Airbus QC

[Capt.Doug]

Just got this from the chief pilot-

"Airbus recently discovered some ribs near the engine pylon spar box that
might not have received the necessary extensive heat-treatment in production
prior to installation. The omission reduces the material allowable yield
stress. As a consequence the non-heat treated ribs may not be able to meet
all certification requirements. This is especially true for vertical loads
associated with vertical gusts. No industry incidents have occurred.
However, Airbus alerted operators to require strict adherence to turbulent
air penetration speeds."


D.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> Just got this from the chief pilot-
>
> "Airbus recently discovered some ribs near the engine pylon spar box that
> might not have received the necessary extensive heat-treatment in
production
> prior to installation. The omission reduces the material allowable yield
> stress. As a consequence the non-heat treated ribs may not be able to
meet
> all certification requirements. This is especially true for vertical
loads
> associated with vertical gusts. No industry incidents have occurred.
> However, Airbus alerted operators to require strict adherence to turbulent
> air penetration speeds."

Oh, that sounds JUST dandy.

Any word on which models and years affected? Approximate numbers?

What is their (Airbus's) strategy to rectify the problem?

This sounds like another coffin nail, in Airbus's sinking ship. I wonder
how many millions (billions?) the parent company and governments will have
to pony up.

Boeing, even with its shortcomings, is starting to sound better and better
all of the time, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

[Dan Luke]

"Capt.Doug" wrote:

> Just got this from the chief pilot-
>
> "Airbus recently discovered some ribs near the engine pylon spar box that
> might not have received the necessary extensive heat-treatment in
> production
> prior to installation. The omission reduces the material allowable yield
> stress. As a consequence the non-heat treated ribs may not be able to
> meet
> all certification requirements. This is especially true for vertical
> loads
> associated with vertical gusts. No industry incidents have occurred.
> However, Airbus alerted operators to require strict adherence to turbulent
> air penetration speeds."

It sounds bad, but is it a big hairy deal or just a pain?

How common is this sort of thing? With all the bad news coming out of EADS
these days, can this news be taken as another sign of major trouble at
Airbus, or is it just another "**** happens" incident that could have as
easily happened to any mfr.?

From the outside, it is starting to look like Airbus is flying one wing low
and out of yaw trim.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[john smith]

Captn' Doug,
Different topic, same aircraft...
What's the scoop with the computer reset stories?

[Robert M. Gary]

Morgans wrote:
> Any word on which models and years affected? Approximate numbers?
>
> What is their (Airbus's) strategy to rectify the problem?

I'm sure if it affects the model you fly your company will notify you.
Otherwise, you can assume your fleet is safe.

-Robert

[Capt.Doug]

>"Dan Luke" wrote in message > It sounds bad, but is it a big hairy deal
or just a pain?

To Airbus' credit, when they find a mistake, they readily admit it and
over-compensate on the corrective actions. Besides, if an engine falls off,
the plane will still fly.

> From the outside, it is starting to look like Airbus is flying one wing
low
> and out of yaw trim.

They have had bad press lately, but Boeing's new airplane developement has
been having set-backs as well. Boeing seems to have better spin meisters to
handle the press.

D.

[Matt Whiting]

Capt.Doug wrote:

>>"Dan Luke" wrote in message > It sounds bad, but is it a big hairy deal
>
> or just a pain?
>
> To Airbus' credit, when they find a mistake, they readily admit it and
> over-compensate on the corrective actions. Besides, if an engine falls off,
> the plane will still fly.

Tell that to the DC-10 in Chicago a few blue moons ago.

Matt

[Capt.Doug]

>"Matt Whiting" wrote in message > Tell that to the DC-10 in Chicago a few
blue moons ago.

Did Airbus build the DC-10? Does the A-320 have hydraulic lines going to the
flight controls?
Does American Airlines do my maintenance with a forklift?

D.

[Matt Whiting]

Capt.Doug wrote:
>>"Matt Whiting" wrote in message > Tell that to the DC-10 in Chicago a few
>
> blue moons ago.
>
> Did Airbus build the DC-10? Does the A-320 have hydraulic lines going to the
> flight controls?
> Does American Airlines do my maintenance with a forklift?

Still doesn't mean that one will fly if an engine comes completely off
of the airplane. No way to know what collateral damage that would
cause. Have you seen this happen?

Matt

[Capt.Doug]

>"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
> Still doesn't mean that one will fly if an engine comes completely off
> of the airplane. No way to know what collateral damage that would
> cause. Have you seen this happen?

No, and I'm not worried if the engine comes completely off. The engineers
designed it to do that anyway. However, if the engine doesn't come
completely off, but twists sideways, it might be time for some of that pilot
s**t.

D.