PDA

View Full Version : A380 - VH-OQA Write Off.


Pages : 1 [2]

Short_Circuit
5th Jan 2012, 21:33
Singapore Airlines confirmed yesterday a ''small number of cracks'' had been found on the wing rib feet of one of its A380s during an investigation in the second half of last yearand ignored until now? :eek: maybe because they (the new generation of aeroplanes) can fix themselves.:rolleyes:

parabellum
6th Jan 2012, 20:32
and ignored until now?


No, not ignored, just not made public. If it is not deemed a flight safety issue then it will most likely remain a matter between the manufacturer and the airline.

Ultralights
6th Jan 2012, 22:15
When did a wing rib stop being considered primary or critical structure and not require immediate repair?

swh
6th Jan 2012, 22:31
Much Ado

It’s actually Hong Kong Airlines. HKA ordered a number of A380’s at the Paris Air Show a few months back. The Chinese government blocked the order because of their dispute with the EU and their ETS scheme to be rolled out in January. HKA is wholly owned by Hainan Airlines in China which in turn is owned by the Hainan government. Unless the Chinese have come to some arrangement with the EU, I can’t see HKA getting any A380’s any time soon.

The Hong Kong Airlines order is now confirmed, deliveries by 2015

Airbus Wins Order for A380s From Hong Kong Airlines - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-06/airbus-wins-bulk-order-for-a380s-from-hong-kong-airlines.html)

THE discovery of tiny cracks in one of the wings of a Qantas A380 under extensive repair in Singapore has led to the detection of similar problems in four other Airbus superjumbos worldwide.

I would expect a brand new aircraft from Boeing or Airbus to have cracks in them leaving the factory, I would expect every commercial aircraft currently flying to have cracks in them (and no I do not mean cabin crew).

What is important is not that the presence of cracks, it is how they developed, how they will propagate, if they have any structural, pneumatic, hydraulic, electrical or other system impact. The A380 wings are designed to be damage tolerant , they keep on working safely with small cracks in them, or even after the damage from the engine letting go. The ribs mainly act to keep the shape of the wing, and thus are mainly in compression, hence the reason they were made of Aluminium.

Clowns that try and make a mountain out of a molehill display how little they know about aircraft. I was very disappointed by the comments made by ALAEA people in the news, they should know better, they would have seen cracks in every aircraft currently in service.

Clipped
6th Jan 2012, 22:44
What is important is not that the presence of cracks

Important enough to defer the airworthiness of OQA from flying in Jan '12 to at least Mar/Apr!

A380 out of service for a couple of months $$$$$$$$$.

swh
6th Jan 2012, 23:19
Important enough to defer the airworthiness of OQA from flying in Jan '12 to at least Mar/Apr!

Says who ? sounds like more uninformed crap.

Ngineer
8th Jan 2012, 08:00
This crack bizzo sounds like a pretty emotional topic.

another superlame
9th Jan 2012, 02:30
It will enter service in Feb/Mar due to it being reconfigged first.
Saves getting it into service for a month and then taking it out again for cabin mods.

Going Boeing
9th Jan 2012, 04:03
Posted by swh
Says who ? sounds like more uninformed crap.

Well, actually, it was the QF A380 Fleet Manager in a blog back in Dec11. He said that the cracks are unrelated to the QF32 event but they will be repaired whilst it is in SIN whereas other affected aircraft will be repaired at the next C check. Nancy is expected back in service in March.

swh
10th Jan 2012, 04:28
He did not however say that they HAD to "defer the airworthiness" for a number of months

Ngineer
21st Jan 2012, 03:16
News: Airworthiness Directive regarding Airbus A380 wing cracks (http://avherald.com/h?article=44992a89&opt=0)

Found the above link on another thread. A very good point posted by a reader on this article. Maybe this unfortunate event may have prevented a more significant one from occurring.

grounded27
21st Jan 2012, 04:07
The A380 hasn't yet had a major incident... until now. Every incident with a new model adds to the learning curve. I don't think AB have designed the A380 to be turned into scrap, after one major incident. Yes, the trend is going that way with much manufacturing... but not with the worlds largest aircraft that boasts state-of-the-art engineering, and a brand-new design. I think what needs to admired, is that despite serious damage to a very complex aircraft, it landed safely, and there was no fire and no loss of pax. I don't know what else you could ask of an aircraft.

They were lucky to find it when they did and other carriers as I understand finding fuel leaks driving them to find this rib to wing fitting failure. Sure it has not been catastrophic but.... Given enough time and enough of what airbus is calling non primary structural failures would eventually lead to a structural failure. One hard landing???

I don't think AB have designed the A380 to be turned into scrap

No they designed it to make money and glorify Airbus, time will tell but I feel they over extended themselves in this venture. Both Boeing and MDC had similar plans on the books decades ago.

hiwaytohell
21st Jan 2012, 22:13
..."These assurances won’t convince everyone, however. Some industry figures fear the problem might be more serious than is being portrayed. “[Airbus] have described these as tiny cracks, but every crack starts off as a tiny crack and they can grow very quickly,” the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association’s Stephen Purvinas told Reuters. The federal secretary of the association, which handles routine servicing and engine checks on the A380s operated by Qantas Airways, is worried that Airbus is downplaying the issue. “Put it this way, I wouldn't put my family on an A380 at the moment,” he said."

......this idiot just doesn't get it!

another superlame
22nd Jan 2012, 01:28
I believe this is a beat up about nothing. Yes there are cracks. Yes Airbus knows and is dealing with them. So what. Every aircraft has issues that require the manufacturer to have a second look and make changes.

How about all those years ago when the jumbo had major cracking in the section 41 of the airframe. These weren't little cracks, but something that had major frames needing to be changed.

I am sure that if you look hard enough in the 777 of even 787 you will find something.

The Fed Sec can keep his family off them if he likes, but OQA has proven that the A380 can take a beating land safely, and shortly show that it can be repaired and out into service like any other airliner.

A few small cracks that are known about.Move on.

Ngineer
22nd Jan 2012, 01:52
The Airworthiness Directive - that carries all hallmarks of an Emergency Airworthiness Directive (EAD), however was not released as EAD - was released before public consultation.

EASA argues that during the inspections following the first discovery of cracks during the repair of the Qantas aircraft a new type of cracks was discovered that is more significant than the original type of rib foot hole cracking and can develop into type 2 cracks from that web cracking and thus could potentially affect structural integrity of the aircraft if not corrected.


The above is as stated in the article.

How about all those years ago when the jumbo had major cracking in the section 41 of the airframe.

Yep, and they were maintained in a heavy maintenance facility. Some of us older fellas remember things like heavy maintenance. We were once worlds best practice at it.

Going Boeing
2nd Feb 2012, 04:50
(Reuters) - Singapore Airlines (SIAL.SI) said on Monday it had found examples of recently identified wing cracks in all six of the Airbus A380s on which it carried out mandatory inspections, as a senior pilot issued reassurance over the superjumbo's safety.
The discovery of more instances of cracked wing components was expected after Airbus (EAD.PA) said last week it had found the problem and predicted that until it had time to conduct repairs, a consistent pattern would emerge in further tests.
The European planemaker and airlines insist the world's largest airliner is safe to fly, but are keen to move beyond the issue of small cracks in wing brackets that grabbed media attention and triggered compulsory checks last week.
The European Aviation Safety Agency ordered carriers to inspect almost a third of the global fleet of A380s, starting with six jets operated by Singapore Airlines, to check for one of two types of cracks that emerged in the space of weeks.
"We found cracks in all six," the airline's regional public relations manager for Europe, Peter Tomasch, said during a press event at Frankfurt Airport.
"Four we have repaired and they are flying again. The other two will follow in the coming days."
EASA ordered the most urgent checks on aircraft that had carried out at least 1,800 takeoffs and landings; the six Singapore Airlines aircraft fell into this category.
The agency gave airlines six weeks to perform checks on a second category of jets that had between 1,300 and 1,800 takeoffs and landings, and did not order checks on less heavily used aircraft.
BOEING UNLIKELY TO BENEFIT
Analysts say publicity over the cracks is unlikely to benefit Airbus rival Boeing (BA.N) in the short term as airlines base their decisions on whether to buy the $390 million jet on the economics of its anticipated performance over many years.
However, some say the problems for Airbus and parent EADS (EAD.PA) could deepen if the response diverts scarce engineering resources or passengers balk at flying on the jet. So far no airlines operating the A380 have reported any dip in bookings.
In a bulletin known as an airworthiness directive, EASA last week gave Singapore Airlines, Dubai's Emirates and Air France (AIRF.PA) six weeks to examine a further 14 aircraft.
In total, 68 superjumbos are in operation and a total of 253 have been sold.
Airbus says the cracks were discovered long before they posed a potential safety hazard, but it faces a bill for the checks and repairs which are being carried out at its expense.
"The inspection and repairs are well under way and continuing, in line with the airworthiness directive," a spokeswoman said.
"Airbus is supplying repair kits as well as providing technical and logistical support to our customers".
CRACKS BLAMED ON THREE ERRORS
Cracks on what Airbus describes as a handful of the 2,000 L-shaped brackets fixing exterior panels to the ribcage of each 9,100-square-foot wing first surfaced during repairs to a Qantas A380 that was damaged when an engine exploded in November 2010.
Those initial cracks were seen as a minor glitch in the aircraft's metallic frame, but regulators decided to act when their discovery led engineers to a second and potentially more significant type of crack on the same type of bracket.
Airbus said last week that having understood the problem, it expected most of the aircraft being tested would show similar evidence of cracks and that it had found a simple repair.
It blamed the cracks on three errors: designers' choice of aluminium alloy for some of the "rib feet" brackets, the use of a type of bolt that strained the metal and a way of closing tiny gaps that put too much stress on a handful of parts.
Besides the 24 hours required to empty fuel tanks and carry out visual inspections inside the UK-built wings, the largest ever made for a jetliner, no A380s have been grounded.
However, if unrepaired, the cracks could curtail the maximum service life allowed by regulators. After immediate repairs, Airbus plans to change the type of metal used to build the part.
PILOT REASSURANCE
Singapore Airlines' chief pilot for the A380, Captain Robert Ting, flew to Germany on Sunday in one of the six aircraft that had to be fixed as a result of mandatory inspections so far and sought to reassure future passengers over the aircraft's safety.
"I slept very well," he said, referring to his peace of mind during a rest period while a second crew flew the aircraft.
"We have very competent authorities, and a very competent Airbus," he told reporters in Frankfurt.
Ting piloted the first commercial A380 flight in 2007.

gobbledock
7th Feb 2012, 21:32
Rumour has it that Engineers found the cracks while experimenting with paddle pop sticks.


Qantas grounds A380 after cracks found

AAPUpdated February 8, 2012, 5:50 am


http://l.yimg.com/fv/xp/aap/20120208/09/4211707850.jpg?x=292&sig=66TSQlnZmQLP_PA0dKVnXg-- (http://l.yimg.com/fv/xp/aap/20120208/09/4211707850.jpg?x=400&sig=FEkU6wEBv_0pUCX2mw8dTg--)



Qantas has taken one of its jumbo jets out of action after hairline cracks were discovered in its wings.
The A380 plane has been grounded at the airline's Mascot jet base since Sunday after engineers discovered 36 hairline cracks in its wings during inspections, Fairfax reported on Wednesday.
The airline said the cracks were not as serious as those discovered by the manufacturer, Airbus, last month that prompted European regulators to order urgent inspections of almost a third of the worldwide fleet within six weeks.
Qantas has found cracks in two double-deck A380s it has inspected so far.
The latest cracks - none longer than two centimetres - were discovered during routine checks of the A380 after it hit severe turbulence above India on a flight from London to Singapore on January 7.
A Qantas spokesperson said the cracks were not related to the turbulence but had been traced to a manufacturing issue at Airbus.

hotnhigh
7th Feb 2012, 21:36
What happens to the birds with broken wings?
It appears every time they crack one open in the worldwide fleet, bigger issues are being found.
Question for the engineers. Does qantas have the man power to cover what seems to be an increasing workload for the inspections and rectification of the A380 wings?
I thought Alan said new aircraft require less maintenance? (He does know everything.) Perhaps he can sign up the malaysians today for a bit of extra work up there? Their cheaper, so their in.

another superlame
7th Feb 2012, 22:05
I thought it was Geoff that said new aircraft don't need maintenance.
The A380 and 787 are both labour intensive pigs, all part of Geoffs legacy.
But that 777...........

gobbledock
7th Feb 2012, 22:53
What happens to the birds with broken wings?
It appears every time they crack one open in the worldwide fleet, bigger issues are being found.
Question for the engineers. Does qantas have the man power to cover what seems to be an increasing workload for the inspections and rectification of the A380 wings?
I thought Alan said new aircraft require less maintenance? (He does know everything.) Perhaps he can sign up the malaysians today for a bit of extra work up there? Their cheaper, so their in.


Good good question. So;

Does adequate manpower currently exist? If not, what is Alan's plan to manage the risk, will Engineers be expected to work excessive overtime and will fatigue become an issue, keeping in mind Human Factors?
If there is a shortage of manpower what are Alan and friends actually doing to mitigate this risk?
Did Alan and his merry band of minions consider that latent conditions might exist with the addition of a new aircraft type?
Has QF ensured that a 'change management' process is in place to adress any potential safety or 'resource' risk associated with the introduction of the Dugong?
Will the 'good will' of Engineers be called upon to fix this issue as fast as possible? (considering Alan and Co have willfully destroyed the remaining remnants of good will?)
I thought it was Geoff that said new aircraft don't need maintenance.
The A380 and 787 are both labour intensive pigs, all part of Geoffs legacy.
But that 777...........
Oh yes, that old chestnut, New = No Problem.Both Darth and Alan have cashed in on that crock of sh*t. Ask yourself this -Would Airbus and Boeing actually design equipment that is so superb that there would be no need to go back to the manufacturer and buy upgrades, replacement parts, failed component replacements etc etc. That would not be a very a smart business concept would it? It would be like Holden designing a Commodore that will last 10 years without a single part replacement! Yeah right. The real money for the manufacturer comes post sale.

Ultimately, what will be the end 'Profit and Loss' statement for the Dugong over 1, 5, 10 years? I would love to match that data up to what the equal figures would be had the 777 been purchased. But that all makes common sense doesn't it? But by then Alan and his merry lapdogs will be have long disapeared into the desert on the back of an A380 with their side saddles packed full of cash leaving their legacy by way of a steaming turd permeating on the ground!

http://www1.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Airbus+Rolls+Out+First+Qantas+Liveried+A380+bI4rDwuxd6rl.jpg

Wellwellwell
7th Feb 2012, 23:20
Scare mongering......show me an aircraft that doesn't have cracks. The thing is, a crack can mean many things and does not have to have any impact on airworthiness. The word "crack" in mainstream media drums up visions of gaping breaks in structure, where quite possibly all it refers to is evidence of fatigue cycling. Any new aircraft will have discoveries of this nature, it's happened before and will happen again. The public would never fly again if the media portrayed 747 section 41 cracks, 737 wing tip cracks from aftermarket winglet installations, 737 window flight deck window frame cracks, A320 fuselage cleat cracks, which at the time were all ground breaking major defets, but now dealt with everyday as known design faults, controlled through appropriate SB and AD driven compliance data. As long as the aircraft is design tolerant and meets MSG3, is maintained to the approved maintenance program then these things will be picked up when they should. This doesn't need to be a beat up, the lames are doing their thing, and so are the regulators and OEM's. We all play a part in aviation safety. This has nothing to do with any bad decision by QF, AJ or anyone else.

gobbledock
7th Feb 2012, 23:39
Scare mongering......show me an aircraft that doesn't have cracks. The thing is, a crack can mean many things and does not have to have any impact on airworthiness. The word "crack" in mainstream media drums up visions of gaping breaks in structure, where quite possibly all it refers to is evidence of fatigue cycling. Any new aircraft will have discoveries of this nature, it's happened before and will happen again. The public would never fly again if the media portrayed 747 section 41 cracks, 737 wing tip cracks from aftermarket winglet installations, 737 window flight deck window frame cracks, A320 fuselage cleat cracks, which at the time were all ground breaking major defets, but now dealt with everyday as known design faults, controlled through appropriate SB and AD driven compliance data. As long as the aircraft is design tolerant and meets MSG3, is maintained to the approved maintenance program then these things will be picked up when they should. This doesn't need to be a beat up, the lames are doing their thing, and so are the regulators and OEM's. We all play a part in aviation safety. This has nothing to do with any bad decision by QF, AJ or anyone else.
Thanks Alan.

hotnhigh
8th Feb 2012, 00:50
I agree the cracks may or may not be significant however the question was, Does qantas engineering have the ability to deal with it? And by this I mean the manpower basically. After Alan seems intent to run everything bare boned, worlds best practice crap. This could show the problems with such a strategy, when unplanned events crop up.

baron_beeza
8th Feb 2012, 01:10
I have to agree with WWW, much of this seems like a media beat-up.

The cracking does seem to be minor and has been put down to material spec and assembly processes.

In my experience we have just dealt with it as WWW has suggested. It is a fact of life that all new types attract SB's and often the associated AD's.
I have worked as a Tech Services Engineer for an airline and this stuff was just part of the daily grind, same for my days in the military.

I am sure it is bad timing for Qantas and is the type of publicity that no airline needs.

I just have a feeling this is being publicised much more than previous events.

Are the Singaporean and Emirates aircraft attracting this much coverage ?

Wellwellwell
8th Feb 2012, 01:34
Thanks gobble dock, just for the record I'm a LAME at Qantas. I'm one of the proud few who want to see my airline succeed and not run it down just because a few people don't get a living owed to them. Yeah, I see problems but I would sooner be constructive and make a healthy contribution to change than make negative comments in a public forum. Unless you are part of the organisation, you can be respected for making an informed comment. If you are not, then I take it innuendo and hearsay are taken as written.

My point was, all aircraft have issues. You don't have to draw links between an airlines management and a discovered fault. Great news really to find it, I don't see it as a problem and neither should the public. Qantas has more than enough knowledge, experience and skills to deal with these issues. Those on the inside will all admit that there is waste and baggage to trim. Improvements through process change, integration and technology improvements should not be a threat.

ALAEA Fed Sec
8th Feb 2012, 02:20
I've spoken to the LAMEs from both Qantas and Airbus who have seen these cracks and they are completely shocked that the planes are still flying. I have read in the press that these are "miniscule cracks". What a load of nonsense.

In HM Eddy current checks are done to detect cracks smaller than the eye can see. When they are found repairs are done. These 380 cracks are an inch long and extend from the rivet holes to the edge of the brackets. You may as well have sawed through the thing or left the bracket off all together as it has lost any structural integrity. This, on a new aircraft and found on every one they have inspected.

When Airbus are asked if the aircraft are safe they can give one of two answers -

1. Yes the aircraft are safe to fly; or
2. It's not safe to fly on these aircraft.

What option do you think they are going to pick? You may want to play down the issue in line with the Qantas PR machine but if it takes someone or some organisation to keep the industry honest and safe, it can only be a good thing.

Ken Borough
8th Feb 2012, 05:15
if it takes someone or some organisation to keep the industry honest and safe, it can only be a good thing.

Agreed, but only if they have genuine credibility instead of hogging the media trying to score (a) cheap shots, and (b) scaring off as many customers as is possible.

I would much rather rely on the educated opinion of professional engineers, metallurgists etc than that of a mechanic, no matter how many licences the latter may have.

Normasars
8th Feb 2012, 05:21
This is gunna be fun! ;)

empire4
8th Feb 2012, 05:25
Ken you moron. I'm both a "mechanic" and a "professional" engineer. Education at university alone does not mean jack as far as I'm concerned. There are too many academics that have little experience in the real world for me not to trust a veteran mechanic. This issue is pure and simple, as Steve said Airbus and QF are NEVER going to say its unsafe to fly until the wing snaps of and everyone dies! Have a read Amazon.com: The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA (9780226851761): Diane Vaughan: Books
Next you'll be saying QF and Airbus do it better than NASA.

Ken Borough
8th Feb 2012, 05:45
Normasars,

It's meant to be! :ok:

gobbledock
8th Feb 2012, 06:10
Ken, good to see you are still dribbling copious amounts of brown matter when you speak.
I am guessing you know all the answers hey, did you spot those cracks on the 'Super Jumbo's' wings with your binoculars while you were plane spotting? Or was your hand shaking so violently with excitement that you missed seeing them?
You had better run along now and read up on some more factual information from your normal source - Geoffery Thomas! Oops thats right, a negative QF story, GT won't print a thing!

LandIT
8th Feb 2012, 09:07
That's right wellwellwell, its nothing to worry about right? Yeh right, so after all the computer design, modelling, build operationalisation and stress testing it then fails in service. Is that a good thing? Really? What era are you living in?

baron_beeza
8th Feb 2012, 09:23
I thought we were talking about an item that was not manufactured correctly and then at the assembly stage was basically 'forced' into alignment.

If that is the case then you could hardly attribute any blame on the design team.
I was under the impression the material spec was such that it could not withstand the inbuilt stress that it obviously was not designed for. Very much like the early high zinc alloys. You may remember there were cases of the Belfast undercarriage castings cracking in the stores, without even being fitted to an aircraft.
Didn't the manufacturing issue with the Airbus component originate in Australia anyway.. just by coincidence I know. The assembly work was done in the UK.

baron_beeza
8th Feb 2012, 10:11
Further to my post above, - I have come across this on a sister thread.

http://www.pprune.org/middle-east/473407-a380-cracking-up-3.html

Posted by J L Seagull on 29th Jan.

All cracked up
For all the best pilots in the world out there, who want some information from a 'simple' engineer, here's something that would hopefully clear up all the misinformation (or disinformation) out there.

No ribs on the A380 ever cracked. Its the RIB FEET (or attachment brackets) that fix the ribs to the wing lower skin that are cracking.

As of now, the four metallic ribs that Airbus claims to be primary structure in the wing don't have any cracks on their feet.

The rest (26, I think) of the CFRP ribs have feet that are cracked. Airbus claims (tongue-in-cheek) that these are secondary structure and give the wing its profile.

Now, to the cracks:

The original type 1 cracks, as they call them, originate from the fastner holes in the horizontal web of the rib feet. i.e. the rib feet are L-shaped in cross section, and the horizontal portion is bolted to the wing lower skin, while the vertical portion of the foot is bolted to the rib. The fastners that join the skin to the feet are an interference fit; so it seems that as the fastners are driven into the holes in the feet, the feet crack. The cracks radiate outwards from the holes. Some cracks have been severe enough to propagate to the edge of the material.

Interestingly, brand new wings (pre-assembly) received in Toulouse from the UK have been found to have multiple cracks. This is "GOOD" news, because it means the cracks are a production issue, and not fatigue related. One proposal from Airbus is to make these holes a clearance fit, as a quick fix. Material expansitivity, flex, etc. will all need to be re-assessed in the long run.

What is worrying are the type 2 cracks, which seem to be fatigue related, but are, thankfully, quite rare as of now. These originate from the edge of the feet, at the corner of the "L" and propogate inwards. Since a lot more research needs to be done to fix this, the quick fix is to replace the cracked feet with new (but still unmodified) ones. A mod program will be out as soon as Airbus figures out what is going on.

Down time for one airplane is around 3-5 days for inspection, and another 10-15 days for repairs (currently done by Airbus personnel).

Those are the facts, as I know them. No airline/manufacturer bashing.

1a sound asleep
8th Feb 2012, 10:45
Only good thing AJ did was cancel (postpone) the remaining A380 order

listentome
8th Feb 2012, 12:05
No need for personal attacks, www added some thoughtful comments relating to the thread. I agree with some of his comments, everyone is quick to pull punches and turn this issue into a QF beat up again when it has nothing to do with any airline. As the facts are starting to appear, it is undead under control and nothing to worry about.

DirectAnywhere
8th Feb 2012, 12:08
A380 wing crack inspections extended to entire fleet | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/02/08/wing-cracks-inspection-now-compulsory-and-more-intensive-for-all-a380s/)

Again, the only journo who seems to have any grasp of this industry.

hotnhigh
8th Feb 2012, 20:57
This one's for Ken.............
Airbus A380 wing checks extended to entire fleet | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/08/us-airbus-checks-idUSTRE8171DI20120208)
"This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to a reduction of the structural integrity of the aeroplane," the EU agency said in its directive to airlines.

And how things change in a couple of days.....
A380 wing cracks 'really is not a safety issue': head engineer (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/a380-wing-cracks-really-is-not-a-safety-issue-head-engineer-20120106-1pnn0.html)
Airbus has been in informing air-safety authorities, including the European Aviation Safety Agency, of the cracks but there are no plans to issue airworthiness directives requiring airlines to take action

Read more: A380 wing cracks 'really is not a safety issue': head engineer (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/a380-wing-cracks-really-is-not-a-safety-issue-head-engineer-20120106-1pnn0.html#ixzz1lpV5yiFb)

ALAEA Fed Sec
8th Feb 2012, 21:06
I think Ken takes his Technical advice from the Qantas Spokesmodel.

adsyj
8th Feb 2012, 22:22
Ken is consistent. Consistently having a case of foot in mouth.

Ken man up and apologise to the Engineers you have besmirched.

Ken Borough
8th Feb 2012, 22:51
adsyj,

I've not besmirched anyone. As a result, no apology will be forthcoming. However, will the 'Engineers' apologise to Qantas and its customers for the hell they put them through? Here is an extract from the Senate Hearing last Monday if you don't understand from where I'm coming:

Senator ABETZ: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FN26%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) We have had a lot of this agitation within the marketplace and quite inflammatory commentary by certain people against Qantas for a period of nine months. You are saying that through the Fair Work process Qantas has ended up largely with what was on the table for the union nine months ago.
Mr Joyce : Yes.

I'm now going to enjoy a game of golf.

ALAEA Fed Sec
8th Feb 2012, 23:22
The offer the Engineers accepted was not put on the table 9 months ago. It wasn't even close. I guess Abetz can only comment on the mistruths before him.

gobbledock
8th Feb 2012, 23:44
I'm now going to enjoy a game of golf. Thank Christ for that. Are you playing with Alan and Livvy? I doubt it even though that would be high on your bucket list! You are more likely doing some plane spotting with binoculars and scanner, Nimrod.

Sunfish
9th Feb 2012, 00:12
Boeing used to use a mandrel setup to cold work the the walls of such holes and put them in compression before fitting something with an interference fit. McDonnel Douglas used a "coining" process to do the same thing. The idea was to ensure there were little or no tensile stresses in the walls of the holes.

I would have thought Airbus has done something similar.

I wonder if the issue is going to be the stability of the rib in compression if the feet aren't firmly secured to the skin? (Euler?)

I'm sure they can fix it.

rmm
9th Feb 2012, 02:11
Airbus certainly cold work fastener holes, at least on the A320.

TIMA9X
9th Feb 2012, 02:32
I'm sure they can fix it. 9th Feb 2012 07:44I agree, trust that AJ and his management mates can now see the importance of maintaining Australian engineers jobs.

The latest ones were found during routine checks of the A380 - named Charles Kingsford Smith - after it hit severe turbulence above India on a flight from London to Singapore on January 7.
The engineers found a total 36 hairline cracks in the wing-rib feet of the A380. Each wing has about 2000 wing-rib feet, which attach the skins of the wings to brackets.
Qantas said last night that the cracks found in the Charles Kingsford-Smith were not related to the turbulence or specific to the airline but had been traced to a manufacturing issue at Airbus.
"This type of cracking is different from the 'type two' cracking found on certain A380s in the global fleet, which is now the subject of a European airworthiness directive,'' a spokesman said. ''To date, type-two cracking has not been found on Qantas aircraft.'



Read more: Cracks put Qantas A380 out of action (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/cracks-put-qantas-a380-out-of-action-20120207-1r5bf.html#ixzz1lqrTDQXd)
Sort of shoots down the argument AJ bangs on about, reducing the number of engineers today's modern airliners require...:ok:
kgtuf1OhsWg

adsyj
9th Feb 2012, 06:34
Pull your head in Ken,

Agreed, but only if they have genuine credibility instead of hogging the media trying to score (a) cheap shots, and (b) scaring off as many customers as is possible.

I would much rather rely on the educated opinion of professional engineers, metallurgists etc than that of a mechanic, no matter how many licences the latter may have.

The engineers that you say do not have "genuine credibility" and are only "mechanics" your words, found the cracks which are now the subject of an EAD. YOU GOT IT WRONG AGAIN

You hate Qantas staff Ken we get it, but to imply engineers in discovering new cracks is an attempt to undermine Qantas is pathetic just like you.

Jabawocky
9th Feb 2012, 09:49
Yes Ken, as a regular customer, who pays YOUR wages....pull ya head in.

I too run a company, but I do not run it anything like you lot do. Ohhh yeas, we run it debt free, never had a loss in any month.........

Need I say more.

Capt Fathom
9th Feb 2012, 10:06
Ohhh yeas, we run it debt free, never had a loss in any month.........

I've heard that before.... from people now on the dole!

Short_Circuit
9th Feb 2012, 23:00
Scare mongering......show me an aircraft that doesn't have cracks. Umm, 36 cracks 2cm long (nearly one inch in legacy language) in an airframe 12 months old, eek :eek:

Down time for one airplane is around 3-5 days for inspection, and another 10-15 days for repairs (currently done by Airbus personnel).
But we are told these new age aircraft fix themselves! Just park them for a few months with the lights off and hey presto, auto fixed.

Ken Borough
12th Feb 2012, 06:39
You hate Qantas staff Ken we get it

Sorry, no you don't. I can't let this apsersion pass without comment. For the record, I do not hate Qantas staff. Hatred is for the bitter and twisted. What I don't like is what some Qantas staff, and the paid union leaders who are supposed to represent them, say about their employer and do things that will harm the provider of their very means of support. There's a lot of difference between the two philosophies and it's something that many simply are unable to get their minds around. A real shame! :ok:

Terrey
12th Feb 2012, 07:15
Ken,


"The Company" is different to "The Management". I think you will find just about every staff member is massively supportive of "The Company". You would probably be struggling to find more than 5 % who are supportive of the current management. As has been said here many times before, management come and go, but most staff have invested more time and effort over the years in creating a great company than any blow in management.

What should the staff do? Support the destruction of their jobs and a great company? The management have proven have made wrong call after wrong call over the last 10years, and now the staff have to pay for it?

RedWine2012
12th Feb 2012, 10:32
Sorry to state the obvious but all maintenance is headed offshore other than line. Flight and cabin crews, already well on the way. Look at the youngsters on the 380, no seasoned crew in sight. How do you stop the business from heading O/S? The argument proposing Asian maintenance/cabin staff/flight crew are inferior to OZ falls short when looking at Cathay Pacific, Singapore or Lufthansa.

The old days are gone, not sure what the future holds or how to embrace it.

Sad.

Sunfish
12th Feb 2012, 10:46
Redwine, your argument will fail when an A380 overruns an airport and bursts into flames.

The first people out the door will be those delightfully complaisant Asian cabin crew.

They are not paid to risk their lives getting the pax out, in fact their compatriots would regard them as being stupid for even trying. They are not paid enough. The company has no loyalty to them, let alone their dependents.

As for maintenance, they will do what they are paid to do, not what Airbus requires them to do. They will simply rely on diffusion of responsibility to protect them.

Meanwhile, we will continue to prosecute people for honest mistakes.


The unfortunate reality is that the entire aviation regulatory and quality control system is based on Judeo Christian principles especially the golden rule. Japan has a similar principle based upon the concept of "Face". Apart from that - nothing.

We are about to learn that again. Cirrus and Continental have been sold to China. Good luck with that.

CASA will not change until there are Three smoking holes in the ground.

standard unit
12th Feb 2012, 12:14
Look at the youngsters on the 380, no seasoned crew in sight.


Actually untrue. A high percentage of CC on the A380 are experienced and older domestic crew on secondment for two years, having a break from 4 sector domestic ops.

There are not too many Longhaul there though.........

nitpicker330
13th Feb 2012, 06:45
Sunfish.----- this is not the first time I have to correct you. Not all Asian cabin crew are "first out the door" as you say. On more than one occasion Cathay cabin crew have excelled themselves during pax evacuations. So please take your biased attitude elsewhere. In fact in around 5 evacs in the past 15 years not once did any of our cabin crew abandon ship before the pax, they did their jobs to a very high standard. :ok:

Ngineer
13th Feb 2012, 10:28
The argument proposing Asian maintenance/cabin staff/flight crew are inferior to OZ falls short when looking at Cathay Pacific, Singapore or Lufthansa.


A very ignorant and misinformed statement if ever I saw one. Fixing wiring with staples, pencil whipping check sheets on inspections that were not carried out, taking off on closed runways etc, etc.

A manager within QF Eng made a very similar statement in front of a group of around 80 LAMES approx 1 week before the OQA engine incident. We subsequently grounded our 380 fleet immediately. Some others didn't (and guess who). What a short memory some people have. Cost cutting is usually the main reason behind people making statements such as these.

By the way, you left a few big name airlines out of your cleverly compiled list.

gobbledock
13th Feb 2012, 13:14
Ken,
You start of by telling us "For the record"... You should have stopped there, because "for the record" nobody gives a sh#t about what you have to say.... Bye bye.

nitpicker330
15th Feb 2012, 08:46
Yawn, another willy waving competition.....so here goes!

We here at CX have flight crew standards the equal of QF. We too haven't ever lost a Jet Aircraft due to flight crew error. In fact the last Jet hull loss was from a Thai bloke blowing himself and the Aircraft up over Vietnam a long long time ago. Our record, like Qf, speaks for itself day in day out all over the world with 130+ widebody Aircraft flying into places QF crews only dream about!!

So take your "QF is the best" crap and shove it!!

Rant over....


By the way, I have a lot of mates in Skippy and as an Aussie am proud of their high standards.

PW1830
15th Feb 2012, 09:26
A year or so ago QF started an ad campaign in UK emphasing "worlds most experienced airline" or similar. Made pilots cringe.
Qf has been around a while but much "experience" gained doing "ground hog day" - SYD SIN LHR SIN SYD etc etc.
Most QF pilots are aware, envious and appreciative of the multiple destinations that other crew encounter on a daily basis.
The familiarity with all destinations can produce its own problems.
There are no doubt some [email protected]@#%$# that believe Qantas is the best - the rest of us try to be but are under no illusions....

nitpicker330
15th Feb 2012, 09:34
Seems with tomorrows announcement my mates at QF have more on their plate again.

Unber******* believable......

Sunfish
15th Feb 2012, 20:18
My son recently flew CX and was appalled at the cabin crew standards and behaviour. They made virtually no attempt to enforce seatbelt restrictions or anything else. The service was crap as well.

God help the passengers when there is an incident on any Asian crewed airline because the cabin crew won't.

nitpicker330
15th Feb 2012, 22:05
Sunfish:---- you are a biased racist idiot. I'm not sorry to say it. As a Professional working in the industry for nearly 30 years I have a better idea of standards and safety than your son ( was he travelling in the Baby bassinet? ) My cabin crew have many times in the recent past excelled themselves in emergency situations and I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that they are as professional a bunch as any QF crew. Their runs are already on the board mate.

I've been the Captain on several diversions in the last 10 years and my crew continued to give service above and beyond to their passengers long after the wheels had stopped. Assisting them in the terminal, helping with bags and taking them personally to the airport hotel. This is what my crew do, it's their job and they do it well.

Running down other Airlines and their crews does nothing to help your cause so pull your stupid head in and stick to flying in GA with OzRunways strapped to your knee.

adsyj
15th Feb 2012, 23:04
Sunfish

Thats a bit average mate. You do post a lot of intelligent thought provoking material, which generally are supported by facts or are well thought out.

I think you may have missed the mark here with such a sweeping generalisation. I don't think it is (i hope not) racially motivated but very uninformed.

Generally i am a fan but can't go with you on this one. there are a lot of Aussie CX pilots here and I would be surprised if they held the same views of the CC they work with everyday.

1a sound asleep
15th Feb 2012, 23:07
Back on topic before this gets locked off
:ok:
How is Nancy doing?????????????

AC690
16th Feb 2012, 00:09
Parked next to the budget terminal with all four engines and most of the damaged skin replaced.

Going Boeing
3rd Mar 2012, 06:15
Hong Kong Airlines may cancel A380 order: report

Hong Kong Airlines may cancel an order for 10 Airbus superjumbo A380 jets, a report said Thursday, as Chinese opposition to the European Union's airlines carbon emissions fee intensifies.

Beijing has banned its airlines from complying with the EU scheme, which was imposed from January 1 although no airline will face a bill until 2013.

Hong Kong Airlines, a subsidiary of Chinese carrier Hainan Airlines, said it was under pressure to cancel the acquisition -- reportedly worth about $3.8 billion at list prices -- following China's decision.

"We cannot do something which is against our country's interest," Hong Kong Airlines president Yang Jianhong told the South China Morning Post newspaper in Hong Kong.

The airline might review its fleet expansion plan if the order is dropped, the newspaper quoted a source from the firm as saying. The 10 jets were intended to serve its European and North American markets.

Hong Kong Airlines could not be immediately reached for comment. A Singapore-based spokesman for Airbus told AFP "there is no change to the status of the order" at the moment.

The European aircraft manufacturer has reportedly said it plans to deliver the first A380 to Hong Kong Airlines in 2015.

China was among more than two dozen countries including India, Russia and the United States that opposed the EU scheme, which is imposed on airlines taking off or landing in Europe.

The EU has said the carbon tax will help the 27-nation EU bloc achieve its goal of cutting emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and that it will not back down, despite claims the charge violates international law.

China has said it fears its aviation sector will have to pay an additional 800 million yuan ($125 million) a year on flights originating from or landing in Europe, and that the cost could be almost four times higher by 2020.

by Simon Martin © 2012 AFP Source : AFP

DirectAnywhere
3rd Mar 2012, 07:52
Hong Kong Airlines may cancel an order for 10 Airbus superjumbo A380 jets, a report said Thursday, as Chinese opposition to the European Union's airlines carbon emissions fee intensifies.

They've dropped the order because the economics are crap and the aeroplane doesnt make money. It's that simple.

Nancy's sitting down near the southern end of 20C in Singapore. Looks complete from the outside but apparently there is a further delay due to a wait for hangar space to complete the job.

SpannerTwister
3rd Mar 2012, 22:27
Looks complete from the outside but apparently there is a further delay due to a wait for hangar space to complete the job.

Yeah....That worries me too.

"Oh I'm so sorry Mr Qantas, That airplane you had booked in for a "D-Check", that you've just sent here with no more hours to run as you've used up all your extensions.....So sorry, cannot do check for another 8 weeks as the check for another airline is running late / they paid us more then you pay us / we have our own aircraft to service / our contractors just left for someone who pays 2-bowls-of-rice a day" :ugh: :ugh:

Am I the only one who can see this happening ?

ST

Sunfish
4th Mar 2012, 19:15
ST:

Am I the only one who can see this happening ?


No.

balance
4th Mar 2012, 19:33
Am I the only one who can see this happening?

Agreed. No, you aren't the only one.

Question is: What to do about it?

Managers Perspective
4th Mar 2012, 19:42
Question is: What to do about it?

You do what the rest of the world does, you manage it.

Jeepers you guys really do need to look beyond your own nappie.

MP

parabellum
4th Mar 2012, 21:04
The penalty clauses built in to these maintenance contracts are very, very severe if delays are caused by or attributed to the contracting engineering company. Heads are likely to roll in SIA if penalty clauses are invoked, the alternative is to negotiate a cheaper contract without these clauses, could that be QANTAS?

denabol
4th Mar 2012, 21:53
I'm guessing that an A380 that takes almost 200 more passengers per flight in SQ format than its 777s, 471 passengers compared to around 280 passengers, would make a shitload more money than the smaller jet per flight. Isn't that why they were built. The take more passengers per flight.

Having flown in both the SQ 777-300ER (Frankfurt) and SQ A380 (Paris) the big one is bliss for passengers, even better than the Boeing, but not complaining about it either.

1a sound asleep
5th Mar 2012, 00:31
Having flown in both the SQ 777-300ER (Frankfurt) and SQ A380 (Paris) the big one is bliss for passengers

mmmm. Well the T7 will make more money.

1. Less Fuel
2. Significantly less maintenance
3. Much lower lease costs/ownership costs
4. Lower Airport fees
5. More freight revenue

The minute the T7 flies with a 95% load factor and the A380 drops to 80% it means the A380 is effectively LOSING money.

The A380, whilst all being "marvellous" and spacious/quiet for pax is not the financial dream that some pretend.

http://www.centreforaviation.com/images/imported/apad/2007/20070913.png

The only way the A380 will make you money is to jam in more seats. LH is operating with 549 pax whilst QF is still lumbering about with 450 pax. EK has plans to put 644 pax into some of their A380 fleet.

11 abreast in Y for the A380 will be the future just like EK are packing in the 777 with 10 abreast

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/airbusa380cabin11-abreaststudy-2.jpg?t=1181228006

denabol
5th Mar 2012, 07:26
From a business point of view, thats not the point. You aren't making more money from 777s if you end up leaving hundreds of passengers behind every time you fly one. But if you are only every going to have 300 passengers, sweet. You can fly a 777 and leave no money behind.

I'm not knocking 777s, but the idea that airlines would voluntarily sacrifice anything between 100-200 passengers per flight or hundreds of millions of bucks a year per jet in revenue is crazy. Itz like saying you'd make more money flying a 737 versus a 767 by leaving 70 passengers to find a seat with your competitor per flight. You'd do your backside.

balance
5th Mar 2012, 08:46
Gee thanks for that input, Managers Perspective. I really didn't know that. I'm very glad you are here to give us all a look at "your" perspective.

Might want to re-read the previous posts, then take that nappy off your head, you tool.

mustafagander
7th Mar 2012, 10:28
denabol,

If you leave heaps of potential pax behind when your aircraft is full you make buckets of money. The object of the exercise is to fill your aircraft, not carry all the potentail pax.

Willoz269
7th Mar 2012, 22:16
This is why pilots dont make managers....they would fly the prestige, not the revenue maker (many years ago I saw a study that said 73% of pilots thought their airline should fly concordes!)

Comparing a 777 against an A380 is ludicrous....apples and oranges. There is a reason why the A380 has been allocated to those routes, and obviously people totally missed the point.

The A380 is hoarding all available passangers and bringing them to YOUR product, exposing every single one of those fare paying passengers to your bi-products. In the thick trunk routes, this is invaluable! Compare an A380 to a 747 if you really want to look at proper figures.

HF3000
8th Mar 2012, 10:15
This is why pilots dont make managers....

Oh, yes. That is why the current bean counting managers are making soo much money. Let me see, current total global airline profit is predicted to be less than one Australian bank. And the reason? Excess capacity.

1a sound asleep
9th Mar 2012, 16:42
EMIRATES Airline, the world's largest operator of Airbus A380s, says it plans to seek compensation from the aircraft maker related to widespread disruption following the discovery of wing cracks on the super-jumbo jets.
Emirates president Tim Clark told the Financial Times in an interview published Friday that the airline expected to lose up to $90 million of revenue by the end of March because of the A380 groundings that began in January.


Read more: Emirates seeks compensation for A380s - report | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/emirates-seeks-compensation-for-a380s-report/story-e6frfku0-1226295522952#ixzz1oduE7Y00)

Capt_SNAFU
10th Mar 2012, 00:46
OQA not back till late april.:ugh:

Jabawocky
12th Mar 2012, 11:08
All this loss of revenue, damage, cost of capital, brand damage, all for a mis-drilled bit of pipe :sad:

Unreal stuff.......and 18 months later she is still grounded.

Anyone want to start an airline......or build jetliners? :eek:

Arnold E
12th Mar 2012, 11:26
all for a mis-drilled bit of pipe http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

Jab, as you know I am an engineer, it wasn't 1 mis-drilled pipe it was a series of them. this indicates to me a systemic problem. And no, I would not want to build airliners or start an airline.

TWT
14th Mar 2012, 19:48
Engine explosion Qantas A380 set to return to skies (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/engine-explosion-qantas-a380-set-to-return-to-skies-20120314-1uze8.html)

Senior executives expected to be on the first flight out of Singapore.So,fly to Sing,then fly straight back.Why ?? Someone thinks it'll be a good PR 'opportunity' I guess.....

another superlame
14th Mar 2012, 21:14
I remember James Bow-tie did the same thing when OJH flew back to Sydney for the first time following its front end rebuild.

RENURPP
14th Mar 2012, 22:38
Senior executives expected to be on the first flight out of Singapore.So,fly to Sing,then fly straight back.Why ?? Someone thinks it'll be a good PR 'opportunity' I guess.....
Do you think they will be traveling in economy?

maggot
14th Mar 2012, 22:47
will they reassemble the dream team to fly it home? I know at least one who may be keen...





ok, make that only one.

Jethro Gibbs
15th Mar 2012, 01:19
Maybe they will fly to Avalon to the new 380 maint base that the ALAEA wants and is going on about agian in todays herald sun :mad: it will never happen.

griffin one
15th Mar 2012, 10:20
Rumor is the final fix for the A380 wing cracks gets incorporated there is around four to five years worth of work.Airbus cant handle the work and are looking for partnerships, too bad Q avalon couldnt ramp up and do more work on the guppy.But no lets shut it down and forever lose another auz maint division.

Short_Circuit
15th Mar 2012, 22:31
And it only took 16 months to fix itself... :O

1a sound asleep
31st Mar 2012, 11:44
Back in service 28th of April

73to91
2nd Apr 2012, 23:05
Caution: author is GT - from The West Australian.


Qantas insurers have paid out $150 million - half the price of a new plane - to fix the Airbus A380 crippled when an engine exploded four minutes after take-off from Singapore on November 4, 2010.

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce said yesterday the repair was probably the most expensive in aviation history.

The A380, christened Nancy-Bird Walton, will return to Sydney on April 22 to complete flight QF32 - 536 days behind schedule.

The plane was badly damaged when a faulty oil pipe fractured in a port-side Rolls-Royce engine, which then caught fire and exploded, shattering a turbine.

Shrapnel punctured the wing, cutting fuel lines, a hydraulic system and landing flaps. The jet's anti-lock brakes failed and the damage pushed the number one and four engines into "degraded" mode.
Airbus began the repairs in May, using up to 50 technicians with help from Singapore International Airlines Engineering Company and Qantas staff in an SIAE hangar. All the engines were replaced.

Meanwhile, Qantas offshoot Jetstar could face hefty fines if allegations are proved that it hired trainee pilots from New Zealand on individual contracts but did not pay them superannuation and charged them for training in Australia.

The Fair Work Ombudsman launched legal action yesterday against Australian companies Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd and Jetstar Group Pty Ltd and New Zealand entity Jetstar Airways Limited.
Qantas jet's $150m repair bill - The West Australian (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13327352/qantas-jets-150m-repair-bill/)

another superlame
3rd Apr 2012, 08:57
For someone who thinks he knows about aviation, his year 5 creative writing version of this event is woeful.
Surely he could have done a better cut and paste from the ATSB report.
Very simplistic and inaccurate.

Metro man
4th Apr 2012, 03:27
I would be a nice touch if the same crew who handled the emergency landing were used to bring it home.:ok:

scam sniffer
4th Apr 2012, 05:42
Get it rigt AJ Qantas can now boast that they have the two most expensive repairs in the history of aviation. :hmm:

DEFCON4
4th Apr 2012, 13:05
Qantas insurers have paid out $150 million - half the price of a new plane -
He forgot to mention the initial cost of the aircraft;the lose of income while it sat on the ground being repaired.The damage to the Qantas Brand~Priceless

Jet-A-One
15th Apr 2012, 11:03
It flew today:}

Ngineer
16th Apr 2012, 02:26
And pigs might fly.................

Back Seat Driver
16th Apr 2012, 03:33
And pigs did fly...............

Sunfish
16th Apr 2012, 10:32
Glad to be proved wrong.

1a sound asleep
16th Apr 2012, 10:57
How much extra fuel is going to be used with the extra trim and drag needed to fly straight and level? If I quickly calculate it out over the next 15 years it would have been cheaper to wreck the old girl. Oh well

Capt Fathom
16th Apr 2012, 11:07
Why so 1a. What's the goss?

You don't really know, do you!

hotnhigh
16th Apr 2012, 21:45
If it doesn't meet the performance specs, airbus pays. All part of the repair deal I think.

Eastwest Loco
20th Apr 2012, 14:38
It will just be wonderful to see Nancy-Bird back.

I am gutted that QF didn't invite the 155 of us who enjoyed the 1st QF A380 International passenger flight up to SIN for the return to service.

And no - it wasn't MEL LAX.

OQA performed beautifully then and I am sure she will continue to do so thanks to the skills of a brilliant flight deck crew. In the hands of lesser crews she and all on board may have been just more sad statistics.

Go you good thing Miss Nancy!!!

Best all

EWL

TIMA9X
21st Apr 2012, 16:01
It will just be wonderful to see Nancy-Bird back.
I agree, and to be fair AJ says some good stuff in this clip.. positive for a change.

refreshing!

gy1os7zxvog



.:ok:

Lancair70
21st Apr 2012, 23:24
VH-OQA Nancy Bird Walton touched down YSSY 16R approx 2319 today.

prospector
22nd Apr 2012, 01:31
My post could be interpreted many ways, I better clarify.

The message i get is that old style aviation professionalism is being overtaken by new generation management style and moneyspeak.

TIMA9X
22nd Apr 2012, 02:37
by prospector; The message I get is that old style aviation professionalism is being overtaken by new generation management style and moneyspeak. Well said, my view as well. I think Ben Sandilands sums it up well in his latest piece.

Qantas and the real lessons of QF32 and the rebuilt A380 | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/04/22/qantas-and-the-real-lessons-of-qf32-and-the-rebuilt-a380/)
Amid the extensive, and accurate, reporting of the return to flight of the first Qantas A380, Nancy-Bird Walton, that was severely damaged by an engine disintegration operating QF32 on 4 November 2010, there is one sharp lesson for all airlines when it comes to maintenance and ‘care’.
And that isn’t the one that managements and unions argue about, which is outsourcing.
It is the lesson that says ‘keep in control and keep informed.’
background
xilExCfETuo

:D

camber
22nd Apr 2012, 04:00
This gem from Sydney Morning Herald today:

"Damaged A380 back in service

The Qantas Airbus A380 that dramatically lost an engine in a mid-air explosion is back in service after 18 months and 139 dollars worth of repairs."

Classic!

1a sound asleep
22nd Apr 2012, 04:56
Shame they never bothered to wash it

Tiger35
22nd Apr 2012, 06:07
Send a photo of it to Olivia. Just to show her what a QANTAS A380 looks like.

teresa green
22nd Apr 2012, 07:04
Welcome home Nancy, a aircraft named after such a great lady, could never turn up her toes, Nancy never did. Fly straight and level from now on, great Lady.

another superlame
22nd Apr 2012, 07:54
It was washed in Singapore 5 days ago but then parked outdoors in the rain.
Money well spent.

Oh and for all those who say she is not going to be repaired etc etc. Too expensive blah blah blah.......

LandIT
23rd Apr 2012, 04:23
Just flew down into the Bight turned around and now back over Melbourne at FL410 as flight QF6001 now headed back to Sydney I assume.

*Lancer*
23rd Apr 2012, 04:50
Wonder if it was the rest of the route check too? :}

wlee380
23rd Apr 2012, 09:36
OQA went into SAIEC for some repainting on its airframe and underwing on 12 April. SAIEC had wanted AUD 40K for a wash but the problem lied with the accumulated grease and dirt trapped behind each window outer frame. That means no sooner you wash the outside, the dirt streak marks will appear after couple days of rain. I believe CY made a very sensible decision not to have spent the money and for the detailed cleaning done in SYD.

I give much credit to the QF engineering team led by CY for their extraordinary effort and patience in dealing with the highly bearucratic Changi Airport Corp and Changi Police, SIAEC and the rest. In spite that SIAEC was making from QF some astronomical amount of money from the hangar rental and engineering work, OQA had overstayed its welcome at the end, hangar resource is normally scarce in any case, let alone a 16 month occupation, hence the aircraft was forced to have its work completed in a remote bay - B104 just off the Budget Terminal. A fully operational work site had to be set up for the last schedule work.

A side episode; halfway into the remote bay operation, #3 RH fan cowl was damaged by a runaway SATS engineering stairs. The QF team didn’t make any fuss with finger pointing, and just got on with the rectification. This was greatly appreciated by SATS, and in turn gave their full cooperation to have the aircraft cleaned in record time and fit for the big press event on 21April.

DrPepz
23rd Apr 2012, 10:22
Having worked for Changi Airport Group before and dealt with all the bureaucracy, what you're saying is probably true. I shudder when I think of it even now! Many things were stalled because of lower level clerical staff desperate to prove their power "just cos I can - so suck it up!!!"

Clipped
23rd Apr 2012, 10:27
OQA had overstayed its welcome at the end, hangar resource is normally scarce in any case

Whilst we have A380s in the fleet, we had better get used to 'borrowing' other MRO hangars. No suitable facility here in OZ. Just as well OQA returned to SIN, had it continued here - where would we have accomplished such a repair?

But as AJ would have us believe "these planes don't need as much maintenance".

90000 manhours on this occasion.

An incident like this is not new and every fleet has had maintenance challenges. Are we ready for the next one?

No.

TIMA9X
23rd Apr 2012, 13:25
Indeed, and for us Australians, it is a different world up there in doing business.. it's a cultural thing, which needs to be understood and respected, it takes time.. lot's of time! :)

by wlee380, I give much credit to the QF engineering team led by CY for their extraordinary effort and patience in dealing with the highly bearucratic Changi Airport Corp and Changi Police, SIAEC and the rest.Yeah, so much talent gets forgotten because of bureaucracy in many Asian countries. (lived S E Asia for seven years.) I hear CY and the team were a credit to Australia and the Qantas brand. Kudos :ok:

I shudder when I think of it even now! Many things were stalled because of lower level clerical staff desperate to prove their power "just cos I can - so suck it up!!!" Hmmm, I can relate to that Dr P.. and welcome to pprune wlee380, thanks guys for the insight..:ok:

DrPepz
23rd Apr 2012, 16:18
I wouldn't quite put CAG's bureaucratic ways to anything cultural - as a government organisation one would expect this, especially a system of governance which was inherited from the British. In the name of governance there are dozens of committees, checks and balances to ensure that due process is followed.

I remember writing an urgent paper for EVP-level folks to sign (3 of them had to sign it, along with a co-worker and 2 senior managers), seeking special dispensation to allocate a 30sqm storeroom for rental to a very large airline within 24 hours, instead of the usual one week waiting period, and one of my colleagues had to run from office to office of the EVPs to seek their signatures. Without six signatures, the person in charge of the keys would not release the keys. The department managing the leases is different from the department managing airline relations, which again is different from the department holding the keys, which is different from the department measuring the floor area, and of course Finance which collects payment. And this was for a 30sqm space with a rental value of maybe $800 a month.

It almost drove that airline insane.

All this in the name of governance.

Do watch or read the book Salmon Fishing in the Yemen. Classic story of British-style government bureaucracy!

parabellum
23rd Apr 2012, 22:24
Well if you think Singapore is bad thank your lucky stars it didn't happen in India! (Ask Boeing/Air France re 747 at Delhi). In fact I can think of at least a dozen countries where the bribes alone would have added 50% to the repair bill, not to mention the cost of building facilities that simply don't exist in a lot of places. The good fortune of going into Singapore may well have saved it from being an economic write-off.

Ken Borough
24th Apr 2012, 01:01
But as AJ would have us believe "these planes don't need as much maintenance".

90000 manhours on this occasion.

How about putting some context into what AJ says? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

hotnhigh
24th Apr 2012, 03:31
Yeah lets put it into context Ken.........
Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/hang-about-its-how-much-for-an-aircraft-hangar-these-days/story-fn7j19iv-1226307646855)

the_company_spy
24th Apr 2012, 04:28
Ken, you are a douche.

Mr Leslie Chow
24th Apr 2012, 07:35
Have a gander at 00:12s in first clip TIMA pasted - who is waving to his best friend in the whole wide world...

Looks like the fat kid that is the last to be chosen when the cool kids are picking sides.

I can imagine he hangs his fluoro vest up in his office and looks and smiles at it everyday thinking "the leprechaun gave that to me"

You :mad:wit

Beer Baron
4th May 2012, 13:33
How much extra fuel is going to be used with the extra trim and drag needed to fly straight and level? If I quickly calculate it out over the next 15 years it would have been cheaper to wreck the old girl. Oh well

Well after returning to OZ, being re-weighed and completing a performance test flight, the performance factor for OQA is better than when it last flew. By almost a percent I believe.

So much for your quick calculation. :confused:

Eastwest Loco
8th May 2012, 14:25
Good call Beer Baron

If the wing structure geometry was returned to normal, or probably even closer to original spec and the fuselage was just as it was originally then how would Nancy be worse off?

How many times have you heard of cars put over a chassis gig that have come out better than they were when manufactured?

If you crosschecked (at a huge expense of course) the entire fleet of any aeroplane type over "the pit" you could most likely improve the performance of 99% of them by cutting and shutting to optimum.

Take TN F27s for instance. TFE was the slowest in the fleet. Changing engines made no nevermind. Nothing could get her to perform to block time. She was a wuffer. The aeroplane was sold to Civil Aviation Authourity or whatever they were called that month. Had a long tenure there, as block time wasn't important.

TQQ I think it was was the quickest Fokker ever built. They wanted it back after TN was finished with it to figure out what they had done right. If it wasn't TQQ it was TQO - memory fails. Unfortunately a bounce on landing and a meeting with arrestor pylon at Amberley precluded that.

There is no reason that Nancy wouldn't be better than ever with after market rebuild;ding, and I don't care.

The girl is back:ok:

Clear on four and good to go!

Best all

EWL

teresa green
10th May 2012, 07:24
Yep, TFE was a lazy ol bitch, but so were many of the mark 1. Fully agree with the Q being a pocket rocket, but always had a soft spot for TFF. She and I had a few adventures together, both in DRW after Tracy, and then in East Timor when some Indonesian soldiers took a pot shot at me after take off. Real aeroplanes eh Loco?

Fantome
21st Jul 2012, 09:29
GET YOUR WEEKEND AUSTRALIANS LADS -

Capt Richard Richard De Crespigny has written a book. In the AUSTRALIAN MAGAZINE is an extract.(Issue July 21-22) . It is hard to fault as a box seat account. The mark of a truly modest man when he can tell it how it was (ring all but hanging out) without a shred of the old 'figjam'.

(He started in the RAAF he says on an 'A85 Winjeel'. The most trivial of slips . .. then again it can be argued he is not wrong.)

DirectAnywhere
21st Jul 2012, 09:37
Are you for real?

More figjam than a jam factory that makes jam with figs in it.

No other QF captain involved in a serious accident or incident - and there have been several over the last few years - has seen the need to write a book.

That tells you all you need to know. Along with last year's interview with the Australian in which he stated that all QF pilots need to take a pay cut (apart from 380 capts apparently).

Charging 10 bucks for his autograph was another nice touch.

rjtjrt
21st Jul 2012, 09:42
Possibly referring to A85 which is the RAAF serial number prefix for all CA-25 aircraft, acording to ADF Serials.
John

Fantome
21st Jul 2012, 10:13
Charging 10 bucks for his autograph was another nice touch.


???? can you substantiate?

Jetsbest
21st Jul 2012, 10:19
RdC tells a good yarn, but there's a lot of detail missing in this extract. And I guess that's the point; sell the full story via the book. :rolleyes:

No greater 'figjam' than, after stating "We need some control checks", he admits "I don't know if Harry & Dave wanted to stop me, but I had timed the announcement to catch them unawares." :yuk:

I can't see myself paying for the book. :hmm:

BPA
21st Jul 2012, 10:28
Won't be long before you find it in second bookshops selling for less than $1.00.

mustafagander
21st Jul 2012, 10:29
For what purpose, pray tell, do flight crew draw their salaries over the years? Is it not for that one "holy shit" event wherein they use all their accumulated training, cunning and guile to salvage a safe outcome?

Given my experience in this aviation game - truly I have been around for many decades - I have sat behind and next to a very large number of airmen of similar quality to this one. He is not (yet) unique!

V-Jet
21st Jul 2012, 10:46
The guy is a tool.

The F/O was a guy who 'managed upwards' and had the support of some extremely 'helpful' checkies in the rear seats (who are not meant to take an active role) and with that assistance the 'Hero' of OQA was able to get the thing on the ground. Even then (from a 'well informed source') it was up to the skill, understanding and confidence of the F/O who actually managed to get the ground firies to shut the engine down that was still running after it 'should' have already shut down that solved an enormous number of potential problems getting pax off the jet.

I am not gods gift to aviation. I do however recognise excellence when I hear about it. IMHO two people saved the day on that flight. Paramount was the F/O - who fought to receive no accolades and no Oprah Winfrey tours, the others in particular (and their were two) very highly qualified SCC's - both who strongly supported the FO but felt the same way as he did about publicity.

I will not comment publicly on the name of the F/O, but if I could for a moment put myself in his position in (say) a licence renewal cyclic I would have thought I had completed an extremely difficult session that was meant to be a capts management exercise supposedly run from the LHS, but in which I felt I did well enough for us both to pass despite piss poor support from the 'boss' who was meant to be in charge.

Out of interest, Can anyone answer this question? Who on that check ride (and it was a checkride for one of the crew members) had to satisfactorily complete another one before being cleared to operate on the line in their rank?

Keg
21st Jul 2012, 10:50
I read a couple of bits of it and thought FIGJAM- like the little bit that 90% of commercial pilots wouldn't think to do a control check control checks bit- but overall nothing too shocking in the edited bits apart from self promotion.

Then I read:

"I don't know if Harry & Dave wanted to stop me, but I had timed the announcement to catch them unawares."


What a freaking disgraceful display of CRM. :rolleyes: I read that and felt like throwing up. I'm no angel, we all make mistakes, but what sort of person puts that in a book? Only one who is still proud of the decision and THAT says a lot about character.

Further, I'm very sure that if Dave Evans (I don't know Harry) didn't like it as an idea he'd make sure his concerns were voiced. To imply that it was too late for them to say something insults those other blokes no end.

For the rest of my thoughts regarding the incident I'm going to wait until I read the ATSB report in full but given that Captain DeCrespigny has admitted to that little gem already I don't mind making comment that I thought it was a completely low act.

If the article is characteristic of the rest of the book it's well and truly off my reading list.

crystalballwannabe
21st Jul 2012, 10:54
Looks like the original Memphis Belle is going to fly again. Restoration has been progressing well since 2005. Guess this was a sinch in comparison.

QF have avoided two hull losses now.... I remember reading something about a plane going off the end of Mauritius many years ago. Maybe and electra not sure? testing my memory but guess it was repaired to....

I wonder if that Ethiopian 767 or 777 pilot who pulled off an almost a perfect ditching whilst wrestling with a highjacker and running out of fuel wrote a book - that would be worth reading?

Sulley wrote a book after the Hudson. Chicken hawk was a good read and Fate is the hunter is a classic.

All good reading for wannabe pilots, but I don't think young people are that "passionate" these days.

DirectAnywhere
21st Jul 2012, 10:59
Fantome, sorry I was wrong.

It's actually an additional 15 bucks for a personalised, autographed copy.

QF32 - Featured Products (http://cart.qf32.aero/)

crystalballwannabe
21st Jul 2012, 11:09
Wow - 15 bucks for an autograph and another book to follow....

Geez - I'd rather hang around an aeroclub bar and hear amusing and interesting stories of amazing talents for free!!!!!

Keg
21st Jul 2012, 11:27
If you're a QF driver he won't charge you the extra $15! Happy days! :ok:

V-Jet
21st Jul 2012, 11:28
The nick name from airforce days BTW is Discrepancy.

Funny how apt these things can be...

DirectAnywhere
21st Jul 2012, 11:37
Keg, I can probably get you his autograph off a loadsheet. With the NOTOC that's an awesome 30 dollar saving!!!!

(steak knives not included). ;)

Sorry, try and ignore the titles - it's the only version I could find.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK3k1S2w_cw

crystalballwannabe
21st Jul 2012, 11:40
Reminds of that scene from Notting Hill..

"If you can find something not signed by the author it will be worth a fortune".

Stalins ugly Brother
21st Jul 2012, 11:42
Then I read:

Quote:
"I don't know if Harry & Dave wanted to stop me, but I had timed the announcement to catch them unawares."
What a freaking disgraceful display of CRM. I read that and felt like throwing up. I'm no angel, we all make mistakes, but what sort of person puts that in a book? Only one who is still proud of the decision and THAT says a lot about character.

Further, I'm very sure that if Dave Evans (I don't know Harry) didn't like it as an idea he'd make sure his concerns were voiced. To imply that it was too late for them to say something insults those other blokes no end.

For the rest of my thoughts regarding the incident I'm going to wait until I read the ATSB report in full but given that Captain DeCrespigny has admitted to that little gem already I don't mind making comment that I thought it was a completely low act.

If the article is characteristic of the rest of the book it's well and truly off my reading list.

Agree totally with Keg.

Having come across RDC in the past I am not surprised at his attempts to self promote himself while others involved are happy to move on.
karma is a bitch and when you fly your personal flag this high there is sure to be something around the corner.

Well done to the true (humble) stars of the QF32 show! :ok:

As for buying his book, tell him he's dreamin! :yuk:

B772
21st Jul 2012, 11:59
Crystalball

The Mauritius accident (24 Aug 1960) you referred too was a Super Constellation (VH-EAC) that aborted take-off after a power loss and was destroyed by fire. Fortunately there were no fatalities.

The Ethiopian ditching (23 Nov 96) was a B767-200ER. (The 3 hijackers wanted to get to Australia and died upon impact due to being unrestrained).

crystalballwannabe
21st Jul 2012, 12:02
Awesome reply.... Thanks.

Did both pilots survive and are they still flying I wonder??????

As for the Constellation - why isn't it a QF hull loss?

Cheers.

BPA
21st Jul 2012, 12:06
With pilots like RDC, no wonder Qantas pilots get a bad rape from other airline pilot's.

unseen
21st Jul 2012, 12:10
Are you for real?

No other QF captain involved in a serious accident or incident - and there have been several over the last few years - has seen the need to write a book.


Maybe doing so provides a learning opportunity.

Plenty of great books around along similar lines.

Neil Armstrong has endorsed it - is he going to be labelled a nupty or a nimrod as well for doing so?

Come on, I dare you!

crystalballwannabe
21st Jul 2012, 12:11
Jim Lovell would have been a better Endorsement than Neil (Apollo 13)

Dare I say......

...still single
21st Jul 2012, 12:14
As for the Constellation - why isn't it a QF hull loss?

The "No hull loss" thing refers to jets. There have been a few props lost.

crystalballwannabe
21st Jul 2012, 12:16
Ok - never knew it was just jets.

Thanks.

I like learning new stuff one here:)

I have a book in my collection called "Mayday" by another QF Captain. Recounts stories of great airmanship with the assistance of an oz historian - can't think of his name either... Anyway......it was quite good.

unseen
21st Jul 2012, 12:18
Jim Lovell would have been a better Endorsement than Neil (Apollo 13)

Dare I say......

Yes he would have been good too.

Neil went through the nasty issues with Gemini 8 as well as a number of serious issues on the descent for Apollo 11.

Pretty sure he is qualified to comment.

Jetsbest
21st Jul 2012, 12:24
I bagged this particular RdC article on this thread, but I've also spoken separately to two of the pilots on the deck that day (neither RdC nor FO). When quizzed about the version you've heard, one was quick to assert the excellent overall TEAM effort of the event.
In fact he was genuinely nonplussed by the the anecdotes such as you have described. Further, the "check ride" ended when the engine blew up. I believe RdC had to fly another route check at a later date. He obviously passed.
RdC has also asked other Qantas 'incident' pilots if they wished to contribute to his book; that's from them, not him. Evidently most/all have shunned the limelight.
Each player there may have a different perspective. My annoyance is with RdC's tone in this, and other not-so-distant-past media pronouncements.

He's getting ' blinded by the light' of inappropriately-focussed adulation in my view. I'll not be buying the book. :ok:

Stalins ugly Brother
21st Jul 2012, 12:24
Neil Armstrong has endorsed it

.....And George Forman endorses weight loss programs, how the mighty fall. it's sad what happens to the mind with age! :p:p:p

DirectAnywhere
21st Jul 2012, 12:26
Unseen, my ego doesn't need to be sated by accepting a dare!;)

Neil Armstrong is indeed a powerful advocate. I still think the bloke's a ******.

crystalballwannabe
21st Jul 2012, 12:29
Neil doesn't usually endorse stuff.....

Can you provide a link to his endorsement or copy it for viewing - what does he say?

B772
21st Jul 2012, 12:36
Crystalball

The 2 Ethiopian pilots survived the ditching impact and received awards for their actions. Both resumed flying for Ethiopian. You may be interested to know the 3 hijackers stormed the cockpit and armed themselves with the crash axe and a fire extinguisher. The Captain (Leul Abate) even made a PA call prior to impact with a coral reef at 175 kts advising the pax not to inflate their vests until clear of the aircraft. Unfortunately many pax did not comply and drowned in the cabin wearing their inflated vest.

crystalballwannabe
21st Jul 2012, 12:42
Wow.... interesting stuff:D Thanks 772

Is this book the first by a QF pilot since "Mayday" or have there been others?

"Mayday" included a chapter on himself by the author - it was overall quite good.

unseen
21st Jul 2012, 13:25
I heard last night that VH OQA is going to be written off this week.

No regulatory authority will give approval for a ferry flight.

There is no repair scheme for the front spar.

OQA will leave Singapore in chunks, by ship.

This is a rumour website and I may be wrong.

Don't you hate persistence and good engineering!

unseen
21st Jul 2012, 13:32
Neil doesn't usually endorse stuff.....

Can you provide a link to his endorsement or copy it for viewing - what does he say?

http://cart.qf32.aero/page/reviews.html

BPA
21st Jul 2012, 13:37
Love the comments from GT


"BRILLIANT! *Reminds me of the film Apollo 13 – you knew the outcome but you were still sitting on the edge of your seat!"


"If every Australian who was about to take a flight read QF32 then Qantas would be the most profitable and successful airline in the sky!"

:yuk:

unseen
21st Jul 2012, 13:46
Wow.... interesting stuff:D Thanks 772

Is this book the first by a QF pilot since "Mayday" or have there been others?

"Mayday" included a chapter on himself by the author - it was overall quite good.

So it is ok then?

Or not?

Confused???

unseen
21st Jul 2012, 13:47
The nick name from airforce days BTW is Discrepancy.

Funny how apt these things can be...

Why?

What did the original nickname refer to?

unseen
21st Jul 2012, 13:53
Neil Armstrong has endorsed it

.....And George Forman endorses weight loss programs, how the mighty fall. it's sad what happens to the mind with age! :p:p:p

Neil Armstrong vs Stalins Ugly Brother - tough call......

Would you get in a boxing ring with George Foreman?

Zapatas Blood
21st Jul 2012, 14:45
You guys are so precious.

You love to tell all and sundry how good QF pilots are and why you deserve your ludicrous wage by pointing to the SIN 380 incident as an example.

But when the pilot wants to do a victory lap and write a book about it you want to cut down the tall poppies and bag the guy because he doesn’t just sip his beer and say “yeah mate, no worries”.

Very Australian.

If he can make several hundred grand like sully selling a book about his exploits then he would be crazy not to.

dizzylizzy
21st Jul 2012, 15:34
Zapatas well said. Until you see how other western cultures behave in this situation you realise how toxic & vile the tall poppy syndrome is. What an embarassment.

Stalins ugly Brother
21st Jul 2012, 18:38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stalins ugly Brother
Quote:
Neil Armstrong has endorsed it
.....And George Forman endorses weight loss programs, how the mighty fall. it's sad what happens to the mind with age!
Neil Armstrong vs Stalins Ugly Brother - tough call......

Would you get in a boxing ring with George Foreman?

Umm unseen, that was sarcasm, thats why the little tongue faces appeared at the end.

Maybe you should be unseen and unheard. FDH. :=

Stalins ugly Brother
21st Jul 2012, 18:53
You guys are so precious.

You love to tell all and sundry how good QF pilots are and why you deserve your ludicrous wage by pointing to the SIN 380 incident as an example.

But when the pilot wants to do a victory lap and write a book about it you want to cut down the tall poppies and bag the guy because he doesn’t just sip his beer and say “yeah mate, no worries”.

Very Australian.

Incorrect.

We at QF, like everyone else in aviation just want to our job, get the plane from A to B, get paid and go home to our families. Oh and we, like hopefully everyone else like to stick by our mates.

What you are quoted as saying is purely inflammatory and just a piss pour attempt to have a swipe at a group that you probably didn't have the qualifications to become a part of. :ooh:

Tall poppy syndrome unfortunately is an Australian cultural thing. RDC is not a tall poppy, and not a team player. As the snipit in The Australian proved.

unseen
21st Jul 2012, 20:42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stalins ugly Brother
Quote:
Neil Armstrong has endorsed it
.....And George Forman endorses weight loss programs, how the mighty fall. it's sad what happens to the mind with age!
Neil Armstrong vs Stalins Ugly Brother - tough call......

Would you get in a boxing ring with George Foreman?

Umm unseen, that was sarcasm, thats why the little tongue faces appeared at the end.

Maybe you should be unseen and unheard. FDH. :=

Yes sir,

Sorry sir,

Back in my box,

waren9
21st Jul 2012, 23:55
I wonder if he's offered the rest of the crew a cut from the book? He didn't do it all by himself...

tail wheel
22nd Jul 2012, 01:43
Looks like we're inevitably up to that chapter titled "Who has the biggest dick/watch/wallet", where the original thread title is long since forgotten and the thread descends into an endless series of irrelevant, mundane and repetitious posts? :sad: