A team of Australian engineers are concerned about cracks that they’ve found in the wings of some A380s. But why is Airbus doing nothing about it?
The BBC reports that the engineers found small cracks in the wing ribs of the gigantic planes operated by Singapore Airlines and Qantas Airways. Singapore Airlines also says that it has already had to replace the wings of two of its A380s.
The team of engineers are calling for the whole fleet of A380s to be grounded for investigation. Speaking to the BBC, Steve Purvinas, secretary of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, said:
“We can’t continue to gamble with people’s lives and allow those aircraft to fly around and hope that they make it until their four-yearly inspection.”
But Airbus are reluctant to cooperate. They’ve issued a statement admitting that minor cracks have appeared, but deny that it’s anything to worry about:
“We confirm that minor cracks were found on some non-critical wing rib-skin attachments on a limited number of A380 aircraft. We have traced the origin. Airbus has developed an inspection and repair procedure, which will be done during regular, routine scheduled four-year maintenance checks. In the meantime, Airbus emphasises that the safe operation of the A380 fleet is not affected.”
It’s not the first time something’s gone wrong with an A380: a particularly scary-looking engine explosion in 2010 prompted concern, too. If I were Airbus, I’d be thinking long and hard about those little cracks. [BBC]
Image: MiqsPix
james
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 7:17 AMsadly there is a typo in the first line of the article “. But whty is”
But apart from that, nice little read
carmykal
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 7:21 AMCracks and plane should not be used in the same sentence. Especially if your about to board one of these massive things.
“Minor cracks” Listen to them downplay it.
Jackson Bison
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 8:42 AMWhereas ‘crack’ and ‘planes’ can be used in a variety of sentences related to drug smuggling.
Sean
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM“Crack” and “plane” are fine together, as long as they are accompanied by “Grounded”, “Fixed” or “Scrapped”
EMH
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 10:16 AMAs omeone who worked and flew for most of his adult life I can tell you that I know of NO AIRLINER THAT DID NOT DEVELOP CRACKS EARLY IN ITS LIFE. This expected and catered for in design and in the definition of maintenance regimes for each type.
This is a non-issue being put about by people with an agenda.
H Lebow
Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 5:07 PMMinor cracks?!! Nothing minor about cracks in the wings that are supporting the whole aircraft. Won’t be minor in heavy weather and turbulence. Insanity. Ground the planes and fix the wings correctly. Then, stress test them extensively. My guess is the other control surfaces may have issues. Stabilizer. Oh yea, I forgot. The tail that broke off an Airbus after 9/11 in New York City was “Pilot Error”. So, if a wing comes off and does a Titantic will that be “Pilot Error”.?Boeing would never allow this to happen.
Mark
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 7:53 AMThe Aussie engineers are only concerned because they are in the middle of an industrial dispute and part of the dispute is trying to make Qantas build an A380 hanger for major servicing.
I wouldn’t pay too much attention to anything these engineers might be saying at the moment.
TonyInTsv
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 9:37 AMwhat about the Singapore airlines engineres? are they in an industrial disput to have Qantas build an A380 hangar?
EMH
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 10:23 AMFact is, Qantas is building a hangar for maintenance of their A380 fleet, at Avalon in Victoria, where the 747 fleet is maintained. The maintenance union here is very fond of claiming loudly that Qantas is outsourcing everything but it just is not true! Consider the following:
The 737 fleet is maintained in Melbourne.
The 747 fleet is maintained at Avalon
The A330 fleet is maintained at Brisbane
The 767 fleet is maintained at Brisbane.
The A320 fleet (Jetstar) is maintained at Newcastle
The 747s adn 767s are due to be retired from the fleet entirely within 5 years. 787s will come into the fleet starting in 2014. They will be maintained in Brisbane.
It is inevitable, given the strictures put on aircraft maintenance by regulatory authorities, that very occasionally an airliner, no matter who it belongs to, will receive some maintenance outside its home country. This is true of Qantas as well as every other international airline. And indeed in some domestic airlines. Qantas has never outsourced more than about 10% of its maintenance but has always outsourced about that much. If you believed the Qantas engineers the airline would by now be having 3 or 4 times the number of aircraft it owns being maintained in foreign countries by untrained monkeys.
Pickledfishlips
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 8:55 AMRelax people. Would a crack in the toilet seat stop you from flying in a 380? Airbus doesn’t want one of these guys to split apart either.. it’s bad for business!. If it’s non-critical, then believe them. They’re aware of the issue and will be monitoring it very closely. In any case, Airbus doesn’t have to be the one to pull the pin on an aircraft if they thought safety was compromised, the airlines can do that themselves if they wish.
I’m sure people would keel over backwards if they saw the maintenance release forms on commercial airliners that keep flying every day. There’s thousands of minor aspects detected on aircraft which you never even hear about, nor does it mean that you can’t fly the plane any more.
Drew
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 8:57 AMI for one refuse to fly on A380 and 787 for at least a decade.
Frankly far too often whenever a new construction method has been used in aviation there have been major structural failures that have caused fatalities.
I’d happily fly on a new air plane that used the tried and true materials, but with composites I won’t risk it.
TonyInTsv
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 9:38 AMName one
SF
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 10:23 AMYes pleasae name on Drew
Drew
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 10:51 AMDH 106 Comets come to mind…
Scott
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 11:17 AMYou mean the DH106 Comet that was developed less than a decade after the end of WW2? The first commercial jet liner? Before breaking the sound barrier? 60 years ago, long before development of modern engineering and production techniques? If you do mean that Comet, then you’re just grasping at straws, because you’ve essentially compared a Ferrari 458 and a Model T.
Drew
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 12:09 PMYes that Comet, but you missed my point entirely!
That air plane was revolutionary for its time using many materials and techniques that have not been in the past, as such things were overlooked by the designers and the mechanics. Things overlooked not because they were lazy but because they simply didn’t know any better.
Likewise with the use of composite materials now, we simply do not know any better. Sure we know lots of about the materials like we did in 1949 re the Comets but it just wasn’t enough and people died.
If someone else wants to be a guinea pig, go right ahead. I for one will steer clear of them and stick to the 777s thanks.
EMH
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 10:27 AMThe cracks in the 5 A380s are in aluminium, the most traditional of all “tried and true” materials. It is highly unlikely that the composites used in the A380 centre wing box could ever crack!
I think you have it backwards!
Drew
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 11:00 AMBe that as it may at least with alloy we know how it degrades over time, what to look out for and how to fix it.
With composite materials, not so much. Not on such a scale, sure composite materials have been and are used in many applications, few of which keep 400 something people 20,000+ feet above the ground.
Eric
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 9:17 AMSo, what if the crack were to get bigger and rip off an unknown amount of the wing…would that not be a problem? Just look at what tiny cracks on Southwest Airlines and Aloha Airlines did. I know it’s a different part of the plane, but tiny cracks don’t stay tiny forever…4 years is a long time to wait…a lot can happen.
TonyInTsv
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 9:40 AMMy sugestion would be to re-read the article.
” non-critical wing rib-skin attachments ”
This is not a crack in the skin or in the rib, it is in the join between them. These cracks are not going to rip open.
Chris
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 10:10 AMNon critical wing rib attachments, combined with an inspect/replacement procedure.
It doesn’t sound like they’re not doing anything about it. It sounds like they’ve got a maintenance procedure for it, just like there would be a maintenance procedure for every other component that has had issues in the past.
Dilbert
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 10:25 AMStorm in a teacup. Any plane will suffer from metal fatigue over time due to the pressurisation/depressurisation it undergoes every time it flies. These things need to be identified and monitored, but that doesn’t nessecarily mean you have to take the plane out of service immediately to have it fixed.
Ben Sandilands sums things up rather well in his blog.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/01/06/cracks-appear-in-public-understanding-of-metal-fatigue/
Mark
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 11:09 AMI have watched enough episodes of Aircrash Investigations to know that cracks in the wing are not a big enough deal for most airlines to ground the plane. A little bit of maintenance on the wing, and off it flies.. and crashes? :P
John
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 11:14 AMWhy not trust Airbus engineers? They didn’t think the speed sensors freezing over would ever be an issue, they didn’t ground those planes. It’s not like there were any lives lost over that insignificant issue. Right? Also shouldn’t we trust French pilots to do the right thing when a plane wing begins to fail.
Remember Flight 447. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
DENAz
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 11:53 AMI don’t care how small the bloody crack is, if there is one there, then its a concern!
Jp
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM“Non-critical wing-rib structures.”
If they’re non-critical, then why are they getting stressed to the point that cracks are forming? That implies that they are load bearing structures and are either under-engineered, or sharing load from other members that are not doing their job.
Me
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 10:05 PMI just arrived from a Singapore Airline A380s this morning, glad the missus didn’t see this before our flight. The screaming kids were enough.
TBH, I like the 747′s much better, the A380 is uncomfortable!! If I had a first class suite I might think otherwise!