infrequentflyer789
The GE disintegration affected #2 and Starboard wing I believe
because it was on the deck. The disc and other parts had rebounded off the concrete to carom into right Engine, pylon, etc. That isn't an excuse, of course, but to assume the second powerplant in a twin would fail in the air, based on the GE 767 experience is not valid, imo. bear
SandyW
Overspeed has not been mentioned as a cause at all as of yet, by those here who post anonymously, and
do know the status of the inquiry. imo So far, overheat via fire (only I have suggested friction from compromised bearings, and I am not one who knows much of anything,
)
To paint a broader picture of this incident, knowing what is known, I think two things appear in focus.
lomapaseo explains it eloquently in his asessment of Regulator/Operator 'mission'. Each is different, and together they comprise a complete picture of aviation. The operator calculates from a position of business, to
include safety. The Regulator is charged with protecting the passengers' carriage, virtually all safety. There is always some tug and push, because of their separate missions. Left to wander off in pursuit of only one approach, the process gets more and more absurd (and dangerous, or bankrupt). Everything in Life is an agreement, a contract, a
compromise of some description. Qantas appears to be in compliance, and the authority seems to have made reasonable demands. In this case, something happened
unexpectedly, and those who don't understand the nature of the 'agreement' may snarl without basis at one or the other. The goal is to analyze, propose, and act prudently. Does any one have a better way to do it?
Lastly, and without sounding too praiseworthy, I have a new and profound respect for the Aircraft (380). I'd compliment the flightcrew, and the cabin crew, but they have done what they are supposed to do, as did the aircraft. (just kidding!)
bear