the double decker plane

[daredevil]

I'm almost certain that this as been discussed on this forum before but I'm just curious - is the reason that Airbus hasn't sold any of their new super-jumbo A3XX's because there aren't pilots qualified to fly them:confused:

[newswatcher]

Am I missing something, or isn't it a bit difficult to qualify on an aircraft which has yet to fly?:confused:



....and at the last count, Airbus had taken orders for 116 aircraft from 8 customers.:ok:

[daredevil]

right!...ok, so they've made it but it hasn't actually gotten off the ground yet and just for the sake of curiousity I wonder what prof. Pilots think about the possibilty of flying something that size?:ooh:

[longarm]

Daredevil I don't really see your point! Before the 747 flew nobody had flown commercial jet with a double deck and a wide body. When the A3XX comes into service I would imagine the training course will be straightforward. For those with A330/A340 experience then I believe the course will be very simple.

Remember in terms of size and system differences then the 707/DC8 to 747 step was a lot more than say the A340-800 to A3XX will be. And before the first flight Airbus will have pilots who are qualified to fly it.

[daredevil]

I guess that's what separates the wannabees from the hot shots (no offense meant) me being a ground bound non-pilot, it just seems like a really big plane to fly and it begs the question where do you draw the line on size and refurbishments inside an aircraft. I've heard that there will actual bedrooms and a gym inside that thing. It just seems an awful lot of extra stuff for a flight crew to think about.:hmm:

[411A]

Had to laugh many years ago while waiting for an ATC clearance at LAX.
Here it came up the north/south taxiway (old runway 16/34), one of the first 747's that PanAmerican had, and when asked to change to another ground control frequency, complained bitterly that they had enough to do just taxiing "this big barn" as they called it, without having to change frequencies all the time...:rolleyes:

There were moments...and then there were PanAm moments.

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Bedrooms and gyms ? Yeah, right. The bars and the walking space on the early 747s didn't last long. My guess is that A380s will be choc a'bloc with good old fashioned airline seats. Pack 'em in !

[daredevil]

and what about take off and landing I would imagine that it would extra length just build up the enertia

[wingview]

I wonder what prof. Pilots think about the possibilty of flying something that size?

Ever thought about the Beluga? If that thing can fly, everything can...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/275883/L/

[Notso Fantastic]

Daredevil- you really need to go read up on your mechanical physics! Inertia is countered by force- big aeroplanes have big engines to restore normal aviation characteristics (like being able to take off on normal runways). The Antonov Mriya is a pretty good example- imagine this thing loaded up for a medium stage haul of 150 tonnes of oil drilling equipment! Can't be far off an A380 already!
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/337286/M/

[daredevil]

wingview & Notsofantastic:

both very good examples of big, ugly (in the case of the Beluga) aircraft flying and you're probably right about my mechanical physics:)
but you no-one has mentioned how keen they are in flying an A380...Would it be safe to assume (yes, I know what happens when one assumes) that Prof. Pilots are lining to fly this thing?

[PAXboy]

Gymnasium? Possible of course but this is given as an example more to attract coverage in newspapers and magazines.

Airbus needs the general public to be interested in the machine. Most people are not and many will be fearful of the bigger machine - simple because they have no frame of reference for it.

When Boeing were launching the 747 some 30 years ago (hang around here for 30 secs and someone will tell you the exact date ;) ) they said it would have very similar things.

When Airbus were launching the A330/340 they had a mock up that showed the cargo deck level cabin crew rest area as ... a temple. It was going to be capable of being set up for Moslems with an indication of the direction to Mecca or set up for Jews (hey, salesman don't care what your religion is as long as they can sell you something).

As far as I know, no 330/340 has the crew rest as anything other than crew rest. But just think how nice it is to talk about things other than how many seats they can cram in and how much money everyone is going to make!

[daredevil]

that's probably the category I fall into- the fearful public. Don't get me wrong, I've never been afraid of flying (actually I love the whole wholesome process) and consider myself to be one of the best 'Desktop Pilots' around (Joystick, rudder pedals and all) but as Pazboy mentioned, the media attention that has been given to this thing reminds me of the attention given to the Titanic while it still in the production phase. Heralding it as an innovation upon innovation of it's time, which the A380 will without a doubt be but thought of sitting in a massive flying building with 600 passengers makes me want to change my callsign on this site:uhoh:

[Notso Fantastic]

In the days when twins were BAC 1-11 and 737 and DC-9, I thought Airbus were mad and had gone a step too far with the A300. Far too big for just 2 engines. Could you imagine 300 pax on ONE engine? Well the world could, and Airbus went on to make hundreds of them that people fly in without a second thought. And I stopped looking into crystal bowls and flew 747s with 400 people (with crew and babes in arms could easily be 430+), weighing nearly 400 tons, without a second thought. And now Airbus are bringing out a 600 seater/500-600 ton beastie! Do you think people will want to fly in it? You betya. And as far as crewing is concerned, the 747 is still the number one. When the 380 is out and about, it will take over. Stop worrying about it and enjoy. But forget all the gym/jacuzzi/massage parlour/casino nonsense. They will all vanish for seats!

[PAXboy]

When Titanic was built, she was the largest vessel afloat. She was a big step forward in many dimensions and internal facilities. The A380 is not.

Consider the heavy freighters of Antonov and that the 747 introduced double decks 30 years ago and, if I recall, there had been double decks before in prop-liner days?

Also - regulation. Since Titanic, countless rules were changed, even though she exceeded some of the design criteria and regulations of the day. Her sister, Olympic sailed until 1935, so there was not a general failure of the design.

If sonar had been invented 30 years earlier? Even if radar had been invented 30 years earlier, they could at least have 'seen' the above water part of the berg early enough to turn. The A380 will benefit, as all other commercial a/c do, from radar, ATC and TCAS at the end of the line.

The only reason that I shall be wary of using the A380 is becuase I know that BAA plc (who own and run LHR) will not have the infrastructure in place. They (and the carriers, I suspect) will not have the air-bridges properly manned and will still be loading and off loading people in dribs and drabs. If you need example, have you seen a 744 loaded through a single bridge and one-person-at-a-time?

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Quote:
"is the reason that Airbus hasn't sold any of their new super-jumbo A3XX's"

A: It's officially the A380-800, and has been so for more than a year.

B: So far the firm orders are at 100+. That's a few more than "any" ...

C: It's fly-by-wire, undoubtedly programmed to handle much the same way as any other FBW Airbus.

D: The bigger the better :ok:

[Jet II]

I think PAXboy has the right idea - the infrastructure at present airports will struggle to cope with the 380.

Imagine when one goes tech - 500 extra people sitting in the departure lounge! - what happens if another goes tech? 1000 people!

Airbridges fail every day, park one of these out on the park and bus everyone out, it's gonna be a slow day.

500 pax turn up at immigration in one go - who really expects more lanes to be open.

So personally, given the choice I will stick to the 'small' Boeings.

[wingview]

Lots of airports have double bridges, the A380 is built so that they normally can be attached to a gate (the lower deck, with the pax exits, is about as high as the 747).

With a single bridge the turnaround time will just take a little bit longer, so no problem for the airports or carrier.:ok:

[Anthony Carn]

I've noticed that whatever I've flown always ends up looking like a windscreen, a control yoke and an instrument panel. Funny, that !

What's behind me only crops up when I'm taxying and landing. I guess that taxying will be the trickiest part of operating some of the proposed "superjumbos".

Was'nt there an intention to fit cameras as an aid to taxying ? The mind boggles. :ugh:

[GrantT]

"Was'nt there an intention to fit cameras as an aid to taxying ? The mind boggles."

That is already the case for the 777-300 and A340-600.

[woderick]

[B]Paxboy
MyTravel A330 crew rest area is a public lavatory (The LDL) Gets a few extra rows in !