Checking in

[budgie 1]

No not that sandpit. I'm in the UAE right now and approaching my last week of ab-initio training to be a flight attendant for a regional carrier. This is why I've not been around for a while. Just to let you all know I'm still alive and managed to escape Hong Kong. Graduation in 9 days and then, A380, here I come...in a year or two when we get them that is

[Rocky 1,224]

Hey Budgie, good to hear from ya!

[Giampi 39]

No not that sandpit. I'm in the UAE right now and approaching my last week of ab-initio training to be a flight attendant for a regional carrier.  This is why I've not been around for a while. Just to let you all know I'm still alive and managed to escape Hong Kong. Graduation in 9 days and then, A380, here I come...in a year or two when we get them that is

←

If you are in UAE and managed to escape what should I say that I'm in Saudi

Happy to hear you bro

[WhiteKnight77 1]

The A380s are not an attractive plane at all. Maybe if Airbus had stuck the flight deck between the 2 levels or on the upper level ala the 747 it would look better, but that high forehead it has is not very becoming.

[Gav80 0]

As opposed to the "beauty" of that hump-back on the 747...? A twin-deck plane is always gonna have a "high forehead"... Not much you can do about that. And I don't think the 380 is unattractive at all....

In other news, the A380 successfully completed its first flight this morning, setting a new record for the take-off weight of a civil aircraft (421 tonnes).

[WhiteKnight77 1]

The thing with the 747 is that the nose is more symetrical compared to the A380 as seen here

The A380, weighing in at 610,700lbs to the 747's 401,800 (can be less depending on which engines are used and these are empty weights) really limits where the plane can be flown too. Most aiports can't handle it. Even if an airport wanted to, it would take 5 or so years to tear up a runway and rebuild one that could handle it, not to mention the fact that gates would have to be reconfigured and the tarmac at the gate would need reinforcing. Couple that with passengers who will not want to wait forever to deplane from the upper deck (Qantas is wanting to outfit them for 523 passengers though it can be configured to carry 555).

Personally, it may be an albatross for Airbus. There are 149 planes (27 of which are frieghters) ordered at this time according to information I have been able to find, just a drop in the airline bucket really.

[Gav80 0]

Potentially it could cause problems for Airbus, yeah. And certainly there's lots of infra-structure work needs doing at airports like you mentioned... but still Heathrow reckons that one flight in eight at that airport will be an A380 by 2016....

And 555 passengers is the plane's "standard" airliner configuration. It can take as many as 840...

BBC News story of the test flight

Airbus A380 official website

[WhiteKnight77 1]

Try unloading 840 passengers within 30 minutes. Never gonna happen.

[Dan 0]

(Qantas is wanting to outfit them for 523 passengers though it can be configured to carry 555).

←

Yep they have already ordered 12!

[Gav80 0]

Try unloading 840 passengers within 30 minutes. Never gonna happen.

←

So? Bearing in mind that that's the equivalent of two 747s, how long would it take to unload them??

You seem very negative about this plane... perhaps cuz it's European rather than a good ol' American Boeing...?

[Dan 0]

oooo below the belt!

[Gav80 0]

Lol... WK knows I'm just pulling his tail - right...??

[cdnsniper 0]

Well if he hollars just let him go, ya know lol

[WhiteKnight77 1]

I'm not against the new plane due to it's European manufacture, but it's sheer size. I have flown on a 747 from LA to Okinawa via Anchorage and was able to deplane in under 20 minutes from the back of the plane were us smokers had to sit. That is even beeing packed in cattle car style (thanks Flying Tigers ).

I also wonder how fast they could realistically eveacuate passengers in an emergency though they can open exits on both sides of the plane. Remember that this is just my opinion.

In FS 2004 I have flown several different aircraft and so far, the only airliner that I have had fall out of the sky on my was an Airbus A320. As I was reaching cruise altitude, the plane wouldn't trim out properly and it would stall due to losing airspeed. Now I will use the auto pilot (just as real airline pilots will do) and that computer is part of the problem with it I think. It forces the elevetors to full up and will not decrease the trim to keep airspeed up. It took me a while to figure out what was happening. After falling from over 32,000 feet (that is 6 miles up mind you) and crashing, I figured out what was happening when I took a look at the external view and saw the elevators at full stop mark. I had to adjust the vertical climb rate to something slower to keep from falling out of the sky. Seems that the plane does not like a climb rate of 1500' a minute. Now this can be a characteristic of the games FDE for that plane in the game, but it could be a real problem I don't know. Airbus has had a plane crash due to a computer malfunction thinking the plane was landing when it was trying to actually climb (Paris airshow 1988). BTW, I will be posting a series of screen of my flight with a JetBlue A320 flight from Houston to New York soon.

I on't care who makes planes, just as long as I can get off the plane in a reasonable amount of time when I get to my destinations is all I care about.

[Gav80 0]

Well, when it enters service, I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised. There are international rules drawn up by your FAA, our CAA etc, governing how quickly the plane must be evacuated in an emergency, and I'm sure Airbus've thought of how long it'll take to get passengers on and off - let's face it, all they need to do is put more doors in to make it quicker.

Never having played any of the MS FS games, I can't really comment too much, but I would never suspect that a genuine aircraft had a particular problem purely because I'd experienced it in a computer game. Airbus has an excellent safety record (Paris airshow 1988 - almost 20 years ago now - not withstanding) and their various planes are becoming increasingly popular amongst the airlines, rapidly gaining market share from Boeing. They're not so successful just by accident.

I'm not saying your thoughts aren't relevant; I'm saying that, although they're possible causes for concern, I'm sure the designers have thought of them too.

Edited April 28, 2005 by Gav80

[The_Slink 0]

I like the look of them.

Are they really as decked out (showers, bar, restuarant) as I heard 'em to be in 2002?

[dickie 0]

(Qantas is wanting to outfit them for 523 passengers though it can be configured to carry 555).

←

Yep they have already ordered 12!

←

Quantas? With THOSE things?!

Courtesy of el google:

Never let it be said that ground crews and engineers lack a

sense of humor. Here are some actual logged maintenance

complaints and problems, known as "squawks," submitted by

QUANTAS pilots and the solution recorded by maintenance

engineers. By the way Quantas is the only major airline that has

never had an accident.

P = The problem logged by the pilot.

S = The solution and action recorded by the engineers.

P: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.

S: Almost replaced left inside main tire.

P: Test flight OK, except autoland very rough.

S: Autoland not installed on this aircraft.

P: No. 2 propeller seeping prop fluid.

S: No. 2 propeller seepage normal. Nos. 1, 3 and 4 propellers

lack normal seepage.

P: Something loose in cockpit.

S: Something tightened in cockpit.

P: Dead bugs on windshield.

S: Live bugs on backorder.

P: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200-fpm descent.

S: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.

P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.

S: Evidence removed.

P: DME volume unbelievably loud.

S: DME volume set to more believable level.

P: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.

S: That's what they're there for!

P: IFF inoperative.

S: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.

P: Suspected crack in windscreen.

S: Suspect you're right.

P: Number 3 engine missing.

S: Engine found on right wing after brief search.

P: Aircraft handles funny.

S: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious.

P: Target radar hums.

S: Reprogrammed target radar with words.

P: Mouse in cockpit.

S: Cat installed.

I dread to think what could happen...!?

but seriously, bring back concorde!!

[Gav80 0]

I've seen that list before - credited not to Qantas, but to the USAF. I think that is slightly more likely. Unless of course you can offer a plausible explanation of why a civilian airliner would have aircraft featuring IFF and targeting radar...?

EDIT: I agree on the Concorde sentiments btw...

Are they really as decked out (showers, bar, restuarant) as I heard 'em to be in 2002?

They can be. Although the interior layout will be up to the operator of the aircraft, and given the choice between putting all that stuff in and adding extra seats to make more money, I cynically suspect I know which way the airlines will jump on that decision...

Edited April 28, 2005 by Gav80

[budgie 1]

The A380s are not an attractive plane at all. Maybe if Airbus had stuck the flight deck between the 2 levels or on the upper level ala the 747 it would look better, but that high forehead it has is not very becoming.

←

Well I'll be looking at them mostly from the inside. Eight exits on lower deck and six on the top; emergency evac of all pax in 90 seconds with only 50% of exits available. Can't ask for more than that...

[budgie 1]

I like the look of them.

Are they really as decked out (showers, bar, restuarant) as I heard 'em to be in 2002?

←

Nope. The airlines will cram as many seats in as they can. Virgin is the only one that will splash out by putting a bar in the front at the top. AFAIK everyone else (includsing Emirates) will be filling out three-class or two-class (sardine) configurations with over 550 pax for major routes.

On the subject of evacuations, ICAO rules dictate that all commerical airliners be able to evacuate all pax in 90 seconds with only half the exits opertational. The A380 passed that test at toulouse earlier this month (that means six or seven hundred lucky ###### got to play on it before it flew). B777-300s have 5 doors down each side for this purpose because they're so long. The A380 seems to have enough doors to cover all the seats - just think of it as one cabin atop the other.