Airbus A380 Wing-Fuselage Testing in Germany. In one year time worth of 25 years of flying is tested in a test jig.


  1. one advice – when you read something -> READ IT, instead of making stuff up.
    You have already made up the thing that engine performance is affected by faulty pitot tubes. Then you made up stuff that I actually said that? Short memory?
    You made a claim that I am AB paid fan, which is not true simply.
    and so on and so…

  2. I am waiting your explanation why the engine should be affected by faulty pitot tubes?
    That is what you have stated previously yourself

  3. I am actually boeing fan. Soo, your simple reading skills and logics failed you again. Hope you don't repair very important stuff, otherwise….

  4. Technical? You have already failed to show how failed AC pitot tubes can affect performance of the engine (especially when it has its own pitot tube), yet you made that claim yourself! I am waiting – this is technical stuff you asked.

  5. Dear Sir, stating that you lack basic logical thinking was pure fact. On the other hand you first went into personal stuff. So, you accused me in going personal, and yet managed to do it yourself first. Well done, Sir! Want one more example of poor logics? Show me the line where I made an excuse for AB. As a matter of fact their FBW lacks very important details and makes the very concept less and less safe. And it can be seeing in different reasons of different crashes through last 10 years.

  6. "It may not be connected to those tubes"
    This phrase says it all.
    If you don't know how it is connected, what is the point in saying something about things you don't understand. You simply sound pathetic because you are seems to me lacking basic logical thinking.

  7. so, if it is not connected to those tubes that didn't work, how the erroneous data can affect the engine performance then? stop BSing me with vague phrases like "fully integrated into the electronics of the aircraft". I have two engineer diplomas from which one is about computer control systems. it only integrated by virtual outputs such as THRS setting, sensors readouts. + by inputs such as static and air pressure, engine sensors readouts again, desirable thrust setting…

  8. or, I guess, you feel so smart that you want to outsmart two main airplane makers?
    A and AB both have the same procedure in the case of unreliable airspeed indication -> it is a combination of thrust and pitch in order to maintain speed- classic from flight school, probably second or third lecture. )

  9. ok. i guess, you can't read long sentences.
    I will make it simple – who says that engine is connected in any way to aircraft pitot tubes?

  10. can you explain, how PF managed to pull stick back till the stab reached 13 degrees? did pilot flying was connected to frozen pitots? please!
    Also, according to your knowledge – if pitot tubes got frozen, there should be subsequent engine failure every time. There were a lot of troubles with PTubes for ABus. Can you name instances where engines failed too along with pitot tubes?

  11. 1. fadec doesn't use flight computer. It is a unit which controls only engines and relies on engine paramaters and sensors only – and this is first thing you got wrong
    2. fadec doesn't use AC pitot tubes, instead it relies on its own. And there was no indication that it has been frozen, because engines have been working properly till the impact – this is a second thing you got wrong.
    Educate yourself before you type something, ok?

  12. almost right. I would argue with "faulty airspeed sensors that brought down Air France 447". This is simply not true. pilot stalled perfectly flyable AC. Yes, they didn't have airspeed indication, but for such case there is a simple procedure that ensures that airspeed stays within the safe limit – set specific thrust setting and specific attitude and you are fine.

  13. Regarding the ranting below wrt the Airbus wing test, it can be of interest to note that the 787 Dreamliner failed an ultimate wing load test in 2009 which caused months of delays.

    (Google "Boeing 787 wing flaw extends inside plane" to read the article in Seattle Times.)

  14. Still, I don't see your point ranting about Airbus. If you look at the statistics, and yes, that's about the only thing you can do to compare aircraft safety, you will find that Airbus and Boeing have very similar accident rates. As an example, the A320 series, the Airbus "737", has an accident rate of about 0.1 full loss incidents per one million flights (from a total of 55 million flights). The 737 NG ties at about 0.12 from a total of 33 million flights. See

  15. I assume you refer to the test were a pre-production set of wings failed at between 1.45 and 1.5 times the limit load. I am not familiar with the design codes used in the aircraft industry, but I have been working for a number of years with FEM and structural analysis. If it has been shown by full scale testing that the structural strength of a pre-production design is within 3 % of the target capacity, then that's not cause for alarm but rather an indication of the accuracy of the FE analysis.

  16. And after that discussion, should we continue with the Boeing 737 rudder control problem which caused at least 3 hull loss crashes in th 90s? Or the Aloha airlines 737 which lost a big part of its fuselage due to fatigue damage? Or the delamination problems of the Dreamliner?

    The point is, if you are flying with a recognized airline it really doesnt matter if you're flying Boeing or Airbus since both companies produce safe products.

    So, I'm not going into a Boeing/Airbus flame war.

  17. The flight control modes on both Airbus planes and fly-by-wire Boeings like the 777 limit parameters like pitch attitude, bank angle, speed et c. The system cannot however protect the plane from all kinds of pilot input. If it could, airlines could employ low-wage chimps instead of trained pilots.

  18. Read the NTSB accident report. The first officer had passed the Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering program which encouraged agressive rudder use. NTSB also interviewed several pilots who had flown with the first officer, and two of those described incidents where the first officer overreacted to wake turbulence. In one incident, he responded to wake turbulence by "by making a series of rapid, alternating full rudder pedal inputs", startling the captain. See section 2.3.1.

  19. Correct me if I'm wrong but the test Boeing performed, which has been discussed in the comments, was an ultimate load test, i.e. an extreme load applied slowly until the wings failed due to buckling. In contrast, the testing performed by Airbus shown in this video at around 0.47 is a fatigue test, where the accumulated damage corresponding to 25 years of service is investigated. Both load cases are most likely described and required by the relevant design codes and are not to be confused.

    The A300 did not incorporate Fly-By-Wire systems (at least for those control surfaces) as this was one of their earliest aircraft, so the pilot would've had complete control over the aircraft and not the computer.
    Fly-by-wire where the computer flys the aircraft was only introduced later in the A320.

  21. @Pvjinflight Airbus aircraft that fell out of the sky – the American Airlines Flight 587 – an A300 that lost its Entire Vertical Stabilizer and fell out of the sky and crashed into lower Long Island NY setting multiple homes on fire and killing 261 people and Air France Flight 447 – an Airbus A330 that fell out of the sky over the Atlantic Ocean – crashing into the ocean and killing all 228 on board. The entire A380 fleet must be grounded ASAP and FIXED before any of them fall out of the sky!

  22. As a pilot with college training in strength of materials used in aviation I am disappointed to see that Airbus is downplaying the issue of cracks being discovered in many of their A380 aircraft. Cracks appearing on structural components inside a wing are a very serious matter and in this case enough to prevent me from stepping foot on any A380 until the matter is fully and properly addressed. This situation calls for the grounding of the entire A380 fleet for inspection & repairs as required.

  23. We must never forget the lessons learned from the Comet – the first passenger jet in service. It took 3 in-flight breakups of the Comet before they were all taken out of service for a total re-design. We can't afford to have an A380 break up in flight – it would be a disaster on a massive scale. Cracks in wing structural components are the early warning signs of a disaster in the making. Airbus needs to immediately ground every A380 & FIX the problem NOW Before an A380 breaks up in flight.

  24. SHAME on Airbus for having the nerve to say the cracks being found inside the wing structure of one A380 aircraft after another are on a "non-critical” part of the wing! EVERY internal structural component of a wing is an integral part of the entire wing structure. Cracks appearing on any structural component in a wing can potentially comprise the overall structural integrity of the entire wing. This is a serious matter that can cause an A380 to break up in flight & Must be FIXED ASAP!

  25. @Pvjinflight You didn't answer my question about calling a guy a fag… But anyway, this was what, 40 years ago? We're in 2012 dude. You would think that selling a plane with cracks in the wings wouldn't be a problem.

  26. @uspatriot08 Uh… that's an engineering standard, pal. I'm an American aircraft engineer working for an American aircraft company, and I'm not against our country. Safety factors are in place and required to pass any kind of federal certification process. In short, they both have to do the same thing. Now, does the Airbus' failure look worse than the Boeing 787's wing test? Hell yeah.

  27. crapper1. I've been looking for A380 wing testing vids too. The destructive testing at the start of this video, however, is footage of the Boeing 777 wing testing. Compare it to 'B777 Wing Eltimate load test' on Youtube to see for yourself. Only after 00:18 seconds does this video show A380 testing.

  28. It's strange that the under wing access panels aren't fitted as they're load bearing components. I suppose the engineers didn't think they were necessary since tests like these typically result in the top skin failing through compression (as this did) rather than the bottom skin through tension.

  29. dkorda. Shouldn't be a problem since both Boeing and Airbus have forecast a requirement for significantly more than 420 aircraft of 400+ seats. This will be shared between the A380-800 and 747-8I. Considering the A380-800 is currently outselling the 747-8I by 8 to 1 (Lufthansa is the only airline customer with 20), if this trend continues and Airbus'/Boeing's forecasts are correct, the A380 will easily break even.
    The 747-8 looks set to be relegated to freighter duties (-8F has 80 orders).

Leave a Reply