Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Qantas A380 Out Of Service After Cracks Found In Wings
Fox Business ^ | Feb-07-2012

Posted on 02/07/2012 7:37:50 PM PST by Gamecock

Edited on 02/07/2012 9:26:45 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

SYDNEY Qantas Airways Ltd. (QAN.AU) said Wednesday it has taken one of its Airbus A380 superjumbos out of service after cracks were discovered in its wings.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxbusiness.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: aerospace; airbus; airlines; qantas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 02/07/2012 7:37:58 PM PST by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

Much more elegant, IMHO:

I'll be flying to Asia later in the year, for the TRANSPAC segments I'll be on the 777. Those are great planes, IMHO.

5 posted on 02/07/2012 7:45:36 PM PST by Gamecock (I am so thankful for [the] active obedience of Christ. No hope without it. JGM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Dreamliner and A380 ridiculous albatrosses and unecessary....


6 posted on 02/07/2012 7:45:47 PM PST by databoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

It’s certainly hard to accept that cracks in structural elements are not a safety issue. Maybe they mean it’s not an IMMEDIATE safety issue.


7 posted on 02/07/2012 7:51:37 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Ive flown on the top deck to Asia on Singapore Air (really cool) and on the bottom deck on Emirates (not so cool).

I still prefer the 747’s but its getting harder and harder to fly them

8 posted on 02/07/2012 7:55:19 PM PST by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

“Just an ugly beast.”

Not inside!

I flew on a Singapore Airlines A380 London Heathrow to Singapore.

GREAT accommodations, food & service, even in Economy!


9 posted on 02/07/2012 7:55:37 PM PST by BwanaNdege (Man has often lost his way, but modern man has lost his address - Gilbert K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
...traced back to a manufacturing issue. Airbus has confirmed that it has no effect on flight safety.

I would love to believe this.

I'm not so sure, however. (Caution, I am NOT an engineer, so my opinion is merely intuitive reasoning.)

So, aero engineers, please help me out here.

Wing rib feet help translate the stresses from the skin (via the feet) through the ribs to the stringers and then concentrates on the spars and then the carry-through. Is this close?

If the feet are cracking, does this not mean that the stresses are exceeding the calculated loads (including safety margins); and that there might (might) be stresses that were not accounted for in design?

Again, I don't know, I'm just asking.

.

10 posted on 02/07/2012 7:57:36 PM PST by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: databoss
Dreamliner an albatross?

Lowest cost per seat mile double aisle aisle aircraft in the industry. More planes sold in the shortest time in history. Largest number of planes on back-order in history.

Yes, a real pig./sarc.

11 posted on 02/07/2012 7:59:57 PM PST by Partisan Hack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: databoss
Dreamliner an albatross?

Lowest cost per seat mile double aisle aisle aircraft in the industry. More planes sold in the shortest time in history. Largest number of planes on back-order in history.

Yes, a real pig./sarc.

12 posted on 02/07/2012 8:00:21 PM PST by Partisan Hack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Seaplaner

Ya don’t have to be an engineer to know that the plane wasn’t designed to crack - anywhere - at any time.
Forces are showing up of some magnitude and/or direction not anticipated. This would be understandable if the planes had undergone some unique maneuver or impacted some unusual object. But to crack under normal operations?...
Not cool.


13 posted on 02/07/2012 8:11:29 PM PST by bossmechanic (If all else fails, hit it with a hammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All
Deja vu, all over again?

From a story published by Bloomberg News Feb. 2006:

Airbus said a wing of a 550-seat A380, the world's biggest commercial aircraft, snapped during factory stress tests at its headquarters. The company said the incident won't delay the first deliveries due by the end of the year.

Airbus had to make design changes to the wing after it failed just below the specified ultimate limit in a stress test.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2002810576_airbus17.html

14 posted on 02/07/2012 8:12:52 PM PST by zipper (espions sur les occupants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

While it was still on the drawing board, I projected the 380 would have the shortest lifespan of any craft in the history of the commercial jet fleet.


15 posted on 02/07/2012 8:13:06 PM PST by G Larry (I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

No worries, Boeing is producing the next version of the 747 (747-800).


16 posted on 02/07/2012 8:22:25 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

I’m glad Fedex didn’t buy them. Wait until the ‘too short’ wiring problems arise.


17 posted on 02/07/2012 8:32:53 PM PST by ebshumidors ( Marksmanship and YOUR heritage http://www.appleseedinfo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
I don't think they have many orders for the 747-800’s on the books but I'd defiantly fly with an airline that bought them..my hope is Cathay Pacific is going to buy them
18 posted on 02/07/2012 8:33:30 PM PST by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ebshumidors

I haven’t heard about the wiring. What is the problem?


19 posted on 02/07/2012 8:34:02 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

Well, they started production in 2010 and there are, so far, over 110 orders. Most of those have been for the Cargo version. Lufthansa is one of the Pax customers.


20 posted on 02/07/2012 8:41:20 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Sorry but in something that humungous there ain’t no such thing as minor cracks. Minor cracks are found in potato chips, plaster walls, hand mirrors and junior plumbers not in something that takes me 7 miles into the clouds.


21 posted on 02/07/2012 8:45:47 PM PST by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe
FYI.
22 posted on 02/07/2012 8:48:15 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Too big to fail fly
23 posted on 02/07/2012 8:49:28 PM PST by Josh Painter ("The only thing these 'investments' will get us is a bullet train to bankruptcy." - Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

I hope more PAX airframes are sold. The 747 is the best aircraft out there for passenger comfort IMHO.


24 posted on 02/07/2012 8:50:38 PM PST by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bossmechanic
Ya don’t have to be an engineer to know that the plane wasn’t designed to crack - anywhere - at any time. Forces are showing up of some magnitude and/or direction not anticipated. This would be understandable if the planes had undergone some unique maneuver or impacted some unusual object. But to crack under normal operations?... Not cool.

Here's my question. If brand-new wings, in an "uncracked" state, developed cracks, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the "cracked" wings to develop new cracks on the old cracks? I mean, I'm only a dumb EE, but are cracked surfaces stronger than non-cracked surfaces?

If the answer to that question is anything other than an unequivocal "yes," than EADS' official position -- that the cracks represent absolutely nothing to be worried about -- is seen to be 100% poppycock.

Where have I gone wrong in my logic here?

25 posted on 02/07/2012 8:52:21 PM PST by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: databoss
Neither is an "albatross", (that was mfg by Grumman.) :D

That said, I'll gladly fly in the Dreamliner; and, I will take meticulous pains to avoid flights on the A380.

.

26 posted on 02/07/2012 8:54:04 PM PST by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Send them to haiti for shelters.


27 posted on 02/07/2012 8:54:31 PM PST by MaxMax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: databoss

“Dreamliner and A380 ridiculous albatrosses and unecessary....”

Obviously you are not in the aviation industry. The 737 are coming up for replacement, the 757 and 767 are getting a bit long in the tooth, airports want quieter airplanes, airlines need more fuel effeciency and less maintenance costs and more airtime.

Also, the 787 is NOT the same size as the A380. The 787, while coming out at the same basic timeframe, is not meant to be a competitor to the 380 in size. It is not even a replacement to the 747.


28 posted on 02/07/2012 8:55:05 PM PST by CodeToad (NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

I agree. The last time I flew on one was with Cathay Pacific. Business Class was pretty comfy aboard that -400.


29 posted on 02/07/2012 8:55:37 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

The 737 has just enetered a new generation - 737MAX with firm orders from Norwegian Airlines, Southwest, AA, and Lion Air.


30 posted on 02/07/2012 8:58:31 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Sorry but in something that humungous there ain’t no such thing as minor cracks. Minor cracks are found in potato chips, plaster walls, hand mirrors and junior plumbers not in something that takes me 7 miles into the clouds.


31 posted on 02/07/2012 8:58:45 PM PST by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
Yeah business class is great on Cathay. I usually fly coach because I cant normally justify my clients paying the extra cost and the 747’s are just more comfortable in steerage especially if you can grab the good seats
32 posted on 02/07/2012 9:03:26 PM PST by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

I know. It is actually an exciting time to be in aviation, not as a passenger with the TSA and all, but from pilots to engineers there is all kinds of amazing work being done. There hasn’t been this much activity in decades.


33 posted on 02/07/2012 9:08:12 PM PST by CodeToad (NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

I remember the cracks on the then new jet, the Comet...except they developed around the square windows and resulted in the wings falling off in flight. Major engineering oops.


34 posted on 02/07/2012 9:10:25 PM PST by JPG (Matters at which the foolish laugh and at whose consequences the prudent weep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyman

“Sorry but in something that humungous there ain’t no such thing as minor cracks”

Well, guess what? You’ve flown on all kinds of planes with cracks all over the place. There are a number of places where cracks can form without any structural integrity issues at all. To keep all cracks under control the plane would need to be built like a sky scraper.


35 posted on 02/07/2012 9:10:38 PM PST by CodeToad (NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

...................The airline last month found “minor” cracks on another one of its A380s, but the spokeswoman said that the “type two” cracking that prompted the airworthiness directive hasn’t been found on Qantas aircraft........................

Huh?? Quantus has cracking, but “airworthiness directives” haven’t been found on Quantas aircraft??

So I guess that the “minor cracking” only needs duct tape, but keeping the aircraft out of service for a week means fiberglass tape and epoxy!


36 posted on 02/07/2012 9:11:42 PM PST by Noob1999 (Loose Lips, Sink Ships)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

I agree. Also, the 767 remains in production and there have been some nice refinements in that airframe as well. I missed an opportunity to see a 787; one of the flight test airframes stopped by my local airport nearly a year ago. I still kick myself for missing that.


37 posted on 02/07/2012 9:11:42 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JPG

The wings didn’t fall off until after the airframe exploded (catastrophic decompression).


38 posted on 02/07/2012 9:14:19 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

“I missed an opportunity to see a 787”

It definately is an eye catcher! The cockpit is a pilot’s dream. It is actually roomy and confortable compared to performing aircraft yoga to get into most of them.


39 posted on 02/07/2012 9:15:01 PM PST by CodeToad (NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: bossmechanic

The article claims the A380 experienced severe turbulence. I am surprised an airline would not take as many measures as possible to keep that giant structure away from bumps.


40 posted on 02/07/2012 9:16:37 PM PST by cornfedcowboy (Trust in God, but empty the clip.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

The A330 is one of my favorites.


41 posted on 02/07/2012 9:20:28 PM PST by cornfedcowboy (Trust in God, but empty the clip.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

“Well, guess what? You’ve flown on all kinds of planes with cracks all over the place. There are a number of places where cracks can form without any structural integrity issues at all. To keep all cracks under control the plane would need to be built like a sky scraper.”

But did these other planes show these cracks in the first year of service? Where these other planes made from carbon fiber components like my car which is delaminating in front of my very eyes?. Is this the material that in tests doesn’t fatigue but sans warning suffers complete catastrophic failure?


42 posted on 02/07/2012 9:50:42 PM PST by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cornfedcowboy

I’m not an Airbus bigot by any stretch, but their prestige has taken a few hits with the 380 and the Air France crash.


43 posted on 02/07/2012 10:07:53 PM PST by DarrellZero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Listen up gang.Words to live by.”If it aint Boeing,I aint going.Carry on.


44 posted on 02/07/2012 10:07:58 PM PST by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life's tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: databoss
Dreamliner and A380 ridiculous albatrosses and unecessary....

The Dreamliner an albatross? I don't think so. You do realize that they don't compete for the same market space, right? The Dreamliner is a far smaller plane intended for smaller markets.

45 posted on 02/07/2012 10:25:08 PM PST by Ramius (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

cathay already bought one, but I think it’s cargo only

http://www.aussie-traveller.com/2011/11/first-photos-of-cathay-pacific-boeing.html


46 posted on 02/07/2012 10:57:43 PM PST by Mount Athos (A Giant luxury mega-mansion for Gore, a Government Green EcoShack made of poo for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Not to be picky....you have a 747-400 showing.

I work at NWA for 17+ years and we call our A320’s “Scarebuses”.

All Airbuses are socialist, subsidized designs with minimalism written all over the design specs.

The A320 family is fraught with either crack warranty work for framing members that join the main deck to the fuselage where the wings meet the fuselage or warranty work on the pintles for the landing gear that had fasteners that were close tolerance fasteners, instead of interference fasteners, that led to the worrying of the holes and eventual replacement of said fasteners with interference fit fasteners which led to reaming, cold working, reaming and dedicated fasteners for each hole in the rear spar (part of the wet wing[fuel]), instead of one type/size fastener. All of these dedicated fasteners have to be tracked for the rest of the airframes life. What a maintenance nightmare.

There was also warranty work for the framing area of the tail strike area.

All of this warranty work was subsidized as was the original design and production of the A320 by the EU...no wonder they're collapsing.

BTW, the A350 is the wannabe competitor for the 787.....good luck with that Airbus.

Airbus is only short term competitive on price because of the subsidizing....it's as simple as that.

Even the avionics are cheap...Team, an Airbus avionics supplier, doesn't use gold plated pins internally in the board interconnect connectors.

I fought with them for several years before they would admit the the “dirty pins” was in fact galvanic corrosion occurring.

Pieces of crap....is all I can say....(after all that????).

47 posted on 02/08/2012 1:41:26 AM PST by Puckster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bossmechanic
Forces are showing up of some magnitude and/or direction not anticipated.

Not necessarily.

My money would be on some deficiency in material or processing.

48 posted on 02/08/2012 2:34:36 AM PST by NY.SS-Bar9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Puckster
As one who used to do product support for a vendor supplying both Airbus and Boeing, Airbus has some of the crappiest junk around [but the excuse is it's cheap!]. Wrong — it's only cheap for the initial purchase — it's the continuing support and fixes that need to be applied over the service life that kill the bottom line. With Airbus, they are significant.

Years ago, Airbus management decided to support European contractors for the Electric Power Generating Systems (EPGS) on their new aircraft and the new A340-600 was to be the first to have an all-Lucas Electrics (UK) EPGS. This was too much even for the biggest users of Airbus products, including Lufthansa in Europe and Northwest Airlines in the U.S.

The major carriers refused any aircraft with Lucas (aka “The Prince of Darkness”) as the primary EPGS. So, Airbus compromised and was forced to use the UTC Corp. Hamilton-Sundstrand EPGS as primary and Lucas for Auxiliary Power. But, as a final slap at Lucas, Hamilton-Sundstrand did all the aftermarket support for engineering and spare parts for Lucas products! Lucas was a world leader when it came to non-customer support and the airlines weren't about to be stuck with the Lucas albatross.

Entry of the A340-600 into service was a mixed bag. The Hamilton-Sundstrand EPGS performed well, but the Lucas Aux Generators were failing like popcorn due to main rotor bearing failure. When the main bearings failed, the debris fouled the cooling oil and, since the Aux Gen and APU turbine shared the same oil supply, this led to failure of the very expensive APU. Lucas was unable to fix the problem, so H-S had to come up with a working fix, the service bulletins to fix the problem, and field the kits for operators to make the fixes. Once implemented, the bearing failure in the Lucas Aux Gen went away.

I will not fly on an A320 of any kind. The A320 has the reputation of a flight control computer system that has been either the direct or contributing factor in at least three fatal and one nonfatal (that scared both crew and passengers almost to death). One of the fatal incidents was the crash of the A320-111 demonstrator on 26 June 1988. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family#Accidents_and_incidents.

49 posted on 02/08/2012 3:00:07 AM PST by MasterGunner01 (11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

My next flight to Oz WON”T be with Qantas, everyone knows how cheap they are at maintenance. The A380 just makes the problems bigger.


50 posted on 02/08/2012 3:41:20 AM PST by Eye of Unk (Liberals need not reply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson