A380 operating questions

In article ,
Not the Karl Orff wrote:

In article ,
(Alistair Bell) wrote:



anywhere, including belly-flopping into the ocean. Remember that UA
777 a few months ago that lost an engine and had to fly over three
hours on one engine just to divert to KOA?

Is ETOPS 207 allowed yet?

It is in some cases apparently. Also, does anyone have a link to the
story on the UA 777 flying engine out?

"nobody" wrote in message
...
Vareck Bostrom wrote:

The thing is that some cities don't have that many airports and there is
the
one big intl airport that acts as a huge hub and handles a lot of
passengers.
Sometimes you don't have a choice because your passengers originate from
one
big airport. And in cities such as Hong Kong or Singapore, you don't have
much choice.

No choice in Hong Kong?????? Shenzhen (I've landed there on a 747) and
Guangzhou will soon have an airport BIGGER than Hong Kong's. Then you also
have a smaller airport in Macao. Then you'll have Tai Pei not so far away
either.....



Nik.

"Vareck Bostrom" wrote in message
...
The A380 thread got me wondering about A380 costs to operate. One thing
I began to wonder about is if so few worldwide airports can handle the
A380 - what does the A380 do if it has to divert to an alternate airport
for whatever reason? If I recall, in the US an aircraft must carry
enough fuel for it's destination + alternate + 45 minutes of powered
flight afterward. If your destination is LAX and the nearest alternate
airport is Denver or Seattle, you've got to carry that much extra fuel
on every flight vs an aircraft that can divert to San Diego or San
Francisco.

Is that actually a consideration or concern?

I dont have the referance to hand, but AFAIR Airbus has said that any
airport that can handle a 744 can handle a A380, it was so designed in terms
of runway & taxiway length, strength, turning circles etc. While this will
undoubtly have qualification on it it should mean there is no real problem
for diversions. getting people of it might be a problem, but getting it
down wont be.

Allen

In article ,
Vareck Bostrom wrote:

In article ,
Not the Karl Orff wrote:

In article ,
(Alistair Bell) wrote:



anywhere, including belly-flopping into the ocean. Remember that UA
777 a few months ago that lost an engine and had to fly over three
hours on one engine just to divert to KOA?

Is ETOPS 207 allowed yet?

It is in some cases apparently. Also, does anyone have a link to the
story on the UA 777 flying engine out?

NTSB.gov?

In article ,
"Allen" wrote:


I dont have the referance to hand, but AFAIR Airbus has said that any
airport that can handle a 744 can handle a A380, it was so designed in terms
of runway & taxiway length, strength, turning circles etc. While this will
undoubtly have qualification on it it should mean there is no real problem
for diversions. getting people of it might be a problem, but getting it
down wont be.

No, there need to be some upgrades, namely tunnels, calverts. etc. under
what the beast passes over. LAX is so deficient.

Thorsten Nedderhut wrote:
Not only the fuel necessary to go to the destination ALTN and beyond is a
point. One has as well to consider the diversion enroute. As far as I have
heard, planning A380 flight routes is similar to ETOPS/EROPS operations.

Why would it be like ETOPS ? The 380 will have 4 engines. And it is far more
likely that the 380 will be asked to land at the nearest "convenient" airport
as opposed to the nearest landing strip as is the case of ETOPS.

With 4 engines, you have a choice of where you land, whereas with ETOPS, you
must land at the nearest airport even if it means that the passengers will be
kept in a cold siberian hangar.

Also, in an emergency, you don't need to accomodate the beast on all the
runways and taxiways, as well as having dual-jetways and large enough lounges
to accomodate the instant influx of people. You need to have one runway long
and strong enough to allow it to land, and stairs or mobile lounges to empty
the plane. (of when a real emergency, use the plane's own chutes).

Once the beast is emptied of fuel and cargo, it is probably light enough to be
tugged to any location at that airport.

The designers of the 380 were very conscious of the runway requirements, and
this is a big reason why the 380 was launched later rather than sooner since
they had to develop a landing gear system that was light enough, took up a
minimal amount of space once retracted, and allowed for the spreading of the
beast's weight such that the beast could operate on most existing runways.

What do you do on a leg FRA-SIN and you have just a couple of airports
inbetween where you may land in case of emergency and which can handle an
A380?

What do you do on a leg FRA-SIN operated on a 747-400... This has been done
for years now, and they seem to have worked out a sufficient number of
airports along the way.

Consider the A340-500 that will fly Sin-NYC over the pole. It will be in areas
without suitable airports for far longer periods than FRA-SIN. Yet continental
has operated a NYC-HKG route over the pole on a twin 777.

180 ETOPS means a maximum distance of 6 hours between 2 airports. When midway,
you are no farther than 3 hours (180 minutes) from either points.

Whether you're a 767, a MD-11 or a A380, you have the same problems when
overflying remote areas if you have an inflight emergency (such as fire).

"Thorsten Nedderhut" wrote in message
...


Not only the fuel necessary to go to the destination ALTN and beyond is a
point. One has as well to consider the diversion enroute. As far as I have
heard, planning A380 flight routes is similar to ETOPS/EROPS operations.
What do you do on a leg FRA-SIN and you have just a couple of airports
inbetween where you may land in case of emergency and which can handle an
A380?

I would have thought the A380 would be able to land at any airport which
could handle a 747? It may damage the runway and it may not be able to get
to a gate but it would be able to land in an emergency situation?

"nobody" wrote in message
...
Thorsten Nedderhut wrote:
Not only the fuel necessary to go to the destination ALTN and beyond is
a
point. One has as well to consider the diversion enroute. As far as I
have
heard, planning A380 flight routes is similar to ETOPS/EROPS operations.

Why would it be like ETOPS ? The 380 will have 4 engines. And it is far
more
likely that the 380 will be asked to land at the nearest "convenient"
airport
as opposed to the nearest landing strip as is the case of ETOPS.

I did not say 'like' but 'similar'. Reason is that an airline does not want
to go a ship like that on an airport where it cannot handle it on the ground
or where it cannot fly it out again. Neither the airport authorities want a
ship like that to block or affect operations on ground. OPS departments of
airlines having ordered the aircraft do consider this.

It's not the runways that would be a problem and I don't think any damage
would be caused but there would be few if any gates available at airports
not altered for A380 traffic and buildings close to taxiways might get
demolished.

Max landing weight of the A380 is 386 tonnes whereas a 747 is around 297
tonnes.


"Mark Hewitt" wrote in message
...

"Thorsten Nedderhut" wrote in message
...


Not only the fuel necessary to go to the destination ALTN and beyond is
a
point. One has as well to consider the diversion enroute. As far as I
have
heard, planning A380 flight routes is similar to ETOPS/EROPS operations.
What do you do on a leg FRA-SIN and you have just a couple of airports
inbetween where you may land in case of emergency and which can handle
an
A380?

I would have thought the A380 would be able to land at any airport which
could handle a 747? It may damage the runway and it may not be able to get
to a gate but it would be able to land in an emergency situation?