quote: BBC News Online

---

The world's largest passenger plane, the Airbus A380, has taken off on its long-awaited maiden flight.

Thousands of aeroplane enthusiasts, many of them clapping and cheering, witnessed the twin-deck "superjumbo" taking to the air for the first time. The flight was due to last between one and five hours, depending on weather conditions and how the plane handled. The A380 took off from its production site in Toulouse with a crew of six and about 20 tonnes of test equipment.

Airbus, which is owned by European firm EADS and the UK's BAE Systems, sees the A380 as the future of air travel. Arch-rival Boeing has instead chosen to focus on mid-sized short-haul aircraft.

The A380 - designed to carry as many as 840 people between major airports - took off from its production site in Toulouse, southern France. The crew were expected to take the plane out over the Bay of Biscay, before returning to base.

The crew were equipped with parachutes. And a handrail has been fitted, leading from the cockpit to an escape door. During the flight, there will be a live satellite feed of data which will be monitored by a team of experts on the ground, Airbus said.

Earlier Airbus test pilot Jacques Rosay told the BBC: "We are confident with what has been done up to today. "But we still have some doubts. We have to be very careful during all the flight because, as you say, when you are looking at new things, something may happen. But we are still very confident."

More than 50,000 people are thought to have watched the take-off, many of them sitting on the grass banks that line the runway. The take-off was also broadcast live on television and thousands of enthusiasts watched via a giant screen in Toulouse's main square.

Most of the tests will be carried out at 10,000 feet and within 100 miles of Toulouse, said Peter Chandler, deputy project pilot for the A380. He added that the plane was flying with its wheels down as a safety measure, and that the A380's hydraulics and electrics had all been tested while it was on the ground.

More than a year of flight-testing and certification-programme work will now follow before the A380 starts commercial services. Pilots will then have to push the plane far harder then they have on Wednesday, testing for extremes of speed, altitude and temperature, experts said.

The project, hailed as a European success story by leaders including France's President Jacques Chirac, has had its share of problems. In December 2004, Airbus' main shareholder EADS, which has an 80% stake, revealed that the project was £1bn (1.5bn euros; $1.9bn) over budget, at more than £8.4bn. The UK's BAE Systems owns the remaining 20% of Airbus.

---

The video looked amazing - 500 tons of aircraft seemed to just float off the ground effortlessly, at what looked like a very low speed and with hardly any noise compared to what you'd expect from a big airliner (though that could have been the audio recording and/or streamed compression). And they say that this plane uses much less fuel per passenger and could reduce the price of a transatlantic ticket by 20-20% - that must be good news in these days of global warming and high oil prices.

But it's still got to get back down in one piece, though!

EDIT: Sorry that a duplicate thread has appeared. Nothing happened for about 20 seconds after pressing the send button, so I pressed 'back' and tried again.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-27-2005, 08:18 AM:
 
I watched it too but I wouldn't set foot on an Airbus . They have made too many serious oops mistakes over the years.... A recent incident of an A-310 in Cuba.... almost coulda been a duplicate of the crash in n.y. right after 911.

I can see its use for long haul cargo but....

I wouldn't wanna be in the same terminal when one of them de-planes all its passengers...

I wouldn't want to pick up the thousands of body parts when one crashes... and one eventually will.... every airbus has upheld that promise sooner than later.....

I wish all of you who fly on them a big good luck though.... I'll stick with U.S. made jets.... they have a better record overall. I am not aware of a 777 that has fallen apart in flight.

Mark

 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 04-27-2005, 12:20 PM:
 
How many Airbus crashes have been due to poor design/workmanship though as opposed to airline maintenance issues?
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-27-2005, 01:59 PM:
 
...or pilot error, navigation error, air traffic control error, software failure (though that could come under the heading of poor workmanship/maintenance), acts of terrorism/sabotage, freak weather and all the other things which can cause an air crash?

After a little Googling all I could find were these figures. If they paint an accurate picture of the safety of the planes per se, then they'd suggest that the Boeing mid-range, mid-capacity jets (i.e. the 757 & 767) are significantly safer than their Airbus equivalents, but that the Airbus A32X is safer than its Boeing long-range competitor. But those figures don't tell us what caused those incidents: they just tot up the total number of crashes per aircraft type. So, for example, it could be that the 747 has long been considered a symbolic terrorist target, and that therefore those statistics give a misleading picture of how safe the plane inherently is. By the same token, BMWs and Mercs regularly top the death toll list of car types. Is that because the cars are badly designed? No; it's because drivers with more money than sense tend to buy them. And according to these figures, Concorde was the most dangerous passenger jet ever to have flown, despite there having only been one fatal incident in nearly three decades of revenue earning service.

I do take Mark's point that the higher passenger capacity of the A380 means that potentially, a lot more people could be killed in a single incident. But I have a hunch that if you were to do some detailed number crunching, Boeing and Airbus would probably come out more or less equal (or at least, the difference would be statistically insignificant) over the number of lives lost that were directly attributable to a design and/or manufacturing defect of the aircraft themselves.

The point about higher passenger capacity raising the safety stakes was made relentlessly after the Paris DC-10 crash in the 1970s (the first fully loaded widebody jetliner to go down with complete loss of life), as a result of which the design fault which caused it was quickly identified and fixed (though admittedly, the DC-10 still comes in at no. 15 on that list). With today's computer modelling and decades more experience of aircraft design, I'd hope that with today's airliners (whoever builds them), the process of identifying bugs and fixing them could happen before any crashes. Perhaps Paul could tell us some more here?
 

---

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 04-27-2005, 02:29 PM:
 
Most of the Airbus crashes were due to the On Board Flight Computers. When Airbus first started implementing them they had a streak of bad luck involving the Onboard Computer taking over a pilots flight and doing what it though needed to be done to correct a given situation. Case in point, at an Air show in the late 80's Early 90's they were demonstration the Airbus 320 i believe and the Pilot was doing a low level low speed pass by the crowd. The coputer instinctively thought he was trying to land the plane and took over, At that point the pilot, who was trying to gain speed and altitude was having to fight with the computer that initially thought he was trying to land and was forcing the plane into a decent and decrease speed mode as he went off the end of the runway admits some housing and small trees. 20 seconds later it crashed into the neighborhood beyond the airport. The data recorders showed the struggle between the pilot and the computer very clearly. Airbus in the early days did not have a manual override system in place to correct the computer so once it made up its mind what needed to happen, you were at its mercy. That flaw in design was the cause of 45% of all Airbus incidents (Source from Wings Program about Airbus and its problems.)
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 04-27-2005, 03:08 PM:
 
Very interesting William, thanks for the info.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 04-27-2005, 05:22 PM:
 
The only US carriers that have had crashes with the Airbus type aircraft have been the American Airlines and a DHL cargo.

• A300 has had 11 aircrafts crash between 1983-2003
  A310 has had 6 aircrafts crash between 1992-2000
  A320 has had 7 aircrafts crash between 1988-2000
  A330 has had 2 aircrafts crash between 1994-2001
  A340 has had 1 aircraft crash in 1994

The American Airlines A300 aircraft went down in Belle Harbor, NY 11/12/2001. And the DHL craft was hit in Baghdad, Iraq by a missile.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-27-2005, 06:04 PM:
 
At least the numbers of accidents are decreasing in numbers with the increase in model number . Obviously a learning curve going on there . I'll still stick with proven U.S. built planes like the 737 and so on. I beleieve that a 737 lands and takes off every 10 seconds. There is no equal to it....

Also the big Airbus plane has very a limted market, mainly tourest and only on very long haul routes..... Should the economy ever sag very much Airbus will be hurting big time. The only other use is strictly for cargo, and again on long haul routes only. In bad times the Airbus will be sitting in the desert in storage while the new 787 will be kept on line.

Mark

[ 04-27-2005, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gulbrandsen ]
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 04-27-2005, 07:57 PM:
 
Here are the Boeing numbers.

• 707 56 lost 1961-2005
  727 53 lost 1965-2003
  737 68 lost 1972-2005
  747 33 lost 1974-2004
  757 09 lost 1990-2002
  767 09 lost 1983-2002

• DC-8 41 lost 1960-2000
  DC-9 73 lost 1966-2003
  DC-10 19 lost 1973-2004
  MD-80 series 15 lost 1981-2004
  MD-90 1 lost 1999
  MD-11 6 lost 1993-1999

• L1011 5 lost 1972-1986

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

I beleieve that one 737 lands and takes off every 10 seconds

---

that's one very busy aeroplane with high cycles

Tell me which one it is and I'll avoid it!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-27-2005, 09:09 PM:
 
Actually they ALL have a high number of cycles... But thanks Dick for pointing that one out... I corrected it.

quote: Bill Gabel

---

Here are the Boeing numbers.

707 56 lost 1961-2005
727 53 lost 1965-2003
737 68 lost 1972-2005
747 33 lost 1974-2004
757 09 lost 1990-2002
767 09 lost 1983-2002
Here is McDonnell Douglas numbers.

DC-8 41 lost 1960-2000
DC-9 73 lost 1966-2003
DC-10 19 lost 1973-2004
MD-80 series 15 lost 1981-2004
MD-90 1 lost 1999
MD-11 6 lost 1993-1999
Here is Lockheed's number for the L-1011 series.

L1011 5 lost 1972-1986

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

The other thing it leaves out is how many survived from eachh crash. All in some cases too none in other cases. Things like a crash where a plane couldn't stop and overshot the end of the runway and geaer that won't loock down are commonly survived by all. Of course there are those catatrostpjic crashes like UA 232 and the Concorde.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

With the high number of L-1011's still in the air I have to wonder if that plane isn't the safest one out there. One has not gone down since the early 70's. The DC-10 has by far the worst safety record of all U.S. made planes imho although there doesn't seem to be any bad mishaps in the last decade.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

That list defines an 'incident' as an event which causes at least one fatality - but I agree entirely; that criterion could be misleading, too. The number of fatalities per incident on that DC-10 list ranges from 2 to 346. So that way of ranking airliner safety (by number of 'incidents') would favour large widebodies over smaller capacity planes. For example, it would take 20 Saab 340s to fall out of the sky to kill as many people as the total loss of one fully-loaded 747. I'd guess that if you recalculated that list and ranked the aircraft in order of the proportion of accident fatalities to flights completed, it would look very different.

---

quote: Cory Isemann

---

I'd be scared shitless to ride in a plane that big.

---

quote: Phil Hill

---

am anxious to see the new Boeing 7xx.

---

quote:

---

But having that sense of integrity has often come at a "political" price! But I have no regrets...I am just greatful for the lessons my parents and teachers have instilled in me!

---

• Dec. 29, 1972 Eastern Airlines (Crash) 100 dead of 176
  Aug. 19, 1980 Saudi Airlines (electrical fire) 301 dead from smoke inhalations after returning to airport. Doors jammed.
  Dec. 23, 1980 Saudi Airlines (tire exploded in wheel well), 2 dead rapid decompression over Arabian Gulf.
  Aug. 2 1985 Delta Airlines (Crash) Dallas/Fort Worth,microburst induced windshear, 134 dead of 163 + 1 on the ground.
  May 3, 1986 Air Lanka (Bomb) Columbo, Sri Lanka, 16 dead at the gate.

 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-28-2005, 10:55 PM:
 
Late to the party as usual. Been rather busy these last two weeks, subbing for two instructors in the aviation department, which has meant commuting out to Boulder City for night classes, three hours each way on the city bus, plus early-morning day classes all this week at my home campus, the Western High Tech Center. Fortunately tomorrow is the last day of this--I'm pooped.

On to the A380. It's a hell of an achievement for Airbus. Though I have never cared for their engineering attitude of minimizing the pilots' presence in the control loop of their fly-by-wire airplanes (even if the statistics show that 80% of airliner accidents involve pilot error in some way), I've come to respect Airbus' business acumen. They are a formidable competitor, as the current US vs. EU Boeing vs. Airbus subsidy wars illustrate. Boeing has fallen to #2 in market share for two years now, no longer dominating the airliner market. The cross-pond subsidy lawsuits are about to start flying unless the two sides get back to talking.

The new aircraft is an amazing accomplishment. Over the next year or so it will fly an extensive test regimen to cover all corners of its flight envelope. It will be interesting to see how it does at max all-up weight, 1,200,000 lbs for the pax version, 1,300,000 lbs for the freighter (!), plus things like max range, best cruise speeds, and fuel burn. The only other thing flying at these weights is the Antonov An-225 and only one of those was ever built. Like many new designs this one has had its share of early problems with drag and getting the empty weight down to meet spec. But it's flying now and that is a good thing.

Early (and now outdated) A380 joke:
Q: Why did the A380 cross the road?
A: Because it couldn't fly over it.

As of this week, Airbus has 151 confirmed orders for the A380 and needs about 100 more to recover its $13 billion USD R&D costs. They project a worldwide market of around 1200 aircraft. Boeing didn't see a big-enough market for this size of aircraft at all. It'll be interesting to see over the next few years who read the market correctly.

Boeing is proceding with its 787 Dreamliner and is filling the order book rather nicely, enough so that Airbus, which didn't see a market for that aircraft, is now going to develop a competing model, the A350. Boeing is also going to compete against the A380 with a new double-deck version of the 747. Indeed, we live in interesting times.

As for Jurassic jumbos, I was a big fan of the L-1011 and hated to see it ultimately fail in the market. It was an innovative design in many ways: first use of triple-spool high-bypass engines, first US airliner to offer autoland capability as standard equipment, and its unique flight controls when in the landing configuration (control column controls the spoilers instead of the elevators during approach and landing, similar to how glider descent rates are controlled).

L-1011 monikers:
Swamp Buggy
Trifarce
Tritanic
Vibratron

Lockheed's biggest mistake with the airplane was to commit to only one, at the time unbuilt, engine type. Development problems and cost overruns on the RB-211 engine (a great story in its own right) drove Rolls Royce into bankruptcy and delayed L-1011 production to the point where McDonnell Douglas achieved an insurmountable market lead with their DC-10. In the end the market for three-engined widebodies just wasn't big enough for both designs. Which was too bad--the retired L-1011 captains I've known at ANA and TWA loved the airplane. As did I, even though I only got to fly the simulator for it just once.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-28-2005, 11:38 PM:
 
Well boys, spout all ya want about the L-1011... it STILL scares the hell outta me! I'd rather fly a DC-10...ummm with the door "problem" fixed!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-29-2005, 02:46 AM:
 
Deleted double post
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-29-2005, 02:50 AM:
 
Lockheed has produced the most amazing aircraft through out its illustrious history and had know how that went beyond the normal stuff that was churned out in those days by all the other aircraft companies combined. Anyone wanting a good read should pick up the book "Skunkworks" by Ben Rich. That book will blow your mind..... It should also be turned into a film some day . Those not familiar with the man behind Lockheeds engineering team should see this link......

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/kelly1.htm

Mark
 

---

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 04-29-2005, 03:22 AM:
 

quote: Mark Hajducki

---

It would be better to calculate fatalities per passenger journey (or passenger mile), which would be the chance that any one passenger would die due to an aviation incident during the journey.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Airbus's risks are certainly alot higher!! The Europeans seem to go that route for what ever reason... like the Concorde.

---

quote:

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus's risks are certainly alot higher!! The Europeans seem to go that route for what ever reason... like the Concorde.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For many many years Concord/Concorde was the safest aircraft flying, with zero fatalities. Admittedly the number of passenger depatures was quite low. One crash with those low departures numbers turned Concorde from the most safe to the least safe aircraft in fell swoop.

---

quote:

---

After more than two years of the longest and deepest slump in aviation history, the makers of airplanes and their parts are setting their sights on a turnaround.

But when exactly that will happen depends, in part, on the graveyards. Stretched across thousands of acres in New Mexico, Arizona and California are huge parking lots where carriers mothballed hundreds of jets when the airline market began to seriously crater after Sept. 11, 2001. At the peak, more than 2,100 airplanes sat among the tumbleweeds -- about 14% of the world-wide jetliner fleet.

How fast -- and how many of -- those planes are returned to service or scrapped will help determine everything from how many jetliners Boeing Co. and rival Airbus build in 2004 to the financial outlooks for companies that make much of their profits by supplying spare parts for some of the jets that were parked.

Beyond that, the other major trend in aviation is that everybody seems to have a different vision of the future -- and is pursuing it vigorously. Airbus is banking on the planned A380, which will accommodate anywhere from 555 to 800 passengers, while Boeing thinks passengers will choose the comfort of its 7E7 Dreamliner, a smaller and faster jet. Meantime, smaller aircraft -- regional jets and minijets -- continue to make inroads into the market of their larger counterparts.

Here's a look at some specific trends...

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

I was speaking from a financial\marketability point of view... not safety. Concorde never made anyone a dime, but it was a big money sinkhole.

---

quote: David Buckley

---

You would have to assume that what volume market for air travel remains will (based on history) be the plane with the right capacity and the best fuel economy.

---

quote: David Buckley

---

Of course, the really good news is that flying is a dying business - fuel prices are rising and will continue to rise forever, so the days of cheap plane journeys are coming to an end.

---

quote: David Buckley

---

used to live under the Concord flight path in South London, and every day it was a joy to watch it go over... It is truly sad that such an endeavour had to end.

---

quote:

---

quote: David Buckley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, the really good news is that flying is a dying business - fuel prices are rising and will continue to rise forever, so the days of cheap plane journeys are coming to an end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is this good news?

---

quote: David Buckley

---

In terms of making the things, that never made money, as American protectionism ensured that the things would never get much action in the states, and that's where all the money was to be made

---

quote:

---

Airbus delays A380 launch

Airbus has delayed the delivery of its super jumbo a week after the aircraft’s first test flight.

No reason has been given for the delay but according to a Reuters report, Singapore Airlines has been informed. The carrier has ordered 10 A380 aircraft, with an option to order a further 15, and will be the first to fly them in commercial service. The launch is scheduled for April 2006.

TravelMole is waiting for confirmation from Singapore Airlines, but reports suggest the airline may not be able to start flying the A380 until the second half of 2006.

Reuters also spoke to Emirates, which has made the largest order for A380s at 43, and is expecting deliveries to begin in October 2006, as scheduled.

Report by Ginny McGrath

---

quote: Peter Hall

---

There has been a history of both Boeing and MD planes "falling apart in flight"

---

Peter, you left Airbus out of that listing!! They still seem to be having a bit-o-problem in the composites department.....


Mark
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 05-04-2005, 09:56 PM:
 
Here's an interesting twist to all of this. A good friend of mine is a retired VP of U S Aviation Underwriters. He points out that it's going to be a problem insuring these planes. The hull itself is a big price tag, and you are looking at a huge loss if one of these goes down with a full complement of people. Who will want to underwite it? Then, that company will have to sell pieces off, reinsuring it with immense amounts of money, and there may be few takers.

The question becomes who will be willing to be left holding the bag on the loss. Additionally, airlines are not going to like the prices of the premiums they are going to have to pay.
 

---

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 05-05-2005, 12:14 AM:
 

quote: Dick Vaughan

---

Braniff used to lease one or two Concordes

---

quote:

---

I agree - perhaps all planes have a tendancy to fall apart in flight... I might stay at home !

---

quote:

---

SHORT FINAL...
Overheard on approach to MCO...

TWR: Traffic 12 o'clock, 2 miles, an Airbus.

Airliner: Traffic in sight.

(pause)

And he'll be happy to know his rudder is intact.

---

 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-27-2005, 07:37 PM:
 
Just found these two hilarious things about Airbus on the net and thought I'd post em here.....
___________________________________________

"I could give thousands of reasons why boeing is better than airbus,
but they are all from a maintenance point of view.
you seem to want a pilots input on the flying qualities,
so suffice to say for now, from my observations,
boeing pilots appear more competent with their machine,
maybe they are more comfortable with the boeing way of doing things.
airbus technology is more look, don't touch, have faith, sort of stuff.
thrust management is a perfect example of that.
when something out of left field happens, airbus normally comes up with the old
"but monsieur, this cannot happen"... bull$hit it can't.
_______________________________________


 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-28-2005, 06:15 AM:
 
I don't know much about flying, but a friend of mine who flies for Lufthansa told me that many pilots indeed were more comfortable with flying Boeing planes, because according to him, there is more the pilot can influence directly in unusual situations. More "a pilot's plane". The whole Airbus philosophy, backed up by the indisputable fact that a lot of crashes are actually caused by pilot errors, could also lead to a fatal development when managements think that flying is now easy, because more automated, so we need less well-trained, in other words: cheaper pilots. I think a few years ago there was a huge discussion going on which also made the papers in Germany about the all-too-powerful flight computer vs. traditional flying expertise. In the end, the pilots' association insisted on being able to overrule the computer and won. So if I remember correctly, they can now switch it off. In any case, at Lufthansa they seem to have very few accidents (I can't actually only remember ever hearing of one) with both manufacturers, so it seems to come down to the same old truths: good pilot training and maintenance can not be substituted with anything. Kind of like in the cinema.

What's going on with McDonnell Douglass these days? Do they still make passenger jets? When I was younger and in the having-lots-of-books-about-airplanes-and-building-model-planes phase, the DC-10 was still around, I think. I even had a model of one which I handpainted in KLM colors (because the logos were included in the set), then attached it to a string and blew it up with firecrackers.
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 05-28-2005, 08:37 AM:
 

quote: Michael Schaffer

---

What's going on with McDonnell Douglass these days?

---

quote: Will Kutler

---

There are programs where a fusalage/structure can be strigently remanufactured and the airframe hours set back to "0".

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

why are significant numbers of new aircraft being built at all?

---

quote: Ian Price

---

Can someone outline what the different checks entail?

---

Different for each plane and even each plane within the same fleets. But you could post this question over at Air Disaster dot com on the discussion borads. The maintainance enginers over there could probably tell you.

What is interesting is that in the D check level it can take one man hour for each flight hour to go through a plane.... 12,000 man hours not including any modifications to do! The older the plane the more man hours it takes.....
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-29-2005, 12:02 PM:
 
Although any given airframe can be kept airworthy indefinitely, the costs of doing so rise dramatically over time. The airlines (and the military for that matter) will not keep older airframes going if there are alternatives.

At some point it does become cheaper to invest in a new design and retire an old one. The manufacturer can drive that decision point by stopping support of an older design. That was one of the reasons Concorde was retired--BAe had given up making parts and the operators BA and AF were beginning to scavenge parts off of existing airframes.

As Ian mentioned, advancements in technology have led to huge improvements in operating efficiencies. Newer airframes are lighter and have better drag numbers. Newer engines are more powerful, burn less fuel for a pound of thrust, pollute less, and make less noise. Newer flight decks allow for 2-man crews even on long over-water flights. The newer engines are so reliable that two-engine over-water flights are now possible (before the B767 began the ETOPS era you had to have at least three engines). ETOPS: Extended Twin-Engine OPerationS or Engines Turn Or People Swim.

Some of these improvements can be retrofitted to older airframes or airframe designs. Some e.g.s: DC-8-60 series re-fitted with CFM-56 engines to create the DC-8-70 series, B-737-200s re-fitted with CFM-56 engines (along with other aerodynamic improvements) to become the B-737-300 and up series, hush kits for the engines on the B-727 and BAC-1-11, L-1011s fitted with "Frisbee fairings" for less drag and less cabin noise, DC-9-80/MD-80s fitted with "screwdriver" tail cones for less drag, DC-10s become MD-10s with new 2-man flight decks. But at some point it does become easier and cheaper to quit supporting design patch jobs and start with a clean slate.

Both major airliner manufacturers continue along both design and engineering paths. In new designs Airbus has flown the A380 and Boeing is proceding with the B787. In the "tweeking old designs" arena Boeing is looking at the B747 Advanced as a competitor to the A380 while Airbus is looking at a tweeked A330 to be called the A350 to compete with the B787.

As for the various "checks" each airline has their own approved maintenance program and their own mix of aircraft types so the details of the checks are different. A master list of items to be checked at each check is created by the airline for each aircraft type when that type starts operations. From that list, task cards or punch lists are created for each mechanic on the check crew to use during a given check. Mark mentioned the forums on www.airdisaster.com for more info. The forums on www.airliners.net are another source. The details of airliner checks have been discussed at both sites quite a bit. In general:

A Check: Like an oil change for your car. Can be accomplished overnight at the gate with a couple of line maintenance guys.

B Check: Like a minor tune up for your car. Requires a trip to the maintenance hangar and can take a couple of days depending on what needs to be done based on inspection results and aircraft log entries. Add a few more guys to the crew to handle the punch lists.

C Check: Like a major tune up and inspection for your car. Can take a couple of weeks and involves major inspections and parts replacements. Big crew needed.

D Check: Like a complete overhaul/restoration for your car. Can take several months. My favorite definition of a D-Check is the one for older Learjets: "Leave no part standing against any other part." The aircraft is literally disassembled down to the last nut and bolt and sometimes rivet. All parts are cleaned, inspected, re-painted, and replaced if necessary. You practically have a new aircraft after a D-Check. You're gonna need a bigger crew.

Many airlines combine A and B check items together and do them in phases to minimize down time and shorten the C checks. Many airlines also combine the items of a D check into phased C checks so that they don't have to ever do full D checks. When an aircraft is sold or returned from a lease, full checks have to be done since phase programs are all different. Again each airline has its own way of doing things. In the US the FAA must approve each airline's maintenance and engineering support programs.

When you've won the Lotto and are shopping around for a private airliner (like Arnold Palmer and his B-737-700 or John Travolta and his B-707-138) you'll want to know how many hours have accrued on an aircraft since the last C and D checks. Same thing with engines--look at the time since the last "hot section" was done. Gives you some bargaining power if the aircraft is coming up on any of those since they are frighteningly expensive.

Old aviation joke:
Q: How do you make a small fortune in aviation?
A: Start with a big one.

[ 06-03-2005, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]
 

---

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 05-29-2005, 01:00 PM:
 
Thank you, Paul! Kept me from lots of typing!

So Mark, when was the last time you turned a wrench on an aircraft?

The difference between how civilian and military maintenance is performend is like day and night!

Civilian aviation mechanics can be licensed via an FAA rated school, like what I attended, or by serving a strictly documented and regulated "apprenticship" of sorts.

Attending a college as I did was VERY strict. Actually, I attended as soon as I graduated high school, and took my FAA exams when I turned legal age to do so, so I've been at it a while.

The big differneces between civilian and military maintenance is that a civilian mechanic is required to understand the generic in-and-outs of an aircraft system, regardless of what it is. For example, lets look at hydraulic systems(pumps). A civilain mechanic will know that there are: single and dual action manual hand pumps, gear driven, centrifugal and cam-piston type pumps. While a specific type pump may be designed for a particular aircraft, the basic way in which the pump is put together is similar between designs. The civilian mechanic will be able to: 1)troubleshoot the system (including documentation research), 2)remove the bad hydraulic pump, 3)remanufacture the the pump, 4)test the pump on a test bench system, 5) reinstall the pump, 6) ops check the hydraulic system, 7) complete all necessary paperwork.

On the other hand, USAF maintenance is task oriented. The flightline hydraulic specialist will know how to ops check a system by following a grade-school level flow chart, known as TO's and TM's. That USAF hydraulic specialist will have no understanding of the pumps innards, or what makes the system tic! In-shop maintenance will be responsible fo remanufacturing and pre-testing the pump, before sending it back to the flight-line. All in all, the USAF mechanic will have a fraction of the knowledge that a person who has attended an FAA rated school will have.

Civilian mechanics cannot legally ground an aircraft due to maintenance. They can simply write up the maintenance discrepency within the log book. Should a pilot or aircraft owner choose to fly an unairworthy aircraft, legal responsibility is on him/her. Consequently, there is often a lot of pressure put onto mechanics to pencil-whip maintenance. A notorious case happened a few years ago in Tucson at Hamilton Aviation. A mechanic refused to pencil-whip maintenance and was subsequently disciplined by the employeer. Luckily, the mechanic had the entire incident documented and consequently wone a mult-million $$ settlement against Hamilton.

USAF maintenance is really a Catch-22 NIGHTMARE ! Because the USAF coordinates various military operations with other branches of the US Armed Forces, on-time take off-reliability is ALL IMPORTANT! And this is even more evident at a high-profile base like Travis, where officers come for promotion. Not having a TO opened to the specific page and being able reference the specific "step" you are on is a Court-Marshall offense. But that on-time take-off is all important! And if that on-time take-off fails, then the mechanics annula evaluation report might not look good, if ya get my drift. So, one needs to deviate from the TO w/o getting cought!

Here is one of my favorite C-5 maintenance story at Travis that directly involved me. Myself and a fellow Airman were assigned to a C-5 that was due to leave on a mission later that day. As it turned out, the pre-flight inspection (which was usually good for 48hrs) needed to be updated. So, we began our inspection. We called our immediate supervisor to request a safety harness so that I could inspect the upper fusalage/wing surfaces. The supervisor told us that a safety harness was not available and that we should pencil-whip the maintenance. We refused, and a major pissing-match ensued. Our Line-Chief was then called, and subsequently sided with us two Airman over the TSgt supervisor. As soon as I got onto the uper fusalage surface, WHAT DID I FIND? A major pannel that required approximately 100 screws was held on with just 3! The pannel had previously been removed for maintenance, and only 3 of the 100 had been reinstalled! To make matters worse, the aircraft had flown a whopping 3 TIMES that month in this condition, with all those previous preflight inspections having been pencil-whipped. By this time the flight-crew had arrived on-scene when I called down that the aircraft was unairworthy! So, I went with our Line Chief all over Travis trying to locate the needed screws. As it was, all shops on base were out of the required hardware! So, the Line Chief grabbed whatever hardware he could find that would fill the holes! I refused to install the hardware or sign my name to the aircraft logs! I did recieve a Letter of Appreciation for my efforts, but my annual EPR did suffer for jeopardizing the on-time take-off. BTW, the aircraft did fly.

Going back to civilian maintenance, an A&P is legally allowed to work on everything on an aircraft with the exception of instruments and propellers. The A & P can ops check and remove/replace an instrument, but is not allowed to open it up. This is done by a spcially licensed FAA instrument repair station. DITTO with props, but there are a few thins a mechanic can do, like blending out a leading-edge that has been lightly damaged by FOD or the like.

And besides A,B,C,and D checks, and other "heavy" maintenance, all systems on an aircraft are maintained at time intervals, so, there may be maintenance done while the aircraft is a the boarding gate between flights!

Cheers

K.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-29-2005, 03:16 PM:
 
Paul & Will - many thanks for the explanation.

quote: Paul Mayer

---

The manufacturer can drive that decision point by stopping support of an older design.

---

quote: Paul Mayer

---

That was one of the reasons Concorde was retired--BAe had given up making parts and the operators BA and AF were beginning to scavenge parts off of existing airframes.

---

quote: Paul Mayer

---

D Check: Like a complete overhaul/restoration for your car. Can take several months. My favorite definition of a D-Check is the one for older Learjets: "Leave no part standing against any other part." The aircraft is literally disassembled down to the last nut and bolt and sometimes rivet. All parts are cleaned, inspected, re-painted, and replaced if necessary. You practically have a new aircraft after a D Check. You're gonna need a bigger crew.

---

quote: Will Kutler

---

So Mark, when was the last time you turned a wrench on an aircraft?

---

quote: Canada.com

---

Canadian Press
Published: Sunday, February 05, 2006
Article tools

IQALUIT -- The world's largest passenger jet is scheduled to make its first trip to North America tomorrow where it will undergo cold-weather testing in Nunavut.

The Airbus A-380 is scheduled to fly from France to the Nunavut capital, Iqaluit.

Airport manager John Graham says officials are "honoured to be hosting the first arrival of the newest plane of the 21st century."

The 273-tonne jumbo jet, with a wingspan of 80 metres and a seating capacity of 555, is expected to go into service late this year.

Until then, it will be tested under extreme weather conditions of down to minus-40 degrees.

It has already had high-altitude tests in Colombia this year and hot weather tests are due to begin in the summer.

About 50 engineers will arrive with the A-380.

Tests will examine how the engines work in freezing conditions and how the cabin holds up.
© Canadian Press 2006

---

 

---

Posted by Rick Hunter (Member # 1606) on 02-06-2006, 03:27 AM:
 
Here it is landing in Melbourne, 14 November last year.


 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-06-2006, 08:07 AM:
 

quote:

---

About 50 engineers will arrive with the A-380.

---

Hopefully one of those 50 engineers will remember that they shouldn't touch down when already half way down the runway.......
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-06-2006, 02:49 PM:
 
Preferably the one who is flying it.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-06-2006, 03:50 PM:
 
Believe me, you do not want an engineer flying the plane.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-06-2006, 05:53 PM:
 

quote: Paul Mayer

---

Believe me, you do not want an engineer flying the plane.

---

I think the last time they allowed that the Engineer bellyrolled the 707...... Wasn't his name Tex or something like that?
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-06-2006, 09:30 PM:
 
Alvin M. "Tex" Johnston, chief test pilot for the Boeing 707 project. Yes, unannounced he rolled the Dash-80 (the prototype for both the 707 and the C-135) during a demo flight in front of the assembled Boeing and potential airline customer executives in town for an IATA convention. Oh and there were quite a few engineers aboard the aircraft too.

Just another day selling airplanes. It was a beautiful moment.

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/707_roll_video.htm
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-06-2006, 09:32 PM:
 
Believe me, the engineers do not want to be flying the plane.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-06-2006, 11:44 PM:
 
What cracks me up is that Iqaluit is going through a "heat wave" of sorts right now. The temperatures are only getting down to about -10degF or so. Airbus would like it to be more typical for Iqaluit, like -25 to -30degF for some really good cold soak testing.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-07-2006, 12:40 AM:
 
Iqualit doesn't really get that cold. Yesterday's -23/-31C hi and low falls right on average.

http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/city/pages/nu-21_metric_e.html

If they want colder weather they can fly in circles to Alert and Resolute where it's currently -35C (-31F).

http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/city/pages/nu-27_metric_e.html

I think they're more concerned with sort-a-cold weather with excellent search and rescue within short distance.
 

---

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 02-07-2006, 10:07 AM:
 
CBC did a short segment on the testing, apparently Iqaluit was picked because of the 8600 ft runway and availablity of accomodation for their people. No mention of whatever subsidies the assorted governments offered Airbus but as usual that's probably a major factor too. An Iqaluit delegation did go to Airbus and pitch their town for the cold tests so I expect taxpayers are footing part of the bill.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-02-2006, 09:22 PM:
 
Looks like Airbus successfully passed the emergency evacuation certification test for the A380 last Sunday. 873 people out of the aircraft and on the ground in 90 seconds through eight out of 16 doors in the dark. 32 injuries including a broken leg - apparently about what is expected with such large numbers.

Airwise News link
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-03-2006, 04:11 PM:
 
I'm sure that would be getting off lightly compared to a typical emergency evacuation drill on Ryanair (known as Dieinair to its regular customers).
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-07-2006, 08:51 AM:
 
Himm, Sometimes catch up takes a cople of years but it appears that Boeing is now trouncing on Airbus receiving a whopping 350 orders for the new 787 Dreamliner plane and it hasn't even left the gound! Whilst Airbus 's new chief wades through the their 140 plane order for their new competing plane the A-350 and is deciding weather to even put it into production or not... all this whilst the hige A-380 is experiencing enough problems and delays of its own. An interssting turn of events and a good indication of who is really the more sucessful plane maker. Perhaps the article below should have been titled "Boeing Kicks Ass!"
Link To Article

LONDON (AFP) - European aircraft maker Airbus, which faces delays to production of the A380 super-jumbo, may be forced also to delay the launch of its long-haul A350 jet, London's Times newspaper has said.

The new setback was because Christian Streiff, set to be confirmed as the new Airbus chief executive, needed time to approve the venture, the newspaper said citing sources close to EADS on Friday, which owns 80 percent of Airbus.

The group has been busy redesigning its A350 model, a new mid-sized airliner that has been poorly received by potential clients.

According to The Times, sources close to the European Aeronautics Defence and Space Company have warned that Streiff may not make a decision by the company's deadline of the Farnborough Air Show in England which runs from July 17-23.

Streiff, the former deputy chief executive of French construction materials giant Saint-Gobain, was nominated as Airbus boss last week after his predecessor Gustav Humbert was ousted because of delays to the flagship A380.

However, the daily newspaper said that his appointment was not expected to be confirmed until next week -- around the same time that Airbus was understood to have scheduled meetings formally to approve the A350 plane.

"There is a possibility of him (Streiff) saying the A350 project is too much for him to give an OK when he is just days into the job," the Times quoted an anonymous source as saying.

The A350 jet carries at least 250 passengers and will compete with Boeing's new 787 aircraft which has been dubbed the Dreamliner.

The 787, which has a capacity of 250-300 passengers, has attracted 350 orders since its commercial launch in 2004 compared with about 100 for the A350, which was launched by Airbus as a competitor to the Boeing plane.

In a severe blow for the company, Airbus reported on June 13 that it had experienced problems with the production of its A380 model, its flagship product which is set to become the biggest civilian airliner in the world when it finally enters service.

The problems, which arose from problems in installing wires and cables, led to the departure of Humbert and are set to cut the number of deliveries of the A380 in 2007 to nine instead of 20-25.

Airbus, caught in a storm of bad publicity, has been trounced by US rival Boeing since the start of the year according to figures showing orders received by the two companies.

The figures, calculated by AFP, show that at the end of June Airbus had received only 142 orders since the start of the year compared with 445 for Boeing.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 07-07-2006, 11:50 AM:
 
This plane doesn't impress me... not until it transforms and fights crime and then forms into a cruise liner.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-07-2006, 12:15 PM:
 
At prtesent, there are only a few airports long enough or with suitable terminal facilities for the big Airbus.

Remember that long-times-on-the-ground mean financial losses for the airlines. Perhaps they will reinvent loading & unloading so that this thing can actually fly enough to make money. Louis
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-07-2006, 12:35 PM:
 

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

Perhaps they will reinvent loading & unloading so that this thing can actually fly enough to make money.

---

Well... I don't know, Louis.
Maybe there was more to that "emergency EVACUATION drill" than met the eye.

What if you could reverse that process?

(excerpted from Paul's)...

873 people INTO the aircraft and OFF the ground in 90 seconds through eight out of 16 doors in the dark. 32 injuries including a broken leg - apparently about what is expected with such large numbers.


 

---

Posted by Jason M Miller (Member # 2597) on 07-07-2006, 02:18 PM:
 

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

I'm sure that would be getting off lightly compared to a typical emergency evacuation drill on Ryanair (known as Dieinair to its regular customers).

---

quote:

---

Airwise News

June 29, 2006

Northwest Airlines said it will speed the retirement of its remaining 12 DC10-30 aircraft.

The bankrupt US carrier said that during the next seven months it will replace its DC10s with new Airbus A330s and Boeing 747-400s. The carrier said that currently seven routes are served with DC10 aircraft.

Northwest has the oldest fleet of the network carriers with an average age of 17 years, according data from Bear Stearns.

(Reuters)

---

quote: Paul Mayer

---

Not to worry Leo, Northwest has indeed just announced they are retiring their DC-10s

---

Thanks Paul.

I hope that one or two of those DC10s can be kept flying for museum purposes, but I can't say that I'm sorry to see the back of them for regular passenger flights. This article (found through Google) doesn't mention Amsterdam to Boston, so I guess I'll get a 747 or an A330. As I'm not lucky enough to have an excuse to visit Hawaii before next January (only Anchorage in October, which I guess will involve a connection at Minneapolis), I guess I'm safe!
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-30-2006, 09:29 PM:
 
Whether you like Airbus or not, today's A380 formation flight over Toulouse was pretty impressive. Here's a pic from French Frogs AirSlides over at www.airliners.net:



I like some of the caption comments for the pic:

"If they were full of pax, there would be more than 3200 people in this picture."

"And now, let's do a loop."

"Caution wake turbulence..."
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-04-2006, 03:24 AM:
 

quote: L.A. Times

---

Airbus Hit Hard by A380 Setback
In delaying deliveries an extra year, the jet maker will see profit cut an additional $3.6 billion.
By Peter Pae, Times Staff Writer
October 4, 2006

Airbus' woes worsened Tuesday as the world's largest aircraft maker said deliveries of its flagship A380 super-jumbo jet would be delayed a year longer and airlines began considering the possibility of canceling their orders.

Two of Airbus' biggest customers — Emirates Airlines and International Lease Finance Corp. of Century City — said they were considering all options. That includes terminating orders for the $285-million aircraft, capable of carrying 555 passengers.

"This is a very serious issue for Emirates," said Tim Clark, president of the Dubai-based carrier, which with its $13-billion, 43-plane order is Airbus' largest A380 customer.

The threats came after Airbus informed airlines that the first A380 would not be available until October 2007 — more than 18 months behind its original schedule — because of problems installing electrical wiring.

Some airlines can expect delays of more than two years from the dates they were initially promised, Airbus said.

The latest delay, Airbus' third in a year, is likely to bolster rival Boeing Co.'s plans to build a larger version of its venerable 747 jumbo jet to compete against the A380. Chicago-based Boeing has had difficulty selling its latest 747 variant, the 450-seat 747-800. But the latest Airbus troubles could prompt carriers "sitting on the fence" to make a move, an airline industry executive said.

"Boeing may make inroads with the 747-800," said John L. Plueger, president of International Lease Finance, the world's largest jet-leasing company. "It could spur the launch of the 747-800."

Shares of Boeing rose $1.18, or 2.3%, to $81.78. Airbus' parent, European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co., rose 1% in Paris before the announcement.

Analysts said suppliers of parts for the A380, including about 100 Southern California companies, were unlikely to be affected significantly by the new delay. Other Airbus aircraft such as its single-aisle A320 line are selling well, and in recent years the company has had to ramp up production to meet demand.

Although A380 parts come from thousands of suppliers around the world, Airbus completes most of the assembly in Toulouse, France, and Hamburg, Germany. The latest delay was caused by problems with wiring installation at Hamburg, where much of the fuselage is assembled.

Airbus said the latest postponement would slash about $3.6 billion from its earnings over the next four years, bringing the total cost of the delays to more than $6 billion. As a result, the company, based in Toulouse, does not expect to post a profit until after 2010. Airbus said that to mitigate the loss it planned to cut about 20% to 25% of its managerial and support workforce not related to aircraft production. Airbus employs about 90,000 people.

"It is very disappointing that we find ourselves in this situation, but we need to be realistic with ourselves and our customers," said Christian Streiff, Airbus' president and chief executive. He was appointed to the position three months ago after the company shuffled top executives in the aftermath of a previous production delay.

Despite threats of cancellation, Streiff said no customer had given any indications of canceling orders.

"Everybody is still on board," he said during a conference call with reporters and analysts. Airbus has orders for 159 A380s from 14 airlines and two air cargo companies.

Airbus in June cited the wiring problems for the A380's second delay, which the company at the time said would push back production by about six months. But Streiff said a full analysis had revealed that the problems were much worse than expected.

The installation of wiring, which was expected to take two months for each plane, has grown to nearly six months, mainly because the computer software used to design the wiring system was not compatible with the A380's main design and engineering software, Streiff said. So when the fuselage assembled in Hamburg came to Toulouse to be mated with other parts, the wiring didn't match.

Scott Hamilton, an aviation consultant with Leeham Co. in Issaquah, Wash., doubted that customers would cancel A380 orders, noting that the carriers have a long-term interest in having two strong aircraft makers competing for their business.

Besides, he added, "by the time airlines get through raking Airbus over the coals and getting them to pay the penalties, they'll have the cheapest wide-body airplanes in the world."

---

They were saying on the radio this morning that the Hamburg-based engineers who designed the electrical systems did so using a totally different and incompatible CAD system to that which was used for the airframe/structural design work in Toulouse. Numerous minor problems were encountered when the time came to put two and two together, with the result that the entire electrical systems are having to be redesigned on a compatible CAD system and the first production line aircraft rewired for testing.

It looks like someone made a fundamental and very expensive mistake early on in the programme...
 

---

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 10-04-2006, 05:46 AM:
 
Wiring an aircraft like this is no simple task. General standards in aviation is that wiring is to be routed ABOVE fluid lines, wiring has specific requirements regarding harnessing including bundle wrapping and mounting to fusalage. Wiring must also have play to compensate for expansion and contraction. All leads must be tracable. There are requirements for anti-chaffing grommets as the wiring goes thru the fusel;age structure. The list of requirements is extensive!

Kutler
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-04-2006, 11:35 AM:
 
Requirements or not, either they can do it or they haven't figured out all the issues. Seems like the prototypes flying are not really airworthy if there are still problems.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-04-2006, 01:45 PM:
 
That thought occurred to me, the radio interviewer and the Airbus spokesman on Today this morning. The latter sidestepped the airworthiness issue quite neatly, I thought, by claiming that the problems thrown up by the incompatibility of the two CAD systems were purely to do with the in-flight entertainment systems - which, he pointed out, had been specified very differently by each of their launch customers - and nothing to do with anything related to flight safety.

If the story about two incompatible CAD systems being used in France and Germany is true, though, it all adds up to a first class cock-up.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-05-2006, 12:16 PM:
 
Sounds like a bull shit story to cover up something. Dosen't seem like they would hold production over an entertainment system issue.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-05-2006, 05:38 PM:
 
In-Flight Entertainment (IFE) systems are nothing to sneeze at these days. The A380 will have an all-digital IFE system capable of routing hundreds of channels of audio and video and broadband to each seat. Nowadays IFE is as important a selling point as payload, range, fuel burn, and projected maintenance costs. The IFE cabling task is indeed quite formidable.

The A380, like all Airbuses from the A320 on, is a fly-by-wire aircraft. Turns out that at the data rates now being used, crosstalk in the flight control channels has become an issue. The solution was to increase the shielding by going to a larger cable gauge. Unfortunately the new cable will not fit through the existing holes in all of the bulkheads, formers, ribs, stringers, and other bits of structure that the cables must pass through. Hence, a fairly major engineering rework will be needed for all those components. Looks like delivery of the A380 will be delayed an additional year because of this.

As you might imagine, Airbus parent EADS is not happy about this. Neither are the airlines that paid top euro/dollar to have one of the first delivery positions. The Airbus business guys certainly have their work cut out for them, as Airbus will pay substantial contract penalties to the customer airlines for missing the promised delivery dates. In the mean time, testing continues with the five aircraft now flying.

Back to throwing bags in my dinky obsolete fly-by-fluid MD-83s. The Mad Dog lives on...
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-05-2006, 05:55 PM:
 
It seems to me that crosstalk in flight controls would definitely be an airworthyness consideration. Designers of this dog have apparently never run cable of any kind before.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-05-2006, 06:49 PM:
 
Maybe you should head over there and show them how it's done, Bill.

quote: Paul Mayer

---

The A380, like all Airbuses from the A320 on, is a fly-by-wire aircraft. Turns out that at the data rates now being used, crosstalk in the flight control channels has become an issue. The solution was to increase the shielding by going to a larger cable gauge. Unfortunately the new cable will not fit through the existing holes in all of the bulkheads, formers, ribs, stringers, and other bits of structure that the cables must pass through. Hence, a fairly major engineering rework will be needed for all those components. Looks like delivery of the A380 will be delayed an additional year because of this.

---

quote: Paul Mayer

---

In another related note, Rolls-Royce announced today that they are suspending work on the Trent 900, the engine that will power the first A380s, for about 12 months.

---

quote: Bill Enos

---

Michael, in running cable, crosstalk is something that happens often enough that you must expect it, and be prepared to resolve it. You, working in the service side well know that the engineering types seem to believe their designs are perfect from the beginning. In reality, it's the service techs that make most of their designs function in the real world.

---

There is some truth in that, but airplanes are really on a completely different level of complexity than the stuff we work with. Whatever really happened, there, it is obviously a huge messup, very embarassing for the company, too, but I am not inclined to pass judgment because I couldn't do better.
I wonder if "entertainment system cabling" is the real reason or if they haven't come across a more serious safety issue that they don't want to reveal because it would taint the reputation of the plane from even before the start.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-06-2006, 04:43 PM:
 
If so, that's a very high risk strategy, because if someone else does the revealing, then Airbus have really screwed their pooch. In that scenario they'd be accused of trying to cover up a safety issue. Even if they later corrected it, the damage would be done in terms of public reputation.

Paul - correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this scenario pretty much what undermined sales of the DC-10 in the '80s? The impression, rightly or wrongly, that McDonnell-Douglas was trying to brush the underlying causes of the Paris and Chicago crashes under the carpet created the public image of a fundamentally unsafe aircraft, even though the technical flaws, once identified, were easily and cheaply rectified? So any airline considering the purchase of DC-10s knew they were buying a PR problem, even if the aircraft itself was fundamentally safe by that stage.

Given the management problems that have affected Airbus in the last 12-18 months and the intense competition between the Airbus and Boeing concepts for the next generation of long-haul airliners (Airbus megajumbos v. smaller capacity, more flexible planes), any credible accusation of a safety problem in the design or manufacture could spell big trouble, I guess - and even bigger trouble if Airbus tried to deny it.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-07-2006, 10:32 PM:
 
It would seem to me that they would attempt to minimize xtalk with a more robust software package. I know for a fact that digital crosstalk can be managed via software. Seems like software has always been a problem for Airbus though. I too feel that its some other safety issue they don't want let out, probably not a structural issue though. I think airplane structures have advanced beyond a point that something could have slipped by them in that aspect.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-08-2006, 06:47 AM:
 
Meanwhile, the Airbus gets cheaper as penalty clauses kick in. Loading/unloading is still the bane of any large vessel; ship or aircraft.

Assuming Boeing does not have similar problems (delays) it will be educational to see who "wins." Louis
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-08-2006, 08:40 AM:
 
Boeing has already won for the most part. With close to 500 orders for a plane that hasn't left the ground yet. What counts is the number of total orders placed in selling planes of this type.

Boeing also has far more experience in just about every aspect of airpanes... as much as the rest of the indusrty combined!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-09-2006, 09:33 PM:
 
Oops. More Airbus problems today. The new CEO resigned after just 99 days on the job. I was a bit off on the orders at Boeing.... I think he sees it as a loose-loose situation. It also really makes me wonder if there is some sort of safety issue at hand with the "flying cash cow"....

From today's article on MSNBC

"After concentrating massive resources on the superjumbo, Airbus has been outmaneuvered by Boeing’s two-engine 787, which delivers better fuel economy than older four-engine Airbus jets in the same size category — a sales argument that has grown more persuasive with higher fuel prices.

A widening gap
The gap widened on Monday, as Airbus announced it had taken orders for 226 planes from Jan.1 through Sept. 30, compared with 723 net orders recorded by Boeing as of Oct. 3."
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-09-2006, 11:45 PM:
 
Careful with the statistics Mark. That 226 figure quoted for Airbus is just for the A380 whereas the quoted Boeing number is for total aircraft orders across all of their offered types including the 787 and the new 747-8. Airbus' order book for all of their offered types is similar to Boeing's - the competition between the two companies remains close and fierce, as it should be.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-11-2006, 10:43 AM:
 
Well, the saga taxis on... CEO Christian Streiff was 'Airbusted!' according to the banner headline on Fox News in my Anchorage hotel room just now, or 'canned in a boardroom boot', as the announcer described his resignation.

The story had to compete with Kim Jong Il and Congressman Foley for airtime, and so didn't get much: but the gist of it seeemed to be that Streiff wanted to radically reorganise Airbus to try and both sort out the A380 and make the other lines profitable. In response, the Spanish and German governments took one look at the scale of job losses that would involve, and promptly told him to return his seat to the upright position and remember that the nearest emergency exit may be behind him.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-11-2006, 10:04 PM:
 
This is a little OT, but has anyone ever thought of fitting the big aircraft for intercontinental flights with bunks like in a submarine rather than seats? The seats are crampy even for slim people, you can't really sleep in them, there is little legroom. I guess you could fit just as many bunks in as seats since you could three or so on top of each other. Then people could really stretch out and sleep and be much more rested than after the torture of sitting in a sardine can for 10 hours. Just a thought.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-11-2006, 10:15 PM:
 
Heh. Looks like someone recently patented an idea for seats that convert into sleepers.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-12-2006, 09:15 PM:
 

quote: Paul Mayer

---

Careful with the statistics Mark.

---

I'd be curious to see where you got your figures...As of Sept 30 2006 from the Seattle Buisness Weekly Boeing has 507 orders just for 737's so far this year. Ryanair also recently signed an agreement for an additional 32 737's. According to answers dot com Boeing has 408 orders (368 firm, 40 pending) to date for the 787. That my friend is one busy plane maker and they have left Airbus in the dust! This of course doesn't count the 747, 767 planes. Last year it was more neck and neck with Boeing at 825 and Airbus at 687.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-13-2006, 03:44 PM:
 
Mark apparently doesn't understand that this isn't a game in which there will ever be a "winner". It is in the best interest of the airline industry to have competing companies rather than a monopoly of any single one.
 

---

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 10-13-2006, 03:46 PM:
 
Bah, you can't have competition if no one wins!
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-14-2006, 04:50 PM:
 
Exactly Robert! Michael still doesn't see the big picture in which Boeing will buy Airbus at a fire sale .

Mark
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-14-2006, 05:05 PM:
 
It would be a big disadvantage for airlines if there was only one manufacturer with a monopoly which can dictate prices for new planes. I think they take that into account when making their ordering decisions.
But it is good to see that there is still an area in which an US manufacturer can compete internationally.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-14-2006, 07:01 PM:
 
Michael,

When Boeing buys Airbus the British and French Govt's will just start another airliner company. I have to laugh that a private company... Boeing is beating the pants off a company that is subsidized by two European governments.

Its all about having the right product to sell at the right time. The funny thing is that one of those right products has been around for several decades already.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-15-2006, 03:47 AM:
 
The last British corporate entity to have any interest in Airbus (BAe Systems) sold its 20% share to the European Aviation and Defence Consortium (the French and German governments, to all intents and purposes) about a month ago, just before the true extent of the A380 problems and the production inefficiencies with the existing model range became apparent and the share price got hosed.

The British government has not wanted to be in the airliner business since its fingers got burnt with the Concorde white elephant. The French and the German governments now have themselves an airliner business which, however serious the short term problems it now faces, has an established reputation for delivering competitive and reliable products in the form of the A319/20/21 and A330/340 series. I can't see any incentive for Boeing to want to buy it (even if they closed down production immediately, they'd still have to support existing fleets or risk falling foul of European competition law), or the French and the Germans walking away from Airbus and (if they wanted to stay in the airliner business) having to start over.

Boeing has received large subsidies from the US taxpayer, mainly in the form of military R & D contracts, just as Airbus has been fed bazillions of taxpayers' euros in the form of regional development grants, tax breaks, unofficially underwritten sales to state 'flag carrier' airlines, etc. etc. The bottom line is that the cost of designing a new airliner and getting it to market is now just too big for private enterprise to do it on its own, given the regulatory environment that both American and European business operates within.
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-15-2006, 02:16 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-15-2006, 08:15 PM:
 
How many seats does an airline have to rent to pay for an airplane?
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-16-2006, 09:25 AM:
 
All of them! Louis
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-16-2006, 07:11 PM:
 

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

Boeing has received large subsidies from the US taxpayer, mainly in the form of military R & D contracts

---