I will supply some of the rumors - feel free to add some FACTS!!

The fat one landed after training flight, could not stow reversers on no 2 and no 3 engine, shut down 2 engines to taxi, RAT deployed after power failure, a very frizzled crimping tool found in E+E bay that caused some serious damage.

Hope AB will improve their quality assurance with the coming deliveries.

Not the type of thing that you want to happen when Keflavik is the ONLY alternate and a few hours away!:ooh::ooh::ooh:

Let rip!!!!

Dear me, looks like the acceptance team needs to add loose article and lost tool checks to the list of things to do, after enjoying hospitality by AB. Things seem not to change with advancing years.
Thanks for the info TW, will look out for any facts added.

Outhouse.

All in all 15 pieces of FOD left behind by Airbus construction staff were found in the lower e-bay. Major embarrassment.
Anybody have any news about SQ A380 taxying in at SYD advising tower unable to shut down one engine and unable to connect APU to bus?

If this is the true story tools and not water<which made a better story> in E&E bay, Does not say much for Airbus test flight crew and engineers or Emirates crew either.:suspect:

It's not an uncommon occurence to find tools left behind from manufacturing, though they don't cause as spectacular failures as this all the time. Once found a rivet bucking bar in a fuel tank inspection on a 1900.
It's certainly no reflection on any EK staff...they can't be expected to inspect the entire aircraft for tools, that is Airbus's quality control responsibility.

Sorry to disagree,
As a person that did have a responsibility to a very major operating company that was purchasing a severe number of new aircraft the acceptance of the aircraft from the manufacture was dependent on our detailed inspection and monitoring of the aircraft during manufacturing and acceptance by us, this included the performance flight testing. The aircraft was not accepted until all the boxes had a tick. Slack acceptance protocol will result in embarrassing events later.

Disagree to the disagree. I'm not sure how Airbus does it , but I do know how McDonell Douglas did it. The "pilot aid" was the person responsbile for checking for any bits and pieces being left behind in the manufacturing process. At McDonnell Douglas the pilot aid was a very experienced A&P with over 30 years of seniority and a long time in the position. The pilot aid released the aircraft to the Production Test Pilots who did the initial ground runs and flight checks. At no time were the Production Test Pilots required to inspect the avionics bay/E&E compartment. When the Production testing was completed the aircraft would go for an acceptance flight by the receiving airline. All receiving airlines follow their own procedures for that and essentially it is a shortened version of the production test flight.

So I would place the blame on the Airbus team for their oversight, not any EK people.



Typhoonpilot

I would be very suprised if anywhere on EK's acceptance checklist there was a box that they had to check stating, entire aircraft inspected for FOD in all compartements, fuel tanks, and inspection panels. That is a Airbus manufacturing QC job, nothing to do with EK. It would take the team weeks to inspect an aircraft the size of a 380.

As someone who has accepted aircraft,our engineers always checked aircraft after delivery. This is before the company test flight. They often found problems which were discussed/fixed.Often found tools, rivets ,spares, etc left behind.:ok:

Regarding this tools found in discreet places on a/c, Perhaps the engineers should have some protocal after working on aircrafts. Something similar to what surgeons do just before they close up a patient after surgery. Started with 16 instruments, count 16 instruments after the op. If all engineers did that, they won't have this left/missing tools scenario. Its not one life in question, its a several hundred. Now, don't take credit for that idea, its patented!!! nah,,,kidding!!:ok:

Too late mid-seal -it's been in use by air forces for years...and probably many airlines..

Not really pertinent to the thread topic, but I thought it worth sharing with EK readers what the Qantas crews are calling the 380.

Apart from the predictable 'Whale', 'Dugong', 'Superjumbo' etc, the really clever one (and my favourite) is 'The A3-latey'.

Very droll.

Not wishing to bang on about the subject of acceptance criteria but we had two parts. The engineering part, one or two engineers on site during the post build inspections. Critical compartments (electrical distribution being one) had a duplicate inspection performed before final closure by the company engineer and a seal was affixed to the compartment access. Thus minimizing the FOD risk.
During acceptance flight testing the resident engineer worked with the manufacture, if maintenance action was required and if areas opened he again performed the duplicate inspection. After acceptance the normal company procedures applied. The British CAA had there own engineering acceptance inspection procedures at that time and these included random visual inspection of vital areas as well as detailed checking of all required paperwork.
I don’t want to sound like Sir H but just to clarify what we felt was an important part of the job and considering the large investment involved even then, worth the additional cost having an engineering presence.
Thanks all for your indulgence
outhouse
:ok:

Regardless, instead of perpetuating a "blamefest", lets hope all parties concerned take action to prevent future occurrences..good thing it happened when and where it did:eek:

Absolutly, I am sure that you are correct.