Flying the Airbus A380

Gib Vogel

• Publisher: Airlife
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781847974112
• Topic: Technology & Engineering
• Subtopic: Aviation
• Index: Technology & Engineering

Since its first flight on 27 April 2005, the Airbus A380 has been the largest passenger airliner in the world. Instantly recognizable with its full-length upper deck, it represents the pinnacle of modern airliner design. Flying the A380 gives a pilot's eye view of what it is like to fly this mighty machine. It takes the reader on a trip from London to Dubai as the flight crew see it, from pre-flight planning, through all the phases of the flight to shut-down at the parking stand many thousands of miles from the departure point.

CHAPTER 1

PRE-FLIGHT

The flight crew pauses by the steps of the Airbus A380 before boarding and, as they glance up at the massive fuselage, they briefly contemplate the enormous size of the aircraft. With a wingspan of 79.8m (261.8ft), a height of 24.1m (79.1ft) and a length of 73.0m (239.5ft), it looks big and stubby on the apron. The Airbus A380 is 15m (49ft) wider and 2m (6.5ft) longer than the Boeing 747, and is the biggest commercial airliner in the world. It has an incredible maximum take-off weight of 570 tonnes (561imp/628US tons), compared to the 397 tonnes (391imp/438US tons) of the passenger-carrying 747-400, a maximum range of 8,200nm (15,200km) and a maximum altitude of 43,000ft.  

FLIGHT PLANNING

Two or three hours before arriving at the aircraft, in a comfortable hotel room, the captain of this flight, Skybird 380 from London Heathrow to Dubai, would have logged on to the Internet to access the flight plan for perusal. Around four hours before scheduled departure, the flight planning department at the airline’s home base in Dubai would have chosen the most suitable routing and filed an Air Traffic Control (ATC) flight plan for the trip. This plan would also have been filed with the first en-route air traffic control centre, the Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU) at Eurocontrol, which, in turn, would have forwarded it by telex to the other air traffic centres along the route, in Romania, Turkey and Iran.

Route-search computer programs, such as Lufthansa’s ‘LIDO’, British Airways’ ‘STAR’ and Continental Airlines’ ‘Phoenix’, display the most cost-effective routes for nominated departure and arrival airports. Flight routing costs, such as fuel, aircraft time and air traffic control charges, are included for consideration, but excluded are variable costs, such as catering and amenities, staffing and landing fees. Fuel cost, however, is the overriding factor, and on long-haul flights it accounts for 90 per cent of total basic flight routing costs (75 per cent on short-haul flights). Essentially, air traffic control charges are time based – the longer the over-flight, the more the airline pays – and vary across Europe. For example, on the flight described in this book, the charge for over-flying the Slovak Republic was US$400, while crossing Romania cost US$1,700.

Winds aloft along the route are also an important factor in the calculations, as they affect flight time and, consequently, fuel burn. With the high cost of fuel, it is not surprising, therefore, that the shortest flight-time route is usually the best option. Having selected the most cost-effective routing, the dispatcher checks the en-route weather for significant forecasts and the relevant Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS) to verify the suitability of the routing. NOTAMS are published by national aviation authorities and list abnormal circumstances that may affect flight through their respective airspaces, alerting pilots to such situations as inoperative radio beacons, closed airport facilities and specific airspace closures for military exercises and similar activities.

An Airbus A380 on the apron. The enormous passenger aircraft towers over everything in its vicinity.

Also collated by the dispatcher is information prepared by the airline’s traffic specialists on the expected load, including passenger and cargo distribution, and the aircraft serviceability status, which is provided by engineering central control. These items, plus the weather reports, NOTAMS and copies of the ATC flight plan, flight log and fuel log, form a flight planning briefing package that is uploaded to the Internet for pilot access. A copy of the package is also sent to the airline’s departure dispatch office, in this case in London.

In the airline’s London office, the local dispatcher confirms the availability of the selected route with Eurocontrol and checks the allocated take-off time, known as the ‘slot time’. To co-ordinate aircraft joining the busy airway system aloft, all flights departing European airports are allocated a slot time with which the pilots are required to comply. If the selected routing is unavailable, or if the allocated slot time creates an excessive departure delay, another suitable route would be requested from the Dubai dispatch office and a fresh flight plan filed. These ATC slot times are not to be confused with airport slot times, which are negotiated and traded by airlines months earlier to schedule their departures from this busy airport.

Weather is also checked by the captain, using terminal aerodrome forecasts (TAFs), which give forecasts for the coming twenty-four hours for all the required en-route, destination and alternate (diversion) airports. For this flight, the captain observes that no adverse weather is reported for the nighttime arrival at Dubai. The city’s weather is usually clear, but occasionally morning fog or sandstorms occur, and subsequently the low visibility can be a cause for concern. Dubai airport charts, produced by Jeppesen, form part of the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) on the flight deck and give the minimum visibility required for the arrival.

The captain scans the NOTAMS for anything that could have an adverse effect on the flight. Information is presented for the entire route and can be extensive, but pilots become skilful at picking out notices of concern as they glance through the many pages, saving, perhaps, an hour of reading. Any notices concerning the departure, destination and alternate airports are scrutinized a little more carefully, however, while the remainder of the NOTAMS can be read in more detail during the cruise.

Fuel Requirement

When deciding the final fuel figure, factors such as possible delays resulting from busy traffic at arrival time, air traffic control procedures, or poor destination or en-route weather need to be considered and may require extra fuel to be carried. For example, delays can be expected when arriving at Heathrow during the peak evening period, thus justifying the carriage of additional fuel. Pilots are aware of the high cost of fuel, however, and endeavour not to uplift more than necessary. Taking additional fuel can be not only costly, but also wasteful, as on long flights it is expected that half the extra fuel will be burned just carrying that extra fuel. That is to say, for every extra 1,000kg of fuel loaded, 500kg will be burned off in carrying the extra weight on a long flight, leaving only 500kg for use at the destination.

To prevent airlines from taking too little fuel, however, aviation law dictates that a minimum amount must be carried for each flight. The minimum fuel load comprises:

• Burn-Off – Fuel used for the flight.
• Contingency Fuel – Additional fuel to safeguard against unexpected circumstances, equal to 5 per cent of the burn-off (this may be reduced to 3 per cent if approved by the local authorities) plus sufficient fuel to reach a mandatory alternate airport.
• Reserve Fuel – For holding.
• Taxi Fuel.

The Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) – the weight of the aircraft, crew, passengers, baggage and cargo, but without fuel – of the A380 for this particular flight is 355.0 tonnes (349.4imp/391.3US tons); the burn-off for the six-hour flight is 74.0 tonnes (72.8imp/81.6US tons); the fuel load for contingency, alternate and reserve is 14.9 tonnes (14.7imp/16.4US tons); and the taxi fuel is 1.5 tonnes (1.5imp/1.7US tons), giving a total minimum flight-plan fuel requirement for refuelling the aircraft of 90.4 tonnes (89.0imp/99.6US tons) and a total taxi weight of 445.4 tonnes (438.4imp/491.0US tons). The taxi weight minus the taxi fuel of 1.5 tonnes gives a take-off weight of 443.9 tonnes (436.9imp/489.3US tons), and the take-off weight minus the burn-off gives an expected landing weight of 369.9 tonnes (364.1imp/407.7US tons). The captain considers that the satisfactory weather forecast and other factors do not justify loading extra fuel, and he accepts the minimum flight-plan fuel required of 90.4 tonnes.

DATA TRANSFER

Having made the decision, the captain calls the London dispatch office to approve the planned routing and the requirement for flight-plan fuel. The approved flight plan and other briefing documents are datalinked to the aircraft’s EFB as an ‘e-folder’ (electronic folder) at least one hour before flight departure, allowing the crew to bypass the dispatch office on arrival at the airport and proceed directly to the aircraft. Before boarding, however, the pilots will need to collect a hard copy of the flight briefing package, and the captain will be required to initial a flight-plan summary that will be returned to the dispatch office. The hard copy of the briefing package is carried in case of EFB failure, and good airmanship dictates that the pilots keep a running log of progress, filling in the flight details on the paper flight log as the aircraft progresses along the route. Thus if the EFB does fail, the pilots can fall back on the updated manual flight log. On most flights, however, this practice becomes somewhat academic, as all the flight details are recorded electronically and the hard copy is simply discarded at the end of the trip.

Datalink messaging is used extensively for the transfer of data between the aircraft and ground units, and is sent and received via the on-board Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS). ACARS transmissions are sent via radio or by satellite communication (Satcom), allowing the easy transfer of data between the aircraft and airline operations, weather service providers and ATC centres.

CREW ARRIVAL

As the two cockpit crew travel on the bus to the airport, they take the opportunity to discuss the briefing they have both checked earlier on the Internet. On arrival, the bus takes them to an airside perimeter gate for the routine security screening process before driving them directly to the aircraft. By the time they arrive, about forty-five minutes remain before the scheduled departure of the Skybird 380 service from London to Dubai.

CHAPTER 2

BIRTH OF THE A380

The super jumbo was conceived in the mid-eighties, when the two big aircraft manufacturers, Airbus and Boeing, contemplated the need for a very large passenger aircraft. While European builder Airbus pursued the idea of an aircraft that could carry as many as 800 people, across the Atlantic, Boeing decided on another strategy. It set out to design smaller, but longer-range planes that would operate from point to point, betting on passenger preference for flying direct to cities of choice rather than to a hub serving a region, where the added annoyance of changing flights to local destinations would have to be endured.

By contrast, the Airbus philosophy was that bigger was better – it would construct a very big aircraft that could carry a large number of passengers from hub to hub, believing that this was where the future of the passenger market lay. Such a plane would enjoy the significant added advantage of much lower fuel consumption per seat/kilometre. The company envisaged a double-deck jumbo aircraft that could carry 550 passengers in a three-class configuration, but with an ultimate capacity of 850 passengers if needed. After intense consultations with major airlines, in 1994 a new standard in aviation was set when Airbus signified its intention to build the biggest commercial airliner ever. The project, at that time referred to as the A3XX, would put Airbus at the forefront of the aircraft manufacturing industry.

Airbus promised unparalleled fuel efficiency, with a target of more passengers per flight and a 15 per cent lower operating cost in fuel burn per seat than the Boeing 747-400. With the budget for the ambitious project set at US$11 billion, Airbus was staking its future on the aircraft. The planned break-even point was 250 aircraft sales, with a price tag of US$280 million apiece; fifty firm orders were needed to get the project off the ground. First to sign on the dotted line was Emirates Airlines, followed soon after by Singapore, Qantas and Virgin Atlantic.

PRODUCTION GOES AHEAD

In 2000, Airbus announced that production would go ahead, and the new aircraft was christened the A380. The main assembly hangar was constructed in Toulouse, France, where the parts from the Airbus consortium’s constituent compan...