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

[sandycan]

FAMILY recently flew A-380 Singapore to London. Talk about cattle class. With the time taken for boarding and sitting on the tarmac with minimal airconditioning going teh interior was nothing short of hot and humid. On start up for take off, shut cupboards began to spring open items dropped from overhead, the whole plane began shuddering like it was having a fit and the cabin crew told passengers not to worry that this was normal whilst on the ground. After some banter the crew said they often hahve problems with the engines - although this airline has not admitted to any such problems. As our good mechanical engineer pointed out if it was a car I would be asking for a replacment - Shake Rattle and Roll. and to think that the 787 manufacturers wanted Airbus to go in with them on developing the new air system on the planes that is quieter and less fatiguing as well as less noise, but Airbus said it couldnt be done. With relatively recent A-320 crashes caused by external sensors feeding wrong info back to computers and the much more very recent altitude drops with A-330's caused supposedly by faulty algorithms again tying in to external sensors, this is becoming not so much fly by wire but fly by the seat of your pants. Sandycan.

A readers comment...

"I am a mechanical design engineer and I know that stress cracking is NEVER intentionally "designed in" nor is it a good thing. It shows that the design is very marginal with respect to safety at best and dangerous at worst. Stress cracking doesn't mean that it will fail catastrophically but it doesn't mean that it won't either."

Similar to what I have said in a previous thread. Steve P may be a union rep and in most of our eyes, a wanker, but this is a design flaw that is nuts. If it is in a non stress unimportant area, and the struts are forming in the material used to build the AC, what is happening in the high stress areas?

The concern should not be for the design faults that can be seen and fixed, they should be for the design faults that cannot be seen unless the AC undergoes a major survey.

Would we show the same blasé attitude toward say a new high rise building that the foundations although not major structural components, were cracking? Or what about your own home, what would your attitude be if cracks were appearing in the walls - ok the roof is not going to fall down yet, but you wont leave it 4 years to fix on risk that enough cracking and your roof will fall down. A final analogy would be car manufacturers, how many new cars get recalled for minor issues that generally dont affect the vehicle operation and safety? Many new models do, and this is based on whatever safety formular is applied - which seems to be a higher concern for safety and less for money than the formula that airlines seem to be using.

Steve P is closer to the coal face than any of us except maybe JB747 on this matter, and us as IT people, retired pilots, travelling sales people, engineers, accountants and whatever other jobs we may do (except of course any aeronautical engineers) are passengers, we are not the team of ground staff engineers calling for the grounding and inspection of these aircraft. What is Steve P motive? Safety of the passengers? A loyalty bonus from the "we hate airbus/qantas" association? I genuinely think his agenda is passenger safety this time*, and also the other Steve P's scattered throughout the world singing from the same song sheet.



*Anyone who knows me will know I have a deep hatred of unions and their activities in Australia

 

[The Rok]

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

Two points.

1. If you cannot fill the aircraft then it becomes a pointless exercise. All well and good for LHR and LAX, but what about the other 5000 airports in the world.

2. Slot restarted airports such as LHR & LAX also have an abundance of carriers flying into them, by virtue of that you have great competition and lower fares than could otherwise be charged. That means a lower return. Its almost cheaper to fly to LHR than it is to fly to HNL as a result of the competition on those "Slot restricted routes".

A380 is fine for a handful of routes. For 90% of the routes it is just too big.

 

[bossreggie]

I agree that the A380 just isn't practical for most airports. I don't like flying and these news reports are putting me off flying the A380. I've gone the 747 last 2 times to LHR.

I'm actually considering NZ or VA on the 777's for next week.


Sent from my iPad using AustFreqFly App

 

[trooper]

Maybe so.... we'll see over time I am sure..

It is interesting that most (all?) of these arguments about it being "too big" were pretty much advanced against the 747 too!


Having flown the 380 numerous times since SQ introduced it to the SYD-SIN run I am going to say that I will take sandycans comments with a large grain of salt. Quietest aircraft on taxi/takeoff I've ever sat in..... especially compared to the 777 which is my other "usual" long haul a/c type...

Shake, rattle and roll? Not IME.

..and I'm sure the A380 is the ONLY plane that EVER got a bit uncomfortably warm on the ground....Funny.. since I recall that happening in a number of other types myself... Yes, lots of pax to board.. but with multiple jetways as standard it seems OK to me (the problem at SYD - for SQ at least is the bloody departure gate).. but loading a 777 through one jetway takes just as long.. as far as I can tell (never put a stopwatch on it..)

 

[mannej]

Just out of curiosity, what A320 accidents are you referring to?

 

[bossreggie]

Having flown the 380 numerous times since SQ introduced it to the SYD-SIN run I am going to say that I will take sandycans comments with a large grain of salt. Quietest aircraft on taxi/takeoff I've ever sat in..... especially compared to the 777 which is my other "usual" long haul a/c type...

Shake, rattle and roll? Not IME.

I'm with Trooper on this one.

Yes, I've only been in F, but it is by far the quietest plane I have flown in.

I did have a really long conversation with a LAME once and he was part of the initial staff trained for A380. He said that the interior of the cabin was not very good quality. He actually compared it to Hyundai.



Sent from my iPad using AustFreqFly App

 

[bossreggie]

Just out of curiosity, what A320 accidents are you referring to?

Maybe they meant A330??


Sent from my iPad using AustFreqFly App

 

[ReLoad]

Likewise, I've flown the 380 a number of times, and it still freaks me out just how quiet it is when it takes off (it is almost unnerving to be honest), sitting on a 747 you hear every pound of thrust coming out the engines.
Personally I enjoy flying the 380 and have no issues with it, likewise I have no issues with a 747 either.

What I do have issues with is when a plane reaches a certain age and its airframes have had a heck of a lot of take-offs and landings, the seven dwarfs which we go on between Melbourne and Sydney scare me.

Just my .02 West Footscray roubles.

 

[darrend]

Awesome machine to fly in. Travelled in SQ J a number of times. Very quiet and smooth all round.

Safe enough to fly - absolutely.

I tend to think the media jumps onto stuff just for effect. Uninformed, uneducated offer up all sort of "opinions" that somehow get legs.

Me I've been flying for around 32 years, was in RAAF as tradesperson and around many different A/c types. Over 5000 hours CPL. Own 4 A/c of my own including one jet type. Basically have some idea about aviation. I have also worked with CAD and FEA programs building real life vehicles (not planes as it happens)

I would challenge anyone to find an aircraft that does not have cracks (and I understand full well the location and nature of the crack is relevant) of some form or another or has never had an AD. This day and age there is a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience that goes into these aircraft and they are not perfect but nothing ever is, however they have undergone extensive development, testing and proving efforts designed to ensure the aircraft is as safe as possible. And if something is not up to speed the checks and balances go a long way to ensuring the deficiencies are addressed in a timely fashion. That said - nothing is perfect and we need to accept there are no guarantees, otherwise we may as well all stay in bed (and hope the roof with far more cracks than the A380 does not fall on our heads)

For me I am happy to fly on the bird and am happy to take my family along as well.

 

[nlagalle]

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

I do recall that being said - especially for LHR

 

[The Rok]

London has 5 major airports. LHR is currently the largest international hub in the world. As the Dreamliner and other similar aircraft enter service airlines will start flying more and more point to point, eliminating the need for major hubs.

If QF over commit to the A380 they might find that they are even less competitive than they are now. People are less tolerant these days. They don't want to have to do several stops at different airports around the world to get to their destination. That's why middle eastern airlines are doing so well right now. Geographically they are ideally situated to do a massive amount of destinations with one stop.

Point to point travel is the way of the future. Hubs like LHR will continue but there will be a limit to the amount of expansion they will require.

 

[darrend]

London has 5 major airports. LHR is currently the largest international hub in the world. As the Dreamliner and other similar aircraft enter service airlines will start flying more and more point to point, eliminating the need for major hubs.

I believe airlines will do whatever is commercially viable. If that means point to point and not via hubs then they will do that but if it is not economically viable they won't so I'm not so sure the aircraft type has much to do with routing, other than the capacity of the A/c (forgetting infastructure and other considerations). Realistically though an aircraft like the A380 needs a hub to function for feeds otherwise it is not going to be anywhere near capacity and thus a loss maker. So if it does go the way of point to point (which is hard to envisage as a general rule) then aircraft like the A380 become less attractive to airlines and they will simply move on - no more A380

 

[ethernet]

I'm no expert but I +1 it as being too big for now while the composite issue is sorted on both makers planes.
Composites do daft things - ask any shipbuilder.

I think there is no problem with the cracks - but think there was an assumption that wing replacement was not necessary in one geographic location. Bzzzt that is looking off now.
Lets see - cracks between the engines. I'd say wings are too stiff, and the brackets may need to have some movement allowed. There are good reasons not to have brackets floating on rubber, or having strain spreaders
that adds weight and complexity. If they figure out why the forces are such, maybe they can use computers to reduce stress. All l good, but not what QF wants, they need max power for fully loaded non-stops.

 

[Deleted member]

Some of these things look too big to fly.....I try not to think about it



The more I see of men........... the more I love my dog

 

[Awesom Andy]

I think it's also somewhat worrying that these wings are actually designed to be attached to the -900 series as well - an even bigger aircraft.

 

[sadlier]

I am also a Professional Engineer with a healthy dislike of cracks where there are not supposed to be cracks.

Having flown the SQ version of the 380 quite a number of times to me this is just another reason to avoid it.

The biggest reason for me is that it is simply too big with too many people and that inevitably means reduced service levels. It also means that it is restricted in the airports that it can go into.

Another reason is that it is a jittery, bumpy and uncomfortable aircraft - more so than other airbusses which I reckon are all worse than boeings. Flying past Broome towards SIN there always seems to be a very bumpy passage which does not seem as noticeable in the 777. And the upstairs business seating has tables that are tethered at one end with no support at the aisle end. Inevitable that is where the SQ gals put the drinks down and on one trip I saw upwards of twenty glasses of red get pitched off this diving board and into the customers lap!

And recently the 777 flights seem to be quite full so maybe other customers are voting with their feet.

 

[Berlin]

And recently the 777 flights seem to be quite full so maybe other customers are voting with their feet.

Really? :shock: Everybody I know (and that includes a hell lot of very frequent flyers on the SYD-LAX and SYD-LHR routes) tries anything to end up on this beautiful bird rather than on a 747 or a 777, me included. I agree on the cracks and trust they will be fixed before they become a real danger but most people who ever have travelled on the big bird simply LOVE the experience.

 

[straitman]

Maybe so.... we'll see over time I am sure..

It is interesting that most (all?) of these arguments about it being "too big" were pretty much advanced against the 747 too!


Having flown the 380 numerous times since SQ introduced it to the SYD-SIN run I am going to say that I will take sandycans comments with a large grain of salt. Quietest aircraft on taxi/takeoff I've ever sat in..... especially compared to the 777 which is my other "usual" long haul a/c type...

Shake, rattle and roll? Not IME.

..and I'm sure the A380 is the ONLY plane that EVER got a bit uncomfortably warm on the ground....Funny.. since I recall that happening in a number of other types myself... Yes, lots of pax to board.. but with multiple jetways as standard it seems OK to me (the problem at SYD - for SQ at least is the bloody departure gate).. but loading a 777 through one jetway takes just as long.. as far as I can tell (never put a stopwatch on it..)

I'm with Trooper on this one.

Yes, I've only been in F, but it is by far the quietest plane I have flown in.

I did have a really long conversation with a LAME once and he was part of the initial staff trained for A380. He said that the interior of the cabin was not very good quality. He actually compared it to Hyundai.



Sent from my iPad using AustFreqFly App

I am not sure where sandycan is coming from with his comment.

I have only flown the A380 in business but it is certainly quieter and this is to do with both insulation and the improved ventilation that he says did not happen. With regards to engines we probably need to get more input from people like jb747 to get some perspective. Suffice to say that I have flow engines that the manufacturer has admitted are an absolute pain to get started and that the LAMEs did not like for maintenance purposes. These same engines though were absolutely great and reliable once running and in operation. A lot of these things are all a matter of perspective depending upon where you sit.

 

[nlagalle]

The biggest reason for me is that it is simply too big with too many people and that inevitably means reduced service levels. It also means that it is restricted in the airports that it can go into.

Another reason is that it is a jittery, bumpy and uncomfortable aircraft - more so than other airbusses which I reckon are all worse than boeings. Flying past Broome towards SIN there always seems to be a very bumpy passage which does not seem as noticeable in the 777. And the upstairs business seating has tables that are tethered at one end with no support at the aisle end. Inevitable that is where the SQ gals put the drinks down and on one trip I saw upwards of twenty glasses of red get pitched off this diving board and into the customers lap!

And recently the 777 flights seem to be quite full so maybe other customers are voting with their feet.

I can't agree with you about the jittery/bumpy ride. I found the airbus just as smooth as the 747, and definitely much much quieter. and the last flights i was on last year it was pretty much full each leg.

 

[straitman]

Maybe it's time to insert a story from a respected aviation publication.

Airbus Adjusts A380 Assembly Process


Jan 26, 2012


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

Airbus has put in place changes to its A380 wing assembly process as part of its long-term fix to address cracking of wing components, but it also expects most of the A380s already built to require fixes as an interim measure.

Twenty of the more than 60 A380s in service worldwide are affected by a Jan. 20 European Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) airworthiness directive (AD) to inspect the aircraft for potential cracks of wing rib-feet. The findings by airline inspections that have unfolded in recent days are “in line with the expectations,” says Airbus Executive VP-Programs Tom Williams. The company expects to see cracks in most A380s already built.

Singapore Airlines, which has the most A380s affected, says four of its aircraft have undergone the process, and “there were findings during each inspection.” Of those, “one aircraft has already undergone repairs and is back in service. Repairs will be carried out before the remaining aircraft are returned to service,” says an airline representative.

The AD requires A380s with 1,800 flight cycles or more to undergo a detailed visual inspection within four days or 14 flight cycles, whichever occurs first. For aircraft with 1,300-1,800 flight cycles, the inspection has to take place within six weeks or 84 flight cycles, according to EASA. Some aircraft not yet affected by the directive because they have a lower number of flight cycles will undergo the process once they reach the EASA threshold or even before if they go into C Checks, Williams notes.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]