Airbus - Spar Crack [Archive]

mary_hinge

1st Dec 2006, 18:54

Quite a few ADs and SBs kicking around on the A320 family at the moment, particularly relating to the rear spar / undercarriage area / rib 5

http://www.caa.hu/kozlemenyek/easa_ead_2006_0069_E.pdf

Can’t find the UK link for EASA:ugh:

vapilot2004

5th Dec 2006, 06:52

As of 3rd Q 2004:

Estimates are between $3,500 - 39,000 to address the problem per airplane or about $75,000 per should give a more permanent fix. The latter seems wiser.

westie

5th Dec 2006, 10:50

I think the TCX 320 was as a result of a landing on 09 at BRS. I hear it is
up on jacks at MAN now. Not the first bending of an A/C on that runway!!

stilton

7th Dec 2006, 03:04

I did my best to flatten out the touchdown zone on 27 at BRS, on my first arrival.

It has always amazed me that it is a Cat111b runway.

Landed there with 175 metres vis recently, was quite interesting.

Mr @ Spotty M

7th Dec 2006, 21:16

I understand the TCX A320 involved was G-BXKD.
Has been in the Monarch hangar at Man, will be going into MyTravels after that.
This is what l have heard.:confused:

oliver2002

8th Dec 2006, 10:03

G-BXKD is definitely not 12 weeks old:

http://airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-a320-735.htm

Mr @ Spotty M

8th Dec 2006, 18:51

Yes you are correct it is not 12 weeks old.
I did not say it was, only pointing out that the only a/c that we know of apart from the BMI A330 with a major problem at Man, is a TCX A320.:confused:

puff m'call

9th Dec 2006, 15:54

Come on guys, what do you expect from airbus, it's a cheep piece of under engineered crap, buy one get one free, just scrap it and get another. :ok:

RoyHudd

10th Dec 2006, 09:21

Making MyTravel a shed-load of dosh, this bmi 330. Previous figures on this thread are serious-under-estimates.

mikeyuk

10th Dec 2006, 09:26

Apparently the BMI 330 Is being used today for a Vegas or Chicago

Hope its all been fixed :eek:

Bearcat

10th Dec 2006, 10:11

Come on guys, what do you expect from airbus, it's a cheep piece of under engineered crap, buy one get one free, just scrap it and get another. :ok:

could'nt agree more.....on a 320 yesterday.....the arm rest kept collapsing. In the many years I have flown boeings the furniture was solid. Airbus is plastic, tubberware crap......the only saving grace on the airbus in the autobrake system.....does the business when required.

Boeing for me.

montencee

10th Dec 2006, 10:31

Come on guys, what do you expect from airbus, it's a cheep piece of under engineered crap, buy one get one free, just scrap it and get another. :ok:

Don't suppose he's seen Flight International from a couple of weeks ago writing about the perfectly servicable 12 year old ex BA Boeing 777 being scrapped because it's worth more in parts than as a whole.

IB4138

10th Dec 2006, 13:21

Apparently the BMI 330 Is being used today for a Vegas or Chicago

This could be due to the fact that "BD" went tech yesterday at MAN, resulting in the cancelation of the Chicago rotation.

vapilot2004

12th Dec 2006, 00:20

could'nt agree more.....on a 320 yesterday.....the arm rest kept collapsing. In the many years I have flown boeings the furniture was solid.

Chairs are 3rd party items. Not made by either company. Also, they are spec'd by the airlines.

lurkio

12th Dec 2006, 10:46

If, and I have no reason to doubt it, the damage and repairs mentioned by smudge are correct, how was the flight Bristol MAN authorised? The person who did the auth, and the crew who flew the aircraft, must have balls of steel. Obviously it was safe as they got it there in one piece.

fantom

12th Dec 2006, 16:50

Cannot really coment on why the a/c was released after the incident ,...however by the sounds of it the a/c was not safe to fly and landed in one piece more by good luck than anything else

Careful, sunshine. The BRS engs are some of the best I have had the pleasure to know. They can spell, as well.

45989

13th Dec 2006, 21:27

airbus are the renault migranes of the air, shiny for a week an fall apart an boy do you pay for parts/support/esp paperwork!!!!

Grunf

14th Dec 2006, 00:00

So, to summarize we do not know what is the real cause of this fitting cracking, right?

Since probably it was that hardest of all the hard landings seen for A320 one can assume that Airbus stress would be very cautious as to let the a/c go, even on a ferry flight!

Whoever is the (usual) repair facility for the operator it is still better to do it on the site, with Airbus fleet support guys on the spot.

These crack are ugly and I sincerely hope that A320 won't be as unlucky as CRJ 700 with its MLG trunion crack issues.

Cheers

45989

15th Dec 2006, 08:14

Smudge, With the greatest respect,after20+ years of flying airliners long and shorthaul I'm underwhelmed by this 'technological marvel'. I've seen more tech snags,systems failed on this type (320) in an very short period of time than on most other types I've flown.But more serious is the total failure to design a cockpit with any concept of ergomomics. Look at most of the accidents that have occured and perhaps you might see where I'm coming from. Cheers!:)

45989

15th Dec 2006, 21:54

Well there's no contest bout Renaults!!! Its the flying ones that bother me! Have to agree though,regardless of who manufactured them, well maintained means less probs on a daily basis.

Carnage Matey!

16th Dec 2006, 00:32

.But more serious is the total failure to design a cockpit with any concept of ergomomics. Look at most of the accidents that have occured and perhaps you might see where I'm coming from. Cheers!:)

You have GOT to be sh*tting me! Have you ever seen a 737 or 747 cockpit in comparison to an A320? The 'bus is a dream in comparison.

Perrin

16th Dec 2006, 09:57

I love the Airbus A300-600, I got to retire early from the money I got to fly as a flight mech to bring them back to Riyadh from remote areas in the midde east.
I was not required to fly on Boeings as they never really has complete system failures like we had on the Bus. I agree with Smudge all A/C will be better off with TLC from all.
Keep them going boys!!!!

Duff beer

17th Dec 2006, 14:13

There is an FCA airbus in the MYT hangar at manchester. The story is, its in for exploratory repairs after an extremely hard landing (over 12g was mentioned).

Any news on this, is it true, exagerated, bo****ks.

just being nosey.

DB,

Doors to Automatic

17th Dec 2006, 14:49

12g landing? Did the wings fall off? :p

Phil Hudson

17th Dec 2006, 15:04

12g landing? Did the wings fall off? :p

No, but rumors has it that gear inspection during walkaround has to be carried out in the cabin. :}

390cruise

17th Dec 2006, 17:08

I think you might find it is a Thomas Cook Airbus NOT FCA

390

FlyVMO

17th Dec 2006, 17:24

12 G!!!!!
I understand the Rumorous nature of PPrune...but I would have thought that it would take less than that to break the airframe in pieces, yet obviously that did not happen here or this thread would have been two pages long already. Perhaps I under-estimated the strength. Does anyone know what the design parameters are for landing loads?

Loose rivets

17th Dec 2006, 17:35

I'm not an airframes expert, but if the detector logs transitory shockwaves, they could easily pass 12g with no real damage. If the total mass of the aircraft had to be decelerated from some ugly rate of decent, then 12g would be...erm, a tad embarrassing.

It's all about how long the g force is sustained.

rubber jonny

17th Dec 2006, 18:37

Yes a thomas cook
Apparently very heavy landing ,then took off had gear indication warnings went to manchester had a sensor change-nil fix then found damage at the top of the leg.Damage quite severe.:suspect:

Duff beer

17th Dec 2006, 20:42

SMUDGECAT, as an engineer I respect your opinion more than anyones when it comes to this thread. Have you heard anything more about this?

Heard more very recently from an employee that the aircraft could be an insurance write off. What LOOSERIVETS wrote seems to be true, an airframe engineer pal of mine has been quoted from another engineer pal (I know this sounds very 'freind of a friend' stuff; but I swear they are licensed engineers) that the airframe is potentially knackered beyond financial repair.

Jonty

20th Dec 2006, 08:48

Slopwith

19th Jan 2007, 20:47

Had a search here to see if there was already a topic about this on PPrune but couldn't find a thread so forgive me if it is old hat.
I understand there is a Thomas Cook A320 in the MYT Hanger at MAN that had suffered a hard landing. I heard that there were an awful lot of popped rivets and that it had been in the equivalent of a drop from a hundred feet. I understand it is basically a right off but Airbus have got their crash team re-building it so it doesn't become another Airbus hull loss statistic.
Any one got any more info and also how it happened? Any Piccies?

Hooligan Bill

19th Jan 2007, 22:55

ZeBedie

19th Jan 2007, 23:36

So I guess there'll be an AAIB report sometime soon?

Slopwith

20th Jan 2007, 10:11

Thanks for the thread link guys. A hard landing at BRS they say. Funny that. You could have the same topic added to the thread about BRS.

It always amazes me that what is quite obviously a right off and uneconomic to repair, does gets repaired to keep the statistics sweet.

Still wondering if anyone knows what/why/how it happened? I know the Airbus "Golden Rules" and if necessary treat it like an ordinary airplane, but it isn't. The instinctive thing to do on a Boeing/normal airplane if one suddenly has a high vs above the runway at low alt, say 30ft is to hold the attitude and add power because thats what makes normal airplanes go up and down. On the Airbus, the instinct is to pull back on the stick, not to shove the levers out of the climb gate. The auto thrust will catch up and add power to keep the speed while at this point shouting "retard, retard" at you. Meanwhile, especially in an A321, you have had another tail scrape. I do of course stress that according to Airbus their tail scrape rate is as expected! What does that mean?
Anyway, to keep on topic, thats why I wondered if anyone knew a bit more of what happened.

jumpseater

20th Jan 2007, 11:08

''It always amazes me that what is quite obviously a right off and uneconomic to repair, does gets repaired to keep the statistics sweet.''

Care to show us where it says airbus repair to 'keep the statistics sweet'?
How do you know its BER? Are you a structures engineer?
The reason I query you're assessment is that I've spent some time in engineering and spares supply, and was suprised recently when my brother, a repair designer and structural engineer took me to see an aircraft.
One engine was shock loaded, outer wings bent rippling on all sorts of panels. The aircraft looked fit for breaking, from my experience I thought its a write off. Apparently not, there was sufficient residual value in the airframe, and hours on it to make a repair, whilst shockingly expensive, the better option. I suspect thats whats happening here.

Bobbsy

20th Jan 2007, 13:14

It always amazes me that what is quite obviously a right off and uneconomic to repair, does gets repaired to keep the statistics sweet.

Er, it would take a lot of sweet statistics to make a $65 million aircraft uneconomic to repair.

Bobbsy

flying brain

20th Jan 2007, 16:17

I would guess the hull value to be nearer USD35m new depreciating at between USD2 and USD3 million per annum.

cwatters

20th Jan 2007, 18:53

I heard that there were an awful lot of popped rivets and that it had been in the equivalent of a drop from a hundred feet.

If I've done my sums right a vertical drop of 100ft would produce a vertical impact velocity of about 24m/s or about 4700 feet per min.

matblack

20th Jan 2007, 22:21

It's too long ago to be the same aircraft I imagine but I did see a very hard A320 landing by Thomas Cook a while back at Manchester. I did post it on PPRUNE at the time and asked the question if the plane is designed to take such a hard landing. It literally dropped the last (guesssing now) 20 feet or so and I cringed when I saw it. What astonished me was how high it bounced, almost back to the same level. It then seemed to float for a few seconds before full power kicked in and up he went. Compared to the other approaches I saw during that 2 hour period it seemed very lively on what was a relatively calm day. Unfortunately I'm not an airline pilot (red/green colour defect) so I'm not totally qualified to comment although I studied mech eng at uni many moons ago and have a reasonable degree of understanding about
structures.

Mr @ Spotty M

21st Jan 2007, 08:32

All l can tell you matblack, is that the incident happened in November, it might have happened in BRS or MAN, l dont know, we wait the report.:ok:

krujje

26th Jan 2007, 02:05

To put things into perspective:

Hard landing is a landing over 10 fps, because civil transport aircraft are certified for limits loads produced by 10 fps landings. It takes about an 18-inch drop to get 10 fps, assuming zero lift (that's how high a landing gear drop test is).

Boeing and Airbus also define g's for identifying hard landings from FDR data. These levels are usually in the range of 1.75 to 2.2 g depending on aircraft type and weight, and are conservative to account for lower than ideal sampling rates of acceleration parameters.

I'm not saying that civil aircraft never drop 20 feet or 100 feet hard onto runways... but they usually leave a smoking hole when they do, because they're not designed for it... it all depends on how long it took to drop those 20 feet. 12g landings also have a tendancy to leave smoking holes and bits of aircraft lying around.

Hope this helps clarify.

Thirty Eight South

26th Jan 2007, 05:58

[quote=Slopwith;3078498] I understand it is basically a right off but Airbus have got their crash team re-building it so it doesn't become another Airbus hull loss statistic.[unquote]

[quote=jumpseater;3079550]''It always amazes me that what is quite obviously a right off and uneconomic to repair, does gets repaired to keep the statistics sweet.'' Care to show us where it says airbus repair to 'keep the statistics sweet'?

->Good point mr.jumpseater, well spotted.

just to clarify something about stats and economics, 'uneconomic' is a relative term based on a series of variables used to determine viability; viability with airframe useable life is a complex business best left to the professionals.

as for the statistical collation - losses are determined by the insurance companies, not the airplane manufacture(s) and the bottom line is cold hard cash; airlines will repair their a/c to keep the hull loss stats in the black (allegedly)

they spend all of that time and money monkey proofing the planes and still the bananas skins are stacking up. in addition, I wasn't aware that either A or B had a 'crash team' for this purpose...there you go, you learn something new everyday

mary_hinge

26th Jan 2007, 07:49

[QUOTE
they spend all of that time and money monkey proofing the planes and still the bananas skins are stacking up. in addition, I wasn't aware that either A or B had a 'crash team' for this purpose...there you go, you learn something new everyday[/QUOTE]

Not so much as a crash team but "heavy rectification team." The Boeing team is known as RAMS, not sure about Airbus though.

Thirty Eight South

26th Jan 2007, 22:05

Spot on, but the point of the allegtion- [quote=Slopwith] I understand it is basically a right off but Airbus have got their crash team re-building it so it doesn't become another Airbus hull loss statistic.[unquote] - is that manufacturers have a vested interest in recitifying damage to avoid unfavourable loss statistics, which is not the case - altruism doesn't get factored into the bottom line.

It could be argued that it is the case ( i.e. a vested interest in recitification) for airlines or insurers; however, supply and demand would dictate that the opposite is in fact the case for a manufacturer: if one a/c is written of, another is required, ipso "hello mr. A or B can I have another one"

if a manufacturer is working on a a/c it is because they've been asked to by whoever has the authority to request it and it doesn't come for free

Whitehatter

27th Jan 2007, 08:21

Er, it would take a lot of sweet statistics to make a $65 million aircraft uneconomic to repair.

Bobbsy

especially when you add in the cost of subcharters, delays and the like. it isn't as simple as the insurance bods telling the operator to go down to Airbusland and pick a new one off the forecourt.

In the real world of IT flying there might be a full year of flying awaiting that aircraft before a replacement could be sourced. Subchartering ain't cheap and certainly not when it's wet leasing at short notice.

keel beam

27th Jan 2007, 08:29

as for the statistical collation - losses are determined by the insurance companies, not the airplane manufacture(s) and the bottom line is cold hard cash; airlines will repair their a/c to keep the hull loss stats in the black (allegedly)

That is a trick QANTAS allegedly use .. they have never lost a Jet Hull :ok:

45989

10th Jul 2007, 19:49

Puff m,call. You got it in one! I assumed it was only the little ones but having flown both its the same all the way up! i' say the 350 will be a right laugh....at least the leasing co,s know from their very public response (2nd redesign) again.

Taildragger67

11th Jul 2007, 13:57

Going back over some fairly old posts, but I seem to recall some crack team (no pun intended) was called in to repair the AF 744 (http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/f-gita/photo.shtml) which went for a paddle (not a full swim) at Pape'ete in 1993 was (after being hauled out of the drink) repaired on-site, flown out and returned to service.

Not sure who would've been behind it, but one might suspect that it would've been the insurers who got to decide what they were going to pay for (new airframe or repair).

ShotOne

11th Jul 2007, 19:55

45989 you don't seem to know anything of this incident or have much to contribute other than a general dislike of airbuses. Perhaps you could start your own thread to that end end to avoid clogging up this one

45989

13th Jul 2007, 07:39

Shotone,quite the contrary. Its an interesting situation if the damage is as serious as described. I have seen and subsequently flown an airliner (not an airbus.Begins with B!) repaired after what appeared to be an economic write off. It is still in service today many years later. My point is that i wonder if given the relatively short service life of most Airbus aircraft up to now whether it is worth doing or not