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.

 

[BAM1748]

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.

If it's not 'stress' cracking, that's even worse, unknown cracking? :shock:

 

[BAM1748]

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.

They did, but the damage was done and the larger passenger jet market was left to others.

 

[Fantic125]

If it's not 'stress' cracking, that's even worse, unknown cracking? :shock:

It depends to a certain degree on whether you're talking about 'stress' cracking being caused by stress corrosion or metal fatigue.

Assuming the parts are made from a high strength aluminium alloy then a number of factors could come into play;

• anodising can contribute as an initiator of stress corrosion particularly through the pre-cleaning process which wouldn't necessarily be detected until the parts have been in service and undergone a number of "hot/cold' cycles or been in a high humidity/high pressure environment.
• work hardening of the aluminium through the manufacturing process can lead to metal fatigue which again wouldn't necessarily be detected until the parts have been in service for a period of time.
• a machining flaw (a nick in a machined edge, weld line, incorrect radii, sharp edges, etc) can also act as a crack initiation point.

Sure, in the design process they can use CAD and modelling programs such as CATIA to assess stress loads through FEA (Finite Element Analysis) but that doesn't guarantee the processes used to manufacture the parts are 100% perfect, nor does it fully take into consideration the environmental conditions the parts will be functioning in.

 

[haydensydney]

Whatever sort of cracking it is, i'm taking the stance that cracking is still cracking and you would be a fool to think it was a good thing!

In saying that though, i'm not going to refuse passage on a A380 as I (to an extent) trust the directives from Airbus and the carriers.

 

[nlagalle]

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.

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

Firstly I don't recall any issues with the "computers" on the A380.

Secondly why are they stupid??? And can you say the same for SQ LH AF?

And are QF also stupid for buying the 787? Pretty shortsighted comment

 

[medhead]

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.

Yep and fixing the DC10 cargo door was left up to the manufacturer as well. How did that end up? I sure there are a couple of hundred people who would thing it wasn't ok.

 

[oz_mark]

Whatever sort of cracking it is, i'm taking the stance that cracking is still cracking and you would be a fool to think it was a good thing!

In saying that though, i'm not going to refuse passage on a A380 as I (to an extent) trust the directives from Airbus and the carriers.

I dare say that pretty much every model aircraft in service has has some unexpected cracking somewhere across the fleet. Any such crack that is found will be investigated (why, how, etc), checked against any Fracture Management Plan, checked whether it is within limits etc etc.

While a manufacturing issue is not good, it is better than a design problem.

 

[opusman]

Think about what it would cost Airbus if they lost an A380 due to this issue - both in lost trust from their customers as well as lawsuits from any victims. I think they would have looked into it pretty thoroughly.

 

[Mwenenzi]

.....While a manufacturing issue is not good, it is better than a design problem.

Unlike the issues with the plastic B787 (all new technology in a large aircraft)
Boeing news | Boeing 787 wing flaw extends inside plane | Seattle Times Newspaper

Boeing 787 repaired wings encounter new composite problem | SmartPlanet

Boeing 787 repaired wings encounter new composite problem
By John Dodge | November 13, 2009, 6:54 AM PST

Fix a problem and find another seems to be the name of the game with the Boeing’s much-delayed 787 Dreamliner.

Yesterday, Boeing announced that it had reinforced an area of the wings in the first test aircraft from a problem the company revealed in June. A tiny overstressed area of the wing where it attaches to the fuselage needed reinforcing, Boeing executives said in June.

“Completing this work is a significant step toward first flight. We continue to be pleased with the progress of the team and remain confident the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner will occur before the end of the year,” said vice president and general manager of the 787 program Scott Fancher in a press release...
<snip>
.

 

[mannej]

Does the same extend to the 767's and their engine pylons?