Zitat

We flew the MSN 001, the original prototype A380. This is also the aircraft Airbus will retain in its fleet to perform additional system and flight tests while the mega-transport enters service and starts to accumulate experience with the airlines.
Chief test pilot Jacques Rosay was the lead pilot for the flight. The flight test engineer was Fernando Alonso. Peter Chandler relieved Rosay during the flight. A few other journalists and assorted Airbus officials rounded out our group, not that it mattered for a 555-passenger-capacity aircraft.
The main deck of MSN 001 was bare, except for the flight engineer station, the necessary computer systems for telemetry and to support the station and the filled water ballast barrels in the rear of the aircraft. There were about 30 business-class seats on the upper deck to accommodate extra people on test flights.
Because of my seniority in overall flying experience and in time logged at Aviation Week & Space Technology, I was given the opportunity to be the first pilot at the controls, a position that allowed me to input data into the flight management system, start the engines and perform the takeoff. In left seat with Rosay in the right, the size of the cockpit was larger than I expected. It was similar to other Airbus cockpits, although there were some significant modifications. I was comfortable with the Airbus layout, having flown the A320 in 1987, the A340-200 in 1992, the A330-200 in 1998 and the A340-600 in early 2002. I flew the A318 in May 2003 with Rosay.
The 47.6-sq.-ft. flight deck can accommodate three observer seats behind the pilot and copilot. A double flight crew rest compartment can be installed behind the cockpit as an option.
Also noticeable as I took my position was the new onboard information system (OIS) 12-in. display in front of the side-stick control. Access to the OIS is through a laptop computer installed on a sliding tray below the instrument panel. The OIS can provide flight ops information such as weight and balance, weather and operational checklists and charts and maps. Cabin crew and passenger information also is included, as are maintenance documents.
One of the other noticeable cockpit changes is the addition of two color multifunction displays, bringing the total to eight Diehl Avionik Systeme 6 X 8-in. liquid crystal presentations. The displays are larger than those found in the A330/340 series. The screens are interchangeable and pilots can rotate through display options with a manual "reconfigure" button located outboard of the primary flight displays. As in other Airbus aircraft, the screens reconfigure automatically with any display failures.

Once comfortable in the seat, Rosay had me inserting data into the takeoff page using the Keyboard and Cursor Control Unit (KCCU). The new feature is a control box that uses a trackball and a computer-like keyboard. I found the task to be fairly intuitive, once I had mastered placing the cursor over the desired location, using the keys and then entering with a button on the side of the trackball. We used the trackball to enter runway-in-use, center-of-gravity and numerous other data. The trackball also was employed to modify the preset flight plan.
Gross weight of MSN 001 at the ramp was 859,000 lb., with fuel accounting for 198,400 lb. The center of gravity was calculated to be 35.4%, with center of gravity at 35% at zero fuel weight. On the fairly standard morning, the V1 takeoff decision speed was 130 kt., the rotation speed 140 kt. and the takeoff safety speed was set at 145 kt. With consideration for the new pilot making the takeoff, and at the lower gross weight, the maximum continuous/flexible takeoff setting for the throttles was set at 50C. This simulated a high-temperature takeoff with a lower power setting. We were using approximately 75% of the available 280,000 lb. of thrust.
I started the No. 4 engine, followed by No. 3, as we were being towed from the ramp in front of the test-flight center to the beginning of the taxiway. The remaining two engines were started by the same method of placing the engine master switch "on" while the ignition start switch was still in operation. The Rolls-Royce engines reached idle quickly and remained well within the temperature starting limits. Rosay said the Rolls' engines had performed very well during flight testing, with no performance issues.
The checklists had been presented on the center display, and Rosay was able to mark them as completed on the Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitoring (ECAM) control. Before taxi, we also had the opportunity to look at all of the aircraft systems on the center display. As a former Boeing 707 flight engineer, I found that the system schematics were naturally more complex than the older aircraft, but easy to understand and follow after a short time. It is evident that pilots and engineers used the venerable Airbus cockpit design as a starting point, but then incorporated lessons learned, safety enhancements, new technology and operator input into the A380's cockpit.
Power was needed to initiate the taxi roll, but then idle power was enough to keep us at a comfortable taxi speed with slight use of brakes. Taxi guidance was provided on the navigation display with up to five-times magnification. The A380 is equipped with a belly-mounted video and one on the tail fin. The belly-mounted camera looks at the nose gear, and makes it easy to follow the yellow taxi lines. There also are target points on the video display that indicate where to align the yellow taxi line for turns. During one turn, I used too much nose-wheel steering and scrubbed the tires, but quickly brought the steering back to operate the rest of the turn smoothly. The wheelbase between the nose wheel and main gear is 97.4 ft., about 3 ft. shorter than the Boeing 777-300's and 11.2 ft. shorter than the A340-600's. I found it was easier to taxi and make turns in the A380 than in the -600 primarily because of the shorter wheelbase and steering guides.
Flaps were set at the No. 3 takeoff position and pitch trim was set at 4 deg. High-lift control is provided by eight slats, three flaps and three ailerons on each wing. In the A380, the stabilizer trim wheel next to the throttles has been removed and a pitch trim switch is located at the rear of the center pedestal.
Once on Runway 32L at the Toulouse Airport, I added power initially to 30% of thrust available to check engine operation, released the brakes and then went to the flexible takeoff detente on the throttles. Acceleration was smooth and I rotated at 140 kt. with the side-stick control and set up near a 10-deg. nose-up attitude at a 2.5 deg./sec. pitch rate.
I found using the side-stick controller on takeoff to be very natural, and although I have not flown one for several years, I did not have a tendency to overcontrol, either in pitch or laterally. The time-to-rotate at the reduced gross weight and reduced power setting was 37 sec. and the distance was 4,400 ft. The time-to-a-35-ft. altitude was 43 sec. and distance was close to 6,000 ft.
Landing gear was raised at proof of a positive climb. The two nose wheels, eight wing landing wheels and 12 wheels making up the body landing gear were raised with wheel doors closed within 30 sec. I timed the sequence for extension and retraction later while at the flight test engineer station and this, too, was achieved in the same time frame. The A380 incorporates a 5,000-psi. hydraulic system.
The flaps were raised while accelerating during the climb, although they would have been retracted to the No. 1 flaps position at 212 kt. by the auto-retraction system.
During the initial part of the climb to FL300, I again had time to examine the display layout. Normally the navigation display is to the right of the captain's primary flight display. The center display would be used for engine instruments and other active systems. Other systems could be shown on the lower center, while the adjoining multifunction displays could reveal flight plan data or other relevant operational information. There is ample space to exhibit more information than would ever be needed by the pilots.
ANOTHER NEW FEATURE is a vertical flight information read-out positioned on the bottom of the primary flight display that shows safety and vertical flight plan altitudes, terrain and weather. On the ground, the vertical display is replaced by the slats configuration and takeoff power setting, with room for messages at this same location.
I relinquished the left seat to another pilot/journalist to finish the climb to FL300 and perform some other maneuvers. Climb-to-cruise altitude took nearly 18 min. Airbus pilots say that at full maximum gross weight the initial altitude would be FL330, and would be achieved in 26 min. During this portion of the flight I sat at the flight-test engineers station with Alonso. He says one difference between the approach to flight testing is that Airbus relies heavily on telemetry from the aircraft to a ground station, whereas Boeing tends to put more engineers on the aircraft during flight test.

The A380 retains the same envelope protections as the rest of the Airbus A320/330/340 fleet. Rolling into a turn, no back-pressure is needed until a 33-deg. bank, and the aircraft flight control system will not let you exceed a 67-deg. bank angle. The guest pilot then slowed down and deployed flaps and slats to the No. 3 landing/takeoff position. The pilot was flying the aircraft with full backstick applied at 120 kt. and at a 14-deg. angle of attack, prior to the automatic recovery with power and slight nose-over. The weight of the transport at this point was 822,465 lb. As part of the envelope protection, the aircraft's maximum speed is protected by a gradual nose-up when the speed is exceeded by 10 kt. Airbus test pilots vigorously defend the "warn first, but then we will not let you stall the aircraft" approach to envelope protection.
One of the guest pilots pulled the power back on an outboard engine, and said that at 140 kt. it took less than 50 lb. of rudder pressure to counter the yaw and then less than one-third of available rudder trim to compensate. In his words, during the maneuvering, it was a "non-event."
It was finally my turn to take the left seat again in the pattern for landings. I found the visibility to be very good from this position, both horizontally and over the nose. Rosay said that the down vision is 19.23 deg. when assessing a landing approach. I asked him to set in autothrottle and I would make a manual instrument landing approach to Runway 32L. With more time in the cockpit, I would have attempted to insert the autopilot functions in the glareshield control panel.
Turning on to a long final, the gear was extended and flaps were put to the final landing position. The approach speed was 139 kt., and I was relatively surprised at the flat attitude of the aircraft. Because of the position of the cockpit between the two decks, you do not get the same sense of height as with the 747. The wind was at 9 kt., and nearly down the runway I found the A380 to be extremely stable, with only momentary inputs to the side-stick controller required to make any pitch or heading changes to stay with the flight director's command bars. At 50 ft., I started the flare from a stable 3-deg. approach, and retarded the throttles at the command of the autopilot voice at 20 ft. Touchdown occurred at 130 kt. with slightly less than a 4-ft./sec. descent rate. Overall, it was a smooth landing. After Rosay reconfigured for takeoff, I advanced the throttles to the takeoff/go-around position and entered the pattern once again.
While I had not used them for the go-around, the A380 only has thrust reversers on the inboard engines, which lessened the weight of the aircraft. Additional reversers were not needed because of the relatively slow landing speed and efficient brakes.
After climbing to pattern altitude, I asked Rosay whether I could make a better landing than my first. He said very unlikely, so I relinquished my next landing opportunity to another pilot. Might as well stop while ahead. The four others--a Southwest Airlines pilot with an Air Force test pilot background, a Lufthansa captain flying Lockheed MD-11 cargo aircraft, a Canadian test pilot with Bombardier and Embraer 170 series flying under his belt, and a pilot with business aircraft experience--all made very good landings. All of us, with our varied experience, were able to operate the aircraft with comparative ease and make very credible landings.
Claude Lelaie, vice president of Airbus's flight division, says feedback from customer airline pilots who flew the A380 in the past year was much the same as ours. The main difference was that many of the earlier pilots were already rated in the A330/A340 and were able to take over their own inputs into the autopilot system, as needed.
After the final landing, Rosay rotated the pilots who had not had the opportunity to taxi the aircraft in some taxi exercises. It appeared that they did not have much difficulty in the ground operations of the aircraft from their comments after the flight.
Total time blocks to blocks was 3.5 hr., with about 3 hr. flight time. We used nearly 88,000 lb. of fuel, but much of that was expended during the eight touch-and-go, and one final, landings.
From my association with Airbus aircraft during the past 20 years, I have found that the French company is very good at incorporating new technology into their aircraft to improve reliability, safety, situational awareness and overall operating efficiency.
The A380, despite its large presence, is a pilot's aircraft. It earns this accolade because of its excellent flying qualities, precise ground handling and the large amount of flight, system and operational information available. This flight reaffirmed that I do prefer the side-stick controller over the yoke for operational flying.
Only time will tell whether passenger acceptance for the A380 will match the pilot's enjoyment in flying this new addition to the Airbus family.