A societal thing? The case can be made that in a culture where almost all the people allow others to make decisions for them, there will be an environment of acceptance....
Can anyone come up with a more disturbing in flight emergency than an incontinent engine at altitude? Cabin fire? Loss of vertical Stabilizer?
The culture is adversarial...there is much to be gained by maintaining a level of ignorance in the client base. How is this done?
Post incident "damage control". But there is a balance to be struck, when the client base is not informed, and subject to unwarranted and hysterical press.
QF 32, a case in point? The appetite for hysteria is satisfied; once encountered, any anomalous near-disaster becomes less interesting, especially when there is a "hero" or three to trot out, to solidify our need to be protected from danger.
Minimize the good Captain? Not at all, his work, and that of his mates was exemplary. The technical issues were initially not popularly known, became so, and have now retreated back into the protective coccoon of proprietary issues, and minimized data.
No one has written a book about the initiating technical problems. That is a book I would buy. A book about a competent crew doing what they are paid to do?
As I understand it, evolution in technology is similar to biological evolution in that it happens in leaps and plateaus, not a steady plod. I seem to recall the engines on the early 747s, which were the biggest in their day, much like the A380's now, had similar recurring problems. I suspect the next big leap will initially suffer, too.
Just a small point, A380 engine power is between about 70 to 90 IIRC.
The 777 has had been using 115 for about 7 or 9 years I think.
IIRC, engine makers have operated upto 120/130 in testing for normal aircraft type engines, guess thrust ASIM at hi power steeings will be an interesting read..!!!
Joetom is referring to engine TO thrust in KLbs, I believe.
But I won't think in the same terms (higher thrust => higher risk) - it is entirely possible the newer GP7270 engine in the A380 is higher tech than the decade-old GEnx and therefore marginally more risky at this time.
In other words, risk is more associated with newness.
Aviation safety is predicated on certification to standards and maintenance to standards.
Every new product enters with unknowns and enters the total fleet with long standing products that have a mix of known risk (under maintenance plans) and unknowns (defects that haven't been exposed yet, and last but by no means least, maintenance hacks). On top of all this is the learning curve of the operators (crew members and mechanics).
The new products end up on the left edge of the bathtub curve mostly because the user plan (how to fly it and how to maintain it) haven't adjusted yet to the individual new problems that crop up. By the time the product is in service a year or more these lessons are well learned and we end up at the bottom of the curve as things begin to wear faster than anticipated in inspections and maintained plans. The curve turns upwards when the used product shifts to 3rd tier operators who are unable or unwilling to keep up0 with the wear out modes.
From a risk standpoint one simply looks at the rates of serious consequences in balance with exposure (how many similar products).
Sure, one bang sounds serious only when you imagine a hundred more in quick succession. But then again the response of the manufacturers and the operators to understand and provide closure on the problem is always fast enough to limit the total exposure to the passenger.
Nothing new here in this thread and maybe time to move it to more technical discussions until something else shows up in R&N
I must admit that I have a little difficulty extrapolating anything new from what has been added - - - but my curiosity goes on and thanks for the earlier comments about how I should stick to reading !
Just for the record - - I and my entire family live under the flight path just east of Mudgee Australia where the most recent events happened , so I like to know whats going to give my 6 grandchildren headache at that hour of the day - - and help prevent it if possible.
In the past I have taken part in solving Engine problems and supplying new solutions , but as I dont work for an Airline Engineering dept - - I look for little Clue's on your threads when incidents like this happen .
Incidentally I have travelled on both Emirates and Qantas A380's - - I like them both - - to keep flying just fine .
The real gem was when Emirates was seeking damages from Rolls-Royce shortly after the QF incident, (even though Emirates has GE engine on their fleet). Emirates' claimed the QF engine failure had tarnished the image of all A-380's, thus causing a loss of value to Emirates' fleet.
Maybe QF, Singapore and Lufthansa will seek damages from Emirates now for the same reasoning?
Perhaps Garuda, 1-2-Go, or Swazi airways, Air Botswana should also sue Emirates for tarnishing the esteem that their aviation companies are held in... ? Seems fair.