Live data from Hacker News

Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

reuters.com

31–40 of 109 posts

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#31
post #2

Arguably this is a much greater problem than it at first appears because it exposes a serious and fundamental problem with our materials development processes. Currently development of new products is going faster than we can understand the qualities and limitations of those products. How exactly this happened and what is the best response is not clear. Because of how these materials are made a failure of the exterio…

I think some of the responses are missing the larger point here. Every new tech has unknowns and potential issues, some of which don't come to light for years. If it takes 20+ years to go from initial small-scale uses to volume production on big projects (e.g. Airbus), then sometime during those years many of the issues will come to light.

It's pretty clear that technology is accelerating (and has been for a long time). What is not as clear is that our ability to artificially age products, in order to test how they will stand up over time, has always only been part of the way in which problems were found. Another, perhaps more important, and certainly more authoritative way, is to look at how they actually hold up over time. If technology takes long enough to go from small-scale uses to volume production, that's good enough. At some point, and perhaps we've reached it, the pace of technological change is fast enough that we end up relying almost entirely on testing methods that try to simulate long-term aging in a short amount of time. These methods won't always do the job.

Notably, none of these issues are unique to aerospace.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#32
post #2

Arguably this is a much greater problem than it at first appears because it exposes a serious and fundamental problem with our materials development processes. Currently development of new products is going faster than we can understand the qualities and limitations of those products. How exactly this happened and what is the best response is not clear. Because of how these materials are made a failure of the exterio…

I think some of the responses are missing the larger point here. Every new tech has unknowns and potential issues, some of which don't come to light for years. If it takes 20+ years to go from initial small-scale uses to volume production on big projects (e.g. Airbus), then sometime during those years many of the issues will come to light. It's pretty clear that technology is accelerating (and has been for a long tim…

> none of these issues are unique to aerospace

Aerospace has slowed in its pace of innovation relative to other industries in the last decades. Its long design times similarly mitigate this line of broad criticism.

The bleeding-edge materials on this plane didn’t fail. Paint over copper mesh did. That paint might have had some novel features, but nothing unknowably new. We don’t even have evidence this was a material interaction versus QC failure.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#33
post #5

It seems that victim blaming is not something specific to just Boeing. Airbus blamed Qatar airways and the hot weather till similar issues emerged with planes of Finn Air and Air France in colder climates. Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Guess it is easier to victim blame when you operate in essence a duopoly. Competition is critical to solve these issues in the long run.

If you apply that proverb to a customer who is trying to haggle with you over the price (or other contractual details) of their ordered planes, soon you will be paying them to take your jets...

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#34
post #6

I’m not even close to an aviation expert but I’m curious if we are reaching a point where aerospace tech is too complicated. Both major manufacturers are having issues with their latest generation of planes. I’m curious what someone with expertise thinks about Boeing and Airbus’ issues

You could basically make this statement every year since commercial airliners were introduced. For commercial air transport, the 'bleeding edge' (which I put in quotes because it's actually quite conservative, relative to the bleeding edge in other fields) has always suffered from minor (and sometimes major and deadly) product quirks. Military aircraft even more so. This is also why there's a very strong industry pre…

And it’s also unavoidable. To really know how an airplane will age during its lifetime, you have to build it and use it for 50+ years.

That would mean all ‘in service’ aircraft would be based on 50+ year old designs. That clearly is undesirable, if only because it would be too expensive.

So, instead, one uses models for the effects of aging, for example by repeatedly freezing and heating parts while they also are being stressed physically and are under intense UV lighting. Those models can be wrong, but if you’re using new tech, you can’t afford to wait with selling airplanes until you know they are right.

(Of course, this isn’t limited to the aircraft industry; it happens in all engineering. For example, hard disk manufacturers don’t run new hard disk technology for decades to measure its MTBF, either)

Sometimes, such models need major adjustment, as happened with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#35
post #5

It seems that victim blaming is not something specific to just Boeing. Airbus blamed Qatar airways and the hot weather till similar issues emerged with planes of Finn Air and Air France in colder climates. Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Guess it is easier to victim blame when you operate in essence a duopoly. Competition is critical to solve these issues in the long run.

Boeing also initially blamed pilots for 737 MAX crashes, until too many of them crashed, the regulators caught up and grounded the planes, and forced them to take responsibility. It seems like shifting the blame is the norm in the airline industry.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-16/are-boein...

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#36
That lightning limiting conducting screen is too inherently flexible for the coating they used - it aged and became brittle and cracks appeared as the screen flexed. They are cosmetic AND protective to stop the naked screen from mechanical abrasion and fatigue flexure. They will watch and replace the coating when it gets bad

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#37
post #2

Arguably this is a much greater problem than it at first appears because it exposes a serious and fundamental problem with our materials development processes. Currently development of new products is going faster than we can understand the qualities and limitations of those products. How exactly this happened and what is the best response is not clear. Because of how these materials are made a failure of the exterio…

I've read this paragraph a couple times - and what I find intriguing is how it's the sort of thing that GPT-3 can write based on the initial news statement. Every sentence in it is somewhat tautological. Maybe I'm just more suspicious, but I can envision a time (uh, maybe it's already here?) when forums like HN start to get peppered with AI commentary... This sentence, though - seems to be without any basis: "Current…

Carbon fiber airframes are new and have displayed unanticipated failures. Maybe they should have had more testing or more should have gone into reliable inspection and repair. We as a society may come to appreciate demonstrated robustness as much as novelty and efficiency.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#39
post #5

It seems that victim blaming is not something specific to just Boeing. Airbus blamed Qatar airways and the hot weather till similar issues emerged with planes of Finn Air and Air France in colder climates. Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Guess it is easier to victim blame when you operate in essence a duopoly. Competition is critical to solve these issues in the long run.

Whatever happened to the customer is always right?

Marshall Field, the man who coined that phrase, went out of business. His department store got eaten by Macy's.

Re: Costly Airbus paint flaw goes wider than the Gulf

#40
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could basically make this statement every year since commercial airliners were introduced. For commercial air transport, the 'bleeding edge' (which I put in quotes because it's actually quite conservative, relative to the bleeding edge in other fields) has always suffered from minor (and sometimes major and deadly) product quirks. Military aircraft even more so. This is also why there's a very strong industry pre…

And it’s also unavoidable. To really know how an airplane will age during its lifetime, you have to build it and use it for 50+ years. That would mean all ‘in service’ aircraft would be based on 50+ year old designs. That clearly is undesirable, if only because it would be too expensive. So, instead, one uses models for the effects of aging, for example by repeatedly freezing and heating parts while they also are bei…

I guess GP's point could be summarized as "Does the amount of complexity required to improve planes now exceed our ability to manage?"

Curious in responses from that perspective. Are airframes that much more complicated? Or just better due to advances in aerodynamic understanding, but not much more complicated?

And same question for engines. Are modern high-bypass turbofans more complex?

Post reply on HN