PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure
Old 18th Dec 2010, 15:42
  #1928 (permalink)  
mm43
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
rob ginger

I thought that 35YearPilot in Post #1751 had explained rather well the Alternate/Direct Law relationship that gave rise to the engine protections adopted. The Eng 2 first mentioned in the following, seems to be a typo, and he was referring to Eng 3, i.e. ATHR was not available and protections were applied.
Eng 2 in ALTN Mode (N1 with -4% thrust protection) (Due EEC having insufficient valid signals to calculate TPR)

1+4 EEC errors logged. Degraded mode is purely due to loss of sensor inputs/EEC errors. Think of it as the engine in Direct Law (no thrust protections!) (Due EEC not able to calc TPR demand. So N1 commanded as a function of TRA and altitude)

One engine in a degraded mode does not cause another symmetrical engine into degrade mode. Airbus never matches thrust - it's against their philosophy "manual thrust is manual thrust!" - not like pseudo Boeing "manual thrust".

So 1 & 4 in Degraded (think Direct Law) Mode (no protections)
3 in ALTN mode (think Alternate Law with protections)
2 was in Degraded mode (not surprising given there were so few sensors left)

NO engines were in a normal mode.

This is why 1,2,4 had N1 centric displays (Degraded) and 3 had an TPR centric display (ALTN) (though thrust set via N1 with 4% pad).

Thrust control on 1,3,4 all 100% correct (but differing protections)

Auto Thrust inop due to MORE THAN 2 eng in Degraded Mode

1+4 thrust levers held constant to: (not in any manuals)

permit very accurate (vernier) total thrust -> speed control on finals
minimise thrust missmatch->yaw->roll->flight control demand on finals with thrust changes (ESSENTIAL when little excess roll control available)


1+4 WAS NOT held at constant thrust due to them being in Degraded Mode (illogical).

Conclusion: The three level 380s thrust system has incredible fail operational capability.
From memory, I believe that Capt Evans said that a decision was made to use No.3 for speed control as less yaw correction would be required and Nos.1 & 4 were matched.

EDIT:: See Post #1931 for 35YearPilot's update.

mm43

Last edited by mm43; 19th Dec 2010 at 00:06. Reason: update - see edit
mm43 is offline