Talk:Airbus A320 family/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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 :-)

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)

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Airbus A320 → Airbus A320 family

• This article should be renamed to Airbus A320 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 refers to only the A320 model.

(See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for detailes on performing moves.)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Survey - Support votes

• Support - makes sense... perhaps there should also be separate articles for each... A318, A319, A320, A321, ACJ... 132.205.44.5 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose - THis is a weak oppose, as I don't think it's worth all the effort to change links and redirects. However, there is precedent, such as the Embraer ERJ 145 family page. - BillCJ 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless someone requires you to personally change the links and redirects, this isn't much of an argument. —  AjaxSmack  05:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I wasn't referring to myself personally, tho I am considerate enough to chip in. Redirects do have to be checked because double redirects don't work. Plus I did say it was weak - no need to nit pick here. Sheesh! - BillCJ 06:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for the correcions of "320" to "A320". I copied the line from elsewhere, and didn't notice the "A" was missing. - BillCJ 17:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Still concerned that renaming the article will cause somebody to create a new A320 article, then perhaps separate articles for A318/A319/A321. Is their enough information to support spin-offs? MilborneOne 17:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, I don't believe there's enough info to support spin-offs now. But, what is to stop someone from creating articles on the A318, A319, and A321 right now anyway? - BillCJ 17:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Simply in terms of quantity, there seems to be enough info on most of the individual models to warrant separate articles. A318 is especially detailed and there are several versions of the A319. However, a spin-off would require clear reference to the A320 family article to avoid repetition. Are there reasons why a spinoff would be a bad idea? —  AjaxSmack  05:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think the types are all that different. They are the same basic airframe, though of course in different lengths and other changes. Having participated in many splits and mergers, I honestly don't believe the differences warrant separate pages, and that there is not really enough content to make good pages without being highly repetitive. As a comparison, the 737 NextGens are far more different from the earlier 737s than the A320 variants, yet they are still on the same page. (I do support spinning off the NextGens, but to one page, not one each for the 600, the 700, etc.) But if you feel splitting this page is warranted, feel free to propose it. Right now only two people have even voted on the move (1-1 now), and there has to be a concensus to move it. So you might propose spinning the other types off , and leaving the A320 here. - BillCJ 06:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I would only argue that, if the article is split, the original article's edit history should remain with the Airbus A320 family since that history has dealt with all of the models. —  AjaxSmack  02:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

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.

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)

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)

I recently flew a CFM 56 A320 (air berlin) and noticed the chainsaw buzzing. A week previously I flew on a RR RB211-524H-T equipped 747-400 without the buzz, so I think the wide chord fan is quieter. Mgw89 (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Table format

Someone seems to have unintentionally messed up the format of the table under "specifications". I am unsure of how to fix this could someone do so? Thanks AreaControl (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Twirl media

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Item closed - user has been blocked

---

An IP user keeps adding a link to http://media.twirltour.com/Airbus320/index.html which I have removed twice as I believe it does not add any value to the article but appears to be a promotional link for TwirlTour. The link has now been added in again by User:TwirlTour (which appears to be a conflict of interest!) whith the comment that it conforms to rich media external links requirements and appeals not to delete it again. Despite my request to bring it to the talk page. I could probably remove it again on COI concerns but for the same reaspn we dont have hundreds of links to photo sites it doesnt really add any value to the article either. Any comments please. MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User keeps adding link without discussion and insists it meets requirements for WP:COI,WP:EL and WP:SPAM, which is probably an indication it doesnt. MilborneOne (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Primary users?

Following the addition of this message, I will be adding another airline to the primary users section - JetBlue. It is not currently mentioned on the A320 page but according to the Wikipedia article about JetBlue Airways, JBAW is the biggest user of the A320 in the world so I figure it's worth mention. CreepyMan (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It will probably be removed as JetBlue does not have the largest fleet of all the A320 family, at only 107 A320s it needs a few more to catch up with the airlines in the infobox. Nothing stopping a mention in the A320 section of the text if you can add a reliable reference that it is the biggest. MilborneOne (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant specifically the A320 aircraft, as in just the A320, not the 319, 318, 321, etc. CreepyMan (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The infobox covers all the family not just the A320. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A321 in Microsoft Flight Simulator X

I recently made an edit adding to the section on the A321 the fact that the aircraft is featured in Microsoft Flight Simulator X, widely considered the industry-standard aviation simulator. Flight Simulator X is used by real pilots across the world to train. Two editors have challenged my edit on the grounds that it is not notable. However, it is highly significant that the A321 is included in the simulator, as this brings it to a wide audience of pilots across the world.

I will await feedback from the community before making further edits. Drummerdg (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who removed it as not notable. It is not an industry-standard aviation simulator it is a computer game. It not used by pilots for real training as it isnt accredited training device under international regulations, note the industry classes devices into Simulator (at the top end) and flight training devices (at the bottom end), a computer game is none of these. I also interested why the A321 is highly significant rather than any other commercial simulator (or aircraft type), as far as I am aware all the real A320 family training is done on A320 simulators (which are also used for the A319). Sorry it is just a game and is not notable to the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, I have better things to do than waste time arguing here. I will the leave the article alone because I'm sure my edit would continuously be wrongly removed. I would like to correct your misconception, however: while it is true that FSX is not FAA accredited like X-Plane is, it IS used widely to train by real pilots. And it is significant that the A321 is included because (to the best of my knowledge) it is the first Airbus to be included in any of the sims in the franchise. Drummerdg (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK not sure it is an argument more of an explanation of why your edit was reverted, but thanks for understanding the reasons, although perhaps the word wrongly removed is not really valid. I still want to repeat the point that real commercial pilots dont use unlicensed computer games for training. If they did why would airlines need to spend huge sums of money on flight training devices and even more for on full flight simulators. But that is not relevant to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Something's odd with these numbers. How can the A320 and A321 have precisely the same range and fuel capacity even though the A321 is a much bigger and heavier plane?!? 87.127.95.198 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

The A320 is by far the faster selling and the best selling in it`s class. No doubt. --89.245.200.106 (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The A320 family is faster selling, but as was stated, it has 5328 orders, while the 737 has well over 6775, so clearly the 737 has sold better, but not faster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.65.12 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Switch to LCD Displays

While this will not give an exact date, it will help pin down when the switch to LCD displays occured. I was a pilot for USA 3000 airlines which operates the A320. One of our aircraft had the LCD displays - N270AV, which was MSN 2325, and entered service on 12/13/2004. We also had N271AV/MSN 2327. Despite being two serial numbers later, it entered service two weeks earlier than N270AV and has the old CRTs. So clearly it was at some point around that date and serial number that the switch occured.

I'm afraid it's not that simple. Aircraft as early as MSN 1961 (G-SUEW with Thomas Cook) have LCD screens, despite MSN 1942 (G-DHRG with Thomas Cook) having the older CRT screens. Both were early 2003-build aircraft. British Airways had A320 family aircraft delivered with CRT screens which are much newer than that. Not sure which aircraft was the 'first' to have LCD screens but it was essentially a customer option for several years until CRTs were phased out completely on the new build aircraft (I believe it is no longer possible to order a new CRT-screened Airbus). To complicate matters further, older aircraft can be retrofitted with LCD screens! SempreVolando (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A318-100 and A319-100 don't exist

Contrary to what many editors believe, there is no such thing as the A318-100 or the A319-100 so please stop putting the "-100" after it, its inaccurate. If you see other articles with "-100" after the A318 or A319, then please remove it. Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ all the A318 and A319s are A318-100 and A319-100s so please dont just remove them at will. The reason they ae not sometime listed without the the -100 at the end is that they only have series 100. So they are all 100 series aircaft. So to have the -100 is not wrong. (You have seen the list of variants further down the page at Airbus_A320_family#Engines?) MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. But still, to me if there is only one variant, there is no point in stating it. Thanks for letting me know, --Plane Person (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK but you are right in most instances like airline articles it is not needed, but sometimes it needs to be added in specs and tables, one day we might have an A319-200!!. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

British Airways A318 flights LCY - JFK

On September 29th this flight was announced. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8279408.stm. A318s will be configured to carry 32 passengers in business class, will take off from LCY at less than maximum weight to allow for the 5.5 degree take off and will thus need to refuel at Shannon in Ireland. Flights will carry the BA001 flight number last carried by Concorde Soarhead77 (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

External link proposal

I would like to propose the external link: http://www.myairlease.com/resources/orders_deliveries_prices. I appreciate that the link leads to a commercial website but I think it can be added because of the following:

1. Many aircraft pages have valid external links to commercial websites. The A380 page for example has a link entitled “Everything about the A380 at FlightGlobal.com”. Clearly, this page provides very useful data on the A380 and anyone following this link can either further explore flightglobal.com or return to Wikipedia. Similarly, the proposed link provides the list price, current orders, deliveries, market values and lease rates of the A380 and anyone following this link can either further explore myairlease.com or return to Wikipedia.

2. The information provided in this link is very useful, highly specialized, continuously monitored for currency and rather difficult to obtain (in such format and grouping) Free of Charge.

FYI, I have added this comment to a lot of pages in order to receive an as accurate and representative feedback as possible. I think the proposed link is a worthwhile addition so, at your discretion, pls add it to the article. Thanks Aegn3 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No it is just WP:SPAM and fails to meet the requirements of WP:EL - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-Engined A320

Now this is looking more and more likely to happen, should a section be added on the potential new engines for the A320. See flight global article http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/01/14/337136/airbus-sees-lifespan-of-at-least-10-years-for-re-engined.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by A James 72 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

added a whole A320 Enhanced section.Wispanow (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Boring layout and images

It will NOT do, adding just another pic with the only difference of painting.

And the layout is boring too. A380 or B737 are better. Wispanow (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Done some things. Wispanow (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Article is too long

I Personally think this article is too long. knowing all those Aircraft belong to the same family I purpose to leave one article shorter than this as A320 Family, and then creat separate files for:

A318

A319

A320

A320-F

A321

This will make this artible to be a lot easy to read and follow.DG (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It has always been the intention to split out the individual types one day when the article got to big but because it involves a lot of work it should really be done as a team effort co-ordinated through the WP:AIRCRAFT project. It has to be done the right way as to preserve the article history and not to break the attribution for copyright reasons. It is not just a matter of creating a new article for each type this article has thousands of incoming links that all need to be sorted at the same time. Not a job for an individual and may need to be done one type at a time, so can I suggest you raise it at the aircraft project so it can be co-ordinated and done at the appropriate time and with the correct attribution. Please dont create new article or change this one until you have some project agreement. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I see, that the article is long, but not too long. And:

• dividing it in the different length means to repeat ALL similar data on all pages.
• if you compare to Boeing 737 and its updates - especially "Next Generation", it seems to be better to make an article Airbus A320 Enhanced family. Why:
  • New engines have new data in thrust, range, weight
  • New cabin, see weight
  • New wing-box, see weight
  • New winglets and other wing-changes, see weight and range

There are a lot of other changes. The main thing against a separate article is, that Airbus makes a continuous change, and it is unclear, what specific, produced A320 in a WHOLE can be seen as "Enhanced". The range of changes is by far big enough.

I propose, to expand the "Enhanced" section, and if the new engines are fixed, create the new article with new data. Wispanow (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the original comment was to split the article by type nothing to do with enhancements. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But i given reasons why thats not "good". If its splitted, it should be by generation, not by length. Wispanow (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood, but that is not how the A320 family is viewed at the moment - it does not appear to have any generation to the general reader. The main generation issues at the moment are related to software releases a subject that is not even discussed at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"but that is not how the A320 family is viewed at the moment - it does not appear to have any generation to the general reader": This appearance and viewpoint has to be changed to the reality. And i am not talking about software. If Wikipedia only repeats what everybody already knows: it will be useless. Wispanow (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

OK what is the difference between a 2000 and 2010 built A320 other than the software build standard (which does by the way change some of the hardware features on the flightdeck) ? MilborneOne (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

See "Wispanow (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2010" and A320 Enhanced section. Engines are developed currently, wing-box don´t know. Therefore. Wispanow (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just looks like a number of cosmetic changes - nothing really worth a separate article on - perhaps it can be revisited when a change in engines is announced. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we merge all 737 together with the 707: its just a 2 engined 707, with some "cosmetic changes", as you call it, isn´t it? Wispanow (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you dont understand the point this article is nothing to do with Boeing 737 not the same company they dont work the same way. What major change has taken place in the A320 for example in the last ten years that would identify it as a seperate variant/model. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats what i say: If the A320 Enhanced is ready, a new article. No more jokes about cosmetic changes from 707 to 737 or A320 to A320 Enhanced. Wispanow (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Airbus A320 Enhanced family article should merge with Airbus NSR, which is somehow replaced by the "Enhanced", and we have to wait 2 decades for.Wispanow (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article should be split into A318, A319, A320 and A321. The Boeing 737 page goes further and breaks it down by generation. Here, however we have cobbled together a single article about different aircraft. The Boeing 737 page models are better. I don't know how the pages are divided on other languages. Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The best way is to start is with the A318 then later the A319 which could both sustain a seperate article but with so many incoming links it would probably need to be done as a team effort with the aircraft project. Generation is not a problem as it is normally the software standard that changes and is not obvious so they can for now be treated as one generation. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the above discussion

I think MilbourneOne has the right idea has the right idea. Perhaps we could start a draft article on the A318, then work our way to the A321. That way we could discuss this with draft proposals for alternative pages. Anyone agree, if we can get consensus on this at least we can begin dividing the pages.

Regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

DrukAir A319s

I'm not sure this is true and accurate but as far as I know, DrukAir (Bhutan Airlines) use A319 with engines from A321. They have to do that because the Paro airport runway is short and right after take-off the pilots have to perform an extremely steep climb to avoid a hill right in front of the runway. Does anyone know anything about it? And if it's true, maybe it's worth including in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.124.35.57 (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The two DrukAir 319s are -115 models with CFM56-5B7 engines - dont see anything peculiar about them they are rated at 120kN so not the same as the A321. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

elbow-rests in Airbus A320

is it possible to lift up the elbow-rests on an Airbus A320-100/200 seat? thank you 85.74.175.211 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This page is really for discussing the article not for general questions, but as each airline has different seats and sometimes aircraft of the same airline may have different seats I suspect only the airline can help with your question. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

flt. 1549- intentional ditch function on A320?

i heard it reported that the a320 has an "ditch button" which seals up minor fuselage openings to improve flotation. does anyone know of an RS that discusses this? or can post something about it? one question being how common is it, and it is prevalent across the entire 320/318 etc line? or what? 72.0.187.239 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate article is needed on this? Device helped ensure US Airways plane would float --jmb (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The A320 ditching button can be seen here: [3]. The ditch button does indeed perform several functions to keep the plane floating longer. A news article claimed the pilots didn't have time to press the button in this case: [4] We will probably have to wait for the official NTSB report to know for sure if they pressed the ditch button or not.

PolarYukon (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is now well understood that the crew did not use the ditching system. The 'miracle,' if any, of the accident was the existence of the river in the necessary location, with rescue boats standing by, after the bird strikes. Sully will go to his grave wishing he had used the system. Some idiot, probably not typed in the A320, keeps trying to make this omission by the pilots a secret and removes reference to it from the article. Sully! Is that you? Hamishrex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamishrex (talk • contribs) 22:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been told multiple times that this comment is mispaced here as this section is only for short accident summaries. Those details belong to the accident article. And I'm not an idiot as I'm fully able to actually find this accident article. Also your added comment really looks like POV. --Denniss (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You are an idiot so long as you continue to remove a perfectly valid reference to a now well known fact that contributed to the accident. In paragraphs regarding other accidents above the Hudson case there are many references to crew contributions. Perhaps you are not, as I am, a professional aviator and thus do not understand that pilots make mistakes that can kill people. In this case, the airplane sank more rapidly that it would have had the ditching system been used properly. THAT mistake could have killed people. When the civil cases go to trial, this matter will be a central consideration. Hamishrex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamishrex (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not keep adding the section without further discussion and also remember WP:CIVIL. The accident section is a summary that leads readers into the detailed accident article. Being referenced does not make a difference. Also this page is not for making points in preparation for a legal case. MilborneOne (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for the first time at communications I have received in a separate location, I discover I was told it was 'vandalism' to carefully report that the crew did not use the very uncommon capability the A320 has available to make a water landing less dangerous. As I have discussed this with many of my professional pilot colleagues and found general agreement that the failure to deploy this system was a major mistake give the importance of its use in the circumstances, and the ease with which it can be engaged, I find the suggestion that my including it in the text regarding the incident in the following way ('It is notable that the crew failed to utilize the plane's built-in ditching system which would have reduced the danger of sinking. ') was 'vandalism' incomprehensible. I am not involved in any legal action regarding this incident and have no axe to grind. I was merely pointing out what all people familiar with such situations know very well. If a flight crew has made such an omission, that fact will be used to the advantage of any parties who want to extort money from the airline, of which there is a growing line according to press reports. Certainly I did not intend to offend the editors in any way, and am quite surprised at their reaction. Frankly, I am at a loss as to how such a reaction may be avoided in the future. In this instance, given the text of other accident reports published above the A320 article which mention crew activities, the editors seem to have been quite arbitrary and aggressive. Hamishrex

Not sure anybody is being agressive other editors are just trying to make the article conform with the consensus on what can and cant be included. Doesnt stop anybody bringing it up on this talk page for discussion. This is not a dispute about what you are saying what is being pointed out is this is not the right place for that information which is the accident article, which already has a paragraph on the ditching function. Need to note that vandalism is often used when editors try and keep adding information after is has been reverted refer WP:BRD and should be taken in that light. MilborneOne (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the following text in a message from 'User:Denniss|Denniss.' ('Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Airbus A320 family page.') I consider the use of the invective 'nonsense' as a characterization of my edit to be aggressive, abusive, and unacceptable.--Hamishrex 14:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamishrex (talk • contribs)

I think you will find that it is a standard warning template Template:Test2 and is really a pretty mild warning in wikipedia terms the real vandalism warnings are a lot stronger - so the user was just using standard warnings templates as I said above do not get hung up on the words used in warnings. Also note that discussion on the warnings given and not really relevant the the A320 which is to discuss content. Thank you.MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to the content of the article, I know our British friends wish to be involved in all aspects of cutting edge technology and in most cases have developed everything! The first computer! The first supercruise aircraft! Etc. Etc. Please eliminate all references to the the BAe 'JET' program. To actually imply that this program is the genesis of the A320 series is insulting. From 1965 no less! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.159.53 (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A319LR operators

I Readed : "Lufthansa, Swiss International and Air France offer a premium business service between Europe and the USA using A319LRs operated by the French Aero Services Executive and the Swiss PrivatAir"

This is not true anymore. The 2 operators had removed the A319s from their fleets :
Aero Services Executive's fleet
Privat Air Germany's fleet (Privat Air had registered its A319 in Germany)

My mother tongue not been english, could someone please rephrase the sentence ? René Le Conte (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Numbers sold

Being as the article is merged, we only have a number of the total sales, a figure in excess of 4,400. I would imagine the A319 and A320 probably count for at least 3,500 of these. I've done a Yahoo search for a more refined set of statistics but I can't find anything. Somewhere on the page we should give a number of the total numbers built of each aircraft type. Can anyone find these figures. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This might be a useful source: [5]

From Airbus.com -> Corporate information -> Orders & Deliveries. It's broken down by model, by customer, and by region.

It's important to distinguish between the numbers sold, delivered, and in operation. They differ. When you say "in excess of 4,400" I presume you mean deliveries. If you count orders that have not yet been fulfilled the number passes 6700. According to that spreadsheet, 1266 A319 have been delivered, and 2469 A320.

bobrayner (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to deliveries. At the top of my head I think including orders it is just over 6000. Thanks for the source, I shall look to improve the information on this page.

Kind regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Heading changes discussion

I was asked by an unknown IP user to discuss my minor changes to the article to realign the heading to conform to WP:AIR/PC page content guidelines. However, before I was able to open a discussion, the IP user moved the disputed content to Airbus A320 Enhanced. Could the IP user please point me to the discussion concerning forking the sections to a new article? I'm certain he/she would not have doen this without discussing it somewhere, and gaining a consesnus to do so, since this a a much lmore serious action than mere heading level changes, which he/she deemed necessary of discussion. - BilCat (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

-Guidelines are not a must but must be used concerning to the content.

-The A320 Enhanced section exists for months. It is NOT a length- or freighter-variant.

-This is imho the best option to shorten the article and make it future-proof. 77.185.33.172 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Summarizing the existing text would be a better option. There are not significant enough differences overall for A320 Enhanced to need a new, separate article, imo. Maybe the A320 NEO, but that looks to be mainly an engine change with not much else upgraded. -fnlayson (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Its the A320 Enhanced INCLUDING NEO. BOTH can have a new article, and the name of the plane is A320 Enhanced. Just noticed you moved it to the top. Cant see much sense, but i dont discuss this further. Notice its a new plane.77.185.33.172 (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the sources released today regarding the launch of hte NEO, the Enhanced is different. The NEO will have all of the improvements of the Enhanced, but they aren't the same as far as I can tell fromthose sources. Anyway, splits do need to be discussed beforehand on large pages such as this one, esecailly involoving a section you already asked for a dicsussion about. - BilCat (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Far too many images

I love this article and I enjoy looking at images of the aircraft which are relevant to that section of the article. However, there are, in my opinion, far too many exterior images of the A320 family which make the article look very cluttered. Would it not make sense to have one or two exterior views, one cockpit shot, one cabin shot and maybe a picture of the engines? There are eleven external shots on this article. I appreciate that it has to cater for all four models, but do we really need pictures of eleven different liveries? Seeing eleven pictures of different airlines taking off and landing adds nothing new to the article and may be one of the reasons why this article doesn't have 'good article' status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.69.16 (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right all that is needed is reasonable exterior view of each variant. I have removed one of the A318 images as it was almost the same. We have two A320-200 images Wizz-Air and Air France one of those could go. And we have two images of an A321 Jordanian and Monarch again one could go. I think the rest of the images all show different aspects of the aircraft. The image with all three on at the bottom shows more building then aircraft so could go. The video doesnt actually add that much to the article either. But we dont actually have an image of the original A320-100. MilborneOne (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the image of the three planes that supposedly showed the a319, A320 and A321. On close examination, it looked like two of the planes were A319s and the other one was an A321. If it actually showed the three different variants, then we could keep it, but it doesn't. And besides, I didn't like the fact that it showed so much of the terminal. --Compdude123 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The first image with an US Airways landing is not the best example, and should be replaced. Its most glaring defect is that is way off level. 187.132.155.35 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I would agree - do you have any suggestions that we can have a look at and agree (or not) to change it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Service ceiling and speed numbers

Considering in-flight GPS on A319 flights I've been on have shown 38000' and maybe 570mph at that altitude, could someone update or double-check the numbers? Maybe using different engines or having different loads has a bearing on this. Cwolfsheep (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The service ceiling on aircraft are adjustable,depending on demand,weather,windshear,route,and other factors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.7.137.182 (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Blended winglet"?

I see that this article contains the following text:

The NEO will also include some modifications to the wing, mainly the installation of blended winglets called "Sharklets"...

The problem I see here is that "Blended Winglet" is a trademark of Aviation Partners, which is allied with Boeing. I'm pretty sure that no Airbus literature will use that term to describe their winglets, even though they are winglets and they have a smoothly blended transition between the wing and the blade of the winglet.

Any objections if I just remove the word "blended?" Any proposals for a more elegant fix? Any arguments that this should be left as-is?

Thanks, Bob "BoKu" K. BoKu (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem that this has to be fixed? "Blended winglets" seems to be fairly common terminology for these. These are not standard winglets from 20 years ago. Wikipedia does not mark trademarks, btw. -fnlayson (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Background

The second paragraph in this section has a mistake that is then used to introduce largely spurious links to the Trident. "The A320 was an evolution from the JET (Joint European Transport) study commenced in June 1977[7] and based at the then BAe (formerly Hawker Siddeley) site in Weybridge, Surrey, U.K.. The Hawker Siddeley team had previously produced a design called the HS.134 "Airbus" in 1965, an evolution of the HS.121 (formerly DH.121) Trident,[8] which shared much of the general arrangement of the later JET3 study design. The name "Airbus" at the time referred to a BEA requirement, rather than to the later international programme."
Weybridge was a BAC and Vickers establishment and BAe's JET contribution largely grew out of BAC X-11 and 2-11 studies. Much of the systems design of the A320 shows Vickers influence.Sir smellybeard (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Range Figures

The A319 section has the following text:

"With virtually the same fuel capacity as the A320-200, and fewer passengers, the range with 124 passengers in a two-class configuration extends to 3,350 km (1,810 nmi), or 6,850 km (3,700 nmi) with Sharklets."

These look like the range at MZFW and MTOW with max fuel figures for the current design, regardless of sharklets. Either way, the 3.5% from the sharklets would not pan out to the 2000 nmi mentioned here. Mgw89 (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A320neo - Branded A320neo not A320NEO

Hi,

Just been looking at This Link, its from the official Airbus website. It brands the A320neo as A320neo not A320NEO like shown in this article. Should it be changed on the article so it matches the airbus Branding? --JetBlast (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I just removed the acronym part from the section label. The article should use lower case neo in the text for consistency. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Language

This is, in principle, a nice article, but its readability is unfortunately impaired because the author only thinks he (or indeed maybe she!) can write publishable English - there's quite a lot of very awkward and occasionally incomprehensible phrasing - and far too much "as well as" (PLEASE use "and"!). Maelli (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There generally is no one author on Wikipedia. So don't try to to point the finger one. If you see excessive or missing wording, go ahead and fix it. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A318

Why does the A318 have it's own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.27.56 (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

See previous discussion here, such as "Breaking up" above. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100#Vote_on_flag_removal

This (inofficial) voting about flags and country info in orders might concern even this article. Tagremover (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

50 incidents of glass cockpit blackout on 320 family aircraft

I am unable to find any evidence for this claim, other than a historic blog entry that cites no sources and is only accessible through the wayback machine.

The claim has been introduced on 4 December 2008 and prominently moved moved to the section introduction shortly thereafter .

Three references were introduced in support of the claim. Out of these, the first reference mentions 50 incidents of glass cockpit blackout on any type of aircraft, not A320 family alone. The second reference is the dead link to the original blog entry mentioned above. The third reference is a report on a single incidence, which references five similar cases, for six instances altogether.

If I cannot dig up any further evidence, I'll assume that this claim is based on a misunderstanding of its first reference and will remove this longstanding claim. 2.28.232.169 (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to user:Fnlayson for cleaning up after me.

After digging a bit deeper, I indeed found an NTSB safety recommendation in support of the claim. According to that source, Airbus has identified 49 other events similar to the one referenced in the recommendation.

I will thus replace the reference to the defunct blog entry with a reference to the NTSB safety recommendation. Case closed. 2.28.234.24 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

References

I made this edit in primary users

I changed the 4th primary user with China Eastern Airlines from United Airlines because China Eastern has more A320 aircraft than United. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.35.142 (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct according to airfleets.net - 155 United and 166 China Eastern. --Denniss (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Airfleets isnt a credible source. But wikipedia also shows united have less A320 type aircraft so it was a good call to change this. --JetBlast (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

I know the lead image has been around for a while but should we really have a wonky and cluttered image for the infobox. I dont have any suggestions but I am willing to support anything as long as it is straight, we have loads of airborne images on commons to choose from which I am sure must show the aircraft better. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

+1 on this. Also, it's clearly tilted, I don't see why the rotation of the image should be aligned to the aircraft and not the background. We have several better images in the article below - and of course in the Commons categories. --Julian H. (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Looking at the images available with a clear background the Alitalia one looks the best to me or possibly the BA one with the aircraft banking. Any other thoughts? PRL42 (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the Alitalia photo, but not the British Airways photo. Additionally I would suggest the Air France photo that currently resides in the A320 section. —Compdude¹²³ 01:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I collected and few images that I would regard as better alternatives, the ones you mentioned and also uploaded two photos I found in my archive that I think would work here. (Please add more if you want)

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10
• 
  11

What, do you think, would work? Most of them have higher quality and resolution, less harsh lighting and none of them is tilted, so I think any of them would be an improvement. --Julian H. (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that any would be better, I like "10" but any of the pointing to the left and without the ground in them would have my support. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I like 11 personally, i like the use of a different angle. --JetBlast (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Of those 2, I would prefer 11, the light is slightly better there. Any objections? Otherwise we could switch, I think. --Julian H. (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with 10 or 11. 9 would have been good had it been pointing left. PRL42 (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Changed it to 11 now. Doesn't cost anything to change it again if more opinions come up. --Julian H. (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

knots

Also add knots in the tables. That is what the actual pilots use on the radio, not km/h etc. Jidanni (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Mixed units of weight/mass in the specifications table

In the specifications table the "Operating empty weight (OEW)" and "Maximum zero-fuel weight (MZFW)" figures are in kg. However, the "Maximum landing weight (MLW)" and "Maximum take-off weight (MTOW)" figures are in metric tonnes.

The specification in brackets for lbs is always shown in thousands of lbs. It seems to me that all of the metric weights should be similarly specified in kg. Is there a good reason why it's recorded as it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.229.246.191 (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

A319LR

Listed in the specifications table, but nowhere else in the article (needs to be mentioned in variants section). Not mentioned on Airbus website (may have been when it was accessed as a reference) and not much info about it on web. Mentioning this so someone can search for & add info about this variant. AHeneen (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Minimum runway

I would like to know minimum (operational) runway lengths for take-off and landing, but I can't readily see them here. In the specification I can see "Takeoff distance at MTOW" but nothing else. I am looking for instance at Tagbilaran Airport, which states runway length is 1778m but the takeoff distances shown here for A319/A320 (as stated in Tagbilaran) are around 2000m.

I can remember way back when a 707 lined up on the wrong gas-holder and landed at Northolt instead of Heathrow. It managed to land OK, but had to be stripped down for it to take off! Just saying. 112.198.82.96 (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Every flight could be different it depends on load factors (passengers, cargo and fuel) and how each airline operates. It would be difficult to document so many variations so as it is not notable we dont. MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, too many variations to cover here. The Airbus A320 airport report should have charts showing the takeoff distance for different weights and conditions. Look for the report on this page: http://www.airbus.com/support/maintenance-engineering/technical-data/aircraft-characteristics/ -Fnlayson (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything there about runway lengths. It just seems to me a pretty tight fit for a fully occupied plane, even light, to land and take off within less than 1800m, even at sea level, almost equatorial, temperature around 25°C. Tagbilaran is allegedly extending to 2500m. I doubt it's happened yet, because the usual sources don't show it. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 11:32, wikitime= 03:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not really relevant for this article, but for the sake of interest an A320 taking off from a 1,740m runway in calm winds at 25 degrees C is limited to around 71,000kg takeoff weight. With a full load of passengers that would allow approximately 7,000kg fuel which is only enough to fly for about 01:40, or about 700nm. SempreVolando (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know where else to ask. Flights are only to Manila (340nm). Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 12:58, wikitime= 04:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)