Wing cracks found on Airbus superjumbos

'The safe operation of the A380 fleet is not affected,' plane maker says

(EDIT: HHHRRRRMMM, M-KAY,,,,Why am I having dreams/version's of "LOST", swimming in My head?, or the other term, *It's Contained*? AND; Wasn't that a 380 AB, Super Jumbo that "fell" outa the Sky awhile back? MAYBE the "Wings" Failed?)
Onwards w/the story...

Engineers have discovered minor cracks in the wings of a "limited number" of A380 superjumbos but their safe operation is not affected, Airbus said on Thursday.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported on its website that tiny cracks had appeared on wings of five aircraft including two in service, one with Qantas and another with Singapore Airlines.

"We confirm that minor cracks were found on some non-critical wing rib-skin attachments on a limited number of A380 aircraft," Airbus spokesman Stefan Schaffrath said by email.

"We have traced the origin. Airbus has developed an inspection and repair procedure which will be done during routine, scheduled 4-year maintenance checks. In the meantime, Airbus emphasizes that the safe operation of the A380 fleet is not affected."

The newspaper said the first crack, barely visible to the human eye, was spotted on a Qantas A380 undergoing a $130 million repair job in Singapore after a 2010 engine blowout.

At first, the discovery was believed to be related to the explosion on an inboard Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine but the cause was later proved to be separate, the report said.
credits--> LINK http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45891199/ns/....

ORIGINAL STORY HERE


A380 cracks: check fleets now, say engineers

Aircraft engineers have called for Airbus and airlines including Qantas to inspect their fleets of A380s as a matter of priority after tiny cracks were discovered in the wings of five superjumbos worldwide.

Airbus has given assurances that its flagship A380 aircraft – the largest passenger jets in the world – are safe to fly and will be issuing a service bulletin to airlines this month requiring them to check for the problem when their superjumbos are due for heavy maintenance every four years.

Advertisement: Story continues below

But the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association said today that it wanted airlines and the European plane maker to conduct inspections for cracks in the wing-rib attachments as soon as possible.

The MONEY Quote.....

Quote:

"There is no way on God's earth that I would be waiting four years to inspect them," Paul Cousins, the federal president of the engineers' union, said today.

"At the moment it seems that a Band-Aid fix has been applied too quickly to a situation that could become very serious.

"This is a large aircraft carrying 520 people across the fleets in the world – we need to be absolutely sure it is flying safely."

Mr Cousins said he was concerned that the failure of one of the rib attachments would put added pressure on others within the wing.

"Our concern is a continuing stress on the wing. In this case, Airbus and the European Aviation Safety Agency have been too quick to come out with a fix, rather than saying we need to investigate this further," he said. "It increases the chances that we are going to have a serious problem."

Qantas said the cracks found in one of its A380s under extensive repair in Singapore did not present a risk to flight safety and it was awaiting a service bulletin from Airbus advising of the steps it needed to take.

"It is an Airbus aircraft. They are the experts and we will take their advice," a spokesman said today.

Airbus has confirmed that the cracks were found in various parts in the feet of the wing-rib attachments of five superjumbos – one belonging to Qantas, two to Singapore Airlines, one to Emirates and one of Airbus's development aircraft.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-inci....

Least they didn't find 'minor cracks' in the main spar, or they didn't admit to it. I'll keep flying Boeing myself whenever possible.

How to decide what to fly on - Airbus with known wing cracks on some planes, or Boeing with "made in China" wings?

I guess the right answer is that, given the TSA gropers, one shouldn't fly on either one !!

Remember the rumours back in 2005 & 2006 when they tested the wingbox and wings?

"Supposedly the wing box testing of the A380 failed much sooner than expected."

"Airbus also broke the wings of its latest jet, the A380. But they failed at only 1.45 times the limit load.

At the time the A380 wing broke, the wingtips were deflected just over 24 feet – much farther than they could be expected to ever bend in flight. The A380 was subsequently certified by the FAA and European regulators to carry passengers, but Airbus had to make structural modifications to the wing."

Don't fly in an Airbus

I need to talk to my mechanical engineering friend but I believe cracks do not necessarily mean a major problem.

Quote:

Least they didn't find 'minor cracks' in the main spar, or they didn't admit to it. I'll keep flying Boeing myself whenever possible.

What do you guys make of this?

I watched the video. Disturbing yes, surprising no. Government is captured in this country by big business. This is yet another example. Boeing played the Armageddon card with this one. If the government exposed this, then Boeing would be bankrupted, air travel would be severely effected. That would affect the economy as well.

Also there would be a cascade of other companies that would likely go bankrupt, Southwest Airlines being on of them since their entire fleet would be grounded.

Since I don't have 52 minutes to watch the video, a summary would be nice if anyone is so inclined...

They should just do like GM with their Volt and do a "customer satisfaction" program instead of a recall.

Boeing or Airbus makes no difference to me, AFAIK there's no statistically valid difference in their safety records...

Rb, the point of the video is that it is now at the point in the life of the airplane that these issues may start arise with tragic effects.

Tesla, a short summary: Start spelling boeing with a small b.

DCO up 2% on the day...

Perty on Garth!

Peterm99 wrote..

How to decide what to fly on - Airbus with known wing cracks on some planes, or Boeing with "made in China" wings?

I guess the right answer is that, given the TSA gropers, one shouldn't fly on either one !!

For clarity, Boeing wings are not made in China. Boeing manufacturers all major wing structural components for all their airplanes stateside, actually in Washington State, with the exception of the 787 wing boxes which are made in Japan at one of the heavies.

"Since I don't have 52 minutes to watch the video, a summary would be nice if anyone is so inclined"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducommun#Fa....
http://www.nerdylorrin.net/jerry/politic....

Quote:

In early 2002, Prewitt, Smith and Ailes sent thousands of documents supporting their case to the Justice Department. They alleged that questionable parts had been installed not only on hundreds of 737s but also on some 747s, 757s, 767s and 777s and their military equivalents without the knowledge of the Air Force and Navy, the commercial airlines, or the FAA. Shortly after that, in March 2002, the three workers -- and one other whistle-blower who later dropped out -- filed their lawsuit.

In 2003, the whistle-blowers withdrew their suit after the Justice Department declined to join. They refiled it in March 2005. By then, Ailes was still employed at what is now Spirit AeroSystems in Wichita, but Prewitt and Smith had been laid off. All three allege they received demotions and lower job evaluations because of their actions.

Subcontractor making faulty parts by hand. 737 load rating based on computer controlled machining of the parts. Lot's of complaints from the Wichita floor managers.

Jmanng wrote..

I believe cracks do not necessarily mean a major problem.

That's true to a degree. All metal has cracks in it. The issue is how large the cracks are and how fast they are propagating.

Yyb -

Thanks for clarifying - I had heard the stories/rumors of "made in China" wings a while ago, but not from any authoritative sources.

However, all may not be well with the Boeing & made in China issue, IMO. A post at http://able2know.org/topic/93464-1 claims to quote a now-removed page from the Boeing website (original URL: http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/abo....): (Emphasis mine)

Quote:

Boeing helps Chinese companies develop skills, achieve certification, and join world aviation and supplier networks. China has an increasingly sophisticated and expanding part to play in the commercial aviation industry, and has a role on all of Boeing commercial airplane models -- 737, 747, 767, 777 and 787. It builds horizontal stabilizers, vertical fins, portions of the aft tail section, doors, wing-panels and other parts on the 737; all the trailing edge wing ribs for every 747. China also has an important role on the new 787 Dreamliner airplane, building the rudder, wing-to-body fairing panels and leading edge of the vertical fin. China is the first conversion location for the new 747-400 Boeing Converted Freighter. Many parts and assemblies are built in China. Conversion, test and certification are performed in China and airplanes are delivered from China.

Of course it may that the claim that this came from the Boeing website is BS, but I can conceive of no reason for the individual to make such a claim falsely. But, if it did come from the Boeing website, why would they have removed it?

I was just trying to clarify, not make a political statement. China does make parts on all airplanes, but major wing structural components (skins, spars, ribs, stringers) of the main wingbox are not Chinese made.

Boeing used to list wing build as a "core focus" or "core skill" or something along those lines several years ago.

The parts listed above such as trailing edge ribs for 747 are not structural, they are fairings essentially. Leading edges, while important, again are not actually that critical. The main wingbox is the important primary load driven component (skins, spars, ribs, stringers).

It is also true, the 737 horizontal is essentially a small wingbox.

737-NG Supplier (Socal, Gardenia, AHF-Ducommun) of chords and bear straps was making them from a cutout, using a sharpie line traced, not with CN machines. By hand. Metal shears. Drills. Sanders. Thus many errors. Parts did not fit.

Boeing management didn't want to pull the parts so they shipped the planes with them anyhow.

Two women who thought they could point this out got chewed up by office politics and their naivete.

A few planes have fallen out of the sky, possibly due to this.

http://forum.cockos.com/archive/index.ph....
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peop....

No plane has fallen out of the sky because of this, YET. Three planes that made runway overruns all broke apart into three pieces and the parts that broke where made by this Ducommun company incorrectly.

This **** has been going on for decades. Ever since the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 fiasco when BOTH the FAA and Douglas knew there were serious issues with the design of that aircraft. It wasn't until the big crash at O'Hare back in May of '79 that the entire fleet was grounded and the issues addressed.

I am surprised that parts of a wing are considered non critical. As an engineer, what is the point of making a wing with more than needed? Just so the plane is heavier?

blah blah blah. ba and airbus continue to make very safe aircraft with many dedicated peeps in the industry doing first class jobs. flying in a major western airline is damn safe and will contibue to be. its bad maintenance or poor flying that takes down aircraft, very very rarelly equipment

"As an engineer, what is the point of making a wing with more than needed? Just so the plane is heavier?"

It's over design. You build it to accept 150% of normal load so that when you hit turbulence or that one in 40,000 flight cycle event, the plane doesn't disintegrate in midair.

As it stands, planes are really fragile things. You bump your car at 20 mph and you get a dent. You bump a wing of a plane into the gate at 20 mph and all sorts of inspections happen. They aren't meant to hit anything and stay in one piece.

It's why the bolts on your seats shear off so readily. No point in you being securely fastened to the floor of the cabin when the rest of the plane is falling apart about you.

Travanx wrote..

I am surprised that parts of a wing are considered non critical. As an engineer, what is the point of making a wing with more than needed? Just so the plane is heavier?

I'll try to be clearer, the leading edge and trailing edge components ARE critical to meeting the mission requirements of the airplane (payload-range mission, landing performance, etc.), however, they actually aren't structurally necessary per se for the loads of flight. They help in aerodyamics, better lift to drag, hold and fair in the leading and trailing edge devices (e.g. slats & flaps), but they aren't important to airplane structural sizing requirements like the main wing box is.

If you look out the window on most aircraft at the wing, you can see often a slightly different shade in the center of the wing, a trapezoid shape, that is much smaller than the total wing area. That is very roughly the main structural wing box I'm referring to you. The trailing edge pieces on most airplanes you can see are composite/fiberglass-like panels with not a whole heck of a lot of structure underneath since there aren't very high loads on the components, just aerodynamic loads, not primary bending & shear loads.

Actually, you can see from this photo of the A380 for QAN engine failure, the larger hole is actually in the leading edge non structural area (lighter gray area). You can even see the "do not walk warning", because the lighter gray area is not very strong, a person could\may actually damage the area quite easily or even break through it.

There is another hole in the darker gray area that actually WAS in the main wingbox, and I believe through the front wing spar (the dark black line).