Talk:Airbus A320 family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

Contents 1 crashes 2 cabin noise 3 Article Title 4 List of operators 5 List of orders 6 A319LR vs. CJ 7 Variants Ordering 8 are you sure this is true? 9 Specification 10 Could one more obscure spec be added to this detailed article? 11 First Fly by Wire Commercial Aircraft ? 12 A318 and America West 13 Technology 14 Nothing much :) 15 Early incidents? 16 Renaming to "Airbus A320 family"? 17 Requested move 17.1 Survey 17.1.1 Survey - Support votes 17.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes 17.2 Discussion 18 Fastest or best selling aircarft? 19 A first in aviation history is or is not notable? 20 is this an Airbus or Boeing article 21 This reads like an Airbus press release 22 engines

[edit] crashes

Is the lack of mention of the controversy surrounding early A320 crashes deliberate? I recall this causing a lot of media attention at the time, in particular the Mulhouse-Habsheim air show crash. --Orourkek 16:45, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Fly-by-wire was new then, the pilot took liberties, attempting dangerous movements at landing altitude; in a conventional airliner the nose will pitch up leading up to a fatal crash, fly-by-wire prevented that, and the aircraft crashed wings level, minimising casualties. (unsigned comment by Fikri)

Not so; the pilot pushed his power controller foward but the computer did not respond (remember there is no direct link between pilot and throttle with fly-by-wire). The pilot cycled his controller which did then result in the throttle opening, but too late. It was most probably due to a fault in the flight control software, but Airbus could never admit that - commercial suicide. With the data recorders having been switched, the accident inquiry could never know that. Dan100 23:34, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

With flaps fully extended, undercarriage retracted, aircraft below decision height, the pilot is asking for trouble. At least it crashed landed on belly rather than tail first, not forgetting the spool up time for modern fans which is slow. Below decision height, go-around should only be tried after touchdown, turbofans are certificated for that i.e. given enough runaway for acceleration during the time when lift of wings is minimal. (unsigned comment by 219.93.174.100)

do you have any sources for the data recorders being switched? (that in itself sounds scandolous)

Without the flight recorder data it seems it surely comes down to the pilots word against airbuses. To me it honestly sounds like both were in error but i doubt we will ever know for certain. This is going to be a hard one to write from a NPOV. Plugwash 12:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not not so. The A320 has a fly-by-wire-system (which overrides pilot stupidity) but not power-by-wire (the A380 is the first civilian airliner with that) - it's just plain old hydraulics, which the pilot can control any time. You're just propagating one of the typical incorrect explanations to the crash. If you read the transcript you can even check that the pilot turns off autothrottle (which would've automatically spun up the engines at such an angle of attack but for the demonstration that was obviously not what he wanted to do).

I think you may be confused about what "power by wire" means. PBW refers to the flight controls being powered by electrical wires, powering hydraulic pumps at on the controls themselves. This is indeed new on the A380. However, "fly-by-wire engine control" is usually referred to as FADEC, which has been around for longer than FBW on airliners, and I am almost certain that the A380 as flown in the incident in question had FADEC engines. I know the all current turbofans are FADEC.

"Switzerland's Institute of Police Forensic Evidence and Criminology later determined that the plane's flight data recorder had been substituted after the crash, throwing the entire investigation into doubt"... Under ICAO agreement, the final say of any crashes lies with the aviation authority of place of accident. The final verdict therefore lies with the French DGAC. Any objection of other foreign authority is equivalent to the UK aviation authority or anyone else questioning the FAA of any of its conclusion with regards to crashes in the US soil...

There's some more information on the "irregularities" in handling the data recorders at this link -- I agree that it's quite odd that the airshow crash isn't mentioned in this article. Do we have a separate page for it somewhere? 213.78.172.4 21:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[Page break] [Different author now expressing an opinion] The consensus I've heard is that the ill-fated Habsheim airshow A-320's altimeter was faulty. The pilot had planned to perform a straight and level flyby at 100ft AGL but the true altitude from the bottom of the landing gear to the ground was closer to 30ft. At this point the autopilot spooled down the engines. The pilot saw this and frantically fought with the autopilot to throttle up but ran out of time and luck. Then Airbus, fearing a potential commercial disaster on its hands, switched the data box and CVR to blame the pilot.

There's definitely no such consensus. You don't seem to know the difference between the autopilot (which was nothing new or different in the A320) and the fly-by-wire system. The pilot can disengage and override the autopilot at any time and the autopilot only does what the pilot tells it to do (ascend/descend at a certain speed, maintain altitude, maintain heading, land with ILS etc.). The fly-by-wire system, however, controls movements of the control surfaces when the pilot is flying manually and then prevents certain disasterous maneuvers (and also such maneuvers by the autopilot if it - hypothetically - attempted something like that) but it doesn't control the throttle (the autopilot does, when engaged, and then only if the pilot enables it in order to e.g. maintain speed/descent/ascent/etc.). There aren't very many certain disasterous maneuvers and thus the fly-by-wire system rarely overrides the pilot but what it does do is prevent an angle of attack that would cause the aircraft to stall (and that is the only possible override that might have happened in this case) and maneuvers which would result in g-forces in excess of what the aircraft can withstand. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say "refuses to obey the pilot" instead of "overrides". Furthermore it is worth noting that if the pilot (contrary to the CVR) did rely on the autopilot or the altimeter in such a situation it was definitely his fault (the autopilot isn't intended for such purposes and you cannot expect the altimeter to be precise enough).

The facts (Crash of Air France 296): Airbus and the French government have very close ties. Airbus crashes its flagship aircraft to the demise of three passengers while publicly showing it off. Right before the crash the airplane was not at the intended height. The black boxes were switched [1]. The difference between 30ft and 100ft is not within the margin of error for the A320's instruments. The co-pilot or First Officer (who's testimony would be crucial) keeps his mouth shut and is still flying for Air France. The pilot is blamed for the crash and the aircraft is deemed safe. Airbus knew the engines could fail at low altitude (OEB 19/1, May 1988). There has been media sckeptism from day one. The appeals court refused to question the authenticity of the "black box."

My opinion: When the French minister of transportation (Louis Mermoz) comes out right after the crash exonerating Airbus without having the time to investigate the incident, it raises a red flag. Unfortunately we have seen many times the courts being influenced by governments all over the world, and this crash spelled disaster for Airbus and the French Government, who were, and still are, in fierce competition with Boeing. From what I've read, it's clear the Balck boxes were switched, and conceivable that the French government and Airbus would do everything in their power to obliviate the original data. Aborted landings are unfortunately all too common, and a computer overriding (or failing to comply with) a pilot's input, even for a couple of seconds can end up in disaster as it was in this case. Computers should not override the pilot in such situations, and suddely increasing power will hardly ever result in a stall nor dangerous G-forces (the A320 is not a fighter jet). The pilot seems to have been used as the scape goat to save the corporation. Ultimately though, the pilot is responsible for the safty of the passengers, and maybe should have known about the engine failure issue in advance? It surprises me, after seeing the video, that only three people lost their lives in such a fiery crash. I believe that Airbus has since fixed this flaw, and many others. I also believe that by putting his carreer first and not testifying the co-pilot Pierre Mazière commited a selfish act of cowardice. TomasMFC 23:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the Air Inter controlled flight into terrain in 1992? The judicial ramifications are controversial (improper design of a vertical rate selector?) but the accident and the 87 death people were very real. Aldo L 06:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cabin noise

Does anyone know why the A320's I have flown on all have engines that buzz like a chainsaw -- even at cruise it sounds like you're in an automobile, or diesel bus? 737's don't buzz, md80's don't... I believe it is N1 fan noise. I dont know if it's a rolls royce thing, or the specific type of CFM56-5 thing. it is a curiosity though. --Kvuo 00:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Never actually flow on one, but in videos and dvd's and even sim games, it is sort of present

It must be the engines, is there any difference between the CFM56's and the V2500's??

Reedy Boy 11:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The V2500 has a wide chord ratio fan blade much the same as the Rolls-Royce RB211 - both of these engines exhibit a buzz type noise at higher power settings. The CFM 56-3 as fitted to the 737 classic is fitted with narrow chord ratio fan blade with mid span shrouds. This does not create a buzzing noise. Incidently The CFM56-5 is also fitted to many A320's. The buzzing ones are those fitted with the V2500 which has always been considered 'a bit agricultural'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.128.170.12 (talk • contribs).

I've flown on V2500 A320's and never noticed a buzzing noise. Same with RB211 equipped 747's. Maybe I'm just deaf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Title

Shouldn't the title of this article really by A320 Family?

AS the A319, 321, 318 etc all lead to this page.

I have created a redirect fromt the a320 family page (which i created) to this one, however, i still think this info should be moved there, and this page turned into a redirect?

What does anyone else think

Cheers

Reedy Boy 11:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned they're all derivatives of one single aircraft; the Airbus A320. We don't have a 757 family page just because the 752 and 753 are mentioned in the same article and I don't see why the Airbus A320 should be any different to this. I think it maybe an idea (if not already implemented) to have Airbus A319 and A321 pages linking to the Airbus A320 article however. --81.7.1.201 01:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of operators

Does there really need to be a list of operators by region on this page? After all, there's already a comprehensive list at List of Airbus A320 operators. Airline 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No a list of Operators is irrelevant for this article. But the info should be used to improve the listing (if this is really needed at all) --Denniss 22:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of orders

Hi, I have added a list of orders at List of Airbus A320 orders. Let me know if you have any objections. Callumm 18:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a strange kind of list for Wikipedia since it is so dynamic, growing as orders are added and subtracting as orders are fulfilled and in the long run the list will be left empty. Wouldn't it make more sense for a list of orders and deliveries, so that as the airplanes are delivered they just move from the order column to the delivered column? --JeffW 18:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is best kept the way it is, because if the format you suggested is used then it would be necessary to list orders that have already been fulfilled, e.g. you would have ordered: 10, delivered: 10. Callumm 16:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A319LR vs. CJ

The article states the CJ has a range of 12,000km but also states the LR is the longest-range 320 series aircraft at 8300km. Some fact checking/updating needs to be done. -newkai | talk | contribs 17:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Variants Ordering

It may be me, but shouldn't the list be 318, 319, 320, 321 with CJ and elite slipped into relevant places? Reedy Boy 12:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

They are in chronological development order. I think this is appropriate as it tells the story of the A320, the initial model, first, and goes in sequence. IMHO this is most apparent with the A318, which heavily draws upon the information provided for the earlier models. It shouldn't be compared with the 737 variants, because numerical order is also development order in that case. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Maybe worth noting it on the page then? Reedy Boy 14:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] are you sure this is true?

"the first fully digital fly-by-wire flight control system in a civil airliner, hence the first with relaxed stability"

you might be jumping the gun in saying the A320 has fbw there for has relaxed stability, something military aircraft had only just been playing footsy with at the time, in fact i think you might find that there is still a debate out, as to wether relaxed stability can be used on civl aircraft, in the event of complete power failure, systems control failure the craft will flip imeadiatly the high g probably tareing the wings off leaving the cabin to plumit to its doom!

---

The A320 does NOT have relaxed stability, as in the event of serious computer failure the aircraft can revert to a "direct law" mode where the sidestick directly commands control surface deflections, rather than g loads or roll rates. --81.7.1.201 01:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specification

Would it be possible to display the specifications for the IAE V2500-A5 A320-200? The reason I ask is the IAE engine has the majority market share on the A32x and it seems silly to state solely the specifications of the lesser seeling engine. See: http://www.i-a-e.com/engine/market.shtm.

According to the maximum range, the A320 has a range of 5700km or 3000nm while the A321 has a range of 5600km or 3050nm. It does not make sense that the A320 has a higher km range than the A321 but at the same time a lower nm range. Please check-up on this. --58.69.21.166 14:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The A321 can't fly as far as the A320, I know that to be a fact at any particular TOW. A321-200 has a lot more range than the A321-100, enough to allow give it US transcontinental range. I don't have the figures to hand for the A321 or A320 ranges though, sorry. --81.7.1.201 01:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could one more obscure spec be added to this detailed article?

Ummm, how many aisles? Sailorlula 09:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty sure the A320 family is a single isled airliner.... Will add it in Reedy Boy 15:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to know its 6 abreast in Y and usually 4 abreast in J. Either way it only has a single aisle. --81.7.1.201 01:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Fly by Wire Commercial Aircraft ?

The AN-124 is a Fly-by-Wire aircraft which first flew before the A-320. However, the first models were military transports and were only certified as civilian aircraft later, after the first flight of the A-320. I think it safe to say that the AN-124 is the first commercial fly-by-wire aircraft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hudicourt (talk • contribs) 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Service in Aeroflot colors during the Cold War doesn't really count. It was 100% military at the time. Aeroflot had their civil and military sides. The military side was sort of like MAC. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in 1986 The AN-124 was a military strategic aircraft. However, that same aircraft was later certified (in 1991 I think) as a commercial cargo aircraft. Some of the civilian AN-124-100s flying today are ex-Soviet Air Force Machines. And it is a fly-by-wire aircraft. And it did do its first flight before the A-320 even if at the time, it was not yet a commercial aircraft. Hudicourt 04:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it all depends on your point of view. Fly by wire has been around for years; Concorde had full fly-by-wire controls and it flew in 1969 (before the Ruslan was even thought of). The difference is that here we are talking about Digital FBW, rather than the analogue system. To my knowledge the An-124 has only analogue FBW (though my knowledge on Russian types is very limited). Even if the Ruslan has digital FBW, I should think other military types had it before then, and lots of earlier aircraft had analogue FBW (in fact I know for a fact the Avro Vulcan did in the 50s!). Even still, the A320 is generally accepted as the first civilian production aircraft to have digital FBW. --81.7.1.201 00:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A318 and America West

Can anyone confirm that America West has ordered the A318, because I work for them and have not seen or heard anything. I do know that Frontier Airlines does operate the A318. -Ben 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

America West did order the A318. I don't know whether they cancelled it or not. Archtransit (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is no longer an issue as America West and US Airways merged; also pretty sure there are no outstanding A318 orders by any US airlines. No1cub17 (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technology

On the technology section of the page there is an unreferenced quote to the aircraft being based around an Intel 8086. I have an Airbus manual to hand so I can provide a little more information (what you guys do with it is up to you).

What is being referred to are most likely the SEC (Spoiler and Elevator Computers) which use INTEL 80186 processors (there are 3 SECs on every A320). Wherever this is the "heart of the aircraft" is somewhat debatable, there are many other computers with important functions on the A320, such as the ELACs (Elevator and Aileron Computers) which utilise Motorola 68000 and like the SECs are an integral part of the fly-by-wire system (just two of these).

Data for instrumentation is provided by totally different computers and the graphics for the instruments themselves are generated by another computer. Infact, the number of the computers on the A320 is staggering, with individual computers such as the (cue big list) Braking and Steering Control Unit (BSCU), Flight Management Guidence Computer (FMGC), Flight Augmentation Computers (FAC), Bleed Monitoring Computers (BMC), Display Management Computer (DMC), Flight Warning Computers (FWC), Slats Flaps Control Computer (SFCC) and of course the Full-authority digital engine management computer (FADEC).

Sad aren't I? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.7.1.201 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Nothing much :)

All Airbus aircraft are called "Airbus AXXX" or "AXXX". There is no such thing as an "Airbus 320". The "A" isn't dropped in the same way that Boeing drops the "B" prefix i.e. b737 :-)

[edit] Early incidents?

These incidents especially the fly-by-wire computer bugs are not by any stretch of the imagination "EARLY" they actually can not remove the bugs without fear of causing bigger problems with the fly-by-wire computer software.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Decrease789 (talk • contribs).

Please sign your posts. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

ON the Bottom of the "incidents" section it states that the bug are not repairable once the aircraft is in service. I have a hard time believing this. And what is with the "Clicking Time Bomb" part? Anyone really know how software upgrades work on a flight control system? ~David

It's definitely questionable info, more so without a verifiable source. I've added a {{fact}} tag to the sentence, and will remove it after a week or so if no source has been provided by then. It may well be true, but the test on Wikipedia is verifiablility, not truth. - BillCJ 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To update the Flight Control Software (FCS) I believe they actually remove entire modules from the avionics bay and replace them - in any case updates can be performed if neccersary. Airbus's fly-by-wire equipment is not based around a single piece of software either, so to say that there are bugs that make it a ticking time bomb is a bit unfair. As I've previously mentioned there are 2x ELACs, 3x SECs and they even have different processors! 88.107.148.26 22:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If we delve into the safety records of most aircraft there are teething problems, recurring issues, crashes that are disputed etc.. A detailed discussion of these should be restricted to the accident page or on a page specifically set up with this in mind. Gerbilface 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming to "Airbus A320 family"?

This article should be renamed to airbus 320 family.If someone is searching for a specific plane in the family and it redirects here,it will cause confusion and they'll think it reffers to only the 320 model.Consider renaming it to A320 family.-Vmrgrsergr 16:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not sure that renaming is necessary, the Lead paragraphs certainly need to be rewritten to better reflect the A320 family coverage of the article. - BillCJ 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have rewrote the Lead per my above comment. Feel free to tweak, but not to destroy. - BillCJ 17:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I support renaming.Even if the first few lines reffer to the family it's still somewhat misleading as the 320 is also a seperate plane of it's own.Perhapes when reffering to the 320 plane if we can create a disambagation so people can distinguish the family from the plane itself?-Vmrgrsergr 22:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Given the arguments here, and the fact that the article does cover the whole family, including aircraft which are not named A320 (A318, etc.), it seems that the move is probably desirable. Keeping an inaccurate title merely to prevent undesirable articles being created, or because of the work involved in moving, is not really an option. This article has been renamed from Airbus A320 to Airbus A320 family as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fastest or best selling aircarft?

Can the A320 family said to be fastest or best selling aircraft. The 737 has been available since 1967, thats 40years and has total orders for 6775 planes, if you divide that, its gives you an average of about 170/ year. The A320 has been available since 1987, thats 20years with a total of 5328 orders, thats an average of 266/ year. Does that make it the fastest and best selling between the 737 and A320. Just a question to be sure if it can be determined that way.Melrosepark 01:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A first in aviation history is or is not notable?

Recently added but then reverted addition was as follows:

The A319 is capable of landing on an ice landing strip. In 2007, an A319 operated by the Australian government required only 3,300 ft (1,000 m) to land.^[1]

This was the first landing of a commercial airliner in Antarctica. Previously, only military jets landed there per [2]. Is a historic first and a very interesting fact notable enough for inclusion? Archtransit (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it - but if it was the first landing of a commercial airliner in Antarctica then I accept that probably is notable. That is not what the deleted text said though ! (Havent Argentinian F28s landed in Antarctica?) MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The first draft could have been better written, I agree! Come to think of it, you are partially correct. The F28 was a military operated jet so the citation is a weasel. The A319 was the first non-military jet airliner.Archtransit (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] is this an Airbus or Boeing article

Just passed through having seen an A319 had landed in Antartica and wanted to look it up, and I'm not sure if I reading about the specifically A319 or an article on how it compares to Boeing. It's only natural that there are comparisons, in sales, routes, mileage, etc, but I think some of the comparisons to say the least bizarre. ^Khukri 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This reads like an Airbus press release

I've no axe to grind on any side of the Airbus vs Boeing kerfaffle, but way, way too much of this page reads like a release from the Airbus corporate communications office. And not a very well-written on at that. Bwob (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind beign a little more specific? Perhaps you could list the sections and phrases with which you have problems. This way, other editors can try to address the specific issues you have with the article. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] engines

In the Design section it says: "Two suppliers provide turbofan engines for the A320 series: CFM International with their CFM56, and International Aero Engines, offering the V2500." What about the PW6000 on the A318? It is listed in the A318 section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.142.158.4 (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)