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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've only read a few of the online news paper stories rather than any of Airbus's actual media releases, but have they said they have changed the design/manufacture already since these (are they first batch) planes were produced, or will they now be changing the design and manufacture of these wing components so it doesn't happen again??? And although we have no sense of the correct way to treat these cracks i still wouldn't mind knowing how they plan to work around it, do you put some glue or bonding or reinforcing in there to seal the cracks up or do you just monitor their expansion???
 
Perhaps this will Steve's ammunition to try and get 380 mx facilities down under?

I love conspiracy theories!
 
Perhaps this will Steve's ammunition to try and get 380 mx facilities down under?

I love conspiracy theories!

Yep. Thats my guess. Little to do with safety, more to do with the fact that his union members had nothing to do with the incident.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using AustFreqFly
 
Perhaps this will Steve's ammunition to try and get 380 mx facilities down under?

I love conspiracy theories!


[tongue firmly in cheek]

I do have to wonder that if OS maintenance is as much a problem as Steve makes out, how does he feel about overseas manufacturing in the first place?

I mean these cracks just wouldn't have been there had Airbus build the A380 in Australia using Australian workers now would they!

Of course we'll ignore all those little incidents which happen from time to time on Australian Aircraft maintained by Steve and his mates.

[/tongue firmly in cheek]
 
.....I still wouldn't mind knowing how they plan to work around it, do you put some glue or bonding or reinforcing in there to seal the cracks up or do you just monitor their expansion???
[ENGINEER]
A common way to stop cracks propagating is to drill a circular hole at each end.
My guess is they will inspected regularly.
[/ENGINEER]
 
I've only read a few of the online news paper stories rather than any of Airbus's actual media releases, but have they said they have changed the design/manufacture already since these (are they first batch) planes were produced, or will they now be changing the design and manufacture of these wing components so it doesn't happen again??? And although we have no sense of the correct way to treat these cracks i still wouldn't mind knowing how they plan to work around it, do you put some glue or bonding or reinforcing in there to seal the cracks up or do you just monitor their expansion???

The wing has already been changed. Newer A380s have a different wing. I believe the newer version uses carbon fiber ribs.
 
I've only read a few of the online news paper stories rather than any of Airbus's actual media releases, but have they said they have changed the design/manufacture already since these (are they first batch) planes were produced, or will they now be changing the design and manufacture of these wing components so it doesn't happen again??? And although we have no sense of the correct way to treat these cracks i still wouldn't mind knowing how they plan to work around it, do you put some glue or bonding or reinforcing in there to seal the cracks up or do you just monitor their expansion???

Selly's NO MORE NAILS. :D
 
[ENGINEER]
A common way to stop cracks propagating is to drill a circular hole at each end.
My guess is they will inspected regularly.
[/ENGINEER]

Generally works for metals & alloys, or you can grind, weld & stress relieve/normalize and then x-ray or dye-pen to confirm integrity.
I'm not sure how they would resolve the delamination issues in the composites - I have limited experience with that stuff! (apart from use of kevlar for armour protection).
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

All aircraft experience cracks, there are just so many mechanical parts that whether it is due to poor production, design that was flawed or incorrect design assumptions (ie expected aero / structural loads) there will be cracks, and length of time in service before they are discovered is no guarantee of 'goodness'. It might just mean the maintainers aren't looking hard enough or in the right areas so they don't find them for a long time or the aircraft may just not be conducive to finding them ie the design does not allow easy inspection until it enters a major servicing.

Of course cracks are not good but like everything in life there are a range of measures that need to be taken to manage / rectify the situation. It just depends what level of perceived safety you want, in Mr Purvinas (sp??) world it seems nothing less than 100% safe is acceptable which is surprising because flying, like everything, has risks that cannot be mitigated to nothing. If the risk of leaving the inspection / change-out of the part improves safety by 1x10E-11 accidents per flight hour (ie bugger all but the sort of levels that start to interest regulators) but would ground aircraft fleets for months and probably lead to airline shut-downs then that doesn't seem to a prudent path to take given the safety improvement vs just waiting to the next major servicing is negligible.

For anyone thinking the A380 is a fundamentally flawed design - well you might be right (time may tell), but not based on the info we all have to date. This current cracking seems to be another one of the thousands discovered in all airframes over the years and is being managed accordingly. Here is an extract from a 747 Airworthiness Directive from 1970 - surprisingly, it is about cracks in what then was a very new airframe type.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

Amendment 39-1078; AD 70-11-01

DATES: Effective September 15, 1970.

Regulatory Information

70-11-01 BOEING: Amdt. 39-992 as amended by Amendment 39-1078. Applies to Boeing Model 747-100 Series airplanes.
Compliance required within the next 40 flights after the effective date of this AD on aircraft having 960 or more flights, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 40 flights from the last inspection.
To detect cracking in the wing trailing edge aft flap support arms of Boeing Model 747-100 series airplanes accomplish the following or an alternate procedure approved by the Chief, Aircraft Engineering Division, FAA Western Region.
(a) Inspect the wing trailing edge aft flap support arms for cracks in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin No. 27-2024, or later FAA approved revision.
(b) If no crack is found, repeat the inspection for cracks at intervals not to exceed 40 flights.
(c) If crack is found:
(1) and the crack length is 0.4 inches or greater, replace flap support arm with a serviceable part of the same part number in accordance with Boeing ASB 27-2024 (or later FAA approved revision) before further flight. After replacement repeat visual inspection per (b).
(2) and the crack length is less than 0.4 inches, the part may be continued in service provided that no more than one cracked support arm per flap panel exists. Parts so continued in service must be inspected at intervals not to exceed 20 flights, subject to the provisions of (c)(1) above.
(d) Repetitive inspections may be discontinued upon replacement of the existing aft flap support arm assemblies with new, improved support arm assemblies per Boeing Service Bulletin No. 27-7024, revision 2, or later FAA approved revision. Replacement of an existing support arm assembly with the new improved support arm assembly eliminates inspection requirement at that location only.
Amendment 39-992 effective May 25, 1970.
This Amendment (39-1078) becomes effective September 15, 1970.
 
Oh, also note that this AD pertains to a crack in the wing trailing edge flaps support structure - kind of an important piece of gear right? Well it says you can still do another 40 flights before bothering with this inspection...normal stuff.
 
[tongue firmly in cheek]

I do have to wonder that if OS maintenance is as much a problem as Steve makes out, how does he feel about overseas manufacturing in the first place?

[/tongue firmly in cheek]

Drat, you beat me to pointing out that the aircraft are initially manufactured o/seas and not by AUS Engineers!
 
Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.

Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

I'm not going to comment on this because quite frankly I have no bloody idea - something to be left to professionals i.e. aircraft engineers.

However, I still doubt airlines would be flying them if they thought there was a substantial risk of danger to passengers and crew.
 
All aircraft experience cracks, there are just so many mechanical parts that whether it is due to poor production, design that was flawed or incorrect design assumptions (ie expected aero / structural loads) there will be cracks, and length of time in service before they are discovered is no guarantee of 'goodness'. It might just mean the maintainers aren't looking hard enough or in the right areas so they don't find them for a long time or the aircraft may just not be conducive to finding them ie the design does not allow easy inspection until it enters a major servicing.

Of course cracks are not good but like everything in life there are a range of measures that need to be taken to manage / rectify the situation. It just depends what level of perceived safety you want, in Mr Purvinas (sp??) world it seems nothing less than 100% safe is acceptable which is surprising because flying, like everything, has risks that cannot be mitigated to nothing. If the risk of leaving the inspection / change-out of the part improves safety by 1x10E-11 accidents per flight hour (ie bugger all but the sort of levels that start to interest regulators) but would ground aircraft fleets for months and probably lead to airline shut-downs then that doesn't seem to a prudent path to take given the safety improvement vs just waiting to the next major servicing is negligible.

For anyone thinking the A380 is a fundamentally flawed design - well you might be right (time may tell), but not based on the info we all have to date. This current cracking seems to be another one of the thousands discovered in all airframes over the years and is being managed accordingly. Here is an extract from a 747 Airworthiness Directive from 1970 - surprisingly, it is about cracks in what then was a very new airframe type.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

Amendment 39-1078; AD 70-11-01

DATES: Effective September 15, 1970.

Regulatory Information

70-11-01 BOEING: Amdt. 39-992 as amended by Amendment 39-1078. Applies to Boeing Model 747-100 Series airplanes.
Compliance required within the next 40 flights after the effective date of this AD on aircraft having 960 or more flights, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 40 flights from the last inspection.
To detect cracking in the wing trailing edge aft flap support arms of Boeing Model 747-100 series airplanes accomplish the following or an alternate procedure approved by the Chief, Aircraft Engineering Division, FAA Western Region.
(a) Inspect the wing trailing edge aft flap support arms for cracks in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin No. 27-2024, or later FAA approved revision.
(b) If no crack is found, repeat the inspection for cracks at intervals not to exceed 40 flights.
(c) If crack is found:
(1) and the crack length is 0.4 inches or greater, replace flap support arm with a serviceable part of the same part number in accordance with Boeing ASB 27-2024 (or later FAA approved revision) before further flight. After replacement repeat visual inspection per (b).
(2) and the crack length is less than 0.4 inches, the part may be continued in service provided that no more than one cracked support arm per flap panel exists. Parts so continued in service must be inspected at intervals not to exceed 20 flights, subject to the provisions of (c)(1) above.
(d) Repetitive inspections may be discontinued upon replacement of the existing aft flap support arm assemblies with new, improved support arm assemblies per Boeing Service Bulletin No. 27-7024, revision 2, or later FAA approved revision. Replacement of an existing support arm assembly with the new improved support arm assembly eliminates inspection requirement at that location only.
Amendment 39-992 effective May 25, 1970.
This Amendment (39-1078) becomes effective September 15, 1970.

That's fine for that era, but with the modeling, finite element software and super CAD available today, fundamental design flaws should be alleviated. So the argument can then be put forward that this is not a fundamental design flaw, it's something that is unable to be calculated into the design.

That is scary.


Sent using a fire, green leaves and blanket creating smoke signals.
 
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

Aaah, tongue in cheek there Mr "I have an ipad like 14 million other" Einstein. If you engage the brain before the powerful fingers on the keyboard, I am a defender of Qantas and hate how many on AFF blame the big Q from their first STD all the way to their daughter getting pregnant at age 13.
 
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

Gee another to blinded by all the memberships listed on their profile to see a tongue in cheek comment. I am an unashamed big Q lover and rally against many of the "lets blame Qantas for the Japan Tsunami" types on AFF
 
Aaah, tongue in cheek there Mr "I have an ipad like 14 million other" Einstein. If you engage the brain before the powerful fingers on the keyboard, I am a defender of Qantas and hate how many on AFF blame the big Q from their first STD all the way to their daughter getting pregnant at age 13.

Oh! Might have been clearer if you used one of these :p:rolleyes: or ;) or even :shock: as well
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Enhance your AFF viewing experience!!

From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.

And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)


Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..

Currently Active Users

Back
Top