Is this guy a pilot ?
Assuming you refer to firstfloor, I do not know. However, I am a pilot, and agree with the thrust of what he says.
While I am sure there will be lessons / recommendations, I see nothing in this QF episode to indicate major problems anywhere:
- "Rule 1" Engines should not suffer uncontained failures. Everything in the engine design / manufacturing process / maintenance / operation should be based on adhering to that principle.
- Despite the "rule" above, it appears airframes should be designed with sufficient redundancy to cope with 1 HE fragment.
- In this event, due to "Rule 1" failing, there were 3 HE fragments.
- Despite 3 HE fragments, the aircraft had, and utilised, sufficient redundancy to, fly, diagnose, and plan a safe landing.
- I do not want to take anything away from the crew.... I am sure they did an outstanding job. However, I have not seen any indication that a "typical" competant line crew (of 2) could not have come to a similar "safe" outcome, even if it was less tidy / optimal / timely.
The lessons I think will mainly be for RR as to "how" Rule 1 got broken (QC?), and for the Regulator / AD chain that seemed to have picked up the problem (?), yet was not sufficient to prevent the accident.
NoD