Talk:Airbus A380

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)

• Good point! Internet rumour mills are wild with more rumours again, apparently the CRJ-700 is jinxed! Ha! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Reed, Ted. "Why U.S. Airlines Don't Fly the Airbus A380." The Street. June 29, 2011.

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)

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)

• Airbus and its Orders & Deliveries spreadsheet list 236. Some IP users have been changing it to 238 without providing any references. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Must stem from the two from Lufthansa, which have not (yet) been firmed up. I support 236... L.tak (talk) 12:51, 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)

• • Plane spotting's list does list MSN 80 as the 60th delivered. I'm not totally comfortable with using it as an WP:RS, even though it is usually very accurate. Ravendrop 15:50, 3 November 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)

• The airports serviced info looks to fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE and/or WP:NOTDIRECTORY to me. Also, it was added without any references and this is a Good Article. So I've removed it was unreferenced. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:13, 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)

• This is not a travel guide, some aircraft types have thousands of current routes never mind all the historic routes, not really what wikipedia is for. MilborneOne (talk) 15:03, 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)

Proposed change of lead image.

• 

  Current lead image

• 

  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)

• Singapore Airlines picture switched with Emirates. Thanks for the comments. Dusty777 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 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 [[1]] was classified as an ACCIDENT, by the ATSB. [2]

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." [[3]]

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)

• Just so you know, read WP:No legal threats before you use legal terms such as "cease and desist" in your edit sumamry or you find yourself BLOCKED. BTW, what you did prior to this was nothing less than EDIT WARRING and your editing behavioural pattern suggest to us that you are very well aware of WP's inner working so there, take this as your last warning. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• The problem was this change was made without providing any references in the article. Adding a link here does not undo that. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• The IP seems very "knowledgeable" for someone who's only been editing for a few hours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 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, [[4]], 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)

• Right, I somehow missed a +10. I guess the issue is with some wording then. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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)