Talk:Airbus A330

Incidents and accidents

Firstly the Airbus A330#Accidents and incidents section strikes me as somewhat of a WP:TRIVIA section, but be that as it may, it bemuses me that it includes hijackings. Surely, surely, hijackings are essentially independent of an aircraft, unless there's some massive design flaw that for some reason makes them highly susceptible to being hijacked? If so, what is the point of including them here? Shouldn't this just be about the plane?

Same thing with that thing about the chemical spill - again this is surely independent of the aircraft?

It severely damaged the aircraft, and 65 million dollars was spent repairing it.

Repairing it? The article says it was "written-off"; you don't usually repair a write-off. Can you clarify? --jjron (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, I thought it was badly destroyed, not written-off. Need to go over my writing next time. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 11:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, the Airbus A330#Further development section contains an enormous paragraph of incidents that mainly seem peripheral at best to further development, especially when most of them are apparently too trivial to get listed under Accidents and incidents, or are they counted as part of the "thirteen" incidents stated at the top of the incidents section (which does not contain thirteen incidents)? --jjron (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, that's because most of them resulted in no fatalities, which was a requirement for their their inclusion. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 01:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

But that's not true at all. The chemical spill one resulted in no fatalities, and nor did the Sri Lankan terrorist thing. You may then argue that they instead are included because they resulted in the destruction of the aircraft, but then the QF72 is also included, and that one resulted in no fatalities nor lost aircraft. Same for the guy with the explosives in his undies, and the Indonesian one. There is no consistency there, unless the other incidents were very minor, and in that case should they be counted as part of the thirteen (now) twelve "major incidents" at all? --jjron (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• And I know we don't want a detailed explanation of Air France Flight 447 which has its own article, but don't we have more recent information than from 2009 telling us that "Malfunctioning pitot tubes provided an early focus for the investigation". Can this be updated to the most recent information? --jjron (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well, that's reason stated on Air France Flight 447. Also, "Incidents and accidents" doesn't have make up exclusively of incidents attributed to the aircraft's design. It can include those of terrorist activities and mishaps – the September 11 hijackings would get a mention on Boeing 767 because at least one aircraft was involved. Same with this article. The bottom line is, any major incidents and accidents would get a mention, whether they're attributed to the aircraft's design flaw or not. Furthermore, the incidents under "Further development" suggest that there indeed was an early design problem; I thought, chronologically, that it wouldn't fit under "Entry into service" because it happened at the same time as the development of the A330-200. Although I agree that each individual incident was not notable, collectively they tell us that the engine gearbox was not up to scratch. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 01:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• At the moment it's very difficult to say anything more concrete about the cause of the AF447 incident other than a hint that there might have been a pitot problem. Investigation is under way, which may or may not provide more details, but until then there's no more that we could say in this article, even if we wanted to. How about something like this:

... All passengers and crew were killed. A pitot tube problem was suspected at first; the cause is still being investigated. - does that sound better? bobrayner (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Better, although the tone is really negative :( - replace killed with died. Thanks very much for your valuable contributions . You can find me at [1] if you want to talk directly. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 09:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"Died" sounds better. We seem to get articles about almost all substantial incidents (after all, aviation accidents attract a lot of media coverage so it's easier for somebody writing a new article to get past the GNG). So, there's no need to go into much depth here - just one or two lines of summary, and a wikilink. bobrayner (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough if that's the most current info available for AF447 - looks like there may be more news coming in the not too distant future.

And re the hijackings thing, if that's the way it's done then I guess go with it. IMO it's wrong to include incidents that are totally independent of the aircraft; it'd be like including stats on how many people die due to medical malpractice in a hospital in an article on the building contractor. However, that's a bigger fish to fry beyond this article; here you can only go with the accepted conventions, and if they are to include such things then that's all you can do. --jjron (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad we're on the same page Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 11:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• The coverage on Bandaranaike Airport attack had two sources with conflicting info. One said: "An Airbus A-340 and an A-330 aircraft were completely destroyed, while two A-320 planes were badly damaged. A fifth plane, another A-330, had its undercarriage damaged." The other claims that "Two of SriLankan Airlines' Airbus A.330 planes (4R-ALE and 4R-ALF) were destroyed, one A.320 (4R-ABA) and one of their A.340 planes (4R-ADD)." [2] and [3]. Someone comment on this. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 02:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Reports during and immediately after an incident like that can be very confused (I was sitting in an office in London on 9/11 when somebody told me there was another airliner headed for Canary Wharf...). Also, the real status of an aircraft can change some time after an incident, due to reassessment of damage, insurance writeoffs &c. So, let's go with later reports from specialist sources (who are less likely to confuse tech details &c). Flightglobal has consistently said that two A330s were destroyed: [4] [5]. So, how about (shortened) wording like this? bobrayner (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

* On 24 July 2001, the [[Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam]] [[Bandaranaike Airport attack|attacked Bandaranaike International Airport]], [[Colombo]], Sri Lanka. Two [[SriLankan Airlines]] A330s were destroyed, among other airliners and military aircraft.<ref name=flight_srilankan>{{cite web|url=http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2001/07/31/134058/srilankan-turns-to-emirates-for-help-after-raid.html|publisher=[[Flight International]]| accessdate=2011-05-23|title=SriLankan turns to Emirates for help after raid|date=2001-07-31}}</ref><ref name="srilanka">{{Cite web|url=http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010724-1 |publisher=Aviation-safety.net|accessdate=3 August 2006 |title=ASN Aircraft accident description Airbus A.330-243 4R-ALF – Colombo-Bandaranayake Internation Airport}}</ref>

Thanks for the rewrite. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 10:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Incidents Accidents section on the A340 is in a bulleted list. If it is okay with everybody I can follow the same format here.--PremKudva^Talk 05:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Editors went to the effort to put the entries here into paragraph form. Prose (paragraph form) is generally preferred over lists per Wikipedia MoS. Given that, I think there needs to be some more reason to change the format back to a list here. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well just loud thinking on my part since the A340 article had a bulleted list, compared to that the prose looked crowded in comparison. Anyway if Wikipedia MoS is important then the other aircraft article incidents will have to be converted to prose from bullets starting with the A340.--PremKudva^Talk 05:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Specifications table

Hi everyone, I'm thinking of changing the current table style of the specifications section to the Template:Aircraft specifications style insisted by user Nimbus227. Nimbus claims that it is convention that the template is used; although I initially disagreed with him, I'd now like to change the style to the one that uses the template. This, besides following convention, cuts down the "number heavy" characteristic of the article. Any comment? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) guidelines explicitly state we're to use Template:Aircraft specifications. It's by convention that we allow specs tables on airliner articles, which generally have several variants, with no single one being the major model. I don't like tables in general, especially because I have difficulty editing them, but I do think they work better for airliner articles than the single-variant template. So yes, I prefer retaining the table here.

I'm one who believes that WP guidelines should follow practice community practice, and generally not dictate guidelines without really good reasons for doing so, and a clear consensus for it. It might be best to take the issue up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft), and get some project input on the issue. We've discused it in the past, but I don't think there was ever a clear concensus to remove the tables at that time. We've also discussed a standard table for airliner articles, but not developed one, and that would probably be a good thing to pursue. - BilCat (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Which approach would be more readable? Which is best for wikipedia's readership? bobrayner (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I do prefer the table, but Nimbus won't budge, saying that the template must be used. I'm suspended between guidelines and tradition. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the guidelines are changed, then the objection on that basis is irrelevant. I think the battle should be fought on the guideline page, not in an article status nomination discussion. And if the project wants to stick with the template over tables, then that's fine. - BilCat (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record I am not insisting on anything, merely highlighting that guidelines are not being followed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 05:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but if they're not being followed in a wide range of articles, as in most airliner article, then we should consider either changing the guidelines to allow tables, or enforcing the template standard across the board. Then we can come back and address the issue here. Otherwise, we (the project) are being inconsistent. - BilCat (talk)

Exactly. I don't like terms such as 'enforce' as it can't be done but I would like to see all the project editors singing from the same hymn sheet as it reduces conflict and confusion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 05:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Came across this so thought I'd leave a comment. I think the best practice is to give detailed (via the aircraft specs template format) information on a single representative variant and then compare the important differences between models in a table below. Examples of this at Avro Vulcan#Specifications and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Specifications (F-35A). For this article a comparative table could concentrate on capacity, load, range and other factors important to its use a transport. (an Aside: we have some Good Articles that include two sets of specification (Dornier 17 and Heinkel He 111. And ship articles with four or more specification infoboxes - though these tend to be smaller) GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Orders Table

At present there is a chronological orders table in the middle of A330 operators page with no indication from the main article that it exists. I think this type of table is very useful and interesting, more so than the current table in the Orders and deliveries section, and therefore it should be highlighted more. I think there are 2 ways to do this: 1, move the table into the main article and, if necessary, make it collapsible; 2, provide a specific link to that section in the operators page from the Orders and deliveries section. I would personally advocate the first option and would also suggest changing it to a 12 month rolling order table, ensuring there is sufficient, but not too much information. What are other peoples thoughts? Bthebest (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to show orders, I think it would be appropriate to cover the whole order history, rather than the most recent period. This means a larger volume of data so it's better to either keep it in a separate page, or use a collapsible table &c (and I would prefer the former). However, it's worth mentioning particularly notable orders in the prose in this article - otherwise it seems a bit stilted with prose on other topics but just a table on orders...

Why just the latest 12 months? bobrayner (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so we could split the orders sections off from the operators page into their own page (more appropriately titled) and link it to the Orders and deliveries section. That also already has a complete order history. The only reason for a 12 month table is there is already a 2011 one, so replacing it with a 2012 one would mean (in due course) a small table. It looks a lot better and gives a better representation of recent orders if its done over a changing period of time (X months) as opposed to a fixed calendar. Bthebest (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have mocked up a page that could be created. It would be linked to the main article as such (obviously would be the actual page):

Orders and deliveries

Main page: User:Bthebest/List of Airbus A330 orders

Unless anyone had any objections I will go ahead and do this. Bthebest (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't really see the need for 2 tables; but mainly the very long 2nd table. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As the A330 is still production, the 'Recent Orders' gives a much better representation, with more details than the simple annual records, of the recent demand for the aircraft. Bthebest (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific Flight 715

I reverted the addition of Cathay Flight 715 to the accidents and incidents section but is has been added again. It is clearly not-notable (engine failure, nobody hurt or anything, just a bad day at the office), suggest it is removed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. That's what I added an {{importance-inline}} tag to the entry. Nothing to indicate serious damage to aircraft and nobody was hurt. Just Wikinews material, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not notable, fails the inclusion criteria WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture Change

We need to refresh the picture into a new picture, it was a long time of that picture already been there. can i change it into this:

It think that's good, it showing a clear from rear to tail full body plus the landing gear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjiebrotot (talk • contribs) 15:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

We dont have a need to "refresh" images only if a better image is agreed by consensus, I dont think this images which is not a prefered "airborne" shot actually is an improvement. MilborneOne (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but can i add that picture on the page?. Adjiebrotot (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we have enough images in the article that show the general view of the aircraft already, I think it really needs to show something different, but you are welcome to wait for another opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Aeroflot Airbus A330 Kustov edit.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Aeroflot Airbus A330 Kustov edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 20, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-06-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Airbus A330 is a wide-body twin-engine jet airliner made by Airbus which was introduced in 1994. The A330-200, such as pictured here in Aeroflot livery, entered service in 1998 and was considerably more popular than the earlier A330-300. In December 2012 there were 476 A330-200s in operation.Picture: Sergey Kustov

Thomas cook TCX314 flight

Maybe not worthy of inclusion in the article, but this flight a couple of days ago was filmed by two people independently with engine problems (explosion/Compressor stall) on take-off. [6] [7] whilst waiting for a landing by Antonov An-225 Mriya. Martin451 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a330/

  Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.airbusmilitary.com/A330MRTT.aspx

  Triggered by \bairbusmilitary\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://web.archive.org/web/20110526034050/http://www.airbusmilitary.com/A330MRTT.aspx

  Triggered by \bairbusmilitary\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Airbus A330 Incidents and Accidents Section Mistake

"In July 2014, an Afriqiyah Airways A330 was damaged in the fighting in Libya. Due to the many bullet holes in the fuselage, the aircraft has been written off."

Well to whoever wrote that statement above, in the Incidents and Accidents section, I had seen none of Afriqiyah Airways's A330 was involved in that incident. The picture on the resource I had seen was an A320 landing gear equipped with CFM 56 engines, the A320 was the damaged aircraft, not the A330. The A330 has a much different undercarriage. Also I had seen that in Planespotters.net, that none of Afriqiyah Airways A330 (Except 5A-ONG which crashed in 2010) were written off, or even stored, all A330s are active.

Whoever wrote that statement, please remove it.--Airbus A330-343X lover (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Airbus A330-343X lover: The info I could gather is that this week a Libyan Airlines A330 (5A-LAS) was severely damaged at Tripoli Airport and today an almost brand-new Afriqiyah Airways A330 (5A-ONP?) was hit by an RPG and as a result was completely destroyed (1).--Wolbo (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That is true, however, both aircrafts are still active. Damaged, but still in operation.--Airbus A330-343X lover (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The callsign of the Afriqiyah Airways A330 is not yet certain, but if you have seen the photos it is clear that this aircraft is not active or in operation and will never be.--Wolbo (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, I see that, poor aircraft, it was brand new, and destroyed. Not only this aircraft, also 5A-ONF was damaged, also may be written off. Afriqiyah airways is only left out with only one single A330 (5A-ONH) which has only minor damage, that can be repaired. Afriqiyah airways had stored that aircraft before, and I think they should store it again. --Airbus A330-343X lover (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Lufthansa

For what reason is Lufthansa not listed as a primary user? The top picture is of a Lufthansa plane, so what is the criteria in order for Lufthansa to be considered a primary user? I myself have flown in an A330-300 operated by Lufthansa, and I believe they own over two, but it could be much more than that. -- Smeagol630 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC) --

The Infobox should generally list the top 4 users from the list of operators in the Operators section. Lufthansa's fleet is not in the top 4. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Dedicated page for A330neo

If a new page could be created for the A320neo, why not create a one for the A330neo?

Rihaz (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably because the 320neo program was launched several years ago, while the 330neo was just launched this year. It's still a bit early for a separate article. - BilCat (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems that User:Rihazrihazrihaz has created Airbus A330neo despite your comment that it is to early. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see that comment as a prohibition from making one. I think the article has sufficient text on it for now. Rihaz (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The main reason I did so was because I felt the A330neo section on this page wasn't enough. Airbus had 5-6 articles on their website about it and there are many more on other websites containing sufficient information to make an article. Plus, I think the first paragraph of the A330neo section here needs a little work. Rihaz (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

WP operates by consensus, so we usually don't give prohibitions as such, but it was good advice. WP:AIR experience has shown that it's usually better to work on improving the sections in an existing article first, and once it is quit large, then split off into a variant article. The Boeing 777X page was AFDed by a non-aircraft project editor within days of its original creation last year, despite work I and other editors did to save it, and it was only restored a few weeks ago. I hope you don't have to go through the same experience with this one. - BilCat (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• That's what WP:Splitting suggests; expand an article until it gets too large, then split off part of it. The A330neo is getting new engines and small changes overall. It could be covered in this article reasonably well for a while. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The source page is an essay and covers a variant of the A330, say no more. The neo deserves no more than a para in the main body and an entry in the variants section of Airbus A330. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 04:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)‎

Oppose - I support the idea of a separate article. The neo article isn't written all that well (thus, sounds like an essay), its mainly the work of what I did on one of my sandboxes over the past 3 days and the edits people made over the last 12 hours. The essay-tone should be gone as more edits are made and more lines are re-written. As for being too small, more information on the neo is available. The article now contains barely 60% of the material I found while I did my source-finding. Unfortunately, I lost some and I had to leave out others as I was working at peak. I already think it is large enough to deserve it's own article and it will only get larger as the days pass. Rihaz (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, the neo project comes across as - Airbus is going to alter the wing a bit, put on new engines, and shift the seats around inside. It doesn't really come across as much of a departure from making a variant on any other aircraft. Some people have said they will buy them, but none have been made yet, let alone delivered. Bound be newspaper/journal coverage following the initial announcements. But we need to take an encyclopaedic viewpoint. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Timesaving is NOT to merge, but: like 777x to make a new article. And do not wait. 77.12.40.102 (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - merging A330neo text to this article in a summary manner. This neo is a minimal change to the A330, mainly newer and better engines. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment - So you think to merge A320neo, 737max or -next, 777x too, because its nearly the same situation? See that the split is more then useful, but necessary. 77.185.255.132 (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I already commented on the 777X being different above, but I thought that article was started too soon last year. The A320neo and 737 Max have more changes than the A330neo based on what's been reported in the media. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Due improvements to the neo article, I am striking by support. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - we have separate articles for the Airbus A320neo family and Boeing 737 MAX and the level of change of these models compared to their predecessors is very similar to that of the A330neo versus the A330.--Wolbo (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The split is actually done - and sooner or later it has to be done anyway. A320neo, 737max or -next, 777x used it finally, because its good, better results, and timesaving: Don't waste time to merge now and split again later. 77.185.255.132 (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - A new article will be needed later anyway. Why make things complicated by merging now and spliting again later? Article is good enough, info seems sufficient. 27.147.248.248 (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

merge proposal removed--Petebutt (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

A350 to supersede A330?

I'm a little confused as to how the A350 will supersede the A330 as Airbus' medium wide body airliner. I mean, with the introduction of the A330neo, that seems factually incorrect. Moreover, there is no source to the claim. The line was written by someone senior to myself here, so I believe there was a good reason for mentioning that. I did not remove it for the same reason.

I would like to know the reason behind making that claim and that too without a source. Thanks -Rihaz (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Titlebox Variants Section - EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45

Is there any particular reason why this "variant" exists in the title box of the article? The KC-45 isnt looking like it will ever be produced and we dont see things like the 747-500x and 747-600x listed on the 747 page, or from my quick look around any other known cancelled/non existent variant on any other commerical aircraft page. would anybody object if i removed the variant from the title box? 125.209.178.84 (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)