Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Traces A380 Wing Cracks To Manufacturing Pr  
User currently offlineLXSWISS From Switzerland, joined Jan 2012, 5 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 31508 times:

Airbus has traced the source of the cracking in A380 wing structures to unexpected additional stresses imparted by the manufacturing process, and is confident that its original flight loading calculations for the type are accurate.


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...s-to-manufacturing-process-367116/


Nothing beats that feeling when you first step off the plane and the warm air hits you!
93 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 31470 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So as many of us suspected, nothing to get worried over and fixes will be made for new-builds (manufacturing) and already-built planes.   

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 31412 times:

It does not seem to be a big problem, and should be easily corrected with an updated manufacturing process. However the FG story does not say anything about how turbulance could aggravate the stress cracks on the foot brackets. To me that means the EASA may require an immediate for any of the affected airframes that encounter moderate or worse inflight turbulance.

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 31158 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
So as many of us suspected, nothing to get worried over and fixes will be made for new-builds (manufacturing) and already-built planes.

Good to read that they have traced the origin of the problem. The solution to that seems to be quite easy.  


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 30709 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
However the FG story does not say anything about how turbulance could aggravate the stress cracks on the foot brackets.

It kind of does, since they use a lot of language to say it's a fatigue problem and not a static strength problem. One big overload (like heavy turbulence) has an extremely small impact on the number of cycles and can actually slow down crack growth...this process is called auto-frettage when you do it on purpose. The regulators might drop a short-flow inspection (almost certainly not an immediate) so operators can baseline their crack lengths to establish future inspection intervals but I don't see this altering the post-turbulence/post-overload inspections.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 3):

Good to read that they have traced the origin of the problem. The solution to that seems to be quite easy.

The solution for future builds is easy...no new design work, just fix the manufacturing process. The fix for as-builts, although mechanically simple, still involves draining the tank, pulling the rib feet, probably oversizing the holes, installing new feet, re-sealing, leak-check, and restore to service...not exactly a fun or quick job.

Tom.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 39
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 30466 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
The fix for as-builts, although mechanically simple, still involves draining the tank, pulling the rib feet, probably oversizing the holes, installing new feet, re-sealing, leak-check, and restore to service...not exactly a fun or quick job.

OK, that is a lot more work. But probably can be done during one of the regular checks for the airframe?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 30416 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 5):
But probably can be done during one of the regular checks for the airframe?

I believe someone posted in the original thread that the earliest A380 airframes are starting to approach their first C-check, but I don't know if this type of modification would take longer than the normal timeframe for the check.

If the cracks remain manageable (as in pose no worries) and the application of the modification could be pushed out to the first D-check, then I expect that is plenty of time to make the modification during that period.


User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 30191 times:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/.../us-airbus-a-idUSTRE80I11G20120119

Airbus (EAD.PA) said on Thursday it had discovered more cracks in the wings of two A380 superjumbo aircraft but insisted the world's largest jetliner remained safe to fly.

The announcement comes two weeks after tiny cracks were first reported in the wings of the 525-seat, double-decker aircraft, which entered service just over four years ago.

"Airbus confirms that some additional cracks have been found on a limited number of non-critical brackets ... inside the wings of some A380s," the planemaker said in a statement.

"Airbus emphasizes that these cracks do not affect the safe operation of the aircraft."

The European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) confirmed it would issue a bulletin Friday mandating precautionary checks.

...


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1074 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 29661 times:

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 7):
The European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) confirmed it would issue a bulletin Friday mandating precautionary checks.

And here it is on the FG site.

"EASA decided to call for an immediate inspection regime rather than waiting for a regular inspection opportunity. Around a dozen aircraft are likely to be affected."

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20Crack%20Inspections&channel=comm



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 22080 times:

Interesting Aviation Week article - this is a clearly second mode of cracking.

But as the article says, there are 2000 of these brackets per wing, one cracked is probably not too much of an issue.


User currently offlineRubberJungle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 21792 times:

EASA ordering checks on 20 aircraft:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...k-20-a380s-for-wing-cracks-367175/


User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1459 posts, RR: 44
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 21266 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
It kind of does, since they use a lot of language to say it's a fatigue problem and not a static strength problem.

I took exactly the opposite meaning from the article. It says:

Airbus carries out A380 wing manufacture at the UK plant in Broughton, before transferring the wings to the Toulouse final assembly line. An Airbus wing specialist on the A380 said the airframer's investigations indicated that parts were being stressed at some point during the manufacturing process, which involves drawing the wing skin over the built-up rib and spar assembly before attaching it.

"It's possible to get standing stresses that hadn't been expected," said the specialist, which translated into additional loading during flight. Airbus has already conducted verification flights to measure actual loading, and found that its original design calculations are correct.
(Emphasis mine.)

I read this primarily to mean "We overstressed the part and cracked it."

To say these cracks are fatigue-related, there must be an assumption of cyclic loading and unloading of the part. Furthermore, the number of cycles on this part would have to be high enough at those stresses to induce fatigue. Airbus is clearly saying that there were unanticipated stresses; what is not known is the existence of cyclic loading or the number of cycles.

Disclaimer: I have no experience assembliing wings, so I'm not familiar with whether cyclic loading is expected. I'm all ears (er, eyes) on this particular issue.



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1074 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 21051 times:

Here's a piece from ATW regarding the AD and new cracks.. They are saying it is possibly more significant?

http://atwonline.com/international-a...cks-20-a380s-more-significant-0120

"EASA said in the AD that the “new form of rib foot cracking [Type 2 cracks], originating from the forward and aft edges of the vertical web of the rib feet “is more significant than the original rib foot hole cracking. It has been determined that the Type 2 cracks may develop on other aeroplanes after a period of time in service. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could potentially affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.”



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 21032 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mffoda (Reply 12):
Here's a piece from ATW regarding the AD and new cracks.. They are saying it is possibly more significant?

I was just reading the EASA AD and noticed that. The inspection period is also based on how many hours and cycles the plane has - four weeks for those with the higher values, six weeks for those with less.

So is EASA's concern that these other cracks might indeed be caused by the number of cycles/hours flown?


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1074 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 20923 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
So is EASA's concern that these other cracks might indeed be caused by the number of cycles/hours flown?

I don't really know... hopefully some of our maintenance guru's will provide some insight.

The thing I having trouble with is the reporting? (A380 wing cracks/ 747-8I fuel tanks?) When these cracks where first reported, It was no big deal (already identified by Airbus) and a plan in place to deal with it at the next heavy check?? Now must be done straight away...

How do we go from there to here in such a short period of time? Something seems out whack... Is this just damage control? Regardless if it is Airbus or Boeing?



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 20885 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):

So is EASA's concern that these other cracks might indeed be caused by the number of cycles/hours flown?



No, sounds like they are more concerned about catching these cracks and repair them before they result in a part failure.

The number of cycles affect the crack growth and not necessarily how they start.
I have not read anything on if they have determined what is behind the most recent cracks.

The shorter inspection period on the higher time aircraft is because the crack length may be closer to critical lengths.

I didn't realize these planes have surpassed the 1000 flight cycle mark. How time flies . . .

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 20821 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 14):
When these cracks where first reported, It was no big deal (already identified by Airbus) and a plan in place to deal with it at the next heavy check?? Now must be done straight away...

Two different sets of cracks. We'll have to wait for more details to come out on the second set.

I wouldn't be surprised if everything comes down to not fully understanding some obscure crack propagation property of a new aluminum alloy. Been there . . . done that.  

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13134 posts, RR: 100
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 20528 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):

So as many of us suspected, nothing to get worried over and fixes will be made for new-builds (manufacturing) and already-built planes.

I'm glad it as those of us in the industry suspected.   

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 11):
"It's possible to get standing stresses that hadn't been expected,"

I would translate that as manufacturing related.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineairproxx From France, joined Jun 2008, 636 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 20043 times:

Here's the link to EASA website and AD's page:

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/

And here's the link to the particular AD issued by EASA ordering wing inspections:

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2012-0013

Don't omit to read the little PDF file attached...

Here's part of the report:

"The new form of cracking is more significant than the original rib foot hole cracking. It has been determined that the Type 2 cracks may develop on other aeroplanes after a period of time in service.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could potentially affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane."



If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 20008 times:

Why weren't these cracks picked up on the fatigue test craft?

Ruscoe


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 19972 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 17):
I would translate that as manufacturing related.

I wonder if the recent loss by GKN of some wing component work on A320 neo wings to South Korea in any way to be interpreted as "punishment" of GKN by Airbus for poor quality manufacturing in this case?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 19781 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 19):
Why weren't these cracks picked up on the fatigue test craft?

At least the first set of cracks do not appear to be caused by fatigue, but instead by stresses imposed during manufacturing and/or installation.

I get a sense from reading EASA's ED that the second set of cracks may indeed be fatigue-based, at least in part, since they do require aircraft with higher cycles or hours to be examined quicker and note that if left unchecked, the cracks could propagate.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2131 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 19548 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 19):
Why weren't these cracks picked up on the fatigue test craft?

One big variable between the fatigue frame and real life operation is thermal cycling and presence of fuel. While I doubt that fuel would exasperate fatigue crack growth, temperature may influence crack propagation in some metals.

Although I'm not saying that this would be the case here.  

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 19220 times:

I admit to not knowing how fatigue test frames are checked, but it seems to me that if these cracks are due to manufacturing problem or fatigue, that they would have been detected, whilst checking fatigue frame for cracks, because isn't the test frame supposed to be ahead of hours of aircraft in service.

If the 2nd type of cracks are due thermal loads then I can see why they may not appear on fatigue frame. (Is this why Boeing moved the 787 test frame outside, into the weather?)

If the test frame is not accurately predicting in service stress issues, then this is a very serious matter in my opinion.

Ruscoe


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 19092 times:

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 11):
I read this primarily to mean "We overstressed the part and cracked it."

It says they overstressed the part, which lead to later cracking. If they cracked it during manufacturing it would have shown up during assembly, not hundreds of cycles into operation.

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 11):
To say these cracks are fatigue-related, there must be an assumption of cyclic loading and unloading of the part.

It's a wing rib...cyclic loading isn't an assumption, it's a given.

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 11):
Furthermore, the number of cycles on this part would have to be high enough at those stresses to induce fatigue.

With aluminum, there is no such thing as a stress low enough to prevent fatigue; aluminum doesn't have a fatigue limit. It will always crack eventually after enough stress and cycles. What gets you is that the number of cycles to failure is an extremely non-linear function of the stress. If you set an unaccounted for stress during manufacturing it can blow the fatigue life in terms of cycles completely out of the water.

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 11):
Airbus is clearly saying that there were unanticipated stresses; what is not known is the existence of cyclic loading or the number of cycles.

Existance of cyclic loading is known. If you have unanticipated stresses in a cyclicly loaded part, it will screw up your fatigue life calculation.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 19):
Why weren't these cracks picked up on the fatigue test craft?

The fatigue airframe is usually one of the very first to be built; as a result it may not be manufactured or assembled using the same tools/methods as the production frames. If the unexpected stress is a result of manufacturing method, it might not be present on the fatigue frame.

Tom.


25 bikerthai : No, even with the snow storm we had last week, the temperature is no where near cruise temp. Unless the parts were shot peened, there will always be
26 bikerthai : Looks like they will be replacing these brackets on undelivered frames. Wonder if they will change material or just beef them up? Bt
27 Post contains images lightsaber : Hence why post manufacturing stress relief is so critical... Lightsaber
28 Ruscoe : It's fascinating the speed with which Airbus was able to diagnose the cause, implement fixes, and when the cracking became public reassure the world t
29 Post contains images flyabr : Was it quickly? Didn't the first cracks get noticed when the Quantas machine blew an engne? And how long ago was that?
30 XT6Wagon : It was discovered during repairs, which started quite a while after the accedent. You are forgetting the months burned in investigating the cause, th
31 amicus : And to Tom, if fatigue frame is or was unrepresentative of production hardware and processes as you claim, it would surely invalidate the fatigue test
32 prebennorholm : Planes have been cracking since day one. Loads of planes fly around with various patches here and there and everywhere. It is hard to imagine a type
33 amicus : But not usually at 1800 flight cycles or less.
34 bikerthai : Testing, be it fatigue or static, does not need to verify the exact configuration you are delivering. It is to verify that the analysis that you perf
35 tdscanuck : I didn't say it was un-representative, I said it's not identical...the processes/methods used to build the very early frames may be very different th
36 prebennorholm : Hopefully not. But then I doubt that we a.nutters will know every time a small crack is found on a new A320 or B737 during its first C-check. And a c
37 XT6Wagon : We have very little hard data on this. We might be now talking about cracking invisible to the naked eye and only detected by machine testing. Testin
38 prebennorholm : Absolutely correct! Such structures are designed according to the principles of failure tolerance. It means that such a single joint may break comple
39 bikerthai : From WSJ: "Planes that are currently undergoing final assembly will have different brackets installed before they are delivered to customers, the spok
40 Post contains links 757gb : EASA: New cracks on 20 A380s ‘more significant’ http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...cks-20-a380s-more-significant-0121[Edited 2012-01-24 03:24:
41 kanban : I'd love to see a diagram of which brackets are cracking (both types of cracking) .. I thought I saw somewhere that the manufacturing process being bl
42 Ruscoe : From the ATW article; An Airbus spokesperson told ATW in a statement "The discovery of the cracked parts—and the rapid response to this by our airli
43 kurbitur : I just read a news article about Singapore Airlines has finished reparing the cracks on one of its A380 and it is back in service... Does anyone knows
44 Post contains links kanban : This came out today and talks about three causes for the various cracks. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Factor...laws-caused-rb-3609671079.html?x=0 A l
45 Post contains images Stitch : Thanks for the article. Looks like things remain well under control.
46 Post contains images EPA001 : Which is comforting for everyone involved I guess. . And every fan of aviation. .
47 Post contains images bikerthai : "designers' choice of aluminium alloy for some of the 4,000 brackets inside the wings,"[i] Could have happened to any one . . . [i]" the use of a type
48 Ruscoe : Under control after the event What needs to be addressed is why it took an (unrelated) accident to find craqcks, some of which the EASA want fixed in
49 Post contains images kanban : they were trying to keep the weight under control....
50 solarflyer22 : Probably not. So, not being a structural engineer, I am going to ask the question that is on everybody's mind that no one is asking. How close is thi
51 Stitch : If it was anywhere near 10%, I expect EASA would have filed an Emergency Air Directive requiring inspections ASAP and possibly even grounded the flee
52 bikerthai : It is really difficult to estimate the percentage. It really depends on the length of the crack and the flying conditions and the loads these bracket
53 kanban : I could see a problem if 30% of the brackets on one wing inspar rib failed either common to one skin or opposite each other (top and bottom). Or if 10
54 FlyboyOz : I hope that they don't use patch or other glues to seal the cracks and wing frames. It's not that a good idea! It reminds me of air crash tv show that
55 bikerthai : Just saw a publication by Doric Asset Finance showing that these wing rib fittings runs the length of the wing cord instead of the individual "shear t
56 kanban : can you scan it and attach to a post?
57 Post contains links flood : I think he's referring to this pdf: http://www.doricassetfinance.com/pdf...ustry/120124_doric_update_a380.pdf
58 kanban : interesting design to minimize process costs... Thanks
59 Post contains links astuteman : Don't know. But this article dated 31st January says that SQ started their inspections on 20th January 2012, and that 4 of the 6 A380's affected have
60 scbriml : The AD calls for inspections within a specified time and for the results to be notified to Airbus within two days of the inspection. The inspections
61 Ruscoe : The point I wanted to make was that the Type 1 cracks, initially could wait until the c check which could be up to 4 years away, and this may be reas
62 bikerthai : I don't know how acurate are the pictues, but I can see that you might be able to stop drill the crack. Adding doublers will be harder and will impac
63 Post contains images astuteman : I do hope you're going to offer up some of your wisdom for us in the thread about 787 delamination. I haven't seen it yet. Rgds
64 Post contains links AngMoh : The bad news: the checks have now been extended to the whole fleet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16942361 The good news: It seems that the repai
65 pygmalion : The time scale has shrunk a bit as well. That is bad news. Its never good when a manufacturer has to expand the inspection and rework a few weeks aft
66 kanban : Will this impact new deliveries, or will they ship the plane out and fix later?
67 Wisdom : Most structural repairs involve little replacement parts. Most larger MRO's have sheet metal workshops equipped and trained to manufacture or repair
68 Post contains images Stitch : Honestly, it really isn't "bad news". With the small number of A380s in revenue service and the fact they sit at an airport for a good bit between tu
69 ContnlEliteCMH : Not inherently. The idea that the people within the company are not interested in ensuring the quality of their own product is too general to be appl
70 Stitch : There are always risk-reward tradeoffs in every industry. Commercial airliners could be made significantly more safe than they are today, but they wou
71 tdscanuck : I do. ContnlEliteCMH's description is far closer than yours to my experience. I've seen how things are done and I wouldn't (and don't) hesitate to boa
72 bikerthai : Being Aviation fans, we seem to want to but our industry at a higher standard than others. This may be good. But step back and look at transportation
73 PITingres : What nonsense is this? There is no "perfect", unless you posit a design from some sort of all-foreknowing, all-foreseeing being. An instance that 100%
74 Post contains links HiFlyerAS : http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Qantas...check-A380s-rb-3685078928.html?x=0 "Australia's Qantas Airways has already grounded one A380 for a week after d
75 Stitch : I strongly expect that the frame in question had not previously undergone inspection prior to the turbulence. Also, we need to know if that frame was
76 ContnlEliteCMH : It results from a basic lack of discernment. Some present examples of such are as follows: -- An inability to differentiate between "risk" and "issue
77 PITingres : Sorry, it is. You claimed that "nothing worthy of an AD should be discovered by luck." Again, maybe we're arguing about word semantics, but by definit
78 Post contains images astuteman : For what it's worth, I pretty much agree with your whole post. If I can just offer a bit of caution... I work in an industry, on a product, where man
79 ContnlEliteCMH : This is an excellent point. Finding a flaw before it develops into a failure is evidence that QA is working, and I assert that this is true whether a
80 pygmalion : Lots of good discussions here... let me add my 2 cents from 25+ years of writing MRB engineering dispositions for one of the major airframers.. ALL th
81 tdscanuck : That's probably the least common use of an engineering disposition. It's most commonly used when the part is obviously out of spec...oversize hole, s
82 ContnlEliteCMH : You're right that they're not "comfortable". That term was a poor choice since it implies (at least) neutrality about customer discovery of flaws. Wh
83 pygmalion : Actually the words we use when applying "good enough" to a part out of specification are "noted condition is structurally and functionally acceptable
84 Wsp : The empirical data is valid whether one "saw what was really going on" or not. That doesn't mean you didn't see what you saw. It just means, despite
85 Post contains links kanban : Back to the subject.. it's now reported that the repairs will cost Airbus 1 million Euros... this does not include the necessary part(s)/process redes
86 AirlineCritic : 100 million Euros, but who is counting. (But I think 100 million is still small change for an issue like this, and with the number of planes already o
87 bikerthai : Aside from the euros standpoint, it would be interesting to find out how much is the weight impact if any of any. (If the fix is to add doublers). bt
88 rcair1 : Sorry - "good enough" is the basis behind the specs, and the tolerances. Commercial aircraft are designed to handle specific loads with specific (per
89 tdscanuck : A DER (or AR, depending on your delegation system) is completely authorized to write a form 8100-9 (it might be an 8110 now) that says the part compl
90 Post contains links neutronstar73 : At least Tom Enders has come out and flatly said that Airbus screwed up the A380's wings. Good on him. http://www.news24.com/World/News/Air...ewed-up-
91 Post contains images EPA001 : They never denied it to begin with. And of course they did not screw up the whole wing, just a very tiny part of it which will be corrected a.s.a.p.
92 Post contains images scbriml : He actually said "This is unfortunate. This is us, we screwed that up. We will fix it as quickly as possible and whatever the cost is, it is too earl
93 AustrianZRH : The funniest thing in this article is actually that they headlined the paragraph about the EASA directive with "All Grounded". The SQ A380 that just
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A380 Wing Flex Compared To The 787 posted Sun Jan 31 2010 17:46:40 by A380900
Airbus A380 On Flights To USA posted Mon Feb 16 2009 22:22:34 by Airsrpska
Coagulation To SQ And Airbus For A380 posted Thu Oct 25 2007 16:23:00 by 747400sp
NH Talks To Airbus About A380 posted Fri Oct 19 2007 02:41:26 by RedChili
Another Blow To Airbus A380, AA Unlikely To Buy posted Thu Jan 18 2007 14:58:34 by Keesje
Airbus A380 Who's Next To Jump Onboard? posted Sat Sep 2 2006 13:34:11 by WINGS
Airbus Transfers A380 To Hamburg - LH Livery? posted Thu May 4 2006 14:02:33 by Leelaw
A380 Efficiency Compared To Airbus Counterparts posted Fri Aug 19 2005 01:49:43 by PyroGX41487
Airbus Orders Checks After A340 Wing Cracks posted Wed Jan 12 2005 17:35:52 by CXoneWorld
Malaysia To Built A380 Wing Component. posted Fri Oct 4 2002 06:52:23 by Triple Seven
Coagulation To SQ And Airbus For A380 posted Thu Oct 25 2007 16:23:00 by 747400sp
NH Talks To Airbus About A380 posted Fri Oct 19 2007 02:41:26 by RedChili
Another Blow To Airbus A380, AA Unlikely To Buy posted Thu Jan 18 2007 14:58:34 by Keesje
Airbus A380 Who's Next To Jump Onboard? posted Sat Sep 2 2006 13:34:11 by WINGS
Airbus Transfers A380 To Hamburg - LH Livery? posted Thu May 4 2006 14:02:33 by Leelaw
A380 Efficiency Compared To Airbus Counterparts posted Fri Aug 19 2005 01:49:43 by PyroGX41487
Airbus Orders Checks After A340 Wing Cracks posted Wed Jan 12 2005 17:35:52 by CXoneWorld