Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure
"almost"... nothing happened...
almost brought superjumbo down
Would someone show any evidence of loss off control of flight path, inability to achieve performance, abnormal attitude, etc? This event is a technical failure which impacted a number of systems which Richard and his crew worked through in a logical manner to then return to the "nearest suitable". There was no fire, for various reasons, there was no catastrophic control or performance outcome, there was an interesting compound event caused by a common failure, as has happened in the past, and will happen in the future.
Yes, Annex 13 definitions will be interesting to apply to category, but, really, WTF.
Merapi is hundreds of miles away. Get over it.
Birdstrike? for an IPT disc failure, how?
Occams razor, get rid of the background static. Await the report. Stop the hysterics.
B744 QF6 engine failure... so what! It's an engine, they fail occasionally, sometimes events happen in clusters, sometimes that means something, more often not. QF engineering? the planes are still in good condition, in fact they had the largest level of MEL's well before offshore engineering became an issue, ie 48 MEL's on one departure, that was the good old days, additionally, engines used to fail then too, quite frequently, and mainly from mechanical failures.
Will pax board an A380 or B744 of any color tomorrow, of course they will, and they will also fly on any airline that saves them 50 bucks, irrespective of their safety history, national aviation authorities level of oversight or competency. SLF, don't whinge about risk without looking in the mirror, the commercial imperative is responsive to what you are prepared to value your safety.
FDR
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Melbourne
Age: 56
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
St Elmos fire
There are quite a few that are quick to discredit the possibility of Ash damage to the engine. from a Mountain that is quite close to the SIN-SYD flightpath (think about the previous sectors flown by the aircraft and damage to engines are cumulative if not remedied)
my mind still comes back the the JQ A330 that was operating north of SIN last Friday which encountered St Elmos fire and managed to lose the function of their TAT due to outside influence (agent not specified IIRC).
I think the general situation in the area in regards to Ash should be seriously considered by the investigators.
just my $0.02 worth.
Does anyone know when this Aircraft was handed back to QF from LH Teknik? how many LHR-SYD rotations has it done since the C-Check?
my mind still comes back the the JQ A330 that was operating north of SIN last Friday which encountered St Elmos fire and managed to lose the function of their TAT due to outside influence (agent not specified IIRC).
I think the general situation in the area in regards to Ash should be seriously considered by the investigators.
just my $0.02 worth.
Does anyone know when this Aircraft was handed back to QF from LH Teknik? how many LHR-SYD rotations has it done since the C-Check?
Last edited by derab; 5th Nov 2010 at 23:59. Reason: related question added
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morrissey,
I have a couple of questions:
1. The smoke and the noise happened simultaneously on takeoff or when would you say?
2. Did any passengers express concern over the delay to land?
3. There have been pictures and discussion regarding a hole (or holes) in the wing. Did you get an opportunity to view this? If so could you describe, and express whether it was expanding over time?
4. I don't know your experience, but would you describe the landing as power on, fast etc.?
I have a couple of questions:
1. The smoke and the noise happened simultaneously on takeoff or when would you say?
2. Did any passengers express concern over the delay to land?
3. There have been pictures and discussion regarding a hole (or holes) in the wing. Did you get an opportunity to view this? If so could you describe, and express whether it was expanding over time?
4. I don't know your experience, but would you describe the landing as power on, fast etc.?
I think the general situation in the area in regards to Ash should be seriously considered by the investigators.
just my $0.02 worth.
just my $0.02 worth.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a slf could I ask re engine #1, after literally extinguishing it on the ground would the fuel flow to it have remained pressurised due to the fault thus requiring a manual closing of any feed? Would there also have been fuel leaking out before a closure?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
garage years
FWIW: the fuel pump in my car had run fine for the 243,000 miles prior to my McDonalds stop, so those ba#@$rds really owe me. 
Twice round the clock!
What make is it? Volvo? And I'll bet it is diesel.
Sure ain't Airbus.
Twice round the clock!
What make is it? Volvo? And I'll bet it is diesel.
Sure ain't Airbus.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dr. Smith
Good question. If the 900 is laid out like the 700, the final and high pressure fuel pump is mechanically driven through a transmission and a geared shaft from the engine itself.
All the pumps I believe rely on valves and some "spill return". Spill return means in this case the return of excess supplied fuel to the plumbing in front, to be remetered back into the loop. The valves are controlled by electrical solenoids, I believe. If the ignition source is killed, and the fire (the proper one) is extinguished, but electrical system cannot be defeated, I would assume the engine would receive pumped fuel to the nozzles until unspooling is complete. This I would assume presents a secondary fire hazard in and of itself, if indeed there was an external source of (re) ignition. My further opinion is that all the sumps, pumps, valves, filters and controls inboard of the failure (electrical) would remain functional. So spar valve and other interruptions in supply would prevent all but fuel contained in wing lines and pylon from reaching the engine plumbing. I would assume that this remaindered fuel would pass through the system as it was being flooded via the inlet, so there was most likely no further hazard.
bear
edit sharksandwich. My 1991 Volvo sedan has 436,357 miles on the clock. It has had nothing but good care and tune-ups in that time. No noises, smoke or even degraded MPG!!. It sits forlorn in the yard, in excellent overall condition, but no one wants to drive it, they are afraid of it. So much for confidence in "Experience".
Good question. If the 900 is laid out like the 700, the final and high pressure fuel pump is mechanically driven through a transmission and a geared shaft from the engine itself.
All the pumps I believe rely on valves and some "spill return". Spill return means in this case the return of excess supplied fuel to the plumbing in front, to be remetered back into the loop. The valves are controlled by electrical solenoids, I believe. If the ignition source is killed, and the fire (the proper one) is extinguished, but electrical system cannot be defeated, I would assume the engine would receive pumped fuel to the nozzles until unspooling is complete. This I would assume presents a secondary fire hazard in and of itself, if indeed there was an external source of (re) ignition. My further opinion is that all the sumps, pumps, valves, filters and controls inboard of the failure (electrical) would remain functional. So spar valve and other interruptions in supply would prevent all but fuel contained in wing lines and pylon from reaching the engine plumbing. I would assume that this remaindered fuel would pass through the system as it was being flooded via the inlet, so there was most likely no further hazard.
bear
edit sharksandwich. My 1991 Volvo sedan has 436,357 miles on the clock. It has had nothing but good care and tune-ups in that time. No noises, smoke or even degraded MPG!!. It sits forlorn in the yard, in excellent overall condition, but no one wants to drive it, they are afraid of it. So much for confidence in "Experience".
Last edited by bearfoil; 6th Nov 2010 at 00:47.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380 / RR Trent 900 - Qantas VH-OQA incident on 4th November 2010
Subject: A380 / RR Trent 900 - Qantas VH-OQA incident on 4th November 2010
Subject: A380 / RR Trent 900 - Qantas VH-OQA incident on 4th November 2010
Our ref.: ED 202 AIT 1, dated 4th November 2010
Airbus confirms that an A380 aircraft operated by Qantas was involved in an
in flight engine failure during flight QF32 from Singapore to Sydney, on 4th
November 2010.
The aircraft, registration number VH-OQA, Manufacturer Serial Number 14,
was delivered to Qantas and had logged around 8165 flight hours and 831
flight cycles as of today. It is powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines.
Preliminary reports indicate that the aircraft suffered an engine failure
after take-off from Singapore. It performed an in flight turn back and
landed safely back in Singapore. The failed RR Trent 900 engine had logged
around 676 cycles since new.
There were 440 passengers and 26 crew on board. No injuries were reported.
In line with ICAO annex 13, an Airbus go-team of technical advisors is
being dispatched to provide full assistance to the authorities in charge of
the investigation.
Further update will be provided as soon as further consolidated information
is available and Airbus is authorized to release them.
Subject: A380 / RR Trent 900 - Qantas VH-OQA incident on 4th November 2010
Our ref.: ED 202 AIT 1, dated 4th November 2010
Airbus confirms that an A380 aircraft operated by Qantas was involved in an
in flight engine failure during flight QF32 from Singapore to Sydney, on 4th
November 2010.
The aircraft, registration number VH-OQA, Manufacturer Serial Number 14,
was delivered to Qantas and had logged around 8165 flight hours and 831
flight cycles as of today. It is powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines.
Preliminary reports indicate that the aircraft suffered an engine failure
after take-off from Singapore. It performed an in flight turn back and
landed safely back in Singapore. The failed RR Trent 900 engine had logged
around 676 cycles since new.
There were 440 passengers and 26 crew on board. No injuries were reported.
In line with ICAO annex 13, an Airbus go-team of technical advisors is
being dispatched to provide full assistance to the authorities in charge of
the investigation.
Further update will be provided as soon as further consolidated information
is available and Airbus is authorized to release them.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: us
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So either maintenance related or "ground related" (ingestion, or similar).
We cannot ignore the fact that engine nr2 had operated for many hours without a glitch just before landing at SIN, the stop at SIN must have a factual significant relation with the problem, whatever this was
We cannot ignore the fact that engine nr2 had operated for many hours without a glitch just before landing at SIN, the stop at SIN must have a factual significant relation with the problem, whatever this was
Uncontained Failure:
GE= That does not sound good
PW= Maybe we ought to look in to it.
RR= What did YOU do.
Someone, whether it is ATSB, Airbus, or another authority is going to step up to the plate here pretty soon and tell Rolls they got an ugly baby.
VFD
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morrissey
Was sitting towards the pack of the plane and watching the take off on the skycam. Was clearlly visible that what I initially thought was a puff of smoke coming from the engine followed by the bang and a sound of grating metal.
I'd like to thank the crew for getting us back on the ground safely. I've not got through all the posts on this thread, but a couple of responses to some questions:-
It was announced there were five qualified pilots on board, so lots of experience to deal with issues
There were multiple system failures reported and the checklists took an hour to run through, hence the extended time circling.
Was sitting towards the pack of the plane and watching the take off on the skycam. Was clearlly visible that what I initially thought was a puff of smoke coming from the engine followed by the bang and a sound of grating metal.
I'd like to thank the crew for getting us back on the ground safely. I've not got through all the posts on this thread, but a couple of responses to some questions:-
It was announced there were five qualified pilots on board, so lots of experience to deal with issues
There were multiple system failures reported and the checklists took an hour to run through, hence the extended time circling.
The No.1 engine would not shut down and they were trying to close it down by water ingestion on landing
No.2 was leaking fuel, and it was decided to keep everyone onboard until this was dealt with
Please no flaming posts if I've used a wrong word of terminology above, I'm just a simple passenger with a passing interest in aviation.
If anyone has any specific questions then please post them here.
No.2 was leaking fuel, and it was decided to keep everyone onboard until this was dealt with
Please no flaming posts if I've used a wrong word of terminology above, I'm just a simple passenger with a passing interest in aviation.
If anyone has any specific questions then please post them here.
I'd like to thank the crew for getting us back on the ground safely. I've not got through all the posts on this thread, but a couple of responses to some questions:-
It was announced there were five qualified pilots on board, so lots of experience to deal with issues
There were multiple system failures reported and the checklists took an hour to run through, hence the extended time circling.
Was sitting towards the pack of the plane and watching the take off on the skycam. Was clearlly visible that what I initially thought was a puff of smoke coming from the engine followed by the bang and a sound of grating metal.
I'd like to thank the crew for getting us back on the ground safely. I've not got through all the posts on this thread, but a couple of responses to some questions:-
It was announced there were five qualified pilots on board, so lots of experience to deal with issues
There were multiple system failures reported and the checklists took an hour to run through, hence the extended time circling.
The No.1 engine would not shut down and they were trying to close it down by water ingestion on landing
No.2 was leaking fuel, and it was decided to keep everyone onboard until this was dealt with
Please no flaming posts if I've used a wrong word of terminology above, I'm just a simple passenger with a passing interest in aviation.
If anyone has any specific questions then please post them here.
No.2 was leaking fuel, and it was decided to keep everyone onboard until this was dealt with
Please no flaming posts if I've used a wrong word of terminology above, I'm just a simple passenger with a passing interest in aviation.
If anyone has any specific questions then please post them here.
The hour lost due to checklists is a load of crap, most likly fuel dump time oe enroute.
Your reference to #1 engine is illogical, this engine is electronically controlled and will shut down or not based on pilot command.
Think you were given bad info or more likely interpreted it incorrectly.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your reference to #1 engine is illogical, this engine is electronically controlled and will shut down or not based on pilot command.
....but it did happen.
The Engine had to be shut down via water ingestion from the fire department.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Taiwan
Age: 45
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kwateow,
Volcanic ash moves around in the atmosphere and so do aircraft, which means the two entities have a chance of encountering each other regardless of where ash residue is at any one time. As ash build-up in an engine doesn't necessarily cause immediate damage (ie: it's an accumulation), failure could have been caused by ash at a location anywhere in the world at any time after previously flying through ash if an accumulation went unnoticed.
I'm not speculating that ash was any way involved, but you appear to lack any sense of logic with your assertions. This looks bad for you seeing as you like to comment on other peoples' lack of laguage/logic skills.
As for the standard of your written work - particularly concerning your grammar and punctuation, please refer to your own post about education.
Volcanic ash moves around in the atmosphere and so do aircraft, which means the two entities have a chance of encountering each other regardless of where ash residue is at any one time. As ash build-up in an engine doesn't necessarily cause immediate damage (ie: it's an accumulation), failure could have been caused by ash at a location anywhere in the world at any time after previously flying through ash if an accumulation went unnoticed.
I'm not speculating that ash was any way involved, but you appear to lack any sense of logic with your assertions. This looks bad for you seeing as you like to comment on other peoples' lack of laguage/logic skills.
As for the standard of your written work - particularly concerning your grammar and punctuation, please refer to your own post about education.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotor Bursts
Have to agree with some observers here that the Signal to Noise ratio on this thread is very low.
Congrats to VR-HEE on a sober observation.
Some years ago, I had responsibility to liaise with a turboshaft manufacturer after one engine on a twin helicopter with 12 souls on board in the South China Sea suffered a rotor burst. Half the turbine disk lodged in the turbine containment wall, the rest went out the pipe. A previous rotor burst on this type, prior to a kevlar containment wall upgrade had resulted in loss of the helicopter.
I learned from that episode that turbine rotor bursts will result from:
1. a failure of the coupling (shaft) connecting the turbine to the compressor/fan (as happened with the helicopter) or intermediate gearing
2. a failure of the splines that lock the rotor disk in place on the shaft
3. consequential damage caused by bearing failure, oil starvation to bearings etc (Trent 700/A330 failure was case in point) where the heat build up or oil fire raises the temperature of rotor material to the point where it can fail
4. Fatigue failure resulting from material damage during assembly of the rotor. This has to be considered an extremely rare event, given quality procedures in every engine shop and manufacturer
5. Fatigue failure due manufacturing defects. Again, on an engine of this type, would have to be considered "impossible" due the strict processes used.
6. Improper parts used during overhaul (as was the case with this helicopter)
Above is not an exhaustive list, but one could surmise the probability that in this case, the problems identified in the AD with the IPT were likely contributory. i.e. some accelerated wear exceedance faster than anticipated by the AD on the faces of the splines of the IP shaft rigid coupling.
The moment the turbine shaft decouples from the compressor load it is driving, the excess energy now available to the turbine will accelerate it so incredibly quickly that centripetal forces will exceed design strength and the rotor disc will fracture and exit the engine. On an engine that size, nothing is going to stop those rotor bits as they contain incredible amounts of kinetic energy. In the case of the turboshaft engine I saw, it was estimated to have burst at around 100,000 rpm. In the case of the Trent it may well have been lower due to size and mass. The video referred to earlier in this thread refers to front fan blades subjected to 7,000 G forces in normal operation.
This may also account for the paxs hearing two separate bangs. The first may have been the splines on the shaft shearing, but still creating enough friction to slow the turbine rotor's acceleration for a finite period until it accelerated to an rpm where it burst.
It is also incorrect to say that un-contained rotor bursts are not designed for. They are. See FAA Advisory Circulars AC25-20 and AC 20-128
The Gulfstream G450 rotor burst plane overlaps the pressurized cabin and does not meet certification criteria for newer generation aircraft above 41,000 ft. Certification to 45,000 ft was achieved through a "grandfather clause." The issue is rapid depressurisation causing insufficient crew LOC time to don rapid oxy masks. The Sino-Swearingen SJ-30 was redesigned for the SJ30-2 to reposition a fuel tank forward to move it out of the rotor burst zone.
In the case of the A380, you can bet Airbus took careful note of what is in the rotor burst zones. See this document, page 15 for considerations:
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/aerospace/m...abindesign.pdf
No question the A380 and the QF crew were vindicated in performing well in this instance. There appears to still have been an element of luck in the direction the rotor took on departure. It could have punctured the fuselage with very bad outcomes for paxs, but it didn't in this case. That would have been an low probability direction compounding an already highly unlikely event.
My point?
RR appears to be suffering a higher rate of rotor bursts than the other two manufacturers, even on mature engines like RB211, and Trent 700, with this 900 failure and the test bed 1000 failure.
Thank fully this rotor burst occurred on climb out on a mostly overland route. Wouldn't fancy a rotor burst mid-pacific with loss of hydraulics and punctured fuel tank.
Just about every other failure of an engine ... loss of blades, ingestion etc ... is "benign" compared to a rotor burst, unless fire occurs. Thankfully, in this case also, no fire resulted. Probably resulting/aided from good thoughtful design on the part of both Airbus and RR.
Me? I would strap on an A380 any day, GP7200 powered of course. With a RR900 engine, I would prefer they first have a definitive answer to why this occurred before flying it again. Whatever it was, it was outside what was anticipated or foreseen. Not a happy situation for A380/RR operators to be in.
Congrats to VR-HEE on a sober observation.
Some years ago, I had responsibility to liaise with a turboshaft manufacturer after one engine on a twin helicopter with 12 souls on board in the South China Sea suffered a rotor burst. Half the turbine disk lodged in the turbine containment wall, the rest went out the pipe. A previous rotor burst on this type, prior to a kevlar containment wall upgrade had resulted in loss of the helicopter.
I learned from that episode that turbine rotor bursts will result from:
1. a failure of the coupling (shaft) connecting the turbine to the compressor/fan (as happened with the helicopter) or intermediate gearing
2. a failure of the splines that lock the rotor disk in place on the shaft
3. consequential damage caused by bearing failure, oil starvation to bearings etc (Trent 700/A330 failure was case in point) where the heat build up or oil fire raises the temperature of rotor material to the point where it can fail
4. Fatigue failure resulting from material damage during assembly of the rotor. This has to be considered an extremely rare event, given quality procedures in every engine shop and manufacturer
5. Fatigue failure due manufacturing defects. Again, on an engine of this type, would have to be considered "impossible" due the strict processes used.
6. Improper parts used during overhaul (as was the case with this helicopter)
Above is not an exhaustive list, but one could surmise the probability that in this case, the problems identified in the AD with the IPT were likely contributory. i.e. some accelerated wear exceedance faster than anticipated by the AD on the faces of the splines of the IP shaft rigid coupling.
The moment the turbine shaft decouples from the compressor load it is driving, the excess energy now available to the turbine will accelerate it so incredibly quickly that centripetal forces will exceed design strength and the rotor disc will fracture and exit the engine. On an engine that size, nothing is going to stop those rotor bits as they contain incredible amounts of kinetic energy. In the case of the turboshaft engine I saw, it was estimated to have burst at around 100,000 rpm. In the case of the Trent it may well have been lower due to size and mass. The video referred to earlier in this thread refers to front fan blades subjected to 7,000 G forces in normal operation.
This may also account for the paxs hearing two separate bangs. The first may have been the splines on the shaft shearing, but still creating enough friction to slow the turbine rotor's acceleration for a finite period until it accelerated to an rpm where it burst.
It is also incorrect to say that un-contained rotor bursts are not designed for. They are. See FAA Advisory Circulars AC25-20 and AC 20-128
The Gulfstream G450 rotor burst plane overlaps the pressurized cabin and does not meet certification criteria for newer generation aircraft above 41,000 ft. Certification to 45,000 ft was achieved through a "grandfather clause." The issue is rapid depressurisation causing insufficient crew LOC time to don rapid oxy masks. The Sino-Swearingen SJ-30 was redesigned for the SJ30-2 to reposition a fuel tank forward to move it out of the rotor burst zone.
In the case of the A380, you can bet Airbus took careful note of what is in the rotor burst zones. See this document, page 15 for considerations:
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/aerospace/m...abindesign.pdf
No question the A380 and the QF crew were vindicated in performing well in this instance. There appears to still have been an element of luck in the direction the rotor took on departure. It could have punctured the fuselage with very bad outcomes for paxs, but it didn't in this case. That would have been an low probability direction compounding an already highly unlikely event.
My point?
RR appears to be suffering a higher rate of rotor bursts than the other two manufacturers, even on mature engines like RB211, and Trent 700, with this 900 failure and the test bed 1000 failure.
Thank fully this rotor burst occurred on climb out on a mostly overland route. Wouldn't fancy a rotor burst mid-pacific with loss of hydraulics and punctured fuel tank.
Just about every other failure of an engine ... loss of blades, ingestion etc ... is "benign" compared to a rotor burst, unless fire occurs. Thankfully, in this case also, no fire resulted. Probably resulting/aided from good thoughtful design on the part of both Airbus and RR.
Me? I would strap on an A380 any day, GP7200 powered of course. With a RR900 engine, I would prefer they first have a definitive answer to why this occurred before flying it again. Whatever it was, it was outside what was anticipated or foreseen. Not a happy situation for A380/RR operators to be in.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
grounded27..... Really??????
The hour lost due to checklists is a load of crap, most likly fuel dump time oe enroute.
tsalta
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
58 ECAMs? Holy cr@p, thank god I left AB! Talking about design flaws RR does not seem to be alone.
If a donkey explodes, you lost it. If it's uncontained and bruises your wing, you need to get your butt down as fast as possible. Who guarantees that you will not lose more than just the leash of No1? I personally would not bother about dumping too much fuel and even less about the 58 ECAM alerts. I would want us down on mother earth as fast as possible.
To me the crew might have been very professional, at least the modern electronic way. But at the same time they must have been very, very lucky.
I'd rather be a little less proficient in handling ECAM, QRH, FCOM, bulletins and all that papaer cr@p and get my plane down as fast as possible.
I'd rather let the engineers and office-seat-cushion-warmer-pilots, as well as all their lawyers admonish me later that handling ECAM No49 according to bulletin No3458, paragraph 2, article 75 would have made their work to cover their asses a little easier, therefore they would dismiss me and sacrifice me as the sole responsible for this failure, rather than flying 2 hours with a badly hurt aircraft of which you have no idea what has been damaged in addition to the exploded donkey, the one that has just quit obeying your orders and some hydraulic driven devices that do no longer function!
I guess after realising and reflecting on the state of his plane, the captain will send a prayer or two to whoever he worships for the lucky escape and next time will do a very quick return!
If a donkey explodes, you lost it. If it's uncontained and bruises your wing, you need to get your butt down as fast as possible. Who guarantees that you will not lose more than just the leash of No1? I personally would not bother about dumping too much fuel and even less about the 58 ECAM alerts. I would want us down on mother earth as fast as possible.
To me the crew might have been very professional, at least the modern electronic way. But at the same time they must have been very, very lucky.
I'd rather be a little less proficient in handling ECAM, QRH, FCOM, bulletins and all that papaer cr@p and get my plane down as fast as possible.
I'd rather let the engineers and office-seat-cushion-warmer-pilots, as well as all their lawyers admonish me later that handling ECAM No49 according to bulletin No3458, paragraph 2, article 75 would have made their work to cover their asses a little easier, therefore they would dismiss me and sacrifice me as the sole responsible for this failure, rather than flying 2 hours with a badly hurt aircraft of which you have no idea what has been damaged in addition to the exploded donkey, the one that has just quit obeying your orders and some hydraulic driven devices that do no longer function!
I guess after realising and reflecting on the state of his plane, the captain will send a prayer or two to whoever he worships for the lucky escape and next time will do a very quick return!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tsalta, Really?
Guess a bus weakness, but an engine failure and 58 ecams? Watch your systems and find a runway. Granted on a Quad, the boys up front probably felt confident with one down but blaming the time on checklists is not logical.
On a boeing or duglass....Don't need to say more.
Yes I do= ladies and gentlemen, we just had an engine failure and will be landing soon, no worries this aircraft is capable of providing a safe landing for all aboard due to the engine(s) still in operation.
On a boeing or duglass....Don't need to say more.
Yes I do= ladies and gentlemen, we just had an engine failure and will be landing soon, no worries this aircraft is capable of providing a safe landing for all aboard due to the engine(s) still in operation.