Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

EK413 engine failure..

Old 12th Nov 2012, 01:13
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,251
Investigators are reporting that the progress of their investigation has been seriously compromised by this morning's PPRuNe outage.
Fris B. Fairing is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2012, 02:01
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,333
So how many Engine failures for the A380 is that now?

Not a good look for what is essentially a new aircraft.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2012, 02:25
  #23 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,922
Originally Posted by neville_nobody
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.
swh is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2012, 03:03
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 79
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ys...2012-1100Z.mp3

Start it at 3:40 sec.
sierra5913 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2012, 06:37
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,135
Interesting that they were tossing up whether to continue or return?

Maybe just a slip of the tongue.
peuce is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2012, 08:03
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Good opportunity to showcase that terrific engine overhaul facility hey Alan?

Bbbbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzzzz
Mr.Buzzy is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2012, 11:51
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
And...... back on topic. This is an Emirates thread, thanks
Emirates, QANTAS, is there any difference? There won't be by the end of their ten year agreement (subject to regulatory approval of course).
QF94 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2012, 12:23
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 247
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.
atiuta is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2012, 13:58
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Asia Pacific.
Posts: 201
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...
What-ho Squiffy! is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2012, 15:13
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the back of a bus
Posts: 951
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.
givemewings is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2012, 18:13
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Dubai
Posts: 47
swh-
the 773 was a RR.
And you were saying??
Mrs Mangels is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2012, 18:21
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Marion, South Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 183
Mrs Mangels,

Was the B777 an ER or not?


Mike
mmciau is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2012, 19:28
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,135
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?
peuce is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2012, 22:11
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sand and dust, I hate the dust and I hate the sand
Posts: 113
????

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
MASTEMA is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 00:54
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 53
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)
nojwod is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 01:31
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: under a rock
Posts: 144
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 is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 01:48
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 954
nah, he started strong but over did it. barely a pass, sorry.
maggot is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 03:03
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Under the big blue hangar
Age: 35
Posts: 215
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.
Bootstrap1 is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 03:44
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,333
"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 is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2012, 04:20
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,333
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.

Last edited by neville_nobody; 13th Nov 2012 at 04:25.
neville_nobody is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.