Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   What do you do with questionable demand for a new, giant airliner? Why, raise the price, of course   ( divider line
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

17420 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jun 2006 at 1:07 PM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

220 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

2006-06-24 02:39:17 PM  

I said:
at times strength of things where 300% of what was required

At times. You can design for 300% where possible. I dont think wings can be desinged 3x normal max loading yet.
2006-06-24 02:42:22 PM  
Designing for 1.5 is not "scraping by", you're just being polemic. You may note that Boeing, too, aimed for a 1.5 loading in the 777 wing. That's because 1.5 x maximum loading is an insanely high load.

Boeing aimed for 1.5x, achieved 1.51x, and predicted the failure (tape was placed over the predicted points of failure/buckling and that is where the buckling occurred.)

Airbus aimed for 1.5x, got 1.44x, and probably went into the test thinking it would pass and the predictions were wrong.
2006-06-24 05:50:33 PM  
The Latest Airbus Missing Rudder

The NTSB is "closely monitoring" the Canadian investigation of an incident involving the almost total separation of the rudder on an Air Transat A-310, an aircraft similar to that which crashed in New York three years ago due to a rudder failure. As AVweb told you on Thursday, the A-310, with 270 passengers and crew on board, was about 30 minutes into its flight from Varadero, Cuba, to Quebec City when, according to the airline, "a portion of the rudder detached from the aircraft." Photos supplied by an AVweb reader might suggest slightly different wording. Semantics aside, the NTSB has taken an interest with recollection of the American Airlines A-300 that crashed in a New York suburb in November of 2001, killing a total of 265 people following separation of a large section of vertical fin. The NTSB blamed that failure on extreme control inputs overstressing the rudder. There's no indication of similar circumstances in the Air Transat incident. The airline says the plane was flying normally at cruise when the rudder simply fell off. NTSB spokesman Ted Lopatkiewicz told the English newspaper, the Observer, the board is watching the Canadian investigation but not jumping to any conclusions. "We need to know why the rudder separated from the aircraft before knowing whether maintenance is an issue," he said. The plane had just come out of an A-Check five days before the incident but it's not clear whether the rudder was inspected and in what detail.

[image from too old to be available]
2006-06-24 05:51:16 PM  
France Issues Emergency AD On Airbus Rudders

First it was voluntary, but it now appears airlines operating A300 and A310 aircraft will be compelled to conduct thorough inspections of the planes' composite rudders. France's civil aviation regulator has issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive calling for the one-time visual and tap-test inspection to be completed within 550 hours or before June 18. Other countries generally adopt similar Emergency ADs but none had been issued by the FAA at our deadline. France's action comes two weeks after an Air Transat A310 lost almost its entire rudder while at cruise on a trip from Cuba to Quebec. The crew was able to return to Varadero Airport and land safely. Last week Airbus recommended operators of A300 and A310 aircraft inspect the rudders. The NTSB and FAA are both following the Canadian investigation to see if it might have any bearing on the crash of an American Airlines A300 in New York in 2001. In that accident, the whole tail separated after what the NTSB determined were excessive rudder movements by the flying pilot.
2006-06-24 05:52:18 PM  
FAA orders inspections on some Airbus planes

Regulators act after Canadian passenger jet's rudder nearly fell off

WASHINGTON - U.S. aviation regulators Friday ordered detailed rudder inspections and repairs, if necessary, of certain Airbus planes after the rudder of a Canadian passenger jet nearly fell off this month.

The Federal Aviation Administration wants operators of the 112 European-made Airbus A310s and A300s registered to U.S. carriers to complete detailed rudder inspections within three months. The planes are flown primarily in the United States by cargo giant FedEx Corp. American Airlines also operates some A300s.

The tests include visual checks and a tap test, which is an audio analysis.

FedEx said it expected to complete inspections of its nearly 100 planes within the required time. "To date, we have seen no indication of any irregularities in our aircraft," the company said in a statement. Officials at American could not immediately be reached for comment.

French aviation regulators, in concert with the world's largest commercial plane manufacturer, issued a similar directive last week covering nearly 400 planes, including those flown by American and FedEx. The inspections are usually performed every few years.

The FAA order, which was expected after the European action, instructs operators to look for any separation or other damage to the rudder, which is made from layers of carbon-reinforced composite materials.

The directive stems from a March 6 in-flight incident in which a Canadian charter A310 lost part of its rudder. The Air Transat flight from Cuba to Quebec City with 270 people aboard returned safely to Cuba. Canadian authorities are investigating.

The National Transportation Safety Board is also monitoring the investigation.

The Canadian incident focused new attention on the tail and rudder system of the A300 family. Rudders are attached to the tail fin and move back and forth to help with lateral steering usually on the ground or to counter crosswinds during landing.

Rudders were replaced on some Airbus aircraft in the early 1990s. In November 2001, an American A300-600 crashed in New York after its tail fin snapped off, killing 265 people. U.S. crash investigators said the co-pilot's excessive rudder use likely caused the fin failure but also cited the sensitivity of the rudder system and crew training at American.

U.S. investigators found no fault in that crash with construction of the composite tail fin after initial speculation focused strongly on that possibility.
2006-06-24 05:56:13 PM  
Nice picture of an Airbus fuselage.

[image from too old to be available]
2006-06-24 05:59:56 PM  
Flight 583 , A340 :

However, when they opened two of the remaining six exits, the emergency slides that are supposed to automatically deploy failed to do so.
2006-06-24 06:01:50 PM  
The new, super-sized Airbus A380 was given its compulsory passenger-evacuation test on Sunday, as all 873 passengers and crew made it off the plane in less than a minute and a half. Airbus officials called the test "a very great success" despite the fact that 33 participants required medical attention - broken legs and arms, bruises and people who, despite being paid for the test, swore they had no idea what a nightmare the test would be.
2006-06-24 06:41:38 PM  
Airbus FUN , fun fun :)

[image from too old to be available]

[image from too old to be available]

[image from too old to be available]

[image from too old to be available]

[image from too old to be available]

[image from too old to be available]

[image from too old to be available]

Airbus FUN , fun fun :)
2006-06-24 07:00:48 PM  
Dammit, I took the bait, didn't I ?

zeio, one could put together a horror cabinet of Boeing incidents with equal ease - particularly if one were to accept any half-baked urban legend email at face value.

The Transat A-310 incident (now a good year old) is still being investigated. The one thing that NTSB and its Canadian counterpart has agreed on is that it's not connected to flight 587 - vertical stabilizers are not rudders, in laymen's terms.

Your passenger evacuation test piece is as much BS as the undercarriage tale, but I'm rather done correcting you. Look it up yourself, if you want the facts. I suspect you don't.

Most rational people realize that if A was considerably worse than B, the accident numbers would be clearly slanted. And they're not. No, really, they're not.

Which is why people who join these silly flame wars (on one side or the other - there are definitely irrational Boeing-bashers out there as well - ) rely on sensational anecdotes, pictures of wreckage and semiunderstood technobabble.
2006-06-24 07:24:28 PM  
The one thing that NTSB and its Canadian counterpart has agreed on is that it's not connected to flight 587 - vertical stabilizers are not rudders, in laymen's terms.

I know, they have TWO HUGE people-killing problems on their hands.
2006-06-24 07:34:57 PM  
On the A380 evacuation:

The escape slides from the upper deck are about 26 feet above the ground and have raised sides that act as a screen in order to remove passengers' fear of heights.

"broken legs and other injuries, such as burns, sprains and hematomas"

Wouldn't you like to jump TWENTY SIX FEET from a plane when the slide malfunctions (Airbus slides have done that:

[Docket No. 2003-NM-274-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, C4-605R Variant F, and F4-600R (Collectively Called A300-600); and Model A310 Series Airplanes.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, C4-605R Variant F, and F4-600R (collectively called A300-600); and Model A310 series airplanes. This proposal would require an inspection to determine the part number of certain passenger/crew escape slides; and related investigative action and corrective action, if necessary. This action is necessary to prevent the failure of an escape slide to deploy during emergency evacuation, which could impede an evacuation and result in injury to flightcrew and passengers. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.

Ride on an A380, have a simple fire in the cargo, the slides don't deploy as WELL ESTABLISHED in this document, and you fricking have to jump TWENTY SIX FEET to the ground. Broken legs and death are the result. Think of throwing your children 26 ft to their death or being burned alive in the Airbus - and they BURN, check out the A340 that rolled of the runway. Hell, if you didn't get out in 90 seconds you would have been BACON BITS.
2006-06-24 07:38:22 PM  
Having trouble stopping your A340?

Docket No. 2000-NM-230-AD; Amendment 39-12348; AD 001-15-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Airbus Model A330 and A340 series airplanes, that requires installation of a retainer device on the attachment pin of the brake torque rod of the main landing gear (MLG). The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent the attachment pin from fully migrating from the brake torque rod and to prevent the collar from detaching from the MLG; these conditions could result in loss of braking on two wheels and the inability to extend the MLG. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
2006-06-24 07:40:16 PM  
Oh, the slides dont work on the 319, 320 and 321 either.

[Docket No. 2001-NM-138-AD; Amendment 39-12383; AD 2001-16-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This action requires modification of the telescopic girt bar of the escape slide/raft assembly, and follow-on actions. This action is necessary to prevent failure of the escape slide/raft to deploy correctly, which could result in the slide being unusable during an emergency evacuation and consequent injury to passengers or airplane crewmembers. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
2006-06-24 07:47:10 PM  
Im a little passenger short and stout...
[image from too old to be available]
Here are my burn marks,
[image from too old to be available]
And here are my intestines all over the ground.
[image from too old to be available]
Airbus come "fly" with us.
2006-06-26 02:40:25 AM  
Airbus = deathbus.

Id rather ride on a:
[image from too old to be available]
2006-07-02 01:30:29 PM  
EADS and Airbus bosses both quit
The embattled co-chief executive of Airbus parent company EADS, Noel Forgeard, has resigned.

The announcement comes after intense pressure on Mr Forgeard to quit in the wake of an insider trading scandal.

Mr Forgeard, who denies wrongdoing, was accused of deliberately selling shares in EADS before the firm announced a delay to the Airbus A380 superjumbo.

It was also announced that Airbus chief Gustav Humbert has resigned over the A380 delays.

"The recently announced delay on the A380 production and delivery programme has been a major disappointment for our customers, our shareholders and our employees," said Mr Humbert.

"As president and chief executive of Airbus, I must take responsibility for this setback and feel the right course of action is to offer my resignation to our shareholders."

Mr Humbert, a German, is being succeeded by Christian Streiff, a former executive of French building materials group Saint-Gobain.

Angry shareholders

Mr Forgeard is being replaced by fellow Frenchman Louis Gallois, head of French state railway company SNCF.

Co-chief executive of Airbus since last year, Mr Forgeard has continually denied any wrongdoing over his selling of EADS shares.

He said he sold the shares in question in March of this year, and that he did not know of delays in the production of the A380 until April.

When the delays were announced last month, Airbus's share price slumped 26%.

Mr Forgeard's protestations of innocence were not enough to calm shareholder anger, and he has now paid the price.

Yet he initially refused to stand down, telling a French parliamentary committee last week that such a move was "out of the question".

Possible compensation

Following the scandal, there were also calls for EADS to end its dual management structure.

A Franco-German firm, it has two chief executives and two chairmen, one from each country. It looks as if this structure will continue.

The delays to the A380 have been caused by wiring problems.

EADS now says that only nine of the planes, instead of the previously expected 20 to 25 will be delivered next year.

As a result, Airbus is to hold talks on compensation with those airlines who have already ordered the plane.
2006-07-11 03:16:48 AM  
Airbus orders plunge to less than quarter of Boeing's
AIRBUS, the troubled European aircraft-maker, ran into more turbulence yesterday as it announced a sharp fall in new orders and shareholders filed a class action lawsuit against its parent company, EADS.

The company said it had booked 117 firm orders for passenger jets in the first half of 2006, down from 276 in the same period last year. Arch-rival Boeing reported 480 orders at the end of June - more than four times as many as Airbus over the same period.

Last week Airbus gave up its hard-earned lead in the industry to Boeing after five years and said that Airbus may be forced to delay the launch of its £7 billion A350 project because Christian Streiff, the group's new chief executive - who has still not formally started work - needed time to approve the venture.

Streiff, expected to be confirmed in the post this week, was nominated after Gustav Humbert, his predecessor, was ousted because of delays to Airbus's flagship A380 super-jumbo.

Noël Forgeard, co-chief executive of EADS, was also forced to resign after the A380 delays were announced just days after BAE, the British aeronautical and weapons group, said it planned to sell its 20 per cent stake in Airbus.

Yesterday's industry figures showed that orders for the Airbus A380 have also plunged to earth. No new orders have been added this year to the 159 already placed.

Yesterday it emerged that an association of shareholders in EADS had filed a class-action complaint against the company in a Dutch court to seek compensation for losses stemming from a plunge in EADS's share price.

The suit, brought by the Association des Actionnaires Actifs, alleges that EADS gave misleading financial information before the shares dropped 26 per cent, to 18.75, in just one session on 14 June.

The fall wiped 5.5bn (£3.8bn) off EADS's stock market value. The amount of compensation being sought in court has not been disclosed.

EADS shares were down another 1.2 per cent yesterday after rising 6 per cent in the previous two sessions.

NM Rothschild & Sons recently valued BAE's stake in EADS at 2.75bn, a figure that shocked many analysts, some of whom had predicted a price of more than 4bn.

• The number of jobs in the UK aerospace industry has jumped, following rising orders and sales.

Direct employment in the industry has risen in the last year by 9 per cent to 124,237, an annual survey by the Society of British Aerospace Companies has revealed.

New orders have increased by 33 per cent to a record £30.7bn and productivity has risen by 15 per cent.
2006-07-11 03:17:42 AM  
Airbus whistleblower faces prison
By Ambrose Pritchard-Evans

Joseph Mangan thought he was doing Airbus a favour when he warned of a small but potentially lethal fault in the new A380 super-jumbo, the biggest and most costly passenger jet ever built.
Instead, Europe's aviation giant rubbished his claims, and now he faces ruin, a mass of legal problems, and - soon - an Austrian prison. Mr Mangan is counting the days at his Vienna flat across the street from Schonbrünn Palace, wondering whether the bailiffs or the police will knock first.
An American aerospace engineer, he has discovered that Austria offers scant protection to whistle blowers. Bankrupt, he is surviving with his wife and three children on gifts of food from fellow Baptists in Vienna.
Having failed to stump up a £100,000 fine for breaching a court gagging order, he now faces a year behind bars.
His troubles began in September 2004 when he contacted the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), claiming that the cabin pressure system in the A380 might not be safe, and that this had been concealed. Mr Mangan's message was not one that Europe wanted to hear, least of all from a garrulous American who jabbers aviation techno-babble at machine-gun speed.
TheA380 is the world's most ambitious aircraft, fruit of a joint effort by the French, Germans, British and Spanish. A double-decker giant, it can carry up to 856 passengers at 42,000 feet. "The symbol of what Europe can achieve," said French President Jacques Chirac as the aircraft completed its faultless maiden flight this April.
Airbus has overtaken Boeing, snatching 57per cent of the big jet market. It employs 52,000 staff, a fifth in Britain, where the wings are built. Not everybody is convinced that Airbus is wise to stake so much on a project loaded with new technologies.
The A380 uses glass laminates for the plane's fusilage, and questions have arisen as to whether the material might degrade under ultra-violet radiation. Airbus insists not. But any hint of hubris in one area spreads doubts about others, which is why Mr Mangan's saga is so unsettling.
His role in the A380 story is no more than a bit part. He was recruited from Kansas in September 2003 to take charge of the aerospace team at TTTech Computertechnik, an Austrian firm supplying Airbus components. He has accused the firm of "intentional non-compliance" with safety rules.
Public court documents in Vienna record his allegation that TTTech conspired to "keep certain information secret from the certifying authorities". Mr Mangan alleged "human lives could be in danger", according to the document - an injunction by a Vienna judge. TTTech denies the allegations, calling him a disgruntled ex-employee who never fitted into the team, and is now bent on revenge.
Mr Mangan claims a defect in the outflow valve control system could lead to an abrupt loss of cabin pressure, leaving passengers unconscious in as little as 20 seconds. "Normal oxygen masks don't work properly above 33,000 feet.
It would take two and half minutes to bring the aircraft down to the survival altitude of 25,000 feet. Pilots would have little time to act. In the worst case scenario, the plane could crash.
"The A380 uses a set of four identical valves that could all go wrong at the same time for the same reason. The typical jet has three different systems to eliminate such a risk," he claimed.
Glitches had arisen using the same operating system in February 2004 during a test in Phoenix for the Aermacchi fighter trainer, which he had helped to fix, he claimed.
There were 160 cases of emergency loss of cabin pressure in Europe last year. Investigators suspect it played a role in the crash of a Helios Boeing 737 flight over Greece in August, killing 121 people.
Airbus dismissed fears about the A380 as baseless. "We have examined this internally and found absolutely no reason to be concerned. The scenario made up by Mr Mangan does not exist," said spokesman David Voskuhl.
But officials at the air safety watchdog EASA said they took the concerns"extremely seriously". An EASA source said that the agency was "able to confirm certain statements by Mr Mangan". A probe - conducted by the French authorities for EASA - allegedly found that TTTech was "not in conformity" with safety rules and had failed to carry out the proper tests.
The key microchip was deemed "not acceptable". EASA instructed Airbus to sort out the problem before the final certification of the A380 next year. It is unclear whether this has now been done.
EASA has refused to comment publicly on the details of the dispute, prompting concerns at the European Parliament. Eva Lichtenberger, an Austrian Green MEP, wrote an "urgent" letter to the agency last month demanding "prompt and extensive information on the matter".
"We cannot leave questions open like this when it comes to aircraft safety," she said. "I have received no reply up to now.
Unless I have a proper reply by next week, I will launch a formal complaint with the European Commission," she told theTelegraph. Rüdiger Haas, a professor of aircraft manufacture at Karlsrühe University, said he "shared the reservations of Mangan" over the safety of the outflow valve controls.
"The system markedly deviates from previous specifications in aircraft construction," he told Germany's ARD television. Mr Mangan claimed that his employers were under intense pressure to meet deadlines. The A380 venture was already ¤1.5billion (£850m) over budget and six months behind schedule. He claimed it would have taken two years to carry out the proper certification.TTTech falsely classified its micro-chip as a simple "off-the-shelf" product already used in car valves in order to excempt it from elaborate testing rules, he claimed. This would breach both EU and US law on aircraft regulation.
"I refused to sign off on the test results, but TTTech went ahead anyway," he claimed. The key papers relate to the TTPOS operating system and were allegedly dated August 24 2004. Mr Mangan is concerned that his name may have been linked to certification, leaving him with legal liability. "That's why I have to stick it out here inVienna until my name is cleared, " he said.
French prosecutors tracked alleged negligence in the 2000 Concorde crash to an American mechanic, who now faces a manslaughter probe. Mr Mangan said within days of reporting the alleged abuse he was sacked.
TTTech filed both a civil and criminal defamation suit - possible under Austrian law - securing a gagging order on all details regarding the case. Mr Mangan refused to remain silent.
"They say I can't even talk to safety officials about a threat to safety. This violates my duty to the public. People could die on that plane if they don't fix the problem," he said.
TTTech is a spin-off from the University of Vienna, specializing in"time-triggered technology". The firm said it was forced to take action after Mr Mangan had inflicted "severe damage" to its reputation with wild allegations that he had so far been unable to substantiate. It admits to a routine software glitch, since corrected, but said an external audit found no trace of any abuses.
"What he is saying is simply not true. We checked the evidence and found nothing wrong," said the chief executive, Stefan Poledna. He said TTTech was never informed by EASA of any alleged non-compliance, and insisted that certification was an on-going "iterative process".
"This is all very strange. It was clear the certification bar had been raised after October 2004, and we had to do a lot of double-checking, but we've never been told that anything was fundamentally wrong," he said.
For now, the first A380 is carrying out daily test flights from its base in Toulouse, racking up 350 hours of flying time. The results are secret.
Next month the A380 will take off for its first test trip around the globe, stopping in Frankfurt, Singapore, and Sydney, before gearing up for passenger flights next year.
Airbus is clearly confident that the A380 issafe. It will now have to convince prospective buyers.
2006-07-11 03:20:05 AM  
Russian Airbus crash in Siberia kills at least 140
07.09.2006, 06:17 AM

IRKUTSK, Russia (XFN-ASIA) - At least 140 people died when a Russian Airbus plane veered off a runway and caught fire while landing Sunday in the Siberian provincial centre of Irkutsk, officials said.

'Forty-nine people are in hospital. Eleven people left the plane and walked away -- we are appealing for them to come back,' an official at a crisis centre set up in Irkutsk said.

Between 200 and 202 people were on board the Sibir airline plane bound from Moscow, including a group of children on their way to a holiday, according to different officials.

A spokesman for the Irkutsk section of the emergency situations ministry said that 120 bodies had been recovered. The recovery of bodies was continuing, he said.

The incident occurred when the Airbus A310 careered off the tarmac during landing and crashed into a concrete wall close to airport buildings, bursting into a huge wall of flame, the emergency situations ministry said.

It was the second recent crash of an Airbus plane in Russia, after an Armenian Airbus A320 crashed into the Black Sea near Sochi in May killing all 113 on board.

No definite reason for the crash has yet been put forward, but officials said that the black box flight recorders have been found and sent to Moscow for examination.

'There are many versions,' the spokesman for the emergency situations ministry said.

'The landing gear may have caught fire while landing, igniting the rest of the plane. Or there was a short circuit while the plane was still in the air, which disabled the brakes,' he said.

Prosecutors announced they had opened a criminal enquiry into the crash.
Displayed 20 of 220 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.