World's biggest super-jumbos must be GROUNDED, say engineers

UK Daily Mail ^ | January 9, 2012 | Rob Waugh

[ConservativeStatement]

Australian aircraft engineers have called for Airbus A380 - the world's biggest passenger aircraft - to be grounded, after Singapore Airlines and Qantas found cracks in the wings of their super-jumbos.

'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.

[Rummyfan]

When a wing falls off and one of these behemoths crashes with five hundred souls-on-board, then they’ll be grounded.

[jim_trent]

If the metal is not heat treated properly, or the bend radius was too tight, or any number of other manufacturing defects, it could crack with no load on them. You do not need an external load to cause a crack. All it would take is time.

That kind of stuff cannot be seen or tested for. If it is happening to “non-critical” parts, I would be taking a hard look at how the critical parts were manufactured.

[PilotDave]

It’s not the cracks they know about that are the problem. I have a 1968 Baron that has a crack near the wing spar that is stop drilled and monitored. It hasn’t changed in 10+ years. It’s the cracks they haven’t noticed yet. The accident reports refer to these as previously undiscovered cracks...

[vette6387]

“Just look at what happened to McDonald Douglas when the DC-10 got a reputation as a dog. “

The DC-10 began to go downhill when one dropped an engine in Chicago on takeoff and crashed. Then they had the Kansas City crash where the tail engine blew up and severed most of the flight controls. It landed in a manner of speaking but a number of the passengers were killed. Like someone else posted, stick with Boeing.

[ZOOKER]

Hawaiin Airlines palne years ago that lost the top of the passenger cabin in mid air..it peeled back like a can of sardines...it was later determined that because the airline operated mainly short hops between the islands, the plane in question had THREE time the number of flight evolutions as the average similar airframe with the same number of flight hours.

It doesn't sound like the pressurization/depressurization cycle is an issue here, since wings don't get pressurized. We don't know if the cracked parts compromise the structural integrity of the A/C or what caused the cracking in the first place (Fatigue caused by flex due to wing loading/unloading? Vibration of the Engines? Unforeseen Aerodynamic forces, like clear air turbulence?)

My point is that the number of landing cycles may not apply here.

[BobL]

Let’s not beat down the A380. It is an amazing airplane and, as long as you don’t fly it into turbulence, you’ll be fine. Of course if you do fly it into turbulence, those little, puny, cracks might just grow...

[American Constitutionalist]

" Even if this turns out to be a quick fix it is going to hurt sales "

Yes, a big public relations problem and will hurt sales even if it's a simple fix, unless it's a wing spar, wing root, or wing box crack.
Did they use a known aluminum alloy to machine faster and save cost and time ? who knows.
Will this hurt their sales, perhaps, and maybe the 747-8I will benefit from this in the short term with some airlines who were getting ready to order some A-380s, or airlines who were just getting in the market to buy some new planes.
Perhaps with this A-380 problem with the wings, and yes folks, this is what the public will see in this problem inspite of the engineers explaining the situation, the public will see and think " the Airbus A-380 has major problems with the wings, ain't going to fly on that plane " ...
Yes, perhaps ? might see a spike in sales for the 747-8I in the short term because those airlines will still have to find planes.

[American Constitutionalist]

" AIRBUS designs a damage tolerant system of structures. The entire airplane is way more flexiable with the cracks being taken into account vs treating every crack as a massive failure. "

Yes, your right, but, the general public won't see it that way .... this is a public relations/reputation problem for Airbus ...

[American Constitutionalist]

The 747 is a known quantity, the engineers have known for over 40 years what the 747 stresses are, and the wings were tested even way back in 1968 with a static test plane by bending the wings until they broke and said that the wings of the 747 can handle more than what it will ever see in service.
Will Airbus get this problem fixed in the short term ? maybe, maybe not, if it's a wing spar, or wing root, or wing box, then they got major problems.

[American Constitutionalist]

" My point is that the number of landing cycles may not apply here. "

Correct, however ? it does matter when the wing takes stresses when it's put under load in lift when rotation ( rotation means when the plane untouches the ground and get's lift, for those who are not familiar with plane terminology ).
It does depend on how many times the wings are flexed and put under load and stress on each fight.