A380

faceman

I recently had the chance of flying the A380 with Emirates en route to Shanghai. Due to some seating issues, they bumped me up to a great seat in the front row of the airline in the cattle section.

What an experience. I normally hate flying but it was such a pleasant trip it felt more like being on a bus than a plane. The cabin is so quiet, which made take off an almost eerie experience as you can only really hear the air con. I could hear the conversations of people behind me in the cabin!

There were a couple of things that sprung to mind about the flight though, maybe you guys could shed some light on.

The take off felt like a very shallow ascent. It felt like we were climbing for a lot longer than normal and it didnt "feel" like an ascent that you might experience on say a B777 or A340. (I was watching the display with the flight info) Was this my imagination or an ATC thing or is that the norm for this type of plane?

Turbulence felt different too. It felt more like driving over a bumpy road than the turbulence felt on a different plane. Does the A380 better handle turbulence? That being said I can't comment on what the level of turbulence was like.

Emergency landings. In the event you had to make in, given the length of runway required to do it, how does that effect flight paths and ETOPs (or whatever thats called!)?

John_Mc

faceman wrote: »

I recently had the chance of flying the A380 with Emirates en route to Shanghai. Due to some seating issues, they bumped me up to a great seat in the front row of the airline in the cattle section.

What an experience. I normally hate flying but it was such a pleasant trip it felt more like being on a bus than a plane. The cabin is so quiet, which made take off an almost eerie experience as you can only really hear the air con. I could hear the conversations of people behind me in the cabin!

There were a couple of things that sprung to mind about the flight though, maybe you guys could shed some light on.

The take off felt like a very shallow ascent. It felt like we were climbing for a lot longer than normal and it didnt "feel" like an ascent that you might experience on say a B777 or A340. (I was watching the display with the flight info) Was this my imagination or an ATC thing or is that the norm for this type of plane?

Turbulence felt different too. It felt more like driving over a bumpy road than the turbulence felt on a different plane. Does the A380 better handle turbulence? That being said I can't comment on what the level of turbulence was like.

Emergency landings. In the event you had to make in, given the length of runway required to do it, how does that effect flight paths and ETOPs (or whatever thats called!)?

I agree with you about the sound level at take off - very low alright!

It's a 4 engined aircraft so ETOPs doesn't come into the equation (T=Twin Operations). Good question though, the A380 is limited in where it can land

Bearcat

I get the chance to see these aircraft up front on airport aprons and they are beasts. I'll admit the nose section looks ugly but they are massive. I hear first class can take a shower and from reports too they are a beaut to travel in.

Anyone one with a few pics to get us salvitating?

Tefral

One of my projects at Heathrow is to upgrade a few remote stands to take these Code F aircraft. To say they are huge is an understatement. The amount of fuel pots and FEGP's these things need is unreal.

I have to say they are quite an odd shape. Looking at them they look like someone streched a photo upwards and didnt adjust for the width. They look squashed length ways for their height. The amount of work Heathrow is doing to accomodate these things is unreal.

Ill try take some pics of the Quantas and Singapore airline ones that land here regularly.

Melion

A friend of mine travelled first class to Dubai on an A380, he has some very nice pictures on his facebook.

sharkman

Bearcat wrote: »

I get the chance to see these aircraft up front on airport aprons and they are beasts. I'll admit the nose section looks ugly but they are massive. I hear first class can take a shower and from reports too they are a beaut to travel in.

Anyone one with a few pics to get us salvitating?

Check out this video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sedbQ8UrNss

Bearcat

Thanks shark man.....it's something that out of my reach to travel first class these days.

I travelled to NYC in Concorde many yonks ago due emergency....to say it was one of the best days of my life is an understatement.

I'd say the a380 experience is something similar.

faceman

Yeah they have a shower and bar in first/business class on board. The upper deck is for the more well off amongst us. Wifi is also standard but very pricey. (Think its $5 for 5mb)

I asked them for a tour of the upper deck so i could take some pics but because the flight was full they couldnt accommodate

Melion

This is your first class seat on A380


An interesting view


The bar


I dont want to put up any others as my mates face is in the majority of them

NewSigGuy

Thats very nice, But thats only Business Class!!

coylemj

faceman wrote: »

Yeah they have a shower and bar in first/business class on board. The upper deck is for the more well off amongst us. Wifi is also standard but very pricey. (Think its $5 for 5mb)

Spotted my first ever A380 (Emirates) on the apron in JFK last November and was able to piggyback on the (free) Wi-Fi from inside the terminal. There was a separate network SSID for each of the two decks, they must have started charging since then!

I can't remember the exact network SSIDs but they did mention Emirates, A380, deck 1 and deck 2.

Plane on the left is a Singapore 747-400.

kub

Just looking at the last photo above, is that lady behind the bar real or is she plastic?
I can see where the name trolley dolly came from.

scudzilla

faceman wrote: »

Emergency landings. In the event you had to make in, given the length of runway required to do it, how does that effect flight paths and ETOPs (or whatever thats called!)?

John_Mc wrote: »

It's a 4 engined aircraft so ETOPs doesn't come into the equation (T=Twin Operations). Good question though, the A380 is limited in where it can land

But surely, in a real emergency, they'd have to try and put it down anywhere, like if Dublin was the only option wouldn't they have to go for it?

coylemj

kub wrote: »

Just looking at the last photo above, is that lady behind the bar real or is she plastic?
I can see where the name trolley dolly came from.

Now now, we'll have none of that. I'm sure she's highly trained in mixing a Harvey Wallbanger passenger evacuation and first aid.

seven_eleven

Didnt like it, economy was a bit plain and uncomfortable, it was actually quite noisy down near the back. Then again I guess it varies from airline to airline.

it felt more like being on a bus than a plane.

:eek: Thats not a good thing. Busses are loud, shakey, and uncomfortable. Even moreso than planes.

Stinicker

I have flown with both Qantas and Emirates on their A380's and they are an excellent airliner from a passenger viewpoint, roomy and quite. I flew 15.5hrs from Sydney to Los Angeles in 2010 with Qantas and it was an excellent flight and they are the best way to travel in economy by far. The air pressure inside is higher which helps passenger comfort also. The new Boeing 787 has an even higher pressure so should be good too.

delly

Check this video out, the dude actually records himself having the shower. Mad Ted!

Stay tuned to the end for a little taste of home.

Tenger

delly wrote: »

Check this video out, the dude actually records himself having the shower. Mad Ted!

Stay tuned to the end for a little taste of home.

This video (more specifically the guy in it) is a bit creepy however

brandon_flowers

We have constant battles in the office here with our travel department trying to get onto routes with the A380. As Nice is connected to Dubai by Emirates the best chance is usually from DXB onwards.

I was booked to go to Singapore a few months ago with Lufthansa through Frankfurt but my flights were put back a day and ended up on a Singapore Airlines 777. It was still very nice but not an A380. These days most of my flights are within Europe though.

The wait (and battle) goes on...

maggy_thatcher

scudzilla wrote: »

But surely, in a real emergency, they'd have to try and put it down anywhere, like if Dublin was the only option wouldn't they have to go for it?

Well not "anywhere", but in an emergency situation there are a lot more tolerances in terms of where to put the plane down. Most airports that can take 747s can take A380s as well for non-standard operations. When using it for scheduled operations, they have to take into account the larger wingspan that overlaps taxi-ways etc, but in an emergency situation this kind of issue wouldn't usually apply.

It'd also have trouble taking off again fully loaded, but again that's not a problem in emergency situations.

Savman

I had a trip on LH's A380 FRA-SIN, was a pleasure in both directions. Quietest aircraft I've ever been on.

Didn't feel half as jetlagged as usual, they have done the interior very well and it feels spacious and roomy.

I still prefer the 747 in appearance, but the A380 wins for the flight itself, 'tis a comfy ride

Tea 1000

Bearcat wrote: »

Thanks shark man.....it's something that out of my reach to travel first class these days.

I travelled to NYC in Concorde many yonks ago due emergency....to say it was one of the best days of my life is an understatement.

I'd say the a380 experience is something similar.

To be fair, I'd say the A380 experience is nothing similar! Concorde was a masterclass of achievement, A380 is just a slightly bigger 747 with an up to date interior. The 787 will have an even more up to date interior, but they're all just improvements on the existing.
Concorde was legendary.

eatmyshorts

scudzilla wrote: »

But surely, in a real emergency, they'd have to try and put it down anywhere, like if Dublin was the only option wouldn't they have to go for it?

Selecting an airport to land at in an emergency isn't just "..there's the closest, we'll land there..". Especially when operating in an environment like Europe, North America or the Middle East. Very rarely will there only be one option.
For instance, why go to Dublin when Shannon, Manchester, Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Birmingham, which are all approved for A380 ops, are so close by? Fair enough, if the rest were all fogged out or closed, then Dublin might be an option, but that's a miniscule chance scenario.

Runway length is not usually going to be limiting in places like these. Birmingham, at 2600m, is roughly the same size as 10/28 in Dublin.
Unless the aircraft is on fire, filling with smoke and is not extinguishable, then your options are going to be increased.

When flying, you should always be considering the "what if..?" scenario. "What if we had an engine failure now, where would I go?"..."What if we had a medical emergency now, where would I go?"..."What if we had a cargo fire now, where would I go?"..."What if we had a rapid depressurisation now, what would I do?...
You should be able to answer all these questions pretty quickly, and the answer will vary depending on the situation you are presented with. The airport I'll divert to with an engine failure might not be the same as the one for a medical emergency, and it might be a different one again for an onboard fire.
Things that have to be taken into account include:
..runway length
..prevailing weather conditions
..RFF cover
..Runway PCN
..taxiway coding for the aircraft type
..approaches available
..aerodrome operating hours
..availability of steps/lifters etc
..availability of maintenance cover
..pax handling facilities
..availability of fuel

..and others....

There's no point diverting to somewhere because of a medical emergency, only to land there and find out the nearest hospital than can handle it is 3 hours away by road. (That's why MedLink will tell you the best place to go).
There's no point diverting somewhere because of an engine failure if the runway has got a strong enough PCN.
There's no point diverting somewhere because fuel burn is showing you won't make destination with more than Final Reserve, if that airfield doesn't have a bowser that can refuel your aircraft.

Sometimes, very rarely and in extreme circumstances, the decision is going to be made for you, eg. uncontrollable onboard fire. Then most considerations mentioned above are irrelevant. Thankfully that's a rare scenario.

I may be sitting there, reading the newspa...."approved operational manual" , but I still have to be aware of the situation and be able to answer the above questions pretty quickly. Situational awareness and having the "big picture" are king. Time may not always be on your side.

Bearcat

Had a head on with the big fella yesterday at Kennedy.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-G29bHgyeKuc/UGb0W8zuX5I/AAAAAAAAAJ8/ksDz3XhZSvg/s640/36E1F0ED-57CE-43FA-AAAE-718D83BBC50F.PNG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-jU6Xig_26XI/UGb0UTnkd5I/AAAAAAAAAJ0/8P8kp0iy4fQ/s640/6A02A9CF-0CD7-48E7-955E-6D99B7FD2471.PNG

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-hXr2rtIpuQ8/UGb0TJ_udeI/AAAAAAAAAJs/xC9KFxUaaBA/s640/AE834728-BE1B-4BB6-B995-3B0B48F76BFB.PNG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/--A6p_UNqToI/UGb0RG1xcOI/AAAAAAAAAJc/NjJwLv_ZNjs/s640/8C6233D6-5FD8-4766-9C30-D6FC658B99D4.PNG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-yVVw1QfP4I8/UGYpyIZdGSI/AAAAAAAAAHo/HGaj8waosDA/s640/20120928_195454.jpg

Tenger

Bearcat wrote: »

Had a head on with the big fella yesterday at Kennedy.......

Stubby Mofo....isn't it? Am sure the -900 version will have better ratio of height to width.

I had a great (nerdy) day about 3 years ago, with only a handful of them in service I saw 3 from 3 airlines in the same day.
(Emirates,Qantas,Singapore,all at LHR)

It does look a lot more graceful in the air however:

Emirates A380 by tearbringer, on Flickr

Bearcat

Tenger wrote: »

Stubby Mofo....isn't it? Am sure the -90 version will have better ratio of height to width.

Absolutely, sorry about the standard of photos....I couldn't transfer them to photobucket. From where I was sitting it looked a very imposing ship.

brandon_flowers

Tenger wrote: »

Stubby Mofo....isn't it? Am sure the -90 version will have better ratio of height to width.

It will be a long time before the -90 version will be built though, I was reading somewhere where there are big doubts that the A380 programme will come anywhere near to paying for itself. Hopefully it will get built though.

Lustrum

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Selecting an airport to land at in an emergency isn't just "..there's the closest, we'll land there..". Especially when operating in an environment like Europe, North America or the Middle East. Very rarely will there only be one option.
For instance, why go to Dublin when Shannon, Manchester, Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Birmingham, which are all approved for A380 ops, are so close by? Fair enough, if the rest were all fogged out or closed, then Dublin might be an option, but that's a miniscule chance scenario.

Runway length is not usually going to be limiting in places like these. Birmingham, at 2600m, is roughly the same size as 10/28 in Dublin.
Unless the aircraft is on fire, filling with smoke and is not extinguishable, then your options are going to be increased.

When flying, you should always be considering the "what if..?" scenario. "What if we had an engine failure now, where would I go?"..."What if we had a medical emergency now, where would I go?"..."What if we had a cargo fire now, where would I go?"..."What if we had a rapid depressurisation now, what would I do?...
You should be able to answer all these questions pretty quickly, and the answer will vary depending on the situation you are presented with. The airport I'll divert to with an engine failure might not be the same as the one for a medical emergency, and it might be a different one again for an onboard fire.
Things that have to be taken into account include:
..runway length
..prevailing weather conditions
..RFF cover
..Runway PCN
..taxiway coding for the aircraft type
..approaches available
..aerodrome operating hours
..availability of steps/lifters etc
..availability of maintenance cover
..pax handling facilities
..availability of fuel

..and others....

There's no point diverting to somewhere because of a medical emergency, only to land there and find out the nearest hospital than can handle it is 3 hours away by road. (That's why MedLink will tell you the best place to go).
There's no point diverting somewhere because of an engine failure if the runway has got a strong enough PCN.
There's no point diverting somewhere because fuel burn is showing you won't make destination with more than Final Reserve, if that airfield doesn't have a bowser that can refuel your aircraft.

Sometimes, very rarely and in extreme circumstances, the decision is going to be made for you, eg. uncontrollable onboard fire. Then most considerations mentioned above are irrelevant. Thankfully that's a rare scenario.

I may be sitting there, reading the newspa...."approved operational manual" , but I still have to be aware of the situation and be able to answer the above questions pretty quickly. Situational awareness and having the "big picture" are king. Time may not always be on your side.

This post should be copied to the ask the pilot thread, I'm going to print this out tomorrow to use as a reference for my own training, excellent post!

On topic, still waiting to get a trip on the A380 - have been up very close on the ramp in CDG and it's just ridiculously big, you have to pay credit to the engineers

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Tenger

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think there were too few order for it for Airbus to put the resources into its production, maybe at a later stage it might emerge.

1 problem a freight version would have is that (currently) an A380F would not be able to have front loading as per the B747F. the position of the A380 cockpit would prevent this, (The higher level of the B747 cockpit permits the nose to be opened upwards.

transylman

Tenger wrote: »

This video (more specifically the guy in it) is a bit creepy however

Yeah, I wonder what he was doing in Bangkok.

Tefral

Upgraded a stand for Code F aircraft in Heathrow recently, was over in Terminal 4 doing a site visit and spotted this one parked in said stand.

Bessarion

Nice capture, that aircraft has only in service a few weeks.

Tefral

Bessarion wrote: »

Nice capture, that's only in service a few weeks.

Ya the first one landed 2nd June, that was our deadline to get the stand opened.

Peregrine

From their Facebook:
3 Emirates A380s together at Airbus' delivery centre, Hamburg

Henry Ford III

james142

What an ugly machine. You can't beat the 747.

Stealthirl

I think the 747's look more elegant. The A380 looks to short for its height

ozzy jr

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I've always been a big fan of the 747, but having recently flown on the A380, I have to say it's a stunning machine! I quite like the shape of it.

Tenger

Stealthirl wrote: »

I think the 747's look more elegant. The A380 looks to short for its height

Indeed the A380 does look a bit 'stubby'. Will be interesting to see if the larger version (A380-900) looks better, I expect it will.

The B747 is a gorgeous machine,I do wonder if this perception is shaped in part by our awe at the sheer size of it. Remember that when it was built the then largest airliner was the B707, so it was a vast increase in size. (and at the time a gamble for Boeing) The A380 in contrast is merely bigger than the existing A330/A340/B747/B777. not in a groundbreaking way.

I will state that the A380 when seen in flight while turning does look more graceful that it does on the ground. Its not called the whalejet for nothing. personally I love the head on view, massive tail and huge wingspan with graceful camber.


Emirates A380 at LHR by tearbringer, on Flickr

NewSigGuy

For sure the 380 is not a looker but to say it is "merely bigger" then the 330/340/747 does not even cover the increase in size. Do a search for 380 v 747 and have look at the pics, the machine is as ugly as sin but it is huge..

Tenger

NewSigGuy wrote: »

For sure the 380 is not a looker but to say it is "merely bigger" then the 330/340/747 does not even cover the increase in size. Do a search for 380 v 747 and have look at the pics, the machine is as ugly as sin but it is huge..

That's not what I was getting at.......the arrival of the B747 was shocking. The arrival of the A380 is less so as we already have become accustomed to large aircraft. The A380 is massive, I am not denying that,but in our mind the size increase was less than that from the perception of B707 to B747.

I have seen both aircraft side by side on many occasions ans yes the A380 is a huge increase in capacity over the B747:

Jumbos at JFK by tearbringer, on Flickr


Rush hour at JFK by tearbringer, on Flickr

dohouch

Watched a documentary about an A380 flight from Frankfurt to Tokyo on German TV.

They said that the rest quarters for the crew had "white noise" added as the eerie quietness had crew members becoming uneasy