Really! “Your friend” has obviously failed to understand what RVSM even stands for. You cannot hand fly the aircraft in RVSM airspace. End of.

From TGL 6
An automatic altitude control system is required capable of controlling altitude within ±20 m (±65 ft) about the selected altitude,

I think if you really know what caused Swissair 111 then you need to let the authorities in on it as well.

My BS detector is in the red now.

I never said I knew what caused 111, in fact, I said no one really does.

One CAN hand fly in RVSM airspace all day long…….as long as ATC clears you to do it. One cannot FILE or PLAN to fly in RVSM airspace with certain items on MEL, but if they fail enroute, and ATC can block the space (4000′) for you, they can and sometimes will allow you to fly there.

Thats a good point. Lufthansa Tecnik is certainly a large and growing entity, and a valuable resource for the mother ship, LH.

However, it seems somewhat backwards to let the MRO drive the airline, whose core business is carriage of people and freight. I’m not sure I buy the argument that they bought both for LH Technik…….IMHO geo-politik played a big part……..as a Euro-carrier, they couldn’t NOT buy the A380, but they probably wanted to limit the total number, and still maintain status as an important Boeing customer.

I strongly agree with Bemused. I have posted on other threads the reasons, the main one of which he has posted here.

I have spoken to numerous pilots who have flown the beast and it has horrible handling characteristics because the horizontal stablizer is too small and the LSAS can work against you. I had one 32 year Capain tell me the darn thing couldn’t be hand flown above FL300 because the tail was too small. I haven’t even mentioned the one that flipped over at altitude when one of the pilots had the temerity to slightly brush the flap handle…….nor the fact that no one really knows what happened to Swissair 111.

Then there was the one that had all 3 engines surge at initial power reduction after takeoff, due to the crappy PW4000 having inadequate stall margin…..they reprogrammed the EEC’s to change the position of the stator vanes to improve stall margin after that incident, and since then the PW4000 has never made it’s fuel consumption targets. (Disclaimer: I know I’m quoting a PW problem, and not an MD-11 problem per se, but hey, its just one more reason not to fly the things!)

The latest example of the treacherous handling problem on landing was the Fedex crash in NRT, but there have been several others, always with pretty much the same scenario at landing that results in a gear and then a wing being broken off, then the machine flipping over on its back. There is a reasonable expectation that there will be more accidents of this type.

IMHO it SHOULD never have been certified, and will continue to be dangerous until the day it is retired. Thankfully, almost every large passenger carrier retired them very quickly, KLM being an exception.

Most jet AWACs have twice times speed to the propeller AWAC. I don’t think such high speed will be useless.

Well thats your opinion, to which you are entitled, but with all due respect you are posting on an open internet forum whereas the people who actually make such decisions have a somewhat higher level of accountability……not to mention many years of experience operating large deck carriers….in fact they are the only nation in the world to have done so continuously in any serious numbers.

By the way, where are the Japanese orders for the A380?

I can’t think of a single more appropriate country for the aircraft: large population, wealthy, limited land area, many lucrative overseas business and leisure destinations. And ANA and JAL both have a history of having operated VLA’s: 200 or so (a guesstimate) 747’s. Yet, they haven’t ordered any A380’s. That must be terribly disappointing to Airbus. Maybe if the Europeans would allow more Japanese car imports……..hmmmm.

Or you could just take them from the cockpit of another airliner…..