Stuff happens, but I can definitely understand how this incident leaves a lot of people feeling uneasy, as reported by 2PAXfly…
Continue reading: Qantas Airbus A380 Loses Part Of Wing On First Flight After Six Year Grounding
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
@ rebel -- As I view it, planes have wings and fuselages. The slats are attached to the wings, and therefore they're part of the wings. I see where you're coming from, but for the purposes of keeping it simple, I think it's fair to say slats make up part of the wing.
Are you ok? Why do you reply to yourself half of the time?
You can type out your thoughts in a single comment.
When a situation turns to ‘rats’ one has to ask:
“Was anyone killed” or “Was anyone injured”.
As the answer to both questions is an emphatic NO! Furthermore, QF, are not attempting to hide anything, then one should be thankful for great mercies, yes?
Might be technically correct. Though upon first reading I also thought that a part of the actual wing was damaged. Given how minor the damage is, I think the title is misleading
Is this is real Eskimo, or the impersonator?
Sometimes I do reply to myself, because I want to add something; other times, it's our impersonators (the guy behind formerly @Penile, who enjoys doing that. Eh, oh well.)
A little bit of delamination. Nothing to be overly concerned about. I'll wager that both Airbus and the component manufacturer will be keen to discover exactly how and why this failure occurred when it did.
Do D checks typically include cabin/comfort features? Or do they only inspect the parts of the plane required to get it up in the air?
A slat is a movable part on the leading edge of a wing, which pilots can lower to increase lift and low-speed performance.
Point being that
1. Qantas has massively underinvested in its fleet over the past 20 years
2. Qantas’s PR machine is well ahead of where Qantas is actually at (eg announcing new flights / fleet / cabins / services are coming in 5-10 years. (We’re sh!t now but will be better in the future, we promise))
=> This episode conflates the two issues. Underinvestment and BS PR.
Just lucky no one got injured.
I was on that flight in seat 20A and can confirm everything that was posted about flight is correct.
Geez you love rapping Qantas. Cover the facts and leave off the "I don't know what to make of this" comments.
Grow up, you know nothing about either. Qantas is one of - if not THE safest airline in the skies - your uninformed rant is embassing.
Sorry fanboy, but Qantas' reputation has been in the toilet for some time now.
Everone should remember Qantas still has the worlds best aviation history of ALL current & past airline companies, in maitenence and flying.
They must be doing something right.
P.S. I have never flown, just proud Aussie.
Oh boy, the peeps over at r/fearofflying are going to make quite a kerfuffle over this I bet.
There was another Qantas A380 issue back on October 1st - apologies, Ben, if you've written about this one, too. A flight from Sydney to Johannesburg ended up being a 9-hour flight to nowhere after an issue with the aircraft's satellite communications system. https://simpleflying.com/9-hour-flight-to-nowhere-satellite-issue-forced-south-africa-bound-qantas-a380-to-divert-back-to-sydney/
While of course I prefer seats not reclining rather than the wing falling apart, it shouldn't be too complicated, in a 7-month maintenance check, to appoint a newly-join intern checking that all seats recline correctly, or am I missing something?
The question has to be asked if extensive maintenance has been carried out then why were checks not carried out that everything works. Looks like Abu Dabi engineers screwed up the wing work!
Help Request ….
I have been told of a study paper, written on the subject of laminated aircraft components. Evidently it is believed that as a result of aircraft being subjected to extreme hot weather conditions, over a prolonged period, when parked up due to the Chinese virus, delamination can occur.
I cannot find this paper, can anyone help please?
Lasloy - are you Australian? Do you fly Qantas regularly? Do you follow the Australian aviation or business media? You seem very certain of your opinion.
Qantas's reputation here in its Australian home market has been badly damaged in recent years. It's now widely acknowledged that former CEO Alan Joyce underinvested in the fleet for too long, and the effects of that on service standards are apparent, albeit there doesn't yet appear to be any measurable effect on safety
Qantas has also been scrutinised by the Australian Parliament and regulatory authorities over various questionnable conduct - see its claim that it sells a "bundle of rights" not flights!
So SSS's points are far from an uninformed rant.
You may find an excuse for the wing, but for the rest ? So many coincidences you say？
Well, you said it yourself, several times. You don't know what to make of it. You sure don't. Perhaps if you get some input from the technical division at QA, it'll help. In the meantime, reclining seats and video screens are NOT "major electrical problems". The wing section is a concern and clearly arises from the 7 month maintenance project and has nothing intrinsically to do with the Airbus A380.
I cannot find such a paper. There are numerous studios on the relationship between water ingress, temperature changes, and delamination as a group, but none specifically related to only temperature.
Incidentally, there are loads of research papers into racism and low intelligence. Perhaps I could refer you to one of those considering your blatant display of racism in your otherwise reasonable request?
The slats on that DC10, 1979, "part of wing", retracted, after engine departed, causing hydraulics failure, left?-wing stopped lifting, plane rolled over, all, total loss.
Basic repetition on UPS plane, Kentucky. /After 1979 incident, comparison with L1011 triple engine "screw actuated slats" was made, determined to be safer! All DC10s were converted to cargo-only carriers, not retrofitted to screw systems.
Obviously, slats are important! If this incident had happened at liftoff, might have been a different story, depending on size and amount of the flap sysyem involved. The big question is, considering the overall failure of "different" systems on this particular equipment, was it really airworthy?? Will this wake the industry up to the need for "Extra Diligence " when trying to bring a
mothballed item back into service //
Will the moth fly, with a broken wing (obviously!)??
I would be asking for a refund from the outfit that did 100,000 hrs of service work but missed this stuff. Perhaps reconsider who you get to do service work like this and who signs off on it.
Very helpful comment from someone who has no experience of the airline whatsoever according to them.
Abu Dubai. Consider: why isn't maintenance performed in Australia. Because it is cheaper in Dubai. Start there. Off shoring maintenance is not to insure quality. Rather the opposite.
Corruption at the highest level. The MD must resign. So also the head of the maintenance unit. The accident would have resulted in death of innocent passengers.
Not sure why people I trying to minimize slat damage, that is a very serious failure, even if not necessarily life threatening
Yes.
With such extensive maintenance, everything is done according to checklists. Items are ticked and signed; everything is documented. This includes the functionality of all seats. And they all worked. Either that was inevitable, or damage was repaired. Otherwise, the aircraft wouldn't have been cleared for flight. The reasons for the malfunctions during the flight must have arisen later.
Sounds like a 380 barn find! Try a 747 400 next time - less complicated to fix!