Airbus still has cracks, Boeing has now added icing problems

[Thanas]

What is that you say? Even more cracks with the 380?

Airbus A380 operators are facing mandatory checks for fatigue cracking in a specific belly area after scheduled maintenance checks uncovered damage.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) today issued a proposed airworthiness directive (PAD 13-173) that, if adopted, would require “detailed inspections” along the belly frame leading edge profile at fuselage frames 35-37. The initial check deadlines are at prescribed intervals based on the airframe’s service history. Repetitive checks would be required every 200 flight cycles or 1,475 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

“A fatigue phenomenon was identified as the most probable cause of the damages,” EASA explains.

An optional modification that reinforces the affected area pushes the initial inspection thresholds out to 11,000 cycles or 80,300 hr.

The modification was incorporated into the A380 production line, though EASA’s directive does not indicate when.

Airbus informed operators of the issue in an Oct. 31 service bulletin.

The issue is the second in the last six weeks involving required checks to A380 belly fairings. In mid-October, EASA proposed an inspection mandate for belly fairing panels near frame 46. The checks were based on an early October Airbus bulletin issued operators that detailed discovery of loose panels on an in-service aircraft.

But wait. In the race for "rushed out launch of the decade", A CHALLENGER APPEARS.

(Reuters) - Boeing advised airlines on Friday about a risk of engine icing problems on its new 747-8 and 787 Dreamliner planes with engines made by General Electric, urging 15 carriers to avoid flying them near high-level thunderstorms.

The warning led Japan Airlines to pull 787 Dreamliners from two international routes. Other affected airlines include Lufthansa, United Airlines, an arm of United Continental Holdings and Cathay Pacific Airlines.

"Boeing and JAL share a commitment to the safety of passengers and crews on board our airplanes. We respect JAL's decision to suspend some 787 service on specific routes," a Boeing spokesman said.

The move followed six incidents from April to November involving five 747-8s and one 787 when aircraft powered by GE's GEnx engines suffered temporary loss of thrust while flying at high altitude.

The problem was caused by a build-up of ice crystals, initially just behind the front fan, which ran through the engine, said a GE spokesman, adding that all of the aircraft landed at their planned destinations safely.

Boeing on Friday issued a notice prohibiting the affected aircraft from flying at high attitude within 50 nautical miles of thunderstorms that may contain ice crystals.

Japan Airlines said on Saturday it will replace Dreamliners on its Tokyo-Delhi and Tokyo-Singapore flights with other types of aircraft while also dropping a plan to use 787s for its Tokyo-Sydney route from December.

So: Who wins this round for maximum "Ooops, didn't think of that" effect?

[Crown]

Well to be fair the Boeing issue is due to the engine and not the airframe. For example I know of no such problem on the R-R Trent 1000 engines which are for the Dreamliner (I know of other issues on the Trent 1000 ).

To be fair though, there is a specific design change from the Trent 1000 compared to the other Trent engines relating responsibility of air offtakes for cabin and anti-icing function on the Dreamliner but I'm pretty sure that the anti-icing of the the engine its self is still there as on other Trents so this looks more like a GE problem (or whoever they work with for transfer ducts/anti-icing features).

[CaptHawkeye]

The A380 already had a controversy some years ago over cracks being found in the wings. Frankly the 787's teething problems haven't been near the level of disturbing the A380s have been. Engine icing and battery fires are not complete no-win scenarios. A wing breaking off is.

[Crown]

The A380 already had a controversy some years ago over cracks being found in the wings. Frankly the 787's teething problems haven't been near the level of disturbing the A380s have been. Engine icing and battery fires are not complete no-win scenarios. A wing breaking off is.

You're oversimplifying it. We look at it in terms of Severity, Occurrence and Detection and you multiply those values to find your risk.

[Starglider]

Engine icing and battery fires are not complete no-win scenarios. A wing breaking off is.

The A380 issue was tiny cracks in the joint between the wing skin support bracket and the wing ribs. Even if a bracket had broken free (which did not come close to happening), the result would be a slightly deformed wing skin section (probably not even visible). Even if several adjacent brackets had somehow failed (due to total lack of preventitive maintenance for thousands of flight cycles?) the worst that would happen is separation of a small part of the wing skin. This would be a serious flight emergency, but would not greatly impair flight controls and would have very little risk of loss of airframe. There were no cracking problems with the ribs or the actual wing spars, which are the relevant bit for 'a wing breaking off'.

A battery fire on the other hand could actually become a 'no win scenario' if it generated enough heat to ignite other items in the avionics bay, although this is unlikely with modern fire-retardant materials.

[Beowulf]

"Severe icing and turbulence associated with thunderstorms". Getting icing inside an engine when you're near a thunderstorm really isn't a surprise.

[Crown]

"Severe icing and turbulence associated with thunderstorms". Getting icing inside an engine when you're near a thunderstorm really isn't a surprise.

Ice ingestion during a thunderstorm isn't a surprise, but ice actually building up on the inside of an engine that is running is something we design against.

[Irbis]

Frankly the 787's teething problems haven't been near the level of disturbing the A380s have been.

Yeah, it's not like 787 didn't have cracks, too. Except, wait, they did and these were in far more critical area than some cosmetic wing covering. I guess pilot cabin decompression threat and a hole in highest pressure area on whole plane are not disturbing, then?

Engine icing and battery fires are not complete no-win scenarios.

Yes, I am pretty sure engines dying when you're about to land and don't have height or speed to fight stall is perfectly safe. As is fire hot enough to melt a hole in the plane and potentially cause the skin to ignite.

[Mr. Coffee]

Frankly the 787's teething problems haven't been near the level of disturbing the A380s have been.

Yeah, it's not like 787 didn't have cracks, too. Except, wait, they did and these were in far more critical area than some cosmetic wing covering. I guess pilot cabin decompression threat and a hole in highest pressure area on whole plane are not disturbing, then?

Wait, how does a single instance on one aircraft, the cause of which is still under investigation, mean the entire line of aircraft have that specific problem?

[CaptHawkeye]

Yes, I am pretty sure engines dying when you're about to land and don't have height or speed to fight stall is perfectly safe. As is fire hot enough to melt a hole in the plane and potentially cause the skin to ignite.

That's why you're trained to conduct landings at a safe approach angle so you have control over both as you descend. A battery fire can be contained by shutting the master off or simply designing it into a fireproof storage unit. Again, not guaranteed to kill you. But look I get that you didn't really think this post out and were just looking for a good dogpile.