It was Friday August 18, 2023. A380 registered A6-EOMfrom the Emirates company, from Dubai, had found herself nailed to the ground after her landing in Nice.
In question an incident on the on -the -edge of attack on The right wing of the European Super Jumbo During the approach to Nice airport.
The damage was impressive. On social networks, some claimed that the A380 had hit a drone when it landed.
The rumor had largely circulated on specialized blogs. She had however immediately been denied in our columns: “This information is not proven”, said Bruno Boulay, Air Navigation Head at the South East DGACcontacted by Nice-Matin.
What had happened?
The crew in control of the EK77 flight, Between the airports of Dubai (United Arab Emirates), and Nicehad perceived a deaf noise followed by light vibrations.
The incident occurred during the approach above the sea, About 15km off Cap d’Antibesat an altitude of about 3,500 feet and a speed of 212 knots (392km/h). The landing had taken place without incident and without any alarm triggered.
The Airbus had been nailed to the ground for a weekend at Nice airport. The damage, on attack beak n ° 2 of the right wing were impressive. The aircraft had been delivered new to Emirates in August 2015. At the time of the incident, it totaled 3,084 flights for a total of 30,455 hours of flight.
What does the report say?
The Office of Investigation and Analysis for Civil Aviation Safety (BEA) made its report this Saturday, July 19, July 19.
“On the ground, an inspection reveals that the attack edge No. 2 of the right wing is significantly damaged: The upper and lower coatings on the leak edge are torn in about two thirds of the beak And the honeycomb structure is partially missing. “
The BEA studied the possibilities ofa collision with a drone or a bird. But one index led him on another path.
The investigation and analysis office has indeed found that, within seven months who followed, Three other Airbus A380s operated by the Singapore Airlines company experienced similar damage On attack beaks (a beak n ° 2 and two beaks n ° 4, both on the right and left side), occurred at the time of their exit.
From then on, Aeronautical bloodhounds have looked into damaged elements. Examination at the UV lamp did not identify an impact trace with a bird.
In addition, the deformations observed did not indicate that a shock could be the cause of damage. “The hypothesis of a collision in flight with a bird or with a drone was thus dismissed”, Note the bea.
The damage on attack edge n ° 2 of the right wing of the A380 were impressive.DR.
No consequences for flight security
“During the exams of the two on -the -basis of attacks taken, Ruptures of different natures have been identified in terms of collage between honeycomb and coatings on the edge of the spout. Some of these ruptures are consecutive to the event, while others can be associated with collage defects. ”
“The origin of these collage defects has not yet been identified to date And Airbus told the BEA continuing to seek its origin for the navigability monitoring, under the control of the AESA “, Comments the BEA.
According to investigators, this incident did not have No consequences for flight security.
“By comparing the parameters recorded during the event with theoretical models, Airbus made simulations showing that the damage to the attack edge n ° 2 did not have a measurable effect on the qualities of theft and the performance of the plane. In particular, no loss of lift was measured which could have affected the safety margins. “
From then on, the BEA retains a scenario: “Collage defects of the upper and lower coatings with the honeycomb nucleus pre -existed. They were able to weaken the structure.”
Looking other incidents that occurred on other Airbusall devices of the same type have been inspected without any similar damage being observed.
“Airbus plans to publish in January 2026 two service bulletins for all A380 operators in order to introduce repetitive inspections during visits A and C To identify possible coves or dilutings on a leakage edge of an attack beak“, concludes the BEA which ranked the case in the “incident” category.
