Jump to content

Talk:Airbus A380/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Delivery delays are not clear from the article section

So what was the total delay for production? The section Production and delivery delays lists two delays of 6 and 7 months, and then a third delay with a new delivery date, but there is now way to tell how long that delay was, and no way to tell the total delay. I could not find the original planned delivery date anywhere in the article. I think that in the view of the continuing delays with Boeing 787, another high profile project (albeit not directly comparable) this could be interesting information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.49.18 (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Persistent flouting of editing guidelines

83.255.39.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
83.255.40.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
83.255.42.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
83.255.41.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wow! Ok, let me ask you: Why do you include a line called "national origin" if stating that national origin(s) is forbidden? I know someone put that "limit of three" comment in the template, but, honestly, it seems a little silly to try to be that rigid on that kind of arbitrary limitation. Mentioning those four countries does not even make the box any bigger, but simply contribute relevant information. Bad rules are meant to be broken ;)
(I'm certainly no expert on airliners, but I have made thousands of in depth edits on computing, electronics, physics and mathematics, among other topics. Only very seldom do I find my edits being reverted on such superficial grounds.) 83.255.39.202 (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Then idea of wiki projects is to gain consensus over a number of articles of the same type so the reversion is not on superficial grounds. We dont have a limit of three that is for the operators but current practice is to list the country of origin or if more than one to use the term international or multi-national. If you are not happy with the approach then I would suggest bringing it up at the aircraft wikiproject for discussion. Also note that the official national origin of the A380 is France which is where the certification is held and in official documents they are a product of France but to reflect the international nature of the programme it was decided to use multi-national. It is not normal practice to list every vendor of all the big bits as where does it stop. If your taking value for example then all Rolls-Royce powered aircraft should also have United Kingdom as an origin which would be a bit daft for lots of aircraft like the Boeing 757 or 777. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the guidelines on this. I think putting European in the box would be a little misleading as it is not all European nations. Multi-national is also not particularly descrpitive. Putting France because of licencing would also be a little missleading. Generally I would favour printing France, Germany, Spain and UK individually. However it is not my intention to start arguing with the guidelines. I am happy with multi-national so long as whatever is chosen is standard across all Airbus pages unless there is good reason and also that the nations involved are clearly explained, preferably briefly in the infobox and then in detail including the parts played by each nation in the manufacturing process further down.

I woudldn't include the engine manufacturers as there are more than one available and it would get very confusing. Furthermore if we go down this route the manufacturer of all the avionics etc will have to be listed and every aircraft article will have two hundred nations listed. I think common sense should probably be applied here. Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding video content to entry

Hi, I didn't want to just add it, but I notice there is a picture of the A380, so would it be good to have a video too? I would like to add my video so there is no copyright issues, http://vimeo.com/16181777 as I think its a good example of the aircraft in action. Phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.42.173 (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Just watched your video. Found it quite interesting to see how such a large aircraft could be so agile. I've never seen such a large aircraft in flight (I used to sometimes see the old 747-100s and 200s when they ran services from Leeds). I think a video would be beneficial to the page. Upload it to commons first and then see if nobody objects to it being added. I'd support its addition. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Entry into Service - Load Factor

Doing a quick calculation from the numbers quoted in the article, 6,000,000 passengers in 17,000 flights comes out to only about 353 passengers per flight. Assuming all flights were using a standard 555-seat layout, that is an average load factor of only 64%, significantly lower than the 80%-90% I've heard quoted elsewhere. Are these numbers accurate (a very quick google search didn't turn up any solid articles on this subject)? The citation is to an Airbus press release, but that seems really low.

Most of the aircraft are configured for fewer than 555 seats. LH is 526, Qantas is 450 or 470, Emirates has 470, etc. That would change the number. Mgw89 (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce Trent engines

The aftermath of the Qantas incident indicates that there are in fact two different kinds of Rolls-Royce Trent engines. But the article section Engines doesn't say anything along those lines? RenniePet (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

They are both Trent 900 versions (970 & 972, I think). Maybe something brief, but not too much with there being 3 engine models, each with versions. Specifics on engine versions are better covered in the engine article(s). -fnlayson (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I hadn't even realized there was a whole article about the engine. RenniePet (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. And thanks. You reminded me to update those links. The main engine models were split off from the Rolls-Royce Trent article somewhat recently (~1 year ago). -fnlayson (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is an investigation revealing oil stains in the engines, but I don't know if the details should be integrated into the article. See here. --Natural RX 18:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 32

No, I'm not going to be bold and add this without discussion. An A380 of Qantas suffered an uncontained engine failure today. Parts of the engine fell on Batam, Indonesia. The aircraft made a successful emergency landing at Changi, Singapore.

This incident is not serious enough to justify an article. Should one be created I will be voting "delete" in the AfD discussion which would follow. I believe it is worth mentioning in the article on the aircraft, and also on the airline and airport where the aircraft landed. Opening for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we should hold off including this in any article (A380 and Qantas) until we know the cause or the suspected cause but that will not be known until the investigation releases a preliminary or draft report. Adding it is wrong since the cause is not known. Bidgee (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Bidgee, the cause of the incident is known - an uncontained engine failure. Agree that the investigation will take months before the final report is released, but a preliminary report should be available in a matter of weeks. Mjroots (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Article has been created and nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Note, the item was added to the article, and I removed it with the intention of re-adding it immendiately in the correct position per the WP:AIR/PC style, and then realized 30 minutes later that I had not put it back! I added it back, with a note that I'm not certain it's notable. - BilCat (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Its pretty serious for the Qantas and aircraft - and for Australian Aviation. Many stand alone articles have less serious incident (you need examples?). Give the article some time and space for others to contribute, i'll support to delete it myself less than everybody in Australia remembers it in a day or two.

Stop wasting yours and everybodys time by undo or delete other peoples contributions and arguing over nothing and go and read something or make a constructive contribution on the incident or some other articles. Bidgee has mentioned that an airline incident is no longer news when its six months old. Move on and let others have time to do their work --Advanstra (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Do not twist my words, This happened a few hours ago and is too recent, the aircraft landed safely, no one was hurt or injured so per WP:NOTNEWS but with Qantas now grounding the A380, I see no issue of adding it into the Qantas article (see what an hour or so doesn't hurt). Also six months time I'm stating it is when the cause would likely be known. Bidgee (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
OK guys, least said = soonest mended. Let's concentrate on the issues, not who holds what view. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Its being shown contunuously on Australian TV which makes it important and notable, id rather be gathering notable and reliable updates, rather than bickering with other wikipedians. Sorry if i upset anyone personally, but please give the story some time and not let me find myself constantly responding to a torrent on comments/talk pages, and people who want to delete an article 1 minute after its created (i cant even type something before getting an edit conflict). Remember that what might not be a notable story for someone is notable for someone else. Its pretty notable and significant in Australia.--Advanstra (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Constant coverage on Australian TV is what would be expected. The incident is receiving some coverage in the UK, but it is not constant. Advanstra, by all means expand the article on the incident, give it some structure, add cats and the template for 2010 accidents. The article may survive the AfD, you have the best part of a week before the AfD closes. Things should be much clearer in 24h or so. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
It's the lead story on the BBC website right now: [1]. 86.152.23.62 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
An incident has happened. An article has been created and nominated for deletion as per the correct procedure. There is no need to waste vast quantities of effort in a mad rush to judgement in the heat of the moment. Keep calm and carry on. As our esteemed contributor Mjroots points out, in a week things will be much clearer and a consensus will be formed. 84.9.38.188 (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Only Qantas use Trent 972, not Singapur Airlines [2].82.83.239.148 (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Plane spotting world is not a reliable source of itself. - BilCat (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts: something along of the lines "Quantas grounded its fleet of A380 following an engine failure on 4th November." would be sufficient for both Quantas and the A380 articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Drama in the cockpit: Qantas crew faced 54 alarms: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013469631_qantasdrama19.html

"The amount of failures is unprecedented," said Richard Woodward, a fellow Qantas A380 pilot who has spoken to all five pilots. "There is probably a one in 100 million chance to have all that go wrong."
"When pilots receive safety warnings, they are supposed to check the airline's operating manual and implement specific procedures. But with so many warnings, the Qantas pilots had to sort through and prioritize the most serious problems first.
"It's likely that for some problems there were no procedures, because no airline anticipates so many things going wrong at once, John Goglia, a former National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) member said."

65.37.66.177 (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That should already be covered in the accident article - details such as that don't need to be here. - BilCat (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't they? It would be helpful if you would supply some Wiki policy or guideline, which justifies inclusion of the facts that you want to be in there, while also providing for the exclusion of facts that I think should be in there. Since the facts you insist should remain, are also in the accident article, then I am having a difficult time understanding why your facts are more important than my facts. In other words, you need to let us know that your judgment is based on something other than just your arbitrary whim...

There are hordes of other examples through Wiki aviation articles, where accident facts are included in other articles beside the accident article -- and have remained so for many years. Sure, that amounts to some duplication of facts, but it also helps readers to understand what is being described in a specific section of a specific article too, so apparently that is an acceptable Wiki policy. 65.37.66.177 (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Manual of Style (summary style). Basically more of the detailed content belongs at lower level articles, which for this situation is the accident article. -fnlayson (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I deleted a large amount of deatil under #Incidents because it was either a duplication of or conflicted with material in Qantas Flight 32, where it should prperly be covered. If the author thinks some of that naterial should be covered they may conmsider putting it into QF32 where it will be considered on its merits in that forum Ex nihil (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Including the number of hull loss accidents

Since the articles for other airliners include the number of hull loss accidents for those types, this article should too. Unfortunately my efforts to add that info are being reverted. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it is original research. To add text saying it might or might not be a hull loss is just speculating. Wait until something is reported/announced about the A380 airframe in question. -fnlayson (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture at top of article

Why is the image of a Qantas A380? Not that I have anything against it, but why pick a seemingly random airline over the Airbus standard livery or the launch customer? I tried to change it to this image, but was told that the Qantas image is larger and shows the underside of the plane, and is therefore better. How does showing the underside matter? And why does the size of the image matter seeing as both are about the same size once included in the box? Does that mean that the biggest picture possible should always be used? 77.98.17.111 (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In the choice of the image, I'd say that relevance, balance and esthetics count. At present there is one image of each operator (certainly not a rule, but nicely balanced) and every A380 image would be relevant here. I therefore wouldn't mind a change if that meant that a Qantas would be placed down (and still making the point the pictures in the lower text are now making...). However, looking at the image you are providing, then I think it is not a big esthetical improvement: the image consists mainly of grey sky, whereas the Qantas image shows much more of the plane, and much less of the air... L.tak (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Changed it back. Three reasons:
  1. Main customer
  2. Better image
  3. Undiscussed change by australian IP 122.110.92.230. 77.186.41.85 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
He 77, I don't think it is a better image (see my rational above; feel free to react). The main customer argument is a good point, but I do think that in that case it would be required the have a balanced view and I kind of liked the situation in which there was one image of each. The last point you pointed out is not relevant. Assuming good faith means that it is important to look at the actions, and not at perceived non-neutral points of view just because of the home range of an IP. L.tak (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
A good quality image that clearly shows the aircraft is the main thing. An image of the aircraft in the main customer's livery is is a minor thing. It is difficult enough to find an image that meets the quality/view part. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, to sum it up:
- Main customer: Minor point, but a point. Balancing should respect this point.
- Better (Good) image: This picture stayed for a long time on this page. Its good and clear. @L.tak: Your discussion was about a different image.
- Australian IP: Must not violate neutrality, but can. And wasn´t discussed! 77.186.41.85 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, the "Australian IP" (again: although that could be unneutral, asuming good faith means NOT suggesting that!) changed it in september; than it was stable for 5 months (see here). Therefore this was the stable version and until you get consensus for changing, you should NOT change it as you did now 4 times (I counted wrongly before)... L.tak (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thats obviously no reason. See above. 77.186.41.85 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
When there is not yet WP:consensus on a change the last stable version should stay. Thus, by placing your reverts and not seeking consensus it was relevant for me to explain what was the last stable version... I have also given my reaction on the image in the points above (less quality, and certainly no change when not changing the balance of the images) as has Fnlayson. Feel free to react on that; or wait to let others weigh in. Then after a few days we can see if a change is desirable. Goodnight for now; it's already past my bedtime ;-) L.tak (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Again no reason. You are unable to understand my arguments. EOD. 77.186.41.85 (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree that the current QANTAS image is much better than the Emirates one, in respect to the lighting, easily identifying the subject aircraft and clearly showing the second deck. If an image of equal quality for Emirates can be found I'd be willing to consider it, but for now the QANTAS picture is much better suited for the article. Ravendrop (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Does this constitute an incident?

This morning, I was about to fly with a Singapore Airlines A380 from SIN to LHR, on flight SQ318 at 1245 local time. The take-off was aborted twice between 1245 and 1345. The aircraft was both times on the runway, and did not / could not take off. After this, the aircraft was ordered back to the gate. According to SIA, there was a "technical failure", but that failure was not disclosed. Disembarkation followed the return and another A380 took off to London at 1630 local time. Is this an incident? Fibratus (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No. It has to be reported in a reliable source, and it has to be a noteworthy incident. - BilCat (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This happens every day, not notable. Slasher-fun (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

ILFC Cancellation Inclusion

A debate over whether or not to include the recently announced ILFC cancellation is ongoing on the list of orders talk page. Numbers shouldn't be changed until consensus is reached there. Link: Talk:List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries#ILFC Cancellation. Ravendrop 21:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait for O&D update. Slasher-fun (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hasn't this been resolved? The articles are inconsistent, so I'll try changing this one. RenniePet (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
On second thought I can see there are references involved, so I'll leave it up to someone else to make the articles consistent. RenniePet (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Good grief, can't you guys try to sort this out? On the "orders and deliveries" article it says one thing, here it says something else, and does so inconsistently - the graph has one number and the table has another number. RenniePet (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
This issue has already been solved on the other talk page. ILFC has officially cancelled their order, and this is reflective on the official Airbus order sheet, see reference #1 on the list page, and this is the reference that we go by. There is no doubt or ambiguity on this as far as I know. Ravendrop 21:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
ILFC has not officially cancelled the A380 order as the replacement order is not yet finalized (just in MoU status). Airbus website and the xls spreadsheet still have 244 A380 on order. Please do not change again until it's officially changed in their order spreadsheet. --Denniss (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
But their customer list for March 2011 does not include the ILFC and clearly says 234 orders (again see ref 1 on the other page). The spreadsheet is from Feb 28th, it is dated; the customer list is the most up to date, so it is the one to use. Ravendrop 02:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The spreadsheet is from March 31st. Slasher-fun (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't care much one way or the other, but I think it's really dumb that this article and the "orders and deliveries" article are saying two different things, and this article is not even consistent with itself; there is one number in the graph and a different number in the table and the text. RenniePet (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The proven best policy was to stay synced with the official orders&deliveries pages of the aircraft manufacturers. Once they updated the numbers in their orderbooks we could change the order count. We may include orders/cancellations from press releases but these should be clearly marked as not firm, these not be counted in order totals. --Denniss (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
So is the PDF I'm referring to, even though published by Airbus, not actually an official order tally? And more to the point: I really don't care whether its at 244 or 234 at this point because the ILFC cancellation if not already official is only a matter of time, but I'm more concerned that both this page, and the list of orders page should have the same information and numbers, which they currently do not. Ravendrop 21:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
If information contradicts each other, better leave the current status. A380 aircraft page, order&deliveries page and the excel file available there shows the order still as effective. --Denniss (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I now agree that with the conflicting info that the excel order sheet is the best, and the airbus website clearly shows 244 as the A380 total. But mine, and the original poster's, concern that List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries has conflicting info to this page still stands. That page has had 234 as stable for a while now, so where do we go from here? Just change it, or does a discussion need to happen at that talk page first? Ravendrop 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that because of the discrepency between the 2 most recent (March 2011) Airbus credible documents (A380 Order Table and O & D), the best course of action is to include the cancellation, but add a note of some sort. Looking at ILFC's Annual Report (ref 109 on the other page), there's a footnote saying: As of March 2011, we are no longer required to take delivery of the A380s on order. That to me is saying that the cancellation itself is pretty much firm. Ivowilliams (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Since ILFC have now firmed up their order for the A320neo, it is pretty safe to say that their order for the A380 has now been cancelled and replaced with this new order. Thus, I think the order totals (234) can now be made the same for both this and the main A380 article. Ivowilliams (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Since April O&D sheet will be out in a few days, can't we just wait to have a reliable source? Slasher-fun (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

11 April 2011 A380 incident

This was recently removed... 65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

  • @65.93.12.101: Normally, for this kind of crap (my apologies for lack of a better word to surmise this) to added into article pages there must exist a few pre-requisites in order to meet notability for WP:AIR's requirement, and they are 1.) someone onboard the plane(s) or immediately around it was seriously injured; and 2.) the plane(s) have suffered some kind of severe damage (such as a hull breach or entirely broken off wing). None of the above which I've mentioned are visibly present in this case, now be gone. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dave,

I went to the A380 page to try to learn more about the incident, found it was not included, so added a sentence. Given the enormous interest in the A380, and it's relative newness, perhaps even minor incidents are worthy of mention. Indeed, this minor crash could lead, eg, to changes in taxiing protocol at JFK and other airports to avoid similar incidents due to the aircraft's sheer size. My hope was that others would add to the description and something coherent would emerge - you know, the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Instead I am left with your insulting response - helpful, Dave, very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.126.237 (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I see now that Wikipedia in sending me messages in which my actions are described as "vandalism." So the Wikipedia definition of "Vandalism" now extends to "good faith efforts to include relevant information in an article." And by "relevant" I mean the information I went to Wikipedia to find in the first place? Great. Suggest that alienating users who make good-faith changes not a sound long-term strategy, Dave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.126.237 (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, Dave, if you dispute my edits, why not try to constructively improve them, rather than removing my contribution all together? It's not very collaborative to simply block out my voice. The A380 incident is being widely reported in the press - front page of the NYTimes - so in my view counts as an incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.126.237 (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

THESE ARE NOT DISRUPTIVE EDITS. I WENT TO WIKIPEDIA LOOKING FOR INFORMATION, COULDN'T FIND IT, SO MADE A FIRST STAB AT ADDING IT. How is that destructive? By any rational definition, my edits were the opposite: I attempted to make a constructive contribution to Wikipedia, and I have been summarily shot down and accused of vandalism. Wikipedia = dictatorship. Where's the collaborative love???? [edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.126.237 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Strongly suggest you knock it off with your condescending tone and stick to the guidelines laid down on WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS (ask someone here if you are not sure! FPS, you're not a headless horse gnat buzzing around with no directions or heading whatsoever), in short... read the fine print before you add non-notable incident here, this is not the most appropriate article page (if you get the hint now) to add this newsy entry. This is your last warning before a BLOCK comes into effect for your violation of 3RR. Best and out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Dear Dave, Strongly suggest in future that you knock of the insulting tone which launched this exchange. Way to welcome contributors. I looked at the guidelines, and disagree with them in this case. Again - given the newness of the aircraft and the massive public interest in it, I believe the collision with the ComAir jet is worthy of brief mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.126.237 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you disagree with the guidelines, the place to discuss it is on the talk pages for the relevant guidelines. If this topic doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, you might want to look at whether it meets the criteria for inclusion at Wikinews. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, discussion in mainly here about including this incident or not in the article. In the meantime, a wikinews entry has been created. Slasher-fun (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I too came here looking for information, and found it weird that it wasn't mention. In addition I find the aggressiveness of "Dave" not suitable for such a discussion. My thoughts are 1: I agree that this is widely enough reported for it to be included. 2: Guidelines is NOT the same as rules. If its not to be added to the "accident" section, it should be added to an "In the media" or something to that kin. To me it would signify a failure of the Wikipedia system if one is not allowed to add information that many people report wanting to find here, and that is as widely reported as this incident. One of the reasons I think this worth adding is that its an incident crudely but effectively demonstrates the size of the plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacealcard (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember when this very same A380 got hit by an Air France A332 at CDG, and had to stay 3 weeks out of service? Well, same here basically. Regarding the "in the media" part, there's an article on Wikinews about it. Slasher-fun (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave, can you please be so kind as to explain why the incident at JFK is "minor"? The last I checked, a CRJ700 has an MTOW of ~72k lbs. Surely the kind of impact that can move that weight in so sudden a manner is significant. Also, you do come off as kind of a jerk...but perhaps that's what you're shooting for. Anyhow, the NTSB seems to think it worth looking into... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.157.190.65 (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the posts at the top for explanation. See also WP:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents#Aircraft_articles for more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. I did, and I still don't understand the logic. I thought for sure that having a vertical stabilizer take the kind of damage seen qualifies as "serious damage." But, whatever. I was just curious. I know people like Dave and Slash-whatever and yourself will never back down. I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. Thanks for being, if not helpful, at least civil. It's appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.157.190.65 (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not being aggressive in any way, so please don't be either :) Slasher-fun (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Dave, I just readded the incident, which is significant. You clearly don't have consensus to remove it. Also, you need to stop threatening other editors with blocks and calling their edits "crap." If you're taking this subject that personally, then you need to stop editing this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Just in case, here is a list of reasons why this incident is notable:
  • An emergency was declared and the Comair plane did an emergency evacuation of its 66 passengers onto the airport tarmac
  • The Air France flight was cancelled, with 450 passengers
  • The A380 was impounded for investigation by government authorities
  • Both aircraft were damaged to an extent to require several weeks of repairs
  • The total amount of damages will likely be in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars
  • The incident was reported in headlines by major media sources
  • The A380's larger-than-average wingspan may have played a role in the incident
  • The incident took place at one of the busiest airports in the world
  • The incident was caught on video and was shown repeatedly in major broadcast media
  • Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. I just read through everything and I have to agree with Cla68, this incident is major (both in publicity and expected cost to repair...if it turns out to be a $50 fix, we can always later remove it). I concur with the readdition of the material. This incident rapidly appears to be leading towards a revision as to how airports handle this giant airplane.
  2. Dave, I'm usually pretty upfront on my comments about the behavior of fellow contributors, and this isn't an exception. These were good faith contributions and you are out of line for suggesting that this is vandalism ("Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Furthermore, you are not helping at all by calling contributions "crap" and being condescending.
  3. Noob IP, I also think that this talk page, or others, is definitely the forum in which to pursue discussion and address the issue. Please do not engage in edit warring. As you can see, a well-reasoned argument usually eventually wins out. Give it a bit of time. — BQZip01 — talk 01:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks BQZip01, and if I can add, I'm really disappointed with the reception the IP editor received here on this page. The way the editor was treated is completely contrary to what is supposed to be the spirit and vision of this project. I'll be keeping this page on my watchlist, and expect that the behavior which occurred here never happens again. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but the IP didn't have either to start an edit war instead of discussing. Anyway, after the similar incident I posted above regarding F-HPJD that didn't deserve a WP article, here is something even worse with another CRJ that doesn't have either a WP article. Still unconviced? Regarding the "media" part, without the video we wouldn't even have heard of it. Media are really often in a "sensational news" way when dealing with aviation, remember how many Qantas incidents were suddenly reported by the media after QF32 incident. Slasher-fun (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
The incident has twice been added to the Air France accidents and incidents, and Slasher has twice removed it. I'm leaning towards it being a notable incident under WP:AIRCRASH. The A380 suffered only slight/moderate damage, but the CRJ suffered moderate/substantial damage. As that aircraft is 7½ years old, the damage may even be severe enough to be uneconomic to repair. That, coupled with the emergency evacuation, makes this a notable enough incident to be mentioned at the Airport, both Airlines and both Aircraft types articles IMHO. At the moment, I'm not convinced that it is notable enough to sustain a separate article, but I'm keeping an open mind on that scenario for now. 81.154.180.228 (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Comment added by Mjroots (talk · contribs), who got logged out when redirected to secure wiki
As I said in another discussion page, I wasn't trying to start an EW, I just thought the policy was "keep the original version until we have a consensus". Every year we have a couple of aircrafts that skid off runway for example with emergency evacuation, sometimes the aircraft is taken out of service for weeks, and this is not mentionned anywhere here (because it is not notable enough). The E135 pictured above (with is not a CRJ) was only 6 years old when its tail got completely destroyed by a Thai Airways 747. But it's been repaired and is still in service (sold to Air Namibia in February). And we don't have any mention of that comparable incident either. The only difference with this incident here and that we have a video footage of the incident, and because of that media are talking about it a lot. Slasher-fun (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Good point there, Slasher. Honestly, we have too many of such non-notable incidents happening over the years, and had we started to list them all (and I have a SIAEC log book here to state it unequivocally for all to see, should I chose to...), this article page would've been flooded with all manner of tid-bits for all the aircraft enthusiasts to devour. Question now, is this really the kind of Online Encyclopedia that Wikipedia wants to set out to become in the very first place? I don't think so. So, as per WP:RECENT, my opinion is to leave it out for the time being. And if anyone were to insist to add this, please go instead to the article page of Air France or Comair, as IMO aircraft articles should be free from such tid-bits which serves nothing to the improvement of the page. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Establishing notability

WP:AIRCRASH is the relevant guideline.

Airport, Airline and Aircraft articles

For airline and military aircraft, a listing of notable aircraft incidents and accidents, where appropriate. Accidents or incidents should only be included in airport/airline/aircraft articles if:

  • The accident was fatal to humans; or
  • The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or
  • The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

In this case, the damage to the A380 was slight. However, the CRJ-700 suffered substantial damage, with its tail being bent out of vertical by some 20° (Photo on Pprune). Currently unknown whether or not the aircraft is a write-off. The A380 was on the correct taxiway, but appears to have been taxying at excessive speed. (JFK A380 Operations plan states 15mph max). So far, there is no indication that the CRJ was somewhere it was not authorised to be. Thus I believe that WP:AIRCRASH is met, but the incident may not yet be notable enough for a stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The apparent serious damage to the CRJ700 means the entry better qualities for the Bombardier CRJ700 series, but not necessarily in this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is that the incident is notable, and I would think that point 2 and 3 from Mjroots list, combined with the level of publicity this incident received qualifies it to be left in. Jacealcard (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
We don't know yet whether point 3 will be met. Point 2 is certainly met in respect of the CRJ-700. Mjroots (talk)

Just a thought: since the 380 was the STRIKING airplane, I would suggest that assignment of fault would probably fall under the "see and avoid" doctrine. The way I see it (and I'm not trying to be THAT GUY, but I am a pilot with Heavy tickets), the Comair plane was stationary and the 380 was in motion...this puts the "burden of avoidance" on the 380. That makes it more of an issue with the 380 than with the CRJ: the 380 was the one that was supposed to have a care. Regardless, I think it will be interesting to see what the eventual investigation outcome is..it may have far-reaching implications for operators of "super" airplanes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.126.239 (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it may have consequences for operators of A380s at JFK, but that is for the investigation to report on, and make recommendations as they see fit. For the moment, this is crystal ball gazing. Mjroots (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. I had a point when I posted that re: reasoning for including the incident in the article, but for the life of me I can't remember what it was. Phone rang and I got tied up. Crud. I appreciate you keeping me honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.126.239 (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, so, now that it was "a while" ago: given this A380 already had a similar incident in November at CDG that's not mentionned anywhere, that something worse happened to an Embraer 135 that's not mentionned anywhere either, and since this was in the media only because somebody caught a video of it, does somebody object to removing this incident from this article now? Slasher-fun (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you as well, and certainly shouldn't be labelled as a "significant" incident as per the article. From the cited reference, there is no mention of this particular incident, and so is not to the same level of notability as the QF32 incident. So I think the article should be changed to only one significant incident, and this incident removed. Ivowilliams (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This incident is not notable for inclusion here because nobody was injured and no major damage was done. Imagine if we were to include every incident of this magnitude on the Boeing 737 or Boeing 747, and how long it would make the articles, and how silly that would be. --John (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • For the three criteria, this incident is: no, yes, maybe. Both aircraft suffered serious damage. The incident may affect procedures related to the handing of this aircraft at airports. The incident is notable enough to be included in this article. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Too many images

I reckon that the article showcases too many images - that role should be left to Commons. I would have thought that the fewer images, the better, since the reader only concentrates on the most meaningful and useful ones, instead of peripheral ones which are there only for visual satisfaction. For example, "Production and delivery delays" has 3 images, "Passenger provisions" has 2, as well as "Market" and "Commercial operators". Sp33dyphil Vote! 02:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree I am sure a few very similar and not really high quality images can be pruned out without detriment to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

a suggestion for improving lead section

I find it a bit odd that the fact that the A380 is the largest passenger airliner in the world is introduced so indirectly in the lead section, rather than asserting it more directly. In comparison, other articles state such superlative facts outright "X is the {tallest, largest, smallest} {building, airliner, rodent}, rather than hiding it as is done here ("Designed to challenge Boeing's monopoly in the large-aircraft market, the A380, the largest passenger airliner in the world, made its maiden flight [...]."). Does anybody agree with my feeling that it would be more appropriate (and informative) to rephrase this, and put the fact that it's the largest airliner of its kind into a (shorter) sentence of its own, followed by a sentence about the challenge/maidenflight aspect? -- Minvogt (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Air France Flight 7 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Air France Flight 7 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air France Flight 7 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 16:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe both incidents should be mentioned. The JFK incident and the Paris airshow incident. My reasons are there were passengers on board incidents. This aircraft now has a history of maneuvering problems, striking other aircraft and hitting stationary objects such as the terminal during the Paris airshow. During the design and launch date there was a lot of talk about how this aircraft would fit in to current airport designs, it seem these two incident show there is a problem. I vote to include these to incidents, in a section related to the problem this aircraft has at current airport. Any thoughts..?? Jacob805 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It is important that references to these afore mentioned incidents be included in the A380 article. Many good reasons have been given for its inclusion by multiple users after continued efforts to add the information have been deleted/removed due to "not being notable enough". The guidelines for incident inclusion are exactly what they say; guidelines. But the idea that only incidents resulting eg. in loss of human life or hull loss to the aircraft is sensationalist and not encyclopedic. The events in question occurred, relate specifically to the A380 and because of the sheer size and newness of the aircraft and potential seriousness of the incidents, are of interest to people. Continual removal of these references in order to "adhere to guidelines" serves no encyclopedic purpose. Let's stick to the facts and include relevant information that is of interest to people reading about the aircraft. And ease up on this heavy over-policing of wikipedia pages. Editors need to use some degree of professional judgement and not just blatantly carve our (repeatedly) attempts to add information. We are only talking about one or two incidents- a couple of small paragraphs which have no other place to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.24.14 (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Because we can't mention every single incident... Slasher-fun (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Latest wing clipping incident

The latest major mishap involving clipping the wing on a stationary object establishes a pattern for this plane, apparently because of its larger than usual wingspan, and should be discussed in this article. The previous incident from April should never have been removed as this most recent incident illustrates. Cla68 (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Happens a lot, even happened two weeks ago (or was it last week?) in Paris-Orly with a CRJ700 (and its not-so-large wingspan). No need to mention it. Slasher-fun (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Aircraft clip wings all the time, it's a common occurrence no matter the aircraft. Everything from Cessnas to Boeings clip wings with stationary objects, other planes, ramps etc. This is not encyclopaedically relevant to an article on the A380. If it's the same pilot or airline then it goes there, but it's nothing to do with the plane. It's nothing to do with the plane. Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, I agree totally, this aircraft has now had two incidents involving clipping, both incidents had passengers on board. I am willing to work with you in adding a section, related to the problems this aircraft has. Jacbo805 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Two wing clipping incidents? Well... I think I already said what I think above, and that's still the same. Slasher-fun (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • More than 2 incidents are needed to really show a pattern. Anyway, it is a large aircraft with a corresponding wide wingspan. That's got to be a major factor. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Still not notable and not worthy of a mention other large aircraft like the A340 are also prone to hitting things with wingtips nothing unusual. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Two planes collide on Logan Airport taxiway, a Boeing 767-300ER and a CRJ-700 again. Maybe we should instead mention in the CRJ-700 article that this aircraft is especially subject to wing-clipping! (irony here). Slasher-fun (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

ref 131 ^ "Innovative Variable Frequency Power". Goodrich. Retrieved 27 October 2009. Is no longer active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.173.34 (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A380 Routes

I have a suggestion: what do you think of opening an article about the A380 Routes: cities from /to, carrier and so on?!--188.174.47.60 (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Why should we do this? Is this anyhow relevant for an encyclopedia ? --Denniss (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't strike me as relevant, and a gigantic amount of work to update. It would be constantly falling apart as destinations changed, withdrawn, or added. And it would be questionably valid, what would we be using as evidence that the article's entries is right? And how could we continously prove them to still be correct? As no other aircraft, like the 747 or Concorde, had articles dedicated soley to this feature, why should the A380 anyway? Kyteto (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
A justfied action. Information should be properly sourced, and have a long term relevance. The addition, although it had its merits for the work put into it, was not sufficiently proven on either case. Kyteto (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Airbus A380/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The article has many broken references. Tom B (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So Link rot is the only reason to do a reassessment here or what? Seems like a weak reason by itself... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
If link rot is the only reason for concern, mentioning this on the talkpage so that something could be done by editors bofore rushing to the GAR system may have resolved the problem entirely. For example, I had (and still have some, but less so) concerns regarding the citing on the Republic F-105 Thunderchief article, by simple posting a "Hey I'm concerned about this" message on WP:Aircraft's talk the problem has been heavily addressed. Just a thought. Kyteto (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
And as if by magic, two-thirds of the dead links have been fixed in under 20 minutes. Kyteto (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
And there are now no dead links at all, not even half an hour's full concentration... Kyteto (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thanks, i've been editing the article for 8 months now, including fixing links, so wasn't a rush to GAR. This was the most tagged good article on Wikipedia so it seemed a good idea to make sure it was fixed asap and it wasn't obvious all the links could be fixed quickly. feel free to remove the reassessment if everyone is happy. Tom B (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If you read the cited sources, you will see much more negative opinion of the plane and its prospects to ever make enough money to justify the massive investment of private and public funds. The article selectively quotes many of the sources, citing them for select positive opinions while ignoring negative information. This makes it a bad article. The overall tone of the article should at least roughly match the overall tone of the voluminous press and analysis the plane has received. The project started out with most analysts doubting it was a great idea, and that crowd opinion has never changed, and the actual numbers as they have stacked up have been consistent with projections. Even if the "civic and nationalistic boosterism" is to remain in the article as it does reflect actual civic and nationalistic boosterism, still the article should have a 50% counterpoint opinion in the tone. When you read the article start to finish, you should not think "not make money, maybe i heard something about that"; you should think "wow, this NPOV is that this plane may never make money" 68.174.97.122 (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Total A380 orders

Is it just me, or is there a mathematical error in the A380 orders for 2011. The orders to date total for 2010 is 234, 4 orders in 2011 somehow brings the total orders to date to 236.

How is this so? Should the total be 238? or have the laws of mathematics changed since I went to school?

--johnbell149 11:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbell149 (talk • contribs)

Four orders in 2011 - by whom ? I see only 2. Airbus counts 236 as well. --Denniss (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
2 firm by Skymark only this year. My guess is that someone added the 2 rumoured from Lufthansa to the order total. In which case it should be reduced back to 236 to mesh with the official airbus order book and the List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries page. Ravendrop 12:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a problem with the delivery totals as well. The number of aircraft delivered in each year, and the total given at the end, are not the same, even though they logically must do. Either we have a serious flaw in prior year data, or Airbus got conked on the head and miscounted in their press statement (wouldn't be the first time I've seen PR drones getting their arithmatic wrong). This should be looked at, as it looks ridiculous to have a abstract total value that doesn't match up to the total of the aircraft delivered in year. 1 + 12 + 10 + 18 + 18 = 59; yet the '59th' delivery is stated to be the 58 as per Airbus PR. Somebody's wrong somewhere. Kyteto (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Note sure. Maybe the 59th delivery is to happen very soon. Airbus lists 57 delivered through the end of September here. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the confusion is the Emirates A6-EDP was delivered on the same day (14 October) as the first China Southern one. MilborneOne (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Airbus reported 59 delivered in a 28 Oct. press release, but mostly IPers keep changing the total to 60 without a reference. I can not find any aviation articles about this yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
They delievered an A380 to Emirates on the same day (MSN 80 reg. A6-EDQ), this one is the 60th. Slasher-fun (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I looked for releases or articles on that yesterday before my post above and found nothing. I'll tag these uncited changes in the future, since reverting is a waste of time. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change of lead image.

  • Current lead image
    Current lead image
  • Proposed replacement
    Proposed replacement

The current lead image does not seem suitable enough. Its not of high resolution and its not the best picture available of the A380. Dusty777 (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with a change mainly due to the more neutral background rather than resolution. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The Emirates image is fine with me. That's a slightly better view with the A380 in flight, vs. taking off. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My last edition - not an "original" or mine

I had given links to Wikipedia, and will find more reliable sources to improve article, also this article - is in my opinion - lacking of airbus a380 maximum passengers configuration, and probably airbus routes(many people from Europe are asking on forums, where and when I can fly by this plane) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.70.254 (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"lacking of airbus a380 maximum passengers configuration": there's a dedicated article for this
"probably airbus routes": Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list of things. There are websites for this (like a380flights.net). Slasher-fun (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with the above; a running commentry of current destinations would be a messy nightmare, and hardly encyclopedic. We don't do that with the next largest passenger plane the Boeing 747, or the new extra-widebody 787 - why break convention and do it here but nowhere else? We're not there just to answer every question that crops up on internet forums - the questions on those forums, not suprisingly, can be answered on those same problems - why bend article content on the basis of WP:Recentism? The comparison section was bizarre and very badly designed (It is a rule that Wikipedia articles NEVER use other wikipedia articles as evidence, else the door is wide open to circular self-referential referencing), the Titanic and Shinkansen aren't competiting transport models at all - The Titanic never competed with 21st century airliners or jet aircraft, it's almost 100 years since it sank! Ocean liners were never a viable competition against jet passenger aircraft. As for high speed railways, they're for local distances of several hundred miles, against an aircraft that travels to distinations far outside their range. The Titanic, the Shinkansen, and the A380 don't compete with each other, they're not even remotely in the same kind of market other than "they are things that you can stuff a lot of people on". It is WP:Synthesis to put them together as well, none of your source materials made any kind of comparison between the objects, you just jarred the three topics together on your own, which is unacceptable content as it falls under WP:Original Research. I'm sorry, but the addition is completely unsuited here, and has been made in poor observation of multiple content policies. Kyteto (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Which make you wonder what value File:Giant planes comparison.svg gives to the article! MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
No reason for this section (as well as the proposed) in this article. It shouldn't be added to just any large plane/boat etc. Mode of transport is an appropriate venue (where speeds etc are mentioned...) L.tak (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Accident or Incident?

The Aviation Safety Institute is not the authoritative source for the definition of the terms "Accident" and "Incident." ICAO Annex 13 is the proper and ultimate source for defining those terms and virtually all civilized nations of the world subscribe to that convention.

The QF 32 ACCIDENT [[3]] was classified as an ACCIDENT, by the ATSB. [4]

The appropriate choice of words ("accident" vs "incident") is determined by the severity of the damage, according to ICAO Convention, subscribed to by most nations of the world. The Wikipedia instructions for determining the proper nomenclature are thus:

"Aviation accidents and incidents
Aviation accidents and incidents should generally be titled according to the air carrier and flight number for commercial air transport related events. In aviation, the terms "accident" and "incident" are defined in the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13, and these standards should be followed in naming aviation related events." [[5]]

There is extensive discussion on this issue on the talk page of QF 32. Please read a heed. This was NOT an "incident." It was an "ACCIDENT." It was so classified as such by the ATSB because the extent of the damage to the plane was very severe, and that fact required the ATSB to classify it as an accident, in conformance with the internationally accepted ICAO definition of that term. Please do not revert it back to "incident" again, because that is clearly wrong. 66.81.53.222 (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Whatever, I especially don't like the fact that you're bulldozing your way through with this (on several pages all at once, evidently displayed in your contribution history) when a simple note left here and only here would suffice in the very first place. Per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and pending an official consensus here, I've reverted your railroading off the track, for the time being. Do not revert again until such consensus appears. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Editing according to Wiki rules does not constitute "bulldozing," or "railroading off the track." Using language like that is not only absurd, but also constitutes a personal attack and is clearly insulting.
I did explain why I changed it from "incident" to "accident," the first time: I cited the proper authority, namely ICAO Annex 13. If you will bother to read the ATSB reports on QF 32, which is classified as an "accident" by the ATSB, you will see the ATSB did so in accordance with that universally recognized ICAO standard. Your reverting my "railroading" is another insulting personal attack. Have you ever considered speaking in rational terms, and giving reasons for your position that might possibly be in accordance with Wiki guidelines? Do you understand that personal attacks, in lieu of rational discourse, simply reveals that you have no rational argument to offer?
Wikl rules require us to use the correct nomenclature and the standard given by Wiki convention rules is ICAO Annex 13. Again, that is why the ATSB classified it as an "accident," and not as an "incident." Please do not revert it back to incident again. That would constitute deliberate edit warring on your part, since the position I am taking is clearly the correct one. And, please cease and desist from making personal attacks and insults. You know that too is a violation of Wiki rules. 66.81.53.222 (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The point about the incident being classed as a accident was added the Nov. 2010 entry. The incident and accidents summary above that is supposed to be an overall summary and is fine as is. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Where have I indicated that I have been editing only for a few hours? I have been doing IP editing for a couple of years now, but not nearly as often as the "regular" kinds of editors. One of the reasons why I will not create a "regular" editor account is precisely because of the kinds of hate and insult diatribes I got here from Dave. I am only interested in improving Wiki articles and I have no patience for those who substitute incivility, insults and ad hominems, for facts and straight forward rules of posting. I have always explained my edits and that is why I referenced ICAO Annex 13, when I first changed it to "accident." That is the standard that Wiki says is the correct one, so it never occurred to me that anyone would get offended by that proper and rational change. In view of the QF 32 article, which clearly states that it was classified as an accident by the ATSB, and in view of the first paragraph of Wiki's own accident/incident article, [[6]], which states that

"An aviation accident is defined in the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13 as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft...in which...the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure...."

my change to the word "accident" was fully justified and properly done. My appreciation to editor Fnlayson, for subsequently adding language to indicate it was an "accident," and not an "incident." However, as long as the first sentence still says it was an "incident," then a fundamental contradiction in terms is displayed in this Wiki article. Someone should finally resolve that. I won't because I am already sickened by the personal attacks and insults that I have received for being WP:BOLD, and correcting an obvious error.
I cannot understand why no one else seems to be disturbed by the obvious violation of the "assume good faith and be civil" standard. Insults, ad hominem and personal attacks are OK, if the one editing in good faith is only an IP editor? Demonstrates again why I do not want to be part of the "in" crowd. 66.81.52.6 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
IP's typically don't want their edit history scrutinized, and that's the real reason they stay unregistered. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • An accident is really an extreme aviation incident, one involving serious amount of damage or fatality/serious injury. These comments about personal attacks seem disproportionate to the couple of disparaging comments above. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Number of orders of the freight version

At a total of -7 orders, there is probably a mistake in the table for A380F, especially considering the earlier statement of 27 initial orders. But I'd rather let people more knowledgable about the order history correct this. Cochonfou (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see this ? --Denniss (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The Orders table. The A380F orders sum up to -10 now, instead of 0. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Mmmh - 7+10+10 -17-10 =0 --Denniss (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Harro Ranter has changed his analysis of the QF 32 Accident

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Section closed per WP:Not a forum.

Since the sole rational argument above (for keeping in the word "incident,") seemed to be that a normally reliable source like Harro Raner's AviationSafety Network, called it an incident, then I call to your attention that ASN now labels it as an "accident."[7] Harro Ranter agreed that his page should be changed to the accident classification, after the ATSB re-classified it from severe incident, to accident.

Further, I note that --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®, who seemed to be the most vehement supporter above, for keeping in the word "incident," has now reversed himself by the revert he made on the QF 32 article, which restored the word "accident," after some sock puppy had changed "accident" back to "incident." I think that revert by Dave, makes it fair to infer that he now agrees that "accident" is the proper word.[[8]]

Therefore, to make this A-380 article consistent with the classifications of ICAO Annex 13 and the ATSB, and no longer contradictory to the QF 32 article, I propose changing this one paragraph, that now reads:

The A380 has been involved in one aviation incident and no hull-loss accidents as of December 2011.[221][222]

to this revision:

The A380 has no hull-loss accidents, but was involved in one aviation accident as of December 2011.[221][222]"

I cannot imagine any rational argument, now that Ranter has changed to "accident" too, that could justify keeping the word "incident" in that paragraph. Thank you for your consideration. 66.81.52.7 (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that ASN is not really a reliable source as a self published site, and this article is covered by consensus not ICAO Annex 13, also the QF32 article is not a reliable source either! MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The Qantas entry already states it was classed as an accident. The first sentence in the section serves as an overall summary of aviation events and hull-losses. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source at the University and publishing level and likely never will. It is a resource, regardless of what hopes maybe. Its reasonable to add a source with notes. It maybe time to start a separate page for incidents and design defects, as its clear many constantly delete this from the main page.Uaflyer(talk) 14:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wing fatigue cracks

What about adding the manufacturing defects in many of the first a380s for singapore airlines and quantis where the wings are getting fatigue cracks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.40.201 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article now with this article as a reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100#Vote_on_flag_removal

This voting about flags and country info in orders might concern even this article. Tagremover (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Lufthansa buying both 747-8i & Airbus A380

It's curious that Lufthansa is the only airline to buy both, and worth an analysis in the article if any facts are known - is it related to the terminals they use ? Rcbutcher (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am quite certain that Lufthansa's buying decision hinges on numerous factors, including but not limited to overall costs to benefit ratio (Please refer to Aircraft Direct/Indirect Operating Costs for more information). Airport sizes may have implications, however this is not their (airline's) responsibility and falls to the airport managers to address the issues. The analysis may be irrelevant to the A380 post. 146.87.52.53 (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Anon.
Also keep in mind that lots of airlines buy both nowadays. Take a look at how many airlines buy both a350's and 787's. And what about American airlines who bought a320neo and b737max (Why not only at one manufacturer, the discount would be higher right?) or Norwegian airlines with their mega order, again split between airbus AND boeing...Njirk (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Their seating is slightly different. The A380 can seat 525, while the 747-8 seats 467 in typical 3-class configurations. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wing-clip incident between AF A380 and Comair CRJ700 at JFK

Although minor incidents are not supposed to be mentioned in the Incident and Accident section of the article I did decide to add it there. Not so much because the incident itself was that large (no fatalities or serious injuries and the structural damage to both planes was relative small as well) but because of the main discussion (mainly in the US and maybe fueled by Boeing) that the A380 is to large to be handled safely, especially on some airports. The taxi-ways at JFK are officially to small (narrow) to handle the wingspan of the A380 and JFK can only receive those flights because they have a special exempt-permit to do so. This discussion is imho reason enough to mention this incident as it could have major consequences to the operation of the A380 if they loose their permit to fly to airports where the taxiways aren't equipped to handle them. Tonkie (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The wing clipping with a CRJ700 was previously discussed at length. See Talk:Airbus A380/Archive 6#11 April 2011 A380 incident. The consensus was that it was a minor incident. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Fnlayson had already removed above mentioned incident as non-notable. As I also mentioned above I do think that the incident IS notable: not for the small collission between these two jets, but the effect it had on the (Boeing led) lobby to keep the A380 away from some of the most important destinations in the USA. On Fnlayson talk page I reacted to his removal and asked to discuss this: either mention something under incidents, or maybe better on another section of the A380 page as it says also something about the fierce competition and fight between Airbus and Boeing and how far the parties will go to make it difficult for the others to do business. So if you have any ideas on that please comment here... Any thoughts are welcome.
And to Fnlayson: further study of the history learned me indeed that it was discussed in length - so I do fully understand why you removed it without discussing it again: that was done already. Nevertheless I still do think that the discussion about banning the A380 from some (US) airports should be discussed and there a reference to this incident and the NTSB comments on it should be found. But again: I have no intention to start any edit-war so I would love to reach some concensus with the main contributers to this page how to handle this "controversy" (which is,as said, probably fueled by Boeing). Thanks again, Tonkie (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
And one last comment on you mentioning that it sounds like a conspiracy: that would be if someone claimed that Boeing had paid Air France to hit the Comair on purpose (or 2 months later repeat the action at Paris airshow): that I don't believe at all - but I do think that Boeing would very much like it when the A380 would be banned from (US) airports with narror runways, such as JFK. Tonkie (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
My main problem with this entry is that other planes, the Boeing 747 and Airbus A330, or even just the 737, have been involved in wing-clip incidents - It would be blatent WP:Undue weight to not list the collision incidents on the other aircraft but only that of the A380. Either they should all get incidents mentioned, or the A380 shouldn't have these incidents mentioned at all, which would be equal treatment. A rather fun statistical appearence is that the CRJ700 has been involved in many times more wing-clip incidents than the A380 - perhaps that should be made a big deal out of! Kyteto (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the initial post in this section, I would just like to warn against speculation about possible future events. Thanks. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 16:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
@All - I do agree that wingclippings have happened with other type aircraft (less spanwidth) but the design of -in this example- of the taxiways at JFK didn't take a plane like A380 into consideration and these wingclips can happen even when each plane is in a seperate (parrellel) (taxi) way, while I think that the other winclips probably happened because planes didn't stay on their own path (eg directly around dthe gates and not while craft are passing eachother in different/seperate ways). Although I did see a documentary or newsstory where a (former?) Boeing design engineer and a lawyer of whom was said he was paid by Boeing I can't find this video (not sure in which programma I saw it); the only videos and/or statements I can find only report the incident in itself, which -I agree- on itself is not that notable. So because I can't find proper proof for the "war on size" fueled by or on behalf of Boeing I won't add the above discussed info for now: this until I do find the sources about Boeing (ab)using the event to get the A380 banned or restricted on airports: So not because I think that this info shouoldn't be in the article but because I can't find the proper sources to make this hardly notable event notable. Discussion closed? (for now)?? Tonkie (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
In the A380/CRJ700 incident at JFK, the CRJ700 was parked 15-20 meters away from its correct parking position, and that is the only cause of the collision, it had nothing to do with the fact that the other aircraft involved was an A380 or the runway being to close from the parking stands. Discussion closed, I agree. Slasher-fun (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Number built - again...

Airbus seems to update its delivery number about once a month. So by 1sep2012 it was 81. The List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries now says 84 with refs for each, but not for the total number, as they come from spot1 and spot2. So do we quote and ref the outdated Airbus 81 number, or the correct WP:OR/WP:RS 84 number? Perhaps settle for updating that number when Airbus does? TGCP (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Runway width

In the section "Integration with infrastructure and regulations / Ground operations", the article says the A380 "can land or take off on any runway that can accommodate a 747". That is not strictly correct, as the B747 routinely lands in Copenhagen Airport/CPH but the A380 needed a special permit for a one-time visit and cannot use CPH on a regularly basis due to engines overhanging grass areas, or wider landing gear. A380 can operate on 60 metre runways of Category 10 or F regularly, or on 45 metre Category 9 or E with special permission. Source translated source TGCP (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That's legal regulations in individual countries and jurisdictions, not practical operational restrictions. Practically from the perspective of runway width there's nothing stopping the A380 landing on any runway wide enough for almost any passenger jet. Technically you could land it on any runway wider than about 10 meters pilot dependant. Canterbury Tail talk 03:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
The rules seem general, not local, and rules govern the practicals as it determines which airports can receive the A380 in scheduled traffic. We can't know for sure because the refs are conflicting and outdated - here, the ref level does not conform to Good Article level. The 2004 NZ ref suggests 60m load bearing + 2*7.5m blast protection, as does the older ECAC ref. Newer than that is only the short Airbus PR - no independent details are referenced. The 51m A380 engine span is more than the 45m runway width, which is more than the 42m B747 engine span. TGCP (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding THAI as operator

according to airbus's site, On 27 September THAI received it's first A380. It will enter into service in early October. When will we add THAI to the operator's list? Rik ISS-fan (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

When the first commercial flight will have been operated. Slasher-fun (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Minimum runway length ?

What's the minimum length of runway needed? I believe the length of the runway at the Airbus site in Germany had to be extended to permit the cargo versions to land - against the wishes of some who grew apples on the orchards. (I got this bit of information about the apples fro an Airbus employee, when I done some work at the site. I believe there was a long legal battle over it, as the apples were considered very good. I might be useful for information about that to be added if it could be referenced.) But of more importance to the article is the length of runway needed. Drkirkby (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Image change

I have decided to change the thumbnail of this article, to a more recent photo of an Airbus A380 operated by Qantas. These Airbuses have been widely covered on the news and international media due to the recent problems with engine and turbine explosions. I believe that a newer image such as this will allow the viewers of the article to understand what the Airbuses look like and will be able to relate to the recent events. This image also provides a better look at the fuselage and wing spans of the aircraft as it has been taken in such a position where the wings do not cover much of the image and block out views of the main fuselage area, such as on the Emirates photo. Now that Qantas has signed a 10-year partnership with Emirates Airlines, due to start early 2013, I figured that it did not matter which airline operates the aircraft in the image, as it is flown alongside the Emirates branded A380s. If you wish to change the articles thumbnail back, please at least leave a reason why, as I have no idea what is wrong with the current, newer, clearer image, that manages to show more of the aircraft. The older Emirates photo has half of the back and tail of the fuselage covered as the wing is in the viewing angle. The image was sourced from the Wkimedia Commons and does not appear to have any copyright or reproduction restrictions on it. John.dinsdale (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the main image in the infobox should be discussed and agreement reached first. I believe that Qantas image was used previously for the main image [for whatever that's worth]. The image in the Infobox image should be one that best shows the aircraft, and not about current events. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you mean? When you say that the Qantas image was previously used, why was it changed? Its a better photo than the current Emirates photo on the scale of photo quality and camera angles. You seem confused as to the standard of the photo. The photo I have selected of a Qantas operated A380, displays more of the actual aircraft, as stated in the firstplace. The Emirates image is partially ruined due to the fact that the left wing is covering and hiding a substantial amount of the rear fuselage and it cuts of a bit of the tail. The image too, looks discoloured compared to the Qantas image that shows full white colours. The Qantas image too is newer and therefore includes the modifications made by Airbus. It is good to keep an article refreshed containing current content, instead of older content. I am sorry, I did not realise these things had to be discussed as many things have been changed before on this website without prior agreement. Would we be able to somehow ask the editors on here as too which image they prefer so that we can reach an agreement? Thanks. John.dinsdale (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You can check on previous discussions on changing the main image in the archive using the search box near the top. Usually someone finds an image that is better or from a different angle, etc. Either the Qantas image you wanted or another Qantas image was the main image for a few months a while back. Singapore and Emirates have also had images there. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read through a few of the top archives based on changing the info box image and have found many have wanted to change it due to quality, camera angle, advertising because of aircraft livery and agree that some of the reasons behind wanting to change it were quite absurd. However, I have found this image of a Qantas A380 taking off from Perth International Airport and I believe this is an improvement on the current image shown in comparison below.

  • Current Infobox Image
    Current Infobox Image
  • Proposed Infobox Image
    Proposed Infobox Image

John.dinsdale (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just want to say that I can't see any reason for changing the main image at present, and especially not to the last suggested image (no offense). Azx2 00:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed unreferenced claim about A380's runway abilities

Specifically, the claim that the Airbus can fly from any runway long enough to operate a 747, because of this.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A 2003 document well before the first flight may not reliable certainly anything that included the "greatest aircraft in the world" as part of the title. That said the claim does need a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Orders and Deliveries

The orders and deliveries charts in Airbus A380 are both nearly identical to those in List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries but the figures do not always agree. I propose that Airbus A380 Orders and Deliveries transcludes the charts verbatim from List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries and let that specialised page provide the research and citations. That will save a lot of duplicated effort and avoid contradictions. Right now List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries appears to be more up to date. Cross-posted in for discussion here. Ex nihil (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there may be a better solution to this. Just dump the entire common data set into a template and then paste it where ever it's needed in the same way as it's done with this: Template:ATV missions. Hopefully all of these sort of things will get soaked up by wikidata eventually, but for now the template seems to be good temporarry fix. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 23:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. I'll try this if others agree. Presumably all subsequent discussion on numbers will shift to the Template Talk page and will then be one discussion in one place. Ex nihil (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I made a template at Template:A380 Orders and Deliveries Have a look, do you think we should put it in both Airbus A380 and List_of_Airbus_A380_orders_and_deliveries#Orders_and_deliveries? Ex nihil (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I made a couple of changes in terms of marking the references section as noninclude and making the cumulative note a non-title formatted piece of text. So this is how it looks now:

{{A380 Orders and Deliveries}}

Much easier to understand and find in the wikimarkup editor. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 14:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC) I also added the template to the main A380 article and the list of deliveries article. Everibody OK with that? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 14:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sorry I didn't post the template in the end, I am in the Solomon Islands and during this Cyclone Sandra I don't have the bandwidth to start doing multiple edits. Ex nihil (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
For further discussion of the numbers and the sources for Orders and Deliveries please use Template_talk:A380_Orders_and_Deliveries Ex nihil (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Flight Global, "VIDEO: Air France A380 hits CRJ while taxiing at JFK", David Kaminski-Morrow, 11 April 2011
  2. ^ CBS News, "Air France Airbus Collides With Delta Jet On Ground At JFK Airport", 11 April 2011

Production will drop in 2013

Why is there no mention in the article that production of the A380 will drop this year as customers don't want to take delivering of new planes till the fix for the wing cracks issue is in place? This was announced the better part of a year ago, by the CEO. http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_27_2012_p0-480935.xml wikipedia should contain all the facts, not just the rosy ones. 96.224.40.96 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It's very clear from the Orders and deliveries section. You can clearly see the lack of scheduled deliveries and orders in 2013. Canterbury Tail talk 10:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
in the "Production and delivery delays" section it currently says and leaves off with "As of July 2012, production was 3 aircraft per month". The Orders and Deliveries section says nothing at all about scheduled deliveries, and as a nonzero number of aircraft were delivered this year the graph would seem erroneous anyway. it's a whitewash, this page has always been a whitewash. 96.224.40.96 (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Not a whitewash as Airbus has indeed delivered A380s this year, as referenced from their own site, 2 in March alone. Canterbury Tail talk 01:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Boeing is to reduce the 747-8 production rate as well for lack of customer interest (AKA "lower market demand"), do you see this mentioned as well? --Denniss (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thank you for admitting that this community considers itself in competition with Boeing, and it's all about winning. 96.224.40.96 (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"Airbus A380 Hull Loss Accident"

If you have come to this page looking for confirmation about an alleged accident involving an A380 in which the aircraft was written off, then here is a clarification. The aircraft in that accident was NOT at A380, but an A340. That accident is described in Wikipedia here: Airbus_A340#Accidents_and_incidents. If you still doubt this, then you are invited to look at any number of images of both A340s and A380s, on Wikipedia or anywhere else, and compare them to the accident images. In particular, note that the A380 is a double-decked aircraft for its entire length, whereas the A340 is a single-deck aircraft. 124.179.66.44 (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How does this affect the information contained on Wikipedia? As far as I can see the accident / incident is correctly represented here. SempreVolando (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox title: manufacturer + designation or just designation?

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content it should be Manufacturer + type. Boeings have it right, others are probably to be fixed. Do we agree on that? Brg. --ModriDirkac (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say it should be Manufacturer + type in the infobox? Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page content#Infobox, it states, "For the most part, as there is an appropriate field in the infobox itself, including the manufacturer in the "name" field is not necessary. Some exceptions exist, such as aircraft which only have model numbers." Airbus types have a letter and number (A300, A350XWB, A400M), so we don't include the manufacture name. The Boeings have only model numbers (707, 787), which is why the manufacture name is included. - BilCat (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Floor space

Concerning this edit (and previous versions, this just gives a good source): The source states "40% less floor space than the A380", which means that the A380 has 67% more, or am I misinterpreting something? — Julian H.✈ (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

List of airports

Is there a list of airports that have the necessary infrastructure to accommodate/process the A380, how many of these have regular flights?--78.49.77.195 (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Technically almost every airport can accommodate/process the A380, just not at optimal efficiency. Canterbury Tail talk 19:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Every airport that can accommodate a B747 can accommodate an A380. A380 is a bit wider but B747 is a bit longer, both benefit from upper deck gantries but neither essential, pavement bearing stress of A380 is less than B747, A380 requires a bit less runway, but nothing much in it in practice. Ex nihil (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Runway length

How long does the runway need to be for this aircraft? I would like know that, for example to see which airports are compatible, but it is not written in the article. --BIL (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If it does for a 747 it more than does for a 380. The actual runway length is complicated, it depends on a lot of factors. I doubt you'd find it simply stated. The 747 is more demanding on runway requirements than the 380 with the exception of some obstructions close to the edge of taxiways, but this is rare and mostly long rectified by now. Ex nihil (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- The take-off run distance listed in the specs table provides the runway length needed under normal/ideal conditions. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I see that it is listed now in the Specifications chapter. What I mean with required runway length, is what it needs to be if there shall be a daily flight scheduled from a specific airport at sea level, i.e. maxload, any weather etc. I know it also depends on amount of fuel, i.e. flight distance.--BIL (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Engine Strike

I am surprised that there is no mention of this, but why is there no mention of an engine strike that occurred in 2011? Here are some sources:

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably because it isnt particularly notable and not worth a mention. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A380-900

The material about a future -900 version seems fossile. Either, the latest status of the 900 plans should be put in, or the section needs to be made much shorter. It should simply mention that Airbus had plans for an improved version but the status is uncertain. Is KLM really interested as of 2013??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.154.10 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Jargon needs to be translated for the uninitiated

"first to have a smoothly contoured wing cross section. The wings of other commercial airliners are partitioned span-wise into sections. This flowing, continuous cross section optimises aerodynamic efficiency". Huh ? While probably factually correct, this means little to laypeople like me. Diagrams and/or more detailed explanations of the construction would improve the article. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcbutcher (talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 January 2014‎ (UTC)

SQ317 and EK413

What about:

SQ317 - The Singapore Airlines A380 that had a sudden decompression - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25618122 EK413 - The A380 that had an engine explode over Sydney - http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-150.aspx

Why does QF32 get a mention but none of these or the engine strike mentioned in this page? Some of these have been added before, but removed quickly. Why is this? 1.123.147.157 (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Because they are not really significant. Over millions of flights these kinds of incidents happen many times with all Boeing and Airbus aircraft. If all minor incidents were acknowledged the pages would be full. The QF32 incident was a particularly significant, unretained engine disintegration, was extremely rare, represented a genuine threat to the aircraft and was outside of what might be expected. Accidents and incidents are not defined by Wikipedia but by Aviation Safety Network. An aviation incident such as QF32, is defined as an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operations.[1] Ex nihil (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Definitions of Key Terms Used by AirSafe.com". AirSafe.com. 23 January 2009. Retrieved 22 July 2012.

If some goofball wants to make a giant model of an A380 and fly it around, so be it, but there is no legitimate reason for such information to be included in an encyclopedia article. If I had to guess, aforementioned goofball (a word chosen, for the sake of relative politeness, from a list of many more suitable words) is likely the same person that felt the need to add such useless information to the article in the first place.--172.129.14.192 (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Emirates Incedent

Emirates incedent: http://avherald.com/h?article=46a8f70a Taco Viva (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not significant. Fairly routine. Ex nihil (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Multi engine planes shut down one engine quite often. Not in any way significant, a fairly common occurrence. Canterbury Tail talk 00:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

New article on the A380

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Graphic for countries with at least one carrier flying or planning to fly A380 is out of date

Japan should not be purple because Skymark cancelled their order months ago. No orders destined for Japanese carriers at this time. Hans100 (talk)Hans100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans100 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Speculation in intro

Especially the intro should be backed up. No discussion there.

CEO: A380 is successful.77.6.170.146 (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume the CEO of Airbus is a more than a little biased. - BilCat (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we can safely assume that you/others are more than a little biased.77.6.170.146 (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The point is that the CEO of Airbus is not a neutral source in regards to Airbus products. He can say what he wants, but isn't neutral. - BilCat (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
He MUST say the truth about money, if he talks about. Otherwise shareholders will protest. 77.6.170.146 (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And more important: Journalists Comments/Opinions/Assumptions are not proofed, but must, especially for intro. 77.6.170.146 (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get into a discussion on success/failure in the discussion. That is at this point a matter of discussion, and there is no intnl consensus. A more nuanced statement (according to the CEO a success, and the public; sales are disappointing, concerns expressed on market possibilities etc) is to lengthy for the discussion IMO.... L.tak (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Airbus_A380/Archive_6&oldid=1089040788"