Talk:Airbus A380/Archive 4

message: Is this chapter still relevant now that the A380 has received its type certificate from the FAA and the European Aviation Safety Agency? At least the opening sentence requires modification. 85.176.116.208 11:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's still relevant; the certification doesn't mean that the flight separation rules or ground handling issues have been completely resolved, it just means that it's safe to fly.  Georgewilliamherbert 18:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical concerns 

message: This section seems to have been added and removed a couple times.  The last one with references was March 2, 2007.  Looks like mad claims of a fired employee.  This came out like 1.5 years ago.  Has there been any resolution yet?  Thanks. -Fnlayson 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The item seems like something added by an Airbus-hater to try to discredit the plane. Personally, I'm not too keen on Airbus, but having flown on Airbuses several times, I will say that they always got me where I was going in one piece (both me and the airplaine). As long as the so-called controvery is an old claim from a sub-contractor's disgruntled employee, I don't think it has a place here. There is a Wiki article on the man, and it does list several sources. However, as long as his claims remain unsubstantiated by outside investigtors, I don't see that it belongs here. - BillCJ 23:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Sure, agreed. -Fnlayson 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * I disagree, I think the discussion about the Joseph Mangan controversy should go back in.  There was an article in the Los Angeles Times, an unverified copy can be found here. Thus, Mangan's allegation is citable, though the allegation itself if unproven. (See also TTTech's press release.) It appears that Mangan's argument is that other planes have air pressurization valves that have multiple motors with controllers made by different manufacturers and a manual override.  Mangan stated that the A380 has air pressurization valves that have a controller made by only one manufacturer and no manual override.  Does anyone have a citable reference as to what happened here? Let's discuss this further. Cxbrx 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every such claim is notable. If we printed every claim ever made about a given airplane, it would dominate the article. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a repository of every fact or claim. The fact you only found an "unverified" copy of a story goes along way to indicating that this is indeed a minor issue. - BillCJ 02:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I disagree strongly as well. I think the discussion about the Joseph Mangan controversy should be included.  Another article produced by the telegraph.co.uk notes: "...officials at the air safety watchdog EASA said they took the concerns 'extremely seriously'. An EASA source told the Telegraph that the agency was 'able to confirm certain statements by Mr Mangan'." and "A probe - conducted by the French authorities for EASA - allegedly found that TTTech was 'not in conformity' with safety rules and had failed to carry out the proper tests. The key microchip was deemed 'not acceptable'."  With two independent sources choosing to run stories and able to confirm the legitimacy of some of the concerns cited by Mangan, I think it deserves to be noted within the Airbus 380 article and is not "junk."  Ad hominem put downs are not appropriate rationale to keep information out of Wikipedia.  I will add a subsection back in later this week regarding the controversy unless there is a better argument why not to do so. Jmsevits 10:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you should gain consensus on this talk page before you add it to the article or it will be deleted as it will probably fail WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP and is not really notable either. MilborneOne 11:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After seing shocking black and white footage of the Soyuz 11 landing aftermath no sane person should take pressurization valve failures lightly! 91.83.2.94 (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabin pressurization junk 

message: ===Proposal one===
Should :Image:Airbus A380 Storm.jpg be removed from the lead pic? Answer Agree or Disagree, with comments if necessary. - BillCJ 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll on lead image

message: Should :Image:Airbus A380 Storm.jpg be removed from the lead pic? Answer Agree or Disagree, with comments if necessary. - BillCJ 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal one

message: If :Image:Airbus A380 Storm.jpg is repalced, what pic should replace it? Even if you feel the montage should not be replaced, go ahead and weigh in here.:Image:Airbus A380 Storm.jpg is not a candidate. - BillCJ 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal two

message: *My vote goes to candidate 1, perhaps cropped a bit top & bottom to reduce the expanse of blue and give the subject more emphasis.  Thank you BillCJ for your conflict resolution skills.  --Ctillier 22:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: The article just got a citation needed tag on the number built, nine.  This raises a wider issue.  How is the "number built" field of the aircraft infobox exactly defined?  As of today, nine A380s have flown, and that number is what I had put in the "number built" field of the infobox.  Over in the 787 article, "number built" is already 1, for an airframe that is neither complete nor flown.  If we were to apply that standard for the A380 article, the "number built" would be closer to 16.  So, just when is an airframe considered "built" ?  When the main structural parts are joined?  When electrical systems are powered up?  After first flight?  I suppose the latter is easiest to verify, but even before first flight, an aircraft is obviously "built" in the common sense of the word.  I am curious about what you all think.  --Ctillier 22:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As of this writing, the first 787 has yet to have systems installed (hydraulics, electrical harnesses, avionics, cabin air handling, etc.) and as rolled out, it is a non-functional airframe that has yet to be completed into a finished aircraft.  For example, it is still several weeks from being powered up for the first time.  But I digress... my question still stands.  --Ctillier 22:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would think that an A380 is considered built when it is rolled out of the factory and delivered to the flight test department. MilborneOne 22:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That seems like a reasonable milestone... but how would one verify or cite this information without resorting to original research?  --Ctillier 22:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all above. When a plane is flyable it is considered built and I do think the 1 placed in 787 info box is/was premature.--Bangabalunga 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of A380s built 

message: I agree with the reversion of the new pic, for several reeasons. One, the A380 looks like bloated whale at that angle. Two, the blue backgraound is just too dark to be nice to look at. Granted both of these are just personal nitpicks, and minor ones at that. But the third one is the big one: It is from Flickr, and has not been approved as legally usable yet. It would have been prudent to have waited before posting it. - BillCJ 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and it is of much lower resolution, and last but not least, our friend Ssolbergj might have learned a thing or two in the last month or so about building consensus around the choice of A380 infobox image.  I have to admit, I am slightly peeved by his behavior.  --Ctillier 05:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never broke the 3RR, and I'm perfectly allowed to debate whatever I want on a talk page until my head explode, so I think Ctiller should shut up. Because there have been disagreement over an image in the past of an article, doesn't mean that editors shouldn't follow wikipedia policies, such as inserting a brand new image you think is better. (being bold) I'm perfectly fine with being reverted and asked to join the talk page, but one should never be reverted because Ctiller now suddenly thinks by principle that we need to build consensus and have a long discussion first. that kills wikipedia. Now I can't see why Bill think the background is darker..? And I personally don't think the A380 could ever look like a bloated whale. Ssolbergj 10:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Sorry, I mispoke - the pic is too dark overall - the aircraft looks gray, and it's supposed to be the same color as the second pic, right? THe current pic has a much light aircraft, which contrasts well with the blue backgraound thee. Now, I'm perplexed by your first sentence: you act like we told you that you shouldn't talk about it (I'm perfectly allowed to debate whatever I want on a talk page until my head explode), when the point is we want you to talk about it first. And why bring up 3RR now? No one mentioned that this time. The main point here is you know this is a contentious issue, and yet you went ahead and changed the pic on your own again. Yes, we're encouraged to be bold, but not when it's disruptive. Please show some consideration next time, no matter how perfect you think your pics are. - BillCJ 17:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was a recent poll on the photo, so discussion would have been better. But reverting is easy, so let's move on. Please everyone remember to assume good faith, and to be civil. As for the photos, I happen to prefer the view from the bottom as it shows more of the plane. Also the angle of the photo Ssolbergj inserted somehow makes the tail region look very strange. My two cents. Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nobody has commented this now for two months, should I insert the new image? - S. Solberg J. 17:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New pic

message: Why does this article constantly compare the A380 to the 747 instead of the AN-225, or a combination of both? The vast majority of comparissons are with the 747. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.101.237 (talk • contribs) 
Because the 747 is the nearest commercial rival, the An-225 is a one-off and not in competition with anybody. MilborneOne 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I understand - I have just looked at the two pages and the AN-225 article has 640,000 kg and the A380 article has 560,000 kg (590, 000 kg for the 380F) which makes the AN-225 operate at a higher MTOW. MilborneOne 21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison

message: Does anyone know why the Canadian authority was involved apart from EASA and FAA? Doesn´t have the UAE authority a much higher responsiblity for well trained pilots by the number of planes responible for? 84.173.230.75 19:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just speculating here, but could it be because Canada is a major destination point for the A380, and, as the second largest country by area, has a lot of fly-over space? - BillCJ 17:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fly-over concern is a very good (speculative) argument. Thank you! 84.173.219.102 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I had hoped that someone with knowledge on airliner TCs would have responded by now, but no one has. Also speculating, the UAE may honor the type certificates of other nations, or of the EASA, so its own TC would be unnecessary. - BillCJ 17:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewing authorities for Type Certification 

message: User:Fnlayson has added a hidden note in the "Testing" section asking for the date when the Airbus achieved Mach .96. I  am the user who posted that info in the article. Unfortunately I cannot give a date because it was not mentioned in the documentary movie. Incidentally, cameras were running in the cockpit on each attempt to reach Mach .96 and there was a fair bit of buffeting, and movement within the cockpit. No mention was made of why the certification authorities specified that the aircraft had to achieve Mach .96 Moriori 20:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unknown date of tests

message: The A380 received a certification for 45 m wide runways these days. What has been the minimum before?  Has it used narrower runways by special permission? 84.173.237.87 11:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be out flying here now, but I have it in the back of my mind that something similar had to be done when the 747 was introduced. --MoRsE 16:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The B747 was so much bigger than existing airliners that it rendered any number of airports obsolete. It's a wonder that Dulles is still operating. The A380 isn't that much bigger or heavier than a jumbo. I think most terminal modifications have been limited to ensuring that some gates (notably at the end of terminals) can take side-by-side A380s. --Pete 04:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum runway width 

message: When I read an article about A380, I was really impressed by the design, speed(max. 0.93M) and most of all the number of passengers that can be carried.  The super jumbo is capable of carrying more than 850 passengers and weighs just above 273tons, which is almost the same weight of Boeing 747(currently the biggest airliner in service, that can carry about 417 passengers).  However, even with thousands of aircraft designers who tries their best to make A380 safe and efficient as possible, there are certain limits.  For a start, this huge passenger jet requires longer runways and this means that every airports in the world have to extend their runways (which is not an easy task).  Also, before A380 can be commercially used it must take  series of trials to prove itself but some of the trials that were took recently showed certain problems like engine failures in cold regions.  So, the safety of future passengers of A380 is not guaranteed I'm afraid.  On top of all, the most serious problem is evacuation.  According to a test conducted by AirBus(the company who designed A380), it took approximately 1~2 minutes to evacuate the entire 867 passengers.  This test result was good enough pass the safety trial of the aircraft but compared to boeing 747, it takes too much time to evacuate the passengers.  The difference is only couple of seconds but in disasters few seconds means alot.  Just because I listed some problems of the aircraft that does not mean that I do not approve of it.  With out any doubts I can say A380 is clearly the icon of luxury and a marvel of engineering that went beyond the limits of aviation.  Plus, is was very innovative for AirBus to come up with design like A380.  Nonetheless, there are surely flaws that needs to be fixed.
By aviation critic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.150.215.19 (talk • contribs) 
:So, just what needs fixing in the article?  There are surely flaws in what you say above.  The A380 does not require longer or wider runways.  I have yet to hear about engine problems under cold conditions from Airbus or any source in the aviation media.  The evacuation test took 1 minute and 18 seconds, not longer than a 747.  Luxury can be provided in any aircraft, not just the A380.  Need I go on?  --Ctillier 03:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From a aviation lover's point of view 

message: Can users please remember that Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Refer Wikipedia:Talk page. Can users please sign their contributions, thank you. MilborneOne 11:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk Pages

message: Greetings, I created the comparison image to the left, and I added it to some other relevant pages in Feb 2007, only to have it removed because apparently it is "ridiculous".. Can I please have some opinions/comments? Apparently including arguably the most well known sci-fi spaceship makes the entire thing "ridiculous"? - Fosnez 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison Image 

message: The bbc reported that two of the seats have been sold via e-bay for $100,000. Seems pretty noteworthy, but I'm not totally convinced where (if at all) in needs to go in the article. Thoughts anyone? Pedro |  Chat   10:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auction of seats for maiden flight 

message: Looking at the Wikipedia page for Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) architecture, of the aeroplanes listed as examples that use IMA, the in service date for the Rafale predates the two examples listed on the A380 page by over 20 years. If the first Rafale in 1984 had IMA avonics, then the part in the A380 page that says that it was 'first used in advanced military aircraft such as the F-22 Raptor and the Eurofighter Typhoon', is either wrong or the IMA Wikipedia page is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.139.16 (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rafale's in-service date is not 1984, but ca. 1999, just to be clear on that. - BillCJ 20:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avionics architecture 

message: Isn´t the "unknown" VIP customer, Mr Roman Abramovich?
RGDS
Alexmcfire  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talk • contribs) 15:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only a tabloid rumour - no official announcements or citations available. MilborneOne 22:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was denied by Abramovich spokeswomen several days after the rumor started. Check version history of article for link. --Denniss 23:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Soft link to reference - . MilborneOne 17:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VIP customer?

message: Hong-Kong nor Taiwan are countries, so Argentine will become 23rd country that the A380 visits.
RGDS
Alexmcfire  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alex, please, you've been on Wikipedia long enough that you should know to post new topics on the bottom of the talk page, not top, and to sign your posts. Please try to make life easier for the Sinebot! - BillCJ 21:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visited countries 

message: We should add the amount of kerosene per passenger to the specifications table. I guess this information becomes increasingly important, also for customers. According to Airbus the A380 uses 2.9 liters per passenger. --spitzl 15:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a number is definitely original research.  Fuel burn per passenger is not an intrinsic property of an airframe, which is why you usually don't see it quoted in official specifications.  (Marketing guys may spout all sorts of numbers, however!) --Ctillier 05:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specs - add fuel/passenger 

message: Article states: "The A380 designation was a break from previous sequential Airbus designations because the number 8 resembles the double-deck cross section, and is a lucky number in some Asian cultures." (no ref.)
I worked for Airbus for 7 yrs, and in their HQ for 3mths during 2000. I came across an interview with John Leahy in Flight International in which it was mentioned that the A3XX would soon have it's new designation. I emailed Mr. Leahy, as he was on the system (more out of curiosity than actually expecting a reply) suggesting it remain A3XX for various reasons. Surprisingly I received my email back as a fax, with a hand-written line from Mr. Leahy saying it wasn't possible to retain the XX, "but how about A380, being twice the size of the A340?!". Unfortunately I do not have the piece of paper anymore, but it may shed some light on the origin of the A380's name.
I find it unlikely that it was chosen as it resembles the cross-section as this would undoubtedly have been used in advertising campaigns, but I don't remember any of the sort. It being lucky in Asian cultures is likely to have been planned, but it may also just be a lucky co-incidence!
Hope this helps in some way,
Milesoneill.
16 Oct 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milesoneill (talk • contribs) 13:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "resemblance/lucky" info since it did sound speculative.  It's a pity we can't use your story as a source, but maybe somebody will ask Mr. Leahy to confirm it some day.--Father Goose 18:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally put that in the article.  There is a source for it, in Norris & Wagner's book.  I can provide the exact page & paragraph if necessary. --Ctillier 03:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * That'd be good if you could add the right wording back with that reference (#7 now).  I remember someone questioning the last part about the number eight and that was linked in response. -Fnlayson 04:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back.  For what it's worth, there is even a direct quote from Noel Forgeard in the book (Chapter 7, page 73 I believe), about the resemblance to the double-decker cross section.  --Ctillier 04:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A3XX- A380 

message: its interesting and noteable and should be included into a 'features' section it could be along with other stuff like sq footage of floor and stuff,why delete anything off a talk page when it is obviously not vandelism or anthing,just doenst make sense to me.if ya wanna expand the article,dont delte stuff from talk pages.(four tildes,12:20pm,10/16/7)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis66Driftwood (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We get alot of strange, wierd, and insincere questions on these talkpages. I'm sorry your's was misconstrued, but please don't take the deletion persionally. As to your question, the number of lavatories on any airliner will vary according to the airline's needs, routes to be flown, layout, etc. There will probably be too many variations to make a single figure worthwile to include in a table. However, it is not true that Airbus will have a new, innovative, enviromentally-favorable lavatory, as, in tests, the outhouses kept blowing off the wing at cruising speed. - BillCJ 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK the waste-system of the A380-800 is designed for max. 25 toilets, standard for 3-class-layout is 17 lavatories. BillCJ: I think I didn't get the part about "outhouses bloing off the wing at cruising speed"... sounds a bit like flushing toilets directly overboard. --Xeper 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry! Yes, flushing toilets dierectly overboard is part of the concept. See Outhouse for more info. It's just a bit of humor/sarcasm directed at hyper-environmentalists as much as Airbus. - BillCJ 21:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! <makes mental note> just imagine how much weight you could save on an aircraft with this concept ;) --Xeper 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how many bathrooms does this plane have? 

message: I cannot parse this sentence:
: "The A380 was handed over in a Singapore Airlines' first A380 was also unveiled publicly for the first time."
What is the intended meaning? Molinari 17:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar? 

message: Where can you find the seatmap of the Airbus A380 with 853 seats? --88.77.249.144 14:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seatmap with 853 seats 

message: Why was the airport compatibility section moved under Technical Concerns?  While there are indeed some concerns in this area (which were already described in the concerns section), airport compatibility was one of the key design drivers for the aircraft, and it made sense to me that it was described in the Design section of the article.  The consolidation doesn't make sense to me, and I liked the outline better before, when the design considerations were distinguished from the technical concerns.  Opinions?  --Ctillier 04:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airport Compatibility 

message: I was reading an article on this airplane's inagural flight and it mentioned passengers seated in "first-class suites" on the Singapore airlines flight. I don't know exactly what these suites look like, but I came to this articles trying to find out and there doesn't seem to be any mention of suites here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.26.29 (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd probably be a bit much to include more than a sentence's mention of them in this article, as their design (or use at all) is specific to each airline (Emirates is planning a similar but not identical "suite" design) and such suites exist on other planes (Emirates A340s and possibly others).  Still, here's some links specific to A380 suites:    .--Father Goose 21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: All the same, a non-copyrighted picture of them would be great to have in the article, along with other shots of the interior.--Father Goose 21:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: On second thought, I expanded the entire "passenger provisions" section with info on each seating class.--Father Goose 07:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suites? 

message: What is your definition is number built?, if it means the same thing as structurally complete, then 23 A380 have been built not 10.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melrosepark (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of built aircraft 

message: The ref 68 "^ "Airbus makes first delivery of A380 superjumbo", Yahoo! News, 15 October 2007. Retrieved on 2007-10-24. " its placed after the deliveries matrix in the explaning text "Anticipated deliveries are in parentheses.[68]".
Its not the rigth place and its an 3 part surce.
If referens to the delivery I like SIA orr Airbus/EADS thats its and 1 source for the MSN003.
Shod be moved to the main text of Orders and deliveris or deleted becos its not nesesery.
Have trying the last buth its seams to bee an "holy caow" for some.
Mvh MW 85.225.96.49 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me the other source in the article that gives figures for anticipated deliveries (not orders) and is furthermore grouped by year.  EADS' spreadsheet does not contain that information.  The reference you are trying to remove contains the text "EADS chief Louis Gallois stuck to the A380s delivery schedule for next year despite rumours of new production problems. 'The whole company is mobilised. We should deliver 13 next year, 25 in 2009 and 44 in 2010,' he said on the sidelines of the ceremony here."--Father Goose 15:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually tend to agree that the article has way too many redundant references.  The EADS presentation, no matter how old it is, contains correct and current information, and it is a primary source (straight from the horse's mouth, as opposed to a secondary source like a news article).  I think the Heinen reference should be used here.  --Ctillier 23:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * The news article directly quotes the EADS chief.  That's the horse's mouth as well. -Fnlayson 23:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so what is the value added by citing the news article?  That's my point from above: there's a useless proliferation of redundant references.  --Ctillier 01:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The news article is more up-to-date; the prior figure listed for 2010 was 45, not 44.  Having a few "redundant references" (a claim I contest) is far less harmful than removing any references that aren't redundant, so references should only be removed when two sources are given for the same fact (and not necessarily two citations in a row, as they might be sources for two different facts given in the same sentence.  Furthermore, even if the EADS document was the source being used for the anticipated deliveries, it should be cited right beside them, to make it clear where that info is coming from.--Father Goose 05:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad placed reference (Deliveries)