Suspected bird strike, isn't it?

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 ?

Next topic please. Yawn.....zzzzzzzz

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 Didn't you mean:
http://www.robothut.robotnut.com/drone1p0web.jpghttp://www.robothut.robotnut.com/drone2p0web.jpghttp://www.robothut.robotnut.com/drone3p0.jpg

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:

Dead Head
 

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 ;)

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.

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:

EK413 engine failure..
 

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

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

Old Fella
 

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.' :)

MASTEMA,

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.

Ahhh that desert air, Dude.
 

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 :)

Apologies if already posted..

MASTEMA
 

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.

You're now being obtuse
 

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. :)

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.

It's the little things...