It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Qantas A380s temporarily grounded

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
In fairness, the safety record jab was tounge in cheek- as evidenced by the smilie.




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Emirates "unhappy" with A380?

Reports have surfaced that Emirates has given Airbus a 46 page report stating that they are unhappy with the performance of at least one of their A380s that they've taken delivery of. They have had service cancellations related to burned wiring, missing cabin fittings, and engine issues.

The company has said that technical issues with any new aircraft are to be expected, and they stand by that they are adding 7 more aircraft to their fleet, but are in talks to delay delivery of at least some of them.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
any word on fuel burn issues etc?

Are thier aircraft pre wiring issue or new build post that did not require the redo?



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


It looks like the wiring issue is being caused by heat damage. No word on what's causing it but if they used aluminum wiring that would explain it. Using aluminum wiring is just stupid if you ask me. It's illegal in many buildings in some countries but they'll put it on a plane. They've currently lost at least 500 hours of flight time with them. Their first aircraft was grounded from July until September of last year when they found an electrical problem during routine maintenance. Their second aircraft was delayed due to unknown circumstances.

The GP7200 that is on their aircraft is actually supposed to burn fuel BETTER than forecast. They're estimating that it is about 1% above baseline.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Interesting there was another thread where the claim was fuel burn was worse than expected.

I did some digging and I think the Emirates planes were those that had to do the wiring redo but as noted its unclear if that was the issue.

I had no idea they used almunium in wiring. I have a Eichler Home en.wikipedia.org... that was built in 1954 and the grounds are aluminum throughout the hose. As w ehave remodeled room by room we have changed it out. But its not code now

Im amazed that they use it in aircraft. Is is the practice at Boeing as well?

[edit on 3/17/09 by FredT]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


I know that the MD-11 used wiring that the military tore their planes apart to rewire, just to get it out of them. Here's a scary bit of info for you.


FAR 25 states: "that insulation material can not be used that is hazardous, unreliable, or contributes smoke/fire."

COMMENT by Ed Block: "No particular uses of insulation were further specified so insulation material includes; seat insulation, insulation blankets, rug insulation, acoustic and wire insulation. They are all types of insulation materials. Unless they are tested with an electrical fire (2,000 degrees) igniter to prove flammability proof, the material can not meet FAR 25 requirements. By their own (limited) standards, the FAA has said, in fact, that most types of wire cannot be used!"
"Only TKT wire insulation (BMS 13-60) meets FAR 25 Standards." (Ed Block)


Airbus' version of TKT PROBABLY meets FAR 25, but Airbus won't release the information to certify it as compliant.

Supposedly FAA Deputy Director Tom McSweeny went before Congress, and said "Wire is wire."

All of these aircraft use Kapton wiring.


* Airbus A310 (all)
* Airbus A320 (currently) 2
* Airbus A330 (currently)
* Airbus A340 (currently)
* B727 (after 1979, EB)
* B737 (after 1979 to 1990)
* B747-400 (some from 1989 - 1991)
* B757 (up until 1990)
* B767 (up until 1991)
* BAe 146 (unconfirmed reports)
* DC-10
* MD-8x (all)
* MD-11 (up until early 1992)
* A300 -600 (with Teflon top-coat)
* L-1011 Tristar
* Concorde SST
* B-707 (but not according to EB)
* Dassault Mercure
* CL 600 Series (but not RJ/CL604 or Global Express (Challenger)
* Shorts SD-330
* Gulfstream G-II, G-III
* HS125-700
* Bell 212, 214
* Sikorsky S-61, S-70B, S-76
* Westland 606
* Plus 31 military types such as P-3, C130, F-14, F-18, Hawkeye, etc

Still used by AIRBUS
in A319, A320, A330, A340
until about 2005


The reason Kapton wiring is extremely bad is:


* Thickness: 8.4 microns
(Very thin)
* Weight: 4.6 lbs per 1,000 ft
(Very light weight)
* Rated temperature: 200�C
* 'Explodes' and burns fiercely at flash-over during an arc tracking event due to the production of free hydrogen, severely damaging adjacent wires and igniting surrounding structure. (i.e. behaves like detonator fuse.) 1
* High ignition temperature to start burning (usually associated with an electrical short circuit of 5000�C), but when it does finally ignite it burns very fiercely (explodes) creating virtually no smoke.
* Fumes are clear and fairly benign.
* Susceptible to wet and dry Arc Tracking.
* Susceptible to aging in that it dries out forming hairline cracks which can lead to micro current leakage (i.e. electrical 'ticking' faults ) which in turn can eventually culminate in an explosive arc tracking event. (i.e. short circuit) 1
* Stiffness (straight line memory) makes it prone to vibration chafing, (rubbing) and stressed by bending.
* Abrasive to other wires. (due to its hardness)
* Hygroscopic (i.e. absorbs water ) rendering it susceptible to wet arc tracking.
* Installation difficulties (difficult to strip and mark)
* Banned by
* US Air Force
* US Navy
* Canadian military
* Boeing in 1992
* Bombardier?


Now if it's BANNED by the military then you know it''s bad stuff. But it was used until 4 years ago, despite them being aware of these problems.

The following aircraft use Cross Linked Tefzel:


* B747 (currently)
* B757 (currently)
* B767 (currently)
* B777 (currently)
* BAe146
* Airbus A320
* Airbus A330
* Airbus A340

Still used by BOEING in
B747, B757, B767, B777
and Airbus


www.vision.net.au...

Cross Linked Tefzel is very dangerous because it produces wet arc tracks, as well as highly toxic smoke. It's been banned by Grumman, and NASA.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Emirates "unhappy" with A380?

Reports have surfaced that Emirates has given Airbus a 46 page report stating that they are unhappy with the performance of at least one of their A380s that they've taken delivery of. They have had service cancellations related to burned wiring, missing cabin fittings, and engine issues.

The company has said that technical issues with any new aircraft are to be expected, and they stand by that they are adding 7 more aircraft to their fleet, but are in talks to delay delivery of at least some of them.


EK have subsequently said that they are very happy with the aircraft -



Clark said Emirates had also informed Airbus about technical issues with the four A380 jets it has in service already. "We just highlighted areas where we''ve had issues with the A380s," Clark said. "It''s quite normal that there would be some problems with the aircraft as it has just entered into service. Overall, we''re very happy with the performance of the aircraft and Airbus are bending over backwards to keep us happy."


www.intesatrade.it...&idNot=1729258



The A380 “is an excellent aircraft and feedback from our customers thus far has been very positive,” the biggest Arab airline said today. “We have no plans to cancel any orders.”


www.bloomberg.com...


Originally posted by Zaphod58
Airbus' version of TKT PROBABLY meets FAR 25, but Airbus won't release the information to certify it as compliant.


The wiring most certainly does comply, since the FAA certified the design and build with no exemptions for the wiring. No doubt there at all.


Originally posted by FredT
Interesting there was another thread where the claim was fuel burn was worse than expected.


If you are thinking of the same thread I am, that poster was simply trolling - his claim, backed by unnamed insider sources, was that the aircrafts drag was so much worse than expected that it was burning 40 tons more than predicted on a segment.

40 tons is ~ 19% of the A380s maximum fuel capacity - planes would not be doing the kangeroo route if this was the case.

His claims were simply fiction - from what I have heard from people within the industry is that the GP720 was 1.5% to 2% better on fuelburn, the Trent 900 was 1% better, aerodynamics was 2% better and drag was 2% better.

And thats on an overweight airframe - the Emirates aircraft are even better because Airbus managed a 1 ton weight reduction, with further reductions expected.


Originally posted by Zaphod58
Their first aircraft was grounded from July until September of last year when they found an electrical problem during routine maintenance.


Their first A380 was grounded because of a foreign object issue - the word in the industry is Emirates was conducting deep inspections during training with Airbus, and an Emirates engineer left a tool behind where he shouldnt have. Airbus got a *lot* of public praise from Emirates for their support in this incident.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Problems.

What problems?



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
EK have subsequently said that they are very happy with the aircraft -



Clark said Emirates had also informed Airbus about technical issues with the four A380 jets it has in service already. "We just highlighted areas where we''ve had issues with the A380s," Clark said. "It''s quite normal that there would be some problems with the aircraft as it has just entered into service. Overall, we''re very happy with the performance of the aircraft and Airbus are bending over backwards to keep us happy."


www.intesatrade.it...&idNot=1729258



The A380 “is an excellent aircraft and feedback from our customers thus far has been very positive,” the biggest Arab airline said today. “We have no plans to cancel any orders.”


www.bloomberg.com...


That's why I put it as a question.



Originally posted by Zaphod58
Airbus' version of TKT PROBABLY meets FAR 25, but Airbus won't release the information to certify it as compliant.



The wiring most certainly does comply, since the FAA certified the design and build with no exemptions for the wiring. No doubt there at all.


The FAA also is still allowing aircraft to be built with wiring that does NOT comply with FAR 25. There is only one type of wiring that meets FAR 25, and that's TKT. Every aircraft flying around without it does not comply with FAR 25. The only aircraft that ARE using wiring compliant with FAR 25 are 737s and 757s built after 1992.

FAR 25 states that all aircraft have adequate back up systems for all safety of flight equipment. It says that insulation material can not be used that is hazardous, unreliable, or contributes to smoke/fire. If they were enforcing this rule, then they wouldn't have Kryton or Cross Linked Tefzel out there. Wiring is considered "install and forget" by just about everyone in the industry.

[edit on 3/17/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

The FAA also is still allowing aircraft to be built with wiring that does NOT comply with FAR 25. There is only one type of wiring that meets FAR 25, and that's TKT. Every aircraft flying around without it does not comply with FAR 25. The only aircraft that ARE using wiring compliant with FAR 25 are 737s and 757s built after 1992.


Yes, its called 'grandfathering' and there are many many exceptions that come under it - even the 737 and 757 do not need to comply as they have a type certificate granted prior to the rule change.

The 777 should either comply or have a specific exemption, as it is not covered under grandfathering rules. Worth a check that...

Interestingly enough, if grandfathering rules did not apply, the 747-400 and 747-8i would not be allowed to carry passengers.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Back on topic, I heard (reliably) that at least one of the Qantas aircrafts' problems was a microbiological contamination of the fuel tank. Not sure about the other 2 though.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
The A380 fleet in general, but apparently Emirates in particular are facing some pretty severe challenges operationally. Emirates is pulling their A380s off the JFK route to put them onto Toronto and Bangkok and replacing them with 777s. Emirates has flown several flights with the A380, with less than 100 passengers on board.

What's interesting is that one of the things supposedly causing problems for Emirates is the sandy climate. I haven't heard any problems with the 777s that they fly out of there, or their other aircraft.

Premium travel generates over half of the passenger revenue potential, but is down over 16%. Several airlines have delayed delivery of their aircraft in the coming year. There should be 31 aircraft in service by the end of 2009.

FlightBlogger



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Is it Aluminium that is the problem or merely Kapton / similar wiring? I ask because the majority of overheat powerlines are Aluminium.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Kapton is a huge problem in aircraft wiring. It was used in the MD-11 and directly lead to the loss of Swissair near Canada. Aluminum is a problem too though. Aluminum can overheat and short, it just doesn't have the tendency to burn like Kapton does. Once Kapton goes up it doesn't go out.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join