EK413 engine failure..

[Ramjager]

Just landed back in Sydney after losing the number 3.
Oh and its a 380 and just after this was in the paper this morning!

A380 engine failure a 'big wake-up call': Emirates (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/a380-engine-failure-a-big-wakeup-call-emirates-20101111-17oqu.html)

[bubble.head]

Unless you are Marty Mcfly, the article you've referenced is from November 11th 2010.

[SOPS]

That was what I was just about to say!

[Ramjager]

Oh well whats a couple of years when it comes to the media!!
sorry had it flicked to me this morning..

[wooski]

I think you meant this one
#3 engine went bang of some-sort.

Emirates A380 in a Sydney mid-air engine explosion | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/world/emirates-a380s-in-a-sydney-mid-air-engine-explosion/story-e6frfqai-1226514824688)

[sinala1]

Guessing this is the article being referred to:

Emirates A380 in a Sydney mid-air engine explosion | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/world/emirates-a380s-in-a-sydney-mid-air-engine-explosion/story-e6frfqai-1226514824688)

DISTRESSED passengers told how they survived a mid-air emergency last night when an Emirates A380's engine exploded at 10,000 feet and forced it to turn back for an emergency landing.
About 20 minutes after leaving Sydney, Emirates flight EK413 experienced an "engine fault'' en route to Dubai.

"I saw a flash,'' John Fothergill, 49, from Auckland, said. "I thought it could have been lightening but then we saw flames come out of the engine. The whole interior of the A380 lit up.

"You'd have to say there were two or three metre flames. (The) explosion shook the plane, there was a bigger judder.''

Emirates flight attendants responded by moving straight to the windows that faced out to the engine.

They observed the damaged and asked the passengers what they had seen.

Mr Fothergill's wife, Dr Amal Aburawi, questioned how the Emirates staff reacted and said, "The staff panicked more than the passengers.''

She said: "Everyone was running left and right (with) no one knowing what's happened.''

"I was in the same incident in 1988 when I was travelling on Alitalia, (so) it was (a) flash back to what happened (there). It was exactly the same (but) the way it was being handled on Alitalia was so organised and calmer than what's happened tonight.''

Dr Aburawi furthermore criticised Emirate's flight attendants for not properly informing some non-English speaking passengers of the incident.

"I'm a frequent flyer on Emirates,'' she said. "Usually its Arabic announcement following the English, (but) this time no one mentioned anything in Arabic and there (were) many Arabic passengers, many of them old ladies.

"I held (an Emirates flight attendant) by the hand and said, 'Can you ask someone to do the announcement in Arabic because there are Arabic people who will not understand what's happening with this panic situation'.

"(She said she would) send Arabic speaking staff to tell them and calm them down. (But) I checked with them when we landed and no one spoke to them. They don't know why we landed back in Sydney.

"This is where I feel angry, I feel angry for the way non-English speaking passengers faced this situation.

"Emirates should be well trained in this.

"I hope Emirates will get some lessons out of this.''

Emirates said an "engine fault'' was to blame for the incident.

The pilot contacted ground crew at Sydney Airport and a decision was made to dump fuel and turn the plane around.

Emirates said, "Passengers are being re-booked on alternative flights (and) Emirates apologises for any inconvenience caused to its customers.''

[slamer.]

Engine explodes on Emirates flight



11:21 AM Monday Nov 12, 2012 http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201246/SCCZEN_021012NZHDPEMIRATES14_220x147.jpg (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10846830#)

(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10846830#)


A New Zealander says "two or three metre flames" were coming from the engine of an Emirates A380 flight which had an engine explode mid-flight last night.
Emirates flight EK413 was forced to turn around after it suffered an "engine fault" at 10,000 feet, about 20 minutes after leaving Sydney for Dubai, news.com.au reported.
Aucklander John Fothergill, 49, told news.com.au he saw a "flash" before the plane started to shake.
"I thought it could have been lightning but then we saw flames come out of the engine. The whole interior of the A380 lit up.
"You'd have to say there were two or three metre flames. (The) explosion shook the plane, there was a bigger judder.''
Mr Fothergill's wife, Dr Amal Aburawi, questioned the response of staff on the flight.
"The staff panicked more than the passengers," she told news.com.au.
"Everyone was running left and right (with) no one knowing what's happened.''

She also criticised the staff for not making an announcement in Arabic following the English announcement.
"This is where I feel angry, I feel angry for the way non-English speaking passengers faced this situation."
The plane dumped fuel and turned around, landing back at Sydney Airport about 11.30pm local time.
Emirates said an engine fault was responsible for the incident.
Fairfax motoring journalist Matt Campbell was also aboard the flight. He had heard the incident may have been caused by bird strike.
"I didn't see flames but the flash that I saw would be consistent with an engine exploding," he told the Sydney Morning Herald.
"It was a bright orange light, I didn't see it for more than a split second, but it was still a very scary sight."

[Bagus]

Singapore Airlines has 11 471-seat A380s in its fleet, all powered by Rolls-Royce. The company said yesterday that it planned to take three of the jets out of service for as long as 48 hours to change the engines, in a precautionary measure after "slight" oil staining was found. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, the only other user of the Trent 900, replaced an engine on one jet.

Read more: Travel - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/a380-engine-failure-a-big-wakeup-call-emirates)



Old story - link no longer works.

[Blue Pineapple]

That's okay, the Captain can now demand 4 months off for stress counselling.............oh and to write a book of his heroic exploits!:D

[The Bungeyed Bandit]

Hope their not relying on QF to lend them an engine. They have one Dugong in H416 with an engine change due to cracked gearbox and another in H96 undergoing an extended "A" check with attrition lining to be replaced. Also heard they're nursing the rest of the 380 fleet's Rollers due to a required mod program that requires them to be cycled through SACL workshop.

These new aircraft that don't need any maintenance and fix themselves are fantastic.

[MASTEMA]

Mmmm that A380 has nice big Judds!:p

Nothing much on the news here in the sandpit, but no doubt Richard the C will be on the telly tonight referring us to his bible and how they should have handled landing a four engined aircraft with just three engines, on a short-ish 4000m runway :ok:

المزاح فقط ريتشارد!

Inshallah

[smiling monkey]

Another Emirates A380 had an inflight shutdown just a few days ago.

Incident: Emirates A388 near Kosice on Nov 7th 2012, engine shut down in flight (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=458d2f36&opt=0)

And on the same day, an Emirates 777 had one too.

Incident: Emirates B773 near Mumbai on Nov 7th 2012, engine shut down in flight (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=458d34f5&opt=0)

[Bagus]

Hopefully Tim is not taking Alan Joyce advise,new aircraft does not require maintenance,

[Olivia Howes]

I don't see what the issue is. The safety of the passengers was never at risk.

[AWB_Clerk]

Unless new aircraft come with R2-D2 astro-mech droids capable of clinging to the surface of the aircraft in flight whilst carrying out repairs then the statement that new aircraft don't need maintenance or are self healing will always be a load of cods wallop.

[swh]

Another Emirates A380 had an inflight shutdown just a few days ago.

Incident: Emirates A388 near Kosice on Nov 7th 2012, engine shut down in flight

And on the same day, an Emirates 777 had one too.

Incident: Emirates B773 near Mumbai on Nov 7th 2012, engine shut down in flight

Who would have ever thought that GE engine ever failed. This along with the 747-8F that had the GEnx engine failure on takeoff, and the two GEnx engines on the 787s with cracks subject to NTSB investigation.

Busy month for GE engine replacements, more than a $100 million dollars worth of engines, nice way to generate profits.

[Bagus]

Lucky it was not a code share QF/EK flight otherwise it would be a headline all over the news

[Nepotisim]

Bungeye, The Rat won't be lending any engines.

Emirates have the Engine Alliance GP7200.:ok:

[The Bungeyed Bandit]

OOPS, sorry about that Nepotism. Forgot about that little technicality. Still, they won't want to borrow a hangar. H96 - Dugong with extended "A" check, H416east - 330 that's been there for over a month with damaged Horizontal Stab, H416west - another Dugong with an unscheduled engine change.

[Tidbinbilla]

And...... back on topic. This is an Emirates thread, thanks :)

[Fris B. Fairing]

Investigators are reporting that the progress of their investigation has been seriously compromised by this morning's PPRuNe outage.

[neville_nobody]

So how many Engine failures for the A380 is that now?

Not a good look for what is essentially a new aircraft.

[swh]

Not a good look for what is essentially a new aircraft.

"New"...over 5 years now, SQs first flight with them was in Oct 2007.

[sierra5913]

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/yssy/AU-Sat-Nov-11-2012-1100Z.mp3

Start it at 3:40 sec.

[peuce]

Interesting that they were tossing up whether to continue or return?

Maybe just a slip of the tongue.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Good opportunity to showcase that terrific engine overhaul facility hey Alan?

Bbbbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzzzz

[QF94]

And...... back on topic. This is an Emirates thread, thanks http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

Emirates, QANTAS, is there any difference? There won't be by the end of their ten year agreement (subject to regulatory approval of course).

[atiuta]

Peuce

You've clearly never flown a four engine aircraft before. An engine failure is not necessarily a requirement to divert, in fact a straight failure will usually allow continuation to destination if you are over 2/3's thru the flight.

This failure does not appear to be a time critical event. Although they clearly wouldn't have had the fuel to make destination, it still made sense to leave the aircraft pointed in the direction it was going for 12 minutes while they worked the problem and meant that navigation was one less thing to deal with. Fuel jettison would have taken a considerable period of time to achieve anyway.

Nothing worse than a rushed attempt to return or a quick/wrong decision for a particular course of action when the availability of time has not been established.

[What-ho Squiffy!]

Reminds me of the Irish joke, where the captain reports a succession of engine failures in the 747, meaning the arrival time becoming more and more delayed. After hearing of the 3rd engine failure Paddy says to his mate: "If dat last engine fails, we'll be up here all day!"

Aaaand, back to the serious discussion...:O

[givemewings]

Got to love the comments from pax that FA's looking out the window = panicking. Errr, how do they think the flight crew are going to get an accurate report without 'eyes in the back'? (yes yes I know there are cameras etc but I don't think they are clear enough or positioned correctly for this sort of thing)

As for engine change, I don't think Sydney on ground in springtime will be an issue... recall an article awhile back about someone in EK engineering creating a custom 'tent' to cover the area so they could work in adverse conditions and get urgent maintenance completed. Guess they can do the same here if needed.

QF equipment is different and not the right sort required for engine issues, about a year back a flight out of Sydney needed a component replaced and while QF had the spare the equipment required to fit it was not compatible, or so their engineer told us.

[Mrs Mangels]

swh-
the 773 was a RR.
And you were saying??

[mmciau]

Mrs Mangels,

Was the B777 an ER or not?


Mike

[peuce]

Guys, no I've never flown a 4 engined aircraft and never likely to. Hell, I have enough trouble pushing one engine around the sky.

I'm equally aware that, technically, an A380 could easily drag its backside to Dubai with 3 donks ... provided it had enough go juice.

Yes, settle things down, do the checks, do the sums and take a deep breath.

However, considering the un-seen collateral damage an engine failure caused to an A380 in Singapore, albeit an uncontained failure, which this doesn't appear to be, and considering the bad publicity received by another carrier when they recently completed a long haul leg with 1 down, out of LAX I think, is it really a philosophical or public relations option ... to continue on?

Would you really want a bus full of 400 edgy passengers down the back for 14 hours?

[MASTEMA]

EX A380/ Atiuta

Are you serious?

I can understand if they were somewhere enroute, but continue on three engines just after departing??

"They may have wanted to continue and land further down route once the fuel allowed landing at below max landing weight."

They had just taken off from SYD heading for DBX, so maybe the Alice or DRW was a consideration? Plenty of A380 spares there as opposed to returning to SYD :ok:

[nojwod]

From the radar tracks it looks like they didn't need to dump fuel, unless they did it over land. After the incident they turned due east to the coast, but before they were over the ocean they returned to near Mudgee where it happened and then tracked for a south approach to R34.

They landed shortly after 11.30 pm. I'm surprised they were allowed to land so long after the curfew, I mean what's the point in having a curfew if aircraft can bust it willy nilly any time they like just because an engine was underperforming? I can see this will open a can of worms, with airlines scheduling engine failures when approaching Sydney out of hours. Turn them back, like the boats I say. (you there Alan, c'mon, back me up here)

[bubble.head]

They landed shortly after 11.30 pm. I'm surprised they were allowed to land so long after the curfew, I mean what's the point in having a curfew if aircraft can bust it willy nilly any time they like just because an engine was underperforming? I can see this will open a can of worms, with airlines scheduling engine failures when approaching Sydney out of hours. Turn them back, like the boats I say. (you there Alan, c'mon, back me up here)

http://play.esea.net/global/media_preview.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.comicvine.com%2Fupl oads%2F7%2F75222%2F2072040-not_sure_if_serious.jpg

[maggot]

nah, he started strong but over did it. barely a pass, sorry.

[Bootstrap1]

There is a 3 engine ferry flight procedure in the AMM they should use that option to get it home.
Thai used this on a 744 a few weeks ago out of Sydney as well.

[neville_nobody]

"New"...over 5 years now, SQs first flight with them was in Oct 2007

In terms of aircraft design 5 years is nothing. These aren't motor cars we're talking about. Most jet transport aircraft flying today are designs well north of 20 years old.

Even if this was birdstrike the A380 is having alot of problems.

[neville_nobody]

There is absolutely no requirement to return or divert following the loss of one engine.

However if you declare a PAN you are going to have a hard time explaining why you then carried on for 8 hours.

Diverting an hour or so away (ie BNE or MEL) is one thing but to fly on for 8 hours is going to be hard to justify if you then had another problem on arrival or almost ran out of fuel like BA did a few years ago.

I mean what's the point in having a curfew if aircraft can bust it willy nilly any time they like just because an engine was underperforming?

Actually if Sydney Airport were smart they'd ask how many people filed a noise complaint (not many I would suggest) and then use it as ammo for extending the curfew!:} I mean if it's good enough for Biz Jets its good enough for everyone else.

[Lancair70]

I dont fly jets at all or in and out of YSSY. (I did twice, 20 yrs ago in a C210 tho)
But RE the curfew, I thought the curfew was for departing off the 34's or landing on the 16's after hours, if you can land/takeoff using 34/16 then you can ?

[Stalins ugly Brother]

That is why they spoke to company and the company decided that they wanted the jet back in Sydney. If the company had wanted them to continue to Singas, and if the captain felt that the aircraft was in good shape (minus one engine) they would have continued.

Whilst it's nice to be able to talk to the company and get their opinion, and I would certainly take it into consideration to a point, But to be advised to fly away from a major port for eight hours to say Singapore (Brisbane or melbourne I can understand) for commercial reasons after an engine failure??? I know where I'd be filing that advice!

Although I guess it does come down to the culture and policies of the employees company on the day and the pressures put on the crews.

IMHO, at the end of the day it's my name and licence on the line.

EK has had a 380 shut down an engine in the past (due low oil pressure) over Aus, and continued 3 engines to Dubai.

Was that over Australia or was it in Aus airspace over the Indian Ocean?

But RE the curfew, I thought the curfew was for departing off the 34's or landing on the 16's after hours, if you can land/takeoff using 34/16 then you can ?

I think it's an RPT restriction or a aircraft weight restriction for the curfew between 11pm-6am. There is a few exemptions to land no earlier than 5am but using 34.

[fix767]

At one stage, BNE Center advises aircraft in the vacinity of Mudgee and Scone that there will be a fuel dump from an A330 commencing at flight level 190. Oh well, an Airbus is an Airbus.

[VC9]

For those who have no experience of 4 engine aircraft, the failure of 1 engine use to be considered a normal operation. All options were usually still available. Continue to a preferred maintenance base was a far better option than landing somewhere and then having to do a 3 engine ferry.

[Capt Fathom]

For the record, EK has had a 380 shut down an engine in the past (due low oil pressure) over Aus, and continued 3 engines to Dubai.

Not possible under Australian regs! EK obviously have different rules!

[Capt Fathom]

Curfew restrictions do not apply for abnormal operations.

Division 2—Emergencies and dispensations

18 Aircraft may take off or land in emergencies or if Minister grants dispensation

An aircraft may take off from, or land at, Sydney Airport in circumstances that would otherwise contravene section 7, 10 or 11 if:

(d) there is an urgent need for the aircraft to land or take off:

[Twin Beech]

Airlines operate to rules approved by their home regulator. Many foreign regulations are disregarded by Qantas for example, because CASA is viewed by foreign regulators as a competent authority, able to make reasonable restrictions on the operations of their carriers. Its reciprocal...we don't require overseas carriers to comply with every bit of trivia in our AIP either.

And BTW, +1 on four engined ops. Zero panic. Otherwise explain the DC-10

A probably false story doing the rounds thirty years ago had a B-52 declaring a mayday after an engine failure. A calmer voice transmitted "Ah yes, the dreaded seven engine approach!"

[Bypass ratio]

I think that if it was a straight failure then a continuation on a 4 engine aircraft is a distinct possibility. If it was severe damage, fire/flames reported (and in this case it was) then I would be landing at the nearest suitable airport regardless of how many engines you have. What if the fanblade seizes? I don't think you'd be able to continue for 12 hours......

[CPT733]

but no doubt Richard the C will be on the telly tonight referring us to his bible and how they should have handled landing a four engined aircraft with just three engines, on a short-ish 4000m runway

A new book maybe???

[strut780]

From A340 FCTM: quoting FAR121.565 as guidance..."If no more than 1 engine is shutdown on an aeroplane with 3 or more engines, the regulations permit the PIC to fly beyond the nearest suitable airport in point of time if he determines that doing so is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport."

[atiuta]

The discussion about continuing or not after an engine failure on a 4 engine aircraft stemmed from a comment of surprise from someone that the 413 crew were even considering it.

The fact is you can continue.

I'm not (and never was) advocating any particular course of action in this specific case. Wether you continue or not depends on the nature of the failure, collateral damage, company requirements, fuel etc etc. Gathering this information would have taken time and there was nothing to lose in remaining on course for 12 minutes while this information was gathered. They weren't critical for time or certainly didn't appear to be!

As stated before, a PAN call was a choice they made that could easily be downgraded but gave them the priority if they needed or wanted it.

Perhaps some here advocate the following approach to an engine failure after take off, "In the event of an engine failure, we'll join downwind at 1500', remain at take off flap, do what checklists we can, and make a visual approach".

Sadly I still occasionally hear this briefing.

[Stalins ugly Brother]

SUB - I don't know your background. But if you had time on 4 eng aircraft you would know that an engine failure is not an emergency. You do not have to declare a pan for an engine failure on a 4 eng aircraft. There is no pressure, the company will not say - YOU MUST LAND YOUR AIRCRAFT HERE. They will provide information from their point of view, and as captain, you decide whether you will use their advice or not. It is part of CRM

Ex-380, I haven't flown any other jet In my career other than a four engine jet, and I agree, a straight forward failure is not a big deal. However, taking into consideration your point in space at the time of the said failure I would be very hesitant to leave the airspace of a major port and fly eight hours because I can. I would still return or divert to the most suitable airport for the pax/crew/company/ and me. If that's eight hours so be it, but if it's two hours guess where I'm going? :ok:

Maybe im not as brave as some! :eek:

[swh]

However, taking into consideration your point in space at the time of the said failure I would be very hesitant to leave the airspace of a major port and fly eight hours because I can. I would still return or divert to the most suitable airport for the pax/crew/company/ and me. If that's eight hours so be it, but if it's two hours guess where I'm going?

Modern aircraft are a flying computer networks. The airlines engineering control on the ground can see the different systems, they can see the engine parameters. They have a good idea of what has happened as quick as the pilots do.

With the fuel load onboard they could go a long way on 3 engines. The aircraft would have been well above the maximum landing weight, so unless they were on fire, it will be some time before they could have landed. Landing or doing a missed approach on 3 engines at maximum landing weight does not have the same buffers compared to a lighter fuel load.

If they went to Singapore, they could have all the passenger handling aspects done during the 8 hour flight, and possibly an engine on its way to meet the aircraft from DXB. Good luck quickly getting hotel rooms for everyone late at night in Sydney.

Flying for 8+ hours on 3 engines in a quad would happen worldwide several times a year. You may recall a case where BA had a compressor stall leaving LAX, and went onto Manchester on 3 engines. the FAA controller filed a complaint as he saw flames coming from the aircraft, it was his opinion they should have landed.

[Buckshot]

You may recall a case where BA had a compressor stall leaving LAX, and went onto Manchester on 3 engines.

Actually from memory they diverted to MAN after declaring a fuel emergency because they couldn't make LHR on 3.

[SMOC]

Actually from memory they diverted to MAN after declaring a fuel emergency because they couldn't make LHR on 3.

Actually they did have enough fuel, if you read the report BA used there own non Boeing fuel balance procedure (basically using O/J pumps only and not turning off boost pumps) this only works up to a point and that point was Manchester after the investigation BA now use the correct Boeing procedure.

The crew had been using the override/jettison pumps to maintain fuel balance but these became ineffective towards the end of the flight. Thereafter, there was a reluctance to turn both main pumps off in a tank and a lack of confidence that this would be effective. There was ncreasng concern that they would not be able to keep the main tanks balanced and that some of the fuel might be unavailable.
A better understanding of the fuel system should have reassured the crew that fuel should have been avalable to all engines even with one tank empty. Nevertheless, the awareness of the apparent problem came at a time when the crew had made the decision to divert, had started the descent to Manchester and was therefore busy. If the crew had been n the habt of utlsng the manufacturer’s procedures for balancing fuel by only using the main pumps, it is possible that they would have become more confident with the procedure. Although the problem had not previously been encountered by other company pilots, the potential difficulties might have been foreseen by the operator. After the ncdent, the operator reverted to the manufacturer’s fuel handling procedures.

[Eastwest Loco]

At 1 hour out from SYD the run time remaining to DXB would have been 13.5 hours chock to chock, not 8 hours and probably more with 1 mill deadheading.

Is it possible that the fuel useage compensating for the dead #3 engine along with the drag for rudder deflection for compensating for the thrust imbalance may have made the potential range of the aeroplane a factor?

Probably something I shouldn't throw into the mix but just interested. I was always told and taught that a clean well trimmed aeroplane was a fast and fuel efficient one.

best all

EWL

[SMOC]

I'd say they could have made Bombay, however I doubt anyone would want to stop in India with the amount of paperwork required to get all the punters on the move again.

[Totenkopf]

MASTEMA,

Continuing to destination with 3 engines on a 4 engine a/c is not a problem at all (if it was a normal engine shutdown due to low oil pressure, high EGT, etc) and of course if the fuel onboard allows to do so.

An A340-500 from MAD/DXB continued to desination with 3 engines.
20 minutes after airborne the PIC had to shutdown engine #3 due to high EGT, the a/c made it to DXB with a DPP flight plan.

[Alien Role]

So what actually happened to the bloody engine....?? :sad:

[Engineer_aus]

So what actually happened to the bloody engine....??

Flames came out of the front and went ca-put!

[ChrisJ800]

Suspected bird strike, isn't it?

[Stagger Lee]

If it happened at 10,000 ft as reported i'm not sure what bird flies that high

But of course the newspapers may have the facts wrong :eek:

Another question is ... why did the engine change take so long ?

[Desert Busdriver]

Next topic please. Yawn.....zzzzzzzz

[ventus45]

Unless new aircraft come with R2-D2 astro-mech droids capable of clinging to the surface of the aircraft in flight whilst carrying out repairs then the statement that new aircraft don't need maintenance or are self healing will always be a load of cods wallop.

Perhaps not "quite" as rediculous as it sounds.
Some glider pilots use "bug wipers" on the wings, and have done for years.
They are deployed through the clear-view window (both sides) when required.
Perhaps some day, airliner designers will have to provide "droid bays" as well as MLG and NLG bays.

AWB_Clerk (http://www.pprune.org/members/220860-awb_clerk) Didn't you mean:
http://www.robothut.robotnut.com/drone1p0web.jpghttp://www.robothut.robotnut.com/drone2p0web.jpghttp://www.robothut.robotnut.com/drone3p0.jpg

[1a sound asleep]

Stagger lee- a few months back over here, at night, passing 10300 ft, one of our 777s hit a flamingo, ended up with a hole in the airplane, couldn't pressurise, lost the autopilot, and airspeed data. It was a very very nasty nasty event.

Photos showed a hole just forward of the #1 flightdeck window, and impact damage on the horiz stab, plus other impacts on the fuselage.:mad:

[MASTEMA]

Totenkopf

Maybe taking the avatar of 'deadhead' means you have a problem with comprehension and context.

I was referring only to this incident, where the engine was reported to have "exploded, had visible flames and substantial damage".

The failure (with damage) happened just after take off. Based on the information presented, if you and ExA380, et al wish to waddle off into the abyss and beyond for the next 13.0hrs, that is your decision. Personally, in this case, I would return to Sydney.

GenieBen Sie die Wuste, mein Freund ;)

[ramius315]

MASTEMA,

Where are you getting your quote from? Let me guess- passengers? The best source of accurate information.....

ExA380 sums it up perfectly in post #41. Before returning to Sydney there are a lot of factors to consider and maybe landing elsewhere was a better option.

Your comment 'I would have returned to Sydney' shows a blind arrogance that displays little acceptance that a bigger picture exists. Indeed, returning to sydney was apparently the best option in this case, but as stated flying to Singapore could have been. I haven't seen the washup on this (or photos of an engine having suffered an explosion either......get the hint?) but as stated, an engine failure in a 4 engine aircraft does not necessitate landing at the nearest suitable airport.

[MASTEMA]

your ramius315

As I have said, my comments were based on the information provided here and in the media.

You and A380 et al are armchairing this and stating that the crew should have continued on and in fact have even criticised them for making a PAN call, all based on what?

The crew made a PAN call and returned to SYD and I fully agree with their decision. Clearly you and your mates do not. Fair enough.

Also, when did an overweight landing become an "emergency procedure?" :confused:

[JetRacer]

Stagger Lee, Vultures can fly up to 36,000 feet... from Wikipedia and The Butterfly House in Sheffield, UK.

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Vultures can fly up to 36,000 feet...

Are they the Geoff Dixon type Vultures in their private jets??!! :}

[MASTEMA]

Ex A380

As I said above, I agree with the crews actions in this case and you and the stone throwing lynch mob do not, fair enough.

I think we are 'sat down and dusted.' :)

[ramius315]

MASTEMA,

Clearly you and your mates do not.

Wrong.

It is quite clear that you see only what you want to see, as opposed to what is actually written. An interesting trait for a pilot.

[MASTEMA]

Your ramius

You have been over here in the sandpit for what, four months now?

I would have thought your legendary hubris would have dissipated into nemesis by now...

Ex A380

You win 'Dude.' They could have continued and should not have made a PAN call.

Inshallah :)

[sierra5913]

Suspected bird strike, isn't it? Apologies if already posted..


On Nov 20th 2012 the ATSB reported that the #3 engine GP7270 (15,146 hours since new, 1,857 cycles since new) suffered a second stage high pressure turbine nozzle failure resulting in small holes and tears to the high pressure turbine case, however, no debris penetrated the nacelle. The Australian Transportation Safety Board ATSB is conducting an investigation.

[Totenkopf]

MASTEMA,

"EXPLODED????!!!! That was only reported by the OZ media and some uneducated passenger(s) seeking attention. Did you see the engine exploding or on fire?

In the same "Report" they said that the a/c was at 10,000FT 20 minutes after take off, well i think the A380 average climb rate can get you slightly higher than that in 20 minutes.

[MASTEMA]

Tossenoften

I based my comments on what was reported and susequently agreed with the crews actions i.e. they made a PAN call and returned to SYD.
That is my opinion.

You guys keep banging on like you were there ringside and that they "made the PAN call in error" and "could have continued."
That is your opinion.

I really couldn't give a toss if I had ten engines or just two. If I have a failure with damage that has the potential to cause a fire or further systems failure I am looking for somewhere to land. If it is just after takeoff from a major airport like SYD, then SYD it is.

I am certainly not suggesting rushing back for a landing but in this case, I would not consider waddling off into the abyss for the next 8-12 hrs and have the wing fall off just like some Die kurze Fuehrer with his cap tilted obtusely, a big moustache, matching watch, the rest of the crew cowering in absolute despotic fear and three or more good engines purring away obliviously. :)

[MASTEMA]

Ex A380 post #41

“Mastema - There is absolutely no requirement to return or divert following the loss of one engine.”

Ex A380 post #56

“I'm not saying they should of continued at all.”

Ex A380 post #43

"Neville, they may have called a pan in error."

Ex A380 post #87

"No one said they made a pan call in error"

Ex A380 post #81

"I never ever said dude, that I disagreed with the crew actions. Not once, not ever."

Oh, um er... really?

Such self delusion indeed, old fella, dude, old mate... Die kurze Fuehrer :bored:

And you are so very, very wrong in your assumptions about me.

Your Ramius, be careful what you shoot at. Most things here don't react too well to bullets.

[MASTEMA]

So very glad to have proven your delusion, old fella, dude, old mate... mein kurze Fuehrer :)

[MASTEMA]

Clearly perception is not your first intellect, mein kurze Fuehrer http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif