Are A380's safe enough to fly? [hairline cracks found in wings]

[bat21]

Yes, I know it is a Daily Mail article but in light of recent crack reports, computer issues and motors blowing up, it is another article concerning what should have been the new Jumbos of the modern century.

Airbus A380: World's biggest planes are not sky-worthy, say engineers | Mail Online

All I can add is bloody Qantas, how stupid are they for buying these things

[Mal]

I can't agree.

'We can't continue to gamble with people's lives and allow those aircraft to fly around and hope that they make it until their four-yearly inspection,' said Steve Purvinas, secretary of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association.

Yes, that Steve. The same idiot who told Australians not to fly Qantas (the major employer of his union members), the same idiot who regularly claims overseas maintenance is bad, the same idiot who constantly drives to destroy Qantas.

I gave up listening to his dribble a long time ago.

Now, if the situation was as bad as he claims, why is it that none of the aviation regulatory bodies, nor Airbus themselves agree with him? Is he wrong, or is there a "global coverup of epic proportions".

[Berlin]

We can't continue to gamble with people's lives and allow those aircraft to fly around and hope that they make it until their four-yearly inspection,' said Steve Purvinas, secretary of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association.




Aaaah- now, if it's HIM saying that, this most likely means these things are perfectly safe to fly

Good to know!

[munitalP]

A readers comment...

"I am a mechanical design engineer and I know that stress cracking is NEVER intentionally "designed in" nor is it a good thing. It shows that the design is very marginal with respect to safety at best and dangerous at worst. Stress cracking doesn't mean that it will fail catastrophically but it doesn't mean that it won't either."

Similar to what I have said in a previous thread. Steve P may be a union rep and in most of our eyes, a wanker, but this is a design flaw that is nuts. If it is in a non stress unimportant area, and the struts are forming in the material used to build the AC, what is happening in the high stress areas?

The concern should not be for the design faults that can be seen and fixed, they should be for the design faults that cannot be seen unless the AC undergoes a major survey.

Would we show the same blasé attitude toward say a new high rise building that the foundations although not major structural components, were cracking? Or what about your own home, what would your attitude be if cracks were appearing in the walls - ok the roof is not going to fall down yet, but you wont leave it 4 years to fix on risk that enough cracking and your roof will fall down. A final analogy would be car manufacturers, how many new cars get recalled for minor issues that generally dont affect the vehicle operation and safety? Many new models do, and this is based on whatever safety formular is applied - which seems to be a higher concern for safety and less for money than the formula that airlines seem to be using.

Steve P is closer to the coal face than any of us except maybe JB747 on this matter, and us as IT people, retired pilots, travelling sales people, engineers, accountants and whatever other jobs we may do (except of course any aeronautical engineers) are passengers, we are not the team of ground staff engineers calling for the grounding and inspection of these aircraft. What is Steve P motive? Safety of the passengers? A loyalty bonus from the "we hate airbus/qantas" association? I genuinely think his agenda is passenger safety this time*, and also the other Steve P's scattered throughout the world singing from the same song sheet.



*Anyone who knows me will know I have a deep hatred of unions and their activities in Australia

[elbarto]

I can add is bloody Qantas, how stupid are they for buying these things

That's a pretty ignorant statement. Are they stupid for buying 737s which used to have issues with the servo valve that brought down at least two jets? Are they stupid for buying the 747 which had a poorly designed cargo door latch that cold open mid flight? They could never have known about these issues when they ordered the A380.


Sent from an Apple iPad wireless device

[haydensydney]

Great points munitalP!

None of us are engineers, but what we do know is that if Airbus wanted cracks in the wings - they would have built them into the initial design!

[Mal]

Great points munitalP!

None of us are engineers, but what we do know is that if Airbus wanted cracks in the wings - they would have built them into the initial design!

And if cracks appear, then they analyse them, work out what is wrong, what the potential consequences are and determine a course of action. The fact that Airbus has decided that it doesn't need to be resolved right now is very telling.

Would I fly on an A380 tomorrow? Yes. Would I trust Steve Purvinas, a fear mongerer? No.

[BAM1748]

While presently I'm ok with flying a 380 I do have concerns that anything this new has stress cracking.

I work in the rail sector, and if any locomotive or passenger car had stress cracking this early in it's life it would be withdrawn from service and an engineering fix sought, ie new frame design and build. (e.g. if it was the frame)

I actually don't think the Airbus response is good enough, it wouldn't be in the rail industry. I do suspect however that Airbus although looking calm on top of the water are madly swimming underneath and I would guess with some urgency and a degree of panic. If a 380 incident results in fatalities it won't matter what the cause was, engines, component cracking, likely would be the end of the 380 and result in the second coming of the 747.

Remember the Commet, even though they fixed all the problems why would any management risk buying one when others at the time had aircraft for sale they didn't have to find fixes for, and of course passengers didn't trust them in spite of the fixes.

Matt

[harvyk]

Remember the Commet, even though they fixed all the problems why would any management risk buying one when others at the time had aircraft for sale they didn't have to find fixes for, and of course passengers didn't trust them in spite of the fixes.

Matt

They did go onto build three subsequent versions with a fourth one planned of the comet. So whist the comet 1 was a complete disaster (thanks to it's square windows), they did still build and sell comets for many years after 1954.

There are quite a few different airframes which had a more than shaky start, (with some very deadly teething issues) but once those issues where resolved the went on to be quite successful. DC10's and their cargo doors springs to mind.

[serfty]

A readers comment...

"I am a mechanical design engineer and I know that stress cracking is NEVER intentionally "designed in" nor is it a good thing. It shows that the design is very marginal with respect to safety at best and dangerous at worst. Stress cracking doesn't mean that it will fail catastrophically but it doesn't mean that it won't either." ...

Interesting comment.

There is no mention of stress in that article nor in other items I have seen referring to the these cracks.

That comment from "Dave, Atlanta, USA" is an attempt to introduce an issue into the article/discussion that is not relevant. It's a "straw man" type input and should be discounted.