One of the of the key tenets of civil aviation safety is that you're not allowed to injure people on the ground. Passengers are to an extent expendable, they signed up to fly on the thing and there's an understanding in the public consciousness that sometimes things go wrong on aircraft. Yes the airlines have a liability, but it is to some extent reduced.
WD.
er, good consideration, risk management position, and excellent "fly neighborly" advice, however the Rome Convention of 1952, (Oct 7), "Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface", specifically addresses this issue. (Oddly Australia denounced the treaty in Y2K.... but only one assumes so to ratify the "International Conference on Air Law on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties Arising from Acts of Unlawful Interference or from General Risks", held at Montreal, 20 April - 2 May 2009, which appears to encompass parts of the Rome, Tokyo, and Montreal Conventions neatly). It is an ICAO convention, which ipso facto is a "key tenet" of "Civil Aviation". Even had it's own stamps and everything....
The Postal History of ICAO
beautiful stamps....
a380 operating environment
A further issue has been discussed concerning the operations of the A380.The theory as to this failure although not established could also be caused by ingestion on takeoff under certain conditions.Remember the Air France Concorde accident? Debris left on the runway by other aircraft? Due to the large size of this aircraft and the immense power of the Trent. Air ingested is sucked in from a larger area in front of the A380 including off runway areas on narrow runways not experienced by other aircraft types.Proximity to the ground with such power may produce a higher risk curve for ingestion or delayed ingestion failure than other aircraft types?
probably able to rule out the A380 #2 engine ingesting a Concorde....
"..... what would have happened if #1 had been affected in some way by #2 and needed to be shut down?" Food for thought indeed if anyone still wants a 2-engines vs 4-engines debate. The latter fly very badly on two engines. Twins fly very well on one engine.
Kwateow.
OK, can I use that as an argument next sim to not do the obligatory 2 engine approach? After 33 years doing that dreaded event 2 or 3 times in the sim every 6 months, once for real in the military, it really is, what? very badly? What can be bad is a B763ER at 182T doing a turning OEI departure... or a B772ER or 773/3ER at 645k, 660k, or 750k doing the same, almost as bad as a 4 engine normal departure of an A343....
