A380 - earlier than expected testing failure ...or not..??
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Far East
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anti Skid On
I know nothing about Malasian Air's caustic spillage. Another incident all together I suspect
The design fault was in the Yellow system hydraulic pump that insisted on bursting into flame as it wasnt supposed to be a fulltime pump. It was supposed to switch off when the cargo door stopped moving. If it remained on it became red hot, melted and burned. Very fortunately in the case of the Malaysia A/C and the Mauritius A/C the fires started whilst the planes were on the ground. The fires were put out, the fault discovered and all A/C had to have their cargo doors manually pumped open and closed. Eventually over the next year all 330s and 340s were modified and they problem was fixed.
Air Mauritius gave their burnt A/C back to Airbus and asked for another without payment which I believe they were given.
I have no anti Airbus paranoia. I merely say what I know on a subject that happens in this case to be about Airbus.
Your atatement about 767s is pointless, please explain. Has someone somwhere said something about slow Airbuses on the airbus thread.
I know nothing about Malasian Air's caustic spillage. Another incident all together I suspect
The design fault was in the Yellow system hydraulic pump that insisted on bursting into flame as it wasnt supposed to be a fulltime pump. It was supposed to switch off when the cargo door stopped moving. If it remained on it became red hot, melted and burned. Very fortunately in the case of the Malaysia A/C and the Mauritius A/C the fires started whilst the planes were on the ground. The fires were put out, the fault discovered and all A/C had to have their cargo doors manually pumped open and closed. Eventually over the next year all 330s and 340s were modified and they problem was fixed.
Air Mauritius gave their burnt A/C back to Airbus and asked for another without payment which I believe they were given.
I have no anti Airbus paranoia. I merely say what I know on a subject that happens in this case to be about Airbus.
Your atatement about 767s is pointless, please explain. Has someone somwhere said something about slow Airbuses on the airbus thread.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: oz
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know, it really is sad and boring, almost to the point of despair, reading another thread that just degenerates into another "My dick is bigger than your dick" pissing match.
Here's a thought, Danny! How about a forum for pissing matches. Then all those who just have to partake of such matches can get their fill, and the rest of us can get on with life.
Just a thought.
Here's a thought, Danny! How about a forum for pissing matches. Then all those who just have to partake of such matches can get their fill, and the rest of us can get on with life.
Just a thought.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lu Zuckerman posted 21st January 2005 13:45
--- Start quote ---
. Before the FAA and I assume other certification authorities make any changes they perform a cost benefit analysis. . They determine the cost in human lives applying a value of 2.7 million dollars. .... 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.
--- End quote ---
This is little off the topic of the 380 but its a response to your post above on this thread.
I see that flight level separations have been reduced from 2,000 ft to 1,000 ft, apparently on the basis that it is expected to result in savings of $5.3 billion over the next 5 years.
Applying the valuation of $2.7 million per life this saving is equivalent to about 1,963 lives.
If one assumes that a mid-air collision involves two aircraft, each with 250 people, this represents about four incidents over the next five years, each with 500 fatalities.
Would you agree with the opinion that the FAA etc have agreed to the reduction in flight separations on the basis that having, for example, one major mid-air every two years is cheaper?
Should we assume that a corresponding calculation was made that a separation of 500 ft with presumably larger savings would have exceeded the $2.7 M/life figure?
Or have I misunderstood the process logic?
Cheers,
--- Start quote ---
. Before the FAA and I assume other certification authorities make any changes they perform a cost benefit analysis. . They determine the cost in human lives applying a value of 2.7 million dollars. .... 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.
--- End quote ---
This is little off the topic of the 380 but its a response to your post above on this thread.
I see that flight level separations have been reduced from 2,000 ft to 1,000 ft, apparently on the basis that it is expected to result in savings of $5.3 billion over the next 5 years.
Applying the valuation of $2.7 million per life this saving is equivalent to about 1,963 lives.
If one assumes that a mid-air collision involves two aircraft, each with 250 people, this represents about four incidents over the next five years, each with 500 fatalities.
Would you agree with the opinion that the FAA etc have agreed to the reduction in flight separations on the basis that having, for example, one major mid-air every two years is cheaper?
Should we assume that a corresponding calculation was made that a separation of 500 ft with presumably larger savings would have exceeded the $2.7 M/life figure?
Or have I misunderstood the process logic?
Cheers,
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOrt of Picky,
That logic was dervied at by raising the costs of transportation to such a level at which more people would go to cars where statistically they were more likely to die.
Its an arcane numbers theory thing, but how do you make a decision? I can guarantee that people are never killed in an aircraft, simply stop flying aircraft. Of course more people would die on the highways than would have died in the airplanes so have you really gained anything?
Cheers
Wino
That logic was dervied at by raising the costs of transportation to such a level at which more people would go to cars where statistically they were more likely to die.
Its an arcane numbers theory thing, but how do you make a decision? I can guarantee that people are never killed in an aircraft, simply stop flying aircraft. Of course more people would die on the highways than would have died in the airplanes so have you really gained anything?
Cheers
Wino
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
Just to clear up any doubt, I recently had an email from a colleague who works at airbus, which said
The next test will be the Ultimate load, and then they actually go on to break the wing, just to see how much it'll really take, and when that breaks it'll make a very large bang!
The A380 static test specimen (ES) was subjected to limit wing bending on 2nd February. The test went very well and the team monitoring the strain gauges reported no causes for concern right up to limit load, in fact correlation with the predictions was very good. This was a very significant milestone in the certification phase of the A380 and was witnessed by members of the JAA, Airbus Airworthiness & senior technical managers from the Central Entity.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chambudzi,
Only incident involving an Airbus at Singapore was the hijacking in 1991.
MAS have had a number of problems with A330's, one incident at KL involved a leak of 2000 kg of hydroxy quino-line cargo a dangerous good over the wing centre box writing the aircraft off.
More recently at KL one had been found with numerous wires cut in avionics bay, and I believe very recently someone poured a whole can of hydraulic fluid throughout the cockpit and left the empty can on the glare shield.
Only one life has been lost in an A330 in commercial operations, that was a hijacker who jumped out of a Philippine Air Lines flight in 2000 with a home made parachute. 7 people were lost in an A330 during flight test.
The air france A340 hull loss was during maintenance, not line operations. The fire was a result of the yellow hydraulic electric pump overheating during maintenance.
As you would realise, not everything is on ECAM, can think of 7 procedures that are in the QRH but not ECAM, and many more in FCOM....did you look at FCOM for your fuel imbalance ? From memory there is a gravity drain procedure to the centre tank for the problem you described...
Your PChart problem is intersting...why did it take SQ 9 months to get onto Airbus about it...and what validation of the PChart information was done by the airline ... to meet CAAS requirements. Somehow if think a little too much detail is missing from your story...or just untrue like I have explained above. Sounds like someone was using packs off data for packs on takeoff to me.
For the record, the untimate loading and testing of the A380 wing box has not been done, nor has one failed at a lower load that I have been made aware of.
Only incident involving an Airbus at Singapore was the hijacking in 1991.
MAS have had a number of problems with A330's, one incident at KL involved a leak of 2000 kg of hydroxy quino-line cargo a dangerous good over the wing centre box writing the aircraft off.
More recently at KL one had been found with numerous wires cut in avionics bay, and I believe very recently someone poured a whole can of hydraulic fluid throughout the cockpit and left the empty can on the glare shield.
Only one life has been lost in an A330 in commercial operations, that was a hijacker who jumped out of a Philippine Air Lines flight in 2000 with a home made parachute. 7 people were lost in an A330 during flight test.
The air france A340 hull loss was during maintenance, not line operations. The fire was a result of the yellow hydraulic electric pump overheating during maintenance.
As you would realise, not everything is on ECAM, can think of 7 procedures that are in the QRH but not ECAM, and many more in FCOM....did you look at FCOM for your fuel imbalance ? From memory there is a gravity drain procedure to the centre tank for the problem you described...
Your PChart problem is intersting...why did it take SQ 9 months to get onto Airbus about it...and what validation of the PChart information was done by the airline ... to meet CAAS requirements. Somehow if think a little too much detail is missing from your story...or just untrue like I have explained above. Sounds like someone was using packs off data for packs on takeoff to me.
For the record, the untimate loading and testing of the A380 wing box has not been done, nor has one failed at a lower load that I have been made aware of.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: atlanta
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dodgy wings etc
Lu Zuckerman, I have worked for an airline or two (Pan Bankrupt, Brit Mid etc) and the acid test was always whether or not the ground engineer or loadmaster would fly on the plane after it had been tinkered with or loaded accordingly.
Now I just wonder would you fly as a pax on that plane of which you spoke (but did not identify) after you sent all that stuff to the FAA......
Thanks
Now I just wonder would you fly as a pax on that plane of which you spoke (but did not identify) after you sent all that stuff to the FAA......
Thanks
From memory, the a/c about which LZ is so keen on doing his 'Theodore Honey vs. the Rutland Reindeer' thing is the A300.
Last edited by BEagle; 11th Feb 2005 at 22:17.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Far East
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zeke
Why on earth would I want to lie about this. Too me it is a flight safety issue concerning aircraft as they come into service. The incidents I described are both true and happened years ago when the A340/330 first came into service..
The MAS A330 caught fire because against orders the engineers in SIN insisted on pushing the appropriate CB in to open the cargo door hydraulically. I know it burned and the fire was put out fairly quickly bevause I saw it.
The Air France aircraft may not have been on line ops at the time it burned but that was because after a days work in the air it was towed to a remote bay for the night. It caught fire and burned before the fire Dept could get control of it.
The fuel imbalance probs were caused by a glitch in the systems computer that had shown up a number of times when it happened to me and was put right a few months later.
The Pchart probs in Mauritius lasted 6 mths because no one knew that figuers were wrong of course. Fewer than 5% of take offs were at max weight and up against the numbers and the problem only showed up when the planes were at max. The problem was investigated under the suspicion that the planes were being somehow overloaded. It was assumed that the figuers couldnt possibly be wrong because they were given to us by Airbus. When we finally questioned Airbus they found the 7 degree discrepantcy and put it right.
Why on earth would I want to lie about this. Too me it is a flight safety issue concerning aircraft as they come into service. The incidents I described are both true and happened years ago when the A340/330 first came into service..
The MAS A330 caught fire because against orders the engineers in SIN insisted on pushing the appropriate CB in to open the cargo door hydraulically. I know it burned and the fire was put out fairly quickly bevause I saw it.
The Air France aircraft may not have been on line ops at the time it burned but that was because after a days work in the air it was towed to a remote bay for the night. It caught fire and burned before the fire Dept could get control of it.
The fuel imbalance probs were caused by a glitch in the systems computer that had shown up a number of times when it happened to me and was put right a few months later.
The Pchart probs in Mauritius lasted 6 mths because no one knew that figuers were wrong of course. Fewer than 5% of take offs were at max weight and up against the numbers and the problem only showed up when the planes were at max. The problem was investigated under the suspicion that the planes were being somehow overloaded. It was assumed that the figuers couldnt possibly be wrong because they were given to us by Airbus. When we finally questioned Airbus they found the 7 degree discrepantcy and put it right.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 6W
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PickyPerkins, perhaps you'd like to expand on this idea. Seperation in RVSM seems rather tight at times when the guy above is a big heavy. Unfortunately, so often, the overtaking heavy above on the same NAT track hasn't the good manners to comply with the AIC i.e. the overtaking aircraft should offset (1 or 2 miles right of track) and expects everyone else to clear his/her path/wake. I hope and pray we don't see such bullish conduct by the future A380 crews, othewise we'll need 5 miles offsets and heaven help every turboprop taxiing behind one of these giants, they'll end up doing ground loops on the taxyways from jet blast.
