Airbus A380 wing cracks

As far as I can remember, he figured it out on the spot. The wing was losing the connection to the inboard wing and he had to get rid of it. Looking at the planform of the total wing span, the loss of the outboard wing was only about 25 % or less of the effective span so the airplane was controllable. The guy did an excellent job but an old time line pilot often perforrms this way.

 

The desire to survive grows balls...............................

I am a firm believer that people are at their best when things are at their worst, (in most cases).
There are times though when lack of knowledge or training cannot overcome the odds, sadly.

 

Most of the pilots with whom I flew or knew ALWAYS said THINK first , ACT second. Then when your down, you can do your shaking.

 

(for those not in Silver Subscribed section):

Might as well start calling this "Crack Gate"

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/easa-new-cracks-20-a380s-more-significant-0121

This is *really* bad for such a young aircraft.

 

Thats why they call them "Scare Busses". If it ain't Boeing. I ain't going.

 

I'm not sure what they are calling a " rib foot". They ( Airbus) have referred to droop noses and stuff that I can't recognize. I think that the rib foot is a flange at the peripheral edge of the rib web that joins to the wing skin. If this is the case, then the rib is under-designed or the fastener holes are in the wrong place. Hole locations can cause problems if they are only a millimeter out of place.

 

Another Airbus wing crack article..

More cracks found.


http://news.yahoo.com/engineers-more-a380-wing-cracks-sources-170831392.html

This is not good.

Didn't realize that there are already 68 of the 380's flying now.

 

This article talks about the way they plan on dealing with the problem.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-26/airbus-offers-two-step-fix-on-a380-wing-cracks-after-manufacturing-defect.html

 

Like a Delta Captain friend of mine once told me. When the sh*t hits the fan, wind your watch.
That little tidbit saved my bacon once.

 

+1

 

...and yet another update from EADS on 'crackgate' - factory, design flaws resulted in wing cracks:

and from the Sydney Morning Herald:

Not good...not good at all.

 

Yikes. What a mess.

I'd be curious to find out more about the three issues they've identified as causing all this. Seems to me that you'd have to get some odd interactions between parts to have that be the case.

 

After all these years of messing around with big tin birds I still cannot get a clear picture of what the heck is happening. All of the smoke and fog coupled with obfuscation and non-descriptive descriptions leave me blank....but I suppose that's what they want. They say the cracks are from the wrong material or the wrong type of bolts or that the cracks are in the "centralized part of the wing". What pray tell is that? Central in a chord wise direction or central in a span wise direction? Wrong type of bolt! Is it loose in the hole? Was it too large for the hole? Is it a tapered fastener? Is the bolt head getting into the radius of the bend in the " rib foot"?...whatever that is. Are there cracks in the wing skins? So far nothing but smoke, mirrors, and double Airbus-speak.

 

Give it a little time.
It's the same ambiguous double talk that Boeing uses when something goes wrong with the 787.
Eventually pictures will be leaked and more detailed descriptions offered by those that aren't concerned with share-holder value.

 

Yikes: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bd40545c-780a-11e1-b437-00144feab49a.html

 

Airbus says sales goals for the A380 will be difficult to meet due to potential customers reluctance to buy after the wing crack episodes.

http://news.yahoo.com/airshow-airbus-ceo-warns-a380-sales-target-tough-220529709--finance.html

 

I have never seen an airplane that gave me more of a negative feeling. I have no desire to get on one and I'm not.

 

They can fix the issue and make it better, but that adds weight to an already overweight airplane.

Sink Airbus? No, they have plenty of support...

 

This problem is effectively solved. The whizzy carbon aluminum hybrid composite is replaced with a 7xxx series aluminum alloy which adds some weight. But it isn't that big a fuss. If you ever try to build the perfect product it will never get finished.

All new aircraft have their hiccups. One of my favourite twinjets the 777 had its fair share of issues with fuel systems icing up and what not.

To Zack I have worked as an aviation refueller and believe me while it has tremendous burn energy, combusting jet a1 is very difficult. A very hot turbine disk going through a near full tank at a high rate of speed won't ignite it. And being one of the inner engines going through the inner tanks it would be a near full tank. All airbus aircraft empty their outer wing and center tanks before they touch the inner tank.

As far as it becoming an aerial titanic. History has shown this has already happened. I believe the product is called the 747.

 

If you read the previous posts with Zack he is scared that 500+ lives could be finished.

Multiple 747 accidents have claimed similar number of people in incidents of the past. That is a risk that is taken by anyone stepping inside a jumbo jet. They carry a lot of people and should it go down it is fairly probable high casualties would be the result.

I put my faith in the airlines and the manufacturers. And seeing that the 747 400 is the only quad jet I have ever flown it remains my favourite. Not that I don't want to fly in an a380. I do.

 

You are correct, no one has ever built the perfect product for there is always something that will yank the reins on every project to remind the innovator that he isn't perfect. Witness the 707, Comet, some Russian jets, the Electra, DC-10, 777, 787, and scores of other adventures that taunt the arrogance of those who try to invent the perfect machine. The 747 and 777 have come very close to the target as did the DC-3 and the DC-4. Probably one of the closest is the Piper Cub.

 

Why? Do you now have negative feelings towards the 777? It had fuel icing problems. And nearly ended 300 people. More than once.

What about the most successful twinjet commercial the 737 that suffered from a rudder hardover that in at least 2 reported incidents claimed 200+ lives and a 3rd that also could have ended the same way?

And the a320 with it's computer control fly by wire interface that is so controversial? Which is now mainstay in EVERY modern jetliner especially the widebody aircraft.

All aircraft have their idiosyncrasies. I would know I have worked with them on a regular basis.

There is no perfect aircraft.

Airbus and boeing are heated rivals that both make great products, and I see no reason to align myself to either one or other. If you do let me know.

 

Innovation is risky.

The piper cub is the fundamentals executed to perfection. It isn't that great, it is the toyota corolla of the skies. Simple, basic, tried and tested tech, and a little attention to qc. Explains why they are still around.

But fundamentals are simply the starting point. Over time a product has to evolve or improve, maybe even reinvent itself like the 787 with the carbon fuselage. When we stop trying to improve it becomes a dead industry.

The first gen of anything new will be almost good enough but not quite. The 787 will have problems of that I have no doubt. But it shows an improvement. Carbon is the future. Over time carbon tech will evolve where it replaces aluminum as the main construction material of the aircraft.

Witness the a320. Had its troubles with fbw tech on release. Now every major jetliner uses fbw tech. Every new piece of equipment from boeing, bombardier, embraer, sukhoi, and naturally airbus utilizes this tech.

It isn't possible to improve if you stay in your comfort zone. You have to go way outside it. Otherwise just scrap everything breed some horses and make rudimentary stone houses and go back to the dark ages.