Forum lotnictwa

[voitoosh]

Dokładnie to co w temacie, słyszałem, że chyba Pyrzowice mogą go przyjąć, ale skoro EPWA ma długi pas, to może też, ale wątpię, żeby udało się go podłączyć do gate (nawet w T2) więc będzie obsługiwany z parkingu. Ale raczej nie spodziewam się, żeby EPWA przyjęło A380 bo raczej żadna linia nie będzie tu lądować, chyba, że nie daj Boże awaria :/

[styrian]

EPWA nie może przyjmować A380.

[voitoosh]

czemu ? wszak ma długie rwy ?

[slepowron]

Co innego jest ladowanie a co innego pelna obsluga pasazerow. Wyladowac to moze na bardzo wielu lotniskach.

[Jachub]

[voitoosh]

racja ale wiesz, A380 na EPWA to by było wrażenie ;] Szkoda

[krecik01]

[BN]

Moze chodzi o wytrzymalosc pasa startowego ? Ciekawe wlasnie ze KTW moze a WAW nie KRK pewnie nie ze wzgledu na gorke, aczkolwiek ciekawe by to bylo

[Witek Z]

[Atco]

Ale też i prędkości większe (czyli czas trwania tego nacisku).
Coś mi się obiło o uszy, ze większe nośności muszą mieć drogi kołowania i zatoki oczekiwania (holding bays, u nas nieznane) - pewnie z tych samych powodów.

[Witek Z]

[Atco]

A tak BTW sorry, ze długie i po angielsku):

More A380 turbulence

Airbus A380 hits turbulence
Jet's wake could ignite safety, trade rift between U.S., Europe
By Andy Pasztor and Daniel Michaels, The Wall Street Journal

THE AIRBUS A380 superjumbo jet, which already has left a trade dispute in its wake, may spark a new trans-Atlantic rift over potential safety hazards created by the actual wake from its engines.

The latest disagreement brewing between U.S. aviation officials and their European counterparts is focused on international standards under discussion concerning how far other airliners should fly behind the superjumbo during takeoffs and landings. Such rules are intended to provide adequate protection from the powerful turbulence churned up by the A380's huge wings and four mammoth engines. The A380 -- slated for delivery to its first customer in late 2006 -- is designed to carry about 800 passengers and represents Airbus's bid to dominate the market for long-haul travel.

In addition, officials at Airbus, which is 80% owned by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. and 20% owned by Britain's BAE Systems PLC, are privately fuming about separate U.S. moves aimed at spelling out how fast the A380 will be permitted to maneuver while on the ground -- restrictions never imposed before on any commercial aircraft.

The debate is supposed to be entirely about safety, but industry officials and even some participants worry that ongoing trade disputes between the U.S. and Europe threaten to escalate the matter. The two sides are sparring over aircraft subsidies before the World Trade Organization, sparked in part by European aid for the A380. Some European aerospace officials suspect the proposed rules could be used to discourage purchases of the A380. Some U.S. officials, meanwhile, fear that perception could complicate negotiations over both the trade dispute and the aviation safety issues.
Some tension is expected whenever new aircraft are introduced. Scrutiny of wake-turbulence issues has prompted "some sporty discussions" with U.S. regulators, said Charles Champion, Airbus's chief operating officer and the head of the A380 program. "In some areas, they can make life difficult. If you ask Boeing, I'm sure they would say the European authorities make their life difficult."

The A380 has a maximum takeoff weight in excess of one million pounds, nearly one-third more than the heaviest 747s. Even an additional minute or two of spacing behind some planes can affect traffic flows during peak periods at large airports. Extra time getting the largest Airbus model to and from gates, or slightly longer waits for aircraft following it on the same runway, eventually could make the big planes economically less appealing.

When an airborne aircraft runs into another plane's wake -- the twin cones of turbulent air that fan out from the wingtips of a big jet -- the impact can jostle the trailing plane. In extreme circumstances, the result can even be loss of control. There haven't been any recent crashes of jetliners attributed primarily to such wake encounters, though over the years some business and private planes have experienced serious incidents and even crashed after following a larger aircraft too closely near an airport.

Another plane's wake was initially suspected as the cause of the crash of an American Airlines flight out of John F. Kennedy International Airport four years ago, killing 265, but U.S. safety officials ultimately blamed pilot error and aircraft design issues.

Some U.S. regulators are advocating international standards that include separation limits of as much as 40% or 50% greater than the maximum distance of five nautical miles required for aircraft taking off behind Boeing Co.'s 747 wide-body jumbo. >

Using different computer models, European representatives on a joint blue-ribbon working group studying the matter are advocating limits much closer to those now in place. "We have to demonstrate that the A380 is not different from any other aircraft," says Robert Lafontan, the superjumbo's chief engineer and a test pilot.

The No. 1 consideration for U.S. officials is safety, says George Greene, a senior scientist heading up the Federal Aviation Administration's wake-turbulence assessment effort. "Fairness is probably second," he adds, because the agency doesn't want to be "overly conservative so that [it] penalizes capacity." Mr. Greene declined to comment on any of the specifics under discussion.

The Europeans, for their part, point out that the initial separation standard for the Boeing 747 was set at an unduly restrictive 10 nautical miles, only to be ratcheted downward as a result of operational experience.

"It's quite obvious that the wake vortex will be bigger than the 747; you can't escape from physics," according to Jean-Pierre Nicolaon, an official with Eurocontrol, the European air-traffic services provider, who also is a member of the study group. "We can't say yet [by] how much."

All of the current proposals are still informal and preliminary and haven't been vetted by higher-level U.S. policy makers, and it is likely to take several months for recommendations to become firm and be accepted as international standards.

Tighter restrictions for the A380 would contradict longstanding Airbus assurances that the plane was designed to seamlessly fit into existing global air-traffic patterns, without requiring special handling by controllers or greater spacing than today's jetliners. But the short-term impact would be limited, since relatively few A380s will be flying in the first few years.

But the longer-term impact on air traffic could be significant, specially at destinations such as London's Heathrow airport, Charles DeGaulle in Paris, Tokyo's Narita, Los Angeles International Airport and others slated to handle the largest number of A380 flights. A spokesman for the union representing U.S. air-traffic controllers had no immediate comment.

(za Wall Street Journal)


Dodatkowo ICAO wydało specjalne zalecenia odnośnie traktowania A380 przez kontrolę ruchu lotniczego - co nieco kłóci się z deklaracjami producenta.

Tekst po angielsku nie mój, przepraszam za niski poziom merytoryczny.

[Gabik]

Wlasnie. Widzialem nie raz na KORD jak w ILSach (np. 27L i 27R - pasy sasiadujace) byly np. 2 B747 i co sie dzieje z nastepujacymi po nich jednostkami (glownie CRJ100/200 i ERJ135/145 bo jest ich pelno AA i UA) Jak byl za blisko to albo ATC skierowalo go na GA albo musial wykonac szereg skretow zeby zwiekszyc dystans co dla mnie jako spottera bylo b. ciekawe. A start po 747 odbywal sie po dosc dlugim przestoju na holding poincie.
Tak swoja droga to nie moge sie doczekac A380 na chicagowskim niebie.
Pozdrawiam

[Danny]

Po wstepnych testach zalecana sepracja za A380 zostala okreslona na .... 10nm!!

[bbb]