Article

2006-10-03 Europe

A380 facing more delays, paring back of deliveries

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-10-03 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I'm wondering if just maybe France (well known for industrial espionage) tried to steal Boeing's design software but ended up with a package that included a few creative little ~~monkey-wrenches~~ changes.

Posted by PBMcL 2006-10-03 01:48|| 2006-10-03 01:48|| Front Page Top

#2 Um, I assume you guys are aware of Boeing's little fuel tank problem? (self-confessed too)
Comes with the industry, folks. Don't fly if you're squeamish. Check the airworthiness directives if ya don't believe me. Enjoy your flight!

Posted by Whineter Claish9302 2006-10-03 04:08|| 2006-10-03 04:08|| Front Page Top

#3 Oh...here's a good one...speaking of software.

Posted by Whineter Claish9302 2006-10-03 04:14|| 2006-10-03 04:14|| Front Page Top

#4 We have received a report of two occurrences of engine thrust rollback (reduction) during takeoff on Boeing Model 777-300ER series airplanes powered by GE Model GE90-115B engines. In both cases, only one engine was affected. The N1 (fan speed - the normal thrust setting parameter for this engine type) thrust level on the affected engine progressively dropped resulting in a thrust loss of 65 to 77 % due to an erroneous N1 command computed by the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC). In both cases, the engine recovered to the proper N1 thrust level as the airplane climbed beyond 400 feet above ground level. In one case, the operator elected to return to the departure airport after reaching cruise. In the other case, the operator continued to its destination. There were no further anomalies reported during the remainder of the flights. No flight deck messages or maintenance indications occurred as a result of the event.

Investigation indicates that these events are the results of a software algorithm in the FADEC that was introduced in software version A.0.4.5 (GE90-100 Service Bulletin 730021). Investigation also indicates that a dual-engine thrust rollback could occur just after V1 (takeoff decision speed after which takeoff is to proceed even after an engine failure), which would result in the airplane not having adequate thrust to safely complete the take off. A de-rated or a reduced thrust takeoff, in combination with specific ambient conditions, can result in the FADEC commanding a progressive reduction in the engine thrust. Airplane takeoffs are often performed with engine thrust levels at less than the maximum engine thrust approved for the airplane. This is done to reduce wear on the engines, increase fuel efficiency, and maximize passenger comfort. Operators are permitted to calculate airplane takeoff performance and required engine thrust using two different methods referred to as "derated takeoff thrust" (also known as fixed de-rate) and "reduced takeoff thrust" (also known as the assumed temperature method). Fullrated thrust takeoffs with the thrust levers at the full forward position are not exposed to the potential thrust rollback caused by the software anomaly described above.

A dual-engine thrust rollback, if not corrected, could result in the airplane failing to lift off before reaching the end of the runway or failing to clear obstacles below the takeoff flight path.

The FADEC software, version A.0.4.5, on certain Model 777-200LR powered by GE Model 90-110B engines is identical to that on the affected Model 777-300ER series airplanes powered by GE Model GE90-115B engines. Therefore, both of these airplane models may be subject to the same unsafe condition.

Although the software anomaly was introduced by this version of software, the affected operators have a mixed fleet of airplanes with and without the affected software version. To avoid reliance on flight crews determining which software version is installed as they operate different airplanes, we have determined that this AD should apply to all airplanes equipped with the affected engines. If operators develop an acceptable method to ensure flight crews will consistently perform the correct procedure on affected airplanes, they may request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD.

doesn't sound too diffult to fix compared to the major AirBus airworthy problems.

Posted by RD 2006-10-03 04:21|| 2006-10-03 04:21|| Front Page Top

#5 I'm wondering if just maybe France (well known for industrial espionage) tried to steal Boeing's design software

AFAIK, the leading software for Computer Assisted Design is Catia produced by... Groupe Dassault ie the firm who produces the Mirage.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-10-03 05:03|| 2006-10-03 05:03|| Front Page Top

#6 #2, #3: Airbus makes a nice plane, I'll bet everything I own and more that Airbus would trade its current problems for Boeing's in a heartbeat.

Posted by gorb 2006-10-03 06:58|| 2006-10-03 06:58|| Front Page Top

#7 Yes, CATIA is the standard CAD package for the industry. Note, IBM was/is heavily involved, not just Dassault.

Posted by bombay">bombay 2006-10-03 09:18|| 2006-10-03 09:18|| Front Page Top

#8 Whineter Claish9302,

That is a std industry advisory, and not for the tanks, but the pumps. This is a minor issue / advisory. These go out all the time.

It is a large stretch to compare this to A380 issues.

Posted by bombay">bombay 2006-10-03 09:42|| 2006-10-03 09:42|| Front Page Top

#9 Airbus makes a nice plane, I'll bet everything I own and more that Airbus would trade its current problems for Boeing's in a heartbeat.

What are you trying to say here? First, you say Airbus makes a nice plane, then the second half of your statement seems to contradict the first half.

Posted by NoBeards 2006-10-03 10:12|| 2006-10-03 10:12|| Front Page Top

#10 Sounds like Sony hired the same managers for Playstation 3.

Posted by Speck Phomomble3299 2006-10-03 10:44|| 2006-10-03 10:44|| Front Page Top

#11 I think Airbus will regret building the A380. Who wants to fly on that big target. If you are Habib the terrorist which plane would you target? The A380 with over 500 seats or the 787 Dreamliner with half the seats? Personally, a smaller, faster, more comfortable plane that can fly non-stop long distances is the way to for me. Also, the 787 will be able to go a lot more places than the A380. The bloated A380 will hardly fit anywhere. As for the SB's and AD's, they are issued for all planes all the time. You fix the stuff and move on. I get a number of them on my Cessna 182 every year and the basic design of my plane is 50 years old.

Posted by Intrinsicpilot 2006-10-03 13:28|| 2006-10-03 13:28|| Front Page Top

#12 The A300/310/320 are decent airplanes. The problem isn't so much the design of the airplane as the corporate structure and (mis)management. Not to mention the EUSSR's labor laws.

Frankly, I don't know about the 380. It might do a very good job of meeting its requirements, but I think it's just too yiffing huge for anyone to buy it.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2006-10-03 13:29|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2006-10-03 13:29|| Front Page Top

#13 Wiring probelms aside: consider the infrastructure that has to be modified to handle the A380; bigger / wider taxiways, runways, the jetways, any bridges that support runways over the various access roads need beefed up, the lst goes on. These improvements are not paid for by Airbus or even the oeprating airlines, but the airports and port authorities that operate them. Since they are publicly-funded, that means that Joe Taxpayer gets the cost added to his tax bill. Add in all the various permitting and eco-crap for studying whether or not a bigger runway uses more concrete(duh), and you can see that there is not a stampede to enlarge to accomadate this albatross. I think that there are only 4 US airports doing so ( LAX, O'Hare, JFK and Atlanta). This will limit the A380's utility in the States, and i think you will see the airlines that have ordered this pig begin to rethink their position. The outrage over this latest 'wiring delay' is significantly less than previous ones so it may be a (wink, wink, nod, nod) kind of unspoken thing for both the operators and Airbus to fold up this (big) tent and go home. Notice that Boeing is being very quiet about Airbus' problems; they know the plastic 787 is under a microscope also. If I mis-stated the US airports, please chime in with updates.

Posted by USN, ret. 2006-10-03 14:21|| 2006-10-03 14:21|| Front Page Top

#14 The A380 - the SST of the 21st Century™

Built as a matter of pride, never sold a lot of planes, never made money. Wish I vould've afforded to ride one, however....

Posted by Bobby 2006-10-03 15:10|| 2006-10-03 15:10|| Front Page Top

#15 Just how many years it take Europe to build the Concorde? By the time it entered service, it carried too few passengers for the times, no?

Aside: How long did it take 'em similarly to build the Tornado? Reminds one historically of that British fighter, the ugly and slow Gloster Javelin and that mach 2+ English Electric Lightning. Wonder if their service life wasn't shorter than their developmental period?

Posted by Duh! 2006-10-03 17:06|| 2006-10-03 17:06|| Front Page Top

#16 USN, ret.

You are right on the airports, but that generally is a one time capital expense (though there are some operating increases)

The Airlines are the ones who will really feel it. Increases in their operating costs(thus reoccurring cost) due to the logistics of the operating the aircraft. Logistics wise, A380 is much more to deal with.

Especially when you have 500 pissed off customers in the jet way because the flight was cancelled.

A380's utility is in crossing long distances, which is why you see only a few large hub airports accommodating. With not many planes, and not many airports, it is likely going to be a major problem.

Delays may be even more of an issue, surging that many passengers at one time. Especially true if the fleet is reduced in favor of A380s which many of the purchasers intended to do with A380. The operators may find they have to add other planes to deal with it placing them in a worse position.

This is probably driving the customers to yell as much as the delays. Reality is setting in now, as due to the delivery delay many are adding other planes they did not plan for.

Airbus, well they have been known for excellent project management in the past. This is the real story, as their image is crushed now. There are big doubts for A400M, which AirBus / EADS hoped they could make even more (a lot more!) from their A380 investment.

Posted by bombay">bombay 2006-10-03 19:20|| 2006-10-03 19:20|| Front Page Top

#17 I still wonder whether this is silent acknowledgement of claims of safety issues w/the wiring that were made a while back by an American engineer on project.

Posted by Stephen 2006-10-03 22:00|| 2006-10-03 22:00|| Front Page Top

23:59 Flomoter Ulolush5791
23:57 Super Hose
23:56 Zenster
23:54 Valentine
23:52 toad
23:51 49 Pan
23:50 RWV
23:44 Super Hose
23:35 Zenster
23:27 tu3031
23:24 Super Hose
23:20 Chaiger Sluper9927
23:17 Chaiger Sluper9927
23:16 Zenster
23:12 Zenster
23:08 TZSenator
22:59 Eric Jablow
22:56 gorb
22:44 RD
22:40 Frank G
22:37 phil_b
22:36 FOTSGreg
22:34 gorb
22:29 phil_b