Read
- Exclusive: Fidelity facing "thousands" hit by Facebook woes
- Facebook market makers' losses total at least $100 million
|
- Exclusive: China leadership rules Bo case isolated, limits purge: sources
- What would Greek exit mean for the U.S. economy?
- Protests planned after minister calls for gays to be fenced in
UPDATE 5-Factory, design flaws caused A380 cracks
* Airbus says devised simple repair for wing cracks
* Singapore Airlines reports findings on four aircraft
* Airbus insists world's largest jetliner safe to fly
* Analysts reassured by engineering update
By Tim Hepher
DUBLIN, Jan 26 (Reuters) - Airbus blamed a combination of manufacturing and design flaws as more examples of wing cracks arose during checks on the A380, while analysts said its bare-all strategy of addressing the problems in public should limit any lasting damage.
A top executive at the European planemaker said it had established how to repair the cracks found on a small number of parts inside the superjumbo's wings, which prompted European safety authorities to order inspections last week.
Airbus and one of the leading operators, Singapore Airlines, confirmed a Reuters report that more examples of the cracks had been discovered during compulsory inspections.
Airbus moved to shore up confidence in the world's largest jetliner amid a drip-feed of disclosures about cracking on components used to fix the outside of the wing to its ribcage.
"The A380 is safe to fly," Tom Williams, executive vice president of programmes at Toulouse-based Airbus, said.
Williams flew to Dublin to give an unscheduled address at an industry conference to dampen any concerns about safety.
Crucially, he said engineers had ruled out metal fatigue on the youthful aircraft which first entered service in 2007.
Unusually detailed briefings marked a different response from the blowout of an engine on a Qantas A380 in Nov. 2010 when engine maker Rolls-Royce was criticized by the industry and investors for not giving enough information.
"This is a game-changer in getting out information that in the past we weren't told. You can't dismiss these things, but it is not a serious issue and they have a solution at hand," said Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist and aviation specialist at brokerage BGC Partners.
The cracks have tested morale at EADS subsidiary Airbus just as it recovers from years of production delays, having hit its A380 delivery target for the first time in 2011.
The mammoth double-decker was conceived as a European bid to outdo the Boeing 747, but became mired in development problems that caused a near-riot in the French parliament and a rift between France and Germany.
BGC's Wheeldon said engineering flaws rarely affected the contest between Airbus and Boeing in the $100 billion jet market, which is determined more by fuel economy, performance and delivery timescales.
TRIO OF MISTAKES
Developed at an estimated cost of 12 billion euros in Britain, France, Germany and Spain, the A380 has room on its wingspan of 79.8m (261ft 10in) to park 70 cars.
Airbus has sold 253 of the long-range aircraft, listed at $390 million each, and 68 A380s are currently in service.
It blamed the cracks on three errors -- designers' choice of aluminium alloy for some of the 4,000 brackets inside the wings, the use of a type of bolt that strained the metal and a way of closing tiny gaps that put more stress on a handful of parts.
European authorities have ordered inspections on almost a third of the superjumbo fleet, or 20 aircraft, after two types of cracks were discovered within weeks of each other.
Airbus officials said that having understood the problem, they expected most of the aircraft being tested would show similar evidence of cracks and that it had found a simple repair.
Singapore Airlines said it had found cracks on all four aircraft it has inspected so far. One has been repaired and is back in service, spokesman Nicholas Ionides said.
"It seems to me this is part of the growing pains which new aircraft types can experience," said Stephen Furlong, airline analyst at Davy Stockbrokers in Dublin.
"Obviously the negative publicity is not at all helpful. The real problems start when airlines have to ground planes because they are not comfortable with safety issues, which are clearly paramount to an airline's brand. But we're nowhere near that yet with the A380."
Some passengers at European airports earlier this week expressed concern about the cracks while others said they were happy to trust safety inspectors. Airlines have not so far reported any falls in bookings.
Airbus last week dismissed calls by an Australian engineering union for A380s to be grounded.
The cracks first came to light during repairs, lasting over a year, on the Qantas A380 involved in an engine blowout. Supersonic shrapnel tore through the wing and left it resembling what an Airbus official has described as anti-aircraft fire.
At first engineers were unsure what had caused the rib cracks but the initial microscopic flaws led to the discovery of a second and potentially more serious type of crack, some of them up to two inches long, in the central part of the wing.
Executives at a Dublin aviation event said the pace of revelations had provided a need for clarification.
"When they had the second round of cracks, that got more people's attention and a few airlines were asking questions," an executive said, asking not to be identified.
The findings caused concern at the European Aviation Safety Agency which turned down Airbus's request for limited extra time to examine the data and ordered mandatory inspections last week.
The wing is made of both aluminium, the metal used to build aircraft for decades, and carbon composites used in new jets.
Airbus is changing a manufacturing processes to ensure smooth operation until at least the next four-year check-up.
Longer term, it plans to switch to a different alloy, restoring the aircraft to its normal lifespan of 25 years-plus. The wings were designed and built in Britain, which prides itself on state-of-the-art wing assembly. Unions there recently complained about the outsourcing of some work to South Korea.
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
If all this is not argument enough to ground these AIRCRAF, I do not know what would be: Possibly a wing falling off??
(Reuters) – Airbus blamed a combination of manufacturing and design flaws as more examples of wing cracks arose during checks on the A380, while analysts said its bare-all strategy of addressing the problems in public should limit any lasting damage.
BARE-ALL?? SEE FURTHER BELOW!
A top executive at the European planemaker said it had established how to repair the cracks found on a small number of parts inside the superjumbo’s wings, which prompted European safety authorities to order inspections last week.
A SMALL NUMBER OF CRACKS?? HE SHOULD SAY V I S I B L Y CRACKS AT THE BEST. IT IS MORE THAN PROBABLE THAT A LOS MORE CRACKS ARE INSIDE THE AFFECTED PARTS.
Airbus and one of the leading operators, Singapore Airlines, confirmed a Reuters report that more examples of the cracks had been discovered during compulsory inspections .
Airbus moved to shore up confidence in the world’s largest jetliner amid a drip-feed of disclosures about cracking on components used to fix the outside of the wing to its ribcage.
AS STATED BELOW,THE FIRTS STAGE OF THE FIX IS AN TECHNICAL ABSURDUM. ESPECIALLY AS THE SECOND AND DEFINITIVE FIX CAN TAKE MANY MONTHS AT THE BEST.
“The A380 is safe to fly,” Tom Williams, executive vice president of programmes at Toulouse-based Airbus, said.
THIS IS HIS UNSUPPORTED OPINION, MORE, AS AGAIN STATED BELOW, THE SUPPORT SUGGEST THE CONTRARY
Williams flew to Dublin to give an unscheduled address at an industry conference to dampen any concerns about safety.
Crucially, he said engineers had ruled out metal fatigue on the youthful aircraft which first entered service in 2007.
IT HAS TRANSPIRED THAT WHAT THE ENGINEERS REALLY DID IS RULE OUT THAT THE FATIGUE NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE BUT THE ALLEGED MATERIAL AND MFG FLAWS, WHICH IN TURN PROVOKED AN EXCESSIVE STRESS ON THE BRACKETS, WHICH CAUSED THE FATIGUE. SURLY WILLIAMS FORMULATION WAS SUGESTED BY A SCHEMING LAWYER.
Unusually detailed briefings marked a different response from the blowout of an engine on a Qantas (QAN.AX) A380 in November 2010 when engine maker Rolls-Royce (RR.L) was criticized by the industry and investors for not giving enough information.
“This is a game-changer in getting out information that in the past we weren’t told. You can’t dismiss these things, but it is not a serious issue and they have a solution at hand,” said Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist and aviation specialist at brokerage BGC Partners
AS SAID, THIS TRANSPARENCY IS BOGUS, AS THE “GLASS IS REALLY A “MIRROR” SHOWING NOTHING BEHIND IT. NICE TRY OF THE INGENIOUS TOM LEAHY!
The cracks have tested morale at EADS (EAD.PA) subsidiary Airbus just as it recovers from years of production delays, having hit its A380 delivery target for the first time in 2011.
The mammoth double-decker was conceived as a European bid to outdo the Boeing (BA.N) 747, but became mired in development problems that caused a near-riot in the French parliament and a rift between France and Germany.
BGC’s Wheeldon said engineering flaws rarely affected the contest between Airbus and Boeing in the $100 billion jet market, which is determined more by fuel economy, performance and delivery timescales.
Trio of Mistakes
Developed at an estimated cost of 12 billion euros in Britain, France, Germany and Spain, the A380 has room on its wingspan of 79.8m (261ft 10in) to park 70 cars.
Airbus has sold 253 of the long-range aircraft, listed at $390 million each, and 68 A380s are currently in service.
It blamed the cracks on three errors — designers’ choice of aluminium alloy for some of the 4,000 brackets inside the wings, the use of a type of bolt that strained the metal and a way of closing tiny gaps that put more stress on a handful of parts.
THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. IF DESIGNERS ARE NOT ABLE TO DETERMINE THE RIGHT ALLOY ( especially so as they say that the problem was not fatigue)given the stating and dynamic load data, they should not design aircrafts.The same applies if they do not knew what type of bolts should have been used0. THE TRUTH COULD BE THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE DYNAMIC MISTAKE IN THE DESIGN OF THE ENORMOUSLY HEAVY AND LONG
WING AND TO HIDE THIS,WHICH COULD BE CATASTROPHIC, THEY ADMIT SUCH “MINOR FLAWS”
European authorities have ordered inspections on almost a third of the superjumbo fleet, or 20 aircraft, after two types of cracks were discovered within weeks of each other.
IT IS MORE THAN OBVIOUS THAT SUCH “FLAWS’ AFFECT ALL A380, IN ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, AND NOT ONLY 20.
IN OTHER PREE RELEASES, IT SAYS THAT MR. WILLIAMS STATED THAT THE 1ST STAGE FIX WILL BE TO “CUT OUT (!!!!) the cracked brackets
and substitute them by new ones within 5 days per aircraft. And only the ones with VISIBLE CRACKS.
THIS IS PLAINLY OUTRAGEOUS. THE FACT OF THE CRACKING ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE LOAD ON THESE PART IS EXTREMELY HIGH, AND BY “CUTTING OUT’ FROM THE WING MANY OTHER PROBLEMS COULD ARISE DURING THE LONG TIME BEFORE THE 2ND STAGE IS ACHIEVED (AND IF THE WING DESIGNGN HAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM, V E R Y LONG)
AND FINALLY MR. WILLIAM STATED THAT THE PROBLEM OCCURS IN THE SECTOR OF THE WING WHICH IS NOT THE MAIN LOAD CARRIER. AS SAID, IT IS ENOUGH TO CRACK THE BRACKETS. WHAT HE REALLY IS SAYING THAT IN CASE OF A FULL FAILURE, THE WING WILL NOT FALL OFF, AT LEAST NOT IMMEDIATELY. REALLY A
HELL OF AN ARGUMENT!!


Follow Reuters