Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.

A380 encounters trouble - again

by Tom Johansmeyer (RSS feed) on Dec 18th 2009 at 12:00PM

Everyone was eager to see the Air France A380 leave New York and head for Paris this week, but a fuel-tank issue kept it on the ground at JFK. This was the second problem the world's largest plane had in getting off the ground since it started bouncing between New York and Paris just under a month ago.

The A380 is nothing short of hefty, accommodating 511 passengers, and it gets thirsty. So, when the airline found that fuel wasn't moving properly between its tanks, it had to keep the beast on the tarmac. The 21 A380s in operation by four airlines have completed 8,700 flights and carried 3 million passengers.

The plane's maiden flight was from Paris to New York on November 20, 2009. A week later, an Air France A380 had to return to New York after only 90 minutes in the air because of a technical issue that wasn't disclosed.

Filed under: Europe, North America, France, United States, Airlines

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Malaycobra Dec 18th 2009 12:51PM

Hah +1

Bruce Dec 18th 2009 5:25PM

It would seem that Air France is taking their time fixing the current problem that is grounding their big baby. It has not flown the Paris-NYC route since the 14th and it isn't scheduled to fly that route this weekend.

rob Dec 20th 2009 8:33PM

Buy Made in the USA

NugyenMei Dec 20th 2009 8:48PM

I never liked Air Bus planes. Just do not feel right. Give me a Boeing any day.

BOEING FAN Dec 20th 2009 10:04PM

Agreed....every airbus feels cheap inside....shaky...Boeing is just solid.

Barry Dec 20th 2009 9:04PM

I wonder what the "undisclosed problem" was? The thing is made largely from carbon composites and relies totally on computer "fly by wire" to be able to be "flown" by a pilot. An airbus, at a European air show, flew into the trees and exploded when the onboard computers failed during the airshow flyby. Three (3) others (a Passenger Jet in Queens, NY a month after 9/11; an Air Newzealand Cargo plane in the Medeteranean Sea about 3 years ago; and a Passenger Jet in the Atlantic, lost between Brazil and France last year) all crashed with their carbon composite tails found broken off and floating in the water miles behind the point where the jets went down. Clearly carbon composites and overly stressfull vibrations don't mix. Just ask that French guy who set a bicycle speed record in a prelimainay run down the slopes of a volcano on his steel framed bicycle, and then ended skidding down the slope of the volcano on his face, when he tried to make a better speed on his carbon composite framed bicycle, which disintegrated and collapsed in half, under him, from the vibrations on the high speed run. How long before an A380 suffers a computer failure or a failure of its carbon composites. If one does go down in the water, I suggest looking for the rest of the plane dozens of miles beyond wherever its tail is found floating. That will probably be why it went down.

Behr Dec 20th 2009 10:03PM

The Airbus crash you cited crashed not because of a 'failure' of the on-board computers - rather due to a conflict between the pilots & the computer,,, each decided on a different solution to the problem of not enough airspeed to take off -

The pilots elected to pull up even though the flight speed was marginal for take-off

The computer elected to abort the take-off because of the marginal speed

Hence the aircraft stayed in ground effect until it impacted the forest at the end of the runway ....

Youtube carries the vid - it's an interesting commentary on war of the wills

Papa1 Dec 20th 2009 10:30PM

Hey Barry, just so u know I researched the AA crash in queens and the NTSB came up with the probable cause being the fado that the rudder on that specific airbus was not designed to withstand rapid changes in direction, from left to rift and back to left, while at meneuvering speed. Couple that with AA training their pilots to "step on the ball" cause the verical stabilizer to breackfast off from the fuselage, they also tested the composite and found out that they were not the cause of the crash

Barry Dec 20th 2009 10:44PM

Now there is rudder ratio control added so that abrupt movements of the rudder at certain speeds and alltitudes are not possible. While working on both full time I'd still rather ride a boeing or even better, is the older Douglas A/C

scott Dec 20th 2009 11:07PM

Do you know anything about commercial airliners or are you just spouting off? I fly them, and most of your points are baseless. The Airbus crash at the airshow was 100% pilot error, as was the one in Queens and over the Atlantic after flying through a thunderstorm. FWIW, the new Boeing 787 uses carbon fiber extensively (unlike the Airbus 320, 300, and 330 that you mention in the "accident" reports) - are you going to fly on it?

Bob G Dec 21st 2009 2:27AM

I have a friend that flies as an engineer on the older airbus aircraft. He calls them scarebus. Personally, I will not get on one, and I am a retired flier.

1bigbear Dec 20th 2009 9:11PM

.."a technical issue that wasn't disclosed." What do they have to hide? Shouldn't this be a matter of public record if they expect to have airworthiness certificates and convey passengers?

KP Dec 20th 2009 9:18PM

"Spruce Goose" deja vu.

Bob Dec 20th 2009 9:23PM

If it aint Boing, I aint going!

M Dec 20th 2009 9:51PM

If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!

bambifriend Dec 20th 2009 10:20PM

Anyone else do the math from the author above? 21 planes 8700 fights since the maiden voyage a month ago. No chance the math works. I am with the rest of you give me a Boeing any day.

Cap'n Bill Dec 20th 2009 10:27PM

Carbon compsites are the results of the marriage of disparate or separate parts or elements. In the process there numerous steps that require the utmost control and attention. Heat, lack of, inapproriate fibers or weak fibers, stop and start of the process all contribute to the result and the use of the end product. IN some case a flaw or two may not cause any major problems such as in the front or rear fenders of a sport car. In a large racing yacht any such deviations in the layup of the hull using carbon fiber compistes creates a weak point. And these type vessels with their tall masts and rigging can cause the same vibrations that may eb the cause of the loss of the tail structures on planes. But these uses offer the ability to escape from sudden disaster where the airplane does not provide a stop and check option. I do not mean to place the blame on anyone from the layup of the material to the installation of the end product. It only emphasizes that the process of making these structures and parts require the same attention and control as an open heart surgery.

forpostingonly Dec 20th 2009 10:36PM

A friend (whose identity will be protected) was the lead mechanic at one of the largest US airports - working on Airbus products until he retired. In his opinion - they were the worst, and least safe plane in the air. "Made like crap" was his standard comment...and although he and his family were offered free flights as a perk - he would NEVER fly on the "scarebus." Just thought I'd add this ...

What?! Dec 20th 2009 11:01PM

Looked like the European Union hurried to build an airline that could rival the Boeing, but in the long run, the Boeing slowly gained its air superiority as a reliable and durable plane. I'm proud of you, Boeing! Stay sharp!