Are A380's safe enough to fly? [hairline cracks found in wings]

[straitman]

EASA Demands A380 Wing Crack Inspections


Jan 19, 2012


[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: storyAuthor, align: left"]By Robert Wall [email protected]
LONDON[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: storyBody, align: left"]

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is ordering inspections of relatively high-cycle A380s to assess the extent to which a new set of wing cracks are affecting the Airbus fleet.
The inspections and potential repairs could impact A380 operations, although so far the damage prompting the EASA airworthiness directive has been found only on two of nine aircraft inspected. The culprit is an L-shaped bracket that attaches the wing skin to the ribs.
An Airbus wing expert insists it is not a flight safety issue and that both a short-term fix has been identified in cases where cracking is detected, as well as a longer-term fix to avoid the stress cracks occurring in the future. The cracks have been found on the center section of the wing between the two engines.
The EASA directive addresses a similar parts fatigue problem with wing rib feet brackets initially found on a Qantas A380 and later seen on other aircraft. Those hairline cracks were deemed manageable and could be fixed at C-checks. Those cracks were found because the Qantas aircraft (MSN14) suffered an uncontained engine failure, giving engineers an opportunity to closely examine the wing.



See the rest of the story here: EASA Demands A380 Wing Crack Inspections | AVIATION WEEK[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[MEL_Traveller]

hmmm... so I ask this... the brackets attach the wing skin to the ribs and in normal flight pose mo safety issue.

what happens if we have another uncontained engine failure ripping into the wing skin. could it be that the hole extends further than it would otherwise if these cracks mean the brackets don't hold the skin in place?

who knows. we don't even know if this is a possibility. time for some answers...

 

[UP4014]

Inspections ordered by the regulator but not my Airbus. This can't be a good look for Airbus.

Matt

 

[medhead]

Inspections ordered by the regulator but not my Airbus. This can't be a good look for Airbus.

Matt

As an armchair expert that is what I expect to be normal. Based on Air crash investigations with the DC10 cargo door, the regulator left it to the manufacturer to do repairs after a first incident. A few years later a DC10 crashed due to the same fault and it turned out the manufacturer didn't tell the airline about the problem. Apparently, after that it become normal for the regulator to issue directives.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[agent009]

non critical cracks might just scare off critical passengers...

In July 2011 at 50 I took my first ever trip to London via Qantas, 747. They were great, the cabin staff were a bit iffy but I didnt care, the guys and gals up front got me there and back in 1 piece.

Now, I am a really scared flyer, I coped with my mate Valium. But I want to go back, but honestly as a nervous flyer, I doubt I would choose the A380. Personally, even though the 747 is much older, that might be my choice when I go next.

PS

Then again as I am a nervous flyer, my decisions are kinda made on the basis of my fear.

 

[mannej]

Inspections ordered by the regulator but not my Airbus. This can't be a good look for Airbus.

Matt

Would that not be common place, and not limited to just Airbus?

The way things are you don't hear about these AD's 99.9% of the time.

 

[amaroo]

In July 2011 at 50 I took my first ever trip to London via Qantas, 747. They were great, the cabin staff were a bit iffy but I didnt care, the guys and gals up front got me there and back in 1 piece.

Now, I am a really scared flyer, I coped with my mate Valium. But I want to go back, but honestly as a nervous flyer, I doubt I would choose the A380. Personally, even though the 747 is much older, that might be my choice when I go next.

PS

Then again as I am a nervous flyer, my decisions are kinda made on the basis of my fear.

Good on you for getting on that bird last year

I hope, if it's your hope - for you to get back up there again.....if not, just enjoy life.

For some the trip starts once they leave home....for others, it's when they arrive at their destination

 

[straitman]

Inspections ordered by the regulator but not my Airbus. This can't be a good look for Airbus.

Matt

Would that not be common place, and not limited to just Airbus?

The way things are you don't hear about these AD's 99.9% of the time.

That is totally normal.

ADs are issued by the relevant authority. ie the authority responsible for certification in the first instance and then, often, added to by the authority responsible for overseeing the operator. (In Qantas case CASA)

 

[Cardinal]

Sometimes you just have to believe the system works, particularly with safety issues over which most have no real knowledge, experience and limited control. The allure of money might make some take shortcuts but Airbus can't takes risks in any substantive way. I would expect that the civil aviation authorities in Europe sure don’t want catastrophic incidents.

That’s what I’m telling myself as I’m flying the A380 for the first couple of times in May. I will, however, not be telling my partner about any cracks as she too is a nervous flyer.

 

[UP4014]

That is totally normal.

ADs are issued by the relevant authority. ie the authority responsible for certification in the first instance and then, often, added to by the authority responsible for overseeing the operator. (In Qantas case CASA)

Lucky it's not normal in the motor vehicle industry. I can't think of any other industry where the manufacturer doesn't need to issue an inspection instruction. As you guys know I have a rail sector background including risk and safety systems, no railway passenger car builder would get away with waiting for the regulator to issue an instruction, if you don't as the builder get it right and issue 'recalls' (for want of a better word) then the regulator suspends you're certification if you the builder aren't being proactive in this regard.

I guess the airline sector differs in that you have the 'regulator' also promoting the sector not just watching for problems.

Matt

 

[medhead]

Lucky it's not normal in the motor vehicle industry. I can't think of any other industry where the manufacturer doesn't need to issue an inspection instruction. As you guys know I have a rail sector background including risk and safety systems, no railway passenger car builder would get away with waiting for the regulator to issue an instruction, if you don't as the builder get it right and issue 'recalls' (for want of a better word) then the regulator suspends you're certification if you the builder aren't being proactive in this regard.

I guess the airline sector differs in that you have the 'regulator' also promoting the sector not just watching for problems.

Matt

I don't think it is done in isolation, the regulator and the manufacturer talk. Just that the regulator issues the notice to ensure it happens and get communicated world wide and doesn't drop off the radar.

 

[The Rok]

Safety agency calls for checks on A380s

"This condition, if not detected and corrected, could potentially affect the structural integrity of the airplane," EASA said.

EASA said in Friday's directive: "The new form of cracking is more significant than the original rib foot hole cracking."

I believe there is cause for concern here, despite what Airbus are saying. It might only affect 20 early production airframes but that is still 10,000 people at risk.

 

[oz_mark]

Lucky it's not normal in the motor vehicle industry. I can't think of any other industry where the manufacturer doesn't need to issue an inspection instruction. As you guys know I have a rail sector background including risk and safety systems, no railway passenger car builder would get away with waiting for the regulator to issue an instruction, if you don't as the builder get it right and issue 'recalls' (for want of a better word) then the regulator suspends you're certification if you the builder aren't being proactive in this regard.

I guess the airline sector differs in that you have the 'regulator' also promoting the sector not just watching for problems.

Different reulatory environments in different sectors. As for trains, it doesn't matter how good the rail cars are, given the state of some of the rail tracks in this country...

 

[Happy Trails]

Safety agency calls for checks on A380s






I believe there is cause for concern here, despite what Airbus are saying. It might only affect 20 early production airframes but that is still 10,000 people at risk.

Only if all twenty happened to crash on the same day.

 

[JohnCarrWestwood]

We can't continue to gamble with people's lives and allow those aircraft to fly around and hope that they make it until their four-yearly inspection,' said Steve Purvinas, secretary of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association.




Aaaah- now, if it's HIM saying that, this most likely means these things are perfectly safe to fly

Good to know!

At just short of $400million AUSD per plane, does that nerk seriously think Qantas is going to take risks with their investment let alone have a bad safety rep and lose 400+ customers ?

 

[Wainza 1]

I think not, the plane is too big for it's own good . I think Boeing has gone the right way with the 787, look at the 747, it is about quality over quantity

 

[The Rok]

I think you are spot on with Boeing and the 787's. If they can deliver them and they are without fault, or only minimal fault then financially they will do better than EADS. I think this was JB747's view also, that airlines would go back to smaller aircraft for point to point movement.

That will kill the A380. It has such a limited use.

 

[FirstClass]

Qantas disappointed many of its more experienced customers (and staff) with the purchase of this eurotrash equipment instead of sticking with the tried and proven product range of its traditional supplier. Having said that, General Dynamics got the F-111 right...eventually, didn't they?

 

[Wainza 1]

I think you are spot on with Boeing and the 787's. If they can deliver them and they are without fault, or only minimal fault then financially they will do better than EADS. I think this was JB747's view also, that airlines would go back to smaller aircraft for point to point movement.

That will kill the A380. It has such a limited use.

I totally agree, the A380 is to big to quick

 

[darrend]

that airlines would go back to smaller aircraft for point to point movement.

That will kill the A380. It has such a limited use.

What about slots? There is a limit to number of aircaft landings per hour at any airport. Larger aircraft = less movements.