A380 - VH-OQA Write Off.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vodka
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
if it takes someone or some organisation to keep the industry honest and safe, it can only be a good thing.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: aviation heaven, australia
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Next you'll be saying QF and Airbus do it better than NASA.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Return of a footstool.....
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!
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!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Melbourne, ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Age: 74
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Put a sock in it
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?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by baron_beeza; 8th Feb 2012 at 10:28.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to my post above, - I have come across this on a sister thread.
http://www.pprune.org/middle-east/47...king-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.
http://www.pprune.org/middle-east/47...king-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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Where the smell of mojo takes me...
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LandIT
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.
A380 wing crack inspections extended to entire fleet | Plane Talking
Again, the only journo who seems to have any grasp of this industry.
Again, the only journo who seems to have any grasp of this industry.
This one's for Ken.............
Airbus A380 wing checks extended to entire fleet | Reuters
And how things change in a couple of days.....
A380 wing cracks 'really is not a safety issue': head engineer
Airbus A380 wing checks extended to entire fleet | Reuters
"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.
A380 wing cracks 'really is not a safety issue': head engineer
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
Read more: A380 wing cracks 'really is not a safety issue': head engineer