D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1424 times:
JET, I know it's good stuff, but repairs will be inevitable. Maybe you can shed some light on this (you fly A300s, right?) but, you can't really repair composites, I thought. You have to replace them, or they'll never be as strong as they were.
Ray, how sure on you about this? I clearly recall reading that it would be a mostly composite, one-piece wing. And that some airlines (and forumites) were complaing about it. Is this a change?
M27 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 314 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1355 times:
It would seem that if the stablizer suffered damage in 1988 as the orginal post said, it would be known if it was from turbulence and not just thought to be. Also, why did damage occur the first time? Was the turbulence so great that it caused the damage, or was there an orginal manufacturing defect? If it was just due to turbulence, then you must be saying that turbulence encountered the day of the crash was much les than the orginal encounter, and the repair made it not capable of withstanding even this amount, otherwise it would make no difference whether it was repaired or a brand new one was installed.
You said it suffered delamination then, so it may have suffered delamination this time. Jetpilot your statement that it was a repair falt (though well it may be) is just speculation at this point. I don't know the cause yet, and neither do you.
M27 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 314 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1308 times:
I believe I understand what you are saying. That this one aircraft is unique, and if a failure results due to this repair, then of course it would not in anyway relate to any other line no. I will admit that as I read through the posts, that I lost some perspective to whom, and to what you were replying to exactly, and for that I apologize.
I will take the statement that you made that tails aren't
falling off unrepaired A300s' as a general statement and not that you meant it to mean that the repair must be the reason beyond doubt that this tragic event happened. As I said, it may well be a repair falt, but I believe that can't be said for sure at this time, and that is what I thought you were promoting.