Airbus can't buy a bit of good luck, another costly setback, luckily no one was hurt.
http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_objecti ... _page.html
Airbus has suffered another monumental setback
Moderator: Latest news team
Bummer!
An engineer buddy of mine was on duty when the wingspar of a C-17 Globemaster came crashing down. He and another senior engineer mediculously examined every inch of it to check for damages. They found nothing to reject the wingspar, but it still took some balls to sign off on it.
If that Lufthansa bird falls out of the sky 20 years later, the JAA/FAA will still have the paperwork as to who signed off on the repairs.
An engineer buddy of mine was on duty when the wingspar of a C-17 Globemaster came crashing down. He and another senior engineer mediculously examined every inch of it to check for damages. They found nothing to reject the wingspar, but it still took some balls to sign off on it.
If that Lufthansa bird falls out of the sky 20 years later, the JAA/FAA will still have the paperwork as to who signed off on the repairs.
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly an airplane?
Not monumental
I agree it is not monumental, but it is not trivial.
If I was Lufthansa, I would refuse to accept that wing, and make them build a new one, who knows what stress this drop has caused internally
If I was Lufthansa, I would refuse to accept that wing, and make them build a new one, who knows what stress this drop has caused internally
-
Airbus330lover
- Posts: 883
- Joined: 21 Jul 2005, 00:00
- Location: Rixensart
Re: Not monumental
But you'r not LHfleabyte wrote:I agree it is not monumental, but it is not trivial.
If I was Lufthansa, I would refuse to accept that wing, and make them build a new one, who knows what stress this drop has caused internally
It's a simple accident in a plant. It'll cause ONE A340 to be delayed in delivery
It not a A340 wing.
An Airbus insider told the People: "As blunders go, it is astronomical.
"Jumbo wings are incredibly expensive and take a long time to build, so the repair bill is going to be massive.
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
-
tolipanebas
- Posts: 2442
- Joined: 12 May 2004, 00:00
bits44-
The WING was an A340 wing, NOT a wing for an A380, as can be decuted from the span mentioned: 206ft is correct for the A340, the A380 wing has a span of roughly 260ft!
Besides, some close reading would also have shown you as the article mentions "the plant ALSO produces wings for the A380".
Anyhow, this is an industrial accident, certainly not a nice thing, but things like this HAVE happened before and will happen AGAIN too.... that's why companies like A and B have their own inductrial accident 'insurance' as part of their business plan....
The WING was an A340 wing, NOT a wing for an A380, as can be decuted from the span mentioned: 206ft is correct for the A340, the A380 wing has a span of roughly 260ft!
Besides, some close reading would also have shown you as the article mentions "the plant ALSO produces wings for the A380".
Anyhow, this is an industrial accident, certainly not a nice thing, but things like this HAVE happened before and will happen AGAIN too.... that's why companies like A and B have their own inductrial accident 'insurance' as part of their business plan....
The article states "The gigantic 50-ton plane part which had taken TWO MONTHS to build was smashed in seconds when a support chain snapped. "MX727 wrote:Somebody is going to get fired.......if not already. Good that nobody was hurt.
That means it wasn't a human error, it would have been one in case someone took the wrong chain (e.g. 20 ton instead of 10 ton ...), so, unless you know how it or what happened exactly, don't make your conclusions too fast
Last edited by Bottie on 02 Jan 2006, 22:04, edited 1 time in total.
someone will get fired
I had a colleague at Martin Marietta that got a pink slip for a crane operator hitting a Titan 4 nose cone, always will be a scapegoat for a high visibility industrial accident
It may or may not be human error. But I'm willing to bet it was. Cranes, like airplanes, are designed to not fail when operated and maintained properly. Industrial equipment are usually built with factors of safety of 4, meaning it takes 4 times normal operating loads to break the equipment. (Airplanes use a FS of 1.25-1.5, to shave off weight.)
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly an airplane?
If your crane can lift a maximum payload of 50 tons, and you use a chain that can take 20 tons and then lift a payload of 30 tons with the result the chain breaks , we can talk about human failure, and in this case the 'anti snapping thing' won't have any result.
When you lift a 20 ton payload with chains that can handle this, and they snap, then you have bad luck, sometimes damage on lifting equipment is not visible.
A word about a the 'anti snapping device' ... When your chain snaps, this won't help you, it is the control unit that is built in the hoist that decides when a payload is too heavy or not:
On this picture, you can see the control unit on the right, and this is configured with the specifications of the hook and (steel)cable . When you try to lift a 20 ton payload with a 10 ton hoist, you will lift it 5mm and the control-unit will descent the payload until the (overload) tension on the cable is gone, that's it.
In the following case:
The hook has a maximum payload of 60 tons, the payload on it is 13.5 tons, the chains are 4x 5 tons, so with those 4 chains you can lift 20 tons. Let's say, someone took the wrong chains, 4x 2.5 tons, you have a capacity of 10 tons, and you lift that piece, then you have a bigger chance you can search for your piece somewhere it wasn't mentioned to be placed. And, your 'overload protection' won't do anything, because the hook, cable and hoist didn't go in 'overload'. In this case, human failure...
When you lift a 20 ton payload with chains that can handle this, and they snap, then you have bad luck, sometimes damage on lifting equipment is not visible.
A word about a the 'anti snapping device' ... When your chain snaps, this won't help you, it is the control unit that is built in the hoist that decides when a payload is too heavy or not:
On this picture, you can see the control unit on the right, and this is configured with the specifications of the hook and (steel)cable . When you try to lift a 20 ton payload with a 10 ton hoist, you will lift it 5mm and the control-unit will descent the payload until the (overload) tension on the cable is gone, that's it.
In the following case:
The hook has a maximum payload of 60 tons, the payload on it is 13.5 tons, the chains are 4x 5 tons, so with those 4 chains you can lift 20 tons. Let's say, someone took the wrong chains, 4x 2.5 tons, you have a capacity of 10 tons, and you lift that piece, then you have a bigger chance you can search for your piece somewhere it wasn't mentioned to be placed. And, your 'overload protection' won't do anything, because the hook, cable and hoist didn't go in 'overload'. In this case, human failure...