Cracks found in A380 wing ribs
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BH - If you have non-structural panels attached to structural sections, and those non-structural panels are on the outer areas of the structural members, where the most lineal movement is encountered during wing flex; it's not unreasonable to expect those non-structural members to develop minor cracks, that are of no concern.
These cracks rarely propagate into safety-threatening levels, and the attitude of Airbus towards these cracks recently found, seems to be quite reasonable.
Let me know the aircraft that you examine or fly, that does not have one minor non-structural crack in it somewhere, after several thousands hours of operation.
The A380's are in commercial service, and racking up the hours. The facts remain, that the only problems encountered so far, have been the engines (supplied by an independent supplier)... and this minor, non-structural cracking.
In an aircraft that is a totally new design, and of such size and complexity, I would say that the performance of the A380 to this point in time, is outstanding.
These cracks rarely propagate into safety-threatening levels, and the attitude of Airbus towards these cracks recently found, seems to be quite reasonable.
Let me know the aircraft that you examine or fly, that does not have one minor non-structural crack in it somewhere, after several thousands hours of operation.
The A380's are in commercial service, and racking up the hours. The facts remain, that the only problems encountered so far, have been the engines (supplied by an independent supplier)... and this minor, non-structural cracking.
In an aircraft that is a totally new design, and of such size and complexity, I would say that the performance of the A380 to this point in time, is outstanding.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: somewhere
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@StallBoy:
I try to do my long haul flights to London on anything else except a 380
Boeing's don't crack, corrode or have other system/engine failures.
Another nice wingflex video:
Last edited by A33Zab; 6th Jan 2012 at 15:37.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me know the aircraft that you examine or fly, that does not have one minor non-structural crack in it somewhere, after several thousands hours of operation.
I have some basic engineering theory, but more a journeyman than a theorist.
After several thousand hours of operation I would expect to find minor cracking, even in structural components. The Airbus 380 in question did not have thousands of hours of operation.
One has carried out inspections on aircraft over the last several years and have not noticed cracking in the rib to skin attach on any.
Airbus do not consider it an immediate airworthiness isse which should allay safety concerns.
Cheers
At least the 787 passed the load test the first time.
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.
I would like to know what the B787 wing is actually capable of.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus A380 should be grounded....
Not seen this anywhere before....
BBC News - Airbus A380 fleet should be grounded, say engineers
BBC News - Airbus A380 fleet should be grounded, say engineers
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney, NSW,Australia
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Boeing and the NTSB didn't come out of that looking too flash.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Derby/EMA
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Derby/EMA
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
