Gob writes:
No professional journalist would copy information from PPRuNe ... to do your job as a journalist and check the information is reliable, then you can count me out as a reader.
Actually, I saw that list first on the blue site with lots of pictures. I don't know if it was written by one of the pilots/experts there and then picked up, or if someone there merely found it somewhere else and posted it.
But it *has* been repeated in the relevant thread there at least 3 times I am aware of.
RE: "With respect, Ancient Geek, I said 'professional' journalist."
And so it goes...
JFZ90 writes:
Given the way the info is now being used to sensationalise and may in the worst case affect (unfairly) public perception of A380- you should be careful. Unlike many on here who just want to understand what went wrong, journos have a different agenda and can't generally be trusted!
J -
I really hope you don't think Para's posting of an existing AD will unfairly affect public perception of the A380.
Also, I haven't seen much sensastionization, save for what has been appearing in Aussie rags - which has mostly been cheap papers taking shots at Qantas, not the A380.
Algy writes:
Slightly surprised to see the FAA issuing an AD on an aircraft which, as they point out, is not in service with any US operator. I didn't realise they ever did that.
I don't recall instances of this either, but the A380 does service a few US airports.
I'm in favor of this approach, not because I'm pro-Boeing but because it promotes safety "here" and there. Eventually the A380 will be picked up by US operators, and this is just one more way of making them as safe as possible.
I'm not an Airbus fan, but I must admit this frame sustained a good bit of damage and managed to deliver all on board safely back to earth. Hopefully it can be repaired back to spec and continue a long career.
Bearfoil writes:
This engine is built like a battleship; stresses within can be understood mathematically, but seldom viscerally
Wait... What? Did you mean
Liberty Ship?
Even RR themselves have promoted the Trent 900 as being extremely efficient, as light as possible, with the best economy.
Speaking to recent events, apparently not all stresses within were understood.
Peter writes:
7. The aircraft stopped with just over 100 metres or runway left,
That explains the several comments in other forums about how the Spirit of Australia ended up conveniently at the end of the runway where "the emergency vehicles were waiting."
Nice that it DID stop there.
I'm really hoping this turns out to be less worse than it seems at the moment, and that the widely-published "20 to 40 engines" which could possibly need replacement is hype and exaggeration. It would truly be a shame for RR to have stepped in this much dung.
Cheers!