I reckon Belgique is on the right track, there resides in the fair place in which he (or at least his aircraft anyway) resides being the home of a fair bit if research in this area.
Having said that and looking at the attach diagram, what appears to be missing are multiple load paths to the main structure, ie the absence of a "fail safe" mechanism.
OK OK there are three brackets but the descriptions of the failure mode I have heard so far seem to suggest that the loss of any bracket but the middle one would tend to accelerate the separation. This seems to me to be a bit dodgy.
There does not appear to be (and I am not an engineer) an alternative load path from the VS to the main structure beyond those three brackets??
Belt and braces, sure, but I thought that was what the certification process had evolved towards and is this still a requirement.
This is not a criticism of the product or the magnificent technology, but when the Governments, therefore certifying authority and manufacturers are the same people and national pride is involved the pressure towards pushing the boundaries has to be higher.
IMHO the entire raison d'etre of the Airbus philosophy is towards maximising modern lightweight composite technology which awards better operating economics against the higher order of technical difficulties in manufacture and repair. A more conservative approach might produce weight penalties that nullify those benefits.
This must inevitably lead to a sort of technical hubris.
I noticed some one talking about composite primary structure in the B777, I would be interested to know if they also provide an alternative load path around it and/or what are the consequences of it failing?
And no I don't work for Boeing.
allianceair
No I have not found the photo yet but would appreciate some help. I did ask if anyone else had seen it.
[ 17 November 2001: Message edited by: gaunty ]