Talk:Airbus A300/Archive 2

The 'Design' section mentions
"Structures made from metal billets, reducing weight". This seems to be a, uh, popular phrase when searched through Google. Maybe the other pages with that phrase copy here, rather than the reverse. In any case, I can't find a source which would justify adding something which actually explains why this was beneficial. One presumes that other contemporary jets used cast parts in places where the A300 used milled ones. But a source would be very enlightening if one is available. Nevard (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A billet of steel is usually forged, using something like a drop hammer. This alters its mechanical properties, making it stronger than a casting would be. The resulting structure could therefore be lighter in weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.221 (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

lead image
The current lead image is over a busy background, the operator is not really widespread and its quality so-so (artifacts, too much sharpen, blown whites). In the history of the A300, the largest operator is Fedex (still today with 70) followed by UPS with 52, which is the largest customer with 53. American Airlines is the third and largest pax operator with 35. Here are some of the best of them, airborne, over a clean background, from the front, pointing left:

Fedex: then --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC) done--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbus A300. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130428050604/http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/mh684/photo.shtml to http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/mh684/photo.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Image of Airbus A300 panel - during flight
This is not an image of a cockpit /flight deck, but solely of the flight gauges, 8 minutes after take-off. If enlarged, the shot is excellent. All flight instruments are readable. This has nothing to do with MANUALS. I think it's up to our readers to decide and to see if is interesting or not. The original is A DIA-positive from around 1990. When enlarged, it's quality is excellent for its purpose. To read the flight gauges. We have no similar shot of any jet airliner's gauges during flight. (and never mind my stupid alias). John Pontus Eriksson Boeing720 (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Boeing720 (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC) There are four gauges in the top row and five ones in the second row. From top left - Airspeed 310-315 knots (MACH-value 0,62), Artificial Gyro Horizon showing the aircraft is climbing but not turning, (unknown gauge, perhaps showing flight level 156 ?), Altitude - 15.740 feet, air pressure (at ground) was set to 1013 MB / 29.91 mm Hg = mm Mercury.(this has to be adjusted at the destination, or the altitude indicator cannot be trusted) Second row - Chronometer with timer - time is 08.45 GMT, 00.08 hours = 8 minutes after take off, (navigation tool with compass), Gyro Compass - heading 258 degrees, distance to next VOR/DME is 63 nautical miles, Ground speed 396 knots, Vestical Speed VSI - climbing at a rate of 2000 feet per minute. Altitude in meters- not used in 1990, and not used today outside Russia. Everything seen if the image is enlarged. And it's indeed an A300 panel. Boeing720 (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * IMO, it is a badly washed out scan. It doesn't inform the reader on the aircraft, just the flight parameters of one of its millions of climbs. Perhaps other editors could share their insight?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't scanned ! Its a DIA-positive converted to jpeg. (A DIA-positive is the opposite of a negative) If enlarged, it's quality is fine. The altitude in meter gauge is very typical for A300, though not very useful as altitudes and flight levels is ni feet. (Only Russian aircraft uses them today). Why not leave it to our readers instead ? Boeing720 (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Levels have been corrected. It has been scanned with a film scanner obviously. It is still not very interesting, and wikipedia isn't a place to dump anything: WP:INDISCRIMINATE + WP:NOTGALLERY.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I used a USB-negative/DIA-positive to JPEG converter. What you feel is "not very interesting" is simply your subjective thoughts. Others may very well find it interesting. It's a good shot of all flight instruments/gauges during flight - all readable if enlarged. We have no similar shot anywhere. It also illustrates the port-side (the Captain's) flight panel. Not too difficult to understand either. Rare and very interesting, I think. Very suitable for this article. Boeing720 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The third instrument is by the way the radio altitude. It shows no figures higher than 2000 or 3000 feet above ground or sea. Also the usual flight level if heavy, was FL 280 to 300. FL 350 required a notably lower weight than what was possible after take-off at longer distances. (P&W engines)Boeing720 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

main picture
While the current picture is OK, its freighter role and plugged windows can let think it was a cargo aircraft, but the A300 was conceived as a passenger airliner, and mainly used for that role.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation style conversion?
The citation style of this article appears to have been converted, with the majority of the cites previously written in one style now concerted into another. This strikes me as an odd move to make, why was it necessary to convert a large proportion of the citations in the article to a different style that doesn't seem to have been previously used here? Kyteto (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe the convention is not to mess about with the citation style for the sake of it once one has been established. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * When there is a consistent citation style, it should be kept. When it is inconsistent, WP:CITEVAR states Generally considered helpful: imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit). That's what I did for the lone ref standing after trimming the unused bibliography and changing to inline citations those with a small page range.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a complete distortion of citevar- you are basically saying that as soon as there is a single inline use of cite web, then all short references to books must be eliminated - that is complete nonsense and not supported by how references are used anywhere else on site - this is imposing your own preferences on the article and only acts to drive other editors away. It certainly has driven this editor away.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:CITEVAR promotes consistent style, either inline or harvard-style or whatever. Book references are welcome in either style. Kyteto knows how to use each style, and I would not put words in his mouth.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I really think a optimal implementation of WP:CITEVAR on such a sweeping level would have been to discuss it beforehand. The very first line of WP:CITEVAR mentions "first seeking consensus for the change" when embarking on a change to an established citation style. I feel that the use of a Bibliography section and short references to specific pages was not necessarily inconsistent - indeed, nearly 20 books were all formatted in the exact same manner, with no examples of book entries being formatted in the new manner as far as I can see - from my point of view, the change is rather arbitrary. Should it have not been a good approach to discuss the inconsistencies, and decide which direction (if any) to resolve them, via the talk page? This is not the first article that this has been done to, and the styling which has been unilaterally converted to always seems to be the same, no matter how extensively or how long another approach had been used - one-size fits all, rather than tailoring to the article's own pattern or a consensus. Kyteto (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your follow up. The consensus to seek according to CITEVAR, is to swap the entire citation style from one to another. This was not the case, just a mix of both. There are 66 refs in the article, including 8 books refs with multiple calls. Book citations are the same. CITEVAR explicitly describes inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references). A more thorough explanation of what is consistent or inconsistent should happen at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources. Doing first and discussing afterwards is an usual way of wikipedia. Discussion are welcome, but it was in accordance with a policy (quoted, even), so I went ahead.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's an absolute fact that this is necessarily inconsistent - all book references were being treated exactly the same, none of which resembled the style that's been converted to. The style used beforehand has been used on the majority of WP:Aircraft's featured articles, without so much as a note from any of the reviews taken to approve them to such a high standard. Examples include: Boeing 767, Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service, and McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. Even if it were inconsistent, which is an 'if' in my opinion, it isn't necessarily certain which way things should have been converted.


 * As an aside, the old style had considerable benefits, especially if you were trying to fact-check the material - rather than the citation giving you the book and a range of pages to flick through, it told exactly what page to go looking for material. It's easier to hide fakery (such as https://www.theverge.com/2013/1/5/3839946/wikipedia-hoax-about-bicholim-conflict-deleted-after-5-years) and more inconvenient to anyone trying to validate material - I know having to read through 30 plus pages of material, hoping I don't miss the single reference, is harder on me than just being told the specific one, from having to do it fairly regularly for 15 years. Kyteto (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Book references did not change, I copy-pasted them. References can be harmonized in either style, they were fewer book refs (8) than the rest (58). I don't think there is an old style or a new style. It should be consistent, that's all. I'm all for WP:verifiability: when a large reference is used (offline or not), we can use template:RP for page numbers. As I checked this page, I learned that our debate will be moot soon as WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing is coming next month.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Editing the cites from stating a specific page for a given fact to a general page range for that book is a change in my opinion, and by User:Nigel Ish's input, I am not the only one who thinks that. A tentative consensus is emerging here, although I would like more input from other editors to make it clear one way or the other. Kyteto (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I restored the page numbers for the ref with the widest page range (16-25).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I wish to note that I have taken time away from this article deliberately, to give the matter thought while working elsewhere. It seems clear, re-reading the above, that the consensus regarding this article's citation style was that the short hand book references should not have been changed, while three editors are seemingly making that point, only one person is pushing for citation change to be kept. At this point, I would say that the rational outcome from such a consensus would be to restore the established short-hand citations for books. Kyteto (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought the page numbers I restored were a good enough compromise, waiting for the Book referencing solution to be implemented (it was delayed to early 2021). Maybe a more thorough discussion should be done at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * To me, the interpretations of existing CITEVAR policy by MilborneOne and User:Nigel Ish were pretty clear-cut against your conversion of the citation style. You can take this to Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources if you wish, but I think that both policy and consensus have sounded clearly in favour of the established convention used by this article for a decade. Forcing this change through against consensus is not really on. Kyteto (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I see that my attempt to bring attempt to act on the above notice of action, which was in line with the above consensus and has had no further statement made since my last five months ago, has been speedily reverted. Could you not have even attempted to engage the talk page before doing that? It's beginning to look like you're trying to bulldoze this style change through, consensus be damned. Kyteto (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No, you reverted to a year old version, but there were many changes since. The discussion ended in I restored the page numbers above. You challenged it a few months later, but did not went beyond, making a new compromise emerge (no one is plenty satisfied: a compromise). The Book referencing solution should be implemented in short order anyway.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "No, you reverted to a year old version" Lies, utter lies. If that's true, show me the past revision that matches one for one with what I did. My edit was a synthesis between the two that took over three hours to put together, line by line, section by section, some of which (e.g. variants) were exactly identical to how they are in the 4 March 2021 version (the latest at that time). Where I differed, I typically did so because I felt it to be better, or insignificant. Nobody, bar you, is advocating for what you've forced through, not a single person appeared to agree with your view in one year; while others clearly share the view expressed here that the original style should be reinstated. Maybe you should leave it up to somebody else, anybody else, to revert if it is so justified in doing so. To continue trying to dominate the article's style, in violation of clear consensus against the new styling forced into it, is coming across as WP:OWN. Kyteto (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You cherry picked the parts you preferred ("because I felt it to be better, or insignificant"). This should be separated from our argument on the citation style. Fact is, the page numbers are restored as the consensus required. I just verified again, and the impacted references all have page numbers: Bowen, ITC, Simons, Senguttuvan, Endres, NorWag and Pitt. This is the consensus since one year, apparently contenting everyone. I don't WP:OWN the article, and neither do you.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "You cherry picked the parts you preferred" Not how I'd word it, but how else would you go about restoring the original style as per the consensus here without losing the beneficial changes that have happened over the last year? Of course you'd blend the best elements together with the long standing style, rather than flushing them out. As for what you read the consensus to be, I read something very different above: "I believe the convention is not to mess about with the citation style for the sake of it once one has been established." by MilborneOne; "That is a complete distortion of citevar- you are basically saying that as soon as there is a single inline use of cite web, then all short references to books must be eliminated - that is complete nonsense and not supported by how references are used anywhere else on site - this is imposing your own preferences on the article and only acts to drive other editors away." Nigel Ish - it appears that, much like myself, editors became fatigued with the issue as you were Wikilawyering your way around the obvious - its clear that nobody else wanted the citation style to change, that a citation style should not change without a discussion (which you did not seek), and that, while you argue that there was no consistent style, nobody else agreed with that. There has been great leniency in the time given for any other editor who agreed with your conversion to appear, and they did not - you're now using that time period that was given in good grace to avoid any hasty actions as a weapon in favour of bulldozing your citation style, which wasn't remotely used in this article beforehand - this is the reward I receive for giving patience. Quite frankly, I didn't know what I expected, but it wasn't this. Kyteto (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

About A300-600
I think it's best to divide from this article about A300-600. Because, the structure and performance of A300-600 is quite different from the conventional A300. Japanese articles of A300-600 are selected as GA.--Posiko (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really, the -600 is just a low-changes variant, it kept the length and main specs of the other variants, just with tweaked airframe, engines, avionics.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (For ) However, A300-600 has multiple derivative types such as -600R and Beluga, etc. In addition, compared to the original A300, the A300-600 is a very high-tech, highly evolved airliner. As you can see, the A300-600 has several things worth noting. As a proof, the Japanese version has been selected as a GA (Good article). I am currently drafting A300-600 translated from the Japanese version in the Sandbox. This draft (translation) has already been completed for more than half, and will be completed shortly. So, once this draft is complete, I'd like to complete an article about the A300-600.--Posiko (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the -600 is an evolved A300. It's still an A300. The japanese wikipedia choices should not imply this one should be the same, they can be different.. Congratulations for you translation in progress, but the best thing to do with it may be to include most of the material into the current A300 article (be sure to avoid duplicate information). If the #-600 section grows too large, a split may be proposed (but not guaranteed).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately, Posiko is now globally locked. Sorry to disappoint you, but Posiko is a sock of Sidowpknbkhihj.  SMB9 9thx   my edits  04:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really a disappointment.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed addition of facts based on two submissions to the NTSB for AAL587
I would like to propose a fact or two or maybe even more be added to this article regarding the a300-600 and at least certain a310 models of Airbus aircraft the sources that I'm proposing are the allied pilots association submission to the National transportation safety board on American Airlines flight 587. The other is the American Airlines Inc submission to the NTSB for the same accident. PDFs of either one can easily be found by a Google but if anyone would like me to give direct links I will try to do so. Here's the AAL one: http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/FAA_Inaction/AA_co_files/AA_SUBMISSION_3-1-04.pdf you should be able to find within the American Airlines submission I just linked to there, proof that the A300-600 rudder is and was over 10 times more sensitive than the rudder of any other commercial transport aircraft. This also goes for at least some A310s. Perhaps these facts would be better suited for the article on American Airlines flight 587. Feedback is of course more than welcome. Additionally there are some incidents that I believe I have not been documented properly with the a300-600 that includes American Airlines flight 903 and that was around I want to say 1997 and one other as well which happened to also be American airlines. An NTSB query will allow you to search for only the aircraft that you'd like to search for. Well the NTSB report ultimately listed probable cause in a manner implicating the first officer was to blame more than the designers and manufacturers of the aircraft as well as the aircraft documentation authors and The regulators themselves, some of the probable cause and contributing factors outlined by the allied pilots association are as follows: 1) Airbus failed to identify the dramatic changes in a Rudder control design that radically deviated from other aircraft designs. 2) Airbus failed to use an objective standard for rating the aircraft handling characteristics of the a300b4-600r flight control design, such as the FAA handling quality rating method, or the Cooper Harper pilot rating. 3) Airbus failed to publish limitations on the aircraft's rudder design. 4) Airbus failed to properly educate operators about Rutter system limitations ... 11) regulatory authorities incorrectly defined maneuvering speed also known as VA leading to an industry-wide misconception of the fundamental principle.

findings such as these submitted to the NTSB along with those found in the American Airlines Inc submission to the NTSB I think could really help paint a picture showing that Boeing is not the only aircraft manufacturer to have ever failed to disclose to operators and purchasers alike of the aircraft that additional training may be or is needed in order for the safe operation of the aircraft to be possible. I have no ax to grind with the Airbus company and I certainly have no connections at all with any of the airlines or really anyone in aerospace at all, but I think adding some new facts to either the a300 article or the American 587 article may be in order. Merry Christmas to all who celebrate and Happy New Year to all. -Mr. Chris Crepon Psx1337 (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Beware the WP:Wall_of_text, I did not read all. American Airlines Flight 587, mentioned in Airbus_A300, should be more relevant to add details on this accident than here. If you want to draw parallels with Boeing, the Boeing 737 MAX groundings series is more relevant, but it would need a WP:RS establishing the similarity.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Units conversion
Re. your edit. I personally don't see the value in specifying the length *everywhere*, when it's exactly the same throughout the B2 and B4 models. What I find more interesting as a reader, is seeing an illustration of the first variant with new engines from a new company. I also don't see why you've changed 2.65 m to 2.6 m for example, when 2.65 is the cited value. So if you could explain to me your reasoning (I'm a big believer in WP:CYCLE), that'd be great. FozzieHey (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for bringing this in talk, I'm pro-BRD too. The pictures and their captions should be informative about the external apparence of the subject, and pictures of variants should show the external differences between variants, helped by their caption. The main external difference between B1 and B2 is the length, and should be described in the pictures and caption, even if it's also already in the text. I'm not sure the engine type is visible in the picture, and thus this detail could be kept in text rather than in the picture captions. As there was no obvious external difference between B2 and B4, there was only a B4 picture before your additions. Maybe there are external differences to cope with the higher weight. As for the shorter figures, there is no need for overprecision.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Looking at the two images now, there is very minimal difference (unfortunately it is quite hard to get close ups of engines from these older models). So I agree that mentioning the engine models is not really useful for these specific images. As for the unit conversions, I actually don't think this is against MOS:UNCERTAINTY here. Firstly, I'm well aware of the need to reduce the precision (as I used sigfig=2 in some conversion templates). However, I think it's important to keep the cited figures and then clamp down the precision using the template, as this 1) allows other editors raw access to the figures if they want to adjust precision in the future and they don't have access to the references, and 2) clearly indicates what figures are actually rounded, and what figures are raw data from the sources. So I propose using the convert template to reduce precision but keeping the raw data available in the wikitext. Let me know what you think of this. FozzieHey (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * , about the unit conversions, it was mainly a 167 ft 2.63 in or something like that that seemed outrageous. After that, I tried to normalize everything to 0.1 meters, and what seemed needed for imperial units to reach a 0.1 meter precision - a 0.2% precision for a 50m long airliner.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, what I was thinking of is that depending on the context, the need for more precision may be necessary. For example, in the specifications section it may be more appropriate to have more precision as that is quite a technical section compared to the rest of the article. I'm not entirely sure on the policy for this, but as we can use the convert template to reduce precision anyway it seems like the easiest thing to use. Sorry if I'm appearing overly pedantic here, but that's my understanding of the overprecision guideline. Anyway, thanks for also changing undefined undefined to undefined undefined, I didn't realise it also changed the output, I thought it was just simply a shortcut. FozzieHey (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

A300B2-320
Scandinavian Airlines System actually bought 4 of these aircraft. And had to pay for re-building them to B2-400 versions in order to get rid of them - by selling to charter airline Conair, which put 291 passengers in them. Regards Johannes Elkjaer Madsen 2A02:AA7:4029:245C:7113:D32A:36E1:955 (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Someone should include mention of Habibie
Like its not every day a President of a country designs a airplane that is still in use today! It may not be strictly neccecary but B.J Habibie's article redirects here and its only right to mention his relevancy. 140.232.177.87 (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)