will actively separate aircraft based on measured wakes rather than the current standards which do not take into account local conditions.

The science is interesting, and research will continue.

That would go a long ways towards solving some of these issues. But as you say, "in time", " will be introduced in the future", and "research will continue" don't do much for next year or the year after. We are still dealing with the challenges of today and tomorrow.

You answered my question (I think) as it relates to two airports. Thank you. But what about the rest? Will it be a non-issue, a big issue, or an "it depends" issue?

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15690
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:10 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 65):
So if LHR is exceeding the standards, will they exceed the recommended standards of the A380 as well, or allow it to just "meet" the standards?

Good question, dont know.

Last time they implemented the same 10nm for testing as ICAO suggested.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:22 pm

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 62):
Except it's not Airbus giving the A380 the appelation the "superjumbo", but (just about) everyone else, particularly the media. Can't really blame Airbus for that.

Airbus started it and have continued it. One can certainly blame Airbus for that.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:22 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 66):
Last time they implemented the same 10nm for testing as ICAO suggested.

I think that would be reasonable.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:37 pm

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 Zeke and DLPMMM.

Looks as if we need a whole thread on the meaning of the word "similar".

Apart from that I learned that the A380 has one other ability that is a tribute to the guys at Toulouse. It can ruin the weather at San Fran. And there was me thinking that with that fog rolling in off the sea onto the bridge it was already bad enough. Presumably the wake turbulence brings the fog E to roll over the airport, well done mes amis!
 
EDDB
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:46 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:04 pm

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 everyday business! Fit two or three departures behind a landing whalejet and the gap behind it is filled efficiently, not affecting your possible max movements at all!
What do you think is done today when a 747 is approaching FRA or whatever congested airport? ATC is prepared to let out some traffic behind...

Aren't there some ATC guys around here?
 
User avatar
distanthorizon
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:48 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:23 pm

Quoting N908AW (Reply 41):
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 other heavies

The A380 DOES NOT need longer runways than an 747.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 60):
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 ethical business practice.



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 67):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 62):
Except it's not Airbus giving the A380 the appelation the "superjumbo", but (just about) everyone else, particularly the media. Can't really blame Airbus for that.

Airbus started it and have continued it. One can certainly blame Airbus for that.

Airbus did not started it. Press did.
But it does not really matter: the A380 will be (already is) the Superjumbo. Like it or not. I'm sorry to inform you that your nickname "Whalejet" does not mean a thing outside some aviation foruns and aviation circles. And even there is rarely used. That this forum for an example.
But I am sure you will stick with it anyway...
 Yeah sure
Regards
Nelson SE
 
User avatar
distanthorizon
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:48 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:44 pm

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 72):
Well done. Another failed attempt of those tricky PR People at Airbus. Following the Whale is the problem.

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? Yes or no?"

But then, life is not always that simple...  Wink
Regards
Nelson SE
 
EDDB
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:46 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:05 pm

Quoting EDDB (Reply 70):
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 everyday business! Fit two or three departures behind a landing whalejet and the gap behind it is filled efficiently, not affecting your possible max movements at all!
What do you think is done today when a 747 is approaching FRA or whatever congested airport? ATC is prepared to let out some traffic behind...

Aren't there some ATC guys around here?

No one...?  crying 
 
Morvious
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:36 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:18 pm

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 72):
Well done. Another failed attempt of those tricky PR People at Airbus. Following the Whale is the problem.

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 aircraft.

However, the 8nM or 10nM separation for medium and light traffic can't be compromised, so the job for ATC to handle it correctly, you know.. Like their all day job.

PS, this has already been discussed a few months back.. How can this be new news then?
have a good day,

HereThen
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:40 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 59):
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 ethical business practice.

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 you have a problem with this, hope you can sort it out and accept it someday, i personally would call the 747LCF a whalejet  Wink
Flown on: DC-9, MD-80, Fokker 100, Bae 146 Avro, Boeing 737-300, 737-400, 747-200, 747-300,747-400, 787-9, Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330-200,A330-300, A340-313, A380, Bombardier CSeries 100/300, CRJ700ER/CRJ900, Embraer 190.
 
birdbrainz
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:57 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:17 pm

Quoting Glacote (Reply 37):
No it has not. 1) because it can fly closer to preceding aircrafts than other aircrafts can

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 the runway soon enough.

Don't expect to get much slot capacity back by having an A380 ride up the back side of an MD80 or 737.

The whole sepatation thing will have to wait until there's more data. Take off separation wasn't a hot topic until AA587 bit the dust in NY. In all likelyhood, they'll squeeze the 380 in just as tight as the 744, and hope nothing bad happens.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 61):
Anyway, what else would you call it? Wink

I still like SkyCow.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
 
billreid
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:22 pm

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 increase in delays to other aircraft following is also a given. Duh

What is the next stupid article?
Impact on Lav dumps to airport infrastructure?
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2285
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:27 pm

Quoting Morvious (Reply 73):
PS, this has already been discussed a few months back.. How can this be new news then?

If you would actually read the thread:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 22):
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.



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 22):
Please read the article.

The A-380 will have additional restrictions placed on it that are more stringent than the restrictions placed on the B-747.

This is news.

The debate is whether these additional restrictions will or will not have a material impact on A 380 and other aircraft operations at slot restricted airports.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:43 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 59):
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 ethical business practice.

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. There is no ethics issue here at all based on any ethics course I have ever taken or heard about.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
art
Posts: 3821
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:48 am

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 10):
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.

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 or one of them is an A380, where is the problem? Sounds like swings and roundabouts.
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:08 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 63):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 59):
In regards to the wake constraints topic, it seems that there are two camps: One that believes that requiring an increase in the spacing of other aircraft behind a landing A380 will require reduced arrivals, and another that says that it can all be managed, and may actually improve some airport operations.

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 as it is not sensational and anti A380. I dont see any additional delays being incurred on the LHR-SIN-SYD route. SYD is just not that busy.

With the separation standards at LHR being greater than ICAO now, they still manage to have the best part of 100 wake encounters a year.

Generally traffic is managed well by ATC where arrivals and departures are arranged for the best use of time. It is not uncommon to see a CRJ/737/320 land/takeoff between two 747 movements, same can by done with a A380.

I think in time the standards will reduce well below what is currently being advocated when conditions are favourable. Real time wake monitoring will be introduced in the future where controllers will actively separate aircraft based on measured wakes rather than the current standards which do not take into account local conditions.

The science is interesting, and research will continue.

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 shame no-one seems to take it on-board.
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:26 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 66):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 62):
Except it's not Airbus giving the A380 the appelation the "superjumbo", but (just about) everyone else, particularly the media. Can't really blame Airbus for that.

Airbus started it and have continued it. One can certainly blame Airbus for that.

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 depending on your nationality.

If Airbus want to use 'superjumbo', other than annoying you, what grounds do you have for stopping them?

It's also possible that using the term 'superjumbo' actually dilutes the A380 'brand' by associating it with the B747. It all depends on your point of view.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:32 am

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 74):
Wrong, only you and some A.netters call it whalejet

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://www.bbc.co.uk/southerncounties/community/airbus/a380.shtml

---

The A380 flying into Heathrow today may have been applauded by Gordon Brown but its parked shape alongside the custom-built pier begins to look more like a stranded whale, a fitting symbol for the "old Europe" that created it.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...05/flying-into-stormy-weather.html

---

Corporate redemption now rests with the A380, the "whale bird" that has absorbed so much of the company's energy and money.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...t=/money/2006/04/08/ixcitytop.html

---

Graceful Whale

One of the cool things about where I work is that we sometimes get a random flypast of various different aircraft which is cool if you are like me and like planes. Last time it was Harriers and Spitfires. Today it was the Airbus A380.

http://kiloalphatango.com/graceful_whale

---

And the new Airbus A380, a 555-passenger behemoth so big it is being called the Whale, has had developmental delays.

http://www.nplearning.com/april2006.html

---

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - EVERYBODY agrees that the A380 is a whale of a plane, but that may in fact be the problem. The whaleness, that is. The superjumbo A380, scheduled for commercial service in early 2006 and currently represented at the Airbus headquarters here as a life-size mockup, is a tubby behemoth ...

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...ities%20and%20Interests%2fBusiness

---

AG13H8 - Licenced
Caption
Vertical Fin and Tailplane of Airbus A380 airliner at Farnborough International Air Show 2006
Keywords Farnborough, Hampshire, Hants, England, Great, Britain, United, Kingdom, South, East, England, aircraft, aviation, aerospace, flight, flying, high, technology, aeroplane, air, industry, business, commercial, airshow, air, show, trade, show, fly, runway, airfield, aerodrome, air, display, trade, commerce, Civil, Aviation, airline, airliner, Airbus, A380, A380-800, EADS, BAE, Systems, airliner, double, deck, huge, large, big, jumbo, whale, whalejet, jet, turbofan, jetliner, jet, set, 550, seats, passengers, long, range, long, haul, widebody, wide, body, Toulouse, prototype, advanced, technology, hi-tech, fly, by, wire, GLARE, tail, plane, fin, vertical, stabiliser, empennage

http://www.alamy.com/stock_photograp...1/Alastair+Balderstone/AG13H8.html

---

Mr Champion's removal overshadowed the first full flight yesterday of the double-decker "whale", which took off from Toulouse with 474 Airbus staff for a cruise over Spain. Mr Champion remains with Airbus as an advisor.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...l=/money/2006/09/05/cnairbus05.xml

---

Airbus promotes the A380 as having a capacity of 555 passengers in three
standard cabin classes: first, business and coach. That’s 139 more passengers
than the latest 747 carries. But Airbus says that the A380 will actually be able to carry more than 800 passengers. (“Whale of a plane can seat 800 Jonah’s”, by Joe Sharkey, New York Times, December 3, 2003.)

http://www.speednews.com/A380-CPA.pdf#search=%22%2BA380%20%2Bwhale%22

---

I could go on and on and on, but I'd hope you'd get the point that no, it's not just a few a.netters who refer to the A380 as a whalejet.
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:37 am

[snip]

Quoting Khobar (Reply 82):
I could go on and on and on, but I'd hope you'd get the point that no, it's not just a few a.netters who refer to the A380 as a whalejet.

Indeed you are quite correct. Problem is, that doesn't stop them from looking like cretins either.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:34 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 44):
I've seen parallel landings with a 747 and 737

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 living in the Bay Area and occasionally go up to watch planes at SFO, 747-400's usually land by themselves even during busy periods.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:38 pm

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 84):
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 living in the Bay Area and occasionally go up to watch planes at SFO, 747-400's usually land by themselves even during busy periods.

I got one for you I took just a couple of weeks ago @ SFO..... Wink

"Up the Irons!"
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:43 pm

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 83):
Indeed you are quite correct. Problem is, that doesn't stop them from looking like cretins either.

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 saying anything negative about it seems to make them either a liar, cheat or cretin in your books.

I'm sorry but I've been watching this thread and all I can say to you sir, is "Pot, say hello to kettle".
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8139
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:49 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 85):
got one for you I took just a couple of weeks ago @ SFO.....

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 by themselves.
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:29 pm

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 86):
Quoting Hb88 (Reply 83):
"Indeed you are quite correct. Problem is, that doesn't stop them from looking like cretins either."

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 saying anything negative about it seems to make them either a liar, cheat or cretin in your books.

I'm sorry but I've been watching this thread and all I can say to you sir, is "Pot, say hello to kettle".

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 criticisms are often about single-minded obsessive Boeing cheerleaders who insist on seeing everything about the 380 in a bad light. That's quite separate from my opinion about the use of the term 'whalejet'. Both I think are fair game to criticise.

Anyway, my apologies, my criticism was too broad. On reflection, the name whalejet per se isn't, the problem. It's people who use it exclusively as a replacement for the name A380.

For example, imagine an article about the 747 where _every single_ occurrence of 747 was replaced by "jumbo-jet" or "white elephant" (as indeed some referred to it when it was originally proposed). I don't know about you, but I would think the author was either someone who didn't know much about aviation, had a poor grasp of how to use idiomatic english, or was just trying to prove a point about reinforcing the use of what some see as an idiomatic derogatory name. 747 is a good expression for the aircraft, jumbo-jet is idiomatic and fits specific idiomatic contexts. Forcing it into other contexts looks like poor use of english.

I've noticed that some well known anti-Airbus posters such as Zvezda use 'whalejet' exclusively and in my opinion it is laboured and try-hard in the same way as the 'jumbo-jet' or 'white elephant' would be in the 747 example above.

When I read someone using it over and over in a post, I simply mentally go "[sigh] what a dork" and move on. When people use expressions such as this, they have to realise that what may look nifty and funny to some people of one view, may look a bit forced and lame idiomatically to others. It's their call how they use the language, but have to accept peoples opinion of them as a result.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:29 pm

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 87):
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 by themselves.

I agree..its quite the rare thing..nonetheless, it does happen... Smile
"Up the Irons!"
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:55 am

Hb88:

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 88):
My criticisms are often about single-minded obsessive Boeing cheerleaders who insist on seeing everything about the 380 in a bad light.

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 exactly the same, but just 180 degrees inverted. Even posts that are valid factual information you take issue with if they are anti-A380. This thread is a perfect example of this (some facts *as I understand them* follow)

The 380 requires longer separation for trailing aircraft v. a 747
The 380 can follow another craft with no separation
The 747 can follow another craft with no separation
There is no such thing as 'no separation' as runways must be cleared and safe. (you can't land while the run is busy)
In a number of airports I know of, some of that separation time is used for runway crossing, etc. This won't magically stop because the next plane on final is a 380.
One of the selling points on the 380 is reducing slot congestion
Only time will tell if this remains a VIABLE selling point

This is, as it stands today, and until such time as the rules are revisited, potential bad news for Airbus, if only from a sales/marketting perspective. I'm not getting into he said/she said BS about what may or may not have been promised, as I don't have any orders for a 380 and can't tell you what they (Airbus) promised their customers (screw what the press was told, the press doesn't buy planes).

Now a couple of points about 'whalejet':

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 88):
When people use expressions such as this, they have to realise that what may look nifty and funny to some people of one view, may look a bit forced and lame idiomatically to others.

First of all whalejet is easier for most people to type than 380 believe it or not. I've seen a lot of people who aren't the world's greatest typists avoid the number keys like crazy. Plus it's a nickname, and I don't think a bad one.

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 88):
On reflection, the name whalejet per se isn't, the problem. It's people who use it exclusively as a replacement for the name A380

I know ALOT of folks (maybe not on this forum) who refer to a 747 as a Jumbo or Jumbojet exclusively. It's the nature of the beast. Perhaps the reason you dislike the name whalejet is that you are viewing it as having some sort of negative connotations. You're probably drawing the conclusion between whale and big and seeing that as bad. Well being big is only one thing whales have going for them that could potential match the 380:

Whales are extremely graceful when you witness them in the water
They seem to glide around with little effort
They travel great distances
They are intelligent

Why are any of those bad attributes to attribute to the 380?

Finally, the 380 does have VERY similar proportions to a killer whale. The nose of the plane looks nearly identical to the nose of a killer whale. The only reason not to like the new whalejet is if you insist on viewing it as a negative. I view it as a positive. Hell just the fact that it is developing its own nickname is somewhat positive. Part of the legend and lore of the 747 is that it was 'the big one', it was the 'jumbo'. That's one of the things that makes the plane so great to the general public.

[Edited 2006-09-30 19:02:35]
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:16 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 90):



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 90):
Quoting Hb88 (Reply 88):
"My criticisms are often about single-minded obsessive Boeing cheerleaders who insist on seeing everything about the 380 in a bad light."

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 exactly the same, but just 180 degrees inverted. Even posts that are valid factual information you take issue with if they are anti-A380. This thread is a perfect example of this (some facts *as I understand them* follow)

The 380 requires longer separation for trailing aircraft v. a 747
The 380 can follow another craft with no separation
The 747 can follow another craft with no separation
There is no such thing as 'no separation' as runways must be cleared and safe. (you can't land while the run is busy)
In a number of airports I know of, some of that separation time is used for runway crossing, etc. This won't magically stop because the next plane on final is a 380.
One of the selling points on the 380 is reducing slot congestion
Only time will tell if this remains a VIABLE selling point

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. What's to disagree with? It's a technical report for heavens sake. How can you disagree with applied separation distances. My comments were about the annoying, IMO unjustified, 380-beating which continually goes on in the classic A v B posts in a general sense. So, you've sort of wasted your breath here as I agree with everything you've said regarding the ICAO/separation issue.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 90):
First of all whalejet is easier for most people to type than 380 believe it or not. I've seen a lot of people who aren't the world's greatest typists avoid the number keys like crazy. Plus it's a nickname, and I don't think a bad one.

That's fine. You might like it. Myself and many others don't. Keep in mind that many people who use it on a.net are those who seem to have this dislike of the A380. It's not a context-neutral name. Do a search for it and then look at how it is used and in what context.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 90):
Quoting Hb88 (Reply 88):
"On reflection, the name whalejet per se isn't, the problem. It's people who use it exclusively as a replacement for the name A380"

I know ALOT of folks (maybe not on this forum) who refer to a 747 as a Jumbo or Jumbojet exclusively. It's the nature of the beast. Perhaps the reason you dislike the name whalejet is that you are viewing it as having some sort of negative connotations. You're probably drawing the conclusion between whale and big and seeing that as bad. Well being big is only one thing whales have going for them that could potential match the 380:

I was using the jumbo as an example. I like the appelation jumbojet. I was trying to illustrate that if you use an idomatic appellation exclusively in an anti-380 context - which is quite common on a.net - it gets quite tired.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 90):
Quoting Hb88 (Reply 88):

[snip - lots of good whale stuff deleted]


Again, it's not the name whalejet per se - even though I think it's pretty crap. It's the generally anti-380 context in which it is used exclusively over and over.

I don't think we're disagreeing fundamentally on anything except our opinions of the nickname whalejet. I don't like it much, you think it's ok. What I also think is that it's exclusive use in some contexts (where "380" would do or sound more appropriate) brands the author as a bit of a dickhead - that's all.

Here's a more aviation insensitive example. Say I was an Australian. Now, one appellation for australians is 'ocker'. It's jokey, slightly derogatory depending on the context, but you can call an aussie an ocker now and again without any hassle. But, if you *always* called an Australian an ocker, you'd probably end up getting a poke or two in the eye - or a fosters poured over your head.

To me, whalejet is the same.

Anyway, I reckon we've exhausted that topic.

Cheers
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:35 am

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 91):
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. What's to disagree with? It's a technical report for heavens sake. How can you disagree with applied separation distances. My comments were about the annoying, IMO unjustified, 380-beating which continually goes on in the classic A v B posts in a general sense. So, you've sort of wasted your breath here as I agree with everything you've said regarding the ICAO/separation issue.

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 original comment to which I responded. My bad.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:39 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 92):
Quoting Hb88 (Reply 91):
"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. What's to disagree with? It's a technical report for heavens sake. How can you disagree with applied separation distances. My comments were about the annoying, IMO unjustified, 380-beating which continually goes on in the classic A v B posts in a general sense. So, you've sort of wasted your breath here as I agree with everything you've said regarding the ICAO/separation issue."

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 original comment to which I responded. My bad.

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 I'm getting cranky in my old age.

cheers
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:07 pm

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 91):
Say I was an Australian.

I thought insults were banned, mods where are you!!!!  angel 

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 91):
Anyway, I reckon we've exhausted that topic.

Oh no you have not, or at least I have not!!

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 90):
I know ALOT of folks (maybe not on this forum) who refer to a 747 as a Jumbo or Jumbojet exclusively. It's the nature of the beast. Perhaps the reason you dislike the name whalejet is that you are viewing it as having some sort of negative connotations.

Well one result is curious, if I were writing about a 747, I would now NOT write Jumbo, just because it might get confused with the larger plane, notwithstanding the long use of the term Jumbo for the 747. And the use of superjumbo (for the 748i) is definitely open to misinterpretation. One the other hand, there is, so far, only one Whalejet. So I would slip in a Whalejet or two (well I did until someone warned me off them, presumably with good intentions).

Mind you, it will be a great day when the worst problem the A380 has is a name that can be taken as an insult. Roll on that day, until then, I promise a truce on the names (were my fingers crossed?).
 
katekebo
Posts: 681
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 12:02 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:35 pm

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 enter service in the coming years makes it basically a non-issue), but the fact that Airbus has failed to deliver another one of their highly advertised promisses.

They hailed left and right that the 8th wonder of the world called A380 was not going to have any worse wake than existing types, then they tried to hide behind a claim that existing types wake is worse than currently assumed - and in the end their fantasy bubble bursts and the detailed study shows what most people already suspected - A380 wake is worse than existing types.

Even Airbus genius can't defy the laws of physics, and their PR campaign about the wake story which ended in a very quiet acknowledgment that their previous claims were wrong is simply embarrasing and another (small) blow to their already shaterred credibility.
 
leelaw
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:07 pm

Quoting Katekebo (Reply 95):

 checkmark 

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 which would fit "seamlessly" into the existing air-traffic system, requiring no special safety precautions or procedures by controllers, and has marketed its A380 program to customers accordingly. Apparently, the results from actual flight-testing indicate that Airbus has failed to fulfill this promise/expectation.

Airbus may face significant contractual penalties if the A380 doesn't "seamlessly" fit into the ATC system (i.e., the same separation requirements as the 747) as was allegedly/reportedly promised to customers. One wonders whether Airbus's recent "compromise" position allows it to fulfill contractual guarantees and/or mitigates the impact of liquidated damages clauses in its contracts with A380 customers? As the "church lady" on SNL was want to say: "HOW CONVENIENT!"
Lex Ancilla Justitiae
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:19 pm

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 96):
Clearly, Airbus thought it was possible to design and engineer a VLA which would fit "seamlessly" into the existing air-traffic system, requiring no special safety precautions or procedures by controllers, and has marketed its A380 program to customers accordingly.

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 issue, like the fact that the aeroplane was 'marginal' on weight, and very possibly the fact that lack of design coordination was likely to lead to the current 'wiring' disaster - was the subject of appropriate warnings from the staff involved.

From there on I'm guessing. But my 'guess' is that the people who issued the warnings were either fired, or told in no uncertain terms to shut up, or else.......
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:50 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 94):
Quoting Hb88 (Reply 91):
"Anyway, I reckon we've exhausted that topic."

Oh no you have not, or at least I have not!!

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 Oct 1 2006 in Civil Aviation)

I very much respect his views given his job and previous posts, so probably worth a look.
 
beech19
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:30 am

RE: No Wake Constraints For The A380

Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:18 am

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 doesn't seem to know whats going on, the Airbus PR department wants to tell us but we all know what they are going to try to convince us of.

The fact that this thread is up to 100 posts and the fact that people are STILL argueing about what the article really is saying shows that their is a problem with it. No one truely has been able to decipher anything that we can all agree on(that we didn't know already) or discern whats actually fact and fiction about the possible/probable issues concerning wakes and vortex's coming off an A380, lets just shut it down...

HOY vey!!!
KPAE via KBVY

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos