Slashdot Mirror
World's Largest Passenger Plane May Be Unsafe, Some Say
CNET reports (citing this BBC video account) that some aircraft engineers in Australia are concerned about small cracks that have appeared on the wing ribs of some Airbus A380 airplanes, a report says. They're calling for the whole fleet to be grounded, but Airbus says the cracks are harmless.
Yes, the economy is more important than not killing people. In fact, can I kill you and take your money? It's for the good of society. That money's gotta keep changing hands. I'll be by tonite.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Meanwhile, scores of hungry Boeing executives are rubbing their hands together and licking their chops.
Airbus have issued an inspection notice saying it's a materials issue, and that airlines should inspect at an aircrafts 4 year inspection interval. They would not do so, and would be overruled by the European safety body EASA, if they thought otherwise.
This has been discussed to death on aviation industry forums, and the general consensus is it's a non-issue - the calls for grounding are being headed by an industry union, not a regulatory body.
Every aircraft has cracks in it, even brand new ones - in this case, it's in a non-critical location and is non-load bearing. A check at the 4 year point is adequate for this type of discovery.
Aircraft are over-engineered by a factor of 120-300%.
Fun fact: that is actually legal in some cases...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
This is just the unions posturing as part of their ongoing winging about Qantas doing more and more servicing of aircraft in Singapore and Malaysia. When a problem occurs in an aircraft which was actually serviced in Australia they are are strangely silent. At any other time they will winge and make loud noises to try and make it appear they are still relevant and try and somehow force all aircraft servicing to be brought back to Australia. This has been going on for years and stories on the nightly current affairs shows about it is a regular thing.
I can say that composites are fucking weird... the cracks may have been accounted for in the design... kinda crappy but sometimes you are designed into a corner.
I don't have a picture of the cracks so i can't really make a good determination but if its composite and on the surface its pretty much harmless and if nessesary can be fixed with local resin cure.
The ones you got to worry about...
YOU CANNOT F***ING SEE BECAUSE THEY ARE BURIED IN THE STRUCTURE THATS WHY OLD SCHOOL ENGINEERS ARE SCARED TO HELL ABOUT COMPOSITES.
Not all aircraft parts are essential for structural integrity. Some bits are just there to hold wires in place, etc.
When Airbus says "noncritical" you'd think they'd know the difference...
No sig today...
Recently downgraded to: "Mostly harmless."
Why are we so strange behaving species? How about being more rational?
We are rational - we just suck at understanding the risk of thing sin everyday life.
To many false alarms or things that appear as false alarms, we ignore it. And most of the time it is the right thing to do. Because if we don't, we spend all of our time preparing for very unlikely or even improbably events.
Or another way we go over board is over estimating some risks while brushing aside others. Such as we have no problem jumping in a car and driving 70+ mph separated by just some dashed white lines but yet, we have to go through over zealous or even unnecessary security at airports.
Most likely we will die from a car accident, cancer, heart disease, gun shot, lightening strike and a few others things, but do we spend as much time and money on mitigating those risks let alone as much as we do on terrorism? Hardly.
Sometimes the truth hurts.On slashdot it gets marked flamebait!
brickspeed.net for your old Volvo performance addiction
Who's saying they are blowing it off?
From what I understand, they are aware of the problem, have isolated it's cause, and deemed it non critical. And I do trust Airbus far enough that they do not want to see one of these planes fall out of the sky.
The cracks are for course troubling in such a young aircraft, but blowing issues out of proportion is about as bad as ignoring them.
Depends entirely on what is cracking and how much. It is routine for damage found on aircraft inspection to be reported to the manufacturer for engineering guidance.
Defect limits exist for many aircraft and engine components. For example, borescope (think "endoscope for machines") inspection of turbines is used to check allowable wear and damage. That can be considerable depending on the engine.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I'm an experienced aircraft mechanic and have no problem with it.
"Such parts wouldn't be there in the first place, now would they?"
"Fairing" comes to mind. which exists to cover structure and streamline flow.
Even delicate fighters can have considerable defects and be safe to fly. One inspects, documents, and monitors those with inputs from engineers and tech reps.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
And if those parts are designed to experience some cracking, as part of some carefully tuned tradeoff? There was some high altitude spy plane (maybe the Blackbird?) that leaked fuel on the ground, because when operating the temperatures would cause things to expand, so it was better to have it leak on the ground than break in the air. If a layman, or even an engineer unfamiliar with the project, saw that, they would naturally assume something was wrong.
There's just not enough info in the article to argue the case either way. OTOH I doubt there's ever been an aircraft without minor design defects that are fixed as they appear.
All commercial airliners have a log book in the cabin with a list of known broken/defective bits that the pilots are supposed to read before every takeoff and where they write down any weirdness they notice during the flight. None of the books are empty, even on brand new aircraft (ask a pilot...)
No sig today...
...and Airbuses have a little overhead switch which puts them into direct control mode.
No sig today...
Ford says so. Not that the Pinto was really that unsafe, but the lies Ford pushed to cover up their knowledge of problems (or Chrysler and lies about the minivan latches, it's not just Ford, it's all industry in the US, whatever's left). They knew the fix, and they chose to let people burn because it was cheaper. The government sided with them, though a jury didn't.
Learn to love Alaska
While we're at it, we should ground the entire Boeing fleet as well...one of their roofs ripped off a couple of days ago during a flight and cracks have been found all over the 737 fleet.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/southwest-airlines-boeing-knew-737-flaw-expect-problem/story?id=13300089#.TwomuU8gifg
Best part: They knew it could happen but they kept it a secret.
No sig today...
They (Airbus), should have consulted the Russians or Ukranians, who have been flying the world's biggest and heaviest aircraft without any incidents.
You cannot appreciate this plane's size until you get close to this massive aircraft, which makes the Boeing 747 and A380 dwarfs to a degree.
The article claims "small cracks that have appeared on the wing ribs". Airbus calls it "some noncritical wing rib-skin attachments".
This sounds like the difference between a cracked bone and a sore ligament. One really is less worrisome than the other.
They are outcompeting them. And, boeing australia is boeing's largest outfit outside continental usa.
.........
https://www.google.com/search?q=boeing+australia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
and now, not any country in eu or eu commissions (that are MUCH more stringent than any kind of regulatory body in usa or any place else) have not found any problems with boeings, but, very Inconspicuously, australians did. the fact that boeing's largest outfit outside u.s. is residing in australia, is just a coincidence, i assure you
Read radical news here
Fly by wire is different to hydraulically actuated surfaces - hydraulically actuated surfaces are not by themselves considered fly by wire, but do add more power to the pilots inputs.
The readers on slashdot don't usually grasp context too well. If the most capable and relevant people we have look at the findings and say, "those are superficial", then you don't just ground all the A380's for no reason, because it's extremely damaging to do so without a good reason.
If, on the other hand, someone has valid concerns... then yes, safety takes priority.
Like it or not, there is, and must be, a price on human life. "But it could kill people!" isn't sufficient reason in itself to ground the A380 - the risks and costs must be balanced.
Pulling some numbers out of the air, for argument's sake this problem has a 10% chance of one day causing a crash, which will kill 400 people, and killing the A380 will cost $20 billion. That is $20 billion to save, on average, 40 lives, or $500 million per life. You could instead tax Airbus more heavily for $500 million, and put the money into a branch of health care which on average saves one person per $500,000. The economy is $19.5 billion better off and the population is 960 people better off, by letting the 380 keep flying despite the fact that "it might kill people".
You even place a value on your own life. Do you own and habitually wear a bullet proof vest? Do you wear a crash helmet when driving? Do you buy a new vehicle every year with safety features almost entirely dictating your choice? If not, it is because you value money (and other benefits such as comfort and avoiding ridicule) over slight reductions in your chance of an early death.
(Note: I don't know the risk/benefit numbers for the specific case of the A380 cracks. I'm saying this analysis is grossly inadequate to justify grounding the A380, not that it shouldn't be grounded.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
The Ford "cover up memo" was in regards to post-crash fires after accidents involving rollovers, not anything specific to the Pinto and it's behind-the-rear-axle gas tank.
The Pinto got a bad rap -- it's actually got a better fatality record than similarly sized cars of the era.
Who's saying they are blowing it off?
From what I understand, they are aware of the problem, have isolated it's cause, and deemed it non critical. And I do trust Airbus far enough that they do not want to see one of these planes fall out of the sky.
The cracks are for course troubling in such a young aircraft, but blowing issues out of proportion is about as bad as ignoring them.
Agree. The alternative is that the cracks really are critical but Airbus are playing down the problem because they've decided that having an accident, forcing them to ground the rest of the fleet anyway, having to pay out billions in damages and fines, and completely destroying their reputation, is a better option than grounding the fleet now and repairing the aircraft.
Before I listen to anyone's opinion that these cracks are more of a problem than Airbus say they are, i'd want to see some qualifications in metallurgy or similar discipline.
I'd wager this has a whole lot more to do with last year's grounding of the entire fleet (due to negotiations failing with unions) and the ongoing labour dispute than anything technical. As others have already mentioned, the A380 has been widely discussed in aviation-specific forums, it's likely this is a move to highlight the ongoing issues within Qantas
For some reason, when following your link to the 737 roof ripping problem I'm first shown a video of a smoke issue on an Airbus plane, and only after that does the actual 737 video related to the article show up.
Isn't that funny.
pilot error as in hiding a bug in airbus autopilot or it reading faulty gauges.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/27/air-france-flight-447-crash-report-airbus-autopilot-to-blame.html
I doubt there's ever been an aircraft without minor design defects that are fixed as they appear.
This is what happens when an airline is a launch customer (as are Qantas and Singapore I believe). When the airline is first in line to receive a new aircraft type, there are all kinds of bugs that the airline has to be willing to accept. For example, the first six production 787s are overweight in comparison with what was promised. Similarly, I've heard time and time again not to buy the first model year of a new car or significant vehicle redesign because of potential problems that will be found only after production and then fixed in subsequent years.
Yes, it is the SR-71, which requires a generator or two to jump start, and a refueling in mid-air since it tends to lose a lot of fuel before getting off the ground.
I am John Hurt.
The point you're missing is that it's a known problem that can be monitored for and affected planes can be serviced. If the causes weren't known I'd say at 10% they should be grounding the fleet and fixing the problem.
Yes there is a point where it gets to be too costly for the protection given, but that's generally when you don't know the cause and can't keep an eye on it. If they're spending that much to fix the problem then they're probably doing it wrong. In that case they ought to just monitor the problem and replace the particular parts needed rather than the entire fleet.
The things that really scare me are the flight crew and unknown problems.
And some actual knowledge of the specific problem. Admittedly, I haven't done any metallurgy in 10 years, but I know enough to not trust anything the media say about very specific technical problems on a first attempt, metallurgy, computer science, physics, or anything.
That's not fair. No one that doesn't place a value on life would ever ride in one of those deathtrap machines known as a car.
Not killing people, but not going to extraordinary lengths to ensure no one dies either. There's a cost/benefit function. Should we pay people to patrol sidewalks 24/7 to make sure there's nothing slippery? This is the same thing. It's *very probably* not going to kill anyone, but it's not worth the time and money to "make sure" it won't, especially when there are no guarantees regardless.
Add to that the fact that no amount of prevention will prevent someone from *ever* dying, and it's just more wasted energy. I'm not saying human lives aren't important or that people shouldn't all be treated with equal respect, but if we didn't draw a line somewhere, the only job in existence would be making sure someone else didn't get hurt/killed. So obviously there needs to be a line, and what you seem to be suggesting is that it should be drawn by ignorant schmoes who read newspaper articles instead of the engineers who actually design and inspect the product in question. You're not the first to suggest that, but I don't think it's necessarily the best policy.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Yes, the economy is more important than not killing people. In fact, can I kill you and take your money? It's for the good of society. That money's gotta keep changing hands. I'll be by tonite.
Ya'know, the article was really short:
Airbus recommends that airlines check for cracks but says they present no real danger. The BBC quotes the following from a statement by the company:
"We confirm that minor cracks were found on some noncritical 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 emphasizes that the safe operation of the A380 fleet is not affected."
There's a context here - the A380 heavy maintenance is not done in Australia (and so not done by their members) and Qantas and the union are currently in a massive industrial bunfight.
So any negative comments about A380 safety have to be taken in that context.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I'm no aircraft engineer, but I do not feel comfortable with all this "pose absolutely no danger"-talk. AFAIK, particularly modern aircraft are engineered to trim down on weight as much as possible, and I would be VERY surprised if there were parts in the plane that could just safely break down posing no risk whatsoever. Such parts wouldn't be there in the first place, now would they?
As you say - you're not an aircraft engineer.
Advice: on VPS providers
Why? They're on record as saying that it's not critical. By which they almost certainly mean that monitoring it is sufficient. What independent 3rd party experts are you going to tap? Most of them work for either the competition or one of the regulatory bodies that's supposed to be keeping tabs on them.
Ultimately as others have pointed out, the amount of damage that this would do if one of those planes fell out of the sky because those cracks caused a wing to fall off would probably be the end of Airbus. Given that they're stress fractures on the wing it's quite likely that they were considered when designing the plane.
just to clarify that happend almost a year ago not just a few days ago
I've seen some suggestion that if neither pilot presses the priority switch the inputs are algebraically summed. Do you know? I can not say that in all cases it would be better to have slaved yokes. I am aware of one fatal incident in a sailplane where the best guess is the passanger panicked and overpowered the pilot fighting for the stick. But I have to think it would be better to have some shared feedback between the sticks.
Are they really dead? Maybe they would land on some exotic island somewhere, being chased by a smoke monster and polar bears and fighting with some initiative called Darma.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
I reckon we'll be banned from driving in the next 15 years.
Think about it, if the driverless cars that are definitely coming are proven to be safer than human driven cars, which I suspect they will be, how will any government justify letting us drive?
Even if the governemnt doesn't ban driving, the insurance industry will probably make it so expensive that it is effectively banned.
This proves that the Airbus A380 is 100% unsafe to fly and will result in death if you board one.
Please tell all your friends - I'm hoping that I get some cheaper A380 seats when I travel later this year if we can lower demand.
Take your home and your car as examples, think of how many non-critical parts there are in both of those that could fail without posing risks, and then berate yourself for every part you think of.
Pilots don't need to be strong enough to move control systems by muscles alone. Hydraulics take care of that - whether fly-by-wire or not.
Yes but hydraulics systems have some negative aspects :
- you can't use one, you need a second one for backup and that takes weight and space.
- you have to design the airframe around the hydraulic system, its a constraint that simply doesn't exist on fly by wire airplanes which can have a more optimised airframe.
- from a reliability standpoint electric wires are better than a hydraulic system
Hydraulic system in modern airplanes is simply anachronistic. It makes no sense whatsoever.
"If the most capable and relevant people we have look at the findings" .... Exactly, the initial call to ground the fleet was by the service engineers and the association that represents them. This is not a trivial matter raised by a baggage thrower.
The people who lie are usually the ones with the most to gain/lose. What do service engineers have to gain by grounding the fleet - not much. What would Airbus lose by having their brand new fleet grounded - a huge amount of public confidence.
.
At some point we have to realize that the Internet (rightly and wrongly) gives any voice a megaphone.
So you have to decide what you want to listen to and what you want to believe.
I understand that takes more than a few neurons to rub together, but you can do it. I know you can.
Think for yourself. It's fun.
Cars are only dangerous when you're bad at driving. Ever wondered why only a small fraction of drivers are involved in fatal or near-fatal car crashes each year? It's because the rest have above average driving skill. Ask them yourself if you don't believe me.
"The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
It wasn't much of a secret
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 [Wikipedia]
We had to cover this as part of Fracture mechanics when I was in school (along with the DeHaviland Comet)
Using a factor of safety is not over-engineering - it is an admission that the design can't account for absolutely everything.
Cars are only dangerous when you're bad at driving.
Or somebody in a car in the oncoming traffic, or at the next crossing, or...
A tin can with wings weighing nearly a million pounds fully loaded, sent 45,000 feet into the air . Of course it "may be unsafe".
(Actually, I'm pretty sure the maximum loaded weight is about 900,000 pounds, not a million, but for dramatic effect, I rounded up.)
You are welcome on my lawn.
How dare you use facts!
Don't you know American companies are crooked, evil, liars?
Wasn't there a 60 minutes spot showing how Pintos wer setting orphanages on fire just by parking nearby?
You sir will have to answer to Dan Rather for your sins.
AC indeed.
No brain, no pain.
Like it or not, there is, and must be, a price on human life.
Yep. Where most people get confused, is by conflating "value of MY life to ME" with "value of one citizen to society". They switch back and forth between these contexts in order to make whatever stupid "if it saves just one life" point they are working.
I think the best way to measure the value of a life to society is to look at per capita GDP.
For that matter, It is actually possible to determine the rational value people place on their lives. Of course you can't ask them directly, because you'll get gibberish... but you can ask it indirectly, by asking how much extra we'd have to pay them to take a job that has x% chance of fatality per annum.
The research has been done. They crunched the numbers and came out with $2-$10 million compensation for a job with 100% risk of fatality. The dollar amount somewhat depended on their current salary level. Interestingly, the dollar amount was pretty close to the average citizen's lifetime per capita GDP.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
pilot error as in hiding a bug in airbus autopilot or it reading faulty gauges.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/27/air-france-flight-447-crash-report-airbus-autopilot-to-blame.html
The autopilot is not bugged. The autopilot wasn't even active for over four minutes before the crash. The headline is completely misleading, as the autopilot shut down as soon as conflicting airspeed readings came in. The system recognizes that it is unsafe to have a computer flying when the computer is getting faulty data. Thankfully Airbus flight computers are pretty good about error-checking, as they detected the airspeed discrepancy and acted on it - by turning control over to the crew and telling them why.
The accident appears to have been triggered by a number of events:
- Faulty pitot tubes providing faulty airspeed indications.
- Weather radar that saw a little storm ahead, but not the big, fuck-off storm behind it until the pilots decided to fly through the small storm.
- An avalanche of data coming into the cockpit during critical moments. During an emergency, it can be difficult to avoid focusing on a few bits of data, while others slip by.
The storm was recreated in an Airbus simulator for multiple flight crews. Using data the flight computer sent back to the maintenance crews during the flight, they were able to trigger the same errors (Pitot tube failure and airspeed mismatches).
Every crew survived.
Isn't that mostly a function of peoples' monetary ability to pay for special treatments? I suppose this could make it slightly more expensive for the 875,000 americans who go to other countries to get cheaper treatments. Besides, don't the laws of supply and demand dictate ticket prices? Less demand = more money. I'm still trying to figure out, other than medical tourism, how a cheap plane ticket will extend my life.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Sadly all very large planes are inherently unsafe.
So are trains and cars (not to mention small planes, which are, mile for mile flown, much more dangerous than big planes). Everything has points of failure and is therefore unsafe in some way; the question can only be "how unsafe?"
.sig withheld by request
It'll be 'pilot error' - he should have checked over the world's largest plane for cracks that (obviously, not like these)- are not harmless.
Actually, it is the job of both the pilot and the lead ramp agent of the gate to do a walk around and check the airplane for visible signs of damage. In the case of the lead ramp agent, it must be done twice: both when the plane first taxis in and right before the plane takes off. And I believe the pilots of both crews (incoming crew and outgoing crew), if there is a crew change, do walk arounds as well. So, were a crack to form, unless it formed catastophically in flight (ie, breaks apart), there is a very good chance the crack would be found and inspected prior to departure.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Can I say yay to that idea? i'll gladly give up the right to drive myself if it means there won't be anymore morons with cell phones plowing right through lights because they were busy pushing buttons instead of steering that 2 tons of flying low death on wheels. I nearly lost my dad a couple of years back to a gal that ran a red light in an SUV and hit his 2 ton work van with enough force it rolled three times and it took the jaws of life to cut the driver's door off of him. I was real proud of him that day though, his insurance company was already gonna cover his medical bills and the cost of the van but told him he had an excellent case to sue but when they took the gal and ran X-rays on her it turned out she had a tumor that nobody had caught and it was already inoperable, his doc came in and told him that the gal had maybe 6 months (and naturally no life insurance and three kids with no husband) so dad told his insurance company to drop it, saying 'She got enough problems, no since adding to her burden" and sure enough the poor thing didn't make it through the summer.
as for TFA it sounds like Airbus are doing pretty much all they can do without destroying the planes and starting over. Sadly there just isn't any way to design a 100% safe plane, especially not one that carries the kinds of loads and goes the kinds of heights these commercial airliners do. I'm sure that Airbus doesn't want to get their asses handed to them in a lawsuit so I'm sure they are watching these things like hawks and will pull a unit in to get fixed if it starts getting any worse. personally i'd rather fly on one of these new ones that are being watched than some of the ancient airliners we still have flying in this country. I wonder what the oldest Boeing still being used for commercial flight is up to, 35? 40?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Actually, it isn't that it lost a lot of fuel before takeoff (although it did leak a bit), it's the fact that it couldn't takeoff at all with a full fuel load. The engines and airframe were optimized for high-speed, high-altitude flight. Lift and thrust characteristics were terrible in the low-altitude subsonic speed regime.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
dwarf?
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A radiation therapy machine called Therac-25 had severe design flaws that caused it to kill several people. The AECL engineers and managers were overconfident and over-greedy, respectively, so even after a significant number of accidents they refused to admit that the machine was faulty.
Chances are the problem is quite serious, but Airbus' actuaries tell them that the short-run cost of performing immediate repairs is greater than the long-run cost of their insurance rates after a mechanical failure.
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Incidentally, congratulations on your recent MBA.
May the Maths Be with you!
Well, mister smarty-pants, have you considered that Boeing designed the doors that way in case the plane is under water? Not so smart now, are you?
The sheer cost and practicalities of replacing everyone's cars in that timeframe, alone, rule it out.
If it were that simple, motorbikes - dramatically more dangerous than cars by any measure - would have been banned decades ago.
No, the Airbus FMSes go into alternate law when they lose speed data. In alternate law the FMS does not apply any envelope protections to control inputs - the pilots have unfettered control. This was the case in the AF447 crash. The reason for its crash appears to be that the 2nd co-pilot first stalled the aircraft at high altitude, and then continued to apply control-inputs that prevented the other pilot from recovering from the stall. AF447 was literally flown into the sea by the junior co-pilot. Sadly, because of the design of the controls, neither the more experienced co-pilot (acting as pilot-in-command in the left hand seat), and the captain (behind them, he came in once the plane was already stalled) had any idea that the junior co-pilot was applying inappropriate commands to the control stick.
Popular Mechanics had a good article recently on AF447, including detailed CVR extracts. One thing that needs to be changed though is that the Airbus average the control inputs from each stick, and does not give any feedback to either pilot that the other is applying a contradictory input. In older aircraft control yokes were mechanically linked, and it was entirely obvious to each pilot what the resulting command to the aircraft was, and what pressure was being applied. Airbus need to add this to theirs (and do Boeing do too perhaps?).
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
While we're at it, we should ground the entire Boeing fleet as well...one of their roofs ripped off a couple of days ago during a flight and cracks have been found all over the 737 fleet.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/southwest-airlines-boeing-knew-737-flaw-expect-problem/story?id=13300089#.TwomuU8gifg
Best part: They knew it could happen but they kept it a secret.
according to that article that was a 15 year old plane that was built after the 737's were redesigned in 2000...
Maybe they are reporting from the future?
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
If you're trying to fly a boeing under water, you're doing it wrong. :P
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Pilot maintenance log: Autoland rough
Service depot status: Autoland not installed
P: Something loose in cockpit
S: Something tightened in cockpit
P: Dead bugs on windshield
S: Live bugs on back-order
P: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute descent
S: Cannot reproduce problem on ground
P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear
S: Evidence removed
P: DME volume unbelievably loud
S: DME volume set to more believable level
P: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick
S: That's what they're there for
P: IFF inoperative
S: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode
P: Suspected crack in windshield
S: Suspect you're right
P: Number 3 engine missing
S: Engine found on right wing after brief search
P: Aircraft handles funny
S: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious
P: Target radar hums
S: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics
P: Mouse in cockpit
S: Cat installed
Early 747's had similar issues with cracking on the spars in the nose. Some bits of aluminum even fell off a couple of planes (was that the primary buffer coupling?).
They were fixed as the planes cycled through rehab and the rib placement redesigned. 737's had a tendency to lose roof panels because of metal fatigue from improper riveting.
This sort of thing happens. You really need more info to determine if this particular case is serious.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
pilot error as in hiding a bug in airbus autopilot or it reading faulty gauges.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/27/air-france-flight-447-crash-report-airbus-autopilot-to-blame.html
What Really Happened Aboard Air France 447 tells the story as it stands after investigations. It's a rather chilling read. But it makes one thing clear: it was about human error. The plane was even fully operational when it crashed, as an anti-icing system had managed to bring air speed sensors back to operation before it.
Two years after the Airbus 330 plunged into the Atlantic Ocean, Air France 447's flight-data recorders finally turned up. The revelations from the pilot transcript paint a surprising picture of chaos in the cockpit, and confusion between the pilots that led to the crash.
That happened to my brother. The mechanic at the car dealer only put one nut on the wheel studs after replacing the brakes, and that one was on by only one turn. My brother was driving home in rush hour traffic when the wheel (left rear) came off, went bounding through the air, narrowly missed bouncing off two cars - one a cop car!, and fell off the road. My brother's truck came sliding to a sparking halt in the middle lane, blocking traffic for quite a while. No collisioins ensued, the cop never saw a thing. The car dealer repaired the truck of course - I think they had to replace the bed of the pickup.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
The people who lie are usually the ones with the most to gain/lose. What do service engineers have to gain by grounding the fleet - not much. What would Airbus lose by having their brand new fleet grounded - a huge amount of public confidence.
What do service engineers have to gain?
Well, let's have a bit of context. These aren't just "service engineers", it's the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, the trade union for aircraft engineers in Australia.
The same trade union which wants an A380 maintenance hangar in Australia, written into the workplace agreement they were negotiating with Qantas.
They've recently settled that agreement, without getting the hangar, (one source), so one presumes they're just keeping their name in the news.
People who are actually good drivers (or flyers) know that there are some situations in which you are FUBAR. Like getting t-boned by someone running a red light, or like PSA Flight 182 -- a 727 which collided with a Cessna 172 above San Diego, CA. Captain James McFeron's last words to the tower as the 727 descended in an uncontrolled plunge were, "This is it, baby", and that sums it up. Sometimes no matter how good you are, how much you prepare, you end up at the mercy of the universe's alternate plans for you.
Regarding the article, there's enough that can go wrong without having a plane come apart because some bean counter deemed it an acceptable risk.
The risk/reward ratio is much higher in motorcycles than cars.
And I love riding motorcycles. But way too many people don't see them at all. Sober or not, day or night.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Or having a hell of a good time.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Considering planes are designed to stay afloat for as long as possible when they land in water, you may not actually be wrong there, at least with respect to the cargo doors.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
What do service engineers have to gain by grounding the fleet - not much.
Australian service engineers were on strike recently about keeping QANTAS planes serviced in Australia to preserve Australian service engineer jobs. It's the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association that is calling for the planes to be checked now rather than when they are next due for heavy maintenance as Airbus suggests. I wonder if "checking now" (followed probably by "checking much more often") might make work for some Australian licenced aircraft engineers? While I am inclined to agree with them, I do have to recognise that yes they have something to gain.
The crew is trained for IAS failure. They're supposed to use a chart to manually set throttle position and nose attitude. This crew, for some reason, failed to follow the procedures.
That's a non-sequitur if there ever was one. Yeah, small cracks have a tendency to become larger under stress. So what. They always did, and they always do, and any plane that's flying out there has plenty of small cracks. This tells us nothing. What we need to know is what is the predicted rate of growth of those particular cracks under the stresses the material at the crack tip, in particular, is subject to. Add in tasty details about expected contributions of structure (will the cracks join like in Tu-144?), corrosion, etc.
Take a close look at the skin of the jet next time you fly. You may be surprised how many metal patches you will find -- patches that repair cracks or dings/dents.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
1) minor and noncritical
2) on a limited number
3) traced the origin
4) have already found the solution
5) have already put it in the inspection list
OK, now you can ground the whole fleet...
"Sum Ergo Cogito"
Every crew survived.
Because the only crew with a dumb ass at the stick pulling up during a high-altitude stall was the one on 447. Once the captain found out, he is heard on the black box saying "no no no".
One thing that a flight simulator can't easily re-create is an in-experienced pilot who has been flying flat with the auto-pilot on for the last few hours.
We can still use them for transporting proponents of the patent system.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
"I've never heard of a wheel coming off"
Then I guess it never happens. Jesus.
Play Command HQ online
Depends on the aircraft. A Boeing 737 for instance has hydraulically boosted controls. There are steel cables from the flight deck controls to the ailerons and elevators (the rudder is purely hydraulic), so the B737 system is sort of like "power steering". With a complete hydraulic failure, you can still muscle a Boeing 737 around (although I suspect it will take both crew members hauling back on the controls at the same time to flare for landing). Some airliners of similar size to a B737 do not have hydraulic controls at all, it's purely done with steel cables. Instead the crew are controlling servo tabs, and the servo tabs move the ailerons and elevators.
Larger aircraft like a DC-10, MD-11, Boeing 747 are pure hydraulic. If the hydraulic system fails, you have no control over the flight controls. The only control you do have is differential engine thrust. This has happened a small number of occasions (look up Sioux City DC10 crash).
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
1) the less experienced pilot was left on the stick while 1 pilot stayed there and the most experienced left for a pause.
2) once the indicator showed the wrong speed, the less experienced pilot started to climb up and regain altitude
3) this triggered stall warning to which the less experienced pilote answered by pulling the stick instead of pushing. THAT alone was the first terrible error. Most category of stall except rare one impossible with big airliner have you PUSH the stick to gain speed.
5) the other pilot tried small course correction unaware the less experienced on was still pulling the stick.
6) the "middle experienced" pilot to the less experienced one to leave the stick to him, but he apparently did not
7) when the most experienced came back in the cabine a few dozens of second before the crash it was already too late.
The whole story scream of pilot error on the side of the less experienced one. Sure the pitot failed, but pulling a stick to a stall warning ? No way.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Fucking Airbus: [...] Then this lap joint fuselage weakness that they *knew about*.
That was Boeing!
I see the problem... Your in-flight wi-fi was powered by dial-up, and they forgot to disconnect the phone cord ([NO CARRIER]) before taking off.
The French claim they are French, everyone buying them claims they are "European" and those riding in them try to convince themselves they are German.
You realize that the rest of the world wants to be just like the US, including (or often especially) the bad parts, right? As goes the US, so goes the world.
Not to mention that, as Slahsdot is a US site with an overwhelming majority of Americans, it's appropriate at any time to turn the discussion to matters closer at hand, even if that consistently pisses off the few foreigners here.
Or perhaps you could have taken the comment as an apology for Airbus, as the US does the same or worse, so all the Americans that object when a foreign company do it and not as bad when the US company does it are hypocrites.
There are plenty of readings of my comment that assume I know Airbus is not a US company, so yours is an incorrect and unfounded reading of my comment. Perhaps you should work harder on forming correct posts, rather than incorrectly correcting others.
Learn to love Alaska