Airbus 380's have cracks in the wings. Dont worry about it though.

[Train]

I trust them. If there ever was an incident due to this, the company would be ruined. They wouldn't risk it.

You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C).

A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall.

If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt.

If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't do one.

 

[videogames101]

Isn't it common knowledge that all airplanes develop major cracks? Even after the first flight, it's pretty standard.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You are going to have to search hard to find a A380 flight within the US.

There are only 5-6 airports that will accept the aircraft.

JFK, IAD, SFO, LAX, MCO, MIA. Unsure if ORD or IAH do.

ATL, LAS do not.

/edit - checked - MIA now has LUFTHANSA (as of June '11)

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C).

A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall.

If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt.

If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't do one.

I mean a car at least theres a chance of survival. A plane 300 dead.
But look how some of them went down. Two missed their landings. One in the Hudson river the other in the ocean close to South America. Then at Spain Airport when they collided at the runway which was the fault of the radios they use to communicate with each other. Paint cracks are acceptable but the structure like the wing which carry the fuel?

 

[MotF Bane]

You are going to have to search hard to find a A380 flight within the US.

There are only 5-6 airports that will accept the aircraft.

JFK, IAD, SFO, LAX, MCO. Unsure if ORD or IAH do.

ATL, MIA, LAS do not

No BOS, I'm safe!

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

^Thats what he says but is it correct?

 

[EagleKeeper]

^Thats what he says but is it correct?

They can land in an emergency at Logan. There are no airlines with scheduled A380 flights

 

[jlee]

I mean a car at least theres a chance of survival. A plane 300 dead.
But look how some of them went down. Two missed their landings. One in the Hudson river the other in the ocean close to South America. Then at Spain Airport when they collided at the runway which was the fault of the radios they use to communicate with each other. Paint cracks are acceptable but the structure like the wing which carry the fuel?

The main structure of the wing hasn't cracked...there's more than one component there.

 

[Bignate603]

I mean a car at least theres a chance of survival. A plane 300 dead.
But look how some of them went down. Two missed their landings. One in the Hudson river the other in the ocean close to South America. Then at Spain Airport when they collided at the runway which was the fault of the radios they use to communicate with each other. Paint cracks are acceptable but the structure like the wing which carry the fuel?

The one in the Hudson river has nothing to do with the safety of the airplane. Any plane will have its engines shut down when you shove a goose through each one. It didn't miss its landing, it never fully took off.

The one off the coast of South America wasn't missing its landing either. That was pure pilot error. The plane functioned exactly like it was supposed to but the pilots did not properly interpret what was going on and stalled the plane.

Like people have said repeatedly, cracks are pretty typical in aircraft. The lightweight materials that are used in aircraft often form cracks. Any aircraft that has been in service for a while will have some. They have criteria that says how large of a crack can be tolerated in different places. If this crack falls below that they will monitor them but they don't need to fix them.

 

[Number1]

The airplane builder say the planes are safe
The airlines say the planes are safe
The regulatory agencies say the planes are safe
Personally, I would love to fly in one.

There is a lot of disinformation out there and it's not always on infowar.com

 

[Veliko]

If you choose not to get in a plane that has any cracks in it, you wouldn't ever fly anywhere. Most crashes happen because of human error.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Given that a single accident can cost them billions, I would say so.

Not that it applies to this specific case, but companies/corporations have often sacrificed long term vision for short term profit. Private actors don't always know what's best for them.

 

[Gintaras]

The MD-11 was a flop. By modern airliner standards it also had a bad safety records, although I would not call it "unsafe." It was certainly inferior to the 777 and the A330/340 family.

MD-11 Bad safety record? Operated by Zamundia Airlines, perhaps....

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

The one in the Hudson river has nothing to do with the safety of the airplane. Any plane will have its engines shut down when you shove a goose through each one. It didn't miss its landing, it never fully took off.

The one off the coast of South America wasn't missing its landing either. That was pure pilot error. The plane functioned exactly like it was supposed to but the pilots did not properly interpret what was going on and stalled the plane.

Like people have said repeatedly, cracks are pretty typical in aircraft. The lightweight materials that are used in aircraft often form cracks. Any aircraft that has been in service for a while will have some. They have criteria that says how large of a crack can be tolerated in different places. If this crack falls below that they will monitor them but they don't need to fix them.

I know it has nothing to do with the cracks. Its human error

As well as being the largest jet in commercial service, the Airbus A380 represents a bid by Europe’s EADS to take from America’s Boeing the title of world’s most advanced commercial aircraft manufacturer. Critical to that endeavor is the aircraft’s ability to not crash, come apart in midair, or generally imperil the lives of the public. Unhappily for Airbus, Qantas A380 was taking off from Singapore on November 4, 2010, when its number two engine exploded with a loud bang. Flying shrapnel punched a hole in the wing and injured two people on the ground, but the plane was able to land safely. Was the engine’s failure a one-in-a-million coincidence, or a result of a fundamental engineering flaw? The fate of billions of dollars worth of aircraft orders may ride on the answer.

Popular Mechanics looked into the investigation preliminary report into the accident and offers an easy to understand explanations in plain English for us not-so informed average citizens. In short, the report notes that the accident happened due to a fatigued metal element inside the engine, which resulted in oil seepage there by leading to a fire and eventually exploding the internal parts of the engine. Great explanations along with the reference to the preliminary report makes for an interesting read (at least that’s what my techy brain says).

http://www.transportgooru.com/2010/...th-the-qantas-airbus-a380-rolls-royce-engine/

Fatigue occurs in metal when it subject over and over again to cycles of stress, such as repeated flexing or vibration. Even if the individual loads are fairly small, they can create microscopic cracks that grow larger over time, ultimately to give way catastrophically. If you've ever bent a paper clip until it breaks, you've witnessed fatigue in action.

"While the analysis of the engine failure is ongoing, it has been identified that the leakage of oil into the HP/IP bearing structure buffer space (and a subsequent oil fire within that area) was central to the engine failure and IP turbine disc liberation event."

The crack in the stub pipe didn't directly cause the disintegration of the engine, but rather led to an oil leak into an internal space within the structure. "We believe that there was an oil leak, and that area is known to have very high temperatures. It must have caught on fire," Attia says. "The extreme heat affected the material properties, and then they let go." Remember, the inside of the engine is filled with many turbine blades moving at incredible velocity; the minute any one of them loses its integrity, it will go flying off like a piece of shrapnel, creating a domino effect of damage.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...380-engine-failure-preliminary-report?src=rss

 

[Gintaras]

I mean a car at least theres a chance of survival. A plane 300 dead.

Boeing 767, LOT - Polish Airlines, flight from New Your to Warsaw:

No landing gear, no problem, NO ONE injured:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9Y-5GCHu_E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYTHznGPU6k&feature=related

 

[OutHouse]

Airbus? More like LOLBus. I would never fly on one of those pieces of shit.

frontier flys nearly all airbus and i have no problem with flying on a airbus plane.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Boeing 767, LOT - Polish Airlines, flight from New Your to Warsaw:

No landing gear, no problem, NO ONE injured:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9Y-5GCHu_E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYTHznGPU6k&feature=related

Fair enough
Meet the Air France 447. 228 men, women and children dead due to speed sensors over icing, auto pilot disengaging and the pilots didn't know if they're going up or down.

The main drama began at 10 minutes past midnight, when the speed sensors became iced over, the autopilot disengaged, and the pilot flying the plane pulled back on the controls, sending into a steep climb. The passengers would have had no explanation for the sudden lurch, nor would it have been easy for them to know in the minutes that followed if they were climbing or descending. One of the most difficult things about piloting a plane in darkness or clouds is the body’s inability to accurately determine its orientation or whether it’s going up or down; this spatial disorientation was the main factor behind JFK Jr’s death. Once an aircraft is in a steady descent or ascent, it feels just the same as flying level, just as an ascending elevator feels the same as one at rest. Few of the passengers could have guessed that after the plane reached its maximum altitude it began a very rapid descent. Indeed, even the co-pilots themselves, with their panels full of instruments and indicators, seemed uncertain as to what exactly was happening, several times discussing whether they were actually going up or down. Until the moment AF447 hit the water, none of the passengers could have known what was in store.

http://jeffwise.net/2011/12/09/what...7s-final-moments/comment-page-1/#comment-4828

But they also mention than if it was any other type of aircraft it would've been ripped apart by the storm

 

[OutHouse]

You are going to have to search hard to find a A380 flight within the US.

There are only 5-6 airports that will accept the aircraft.

JFK, IAD, SFO, LAX, MCO, MIA. Unsure if ORD or IAH do.

ATL, LAS do not.

/edit - checked - MIA now has LUFTHANSA (as of June '11)

i am really surprised that DIA does not have the A380 coming in. I see Lufthansa and British Airways fly in with their 747's. I live about 20 miles straight north of DIA and get to see all the planes come in on their final approach. Both airlines offer non stop flights to London and Frankfurt from Denver. also Icelandic air now offers non stop flights from Denver to Iceland but they dont fly jumbo jets.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Isn't it common knowledge that all airplanes develop major cracks? Even after the first flight, it's pretty standard.

They never develop major cracks period. That would certainly never happen after the first flight.

Some smaller cracks are allowed based on their severity and where they are, but never a major crack and on top of that never after the first flight.

 

[Gintaras]

Fair enough
Meet the Air France 447. 228 men, women and children dead due to speed sensors over icing, auto pilot disengaging and the pilots didn't know if they're going up or down.


http://jeffwise.net/2011/12/09/what...7s-final-moments/comment-page-1/#comment-4828

But they also mention than if it was any other type of aircraft it would've been ripped apart by the storm

Air France flight 447 was not aircraft, but pilots fault:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877

 

[Bignate603]

http://www.transportgooru.com/2010/...th-the-qantas-airbus-a380-rolls-royce-engine/


http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...380-engine-failure-preliminary-report?src=rss

Yes, and that's why I said quite a while ago the engine issue was more of a concern than this. The reason why that part fatigued was a manufacturing error by Rolls Royce, the engine manufacturer, not Airbus. Rolls Royce makes plenty of engines for Boeing aircraft as well.

Comparing the fatigue of an improperly manufactured oil line to a part of an air frame is like comparing apples and aardvarks. Sure, both share a few characteristics like the general science about crack propagation but the conditions that actually drive what happens as the material fatigues are very different.
1. The stress levels and stress state that govern that propagation are completely going to be different.
2. The material properties that govern the growth of the crack as specific to each material. They aren't using the some materials for internal engine components and wing ribs.
3. The failure modes and their effects are very different. That tube in the engine only needed a small crack before it could leak oil, which caught fire and weakened a crucial piece of rotating machinery. So the tube can only tolerate a small crack which allows a leak but the wing rib can tolerate a much larger crack (it doesn't have to seal liquids), until it degrades the strength of the structure below safe levels.

When it comes down to it people that are sitting there reading the news stories don't have enough information to make any judgement on the safety of these cracks. You'd need access to the models Airbus has for the part, a huge amount of information about the stress that this part goes through during each flight cycle, test data on this material, the size and location of the crack, along with a bunch of other information. Without all that you can't come to any conclusions.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

When it comes down to it people that are sitting there reading the news stories don't have enough information to make any judgement on the safety of these cracks. You'd need access to the models Airbus has for the part, a huge amount of information about the stress that this part goes through during each flight cycle, test data on this material, the size and location of the crack, along with a bunch of other information. Without all that you can't come to any conclusions.

No thanks. I'll trust my knee jerk reaction.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Air France flight 447 was not aircraft, but pilots fault..

It was at least partly an aircraft design issue. The lack of tactile crossfeed between the sticks prevented the first officer from realizing that the second officer was holding pitch up until it was too late for the aircraft to recover from the stall.

 

[CallMeJoe]

They never develop major cracks period. That would certainly never happen after the first flight.
Some smaller cracks are allowed based on their severity and where they are, but never a major crack and on top of that never after the first flight.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Major cracks are a grounding issue, and an aircraft that develops any significant cracks on its first flight is destined for a very early retirement.

 

[Doppel]

This needs Gorilla Glue, my new "fix it" resource. It will fix ANYTHING. Just make sure you plan for expansion of the glue and you're good.

It is good glue. I like sumo also.