Talk:Airbus A330/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A350 a variant?

I certainly believed that the A350 Marks. I-IV were A330 derivatives, but the A350 XWB has a new fuselage, new engines and a new wing. What else do you need to be new to call it a new model? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 01:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Windows

Does anyone know the number and dimension of the windows along the length of the aircraft?

A330 Freighter

The Boeing 777F is a much larger freighter than the A330-200F and should not be included as a "simmilar" aircraft. The max payload for the 777F is 229,000 pounds while the A332F has a max payload of 150,000 lbs. That corresponds to a difference of nearly 80,000 lbs of payload, while the 777F is only 20,000 lbs shy of the max payload for the 744F. The 777F and A332F are simply different categories of freighters. Ryanmac06 23:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Users

Why Cathay Pacific Airways was not the biggest users of the A330s? It has 32 A330s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1993923 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Images

I notice we now have eight images of the -200 series, far to many. Most of them are or should be in commons. Wanted to be WP:BOLD and delete a few but thought I would ask opinions first. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed two of mine that I no longer regard as acceptable quality (the TAP flying and the bmi queueing). We now have three A330-200 and 1 A330-200F drawing - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Specifications

Someone might want to update the design weights section, changing the units to lbs and kgs as in other pages, such as for the Boeing 777. Some users might not the notation: xxx (yyy) t means (I don't). Thanks.

Maiden flight date

An anonymous user recently changed the date of the maiden flight given in the infobox. I changed it back, since the old date had been here for a long time and no reason was given for changing it, but the date needs a source. --Orlady (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I changed it back before I read the message here! the first flight date is 2 November or 2/11 which I presume has been read by an American editor as 11 February in error. Lots of sources using Google but here is one example [1]. If you search for A330 #0012 (which was the first aircraft) it also has 2 November in various plane spotter sites. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

incidents

The Dragonair article cites an incident on March 30th, 2008 (Flight KA991) that is not listed here - a left engine explosion in flight but safe landing. If someone has further information on this, please add it to the page. rhetoric (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Does not appear to have been particularly notable an engine lost a fan blade and produced lots of smoke aircraft landed safely nobody hurt (I have removed it from the Dragonair article on the same grounds). MilborneOne (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 72

Regarding the hidden comment placed in the article, WP:AIRPORTS is irrelevant to aircraft accidents. QF72 satisfies WP:AVIMOS#DENTNOTE per "It involves a scheduled or charter air carrier and results in serious injury or loss of life." QF72 has numerous people suffer serious injuries, 14 of them requiring airlifting to Perth and a further 30 also needing to visit a hospital. You'll need to establish a consensus for removal here to remove this reference, not the other way around. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is moot now that an incident article has been created. It's now at AFD, so we'll see how it goes there. If it is deleted, we'll need to re-consider it here, as the incident can be notable TO the A330, but not notable enough for an incident article. - BillCJ (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A330-300 Fuel Capacity

The 97,170 liters figure appears in the Airbus webpage as well, but it cannot be correct. With that figure, the range, and the 2-class passenger capacity, the fuel consumption turns out to be 2.8 liter per passenger per 100km which is too low. The same calculation with the smaller A330-200 (capacity 139,100 liters) gives 3.8 liters per passenger per 100km which is about right for this kind of aircraft. Q43 (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Equivalent Boeing models

Even though the A330-200 was launched as a competitor to the 767-300ER, it is now directly faced by the 767-400ER in the Boeing line-up. The A332 is actually bigger than the 763.

In the same way, the 764 cannot be considered a competitor to the A330-300 when it clearly is targeted at the A332 and the A333 already has the 772 and 777-200ER as competitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamarus (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. The A330-200 is much more closely a competitor to the 767-400ER. I think this should be changed. Bshrode (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Launch customer

Well, I may not get this answered until someone stumbles upon it in a few months, but... who was the launch customer for the A330? Not sure if the article states it. Thanks -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 19:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The launch customer was Air Inter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamarus (talk • contribs) 13:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Then why does the section on the A330-300 list two airlines — Air Inter and USAir — in two separate sentences in the same paragraph as the launch customer (emphasis mine)? Bwob (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"French domestic airline Air Inter was the launch customer for the aircraft. US Airways was the launch customer in the United States with nine A330-300s."

That's what the article says. I think the second sentence is talking about which airline was the first within the US (not the world) to operate the craft. This seems like deletable information, since it's confusing, and not really so important. —fudoreaper (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the US Airways entry assuming that Air Inter was the launch customer for the -300. MilborneOne (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A330 Dead links

[2] [3] Server could be reached, tried it for days and even now. But received with several browsers only:

"Not Acceptable

An appropriate representation of the requested resource /database/dblist.php could not be found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Apache/2.2.11 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.11 OpenSSL/0.9.8b mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.8.8 Server at www.aviation-safety.net Port 80"

This is absolutely not normal. Probably Germany-block? Wispanow (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tried it with british Proxy (changed IP-adress). It works. Don't like this behaviour. Probably other countries are blocked too? Suggest a link which is internationally reachable. Wispanow (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Very strange. Anybody know of a similar site with comparable data? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Both the links #1 and #2 above which are reported not working are functional and listed in full address here...

( http://www.aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Type=023 #2 above) and ( http://www.aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?field=typecode&var=023%&cat=%1&sorteer=datekey&page=1 #3 above ) Patelurology2 (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Right the links work for you, me and others, but not Wispanow and some others. That's the strange part. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Major Airframe Composite Parts & Structural Integrity- Interface of Composites with Non-Composites

This seems to be an appropriate sub-heading missing so far in view of reported use of these especially in or as a tail section in AF447, an A330-200 aircraft, in accident. More thoughts.. Patelurology2 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's far too long for a heading in the article. Also, do you have some specific links that prove this is a factor, not just speculation? Until official findings are released, there is is nothing official to base this on. WP is not the place for speculations. - BillCJ (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please note recognising contribution by PB666 and Phychim62 on talk page of AF447 under this sub-heading. This sub-heading was created for it's importance & needing discussion. The title chosen has some implications or possible bias which is being recognised. The discussion could encompass more than the title implies: e.g. differential freezing, vibratory stress tolerance at interface, maleability of material against different material( vs all metal-aluminium in all metal airframe), abilty to tolerate decompression after intial possible minor rupture from whatever the cause. Discuss on.....Patelurology2 (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for improving the A330 article, not a discussion forum (see WP:Talk page guidelines). So provide valid source(s) for this being an issue on the A330 or take it to a real discussion forum. Thank you. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Air France Flight 447

I feel it is inappropriate to list this under the "Hull loss" section - including casualties. The aircraft at this stage is only Missing. 87.194.204.195 (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. More information is coming in all the time, but this is not yet being reported as a hull loss. Will move it back.

fatbarry2000 (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As at 13:40 BST 01/06/09 the BBC article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8076848.stm (which is being updated regularly) is indicating the reports of electrical faults etc. As there is now a article proper for this event, I suggest we keep the reference to the incident on this page brief, as it is now. If and when it becomes classed as a hull loss, we should edit accordingly. fatbarry2000 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My addition has been removed although: I Quote as i added as source: "The Air France plane that disappeared between Brazil and France with 228 people on board today has almost certainly crashed with no survivors, airline and government officials have said." i think it's a pretty open and shut case. There is no chance they have survived besides people hopes... If the plane hasn't crashed it should've already crashes due to loss of fuel. Also the plane could only have landed on water, which is pretty much impossible. The hardware systems confirmed the airplane was no longer capable of flying. If the Plane did not crash and flew to coastlines it WOULD have been detected on radar, as the time has expired for the plane to show up anywere it's only waiting for finding a bunch of bodies and metal scratch scattered all over the sea. 94.214.65.67 (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

All that we actually know is that radio cantact was lost with the plane, and it did not arrive in Paris when schduled. There is nothing wrong with being patient and waiting for the fate to be declared by the proper authorities. This is an wncyclopedia, not a news source, and we report what reliable sources say - explicitly- not what we think. - BillCJ (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

While landing on water was proved possible only this year, I do agree that evidence points to the hull being lost; however without a formal confirmation by airline or relevant authority it is not up to Wikipedia to assume a decision on the fate of the aircraft. As it is an ongoing event we should leave this page relatively static and keep news updates on the main article for the flight.87.194.204.195 (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also note that this is only a summary the main accident article Air France Flight 447 has the details. And as BillCJ and the IP has said this is not a news service, the summary can be updated once the related article has settled down and is properly sourced. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've put all the hull-losses and other incidents in chronological order to eliminate the moving of the latest item. The list is not that long anyway, so there's no real need to keep them separate. I've also added "confirmed" to the hull-loss totals. If we want to separate the list again in a few weeks, I'm fine with that, but let's not worry about it right now. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. There are more things we KNOw than lost radio contact.

1. No Radio Contact
2. Disappeared of Radar
3. Plane did not have enough fuel to be still in the air at this time. (lost source of it)
4. The onboard systems have sent out a message (Quote: "An automated message was received at 2.14am (UTC) indicating a failure of the electrical system, Air France said in a statement." http://alphasite.airfrance.com/flight-air-france-447-rio-de-janeiro-paris-charles-de-gaulle/?L=1 )

And there is many other news but most of it is unconfirmed or speculated sure, but we can say it is a lost case. 94.214.65.67 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We still don't know for certain even if our best guess based on available info says it is lost. Anyway, the point is unnecessary now to its location on our list, which was the main source of contention. - BillCJ (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It did not disappear of radar. There is no radar coverage over the Atlantic Ocean. It lost contact with the last radar station just as planned, but then failed to reappear (hours later) as planned within range of the African coast. So there was no "sudden" dissappearance as indicated by your second point as well as indicated in several news articles.83.254.86.20 (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The summary just says disapeared, nothing about radar. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf English Version of BEA release July 2, 2009, a direct link Patelurology2 (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Nose-down while on ground?

In a section about the freight variant (with a blister for the nose wheel, etc.), the article mentions the standard aircraft's posture on the runway. None of the photographs in this article feature the aircraft while on the ground (though I have noticed that there's at least one photograph of an A330 on the ground in another article), so it's a little difficult to visualize.

The article is also somewhat opaque about why this is a big deal. I'm curious. Was wondering if anyone might know some answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer884 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the images at Commons:Airbus A330. There are several on-ground images from the side that show that. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I was thinking maybe there should be something in the article to demonstrate this, as the average person probably isn't interested in scrounging for photos, and I'm still confused as to why exactly this is a problem for one variant of the aircraft and not for another.

Something do with cargo loading operations? J.M. Archer (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My response was based on you mainly mentioning photographs and visualizing it. Level decks make cargo container loading and positioning easier. No pushing them uphill or them rolling downhill when that's not wanted. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Saw you added stuffs. You rock. :) J.M. Archer (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox with respect to Tanker variants

Hi folks. Would like to discuss the option of deleting the KC-45 link from the info box. As of current information, the KC-45 project is currently cancelled.

Keeping a cancelled project in the main info box of the aircraft seems like trivia. The information in the tanker section is an appropriate context for this information.

As an example for comparison, non-produced variants of the Boeing 747 are not listed in the Boeing 747 infobox.

Should the status change, we could always add the link back to the info box. Thank you for your consideration. PolarYukon (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

KC-X is not canceled - the previous tender was canceled, and it is currently being recompeted. - BilCat (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The C-33 is the only article on unbuilt 747 versions that I can find. You are right, only the major 747 articles are listed in the Infobox. All or most all are listed under Related development in the See also section. Does not matter to me if the KC-45 is listed in the Infobox or not. Someone could consider it a A330MRTT derivative instead of A330. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dont see a big issue with it being in the infobox, it is an article on a variant and as far as I am aware the proposal (and the article) is still active. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Airbus A330 vs A340

This article does not do a good job pointing out the differences between the A330 and A340 aside from the basic engine count and the casual mention of ETOPS. There is no info here on why Airbus had to develop the A330 and the A340. -Rolypolyman (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There is some mention of the ETOPS situation in the A340 page, which is probably the proper place for that. Feel free to copy some/all of it over here if you feel it needs to be mentioned here too. - BillCJ (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So ETOPS led to the A340 and A330 being developed separately? -Rolypolyman (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you know the answer and are being sarcastic, or are you genuinely asking? Because the section in the A340 page makes the answer pretty clear. - BillCJ (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm serious. Here's the primary mention of the A330 on the A340 page: The A340 was designed in parallel with the twin-engined A330: both aircraft share the same wing and similar fuselage structure, and borrow heavily from the advanced avionics and composite structure technology developed for the A320, along with The four-engined A340 is able to fly long over-water routes. Because of its ETOPS-immunity, Virgin Atlantic Airways used the motto "4 Engines 4 Long Haul," on its A340 fleet. So what I'm understanding is the only reason the A330 and A340 diverged is over ETOPS issues, and that an airline customer would always select the A330 due to its simplicity (2 engines), except when ETOPS would be a factor in which case they would select the A340. I am genuinely interested in these planes but I have never really been able to comprehend the A330-A340 split. -Rolypolyman (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• An additional reason is the better fuel economy for long range flights - at the time. This is not as valid now due to improvements for the various very high thrust engines. The comparison used at the time was that a two engine jet had the be able to continue takeoff with one engine out of action, so the two engines were oversized for the long range cruise. A four engine jet would only have to continue takeoff with 3 engines . Of course you have more maintenance costs with 4 engines rather than two. Its the beta Vs VHS situation but they still have a choice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.84.156 (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The A340 filled a small gap in the market, it took some sales away from Boeing, and presumably, with 381 units ordered compared to 1008 for the A330, it did generate a little bit of profit for Airbus. Q43 (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• A340 has external camera for taxi aid and other purposes; youtube has a video mounted on tail [4]. Looking for information on all external cameras available on A330 and whether the images are recorded within black boxes or transmitted somewhwere besides being viewed in cockpit. For completeness of subject at issue what are the external images available to pilots which may possibly aid in study of the external environment and its effect on airframe and flight?Patelurology2 (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Only the stretched/rewinged A340-500/600 have the cameras. Airbus initially thought the A340 would sell better and the 330 would be used by charter carriers on shorter routes. Contrary to their plans, the A330 outsold the A340 by a wide margin. Mgw89 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Cabin Seating Layouts

Does anyone know what proportion of A330s have been constucted with a 3+3+3 (i.e. 9 wide) cabin layout as opposed to the standard 2+4+2 (i.e. 8 wide). I flew on a Monarch A330 and was very surprised to see the 9 abreast layout. No other A330 I`ve been on has this layout. --JustinSmith (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

AirAsia X also has 9 abreast layout, as far as i know, these are the only two airlines that do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.167.66 (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox photo

I'd like to change the infobox photo to one without part of the tail truncated. Looking on Commons I found File:2010-06-30 A330 LH D-AIKK EDDF 02.jpg which I feel is suitable, I'll go ahead and change it in a few days if there's no objections/alternatives suggested. XLerate (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Go for it. Mgw89 (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific is the current largest A330 operator, so I think it would be appropriate to update the infobox photo to either File:Cathay_Pacific_Airbus_A330-343X_(B-HLOA)_take_off_at_Kansai_IA.jpg (take-off) or File:Cathay_Pacific_Airbus_A330-300_B-LAD.jpg (featuring 100th aircraft livery - full view of side). British Airways, the current largest operator of the B747 is featured in their article's infobox photo so I think the A330 article could have a similar arrangement with CX. Please comment. Toyotaboy95 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• In-flight photos are preferred for the Infobox. Quality images that best show the aircraft also. I think the take-off image is a poorer view of the aircraft than the current Lufthansa image. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Diversity of photos

I'm concerned that the range of photos is not actually very imaginative. The article has ten images of the A330 but they're all exterior views of a whole A330. None of those photos is individually flawed, but I think the article would be much better served by a more diverse range of images; maybe cockpit or cabin, or a particularly interesting component, or something from the production line. Maybe even a lineup, or an A330 in the context of airport operations (ie. at the gate). Any thoughts? bobrayner (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Not an unreasonable idea the main problem is finding the appropriate images as most images are exterior whole views. A whole view image of each variant is normal with flying better than not but other images as you say should add to the value of the article by showing different aspects of the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that most images are exterior whole views - that's most interesting to photographers (no slight intended to photographers; they've taken some great photos). However, readers of an an encyclopaedia article might want to see the airplane in a different context, or they might want to see bits of it, or they might want to see how it works or how it's built, or what it's like to fly in. How about the images below? Do any of them appeal? I realise the Korean one might be uninspiring at first glance but it actually shows an A330 at the gate, so readers see how the baggage (and self-loading baggage) gets on & off. Hard to find good gate photos - they tend to be taken by holiday snappers, behind glass, facing into daylight... bobrayner (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Just noticed this. Think we are pretty close to success and the article well-layed out and organized now. That said, I really like both the engine picture here (can see some mechanical parts of the engine, not just a smooth shape) and the underside showing the 3 gears (can see the arrangement lacks the center gear of the A340).

Captains Journal RS?

I went to http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/05/07/developments-in-refueling-tanker-controversy/ merely to check the date, however it does seem to be a personal blog, full of typos, and with no editorial oversight. As such I don't think it's a WP:RS. Rich Farmbrough, 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

• Just looked like somebody's blog to me. It was one of multiple references for that sentence, so I removed it. -fnlayson (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Review

Can somebody spend some time and review this page? I'm planning to take it straight to Featured article candidates. Thanks Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!)} 05:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a hodgepodge in terms of properly citing refs. FWiW, only if you want my help, because, it will change the formats in terms of spelling, author names, publisher information, etc. Bzuk (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

The first question I have to ask when there are multiple errors in referencing, is are you "wedded" to the citation templates? Going back in the article history, I noted that cite templates were not standardized. When there are many errors, it is sometimes easier to rewrite the data in text rather than wrestling with the malformed templates.

In a few words, the issues are:

1. Useage in Wikipedia is highly influenced by the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome.
2. Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers. despite many efforts to re-draw the templates, they are still rampant with errors in format. I can actually re-write the templates, but it takes so much time and effort, that I finally have abandoned that practice.
3. Cite templates were intended for neophytes and casual users (certainly not someone like you who is attempting to make a difference!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
4. Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
5. Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
6. Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other editors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for editing purposes and it is recommenced to establish a style guide, which was done and stick with it, unless there is an overwhelming reason to change to another style.
7. The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come, is long discarded. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

Ask for a peer review on the appropriate project pages. Or take it through GA first. These processes exist for a reason. That said, I see these issues at a glance.

Specifications section is usually for one particular (representative) variant.

Alt text for the images lacking those, and fix the alt text that displays as caption instead.

Operators section should include a summary of the article linked (List of Airbus A330 operators). Not that there's a lot in that article except a lot of curiously coloured tables. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, the article is not ready yet for peer review. Bzuk (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This article just passed GA review. Thanks to User:Sp33dyphil and others that helped improve this article! -Fnlayson (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusing intro

I find the LEAD confusing. There's a lot of material in there that seems like trivia and as a result the important bits are spread out between items that are largely unrelated. Any reason that we need to know about engine choices in the lead, for instance? Or the ownership chain? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Some fair points there. I moved the ownership thing to a footnote. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Much better now. I'd still like to dispense with the engine list though. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Could be made just to say it has a choice of engines, although that in itself is not particularly unusual so if that is the view of others I would support it being removed from the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

CN template

A "Citation needed" template was placed at the end of #A330-500, which I think is unnecessary because it is not controversial. There's not doubt the variant was shelved, since there's no example built by Airbus. Furthermore, no sources can be found to back up the unrefed sentence; do I remove it? This would be peculiar, since the paragraph would end abruptly. Also, the more references are added, the more likely the readers will find it hard to believe contents that have no references next to them. Any takers? Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 23:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I said in my edit summary that this was not a real issue when I added the tags. It is a good idea to cite that if this article is nominated again for FA. I looked for refs on the -500 and found little. Some article on the start of the A350 should cover this. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Redundant citation?

Info that are cited by reference 70, Both true laminar flow and variable camber types of wing were considered, but neither were incorporated in the final design. and The A330 also benefited since it shared the same basic wing with the A340, I think, are unnecessary. They're not controversial, and I can't exactly find the phrase in the book. Should I rid it? Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 06:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I the citation covers the fact that the "same basic wing" part, it should be left. What isn't controversial to one person, is something that requires citing by another. The fact that the de Havilland Comet shared the same nose with several later aircraft required citing/proof, I do not see much difference between the two scenarios. Kyteto (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts

I shall probably come back to this section a few times, as and when I can find those 'spare minutes' I mentioned on my talk page!

Here's one: "The adoption of a common wing structure also had the technical advantage of allowing the TA11's outboard engines to counteract the weight of the longer-range variant by providing bending relief." Can you put a bit more of an explanation into the text as to what's meant by 'bending relief', please? Ta Pesky (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've got problems explaining this aspect; I'm not even sure my understanding is the same as everyone else's. I think that, without the outer engines of the A340, the fuselage's weight will significantly bend the wing around the inner engines, which are the pivots. I need someone with a clearer understanding. --Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble}

The weight of the outer engines reduces the bending moment from up loading on the wing at its joint with the fuselage. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain further to myself? Better still, explain it on the article. --Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble}

Typically, a wing produces lift, an upwards force; there's a corresponding downwards force which represents the weight of the aircraft it's supporting. However, the wing is a relatively long thin structure, effectively a lever; the centre of lift tends to be some distance along the lever from the centre of the load (because the whole aircraft has weight, but only certain parts of it have lift) and this causes a pretty powerful bending moment on the lever. Moving any weight from the fuselage to the wing, and from the "inside" of the wing towards the tip, alleviates that bending moment (although there may be other issues) - hence the widespread use of "wet wings". It's not technically easy to cram lots of fuel tanks, landing gear &c in a slender structure whilst also optimising it aerodynamically, but the alternative is to put all that weight in the fuselage, therefore greater bending moment which means heavier stronger structures. Maybe cite [5] on the "principles" (rather than design decisions specific to the A330). bobrayner (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Many thanks to users Bobrayner and Fnlayson for clarify the meaning of bending moment, an area I'm unfortunately not very good at :) --Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 10:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Just in case it helps folk visualise the problem:

The image to the right is an extreme example of redistributing weight across the span of a wing to reduce bending moment. Obviously that wing is a lot "flatter" (just a 10° angle on the outer wings) when not flying - because there's no lift. In flight, the lift generates a force which is "further out" along the wing than the force due to the aircraft's weight, so the wing tends to curve upwards even more. If a lot of the mass of that aircraft had been grouped together in a central fuselage, then the wing would have to be built much more strongly (and therefore heavier) to resist the force that is trying to twist the wingtips upwards. bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Great! Having bending moment wikilinked there is just fine. :o) Pesky (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Expanding etops

Would it be possible to expand on ETOPS outside of a quote rather than inside it? (It's already wikilinked within the quote).

...They liked that it could be ferried with one engine out, and could fly 'anywhere'—remember ETOPS (Extend-range Twin-engine OperationS) hadn't begun then

I just feel slightly uncomfortable with changing quoted text, even if it's to expand an acronym rather than a deliberate misquote. bobrayner (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Just get rid of the text in brackets, I would think. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 10:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. bobrayner (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The non-acronym form of ETOPS should have been in square brackets, since that was not in the quote. But since that's been removed, maybe mention it somewhere before the quote, or remove that last phrase from the quote. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thickness cord ratio

According to this source about the A340, which shares the same wing with the A330, the figures are different from that of the article.

New design wing (by BAE Systems), approximately 40 per cent larger than that of A300-600, has 30° sweepback at quarter-chord and winglets raked at 29° 42'; thickness/ chord ratios 15.25 per cent at root, 11.27 per cent at inner kink, 9.86 per cent at outer kink and 10.60 per cent at tip. A340-500/600 wing 20 per cent larger than basic A340, has increased sweepback of 30° 6' and 1.60 m (5 ft 3 in) (removable) extension to each wingtip, rake angle 31° 30'.

Can someone explain the discrepancy? Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 05:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The original A330/A340 wing was inadequate for the A340-500/600 so BAe (as it was then) built a newer, bigger wing; at first glance, that section seems to be talking about the newer wing...? See the "ENLARGED WING IS KEY ELEMENT IN NEW FAMILY" section at the bottom of this article. bobrayner (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to underline the advantages/disadvantages of the thickness/chord ratio, especially weight penalties, I think it would be better to specify the ratio at the root, not at the wingtip (if it's not possible to specify both in the body of the article). bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Operators

The Airbus_A330#Operators section is poorly written. It starts with an overall figure from April 2011, before going on to give details from July 2010 - this just seems sloppy. Can we source all figures from the same date, ideally the most recent?

It then goes on to say how many -200s are in service, by airline, but for some reason lumps all European airlines into one group with 106, before itemising Asian and other non-Euro carriers.

I've copyedited for grammar, etc, but this really needs rewriting.

Also, is there any significance to the italics in the table for 2011, and if so, shouldn't their significance be stated somewhere? --jjron (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's because the publication takes place annually. It is not a monthly update of all the aircraft. Regarding the European carriers, there is no significant operator from Europe which operates the aircraft. Each typically operate 1 or 2 aircraft. Air France, TAP Portugal and KLM operate the most, numbering 15, 12 and 10, respectively. This is not as big as the Asian carriers, although collectively the European carriers operate a third of the A330-200 fleet. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 10:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I'd say make it consistent - go with the most recent annual listing that contains full figures. And, IMO, the Euros should be broken up by airline, or the Asians all counted in together; again it's a consistency thing. It just strikes me as biased to do it like this. However, as I've said before, if this is standard practice in airline articles, then so be it. --jjron (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Asiana Airlines Flight 324

I've added the recent incident at Incheon International Airport, South Korea to the accidents and incidents section. On the face of it, it doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH, and no damage was sustained nor were there any casualties. That said, the incident has received news coverage worldwide. I'm not convinced it is notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article, but it is notable enough to be mentioned. It is covered under the airline and airport articles, and for completeness should also be covered in the article on the aircraft type involved, in this case an A330. If any editor knows of other articles that the incident ought to be mentioned in, please feel free to add it to those articles. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that it is really notable for this article, they missed and the aircraft landed without any fuss, so of not of any particular note to the aircraft type. Being notable in the other articles doesnt make it notable to all other related articles. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference provided with the entry in this article lists it as an A321, not an A330. Even so, there does not seem to be any effect on the aircraft. So the airport article is a better fit for this incident. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

So it does, my error. Removed from this article. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

first sentence redundancy

Feels redundant to say both "commercial" and "airliner". To say "jet" as well as "twin-enginer" (linked to twin-jet). I'm fine with calling it an airliner or emphasizing the main variant, but we have some flab now.TCO (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, but commercial + airliner part, but not twin-engine should be mentioned to clearly describe the aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, can't we say twin-jet? Save a word? That is actually what is being piped for twin-engine anyhow!TCO (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So much for describing it the first sentence. Whatever then.. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wide-body is fine.TCO (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence looks like half of it is missing, it gives the appearance that it is not complete and somebody has missed out a conjunction to the next bit. MilborneOne (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Second para

I trimmed some of the 340 and 330 stuff. We have a single sentence that explains the two were done in parallel and have a lot in common. Repeating 340 and 330 in subject of other sentences becomes redundant, and confuses reader who wants to think from POV of this aircraft.

I do have a lot of sentences that look very similar "The A330...". Need to work to vary that structure somehow. Appreciate someone taking a stab at it.

TCO (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, F.TCO (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Images

Anybody know why we now have a large image of a only slightly related factory File:Hh-eads1.jpg as the centerpoint of the article? MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I put it there for visual appeal. We need some break from the plane pictures...and a factory is on topic for the section. I can change to the front of the Toullouse plant though (it's not quite as pretty, but satisfies your concern on relevance.)TCO (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)  Done

Just seems like one image in the section is enough. The aerial shot of the Toulouse assembly plant could be moved top of section. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Fnlayson Tolouse image should be retained. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, cut it. At least I got the airial shot in. We had nothing on the production facilities before.TCO (talk)

I think we are getting worse - just delete the lead factory image please, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Any reason why we have an image of an A320 cockpit in an A330 article? MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have a better shot (the 330 itself), add it. I DO think some form of the image is highly illustrative of what a glass cockpit is. So don't cut it.TCO (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry we are not here to make this pretty by adding nice but only slightly relevant images.MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with cutting the panorama. That was probably trying a little hard to make the thing pleasant for civilians. However, I do think the cockpit shot adds significant EV as I had no idea what a glass cockpit looked like and the two models share the same cockpit. (and that has nothing to do with prettyness).TCO (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure who civilians are? and I dont know what EV is but all you need to know is at Glass cockpit, and other than having glass screens they are not actually identical (the 330 and 340 are similar but different from the 320). MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

FAC

Due to the high level of turbulence by new editors in the article is it worth doing a FAC review? MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. The FAC has been running since early May. Seems like it'll either run out of time soon and be failed or get passed. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not convinced it is actually improving the article, it had been copy edited before it cant have been that bad. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe making it more readable for non-aviation folks. I think there have been too many reviews of this article in too short of a timeframe. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with the review process as a way of improving the article, we all tend to have a parochial view on the subjects we are interested in and it is good to have outside comment so we can improve the article. I was just dismayed that with 500 edits since 28 March how much has actually been achieved and should the article be stable before it is reviewed? MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• I guess it depends on whether one takes a long view or close view on the article being stable over the past 2-3 months. It seems stable enough overall to me over that time. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OK understood. MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Stepping away from the article

I think this is a very strong article and has gotten better during the FAC. It deserves a star. I'm putting it on unwatch, to let others engage and improve it. Good luck!TCO (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Old referencing style

After looking at the reference section, and in light of Sandy's points on the placement of publishers in citations, I've decided to revert back to the original style. Looks like the Vancouver style had introduced much more headaches than it solves. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Undercarriage of A340 and A330

The stuff I'm finding on the web says the 330 and 340 have identical landing gear. I would like us to find an RS (stuff I found was blogs and hobby sites and such) that says if the gear are different or identical. Then we can give that first picture a caption that ties into the STORY (was a similarity, was a difference, either way...don't care). My impression is that they are the same. I think the differences we might have seen in 330/340 pics are from safety mods (read about that too) done on the gear. So that's a time difference (I think for both models) not a design difference by model. And I DON'T want to go back to saying who makes it and referencing that (that's not the "story" of design, that's the story of "production").TCO (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The 340 has four landing gears, nose, left, right and center the 330 doesnt have the central under fuselage landing gear. If you read the A340 article it has an image of a South African A340 showing the fourth landing gear. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems like we should mention that in article, no? Seems lika big noticeable feature difference (not a minor rivet).  ;-) I assume that the gear shown would be common though? Just that the A340 had extra? TCO (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody can do much to clarify this with the in-use tag in place... -Fnlayson (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

will be done soon.TCO (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Date started soliciting orders

Our lead says June 1987, started soliciting, but the body text just mentions in May going after 5 customers. Seems like we should change the lead to correspond to body. Or if there was some general solicitation (wider than the 5 May airlines), we need that added to body text.TCO (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• The original version [6] says "and launching the A330 in June 1987." Please change it back. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Just go in through the template and fix it, please. (sorry, boss).  :-) TCO (talk)

The 240 minute ETOPS

1. The press release link is not working now (takes me to "green day"). Let's re-find it and then web archive it. (User SunCreator can explain how, if needed.)

• Done. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

2. We should give a date, rather than saying "now" (it's been a year and a half that they've offered it.)

• Changed to "which is now has since been offered by Airbus as an option."

3. Unclear how ETOPS would be an "option". If the plane is now higher rated, how would the buyer choose an "option" for that. Is it perhaps "feature" that is meant?

• I agree. How could this be an option? Might be selection of engines, which don't really explain why it is the case. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

TCO (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

expressing $

MOSNUM says to use $ to indicate United States $ unless the article has different $s shown than use US$. I checked and we do not have any. So, to cut some prose and follow MOS, would like to clean up all the US$ to be $. I know we have a head author who is Aussie, so don't want to offend. Thoughts?TCO (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• No, why don't we say it's US dollar at first mention, and leave it as $ every time after that? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs

Is there a way of merging some of the paragraphs together? The article looks chopped up. For example, we could merge the second and third paras under "Design effort" together. Comments? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

you should not merge paras for the "look" of the article, from afar. BAD, BAD. You should merge or separate them based on whether there are one or two central ideas. Based on logic and organization. Not "look". Sometimes with narratives, it becomes a judgement call. If I were going to merge in that area, it would be the first one merging into the second (you can at least argue they are a narrative). The third one clearly has a topic that is different and should be on its own. BTW, there is NOTHING wrong with a three (even an occassional two) sentence para if it covers a unified topic. Also, for technical articles or ones full of detail, long paras compound the pain. I would leave those as is. TCO (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• I know how paragraphs work, it's just that the first of "Design section" talks about the specs, the second and third talk about the designs and refinements. But because you're the expert here, I'll stick with your call. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a good observation. I would still take the chance to break two and three. The stuff in two is time-based, and really happened and has this topic of connect to the earlier A3xx platforms. And that is a bit of pain to follow as we get into all the letter-number stuff with models and all. the weird wing stuff makes a nice separate topic. It is more reader friendly this way.TCO (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

non-controversial references, moving to end of sentence

I understand why we have endnotes in mid-sentence (have done it myself at times) in compounds sentences. however, if we only have a couple refs and they are noncontroversial, I am moving them to be at the end of the sentence. It's not unreasonable for someone wanting to learn more to check two sources and see which covers what fact within the sentence. For hard-core science papers, this is very normal (would not often have mid-sentence notes). Topic is hard enough and mid-sentennce eye-jabs make it a little tougher. Some of the FA writers have all their refs at the end of a para. I would NOT do that here, as you have so many different facts and sources. But end of sentence is a good compromise.TCO (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• That's what I'm trying to do, moving all the sources to the end of sentence, but sometimes the info is controversial mid-sentence. Do what you can to make it better. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Variants

1. Don't have a specific recommendation, but think it's important that we be aware of content repetition. Some of the basic A330 features end up getting described in Development, Design, and then variant. Ideally we want to minimize duplication. I'm not really sure how to do that here, so maybe we are better with some duplication, but it is something watch and minimize. Wonder how this is handled in other plane articles. For now, I'm just doing a CE (commas and such) and not worrying about the repetition of content. Trying to keep it to specs and technical stuff at least though.TCO (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

2. Engine ETOPS. We say 180 here, but what about the 240? Let's research that please and have better guidance for the reader.

3. I'm working on the sections in sandbox now. Seeing, some of what nimbus complained about. I think if we restrict it to technical specs (often at more detail than in body text) as well as pricing and competition, that addresses some of his concern. IOW, cut the historical development stuff. That tends to be duplication of what we have already or could be part of a spinout article. I'm also trying to make the main 200 shorter. And to have parallel structure (technical specs first, then price and competition) so each section is similar.TCO (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A330-200HGW

The discussion of range here didoes not quite make sense. We say it can have higher range, but then the range we listed is actually less than the 200, when I read up and compare numbers. I'm going to just leave the "more than" sentence and clear out the other cause at least that way it is self consistent. Please double-check what is right (but now, it was not even self-consistent.)TCO (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Should I remove that section altogether? I mean, it's not covered much in the press, and the information is a bit obscured. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 22:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it works how I finessed it. I just wanted to be diplomatic, since I am the evil old person that is not part of Project Aviation and likes Malleus (btw, he is GREAT with young editors who work on content...srsly).TCO (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not checked that closely into this. But it could have more payload capability at its range, instead of greater range. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Payload and range aren't just a pair of fixed numbers. An airliner will have a payload-range curve, a bit like this and design changes could shift that curve in all kinds of interesting ways. "Higher range" doesn't just mean that the curve intersects the horizontal axis a bit further to the right - it can mean that another part of the curve is shifted further right, to give more useful range at a certain payload.

In this case, the source makes it clear that range estimates for planned aircraft are even more awkward, because they're based on estimates of weight and fuel burn &c, and one source might be considerably more pessimistic about those numbers than another...

Best to use a comparison from a single source. How about this one? "" "5-tonne increase ... gives a range extension over 300 nautical miles and a payload increase of up to 3.4 tonnes." bobrayner (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, it's probably best to think of the -HGW as an option, not as a completely different model. Some current sales which are said to be "A330-200" in sources such as flightglobal &c may well be the higher-weight option even though the source doesn't mention "HGW". bobrayner (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"The new-build A330-200HGW would have increased range or payload over the 233-tonne -200 – range was increased by 560 kilometres (300 nmi), or payload was increased by 3.4 tonnes (7,500 lb).[99][98]"

• there is a hidden tag (in article) which can probably come out, now that we've researched the facts better.
• Using the punctional dash in conjunction with "-200" is awkward. Recommend avoiding that (period or semicolon is fine).
• Tenses seem confused ("would have" is some sort of subjunctive future, and then "increased" is past).
• Also we can probably condense all that. Something like Compared to the base -200, the HGW option has either 560km (300nm) more range or 3.4 tonnes (7,500 lbs) more payload.

P.s. If you want to express a little uncertainty, you could change "has" for some sort of "Airbus claims". But I'd probably be OK with just reporting the "has" (planes are pretty well tested and actual flights will always vary a little.)

P.s.s. Sorry for tl;dr, just trying to avoid back and forth edits...and I support you in any version including the original!

TCO (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. bobrayner (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice.TCO (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Airbus A330/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Has almost no history/development info. Specs are not standardized. Question of the talk page - "who was the launch customer for the A330" - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Incidents and accidents

Firstly the Airbus A330#Accidents and incidents section strikes me as somewhat of a WP:TRIVIA section, but be that as it may, it bemuses me that it includes hijackings. Surely, surely, hijackings are essentially independent of an aircraft, unless there's some massive design flaw that for some reason makes them highly susceptible to being hijacked? If so, what is the point of including them here? Shouldn't this just be about the plane?

Same thing with that thing about the chemical spill - again this is surely independent of the aircraft?

It severely damaged the aircraft, and 65 million dollars was spent repairing it.

Repairing it? The article says it was "written-off"; you don't usually repair a write-off. Can you clarify? --jjron (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, I thought it was badly destroyed, not written-off. Need to go over my writing next time. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 11:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, the Airbus A330#Further development section contains an enormous paragraph of incidents that mainly seem peripheral at best to further development, especially when most of them are apparently too trivial to get listed under Accidents and incidents, or are they counted as part of the "thirteen" incidents stated at the top of the incidents section (which does not contain thirteen incidents)? --jjron (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, that's because most of them resulted in no fatalities, which was a requirement for their their inclusion. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 01:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

But that's not true at all. The chemical spill one resulted in no fatalities, and nor did the Sri Lankan terrorist thing. You may then argue that they instead are included because they resulted in the destruction of the aircraft, but then the QF72 is also included, and that one resulted in no fatalities nor lost aircraft. Same for the guy with the explosives in his undies, and the Indonesian one. There is no consistency there, unless the other incidents were very minor, and in that case should they be counted as part of the thirteen (now) twelve "major incidents" at all? --jjron (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• And I know we don't want a detailed explanation of Air France Flight 447 which has its own article, but don't we have more recent information than from 2009 telling us that "Malfunctioning pitot tubes provided an early focus for the investigation". Can this be updated to the most recent information? --jjron (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well, that's reason stated on Air France Flight 447. Also, "Incidents and accidents" doesn't have make up exclusively of incidents attributed to the aircraft's design. It can include those of terrorist activities and mishaps – the September 11 hijackings would get a mention on Boeing 767 because at least one aircraft was involved. Same with this article. The bottom line is, any major incidents and accidents would get a mention, whether they're attributed to the aircraft's design flaw or not. Furthermore, the incidents under "Further development" suggest that there indeed was an early design problem; I thought, chronologically, that it wouldn't fit under "Entry into service" because it happened at the same time as the development of the A330-200. Although I agree that each individual incident was not notable, collectively they tell us that the engine gearbox was not up to scratch. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 01:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• At the moment it's very difficult to say anything more concrete about the cause of the AF447 incident other than a hint that there might have been a pitot problem. Investigation is under way, which may or may not provide more details, but until then there's no more that we could say in this article, even if we wanted to. How about something like this:

... All passengers and crew were killed. A pitot tube problem was suspected at first; the cause is still being investigated. - does that sound better? bobrayner (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Better, although the tone is really negative :( - replace killed with died. Thanks very much for your valuable contributions . You can find me at [7] if you want to talk directly. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 09:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"Died" sounds better. We seem to get articles about almost all substantial incidents (after all, aviation accidents attract a lot of media coverage so it's easier for somebody writing a new article to get past the GNG). So, there's no need to go into much depth here - just one or two lines of summary, and a wikilink. bobrayner (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough if that's the most current info available for AF447 - looks like there may be more news coming in the not too distant future.

And re the hijackings thing, if that's the way it's done then I guess go with it. IMO it's wrong to include incidents that are totally independent of the aircraft; it'd be like including stats on how many people die due to medical malpractice in a hospital in an article on the building contractor. However, that's a bigger fish to fry beyond this article; here you can only go with the accepted conventions, and if they are to include such things then that's all you can do. --jjron (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad we're on the same page Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 11:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• The coverage on Bandaranaike Airport attack had two sources with conflicting info. One said: "An Airbus A-340 and an A-330 aircraft were completely destroyed, while two A-320 planes were badly damaged. A fifth plane, another A-330, had its undercarriage damaged." The other claims that "Two of SriLankan Airlines' Airbus A.330 planes (4R-ALE and 4R-ALF) were destroyed, one A.320 (4R-ABA) and one of their A.340 planes (4R-ADD)." [8] and [9]. Someone comment on this. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 02:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Reports during and immediately after an incident like that can be very confused (I was sitting in an office in London on 9/11 when somebody told me there was another airliner headed for Canary Wharf...). Also, the real status of an aircraft can change some time after an incident, due to reassessment of damage, insurance writeoffs &c. So, let's go with later reports from specialist sources (who are less likely to confuse tech details &c). Flightglobal has consistently said that two A330s were destroyed: [10] [11]. So, how about (shortened) wording like this? bobrayner (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

* On 24 July 2001, the [[Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam]] [[Bandaranaike Airport attack|attacked Bandaranaike International Airport]], [[Colombo]], Sri Lanka. Two [[SriLankan Airlines]] A330s were destroyed, among other airliners and military aircraft.<ref name=flight_srilankan>{{cite web|url=http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2001/07/31/134058/srilankan-turns-to-emirates-for-help-after-raid.html|publisher=[[Flight International]]| accessdate=2011-05-23|title=SriLankan turns to Emirates for help after raid|date=2001-07-31}}</ref><ref name="srilanka">{{Cite web|url=http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010724-1 |publisher=Aviation-safety.net|accessdate=3 August 2006 |title=ASN Aircraft accident description Airbus A.330-243 4R-ALF – Colombo-Bandaranayake Internation Airport}}</ref>

Thanks for the rewrite. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 10:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Incidents Accidents section on the A340 is in a bulleted list. If it is okay with everybody I can follow the same format here.--PremKudva^Talk 05:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Editors went to the effort to put the entries here into paragraph form. Prose (paragraph form) is generally preferred over lists per Wikipedia MoS. Given that, I think there needs to be some more reason to change the format back to a list here. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well just loud thinking on my part since the A340 article had a bulleted list, compared to that the prose looked crowded in comparison. Anyway if Wikipedia MoS is important then the other aircraft article incidents will have to be converted to prose from bullets starting with the A340.--PremKudva^Talk 05:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Specifications table

Hi everyone, I'm thinking of changing the current table style of the specifications section to the Template:Aircraft specifications style insisted by user Nimbus227. Nimbus claims that it is convention that the template is used; although I initially disagreed with him, I'd now like to change the style to the one that uses the template. This, besides following convention, cuts down the "number heavy" characteristic of the article. Any comment? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) guidelines explicitly state we're to use Template:Aircraft specifications. It's by convention that we allow specs tables on airliner articles, which generally have several variants, with no single one being the major model. I don't like tables in general, especially because I have difficulty editing them, but I do think they work better for airliner articles than the single-variant template. So yes, I prefer retaining the table here.

I'm one who believes that WP guidelines should follow practice community practice, and generally not dictate guidelines without really good reasons for doing so, and a clear consensus for it. It might be best to take the issue up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft), and get some project input on the issue. We've discused it in the past, but I don't think there was ever a clear concensus to remove the tables at that time. We've also discussed a standard table for airliner articles, but not developed one, and that would probably be a good thing to pursue. - BilCat (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Which approach would be more readable? Which is best for wikipedia's readership? bobrayner (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I do prefer the table, but Nimbus won't budge, saying that the template must be used. I'm suspended between guidelines and tradition. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the guidelines are changed, then the objection on that basis is irrelevant. I think the battle should be fought on the guideline page, not in an article status nomination discussion. And if the project wants to stick with the template over tables, then that's fine. - BilCat (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record I am not insisting on anything, merely highlighting that guidelines are not being followed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 05:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but if they're not being followed in a wide range of articles, as in most airliner article, then we should consider either changing the guidelines to allow tables, or enforcing the template standard across the board. Then we can come back and address the issue here. Otherwise, we (the project) are being inconsistent. - BilCat (talk)

Exactly. I don't like terms such as 'enforce' as it can't be done but I would like to see all the project editors singing from the same hymn sheet as it reduces conflict and confusion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 05:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Came across this so thought I'd leave a comment. I think the best practice is to give detailed (via the aircraft specs template format) information on a single representative variant and then compare the important differences between models in a table below. Examples of this at Avro Vulcan#Specifications and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Specifications (F-35A). For this article a comparative table could concentrate on capacity, load, range and other factors important to its use a transport. (an Aside: we have some Good Articles that include two sets of specification (Dornier 17 and Heinkel He 111. And ship articles with four or more specification infoboxes - though these tend to be smaller) GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Orders Table

At present there is a chronological orders table in the middle of A330 operators page with no indication from the main article that it exists. I think this type of table is very useful and interesting, more so than the current table in the Orders and deliveries section, and therefore it should be highlighted more. I think there are 2 ways to do this: 1, move the table into the main article and, if necessary, make it collapsible; 2, provide a specific link to that section in the operators page from the Orders and deliveries section. I would personally advocate the first option and would also suggest changing it to a 12 month rolling order table, ensuring there is sufficient, but not too much information. What are other peoples thoughts? Bthebest (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to show orders, I think it would be appropriate to cover the whole order history, rather than the most recent period. This means a larger volume of data so it's better to either keep it in a separate page, or use a collapsible table &c (and I would prefer the former). However, it's worth mentioning particularly notable orders in the prose in this article - otherwise it seems a bit stilted with prose on other topics but just a table on orders...

Why just the latest 12 months? bobrayner (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so we could split the orders sections off from the operators page into their own page (more appropriately titled) and link it to the Orders and deliveries section. That also already has a complete order history. The only reason for a 12 month table is there is already a 2011 one, so replacing it with a 2012 one would mean (in due course) a small table. It looks a lot better and gives a better representation of recent orders if its done over a changing period of time (X months) as opposed to a fixed calendar. Bthebest (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have mocked up a page that could be created. It would be linked to the main article as such (obviously would be the actual page):

Orders and deliveries

Main page: User:Bthebest/List of Airbus A330 orders

Unless anyone had any objections I will go ahead and do this. Bthebest (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't really see the need for 2 tables; but mainly the very long 2nd table. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As the A330 is still production, the 'Recent Orders' gives a much better representation, with more details than the simple annual records, of the recent demand for the aircraft. Bthebest (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific Flight 715

I reverted the addition of Cathay Flight 715 to the accidents and incidents section but is has been added again. It is clearly not-notable (engine failure, nobody hurt or anything, just a bad day at the office), suggest it is removed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. That's what I added an {{importance-inline}} tag to the entry. Nothing to indicate serious damage to aircraft and nobody was hurt. Just Wikinews material, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not notable, fails the inclusion criteria WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture Change

We need to refresh the picture into a new picture, it was a long time of that picture already been there. can i change it into this:

It think that's good, it showing a clear from rear to tail full body plus the landing gear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjiebrotot (talk • contribs) 15:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

We dont have a need to "refresh" images only if a better image is agreed by consensus, I dont think this images which is not a prefered "airborne" shot actually is an improvement. MilborneOne (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but can i add that picture on the page?. Adjiebrotot (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we have enough images in the article that show the general view of the aircraft already, I think it really needs to show something different, but you are welcome to wait for another opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Aeroflot Airbus A330 Kustov edit.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Aeroflot Airbus A330 Kustov edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 20, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-06-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Airbus A330 is a wide-body twin-engine jet airliner made by Airbus which was introduced in 1994. The A330-200, such as pictured here in Aeroflot livery, entered service in 1998 and was considerably more popular than the earlier A330-300. In December 2012 there were 476 A330-200s in operation.Picture: Sergey Kustov

Thomas cook TCX314 flight

Maybe not worthy of inclusion in the article, but this flight a couple of days ago was filmed by two people independently with engine problems (explosion/Compressor stall) on take-off. [12] [13] whilst waiting for a landing by Antonov An-225 Mriya. Martin451 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)