A 380 (Merged)
Paxing All Over The World
It would seem that this was the super latest mode of the 380l with fully automated flight controls.
It will certainly save a lot of money on flight crew. 
... flight with 519 passengers and 26 Lufthansa flight attendants...
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380 Landing at KLAX - Impressive rudder inputs
Just watching the CNN video of the A380 landing at KLAX. Pretty impressive rudder inputs at touchdown but the nose wheel stayed close to the centerline throughout.
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/play...us.landing.cnn
Wonder what the wind conditions were at arrival. Maybe the enormous wingspan requires a lot of rudder control similar to sailplanes.
Any thoughts from the "heavy iron" flyers?
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/play...us.landing.cnn
Wonder what the wind conditions were at arrival. Maybe the enormous wingspan requires a lot of rudder control similar to sailplanes.
Any thoughts from the "heavy iron" flyers?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wx at JFK for A380 landing...12:10 pm edt would be 16:10z
(early daylight savings time in usa)
METAR KJFK 191451Z 22008KT 10SM FEW160 SCT250 02/M08 A3039 RMK AO2 SLP290 T00171078 58004 $
METAR KJFK 191551Z 23011KT 10SM SCT250 02/M08 A3039 RMK AO2 SLP289 T00221078 $
METAR KJFK 191651Z 20011KT 10SM SCT250 03/M07 A3038 RMK AO2 SLP286 T00281072 $
METAR KJFK 191751Z 19017KT 10SM FEW140 BKN250 03/M06 A3035 RMK AO2 SLP278 4/002 933010 T00281061 10028 21011 58012
11knots....hmmmmm
(early daylight savings time in usa)
METAR KJFK 191451Z 22008KT 10SM FEW160 SCT250 02/M08 A3039 RMK AO2 SLP290 T00171078 58004 $
METAR KJFK 191551Z 23011KT 10SM SCT250 02/M08 A3039 RMK AO2 SLP289 T00221078 $
METAR KJFK 191651Z 20011KT 10SM SCT250 03/M07 A3038 RMK AO2 SLP286 T00281072 $
METAR KJFK 191751Z 19017KT 10SM FEW140 BKN250 03/M06 A3035 RMK AO2 SLP278 4/002 933010 T00281061 10028 21011 58012
11knots....hmmmmm
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: STN
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following airports meet the FAA design standards for the A380:
Anchorage International Airport
Denver International Airport
Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport
John F. Kennedy International Airport
Los Angeles International Airport
Orlando International Airport
Miami International Airport
San Francisco International Airport
In addition, three airports can handle A380 cargo planes:
Memphis International Airport
Louisville International-Standiford Field Airport
Ontario International Airport (California)
Dulles International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport are close to being ready for the A380, according to the FAA.
Anchorage International Airport
Denver International Airport
Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport
John F. Kennedy International Airport
Los Angeles International Airport
Orlando International Airport
Miami International Airport
San Francisco International Airport
In addition, three airports can handle A380 cargo planes:
Memphis International Airport
Louisville International-Standiford Field Airport
Ontario International Airport (California)
Dulles International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport are close to being ready for the A380, according to the FAA.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why the rudder wiggles:
I posted this as a new thread, but also want to cover it here...I hope you will respond both places:
---
I don't think it is anything to do with crosswinds. I think when the throttles are idled the engines don't come down at the same rate...perhaps the angle of the pilots hand not quite pulling throttles back.
anyway, the throttles and engines not coming back at the same instant (whether mechanical, electronic, or by hand) the plane wanders due to the assymetric thrust...then the pilot has to do a dance on the rudder pedals to keep the nose straight.
no proof, just a guess...I've seen pilots in other planes not retard engines/throttles and have to use rudder subconsciously to keep her going straight.
I posted this as a new thread, but also want to cover it here...I hope you will respond both places:
---
I don't think it is anything to do with crosswinds. I think when the throttles are idled the engines don't come down at the same rate...perhaps the angle of the pilots hand not quite pulling throttles back.
anyway, the throttles and engines not coming back at the same instant (whether mechanical, electronic, or by hand) the plane wanders due to the assymetric thrust...then the pilot has to do a dance on the rudder pedals to keep the nose straight.
no proof, just a guess...I've seen pilots in other planes not retard engines/throttles and have to use rudder subconsciously to keep her going straight.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't do repeated postings 'because you want it discussed in different places'. Your theory is rubbish (18 years and 10,000 hours on 747s!). The aeroplane is very stable. I saw nothing unusual.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somewhere Over America
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hummmmm a little ciphering tells me:
JFK isn’t that far from IAD
LAX and SFO are just up/down the coast from each other
MIA and MCO are in the same kingdom
But what do you file for your alternate when you go to DFW or DEN or ANC?
For bonus points what do you do when the cabin staff call forward and say they have the Little Old Lady (LOL) in seat 176Y in the middle of the aisle with the ADE out and you are over YYC?
JFK isn’t that far from IAD
LAX and SFO are just up/down the coast from each other
MIA and MCO are in the same kingdom
But what do you file for your alternate when you go to DFW or DEN or ANC?
For bonus points what do you do when the cabin staff call forward and say they have the Little Old Lady (LOL) in seat 176Y in the middle of the aisle with the ADE out and you are over YYC?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stable? 5, 6, 7, 8 or more rudder inputs? Abrupt flare? Crabbed at touchdown?
Painful to watch in 3-10 kts of wind. (reported LAX winds today during daylight hours)
Hopefully it was one of the Chief Pilots flying and not a future Training Captain.
Painful to watch in 3-10 kts of wind. (reported LAX winds today during daylight hours)
Hopefully it was one of the Chief Pilots flying and not a future Training Captain.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taildragger67 said in part.....
"Further, it looks like it's still a tad on the fat side"
Aviate 1138 remembers......
If you can cast your mind back to 1969 and the introduction of the 747? How many airports around the world had to be modified to accept the overweight?, underpowered early version. I remember a Pan Am 747 flying very low over the Berkshire countryside in 1970. How times have changed. Didn't runways and taxiways also have to be strengthened to take the 747?
Aviate 1138
"Further, it looks like it's still a tad on the fat side"
Aviate 1138 remembers......
If you can cast your mind back to 1969 and the introduction of the 747? How many airports around the world had to be modified to accept the overweight?, underpowered early version. I remember a Pan Am 747 flying very low over the Berkshire countryside in 1970. How times have changed. Didn't runways and taxiways also have to be strengthened to take the 747?
Aviate 1138
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever is the problem that some people are having trying to accept that the aviation world is moving on? Just as in the early 70s, airport infrastructure had to be modified and changed to adapt to 747 operations, so the world has moved on to an even bigger aeroplane. The problem is? An old, mid 60s design is no longer right for pressing on with aviation for the next 40 years. The A380 is a fine, efficient, high capacity aeroplane, that will do the job. It is having no more introductory problems than the 747-100 had on and after introduction. In fact the 747 was a disaster with engine failures all over the place, flaps falling off, and electronic breakdowns. But it got fixed, after nearly taking Boeing down with it.
The A380 is coming, and it will work, and it will be a success, because it is right. Not right for US carriers- they have shown their preference for lighter twins/ETOPs operations. This thing will be bought in large numbers by the big European carriers and the successful Far Eastern carriers. As a high capacity people mover, it will knock spots off the 747. And looking at the design, it is all in place for significant stretching- what an efficient move that will be!
So let's stop carping that a delay for electrical problems and airport modifications is going to drag Airbus down! A bit of rudder waggling is not a problem- the 777 had excess rudder problems inflight that had to be fixed to stop the cabin crew throwing up! So how about welcoming a great new aeroplane......and say to ourselves:
*fuel is not going to run out next year
*airports that want to operate it will rapidly make the changes to do so
*it's a great machine that is going to be exciting when it is introduced
*it's less traumatic for the world than the introduction of the 747 in the 70s
*it is not having undue problems for the introduction of such a radical change
*even though the US won't buy it, others will. See if people want to fly in a 777 across the Pacific when the opposition is flying A380s!
The A380 is coming, and it will work, and it will be a success, because it is right. Not right for US carriers- they have shown their preference for lighter twins/ETOPs operations. This thing will be bought in large numbers by the big European carriers and the successful Far Eastern carriers. As a high capacity people mover, it will knock spots off the 747. And looking at the design, it is all in place for significant stretching- what an efficient move that will be!
So let's stop carping that a delay for electrical problems and airport modifications is going to drag Airbus down! A bit of rudder waggling is not a problem- the 777 had excess rudder problems inflight that had to be fixed to stop the cabin crew throwing up! So how about welcoming a great new aeroplane......and say to ourselves:
*fuel is not going to run out next year
*airports that want to operate it will rapidly make the changes to do so
*it's a great machine that is going to be exciting when it is introduced
*it's less traumatic for the world than the introduction of the 747 in the 70s
*it is not having undue problems for the introduction of such a radical change
*even though the US won't buy it, others will. See if people want to fly in a 777 across the Pacific when the opposition is flying A380s!
.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sun, water, and lots of sand
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which A380 serial numbers was this that landed in JFK today? Would it be true to say that by the serial number, one them is Etihad's and therfore Etihad had two of it's aircraft at JFK today (A340-500 + A380)? Not sure which A380 landed at LAX.
Etihad has 4 of the test A380 aircraft under serial number 010, which also have the different engines to those that Emirates has ordered.
Just checking whose A380 aircraft these were that landed in the USA today by serial number on the order books.
Etihad has 4 of the test A380 aircraft under serial number 010, which also have the different engines to those that Emirates has ordered.
Just checking whose A380 aircraft these were that landed in the USA today by serial number on the order books.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe ended......
"See if people want to fly in a 777 across the Pacific when the opposition is flying A380s!"
Aviate 1138 muses....
We have had twin engined widebody gliders over or near the Atlantic some time ago but with this progressive extension of twin ETOPS times surely Sod's Law will cause a ditching, probably in the Pacific? The A380 with twin engines on each wing would be my choice for a long haul, mainly over the water, trip.
Aviate 1138
PS I listened to some dumb American news reader saying there are so few airports in the USA where the A380 could land. My view is that if it could operate out of relatively tiny Farnborough early on in its life surely nearly any US State airport could handle the A380 - not saying the passengers could get off though!!!! Or get on?
"See if people want to fly in a 777 across the Pacific when the opposition is flying A380s!"
Aviate 1138 muses....
We have had twin engined widebody gliders over or near the Atlantic some time ago but with this progressive extension of twin ETOPS times surely Sod's Law will cause a ditching, probably in the Pacific? The A380 with twin engines on each wing would be my choice for a long haul, mainly over the water, trip.
Aviate 1138
PS I listened to some dumb American news reader saying there are so few airports in the USA where the A380 could land. My view is that if it could operate out of relatively tiny Farnborough early on in its life surely nearly any US State airport could handle the A380 - not saying the passengers could get off though!!!! Or get on?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which A380 serial numbers was this that landed in JFK today? Would it be true to say that by the serial number, one them is Etihad's and therfore Etihad had two of it's aircraft at JFK today (A340-500 + A380)? Not sure which A380 landed at LAX.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the optimism shown by some about the future of the A380 never fails to surprise me.
Around July last year I posted:
"Way, way back when the idea of a very large aircraft, (VLA), was first discussed both Airbus and Boeing set out their stall. Boeing did a market survey of their customers and soon realised that the required market for such an airframe simply wasn't there in commercial numbers. Airbus continued to push for a VLA project so Boeing offered them a consortium to spread the cost/risk. Airbus turned this offer down and said they would go head to head with Boeing on a VLA project.
Boeing, having properly surveyed their market, said "OK" and withdrew from the competition.
Airbus originally need 269 sold airframes to break even on the A380, this was way before delays and discounts to get the order book moving were properly considered. Right now with the extent of delay and the extent of penalty payments due, added to the extra costs of product development over and above budget then the A380 will need to sell between 500 and 600 just to break even.
The market simply isn't there. The airlines will happily accept the A380, in limited numbers, to fill a niche market, but that is all and they will want it properly supported, as per contract.
The A380 was intended as a B747 replacement with similar market share but that replacement is the B777 with all it's variants and those Airbus 340 that can compete. The A380 will never exceed fifty aircraft in any one company, unlike the B747-400 which exceeded 40 to 50 in quite a few companies.
The A380 is a dead duck and may well take Airbus down with it.
(All said before, a year or two ago, on these very same forums, no recent events could have influenced these predictions)."
I still think most of what I said then is true to-day, possibly a technical success but a hopeless commercial failure. In the days of the inception of the B747 the only competition came from the B707, the DC8, DC10 and L1011. It is a very different story today with a much larger spread of alternatives to the A380, many of them big twins.
Just my 2cents worth, once again.
Around July last year I posted:
"Way, way back when the idea of a very large aircraft, (VLA), was first discussed both Airbus and Boeing set out their stall. Boeing did a market survey of their customers and soon realised that the required market for such an airframe simply wasn't there in commercial numbers. Airbus continued to push for a VLA project so Boeing offered them a consortium to spread the cost/risk. Airbus turned this offer down and said they would go head to head with Boeing on a VLA project.
Boeing, having properly surveyed their market, said "OK" and withdrew from the competition.
Airbus originally need 269 sold airframes to break even on the A380, this was way before delays and discounts to get the order book moving were properly considered. Right now with the extent of delay and the extent of penalty payments due, added to the extra costs of product development over and above budget then the A380 will need to sell between 500 and 600 just to break even.
The market simply isn't there. The airlines will happily accept the A380, in limited numbers, to fill a niche market, but that is all and they will want it properly supported, as per contract.
The A380 was intended as a B747 replacement with similar market share but that replacement is the B777 with all it's variants and those Airbus 340 that can compete. The A380 will never exceed fifty aircraft in any one company, unlike the B747-400 which exceeded 40 to 50 in quite a few companies.
The A380 is a dead duck and may well take Airbus down with it.
(All said before, a year or two ago, on these very same forums, no recent events could have influenced these predictions)."
I still think most of what I said then is true to-day, possibly a technical success but a hopeless commercial failure. In the days of the inception of the B747 the only competition came from the B707, the DC8, DC10 and L1011. It is a very different story today with a much larger spread of alternatives to the A380, many of them big twins.
Just my 2cents worth, once again.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Barit,
My understanding was that both came across the Pond, but the one into KLAX operated in with a QF flight number for some reason.
ALso, put it this way - had it come through YSSY/YMML/YBNE, it would've made got a mention in the Aussie papers. Not a sausage, from what I've seen.
Well, not quite true, this article from the Melbourne Age suggests it the KLAX one came direct from Toulouse.
Also, just to be a pedant, no A380 is "Etihad's". They are all still the manufacturer's problem at the moment. Indeed from reports it seems that the KJFK jaunt was at Lufthansa's behest, so Etihad have zippo to do with it.
Keep an eye on airliners.net, I'm sure some shots of both KLAX and KJFK visits will be on there soon, complete with rego's and C/Ns.
My understanding was that both came across the Pond, but the one into KLAX operated in with a QF flight number for some reason.
ALso, put it this way - had it come through YSSY/YMML/YBNE, it would've made got a mention in the Aussie papers. Not a sausage, from what I've seen.
Well, not quite true, this article from the Melbourne Age suggests it the KLAX one came direct from Toulouse.
Also, just to be a pedant, no A380 is "Etihad's". They are all still the manufacturer's problem at the moment. Indeed from reports it seems that the KJFK jaunt was at Lufthansa's behest, so Etihad have zippo to do with it.
Keep an eye on airliners.net, I'm sure some shots of both KLAX and KJFK visits will be on there soon, complete with rego's and C/Ns.
Last edited by Taildragger67; 21st Mar 2007 at 12:31.
