Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Cracks found in A380 wing ribs

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Cracks found in A380 wing ribs

Old 6th Jan 2012, 16:26
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: somewhere
Posts: 451
@StallBoy:

I try to do my long haul flights to London on anything else except a 380
keep being ignorant.
Boeing's don't crack, corrode or have other system/engine failures.

Another nice wingflex video:


Last edited by A33Zab; 6th Jan 2012 at 16:37.
A33Zab is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 16:34
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,342
At least the 787 passed the load test the first time.

Bend Not Break: Boeing 787 Passes Wing Load Test - CBS News

Unlike the a380 like I had mentioned above and referenced here.

Airbus A380 test wing breaks just below ultimate load target


What was interesting is Boeing traditionally pushes the first one until it pops, mentioned in the first article b777/1994 at 154%. Sounds like they got what they wanted out of the 787 and called it a night. I would like to know what the B787 wing is actually capable of.
grounded27 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 21:46
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,177
At least the 787 passed the load test the first time.
The more tests the more you know and understand (these things have oodles of information collected)

With one succesful test you only know that it's good enough. With multiple tests you know by how much.

Of course the development time and money matter a little bit to the bottom line.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2012, 23:08
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gold Coast
Age: 54
Posts: 1,611
I would like to know what the B787 wing is actually capable of.
A quick sidetrack here - I have always been impressed by that China Airlines 747-SP that did the aerobatics over the Pacific. They pulled around 5G's twice and the wings were bent, but did not break.
18-Wheeler is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2012, 00:17
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
The more tests the more you know and understand (these things have oodles of information collected)...With one succesful test you only know that it's good enough. With multiple tests you know by how much.
lomapaseo,

In the aircraft industry, structural qualification tests are not really performed to collect data or to investigate how a particular component will respond to loads. Instead, the primary purpose of structural qualification testing is to validate the analysis used to design the component. As you noted, there is lots of data acquired during a structural test, and this data is used to improve the analytical models. A complex structure like an aircraft wing might be analyzed for 50 or more different load cases, but it is not tested for each of those load cases. I don't mean to discount the value of testing, but when an aircraft design is certified it is the analysis results that really count. The testing is really just a check to ensure that the analysis work was accurate.

As for structural cracks, there should not be any if the aircraft is maintained and operated within design parameters. However, aircraft structural designers acknowledge that cracks may occur for any number of reasons, and they perform detailed analyses just for these conditions. All critical aircraft structures have a Fracture Control Plan, which outlines how the structure will respond to cracks, how cracks will be prevented, and how cracks can be detected when they occur. Aircraft companies employ analysts specializing in fracture mechanics, as well as numerous QA and manufacturing process engineers to develop fracture control plans.

DTDHandbook | Guidelines for Damage Tolerance Design and Fracture Control Planning | Guidelines for Damage Tolerance Design and Fracture Control Planning
riff_raff is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2012, 18:44
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 36
Airbus A380 should be grounded....

Not seen this anywhere before....
BBC News - Airbus A380 fleet should be grounded, say engineers
halwise is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2012, 19:45
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,148
Aircraft crack . . . it happens.

Provided it's being monitored. It can't be that serious if there's a 4 yearly inspection/repair scheme.
Dengue_Dude is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2012, 19:50
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 170
It would seem that the Engineers who made these suggestions are working for the wrong people. They obviously know far more the the manufacturers so they should be some of their top people.
A simple phone call to Airbus would surely have them so excited about getting such experts to sort out any problems they may have.
Or maybe it should be left to those who designed and bulit the aeroplane.
They may be a tad better at making such a decision.
Airbus aren't stupid , they would make sure it was attended to immediately if they thought it necessary.
Maybe watching the cricket might be better than making these suggestions.
RodH is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2012, 20:01
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
This will be the same QANTAS engineers that hate the fact that their work is being outsourced to Asia. Axe and grind springs to mind alas.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2012, 20:08
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney, NSW,Australia
Posts: 91
TRUST ?

To those who proclaim, "trust the Manufacturer, they know best " and "trust the Regulator they're a Government Body", I'd say, yeah right.....United 747, Fwd Cargo door, PHNL, remember ?

Boeing and the NTSB didn't come out of that looking too flash.
Jackneville is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2012, 21:05
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 324
"Cracks have been found on the wing ribs of at least three Airbus A380s belonging to Singapore Airlines and Qantas Airways.
Both carriers said the cracks were discovered in the 2nd quarter of 2011, and that they have been repaired and posed no danger to safety."

Sorry Jackneville, Qantas mechanic.
oldchina is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2012, 21:19
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East of LGB
Age: 64
Posts: 620
Sorry, I thought I was on A.net for a moment.
11Fan is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2012, 21:40
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Derby/EMA
Posts: 164
As i understand it if structural damage is reported or found during a inspection then the SRM which is supplied by the manufacturer is the document that is the authoritive guide to engineers in dealing with that defect ,The SRM will state if the damage is within limits/ out of limits can be repaired/ cannot be repaired/ how it is to repaired ect.

Engineers no doubt use the SRM day in day out and i presume trust it to ensure aircraft remain airworthy, so whats different about this case? why do they suddenly not accept what airbus are saying, ie the damage is acceptable and repair can be defered
Topspotter is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2012, 23:30
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Canada / Switzerland
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo View Post
This will be the same QANTAS engineers that hate the fact that their work is being outsourced to Asia. Axe and grind springs to mind alas.
I think the above has a lot to do with all the media coverage of this matter. I recently saw a televised interview with an Australian based AME who was demanding that the aircraft be grounded - that kind of public posturing is quite uncommon in our industry.
V1... Ooops is online now  
Old 7th Jan 2012, 23:50
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Derby/EMA
Posts: 164
Speaking for myself i have always found licensed maintenance engineers to be very down to earth ,dedicated, knowlegable people and certainly not the sort to cry wolf, if their concerned id be inclined to listen.
No doubt the moves to outsource work away from Oz is one which is causing emotions to run high and hardly suprising, if my job was being outsourced to Asia id be a tad concerned, but quite what that got to do with the point in question im not sure
Topspotter is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2012, 00:34
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,177
Speaking for myself i have always found licensed maintenance engineers to be very down to earth ,dedicated, knowlegable people and certainly not the sort to cry wolf, if their concerned id be inclined to listen.
spot on Topspotter, except where emotionalism over one's salary gets into it.

By the looks of this thread everybody's opinions are suspect by somebody.

Well since we can't just sit around expecting Gus at the corner bar to fix it, I guess we're going have to just let the system that we've got get on with it.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2012, 02:35
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: East of LGB
Age: 64
Posts: 620
As long as Ted doesn't screw up, no worries.

11Fan is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2012, 04:02
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,342
"Cracks have been found on the wing ribs of at least three Airbus A380s belonging to Singapore Airlines and Qantas Airways.
Both carriers said the cracks were discovered in the 2nd quarter of 2011, and that they have been repaired and posed no danger to safety."
Ridiculous to find cracks this soon in operation, sounds like they were found during routine phase maintenance and will likely be found in the same general area on all A380 manufactured to date.

The way a wing used to be built was to stress, inspect, beef up and repeat.

Like I mentioned before Airbus had engineered this aircraft to the tightest weight restricting tolerances they could, the largest indication of this was their failure to meet the initial wing load testing. I can not find word one on the INTERNET about their solution and the successful test that deemed the wing capable. It was big news one day.. And then the big delay due to cabin entertainment wiring pushed the aircraft delevery schedule MONTHS! This was all you could read about day after day!!!!

I am sure there is no serious risk but this will mean beefing up those ribs, this will probably result in creating another stress point, beef it up and so on until the aircraft weighs more than they would have been happy selling it for in the first place.

Who knows I could be wrong, time will tell. You can be damn sure Airbus and their customers will keep it as quiet as possible though.
grounded27 is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2012, 04:48
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: somewhere
Posts: 451
@Topspot:


The SRM will state if the damage is within limits/ out of limits can be repaired/ cannot be repaired/ how it is to repaired ect.
and if it is not in the SRM, the Airbus design office needs to be contacted before any further flight,
conservative is very progressive compared to the Airbus design office, they don't take any risk.

So no worries about the Airbus statement!!

However since it is the media now, they need to publish detailed information and solution(s) to re-establish the trust to the public.
A33Zab is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2012, 05:10
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MNL ex CCR ex CLE
Age: 60
Posts: 201
Re Wing flexing......I remember an episode of wings once that included the Galaxy 5A......you should see THAT one. If I remember right, there is a system to 'dampen' the flexing....when they turned it off, it looked like the [email protected] thing was flapping it's wings like a bird. Perhaps Galaxy flyer could confirm this....? Actually, the only thing that bothers me about this problem is that the aircraft are basically brand new, and this is showing up already. I understand with a new design that there are always 'teething pains'.....but this situation is rather surprising. It will be interesting to see what comes next.....
PA-28-180 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.