Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure

[Nick Thomas]

Bear
You explanation of a contract is fair. But I fail to understand why you insist on saying "commits a Species of Fraud". It would be helpful if you identify the source of your quote.
I do however accept that in the UK if a party was found guilty of fraud in procuring or discharging a contract; that the contract would be determined. But I suggest for that to be the case it would have to be proved in a criminal court. In fact any criminal action that had an affect on a contract by a party would likely give rise to a determination. I think we can agree we are a long way from that!
I would also think that there are many non criminal reasons that any contract in this case could be determined.
I would also think that as all parties involved would wish to maintain their commerical relationships that we are a very long way from contract determination.
As I have said I have no knowledge of any contracts that may or may not exist in this instance.
Regards
Nick

[bearfoil]

Nick Thomas

Non-disclosure is cheating. There is in every contract, I'm sure you will agree, intent, language, and Spirit. Good Faith must be the basis of all contractual endeavour. I have no axe, I am merely musing in public relative to business agreements. Some one had expressed an interest in "Who's at Fault". Indeed. We are miles from that. I am not trying to shade the understanding, I don't appreciate sly, if you get my drift.

I am paraphrasing in re: Fraud. I have quoted it so often I really must go back and look up the case Law. It was a finding by our Supreme Court, relative to a finding of non-disclosure.

I'm not sure at all what you and I have to disagree about.

all the best,

bear

[oldchina]

A380 Dreadnought

With those 400+ people safely on the ground, the design quality and exceptional damage tolerance of the A380 is evident.

Let Boeing have their 787 Dreamliner.

Airbus has its A380 Dreadnought.

[fdr]

EHA/EBHA's

thanks. That covers the redundancy...

cheers,

[mm43]

EBH/EBHA Redundancy

Trent 972 in Post #1206 gave a detailed response to my question regarding redundancy of the EBH/EBHA's.

Thanks

mm43

[chicoingles]

Originally Posted by Ex Cargo Clown

Quote:
As to the substance of his post however, namely containment by the engine covers. Perhaps the future answer will be a 1mm lining with Graphene.
Errm No

From a chemical and technical point of view that is just stupid.

This thread has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

The site is becoming more like a.net everyday

I don't know why you're being dismissive of Graphene to potentially solve the containment problem in the future. It is the strongest material in nature, 100 times stronger than structural steel.
I gave the Wiki link to Graphene, and if you haven't read that then try the following.

Graphene – World’s Strongest Known Material | Impact Lab
Anomalous Strength Characteristics of Tilt Grain Boundaries in Graphene | Science/AAAS
http://www.condmat.physics.mancheste...World_2009.pdf

[dfstrottersfan]

forgive me if this link has already been posted.....

Airbus customer memo defends A380 redundancy - FlightBlogger - Aviation News, Commentary and Analysis

[Nick Thomas]

Hi Bear
Firstly I have never thought that you were being "sly". I have just given my honest opinion. Or maybe you think am being "sly" in advancing a slightly different view to yours. If I have missunderstood your use of "sly" please accept my apologies in advance,
I think for clarity it would be helpful if you indicated that your opinions were based on US law. So am pleased that in your last post you clearly indicated that the point you were advancing was covered by a ruling of your supreme court.
I have stated that my opinions are based on UK law. If you feel that my views regarding contract law in the UK are in error I am more than happy to be corrected.
For the record am not in anyway suggesting that the points you have made re contract law in the US are wrong.
In the UK there is a difference between civil and criminal law. Criminal law attempts to prove guilt whilst civil procedings are in the case of contract law to correct "a breach of contract" Of course there are many other considerations in civil law but the one that is not included is guilt. That is why criminal proceedings have a higher burden of proof and also why you are normally judged by a jury of your peers. Civil proceedings in the UK do not normally involve a jury.
I hope the above is helpful
Regards
Nick

[arearadar]

vc-10

What were the conclusions of this evaluation?

Dave

[HarryMann]

What were the conclusions of this evaluation?

Presumably that once again we were light-years ahead, but it cost us dearly....

[protectthehornet]

Dreadnaught. I don't think so.

[Gretchenfrage]

Quite revealing and scary ....

fwdailynews.com AP Content

concerning my earlier comment about a quick return:

The electrical problems prevented the pilots from pumping fuel forward from tanks in the tail. The plane became tail heavy, a condition that could have caused the Singapore-to-Sydney jetliner to lose lift, stall and crash.

no comment

[noip]

G,

I understand your concern and your continuing view to get on the ground quickly, however the real world doesn't usually work like that. Some points to consider:

• Given the likely fuel distribution, there would not be much fuel that could be jettisoned, and even with the trim tank fuel stuck there, I'd venture a guess that the CG would remain within limits. We here do not have any information that would indicate otherwise (it remained within limits for the duration, didn't it?)
• You might give the crew credit for some intelligence. I know for a fact that Richard (as an example) is one of the more intelligent people you would ever have the privilege of meeting.
• The aircraft CG is always available to the crew in a permanent display.

Finally, I'll dredge up a previous post that says it all really ....

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ml#post6065783

N

PS ... G ... I want to show that getting on the ground quickly is not necessarily the right thing to do - not have a go at you .....

[Flugbegleiter]

Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage

Quite revealing and scary ....

fwdailynews.com AP Content

concerning my earlier comment about a quick return:


no comment

I still think you have a valid point :-)

Hey, the way the crew handled the situation was fantastic and it worked - no injuries, aircraft safe, etc - but I do wonder if, in hindsight, it might have been a good idea to get her down more quickly. Was it just luck that the situation did not get rapidly worse (fire/balance/other electrical problem/etc)...

[noip]

F


It sounds attractive to get on the ground ASAP but that won't help you if you burn to a crisp in the over-run and the fire.

The guys did the right thing. It is what I would have done.


n

[SandyW]

I wonder how much right aileron they had on and how much down elevator and how much right rudder when they landed! All respect to the crew and the outcome they achieved, but my instinct tells me they pushed their luck by not landing sooner. Whatever, there was a fine line between their success and what could have been the biggest ever airline disaster. Luck did play a part along with all the other factors, including no doubt some passengers praying like never before!

[BOAC]

It will be interesting to know in the wash up how close they were away from losing control of the aircraft as the 'balance' deteriorated and also to know how far this will set back certification matters for similar types.

Move the 'event' on some hours to mid-ocean and we would have seen the first ditching of an airliner with 4 huge water scoops and a damaged wing. Hmm. Want to make it night-time too?

I think the expression 'rock and a hard place' sums up their position exactly and they seem to have done just fine.

Statistics do my head in, but where are we now? This, presumably, was the 1 in 10 ^x 'unlikely' event. What now?

EDIT again for c**p spelling

[lomapaseo]

Statistics do my head in, but where are we now? This, presumably, was the 1 in 10 ^x 'unlikley' event. What now?

Incidents of this magnitude do occur at 1 in 10 ^7, while worst outcomes are 1 in 10 ^8. Considering all the other stuff that goes bang in the night, this really was a demonstration of the airworthiness of the aircraft and its pilots.

Statistics that I am quite happy to fly in (although I 'm willing to work to make them even better)

[barit1]

I'm told there are no dumb questions

Where are the fuel dump ports located on the A380?

Did they consider locating them on the horizontal stabilizer, considering that the tail fuel very possibly would be the first we need to dump?

[ChristiaanJ]

Originally Posted by lomapaseo

Incidents of this magnitude do occur at 1 in 10 ^7, while worst outcomes are 1 in 10 ^8.

We've been here before... Those figures are pretty meaningless until you state whether this is per flight or per hour, or per some other measure.

CJ