A380 - earlier than expected testing failure ...or not..??
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One cannot help noticing that underpowered or not that the Airbus family seem to cruise much higher than Boeing aeroplanes this is presumably due to their more efficent aerodynamics, design, and operating economics which is why more airlines are buying them including U.S. carriers. (I exclude the Queen of the Skies, the McDonnell Douglas DC10 from this observation, of course!)
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, by the way.
To: lomapaseo
Airbus and the certification authorities including the FAA are not totally clean in this area. After the FAA was notified (by me) of major design deficiencies (in an Airbus aircraft) they took action by getting the vice president of a major subcontractor and his program manager fired however the design was not changed.
The major contractors on the wing of this aircraft failed to notify Airbus per the contract of deficiencies relative to reliability and safety because they did not want to absorb the costs of any design changes. The secondary flight controls on the wing are not bonded to the airframe structure and are not adequately protected from a lightning strike.
The flap system was inadequately tested but was certified. Airbus did not perform specified tests because if they did they would have discovered the lack of electrical bonding.
The FAA, DGCA and the CAA were made aware of the problems yet the design was never changed.
This aircraft is still flying but if you believe that “Fate is the hunter” then one of these days a lightning strike in the right place will blow the wing off.
As one who has been involved in the certification and continued airworthiness side of the business, my experience is that lots of testing goes on past the roll out, past the first flight and indeed way past the first delivery.
Some of the testing is certification critical and may have to be updated (read completed satisfactorily) before delivery. While other testing (cyclic fatigue) may take some time to accumulate even past delivery.
The major contractors on the wing of this aircraft failed to notify Airbus per the contract of deficiencies relative to reliability and safety because they did not want to absorb the costs of any design changes. The secondary flight controls on the wing are not bonded to the airframe structure and are not adequately protected from a lightning strike.
The flap system was inadequately tested but was certified. Airbus did not perform specified tests because if they did they would have discovered the lack of electrical bonding.
The FAA, DGCA and the CAA were made aware of the problems yet the design was never changed.
This aircraft is still flying but if you believe that “Fate is the hunter” then one of these days a lightning strike in the right place will blow the wing off.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This aircraft is still flying but if you believe that “Fate is the hunter” then one of these days a lightning strike in the right place will blow the wing off.
Pprune must stop becoming a dumping ground for stupid rumours about Airbus aircraft. Some people seem to want to imply they are amateur aeroplane builders.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opinions, rumors and facts.
To: Rainboe
Everything I said above was turned over to the FAA but in greater detail including the names of the offending firms. It is true this aircraft is still flying and it will continue to fly until it flies into or near a thunderstorm with the slats partially extended. The lightning can attach on the nose with no effect. If it attaches on the partially extended slat the next noise you hear is "BOOM"
Send me your e-mail address along with your affiliation and I will send the complete information. This same information was posted on Rotorheads but it was removed for being controversial.
I forgot to add that this aircraft can suffer from uncommanded flap and slat movement and the pilots can't stop it because the flap slat computer was never adequately tested nor were the flaps. BAe was aware of this and they still certificated the wing.
Everything I said above was turned over to the FAA but in greater detail including the names of the offending firms. It is true this aircraft is still flying and it will continue to fly until it flies into or near a thunderstorm with the slats partially extended. The lightning can attach on the nose with no effect. If it attaches on the partially extended slat the next noise you hear is "BOOM"
Send me your e-mail address along with your affiliation and I will send the complete information. This same information was posted on Rotorheads but it was removed for being controversial.
I forgot to add that this aircraft can suffer from uncommanded flap and slat movement and the pilots can't stop it because the flap slat computer was never adequately tested nor were the flaps. BAe was aware of this and they still certificated the wing.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have an opinion of a safety misdesign of Airbus jets. The might of Airbus design engineers, and the regulatory authorities of almost all nations, including the FAA, feel there is no defect there. Now who would you expect people to believe? How many Airbus jets have had wings blown off? Have you been in contact with the design bureau at Airbus to see what their opinion is? Selling this hypothesis to me is of no value. Do you think energy is better expended re-examining 737 rudders, DC10 slat systems, 747 hold doors? Sometimes you can convince yourself there is a defect where there is none. The might of professional opinion saying 'there is no problem' must weigh. Without any supporting evidence apart from personal opinion, you should not attack a product without solid proof. You have none apart from an opinion. It makes your assessment of Airbus risk as valuable as these idiotic stories going around of A380 wings breaking and engines bouncing on the ground.
Lou: does Airbus use metal or a graphite sort of composite for these A-380 structures? I had read a few days ago in a New York newspaper that the 380 program is about $2 (US) billion over budget.
Maybe the costs for developing the 7E7 competitior, the A-350 or whatever, will not help the situation, or vice versa?
Maybe the costs for developing the 7E7 competitior, the A-350 or whatever, will not help the situation, or vice versa?
Last edited by Ignition Override; 21st Jan 2005 at 05:17.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fpom the mouths of babes.
To: Rainboe
I was manager of reliability, systems safety and maintainability on the secondary flight control systems on the subject aircraft.
I speak from personal experience. Once again I ask you to provide your e-mail address and I'll send all the details. The certification authorities know of the defects but have not done anything about it.
You have an opinion of a safety misdesign of Airbus jets. The might of Airbus design engineers, and the regulatory authorities of almost all nations, including the FAA, feel there is no defect there.
I speak from personal experience. Once again I ask you to provide your e-mail address and I'll send all the details. The certification authorities know of the defects but have not done anything about it.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Far East
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe talks of the "might" of Airbus design engineers being close to incapable of error and mentions all the wings that have fallen off Boeings with a touch of blind faith in Airbus.
Lu Zuckerman obviously knows and has first hand knowledge of these aircraft and I for one go with him on this discussion.
Airbus need to do more testing before they relaese their aircraft to the operators and Lu Z's experience on this is not unique. I remember the first 340-300s rocking up with the back doors a few feet higher than the front doors because the math used to work out the necessary length of the nose oleo was wrong. Then an AF 340 burned to a cinder at Charles De Gaul when a yellow system hydraulic pump caught fire. That was put down to sabotage till an Air Mauritius one burned and a Malaysian 330 did the same in Singapore.
The fancy fuel system that pumps fuel back and forth to the tail began its days as a little too fancy and I remember well being stuck out over the Indian Ocean with the C of G out of the green band and no ECAM action or QRH to rectify it. When the red clanger thing starts claxoning you and you have no idea what to do about it miles from an airport it rams a lot of adrenalin around.
Those were a few of the design errors that had to be rectified while operations continued and there were others.
Then there were the airfield performance tables provided by AB for our various destinations which were out by 7 degrees C in the unsafe direction. It took 9 months and a few too many pilots unsticking far too close to the end of the runway before ABus was asked for an explanation. New tables arrived, 7 degrees for the better and everything worked rather well after that. 7 degrees represented about 2 tons over the top of the airfield take off limit.
If they can make these kinds of errors with the introduction of the one AB I have had first hand knowledge of, then they are likely to have a few little nasty 'Murphyisms' tucked away in their new beast and I for one will be more than happy to watch braver pilots than myself try and sort them out.
Meantime Mr Rainboe, I say respectfully, AB is a company of men and men make mistakes so suspect them deeply and you will be a safer pilot for it.
Lu Zuckerman obviously knows and has first hand knowledge of these aircraft and I for one go with him on this discussion.
Airbus need to do more testing before they relaese their aircraft to the operators and Lu Z's experience on this is not unique. I remember the first 340-300s rocking up with the back doors a few feet higher than the front doors because the math used to work out the necessary length of the nose oleo was wrong. Then an AF 340 burned to a cinder at Charles De Gaul when a yellow system hydraulic pump caught fire. That was put down to sabotage till an Air Mauritius one burned and a Malaysian 330 did the same in Singapore.
The fancy fuel system that pumps fuel back and forth to the tail began its days as a little too fancy and I remember well being stuck out over the Indian Ocean with the C of G out of the green band and no ECAM action or QRH to rectify it. When the red clanger thing starts claxoning you and you have no idea what to do about it miles from an airport it rams a lot of adrenalin around.
Those were a few of the design errors that had to be rectified while operations continued and there were others.
Then there were the airfield performance tables provided by AB for our various destinations which were out by 7 degrees C in the unsafe direction. It took 9 months and a few too many pilots unsticking far too close to the end of the runway before ABus was asked for an explanation. New tables arrived, 7 degrees for the better and everything worked rather well after that. 7 degrees represented about 2 tons over the top of the airfield take off limit.
If they can make these kinds of errors with the introduction of the one AB I have had first hand knowledge of, then they are likely to have a few little nasty 'Murphyisms' tucked away in their new beast and I for one will be more than happy to watch braver pilots than myself try and sort them out.
Meantime Mr Rainboe, I say respectfully, AB is a company of men and men make mistakes so suspect them deeply and you will be a safer pilot for it.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AB is not the only producer of aeroplanes where errors happen. You can catalogue similar mistakes from all manufacturers. I wasn't saying they were perfect. I will say AB aircraft are in very extensive service in SE Asia/India/China. This area has the most exotic weather I have ever seen. Thunderstorms like no others. They have a brilliant service record, with no unusual crashes. IF something happens, then maybe there is a case to answer, but until that time, then this is just another rumour like all the others.
I have no particular drum to beat about AB. I fly Boeings, and like them. But AB produce a superb line, and the A380 is the jewel on the crown, and I think when I see some of the unsubstantiated nonsense and idiotic rumour spreading here about any aeroplane, then it should be challenged. We appear to have Lu versus the rest of the world inc. FAA, CAA, JAA, experience.......I'm inclined to believe it is a claim without foundation. Why should x hundred aeroplanes be changed on somebody's whim?
I have no particular drum to beat about AB. I fly Boeings, and like them. But AB produce a superb line, and the A380 is the jewel on the crown, and I think when I see some of the unsubstantiated nonsense and idiotic rumour spreading here about any aeroplane, then it should be challenged. We appear to have Lu versus the rest of the world inc. FAA, CAA, JAA, experience.......I'm inclined to believe it is a claim without foundation. Why should x hundred aeroplanes be changed on somebody's whim?
Fascinating as it is to see yet another thread degenerate into a Boeing v Airbus, U.S.A. v Europe battle on prune (yaaaawwwnnnnnnnn) it would seem that nobody can verify the rumour that the thread is about.
Given that no one can back the rumoured claim up after so many days on this forum, I am happy to conclude it is utter tosh!
Given that no one can back the rumoured claim up after so many days on this forum, I am happy to conclude it is utter tosh!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a technical point: L.Z.'s claims may be false, or partial, but they're not unsubstantiated. Rather, he's quite clear about the claim:
Those are some pretty material charges, and they contain statements that can be verified or falsified with documentation (from BAe and governments, or wherever), specifically A) "The secondary flight controls on the wing are not bonded to the airframe" B) "Airbus did not perform specified tests" and C) "The FAA, DGCA and CAA were made aware of the problems yet the design was never changed". If they're false, then these statements could be seen as libelous. If they're true, the conclusion drawn from them, that a lightning strike will take down an aircraft Iran Air style, may stlil not be the case, as there may be suppressed evidence involved.
But it's not unsubstantiated. And "Get it on the ground-itis" is not limited to flight crew. Corporate Management applies considerable pressure to deliver product on time and under budget. That's how they make money, and history is rife with faulty engineering designs, from the Titanic to the Teacher in Space. And the greater the pressure, the more likely failures are to creep into the system. Enter the A380, a huge project on which, we've been led to believe, hinges the fate of aviation manufacturing in Western Europe. Here's a project that's already 2 billion Euros over budget and 5 tonnes overweight; a project where the rollout was an international event, with heads of state, speeches, and the direct identification of the aircraft with the hope, pride, and future of an entire continent. Under such pressure, will it become the Skytanic? Or will it be a lugubrious product of byzantine overbureaucratization in the post-EU world? Or will it just rock the roof off?
Dunno, but I would expect it to fail a few tests on the first go. It's a big plane.
The major contractors on the wing of this aircraft failed to notify Airbus per the contract of deficiencies relative to reliability and safety because they did not want to absorb the costs of any design changes. The secondary flight controls on the wing are not bonded to the airframe structure and are not adequately protected from a lightning strike.
The flap system was inadequately tested but was certified. Airbus did not perform specified tests because if they did they would have discovered the lack of electrical bonding.
The FAA, DGCA and the CAA were made aware of the problems yet the design was never changed.
The flap system was inadequately tested but was certified. Airbus did not perform specified tests because if they did they would have discovered the lack of electrical bonding.
The FAA, DGCA and the CAA were made aware of the problems yet the design was never changed.
But it's not unsubstantiated. And "Get it on the ground-itis" is not limited to flight crew. Corporate Management applies considerable pressure to deliver product on time and under budget. That's how they make money, and history is rife with faulty engineering designs, from the Titanic to the Teacher in Space. And the greater the pressure, the more likely failures are to creep into the system. Enter the A380, a huge project on which, we've been led to believe, hinges the fate of aviation manufacturing in Western Europe. Here's a project that's already 2 billion Euros over budget and 5 tonnes overweight; a project where the rollout was an international event, with heads of state, speeches, and the direct identification of the aircraft with the hope, pride, and future of an entire continent. Under such pressure, will it become the Skytanic? Or will it be a lugubrious product of byzantine overbureaucratization in the post-EU world? Or will it just rock the roof off?
Dunno, but I would expect it to fail a few tests on the first go. It's a big plane.
PPRuNe Knight in Shining Armour
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Everywhere in the UK, but not home!
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all of your information my mole on the inside at Airbus at Filton tells me
So, as a stress engineer by trade and well aware of the margins of safety required on these components, I would be extremely surprised if anything has failed so far.
Sorry it's not a categoric denial, but it's the best I can do!
Next week is the 60% limit load test of the wing. The week after the 100% limit load is scheduled. I don’t know when the ‘crunch-test’ will take place.
Sorry it's not a categoric denial, but it's the best I can do!
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real world of commercial aviation
To: Rainboe
Before the FAA and I assume other certification authorities make any changes they perform a cost benefit analysis. This is especially true if the aircraft can be lost due to a component or system failure.
They determine the cost in human lives applying a value of 2.7 million dollars. The US Department of Commerce the parent of the FAA and the NTSB derives this figure.
They total up the number of passengers in an aircraft and multiply it by the figure above. If it costs more to make the change than the cost in human lives they will recommend that the change not be implemented even if the NTSB disagrees.
I'm inclined to believe it is a claim without foundation. Why should x hundred aeroplanes be changed on somebody's whim?
They determine the cost in human lives applying a value of 2.7 million dollars. The US Department of Commerce the parent of the FAA and the NTSB derives this figure.
They total up the number of passengers in an aircraft and multiply it by the figure above. If it costs more to make the change than the cost in human lives they will recommend that the change not be implemented even if the NTSB disagrees.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Out of the blue
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lu says
Of course Boeing never suffer any design problems at all. Centre tanks on 747's never explode with catastrophic hull damage because of poor fuel pump design. (Unless they shot it down of course)
I think the 380 will be a stunning success. Hence all the 'not invented here' crap from the USA. Not the first time they were jealous of one of our airliners either.
It is true this aircraft is still flying and it will continue to fly until it flies into or near a thunderstorm with the slats partially extended. The lightning can attach on the nose with no effect. If it attaches on the partially extended slat the next noise you hear is "BOOM"
I think the 380 will be a stunning success. Hence all the 'not invented here' crap from the USA. Not the first time they were jealous of one of our airliners either.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Heart of Darkness
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DINGER X...
at risk of steering this thread away briefly from its intended course I would venture to suggest that the loss of the perfectly able ship RMS Titanic was less to do with a design fault than the fact that it was driven at high speed into an iceberg tearing a 320 foot gash along its side....outside of modern tankers and warships no ship would have stayed afloat after such a catastrophic event....
at risk of steering this thread away briefly from its intended course I would venture to suggest that the loss of the perfectly able ship RMS Titanic was less to do with a design fault than the fact that it was driven at high speed into an iceberg tearing a 320 foot gash along its side....outside of modern tankers and warships no ship would have stayed afloat after such a catastrophic event....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...which was a survivable incident. The complete lack of a sufficient number of lifeboats turned a hull-loss into the transportation disaster of the century. Here's hoping those upper deck overwing slides work well!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Airbus reckon the A380 is now underweight....as a result of them spending lots of money on a weight-loss program.
However, some people will continue in saying that the A380 is "fat", probably until the end of its service life.
Funny - Boeing's statements here I would think give me the right to say that the 7E7 is a "fat b*stard" until about 2010...
However, some people will continue in saying that the A380 is "fat", probably until the end of its service life.
Funny - Boeing's statements here I would think give me the right to say that the 7E7 is a "fat b*stard" until about 2010...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you guys cr*p on a lot. Give it a rest. Its not about Airbus vs Boeing. Its not about who has won anything.
It was a legit request for info on the wing spar testing. If you dont know anything about it, or don't have anything relevant to say, then go post elsewhere on an Airbus vs Boeing thread.
It was a legit request for info on the wing spar testing. If you dont know anything about it, or don't have anything relevant to say, then go post elsewhere on an Airbus vs Boeing thread.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chambudzi....
Wasn't the Malaysia A330 actually written off as there was a caustic spillage in the hold which caused fatigue and it wasn't economical to repair - hardly a design fault there! (Unless they forgot to add internal hold liners for every chemical)
And those that quote Airbus as being slow - just like the B767!!
Wasn't the Malaysia A330 actually written off as there was a caustic spillage in the hold which caused fatigue and it wasn't economical to repair - hardly a design fault there! (Unless they forgot to add internal hold liners for every chemical)
And those that quote Airbus as being slow - just like the B767!!