A380 - earlier than expected testing failure ...or not..?? [Archive]

Dash-7 lover

19th Jan 2005, 17:33

One test I would love to see is the max takeoff weight emergency stop!!

couple of other things.........

Heard in another post that it would need the curvature of the earth to climb.......send it down the M25 towards the cliffs of Dover....

'Oh LHR is foggy and we need to divert....sorry can't as no other airfield can take us!!!'

Virgin want to install a jacuzzi.......with the turnover of air in the cabin, wouldn't the water have evapourated half way through the flight ? make sure the avionics bay isn't underneath.....and double beds!!

'Please Miss...can I have a couple of condoms and an extension seatbelt !'

Capt. Inop

19th Jan 2005, 17:56

Heard in another post that it would need the curvature of the earth to climb....

That goes for any Airbus, hardly nothing new..

innuendo

19th Jan 2005, 18:24

"One test I would love to see is the max takeoff weight emergency stop!!"

I'm sure it will be recorded in detail.
Did a tour at Boeing and one of the presentations in their theatre was a showing of that test. The amount of smoke and flame was amazing. The minimum unstick speed testing was also very interesting.

400drvr

19th Jan 2005, 19:39

I wonder if I asked the same question about Boeings 7E7 if it would have hit nether nether land as fast as the other airplane, that I originally reffered to. I will no longer refer to the A3XX since it seems to be a touchy subject.

Cheers:)

blueloo

19th Jan 2005, 23:30

Nah - i have no contacts - if anything - only contacts in low places!

Anyway, this wasnt meant to be a wind up - hopefully someone can shed some light on whether the said rumour is true. I remember seeing the Boeing 747 test video, where the main wing spar snaps after some 27 foot or so wing deflection - it seemed fairly impressive. I would like to see the stress the A380s wing takes before it snaps - after all, with composites involved i thought it could take more punishment - and if it hasnt taken the strain as expected, i wonder what else may have been 'under-engineered'.

I am not sure if we would find out the truth. I wouldnt think Airbus would want news of the wing test failing prematurely to get out and about (if indeed it has).

under_exposed

20th Jan 2005, 07:52

Would not such a test have been done long ago? and if there ever had been a problem would it not be resolved by now?
Where would the test be done? Filton? If so I am sure there would be roumers around where I am by now.

Jetstream77

20th Jan 2005, 09:34

So has the rumour been settled yet as to the touch typing skill...... a necessity or not.... at the pointy end of the 380 ........ or should that be large stubby end..:p

Capt.KAOS

20th Jan 2005, 10:38

Hmmm... maybe all these rumors are the reason da plane didn't move for an inch/cm during "roll-out"?

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,427174,00.jpg

lomapaseo

20th Jan 2005, 13:21

I realize that we are having fun with this rumor.

As one who has been involved in the certification and continued airworthiness side of the business, my experience is that lots of testing goes on past the roll out, past the first flight and indeed way past the first delivery.

Some of the testing is certification critical and may have to be updated (read completed satisfactorily) before delivery. While other testing (cyclic fatigue) may take some time to accumulate even past delivery.

With that said, its not at all unusual for early results to indicate a design change to be updated in a later ship. Thus the rumor could be true, but the only folks that it really matters are the ordering customers vs their incorporation schedule.

Thus Zzzzzzzzzzz

admiral ackbar

20th Jan 2005, 15:44

That goes for any Airbus, hardly nothing new..

Yeah those A330, 345 and 346's really are underpowered... :rolleyes:

DC10RealMan

20th Jan 2005, 17:16

One cannot help noticing that underpowered or not that the Airbus family seem to cruise much higher than Boeing aeroplanes this is presumably due to their more efficent aerodynamics, design, and operating economics which is why more airlines are buying them including U.S. carriers. (I exclude the Queen of the Skies, the McDonnell Douglas DC10 from this observation, of course!)

Lu Zuckerman

20th Jan 2005, 17:40

To: lomapaseo

As one who has been involved in the certification and continued airworthiness side of the business, my experience is that lots of testing goes on past the roll out, past the first flight and indeed way past the first delivery.

Some of the testing is certification critical and may have to be updated (read completed satisfactorily) before delivery. While other testing (cyclic fatigue) may take some time to accumulate even past delivery.

Airbus and the certification authorities including the FAA are not totally clean in this area. After the FAA was notified (by me) of major design deficiencies (in an Airbus aircraft) they took action by getting the vice president of a major subcontractor and his program manager fired however the design was not changed.

The major contractors on the wing of this aircraft failed to notify Airbus per the contract of deficiencies relative to reliability and safety because they did not want to absorb the costs of any design changes. The secondary flight controls on the wing are not bonded to the airframe structure and are not adequately protected from a lightning strike.

The flap system was inadequately tested but was certified. Airbus did not perform specified tests because if they did they would have discovered the lack of electrical bonding.

The FAA, DGCA and the CAA were made aware of the problems yet the design was never changed.

This aircraft is still flying but if you believe that “Fate is the hunter” then one of these days a lightning strike in the right place will blow the wing off.

:E :E

Rainboe

20th Jan 2005, 19:13

This aircraft is still flying but if you believe that “Fate is the hunter” then one of these days a lightning strike in the right place will blow the wing off.

Lu, that is rather a controversial statement to make and I do not believe it can be backed up. For example, there are many hundreds, if not thousands, of Airbi flying around of various flavours. How many have 'had a wing blown off'? How many Boeings have suffered such a fate (several- Iranian 747 into Madrid and more). We've had DC10s grounded with design deficiencies, 747s being reworked in various areas. Airbus aircraft should be recognised for their efficient operation and smooth service life.

Pprune must stop becoming a dumping ground for stupid rumours about Airbus aircraft. Some people seem to want to imply they are amateur aeroplane builders.

Lu Zuckerman

20th Jan 2005, 21:12

To: Rainboe

Everything I said above was turned over to the FAA but in greater detail including the names of the offending firms. It is true this aircraft is still flying and it will continue to fly until it flies into or near a thunderstorm with the slats partially extended. The lightning can attach on the nose with no effect. If it attaches on the partially extended slat the next noise you hear is "BOOM"

Send me your e-mail address along with your affiliation and I will send the complete information. This same information was posted on Rotorheads but it was removed for being controversial.

I forgot to add that this aircraft can suffer from uncommanded flap and slat movement and the pilots can't stop it because the flap slat computer was never adequately tested nor were the flaps. BAe was aware of this and they still certificated the wing.

:E :E

Rainboe

20th Jan 2005, 21:25

You have an opinion of a safety misdesign of Airbus jets. The might of Airbus design engineers, and the regulatory authorities of almost all nations, including the FAA, feel there is no defect there. Now who would you expect people to believe? How many Airbus jets have had wings blown off? Have you been in contact with the design bureau at Airbus to see what their opinion is? Selling this hypothesis to me is of no value. Do you think energy is better expended re-examining 737 rudders, DC10 slat systems, 747 hold doors? Sometimes you can convince yourself there is a defect where there is none. The might of professional opinion saying 'there is no problem' must weigh. Without any supporting evidence apart from personal opinion, you should not attack a product without solid proof. You have none apart from an opinion. It makes your assessment of Airbus risk as valuable as these idiotic stories going around of A380 wings breaking and engines bouncing on the ground.

Ignition Override

20th Jan 2005, 22:30

Lou: does Airbus use metal or a graphite sort of composite for these A-380 structures? I had read a few days ago in a New York newspaper that the 380 program is about $2 (US) billion over budget.

Maybe the costs for developing the 7E7 competitior, the A-350 or whatever, will not help the situation, or vice versa?

:hmm:

Lu Zuckerman

20th Jan 2005, 23:16

To: Rainboe

You have an opinion of a safety misdesign of Airbus jets. The might of Airbus design engineers, and the regulatory authorities of almost all nations, including the FAA, feel there is no defect there.

I was manager of reliability, systems safety and maintainability on the secondary flight control systems on the subject aircraft.
I speak from personal experience. Once again I ask you to provide your e-mail address and I'll send all the details. The certification authorities know of the defects but have not done anything about it.

:E :E

Chambudzi

21st Jan 2005, 00:19

Rainboe talks of the "might" of Airbus design engineers being close to incapable of error and mentions all the wings that have fallen off Boeings with a touch of blind faith in Airbus.
Lu Zuckerman obviously knows and has first hand knowledge of these aircraft and I for one go with him on this discussion.

Airbus need to do more testing before they relaese their aircraft to the operators and Lu Z's experience on this is not unique. I remember the first 340-300s rocking up with the back doors a few feet higher than the front doors because the math used to work out the necessary length of the nose oleo was wrong. Then an AF 340 burned to a cinder at Charles De Gaul when a yellow system hydraulic pump caught fire. That was put down to sabotage till an Air Mauritius one burned and a Malaysian 330 did the same in Singapore.
The fancy fuel system that pumps fuel back and forth to the tail began its days as a little too fancy and I remember well being stuck out over the Indian Ocean with the C of G out of the green band and no ECAM action or QRH to rectify it. When the red clanger thing starts claxoning you and you have no idea what to do about it miles from an airport it rams a lot of adrenalin around.
Those were a few of the design errors that had to be rectified while operations continued and there were others.
Then there were the airfield performance tables provided by AB for our various destinations which were out by 7 degrees C in the unsafe direction. It took 9 months and a few too many pilots unsticking far too close to the end of the runway before ABus was asked for an explanation. New tables arrived, 7 degrees for the better and everything worked rather well after that. 7 degrees represented about 2 tons over the top of the airfield take off limit.
If they can make these kinds of errors with the introduction of the one AB I have had first hand knowledge of, then they are likely to have a few little nasty 'Murphyisms' tucked away in their new beast and I for one will be more than happy to watch braver pilots than myself try and sort them out.

Meantime Mr Rainboe, I say respectfully, AB is a company of men and men make mistakes so suspect them deeply and you will be a safer pilot for it.

Rainboe

21st Jan 2005, 08:18

AB is not the only producer of aeroplanes where errors happen. You can catalogue similar mistakes from all manufacturers. I wasn't saying they were perfect. I will say AB aircraft are in very extensive service in SE Asia/India/China. This area has the most exotic weather I have ever seen. Thunderstorms like no others. They have a brilliant service record, with no unusual crashes. IF something happens, then maybe there is a case to answer, but until that time, then this is just another rumour like all the others.
I have no particular drum to beat about AB. I fly Boeings, and like them. But AB produce a superb line, and the A380 is the jewel on the crown, and I think when I see some of the unsubstantiated nonsense and idiotic rumour spreading here about any aeroplane, then it should be challenged. We appear to have Lu versus the rest of the world inc. FAA, CAA, JAA, experience.......I'm inclined to believe it is a claim without foundation. Why should x hundred aeroplanes be changed on somebody's whim?

surely not

21st Jan 2005, 08:49

Fascinating as it is to see yet another thread degenerate into a Boeing v Airbus, U.S.A. v Europe battle on prune (yaaaawwwnnnnnnnn) it would seem that nobody can verify the rumour that the thread is about.

Given that no one can back the rumoured claim up after so many days on this forum, I am happy to conclude it is utter tosh!

DingerX

21st Jan 2005, 10:28

Just a technical point: L.Z.'s claims may be false, or partial, but they're not unsubstantiated. Rather, he's quite clear about the claim:

The major contractors on the wing of this aircraft failed to notify Airbus per the contract of deficiencies relative to reliability and safety because they did not want to absorb the costs of any design changes. The secondary flight controls on the wing are not bonded to the airframe structure and are not adequately protected from a lightning strike.

The flap system was inadequately tested but was certified. Airbus did not perform specified tests because if they did they would have discovered the lack of electrical bonding.

The FAA, DGCA and the CAA were made aware of the problems yet the design was never changed.

Those are some pretty material charges, and they contain statements that can be verified or falsified with documentation (from BAe and governments, or wherever), specifically A) "The secondary flight controls on the wing are not bonded to the airframe" B) "Airbus did not perform specified tests" and C) "The FAA, DGCA and CAA were made aware of the problems yet the design was never changed". If they're false, then these statements could be seen as libelous. If they're true, the conclusion drawn from them, that a lightning strike will take down an aircraft Iran Air style, may stlil not be the case, as there may be suppressed evidence involved.

But it's not unsubstantiated. And "Get it on the ground-itis" is not limited to flight crew. Corporate Management applies considerable pressure to deliver product on time and under budget. That's how they make money, and history is rife with faulty engineering designs, from the Titanic to the Teacher in Space. And the greater the pressure, the more likely failures are to creep into the system. Enter the A380, a huge project on which, we've been led to believe, hinges the fate of aviation manufacturing in Western Europe. Here's a project that's already 2 billion Euros over budget and 5 tonnes overweight; a project where the rollout was an international event, with heads of state, speeches, and the direct identification of the aircraft with the hope, pride, and future of an entire continent. Under such pressure, will it become the Skytanic? Or will it be a lugubrious product of byzantine overbureaucratization in the post-EU world? Or will it just rock the roof off?

Dunno, but I would expect it to fail a few tests on the first go. It's a big plane.

Snigs

21st Jan 2005, 11:38

For all of your information my mole on the inside at Airbus at Filton tells me Next week is the 60% limit load test of the wing. The week after the 100% limit load is scheduled. I don’t know when the ‘crunch-test’ will take place. So, as a stress engineer by trade and well aware of the margins of safety required on these components, I would be extremely surprised if anything has failed so far.

Sorry it's not a categoric denial, but it's the best I can do!

Lu Zuckerman

21st Jan 2005, 12:45

To: Rainboe

I'm inclined to believe it is a claim without foundation. Why should x hundred aeroplanes be changed on somebody's whim?

Before the FAA and I assume other certification authorities make any changes they perform a cost benefit analysis. This is especially true if the aircraft can be lost due to a component or system failure.

They determine the cost in human lives applying a value of 2.7 million dollars. The US Department of Commerce the parent of the FAA and the NTSB derives this figure.

They total up the number of passengers in an aircraft and multiply it by the figure above. If it costs more to make the change than the cost in human lives they will recommend that the change not be implemented even if the NTSB disagrees.

:E :E

Mick Stability

21st Jan 2005, 14:57

Lu says
It is true this aircraft is still flying and it will continue to fly until it flies into or near a thunderstorm with the slats partially extended. The lightning can attach on the nose with no effect. If it attaches on the partially extended slat the next noise you hear is "BOOM"

Of course Boeing never suffer any design problems at all. Centre tanks on 747's never explode with catastrophic hull damage because of poor fuel pump design. (Unless they shot it down of course)

I think the 380 will be a stunning success. Hence all the 'not invented here' crap from the USA. Not the first time they were jealous of one of our airliners either.

poorwanderingwun

21st Jan 2005, 14:58

DINGER X...
at risk of steering this thread away briefly from its intended course I would venture to suggest that the loss of the perfectly able ship RMS Titanic was less to do with a design fault than the fact that it was driven at high speed into an iceberg tearing a 320 foot gash along its side....outside of modern tankers and warships no ship would have stayed afloat after such a catastrophic event....:O

DingerX

21st Jan 2005, 17:00

...which was a survivable incident. The complete lack of a sufficient number of lifeboats turned a hull-loss into the transportation disaster of the century. Here's hoping those upper deck overwing slides work well!

BahrainLad

21st Jan 2005, 20:22

Well, Airbus reckon the A380 is now underweight....as a result of them spending lots of money on a weight-loss program.

However, some people will continue in saying that the A380 is "fat", probably until the end of its service life.

Funny - Boeing's statements here (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/208458_air19.html) I would think give me the right to say that the 7E7 is a "fat b*stard" until about 2010...

sevenforeseven

21st Jan 2005, 21:33

Posted by a sore looser, the race is lost "Buddy" A380 wins you loose

blueloo

21st Jan 2005, 23:52

Some of you guys cr*p on a lot. Give it a rest. Its not about Airbus vs Boeing. Its not about who has won anything.

It was a legit request for info on the wing spar testing. If you dont know anything about it, or don't have anything relevant to say, then go post elsewhere on an Airbus vs Boeing thread.

Anti Skid On

22nd Jan 2005, 19:56

Chambudzi....

Wasn't the Malaysia A330 actually written off as there was a caustic spillage in the hold which caused fatigue and it wasn't economical to repair - hardly a design fault there! (Unless they forgot to add internal hold liners for every chemical)

And those that quote Airbus as being slow - just like the B767!!

Chambudzi

22nd Jan 2005, 21:42

Anti Skid On

I know nothing about Malasian Air's caustic spillage. Another incident all together I suspect

The design fault was in the Yellow system hydraulic pump that insisted on bursting into flame as it wasnt supposed to be a fulltime pump. It was supposed to switch off when the cargo door stopped moving. If it remained on it became red hot, melted and burned. Very fortunately in the case of the Malaysia A/C and the Mauritius A/C the fires started whilst the planes were on the ground. The fires were put out, the fault discovered and all A/C had to have their cargo doors manually pumped open and closed. Eventually over the next year all 330s and 340s were modified and they problem was fixed.
Air Mauritius gave their burnt A/C back to Airbus and asked for another without payment which I believe they were given.

I have no anti Airbus paranoia. I merely say what I know on a subject that happens in this case to be about Airbus.

Your atatement about 767s is pointless, please explain. Has someone somwhere said something about slow Airbuses on the airbus thread.

morning mungrel

23rd Jan 2005, 01:21

You know, it really is sad and boring, almost to the point of despair, reading another thread that just degenerates into another "My dick is bigger than your dick" pissing match.

Here's a thought, Danny! How about a forum for pissing matches. Then all those who just have to partake of such matches can get their fill, and the rest of us can get on with life.

Just a thought.:yuk: :hmm:

PickyPerkins

23rd Jan 2005, 17:09

Lu Zuckerman posted 21st January 2005 13:45

--- Start quote ---
……. Before the FAA and I assume other certification authorities make any changes they perform a cost benefit analysis. ……. They determine the cost in human lives applying a value of 2.7 million dollars. .... They total up the number of passengers in an aircraft and multiply it by the figure above. If it costs more to make the change than the cost in human lives they will recommend that the change not be implemented even if the NTSB disagrees.
--- End quote ---

This is little off the topic of the 380 but it’s a response to your post above on this thread.

I see that flight level separations have been reduced from 2,000 ft to 1,000 ft, apparently on the basis that it is expected to result in savings of $5.3 billion over the next 5 years.

Applying the valuation of $2.7 million per life this saving is equivalent to about 1,963 lives.

If one assumes that a mid-air collision involves two aircraft, each with 250 people, this represents about four incidents over the next five years, each with 500 fatalities.

Would you agree with the opinion that the FAA etc have agreed to the reduction in flight separations on the basis that having, for example, one major mid-air every two years is cheaper?

Should we assume that a corresponding calculation was made that a separation of 500 ft with presumably larger savings would have exceeded the $2.7 M/life figure?

Or have I misunderstood the process logic?

Cheers, http://home.infionline.net/~pickyperkins/pi.gif

Wino

23rd Jan 2005, 17:18

SOrt of Picky,
That logic was dervied at by raising the costs of transportation to such a level at which more people would go to cars where statistically they were more likely to die.

Its an arcane numbers theory thing, but how do you make a decision? I can guarantee that people are never killed in an aircraft, simply stop flying aircraft. Of course more people would die on the highways than would have died in the airplanes so have you really gained anything?

Cheers
Wino

Paterbrat

23rd Jan 2005, 17:19

And when those two 380's pass everybody breath in.

PickyPerkins

23rd Jan 2005, 18:10

Maybe the separation for two 380's should remain at 2,000 ft.

Cheers, http://home.infionline.net/~pickyperkins/pi.gif

Snigs

8th Feb 2005, 10:38

Just to clear up any doubt, I recently had an email from a colleague who works at airbus, which said The A380 static test specimen (ES) was subjected to limit wing bending on 2nd February. The test went very well and the team monitoring the strain gauges reported no causes for concern right up to limit load, in fact correlation with the predictions was very good. This was a very significant milestone in the certification phase of the A380 and was witnessed by members of the JAA, Airbus Airworthiness & senior technical managers from the Central Entity.

The next test will be the Ultimate load, and then they actually go on to break the wing, just to see how much it'll really take, and when that breaks it'll make a very large bang!:D

Zeke

9th Feb 2005, 12:55

Chambudzi,

Only incident involving an Airbus at Singapore was the hijacking in 1991.

MAS have had a number of problems with A330's, one incident at KL involved a leak of 2000 kg of hydroxy quino-line cargo a dangerous good over the wing centre box writing the aircraft off.

More recently at KL one had been found with numerous wires cut in avionics bay, and I believe very recently someone poured a whole can of hydraulic fluid throughout the cockpit and left the empty can on the glare shield.

Only one life has been lost in an A330 in commercial operations, that was a hijacker who jumped out of a Philippine Air Lines flight in 2000 with a home made parachute. 7 people were lost in an A330 during flight test.

The air france A340 hull loss was during maintenance, not line operations. The fire was a result of the yellow hydraulic electric pump overheating during maintenance.

As you would realise, not everything is on ECAM, can think of 7 procedures that are in the QRH but not ECAM, and many more in FCOM....did you look at FCOM for your fuel imbalance ? From memory there is a gravity drain procedure to the centre tank for the problem you described...

Your PChart problem is intersting...why did it take SQ 9 months to get onto Airbus about it...and what validation of the PChart information was done by the airline ... to meet CAAS requirements. Somehow if think a little too much detail is missing from your story...or just untrue like I have explained above. Sounds like someone was using packs off data for packs on takeoff to me.

For the record, the untimate loading and testing of the A380 wing box has not been done, nor has one failed at a lower load that I have been made aware of.

:hmm:

stagn8

11th Feb 2005, 04:04

Lu Zuckerman, I have worked for an airline or two (Pan Bankrupt, Brit Mid etc) and the acid test was always whether or not the ground engineer or loadmaster would fly on the plane after it had been tinkered with or loaded accordingly.

Now I just wonder would you fly as a pax on that plane of which you spoke (but did not identify) after you sent all that stuff to the FAA......

Thanks

BEagle

11th Feb 2005, 10:45

From memory, the a/c about which LZ is so keen on doing his 'Theodore Honey vs. the Rutland Reindeer' thing is the A300.

Chambudzi

12th Feb 2005, 01:24

Zeke

Why on earth would I want to lie about this. Too me it is a flight safety issue concerning aircraft as they come into service. The incidents I described are both true and happened years ago when the A340/330 first came into service..
The MAS A330 caught fire because against orders the engineers in SIN insisted on pushing the appropriate CB in to open the cargo door hydraulically. I know it burned and the fire was put out fairly quickly bevause I saw it.
The Air France aircraft may not have been on line ops at the time it burned but that was because after a days work in the air it was towed to a remote bay for the night. It caught fire and burned before the fire Dept could get control of it.
The fuel imbalance probs were caused by a glitch in the systems computer that had shown up a number of times when it happened to me and was put right a few months later.
The Pchart probs in Mauritius lasted 6 mths because no one knew that figuers were wrong of course. Fewer than 5% of take offs were at max weight and up against the numbers and the problem only showed up when the planes were at max. The problem was investigated under the suspicion that the planes were being somehow overloaded. It was assumed that the figuers couldnt possibly be wrong because they were given to us by Airbus. When we finally questioned Airbus they found the 7 degree discrepantcy and put it right.

goinggrey

12th Feb 2005, 20:12

PickyPerkins, perhaps you'd like to expand on this idea. Seperation in RVSM seems rather tight at times when the guy above is a big heavy. Unfortunately, so often, the overtaking heavy above on the same NAT track hasn't the good manners to comply with the AIC i.e. the overtaking aircraft should offset (1 or 2 miles right of track) and expects everyone else to clear his/her path/wake. I hope and pray we don't see such bullish conduct by the future A380 crews, othewise we'll need 5 miles offsets and heaven help every turboprop taxiing behind one of these giants, they'll end up doing ground loops on the taxyways from jet blast.