UPDATE 3-More cracks found in Airbus A380 wings

[xUT]

UPDATE 3-More cracks found in Airbus A380 wings

PARIS, Jan 19 (Reuters) - Airbus insisted on Thursday that Europe's A380 superjumbo is safe to fly after another set of cracks was discovered in the wings of the world's largest jetliner.

It is the second time in as many weeks that hairline cracks have surfaced inside the mammoth double-decker jet, which entered service four years ago, and their discovery is expected to lead to expanded safety checks.

Airbus has dismissed calls to ground its superjumbo fleet over the cracks, which first came to light during repairs of a Qantas Airways Ltd A380 damaged by an engine blowout shortly after taking off from Singapore in November (Stuttgart: A0Z24E - news) 2010.

Two aviation industry officials said European safety inspectors would, however, order additional safety inspections.

A spokesman for the European Aviation Safety Agency confirmed it would issue an airworthiness directive on Friday.

Let's hope it's just growing pains for a new aircraft type.
B) xUT

 

[eolesen]

The AD is out.

http://news.aviation-safety.net/2012/01/20/easa-orders-inspection-of-a380-for-cracks-in-wing-rib-feet/


I can't recall seeing this much AD activity with an aircraft fleet that hasn't even come due for their first MBVs yet.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I'm a little concerned that this might be the end result of computer design. Designers and engineers can now design airplanes with very little margin over that required for certification. Gone are the days of making the planes stronger if there was any doubt. There's a story about the DC-3, which had the wings bolted together outboard of the engines using a couple of hundred bolts on each side. Supposedly there were worries among some potential customers about the strength of using bolts instead of a continuous wing spar so Donald Douglass had mechanics remove all but 3 of the bolts and flew the airplane through a set of maneuvers, erasing all doubt about the strength of the wing. Nowadays, if the computer said the dc3 needed 2.985 bolts to be strong enough, only 3 would be used instead of the hundreds Douglas put in.

Jim

 

[chris perry]

The AD is out.

http://news.aviation-safety.net/2012/01/20/easa-orders-inspection-of-a380-for-cracks-in-wing-rib-feet/


I can't recall seeing this much AD activity with an aircraft fleet that hasn't even come due for their first MBVs yet.

We are seeing these new generation aircraft with problems only seen in 20 year old aircraft.The skins on the new gen 737 are scary
Thin...parts are breaking way premature...I see job security,or throw away aircraft.Don,t see them lasting 20 years without major maint.

 

[tech2101]

I'm a little concerned that this might be the end result of computer design. Designers and engineers can now design airplanes with very little margin over that required for certification. Gone are the days of making the planes stronger if there was any doubt. There's a story about the DC-3, which had the wings bolted together outboard of the engines using a couple of hundred bolts on each side. Supposedly there were worries among some potential customers about the strength of using bolts instead of a continuous wing spar so Donald Douglass had mechanics remove all but 3 of the bolts and flew the airplane through a set of maneuvers, erasing all doubt about the strength of the wing. Nowadays, if the computer said the dc3 needed 2.985 bolts to be strong enough, only 3 would be used instead of the hundreds Douglas put in.

Jim

That Douglas philosophy is what ended their business (although I agreed with the philosophy).

The DC aircraft were/are workhorses.

 

[delldude]

Our old 9 fleet were always near HEAVY on check.......lotta beer cans on them fuselages....

 

[TWU informer]

Makes one wonder which is more important, Fuel Economy/Light Weight or Aircraft Safety/Strength

Pushing the envelope appears to be risky.

 

[2ndGENAMT]

After working the A300 for a couple of years I always thought that their aluminum was of inferior quality compared to Douglas/Boeing.. Jims point about computer design makes perfect sense in my view as well as CP's throw away aircraft..

What better way to make profits than selling customers parts for 10-15 years and at lease end a new aircraft..

 

[xUT]

I'm a little concerned that this might be the end result of computer design. Designers and engineers can now design airplanes with very little margin over that required for certification. Gone are the days of making the planes stronger if there was any doubt. There's a story about the DC-3, which had the wings bolted together outboard of the engines using a couple of hundred bolts on each side. Supposedly there were worries among some potential customers about the strength of using bolts instead of a continuous wing spar so Donald Douglass had mechanics remove all but 3 of the bolts and flew the airplane through a set of maneuvers, erasing all doubt about the strength of the wing. Nowadays, if the computer said the dc3 needed 2.985 bolts to be strong enough, only 3 would be used instead of the hundreds Douglas put in.

Jim

IIRC, critical flight components (engine, hydraulics, etc...) used to have a design failure rate (FEMA Analysis) of 1:to the -10th mantissa. Overbuilt but the technology created many robust fail safe systems.
After the UA BK and maintenance programs were reduced through 'proof' of no failures, my confidence has waned somewhat as maintenance programs were lengthened.

(PS, I worked on C47's (DC3) sometimes and almost needed a climbing rope to reach the cockpit... )

Then I find this: It's never been safer to fly; deaths at record low

B) xUT

 

[tech2101]

This is breaking news on CNN right now. Don't know if they are reporting anything new yet.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Then I find this: It's never been safer to fly; deaths at record low

The line between safety and cost is like the edge of a cliff and everyone is standing on the edge with a blindfold on. Take one step in the wrong direction and it's too late - the damage is done. A few accidents due to putting a toe over the line and those statistics reverse.

(PS, I worked on C47's (DC3) sometimes and almost needed a climbing rope to reach the cockpit... )

The neatest thing about flying it was taxiing in places like ORD and looking over the top of the fuselage of DC9's, 727's and 737's...made you feel like you were flying a big airplane...then ya go somewhere like JFK and feel like a gnat among elephants...

Jim