Airbus said on Thursday it had discovered more cracks in the wings of two A380 superjumbo aircraft but insisted the world’s largest jetliner remained safe to fly.
Well, so long as it’s only the wings.
Airbus said on Thursday it had discovered more cracks in the wings of two A380 superjumbo aircraft but insisted the world’s largest jetliner remained safe to fly.
Well, so long as it’s only the wings.
When a wing collapses and several hundred people are killed,they’ll call it “pilot error”.
Aren’t these experts the same general guys that built the Concorde?
Only one of the 20 built every crashed.
That’s not bad for Air France is it?
Well, it’s only the wings, not a vital part like the in-flight bar. 🙂
I have never wanted to fly on that particular aircraft….too big. Too tempting a target.
And yes the hyper flexible wings always made me wonder.
I always thought the dreamliner strategy was the right one. But it has had its share of issues as well. I still believe Boeing will be the winner in this battle.
Aren’t these experts the same general guys that built the Concorde?
Yes, and they’re same general guys that built Europe.
“Aren’t these experts the same general guys that built the Concorde?”
Not unless the Concorde’s wings were built in Wales like those of the 380.
Sounds like somebody’s computer simulation didn’t quite match Reality(tm). Where else have we seen that happen?
At least they found it before the frickin’ wing fell off, so credit where credit is due.
Remember friends, it only takes one rivet hole that isn’t chamfered just -exactly- perfect to start a crack in an aluminum sheet. In a computer simulation all the holes are to spec. In real life, usually not.
Speaking of cracked airplane wings… did anyone see the preview for the new Batman movie?
Best movie trailer evah!
You can’t discriminate against cracked wings especally Cracked Left Wings.
These cracks in the wings may eventually cause one of these jumbos to come down killing more than 500 people, but it may not …. The airlines are willing to take that risk.
I have been on the A380 Factory Tour in Toulouse . . . you get a good look at a few hundred “workers” sitting around doing nothing or taking long smoke breaks to pass the time.
No surprise they have quality issues given the lack of motivation displayed by the workers.
People, this is precisely the reason there are scheduled (and special) inspections. However, I for one, am not looking forward to seeing Chinese produced commercial aircraft.
In fairness cracks in aircraft components are not exactly what you’d call unusual, even the wings bits. Unwanted certainly. But common
What matters is nature of the crack, the size and source. And frankly the media reports really do not expand on the topic enough for anyone not actually a AB engineer or airline equivalent to have an intelligent opinion.
Boeing has had it’s fair share too of boo boo’s too. I’m sure this will be fixed.
“People, this is precisely the reason there are scheduled (and special) inspections. However, I for one, am not looking forward to seeing Chinese produced commercial aircraft.”
So are the cracks “scheduled” to appear ONLY at inspection time?
I recall that the wing assemblies were built in the UK… don’t think that means anything….
I think the concern here is some of the lightweight composite materials used on the A380. From Wiki
While most of the fuselage is aluminium, composite materials comprise more than 20% of the A380’s airframe.[111] Carbon-fibre reinforced plastic, glass-fibre reinforced plastic and quartz-fibre reinforced plastic are used extensively in wings, fuselage sections (such as the undercarriage and rear end of fuselage), tail surfaces, and doors.[112][113][114
It is my understanding that these composites have never before been exposed to the hours of use and duty cycles (TOs & Ldgs) because they never existed before. Fatigue is well understood in conventional aluminium aircraft design, composites not so much. It also appears that those in service A380’s with the higher duty cycles are of the greatest concern.
FWIW the Boeing 787 dreamliner has not been immune to similar composite materials problems…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2009565319_boeing30.html
Have flown on it several times now between Singapore & Perth in economy class. Always end up on the lower deck for some unknown reason. The first time I wasn’t paying attention and thought I was on a regular airbus until the end of the flight.
Nice smooth ride like any Airbus (compared to 747) nothing special about the A380 for an economy class passenger at all; if you even realize that you’re on one. The First Class cabin is where all the difference lays. My tickets are usually last minute bookings, so even the cost of economy is rediculously expensive.
Abe Froman >
“The airlines are willing to take that risk.”
Small clarification – The airlines are willing to take that risk if your 500 of the “little people”. Otherwise like Concord, they shut it down pretty fast, even if the actual plane wasn’t at fault.
When a wing cracks off at 550 miles per hour,
890 kilometers,
you won’t feel anything.
But if you are one of the lucky ones that gets to enjoy the 30,000 foot drop.
Look to the left of the plane and enjoy your last sunset..
Reminds me of the time an especially nervous passenger was sitting beside me during a flight experiencing nasty weather.
There was a big “bump” and the plane jiggled like crazy. The passenger said: “OMG, what was that?!” I answered, “I think one of the wings fell off, but don’t worry because that’s why the plane is equipped with two wings”.
🙂
They have had far too many delays in the A380 and have far too much invested to pull them out of service if the problem is considered minor. No doubt they will inspect them more frequently but it does not fill me with confidence knowing I’m one of more than 500 guinea pigs testing theories on wing stress. I’ll stick to 747’s for a few more years.
Aircraft are built with every part serving a purpose, otherwise the part would be discarded to save weight and fuel.
Cracks in a wings structure sounds like a problem, which, just you wait, will be addressed.
Ah, to hear untravelled people talk about airplanes.
a) The A380s wings are made in Britain, not France or Europe. To be absolutely clear, they’re made in some town in Wales.
b) The cracks do not pose an imminent risk of structural failure. However, if they continue to develop, that risk will increase. Monitoring them and fixing them regularly will offset that risk. Metal fatigue is not unknown in the aviation world – its fairly common. The A380 will require more monitoring, which isn’t so bad – the only thing odd is that its so early in the airframe’s life. Its safe. At least as safe as Air Canada’s aging fleet of 767s and A320 family, many of which are in 25+ year age group. That’s closing in on metal fatigue territory.
c) If you want to pick an issue with the A380, then this isnt the one. Qantas has been having some widely publicized issues with its engines. Not that that would show up in SDA. Before anyone starts about shoddy French work, the Qantas engines are made by Rolls Royce.
d) The Concorde crash was caused by a metal strip that fell off (more common than you think) a Continental (read American) DC-10 (read rustbucket). It got ingested into the engine. Air France – and France – not really to blame.
e) The A380 does not have superflexible wings. The Boeing 787 does. Incidentally, the 787 is what – 3 years behind schedule now?
f)Its not dreamliner vs 380. Its 747-8 vs A380. And A350-1000 vs 787. The A330 is the best aircraft in its class right now. The 787 was Boeing’s response to it. The A350 is the response to that. Only an astrologer knows how thats going to play out.
As for Airbus quality – its the same as Boeing. First the A330 knocked the stuffing out of the 767, then the 777 knocked the stuffing out of the A340.
Airbus planes are perfectly safe to fly. They just aren’t safe to crash.
Ricardo, there is a cool video on YouTube of an Israeli F-15 that lost a wing in a collision and landed safely. It’s truly magnificent.
the pilot
Good points all with a few possible qualifications. The cracks on the wings of the A380 are in composite components? No?
Delamination of composites and duty cycles are both issues that are in question here? No?
Composites were a factor in the 2001 AA crash in NJ where the vertical stabaliser tore off an A300 when they experienced wake turbulence? No?
“No surprise they have quality issues given the lack of motivation displayed by the workers.”
Don’t be stupid, Fred. A380 large components are manufactured all over western Europe. Only final assembly is done in Toulouse. And if some supplier is late on delivery…
Pilot, you’re largely wasting your time on this one. There’s just a truckload of bigots here want to sneer at the French. None of them of course want to pay attention to Canadian produced aircraft with a minor history of undercarriage collapse.
Your point about Air Canada’s Airbus fleet is very well taken. They’re going to have to upgrade pretty soon. I’ve been on (much more than I like) the Ottawa-Toronto shuttle, and the age on these planes is really starting to show.
“More cracks found in Airbus A380 wings”
Let me fix that headline for ya, Reuters.
“More cracks found in Euro, the currency of the same Europeans that build Airbus A380 wings”
This has SFA to do with the French…this is about efficiency engineering and the limits thereof. And if hanging here is a waste of time…the solution is simple…
syncro
“””This has SFA to do with the French””””
wrong wrong wrong, it has everything to do with those who set the “standards” that are used to justify the end product, and the french are part of that, and are well known, (as are the italians) for turning a “blind eye”
This is why I always pray for the maintenance crew servicing any aircraft I’m going to be flying in: that they pay attention, catch any problem, and then care enough to do something about it — like, fix it.
So far, so good … but that could change anytime.
cgh – could be wrong here but iirc, the collapsing landing gear issue was rooted in a maintenance routine by one or possibly 2 scandanavian airlines.
NME666
The international nature of aircraft production IMHO is not the issue at hand. The duty cycle/flight hour lifespan of composite components is the issue. This goes for Boeing and Airbus, Rolls Royce and GE.
Everybody relax, there is not a plane built that does not have parts that crack. From the description in the report the parts that are cracking are minor brackets called cleats. A cleat is a simple L shaped bracket, the stem of the L is riveted to the rib and the foot is riveted to the skin. It is not a major structural member. All that will happen is that the wing will be defueled, some poor b@s&@#d (that used to be me until I cunningly gained too much weight to fit through the hole) will enter the wing wearing a pressure mask connected to an air line and a sweaty, fuel proof suit. The cleats will be de-riveted and replaced with improved parts. Perhaps a different bend radius will be used or the metal will be formed while in the annealed state and then heat treated to the necessary strength.
Modern aircraft for passenger transport are built with dual ‘load paths’ in every major structural part. Brackets are siamesed or mirror imaged and bolted together. Each load path is capable of bearing the entire maximum load. The torque box structure of the modern airplane wing is incredibly tough and elastic. You may recall that an Airbus was hit by a Stinger type missile near Bagdad in 2004 and landed safely though it was later scrapped.
In the Maintenance Manual of any modern aircraft there is a section of the Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC) for Structural Inspection. There will be general inspections of entire areas and there will also be very specific instructions to check say a top skin splice plate at Station 142 outboard in the area 20 to 24 inches behind the spar using either visual inspection or Non Destructive Testing (NDT) techniques. NDT can be eddy current, dye penetrant or x-ray. There are quite literally hundreds of such inspections and the TLMC is always being revised to inspect new areas or to inspect the same area more frequently.
cgh & the bear, the -8 landing gear problem was caused by an O-ring that was too thin in cross-section being installed during overhaul of a hydraulic component. It rolled out of the groove and was cut into pieces which migrated into a valve where it blocked flow and hydraulically locked the actuator. I remember reading the final report about 3 years ago. It turned out that the technician assembling the component had the right bin in front of him with the wrong size O-rings in it.
Bear, they also had an incident, I believe with a New Zealand airline, but your main point is right. These are all life cycle and maintenance issues. Fact is, Porter has had absolutely no trouble with its fleet of Q400s and in a climate at least as challenging as Scandinavia.
My real point in bringing it up was not to knock the Q400 which is a superb aircraft in which I’ve flown many times. My real point was to out all those in this board who simply want to indulge their anti-French bigotry. All too many seem to forget that Charles De Gaulle has been dead for decades.
Al_in_Ottawa, 8:36 PM
Good synopsis. IMO it’s not that big of a deal right now. The fact that they found it is important and good for whoever stuck to the inspection sheets and found them cracked.
(You’re right,,, crawling around in a wing geared up really isn’t fun)
As an aside re fuselage inspections for cracks;
Back when people smoked on pressurized airliners, a mechanic could pick up a loose rivet or cracked window or door seal simply by noticing the stain streak from where the leak was. (especially if the a/c had a white paint job, or just plain aluminum finish)
“All too many seem to forget that Charles De Gaulle has been dead for decades.” It’s a digression, but that’s not long enough. If anti-Anglo “Le Grand Charles” had died heroically in battle in 1940, the world would be a bit better place today.
Al, you beat me to it. The blurb I wrote before I was distracted by a lengthy call;
If it’s made from aluminum and subjected to stress, it’s going to crack. I’m not entirely sure why this is newsworthy as I don’t know of an aircraft built that hasn’t produced fatigue cracks.
In case you think this is only a French or British problem, there are Cessnas out there that require regular 100 hour inspection intervals on components to inspect for cracking. Canucks aren’t exempt either, the deHavilland Beaver, one of the top ten Canadian engineering achievements, suffers from fatigue cracking. Also, every Twin Otter built has had extra inspection holes cut into the wings to help detect spar cracks inboard of the engines. Hawker, Boeing, Piper, Canadair; you name it, they’re no different. The main thing is that stress points are identified and inspection intervals are adjusted to moniter affected areas.
change ‘moniter’ to ‘monitor’ above.
When Captain Skedaddle of Costa Concordia infamy gets out of jail, maybe he’ll learn to fly an Airbus A380.
Many thanks for that, Al. I never saw that final report on the Q400. It figures that it was not a design flaw but a QC problem during assembly.
More on cracks.
I’m in no way supporting AirBust. But cracks are not uncommon to large aircraft. Can you say C-5 which has had this problem for a LONG time. Plus so does the largest Russia tranport.
Now if you want to talk about some quality issues and flight control problems with AirBust. They have had a ton of them!
Cracks in the wings? Should be no problem. As long as Paul McCartney remains intact…
Reginald at January 20, 2012 6:07 PM:
“…there is a cool video on YouTube of an Israeli F-15 that lost a wing in a collision and landed safely…”
Thanks, definitely cool. Here’s the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LveSc8Lp0ZE
the pilot
“d) The Concorde crash was caused by a metal strip that fell off (more common than you think) a Continental (read American) DC-10 (read rustbucket). It got ingested into the engine.”
Actually it was a CO B-757. It was a shredded tire that was injested by the engine.
As for the rest of your B/S…
http://www.airfleets.net/ageflotte/Air%20Canada.htm
I meant to say, it was the shredded tire that punctured a wing fuel tank.
We’ve all seen the video.
My mistake, it was a CO DC-10. But it had nothing to do with “rust”.
umm,components built for airplanes are engineered towards reliability.
Cracks indicate forces that were unanticipated.
Cracks are not a normal feature, they are a design failure.
They are being addressed as we speak.