Talk:Airbus A380

Template:WPCD-airspace

Technical concerns

Is this chapter still relevant now that the A380 has received its type certificate from the FAA and the European Aviation Safety Agency? At least the opening sentence requires modification. 85.176.116.208 11:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's still relevant; the certification doesn't mean that the flight separation rules or ground handling issues have been completely resolved, it just means that it's safe to fly. Georgewilliamherbert 18:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The wing-test should be included under testing. The wing design was rectified and aproved, so it's not a technical concern anymore, it's an anecdot. The wake-turbulence it's not a technical concern anymore, too. The norms handle this. Maybe "controversial issues" would be a better name for the remaining of this part, it looks like these are not only of technical nature. Cirrocumulus

• The Testing section is focused on flight testing now. I think Tech. concerns is fine. I think the section largely say those issues have been worked out. Add further info with references if you can. Eventually the details won't be so important and a sentence or two for each issue solved can be worked into the Development or other sections. -Fnlayson 12:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the wing-test because it is of no concern than on any other plane in use anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.215.208 (talk • contribs)

• Because most planes are through development and in production or out of production. I like the idea of moving a summary of the Wing section to Development or Testing. -Fnlayson 13:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Cabin pressurization junk

This section seems to have been added and removed a couple times. The last one with references was March 2, 2007. Looks like mad claims of a fired employee. This came out like 1.5 years ago. Has there been any resolution yet? Thanks. -Fnlayson 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The item seems like something added by an Airbus-hater to try to discredit the plane. Personally, I'm not too keen on Airbus, but having flown on Airbuses several times, I will say that they always got me where I was going in one piece (both me and the airplaine). As long as the so-called controvery is an old claim from a sub-contractor's disgruntled employee, I don't think it has a place here. There is a Wiki article on the man, and it does list several sources. However, as long as his claims remain unsubstantiated by outside investigtors, I don't see that it belongs here. - BillCJ 23:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, agreed. -Fnlayson 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree, I think the discussion about the Joseph Mangan controversy should go back in. There was an article in the Los Angeles Times, an unverified copy can be found here. Thus, Mangan's allegation is citable, though the allegation itself if unproven. (See also TTTech's press release.) It appears that Mangan's argument is that other planes have air pressurization valves that have multiple motors with controllers made by different manufacturers and a manual override. Mangan stated that the A380 has air pressurization valves that have a controller made by only one manufacturer and no manual override. Does anyone have a citable reference as to what happened here? Let's discuss this further. Cxbrx 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not every such claim is notable. If we printed every claim ever made about a given airplane, it would dominate the article. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a repository of every fact or claim. The fact you only found an "unverified" copy of a story goes along way to indicating that this is indeed a minor issue. - BillCJ 02:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image

I rotated and replaced the background on John's A380 image. I think it's a perfect angle, you see all windows, the whole plane from wing tip to wing tip, and I think it looks better than A380 F-WWEA LEGT.jpg. The fact that the windows on the plane doesn't look as crisp in max res is irrelevant since we're talking about a low res version for an infobox. And the argument that "it's a fake montage" is simply not valid as long as it looks realistic. (enough while 250px wide) I'm not protesting because I'm stubborn with "my" image. I'm doing it because I IMHO think it works better for this infobox. Ssolbergj 21:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ssolsberg, I agree it's a good image, and very creative, and I wouldn't mind seeing it in the article. But at this point, several different editors have removed it, and you are close to violating 3RR in putting it back. I should remind everyone that it's best not to carry on discussions in multiple revert summaries, but I am guilty of that myself, as it's sometimes easier and more convinent to do it that way. Even so, multiple reversions are not the way Wikipedia prefers things be done.

The informal consensus seem to be that the doctored image should not be in the lead, and at this point I think you should respect that. If you can build a consensus here to have the image put back in the lead, then please do so. But until then, it's probably best to leave it out of the lead. - BillCJ 22:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Several different editors have reverted me? You mean yourself and Ctillier. Two editors. Come up with arguments instead of lecturing 3RR. I'm obviously taking it to the talk page now. If the number of enunciations about the goodness of this picture counts, you've got 3 editors; me, you and Henrickson Ssolbergj 23:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• These are the editors that have reverted you, counting the one who replaced the picture:

1. TheUltimateHistorian
2. Nick Moss
3. Ctillier

OK, so several is usually 4-5. But not that I'm not on that list. Tho I did have a revert in that time period, it wasn't for the pic. And I amlost did revert you, but Wikipedia also advises agaist constantly reverting to the "last good edit". I do like the pic, but that's not the same thing as saying it should be in the lead. - BillCJ 01:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

TheUltimateHistorian and Nick Moss inserted a highly copyright-doubtful image without a tag and that probably will be deleted. I didn't revert the same thing three times.Ssolbergj 01:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's a fine image. But don't care for the storm part and its implied message. It would be fine in the delays section or something like that, imo. -Fnlayson 23:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously a matter of taste, but imo the image is much more informative though not as zoomed up (on the other hand, the wing isn't cropped) Shouldn't informativeness be the most important thing in an infobox?Ssolbergj 23:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Showing an imformative picture is one thing, doctoring one to meet an end is another. -Fnlayson 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Anyway I replaced the background and enlarged the plane in the image.Ssolbergj 01:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reverted to old background and removed bluescreen edgesSsolbergj 11:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Enhancing the image is fine by me. -Fnlayson 18:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not like the montage. No offence intended, but it just doesn't look realistic - even at 250 pixels wide, it is still clearly a montage of a somewhat fuzzy foreground with a much sharper background. There is somewhat of a bluescreen effect around the edges of the aircraft, and the lighting doesn't look right. Ignoring that, I don't understand why the image needs a false background. What is wrong with the original image? It could be cropped if needed, or even rotated if you really wanted it to show a more wings level perspective.

That being said, while it is a decent image of the aircraft, I don't think it is necessarily the best. F-WWEA_LEGT.jpg is a much crisper image, which also shows the major features of the aircraft. About the only complaint I would have about it is the loss of the right hand wingtip.

The image posted by TheUltimateHistorian (A380.jpg) is also rather good, although it is a little too underneath the aircraft for my liking. As has been pointed out though, the copyright status of the image is unclear (I didn't realise this when I reverted the page), so it probably should be left out of the article until it is cleared up (or removed).

The image on the left is the one which was in the infobox prior to the loading of the montage image. It isn't fantastic resolution, but it does give a good overview of the aircraft.

If there really isn't a decent image available, then maybe a request should go out to anyone who edits this page and is attending the Paris Air Show this week to get one - there should be plenty of opportunity. Failing that, you could always try finding one on a website such as Airliners.net, and asking the photographer for permission for it to be used here - you never know your luck, and there are plenty of decent images of the A380 on that website. In the meantime, I propose we return F-WWEA_LEGT.jpg to the infobox. Nick Moss 08:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your last revert summary was "A photoshop montage isn't needed when there is a real image available". It's clear that you don't like "montages" (images with replaced backgrounds), no matter what. [1] I've removed the photoshop edges and reverted the background. The windows are as crisp as any a380 image if you're interested in getting both wing tips.(in 250px) I don't understand why you mentioned 1er_vol_de_l%27_A380.jpg.Ssolbergj 12:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That does look better now. However, I still don't see why the image needs an artificial background? Unless there's some very good reason to do it (such as there not being any images of the aircraft in the air available), I think it is being a bit dishonest to the readers to have images manipulated like this as part of an article. Can you tell us exactly what having the storm background brings to the image that the original blue sky background doesn't? Likewise, can you tell us exactly why the image needs to be rotated to try to depict a wings level condition compared to the banked condition in the original image?

The reason I mentioned 1er_vol_de_l%27_A380.jpg is because that was the photo which was originally in the infobox before you replaced it with your montage. To be honest, I don't see any rationale for it having been replaced in the first place - what was so wrong with it, or so much better with the manipulated image, that it needed to be replaced? Nick Moss 17:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need a montage? It's not even as though this one is especially well done, to be honest, as the attitude of the clouds makes the plane look like it's about to perform CFIT and there's a lack of contrast between the aircraft and background. Is there any reason not to put Image:Airbus a380 fb06rs.jpg or Image:Emirates A380 2.JPG in the infobox? They both show more of the aircraft, are better quality than the original 1st flight image and avoid arbitrary background manipulation which does nothing to improve the usefulness of the image. Note that I reverted the edit to the Emirates image, which was unnecessary and introduced edge artifacts. --YFB ¿ 19:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the background is replaced is not what I'm talking about. I changed the background because I thaught it looked better, and I have got positive respons by several editors on that. As I've said before, I think that this photo is the best for the infobox because of the overview it gives. The angle is better, you see both wingtips, and the wings arent covering up anything. And please don't click on it and argument about it's lack of "crispness", because we are talking 250px, not panorama full screen. Is it really necessary to ask me why I rotated the plane so it's horisontal? Is it a cruel lie? Why do you hate photoshop? Do you wonder why people spend time editing and improving images when you think it's completely unnecessary? Ssolbergj 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is "hating" Photoshop. One might well ask why you hate real life! While I agree it's an intriguing image, there are more than enough real images out there not to have to resort to a doctored one. It would be quite a different matter if there were only a few poor shots of the aircraft, and doctoring the images would produce a better image than those available. Editing and improving images does have its place; sying it's not needed here in no way diminishes that. We aren't questioning your work, only its application here. - BillCJ 20:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ssolbergj, this is an encyclopedia, not a digital art gallery. Touching up photographs using Photoshop by sharpening, resizing, cropping, rotating or adjusting levels is one thing. Altering the content of the photograph with a new background is an entirely different thing, one which in my mind simply does not belong here... kind of like the visual equivalent of original research. I feel very stongly that the montage should be removed from the article entirely, regardless of its (considerable) artistic value, because it tries to pass for an actual photograph. As for the thumbnail format, I am the kind of person who expects to be able to click on a thumbnail to see as much detail as possible. If you feel so passionately that this angle best shows the A380, then crop, rotate, resize all you want, but do not alter the fundamental photograph... or suggest a better one. The montage must go! --Ctillier 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying not to focuse on the fact that I replaced the background (or reffering to it as "the montage"), but when people say that image editing principally is negative and that real images generally are favourable, I'm commenting it. I simply disagree that replacing a background behind an innocent airplane can be compared to original research, and if an image on wikipedia is 706px or 1800px outside the 250px thumbnail is totally irrelevant. That's not how wikipedia works. Editors say that this image looks pretty/intriguing/like an artist's concept image. OK FINE! - the aesthetics of images have got a place in wikipedia/media no matter you say, but it's not crucial. And when I do in addition think that the angle etc. is better than the other images we've got, I don't see what's the problem. Ssolbergj 21:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just told you editing in principle is not negative - that's NOT the issue here. You are taking this far too personally. The real problem is that you are promoting your own work, ingoring the implied consensus to do it, and repeatedly inserting the pic into the lead spot when it's been removed. I'm going to take a poll on the issue below, and hopefully we can come to a clear consensus. THat way, when you add you "montage" again, we'll have something to take action on. - BillCJ 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• As mentioned, the Paris Air Show is coming up, and we should see a lot more good pics coming out of it, both professional and amateur (the latter usually being free usage). Thus the poll below doesn't mean we'll be stuck with the chosen pic forever, esp if a better one is forthcoming. - BillCJ 22:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll on lead image

Proposal one

Should Image:Airbus A380 Storm.jpg be removed from the lead pic? Answer Agree or Disagree, with comments if necessary. - BillCJ 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Agree - per my nomination. - BillCJ 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - the montage is pretty, intriguing, artistic, but unencyclopedic. --Ctillier 22:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree - I genuinely think it's better than the other pics we've got right now. I hope there will be more editors voting here than the 4 that allready have discussed-Ssolbergj 22:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - an OK bit of editing, but not appropriate as a lead image in an encyclopaedia article for the numerous reasons given above. --YFB ¿ 02:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - Remove it or use the same plane image with its original background. -Fnlayson 02:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - for the reasons stated above - unencyclopedic pretty much sums it up. Nick Moss 03:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree - It's a great picture, but it's a fake. That's not the image we want to present. --Pete 10:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal two

If Image:Airbus A380 Storm.jpg is repalced, what pic should replace it? Even if you feel the montage should not be replaced, go ahead and weigh in here.
Image:Airbus A380 Storm.jpg is not a candidate. - BillCJ 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• 
  Current lead image
• 
  Candidate 1
• 
  Candidate 2
• 
  Candidate 3
• 
  Candidate 4
• 
  Candidate 5
• 
  Candidate 6
• 
  Candidate 7

I contacted Keta, the photographer for Candidate 1, and he has uploaded an uncropped version of the photo:

He indicated a willingness to crop to any format we wish from the original RAW file, that way compression artifacts will be minimized. When do the polls close? --Ctillier 03:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• That looks good! And thanks for taking the initiative. I think if he cuts about a quatter of the blue space from the top and bottom, it would fit very well in the infobox. At to closing the polls, all six of the contributers include Cand. 1 in their choices, and Poll 1 is 6-1 for removing. That's pretty conclusive at this point. I'll go ahead and replace the existing pic with the uncropped cand. 1 now. We can put in the cropped version when it arrives. Also, we need to make sure the original version remaines uploaded, in case for whatever reason teh cropped version doesn't work out is is not accepted. - BillCJ 03:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll

• My vote goes to candidate 1, perhaps cropped a bit top & bottom to reduce the expanse of blue and give the subject more emphasis. Thank you BillCJ for your conflict resolution skills. --Ctillier 22:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• My preferences are 1 and 3. I'd like 3 better if were centerd on the aircraft, without so much land. This is where "doctoring" an image is useful. One cropped would be usefull too, as "tall" images expand the infobox. - BillCJ 22:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Candidate 1 and 3 are my favourites. If the original image of #1 can be cropped a bit less so as to show the whole wingspan, that would be good (obviously if the original image doesn't include the entire wingspan, then we can forget that idea). Failing that, if #3 were to be cropped like Bill said above, that would be good. Nick Moss 03:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Candidate 1. Crisp, shows undercarriage and four engines, Crop a bit per above. Pretty pic. #3 cropped might be ok, too. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 03:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Candidate 1 for a number of reasons. - IMHO it is the best of the bunch purely from a photographic pov. It is similiar to other a/c infobox pivtures - i.e. shown in landing configuration. Shows all four engines. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Candidate 1 because it is crisp, well-lit, shows the configuration of the aircraft clearly. I also like Candidate 4 because it shows the aircraft in livery, but we probably don't need quite so much emphasis on the underneath. Candidate 2 is dramatically posed, but not sharp. --Pete 10:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Per above, it is pretty conclusive at this point that the existing image should be replaced. As all six voters in Poll 2 showed a prefference for #1, preferrably cropped. I am adding that on to the infobox (uncropped). The cropped version should arrive in the next few days, and we'll put it in then. - BillCJ 03:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Number of A380s built

The article just got a citation needed tag on the number built, nine. This raises a wider issue. How is the "number built" field of the aircraft infobox exactly defined? As of today, nine A380s have flown, and that number is what I had put in the "number built" field of the infobox. Over in the 787 article, "number built" is already 1, for an airframe that is neither complete nor flown. If we were to apply that standard for the A380 article, the "number built" would be closer to 16. So, just when is an airframe considered "built" ? When the main structural parts are joined? When electrical systems are powered up? After first flight? I suppose the latter is easiest to verify, but even before first flight, an aircraft is obviously "built" in the common sense of the word. I am curious about what you all think. --Ctillier 22:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say a plane is built when it is ready to fly. The first 787 is done or largely done. Its rollout is tomorrow. Folks maybe jumped the gun a bit by adding it before painting. -Fnlayson 22:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As of this writing, the first 787 has yet to have systems installed (hydraulics, electrical harnesses, avionics, cabin air handling, etc.) and as rolled out, it is a non-functional airframe that has yet to be completed into a finished aircraft. For example, it is still several weeks from being powered up for the first time. But I digress... my question still stands. --Ctillier 22:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think that an A380 is considered built when it is rolled out of the factory and delivered to the flight test department. MilborneOne 22:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable milestone... but how would one verify or cite this information without resorting to original research? --Ctillier 22:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all above. When a plane is flyable it is considered built and I do think the 1 placed in 787 info box is/was premature.--Bangabalunga 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

New pic

I agree with the reversion of the new pic, for several reeasons. One, the A380 looks like bloated whale at that angle. Two, the blue backgraound is just too dark to be nice to look at. Granted both of these are just personal nitpicks, and minor ones at that. But the third one is the big one: It is from Flickr, and has not been approved as legally usable yet. It would have been prudent to have waited before posting it. - BillCJ 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

... and it is of much lower resolution, and last but not least, our friend Ssolbergj might have learned a thing or two in the last month or so about building consensus around the choice of A380 infobox image. I have to admit, I am slightly peeved by his behavior. --Ctillier 05:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I never broke the 3RR, and I'm perfectly allowed to debate whatever I want on a talk page until my head explode, so I think Ctiller should shut up. Because there have been disagreement over an image in the past of an article, doesn't mean that editors shouldn't follow wikipedia policies, such as inserting a brand new image you think is better. (being bold) I'm perfectly fine with being reverted and asked to join the talk page, but one should never be reverted because Ctiller now suddenly thinks by principle that we need to build consensus and have a long discussion first. that kills wikipedia. Now I can't see why Bill think the background is darker..? And I personally don't think the A380 could ever look like a bloated whale. Ssolbergj 10:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I mispoke - the pic is too dark overall - the aircraft looks gray, and it's supposed to be the same color as the second pic, right? THe current pic has a much light aircraft, which contrasts well with the blue backgraound thee. Now, I'm perplexed by your first sentence: you act like we told you that you shouldn't talk about it (I'm perfectly allowed to debate whatever I want on a talk page until my head explode), when the point is we want you to talk about it first. And why bring up 3RR now? No one mentioned that this time. The main point here is you know this is a contentious issue, and yet you went ahead and changed the pic on your own again. Yes, we're encouraged to be bold, but not when it's disruptive. Please show some consideration next time, no matter how perfect you think your pics are. - BillCJ 17:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there was a recent poll on the photo, so discussion would have been better. But reverting is easy, so let's move on. Please everyone remember to assume good faith, and to be civil. As for the photos, I happen to prefer the view from the bottom as it shows more of the plane. Also the angle of the photo Ssolbergj inserted somehow makes the tail region look very strange. My two cents. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm OK with either image. The new one is fine and has more of a side angle to it. -Fnlayson 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the new one to be honest, it gives a better impression of the size of the plane. Drutt 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does this article constantly compare the A380 to the 747 instead of the AN-225, or a combination of both? The vast majority of comparissons are with the 747.