World's Largest Passenger Plane May Be Unsafe, Some Say 394
CNET reports (citing this BBC video account) that some aircraft engineers in Australia are concerned about small cracks that have appeared on the wing ribs of some Airbus A380 airplanes, a report says. They're calling for the whole fleet to be grounded, but Airbus says the cracks are harmless.
Re:Fucking ground this fleet. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fucking ground this fleet. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Harmless junk? Somehow I doubt it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not all aircraft parts are essential for structural integrity. Some bits are just there to hold wires in place, etc.
When Airbus says "noncritical" you'd think they'd know the difference...
Re:Earthquake anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are we so strange behaving species? How about being more rational?
We are rational - we just suck at understanding the risk of thing sin everyday life.
To many false alarms or things that appear as false alarms, we ignore it. And most of the time it is the right thing to do. Because if we don't, we spend all of our time preparing for very unlikely or even improbably events.
Or another way we go over board is over estimating some risks while brushing aside others. Such as we have no problem jumping in a car and driving 70+ mph separated by just some dashed white lines but yet, we have to go through over zealous or even unnecessary security at airports.
Most likely we will die from a car accident, cancer, heart disease, gun shot, lightening strike and a few others things, but do we spend as much time and money on mitigating those risks let alone as much as we do on terrorism? Hardly.
Re:Fucking ground this fleet. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Small cracks (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's saying they are blowing it off?
From what I understand, they are aware of the problem, have isolated it's cause, and deemed it non critical. And I do trust Airbus far enough that they do not want to see one of these planes fall out of the sky.
The cracks are for course troubling in such a young aircraft, but blowing issues out of proportion is about as bad as ignoring them.
Re:Fucking ground this fleet. (Score:5, Insightful)
Misleading summary (Score:5, Insightful)
The article claims "small cracks that have appeared on the wing ribs". Airbus calls it "some noncritical wing rib-skin attachments".
This sounds like the difference between a cracked bone and a sore ligament. One really is less worrisome than the other.
Re:Fucking ground this fleet. (Score:5, Insightful)
Like it or not, there is, and must be, a price on human life. "But it could kill people!" isn't sufficient reason in itself to ground the A380 - the risks and costs must be balanced.
Pulling some numbers out of the air, for argument's sake this problem has a 10% chance of one day causing a crash, which will kill 400 people, and killing the A380 will cost $20 billion. That is $20 billion to save, on average, 40 lives, or $500 million per life. You could instead tax Airbus more heavily for $500 million, and put the money into a branch of health care which on average saves one person per $500,000. The economy is $19.5 billion better off and the population is 960 people better off, by letting the 380 keep flying despite the fact that "it might kill people".
You even place a value on your own life. Do you own and habitually wear a bullet proof vest? Do you wear a crash helmet when driving? Do you buy a new vehicle every year with safety features almost entirely dictating your choice? If not, it is because you value money (and other benefits such as comfort and avoiding ridicule) over slight reductions in your chance of an early death.
(Note: I don't know the risk/benefit numbers for the specific case of the A380 cracks. I'm saying this analysis is grossly inadequate to justify grounding the A380, not that it shouldn't be grounded.)
Re:Small cracks (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's saying they are blowing it off?
From what I understand, they are aware of the problem, have isolated it's cause, and deemed it non critical. And I do trust Airbus far enough that they do not want to see one of these planes fall out of the sky.
The cracks are for course troubling in such a young aircraft, but blowing issues out of proportion is about as bad as ignoring them.
Agree. The alternative is that the cracks really are critical but Airbus are playing down the problem because they've decided that having an accident, forcing them to ground the rest of the fleet anyway, having to pay out billions in damages and fines, and completely destroying their reputation, is a better option than grounding the fleet now and repairing the aircraft.
Before I listen to anyone's opinion that these cracks are more of a problem than Airbus say they are, i'd want to see some qualifications in metallurgy or similar discipline.
Industrial Action (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fucking ground this fleet. (Score:4, Insightful)
The point you're missing is that it's a known problem that can be monitored for and affected planes can be serviced. If the causes weren't known I'd say at 10% they should be grounding the fleet and fixing the problem.
Yes there is a point where it gets to be too costly for the protection given, but that's generally when you don't know the cause and can't keep an eye on it. If they're spending that much to fix the problem then they're probably doing it wrong. In that case they ought to just monitor the problem and replace the particular parts needed rather than the entire fleet.
The things that really scare me are the flight crew and unknown problems.
Re:Small cracks (Score:5, Insightful)
And some actual knowledge of the specific problem. Admittedly, I haven't done any metallurgy in 10 years, but I know enough to not trust anything the media say about very specific technical problems on a first attempt, metallurgy, computer science, physics, or anything.
Re:Harmless junk? Somehow I doubt it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no aircraft engineer, but I do not feel comfortable with all this "pose absolutely no danger"-talk. AFAIK, particularly modern aircraft are engineered to trim down on weight as much as possible, and I would be VERY surprised if there were parts in the plane that could just safely break down posing no risk whatsoever. Such parts wouldn't be there in the first place, now would they?
As you say - you're not an aircraft engineer.
Re:Fucking ground this fleet. (Score:5, Insightful)
"If the most capable and relevant people we have look at the findings" .... Exactly, the initial call to ground the fleet was by the service engineers and the association that represents them. This is not a trivial matter raised by a baggage thrower.
The people who lie are usually the ones with the most to gain/lose. What do service engineers have to gain by grounding the fleet - not much. What would Airbus lose by having their brand new fleet grounded - a huge amount of public confidence.
"Some" say that any plane is unsafe.... (Score:4, Insightful)
.
At some point we have to realize that the Internet (rightly and wrongly) gives any voice a megaphone.
So you have to decide what you want to listen to and what you want to believe.
I understand that takes more than a few neurons to rub together, but you can do it. I know you can.
Think for yourself. It's fun.
Re:Harmless junk? Somehow I doubt it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fucking ground this fleet. (Score:5, Insightful)
People who are actually good drivers (or flyers) know that there are some situations in which you are FUBAR. Like getting t-boned by someone running a red light, or like PSA Flight 182 [wikipedia.org] -- a 727 which collided with a Cessna 172 above San Diego, CA. Captain James McFeron's last words to the tower as the 727 descended in an uncontrolled plunge were, "This is it, baby", and that sums it up. Sometimes no matter how good you are, how much you prepare, you end up at the mercy of the universe's alternate plans for you.
Regarding the article, there's enough that can go wrong without having a plane come apart because some bean counter deemed it an acceptable risk.
Re:Fucking ground this fleet. (Score:5, Insightful)
What do service engineers have to gain by grounding the fleet - not much.
Australian service engineers were on strike recently [perthnow.com.au] about keeping QANTAS planes serviced in Australia to preserve Australian service engineer jobs. It's the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association [smh.com.au] that is calling for the planes to be checked now rather than when they are next due for heavy maintenance as Airbus suggests. I wonder if "checking now" (followed probably by "checking much more often") might make work for some Australian licenced aircraft engineers? While I am inclined to agree with them, I do have to recognise that yes they have something to gain.
Re:pilot error as in hiding a bug in airbus autopi (Score:4, Insightful)
Every crew survived.
Because the only crew with a dumb ass at the stick pulling up during a high-altitude stall was the one on 447. Once the captain found out, he is heard on the black box saying "no no no".
One thing that a flight simulator can't easily re-create is an in-experienced pilot who has been flying flat with the auto-pilot on for the last few hours.