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

[flychrisfly]

I still choose an A380 over a B747, B777 or anything else if I can. It's new a shiny, smooth and very quiet. Known cracks are not really an issue and Qantas is not going to risk losing an airframe - their reputation is largely based on never having lost an airframe in the jet era. It's the unknown cracks that can cause a problem!

As for roughness of ride, it depends on the turbulence that the plane is flying through, and that can happen to any aircraft.

Service levels will only decrease with the larger passenger numbers on board if the staffing levels are insufficient. The airlines put plenty of staff on board plus there are legal minimums that need to be maintained.

A lot of fear is based on ignorance, these cracks have been well publicised since the A380 is new, but if you really want the whole story you need to look at the air worthiness directives for the other aircraft you are comparing it to. No point looking at just one side of the equation when trying to decide between two options.

Anyway, my 2 cents...

 

[davisollero]

Yes! I hope if the technology works very well, so yes!

 

[Wannabee]

I too will fly the A380 over the 747. I find it a lot quieter like most have mentioned.

I fly in helicopters for a living so a few little wing cracks don't stress me!

For those that think the 747 is any better, check out some of the Airworthiness Directives on the CASA website for the 747:

http://services.casa.gov.au/airwort...ion=541502903&pc=PC_90831&sched=over&toc=B747

Cracks, corrosion, fuel leaks and a combination of them all feature regularly. It is a part of aviation. As others have mentioned, it is the things that the manufacturer doesn't know about are the ones to worry about.

 

[elbarto]

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 that's a fault of Airbus and the A380 how? That's a design flaw Singapore Airlines approved of. It should be mentioned that the SQ J seat is built by Koito who falsified the test data on their seats and have subsequently been banned by both Airbus and Boeing. SQ had to get an exemption to have the seats installed so it could take delivery of its 12th A380s.

Exclusive: Airbus grants exception to permit Koito seats on SIA A380s

I too will fly the A380 over the 747. I find it a lot quieter like most have mentioned.

I fly in helicopters for a living so a few little wing cracks don't stress me!

For those that think the 747 is any better, check out some of the Airworthiness Directives on the CASA website for the 747:

ADs for Boeing 747 Series Aeroplanes

Cracks, corrosion, fuel leaks and a combination of them all feature regularly. It is a part of aviation. As others have mentioned, it is the things that the manufacturer doesn't know about are the ones to worry about.

I think that a lot of people forget the 747 has had it's own share of problems over the years, which Boeing has resolved.

 

[straitman]

I fly in helicopters for a living so a few little wing cracks don't stress me!

An honorable profession IMHO :!:

I think that a lot of people forget the 747 has had it's own share of problems over the years, which Boeing has resolved.

I have mentioned this a few times over time. A lot of those making the noise probably have now idea of what an AD is or how it is implemented.

ALL aircraft have issues and often have numerous associated ADs.

It's the problems that they don't know about that are the real concern :!:

 

[jb747]

Why does "If it aint Boeing I aint going" ring in my ears !! LOl! (said in jest)

Bang. OJK.

You are in far more danger from the crew than you are from the nuts and bolts.

 

[Robmn]

There are quite a few different airframes which had a more than shaky start, (with some very deadly teething issues) but once those issues where resolved the went on to be quite successful. DC10's and their cargo doors springs to mind.

The DC10 was interesting in that it went on to mandate modifications in the 747 floor. Freddy Laker (BTW had the sister to the one that crashed) had the solution in that he barred the door shut.

r

 

[jb747]

The DC10 was interesting in that it went on to mandate modifications in the 747 floor. Freddy Laker (BTW had the sister to the one that crashed) had the solution in that he barred the door shut.

Very few accidents, in which the machinery has been the instigator, don't result in changes to the specs of all other aircraft. In most cases, aircraft designers build on the shoulders off all that went before them.

The pressure relief doors that you mentioned were all open on OJK.....so they certainly work.

 

[agent009]

Perception is a very powerful thing. I was talking to a mate at work who told me she was headed to London in July. I asked who she was flying and she told me Virgin Atlantic.

She told me she was no way going on the A380 but preferred the A340 that Virgin use. Being dumb at this I was a bit surprised because she is a regular traveller, but she just said that plane was more reputable with very few incidents. She then rattled off some of the A380 things, but the cracks were her biggest. So I said not Qantas and she said yeah she prefers Qantas but didnt want to risk getting an A380.

I suppose my point is that right or wrong her perception was that the A380 wasnt as safe. Another guy just listening then said he likes to give new models 5 years incident free before flying them. Then another said only four engines for him

Being a nervy flyer, I couldnt really argue these points but was more facinated by the way others, who supposedly arent like me approach their flights. This might be uncommon but it got me thinking, so what they check out which plane is flying which route before booking. I thought people just booked and then got on whatever plane was scheduled to go.

 

[lovestotravel]

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

Yet Hyundai's quality is getting better and better and their warranty is one of the best out there

While they used to be cough, they are now superior to quite a few other cars!

 

[lovestotravel]

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.

I look forward to your further contributions to these Forums.......................................................

 

[markis10]

I look forward to your further contributions to these Forums.......................................................

And I look forward to more selective quoting and the use of multiquote in order for others to find the threads a bit easier to read LOL.

 

[jb747]

I suppose my point is that right or wrong her perception was that the A380 wasnt as safe. Another guy just listening then said he likes to give new models 5 years incident free before flying them. Then another said only four engines for him

The 340 is little more than a 330 with another couple of engines. The issues with flight controls and pitots that have hit the 330 are identical in the 340.

Four engined aircraft have twice the chance of engine problems. And whilst the failure of one tends to be a non event, you'll still end up somewhere other than your destination...and I'd consider the diversion to an airport that the crew are likely to have little knowledge of, to have a fair bundle of risk attached.

Plus, whilst all of the twins can fly having lost half of their motivation, the same cannot be said for the quads. They'll fly once they're clean and have accelerated, but an engine failure that manages to take out the one next door as well, will leave you struggling.

Perception is, as you say, a very powerful thing. Sadly it's almost always based on no knowledge, or, perhaps worse, flawed information.

 

[agent009]

Four engined aircraft have twice the chance of engine problems. .

You lost me here. I ride a motorbike, never had a puncture, but does that mean my car is 2X likely to have a puncture than my bike ?

 

[Awesom Andy]

If I have the choice, I wouldn't fly the A380 either, but that's only because I don't qualify for an express lane card most times, and I much rather not trying to go through customs/baggages with 500 other people at the same time.

 

[JohnM]

If I have the choice, I wouldn't fly the A380 either, but that's only because I don't qualify for an express lane card most times, and I much rather not trying to go through customs/baggages with 500 other people at the same time.

But QF's A380s are configured for about the same number of PAX as their B747s aren't they, so it won't make much difference .

 

[jb747]

You lost me here. I ride a motorbike, never had a puncture, but does that mean my car is 2X likely to have a puncture than my bike ?

Not an expert on tyre punctures, but I'd expect that for number of miles driven, your car would be over twice as likely. Not just because it has twice as many tyres, but because the contact patch would be appreciably bigger per tyre.

I was actually going to say that a quad is MORE than twice as likely to have an engine issue, but didn't because I felt that would lead to lots of explanation of the why...but that is the case.

 

[jb747]

But QF's A380s are configured for about the same number of PAX as their B747s aren't they, so it won't make much difference .

I don't think one aircraft, no matter how big, ever makes much difference. Customs, etc grinds to a halt when a bunch of aircraft turn up at the same time though.

The QF jumbos carry about 365, the 380 roughly 475. They are being reconfigured to about 500.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don't think one aircraft, no matter how big, ever makes much difference. Customs, etc grinds to a halt when a bunch of aircraft turn up at the same time though.

The QF jumbos carry about 365, the 380 roughly 475. They are being reconfigured to about 500.

thinking about MEL they have maybe 10 immigration counters? so an extra 100 pax = about an extra 10 people lining up per immigration officer... at about 30 seconds per interview? So maybe an extra 5-10 minutes queuing? But then you hit quarantine - those lines with an extra 150 people can be a bit of a drag.

 

[jb747]

In answer to the basic question posed here....I have no issue whatsoever flying, or flying on, the 380s. Nor do I have any problem with sending my family on them.

Over the time that I flew them, I saw many issues on the 767 and the 747. I'm not seeing anything different on the 380.