Airbus rudder AD

Did anyone catch this on avflash?

Quote: it now appears airlines operating A300 and A310 aircraft will be
compelled to conduct thorough inspections of the planes' composite rudders.
France's civil aviation regulator has issued an Emergency Airworthiness
Directive calling for the one-time visual and tap-test inspection to be
completed within 550 hours or before June 18. it now appears airlines
operating A300 and A310 aircraft will be compelled to conduct thorough
inspections of the planes' composite rudders. France's civil aviation
regulator has issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive calling for the
one-time visual and tap-test inspection to be completed within 550 hours or
before June 18. End quote.

A tap test? Is this is the best they can do to find possible flaws on
multimillion dollar aircraft, carrying thousands of people around? Surely
there is a better way!
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
Did anyone catch this on avflash?

SNIP

A tap test? Is this is the best they can do to find possible flaws on
multimillion dollar aircraft, carrying thousands of people around? Surely
there is a better way!

I have a couple of feelings on the issue. First, the A300/310 is hardly new,
with plenty of airframes flying for 10-20 years with all kinds of operators,
and this is the first we see of it. So my initial instinct is to think that
there is something beyond design at work here. I'm not a materials engineer
but it seems that the "composites are new and we don't fully understand
them" argument is growing a little long in the tooth. There are Long-EZs
that have been flying for quite some time and those were amateur-built. But
what the heck do I know?

What I do know is that there is a little something called the A380 in which
France has quite a vested interest that is full of composite parts and they
don't want to panic the sheep, er, public. And given that the 787 is also a
plastic airplane, for once Boeing wouldn't want to see any mud flung either.

-cwk.

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

Did anyone catch this on avflash?


SNIP

A tap test? Is this is the best they can do to find possible flaws on
multimillion dollar aircraft, carrying thousands of people around? Surely
there is a better way!


I have a couple of feelings on the issue. First, the A300/310 is hardly new,
with plenty of airframes flying for 10-20 years with all kinds of operators,
and this is the first we see of it. So my initial instinct is to think that
there is something beyond design at work here. I'm not a materials engineer
but it seems that the "composites are new and we don't fully understand
them" argument is growing a little long in the tooth. There are Long-EZs
that have been flying for quite some time and those were amateur-built. But
what the heck do I know?

True, but we don't have 50 years of experience with composites in
service. Who knows what their deterioration/age related failure modes
may be? Remember, it took a couple of fatal accidents to begin to
understand fatigue and corrosion issues in aluminum...


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote


True, but we don't have 50 years of experience with composites in
service. Who knows what their deterioration/age related failure modes
may be? Remember, it took a couple of fatal accidents to begin to
understand fatigue and corrosion issues in aluminum...


Matt

My outrage is not whether the composites have a problem, but the method with
which they are to determine if there is a problem.

With some question (there must be a concern, hence an AD) there HAS to be a
better way than a tap test. It does nothing for my confidence.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

there HAS to be a better way than a tap test.

Actually, no. Like it or not, but there are situations where the human
eye, ear and feel is still the most accurate method, if carefully done
by a skilled person, of course. (This is just a generic remark. I am no
specialist in composites at all and haven't the slightest clue what
problem airbus might or might not have.)

Stefan

The "tap test", as used on fiberglass homebuilts, is used to detect
voids (air bubbles) in the epoxy/glass matrix. One usually uses a
Quarter to gently tap the surface. If there are any voids, the
difference in sound will be noticeable.

Morgans wrote:
there HAS to be a better way than a tap test.

Stefan wrote:
Actually, no. Like it or not, but there are situations where the human
eye, ear and feel is still the most accurate method, if carefully done
by a skilled person, of course. (This is just a generic remark. I am no
specialist in composites at all and haven't the slightest clue what
problem airbus might or might not have.)

Morgans wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote


True, but we don't have 50 years of experience with composites in
service. Who knows what their deterioration/age related failure modes
may be? Remember, it took a couple of fatal accidents to begin to
understand fatigue and corrosion issues in aluminum...


Matt


My outrage is not whether the composites have a problem, but the method with
which they are to determine if there is a problem.

With some question (there must be a concern, hence an AD) there HAS to be a
better way than a tap test. It does nothing for my confidence.

Sometimes the simple tests really are the best. Visual inspection by
human eyes is still used for a lot of things even though it is well
known to have lots of problems (variability among humans being one of
the biggest).

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ...
Sometimes the simple tests really are the best. Visual inspection by human eyes is still used for a lot of things
even though it is well known to have lots of problems (variability among humans being one of the biggest).

Matt

But once someone knows what they are looking for it is very hard to beat...

True, but we don't have 50 years of experience with composites in
service. Who knows what their deterioration/age related failure modes
may be? Remember, it took a couple of fatal accidents to begin to
understand fatigue and corrosion issues in aluminum...


Matt

Composite materials are pretty well understood by now. The Airbus
problems are not going to be found to be inherent in the materials, but
ones of design and quality control.

My fiberglass glider (Glasflugel H301) has been in service for 41 years.
It has not even been refinished. Most people think it is nearly new when
they see it. The fiberglass has not delaminated anywhere on it, Although
the gelcoat is clearly deteriorating and it will need refinishing soon.
The bird flies regularly. I usually put at least 100 hours/year on it,
more if the weather permits. I flew it over 200 miles this past weekend.
It gets pretty rough treatment compared to most planes. Landing in rough
fields, continuous hard pullups into thermals, often making 2 g turns to
center tight thermal cores, extreme turbulence while mountain flying,
etc. Those wings have flexed through a lot of cycles. That model has
only about 8 AD's (in the US) on it. All concern the metal parts.

Lest you think I'm a 'glass chauvinist, I also have a rag, tube, and
stick airplane (Stits SA-6), and a half share of a 1958 Cessna 175.

--
Take out the airplane for reply

("Wallace Berry" wrote)
snip
My fiberglass glider (Glasflugel H301) has been in service for 41 years.
It has not even been refinished. Most people think it is nearly new when
they see it. The fiberglass has not delaminated anywhere on it, Although
the gelcoat is clearly deteriorating and it will need refinishing soon.
The bird flies regularly. I usually put at least 100 hours/year on it,
more if the weather permits. I flew it over 200 miles this past weekend.
It gets pretty rough treatment compared to most planes. Landing in rough
fields, continuous hard pullups into thermals, often making 2 g turns to
center tight thermal cores, extreme turbulence while mountain flying,
etc. Those wings have flexed through a lot of cycles. That model has
only about 8 AD's (in the US) on it. All concern the metal parts.


I wonder if OAT is a common denominator missing here?

I thought it was (FL350) cold cycles they were looking at?


Montblack