Airbus 380 loses engine, goes 5000 miles
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: struthland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of questions:
Would you allow your young children/grandchildren to fly on an airline that thought it OK to continue longhaul....as BA reportedly did....after an engine failure at 100 feet?
Would you be comfortable with them flying the 5000 miles the A380 completed on 3 engines as reported here?
Without question the A380 is a technological marvel, but if the situation had deteriorated and resulted in a loss of life incident/accident do you seriously think that the pilots would have company/industry/media/CAA or FAA support?
Are the pilots there to showcase their skills or are they there to safely transport the passengers ?
All of us must be mindful of company costs for obvious reasons.
But NO diversionary cost will ever approach an accident cost.
I suggest that by considering only the comfort and safety of the passengers that you protect the company's interest..and your own..by default.
And to the smug dopes who think SLF have no right to an opinion...who pays your wages?
Formerly: L1011 / B737 / B747 / B757 / B767
Currently: SLF (retired)
Would you allow your young children/grandchildren to fly on an airline that thought it OK to continue longhaul....as BA reportedly did....after an engine failure at 100 feet?
Would you be comfortable with them flying the 5000 miles the A380 completed on 3 engines as reported here?
Without question the A380 is a technological marvel, but if the situation had deteriorated and resulted in a loss of life incident/accident do you seriously think that the pilots would have company/industry/media/CAA or FAA support?
Are the pilots there to showcase their skills or are they there to safely transport the passengers ?
All of us must be mindful of company costs for obvious reasons.
But NO diversionary cost will ever approach an accident cost.
I suggest that by considering only the comfort and safety of the passengers that you protect the company's interest..and your own..by default.
And to the smug dopes who think SLF have no right to an opinion...who pays your wages?
Formerly: L1011 / B737 / B747 / B757 / B767
Currently: SLF (retired)
Two things
Read the thread - all of these topics have been covered more than once.
Don't leave home ever again - there's a possibility that you'll die before you reach home again.
What a thoroughly daft post - I notice that you didn't fly the B52. I wonder why, that has 8 engines which is some way to your goal of a 20 engined airplane...Or some such:
Don't leave home ever again - there's a possibility that you'll die before you reach home again.
What a thoroughly daft post - I notice that you didn't fly the B52. I wonder why, that has 8 engines which is some way to your goal of a 20 engined airplane...Or some such:
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you allow your young children/grandchildren to fly on an airline that thought it OK to continue longhaul....as BA reportedly did....after an engine failure at 100 feet?
Would you be comfortable with them flying the 5000 miles the A380 completed on 3 engines as reported here?
Would you be comfortable with them flying the 5000 miles the A380 completed on 3 engines as reported here?
If the remaining engines are performing well and are giving no indication of iminent failure and all parameters are comfortably within normal range, why take the risk of an overweight landing?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you allow your young children/grandchildren to fly on an airline that thought it OK to continue longhaul....as BA reportedly did....after an engine failure at 100 feet?
Would you be comfortable with them flying the 5000 miles the A380 completed on 3 engines as reported here?
Would you be comfortable with them flying the 5000 miles the A380 completed on 3 engines as reported here?
Would you allow your young children/grandchildren to fly on an airline that thought it OK to continue longhaul....as BA reportedly did....after an engine failure at 100 feet?
Would you be comfortable with them flying the 5000 miles the A380 completed on 3 engines as reported here?
Would you be comfortable with them flying the 5000 miles the A380 completed on 3 engines as reported here?
And to the smug dopes who think SLF have no right to an opinion..
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gulf playing Golf
Posts: 1,141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crew and airline did a good job. The crew would assessed all possible outcomes, and offered the solutions they found Safe, Efficient and Legal to Network Control.
You dont become an A380 captain by chance.
Good job gentlemen
You dont become an A380 captain by chance.
Good job gentlemen
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mars
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok let's cancel ETOPS immediately! On 2 engines you can fly 207 minutes from an alternate but on 3 after a pump issue you need to land? On the route flown the 380 would have become terrain critical when down to 1 engine over Turkey. As to ocean, it managed to overfly it by only 6 hours or so.
I know let's apply 2 engine rules to 4. Wait, wait better still single engine rules, must make sure we fly at an altitude that enables us to glide away from the city if we lose all the donks. Oh and let's only allow visual approaches because CAT 3 might end up with Cat 2 or 1.
I have not read a thread for a while which contains so much drivel or so much trolling!
I know let's apply 2 engine rules to 4. Wait, wait better still single engine rules, must make sure we fly at an altitude that enables us to glide away from the city if we lose all the donks. Oh and let's only allow visual approaches because CAT 3 might end up with Cat 2 or 1.
I have not read a thread for a while which contains so much drivel or so much trolling!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The next failure reduces your max alt and you divert to the convenient en route alternate you'd already planned before making your decision to continue On three. Simples.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it not premature to compare the reliability of this bird to other longer established multi engine aircraft when the ones we are comparing it to have a baseline of data gathered from much greater departures / flight hours?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: middle Asia
Age: 45
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380 is the masterpiece of modern aviation and all that but never the less engine has failed. Now let's assume they'd get another eng failure a bit later,as have been said over some mountainious terrain, what'd be the right thing,to continue or to return,when you get LAND ASAP amber ECAM,at least the half of the pax are the residents of departure state. Don't you think they'd be happy to land at some intermediate not affected state like Armenia or Georgia or smth, don't know their route
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380 is the masterpiece of modern aviation and all that but never the less engine has failed. Now let's assume they'd get another eng failure a bit later,as have been said over some mountainious terrain, what'd be the right thing,to continue or to return,when you get LAND ASAP amber ECAM,at least the half of the pax are the residents of departure state. Don't you think they'd be happy to land at some intermediate not affected state like Armenia or Georgia or smth, don't know their route
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If 5000 miles was too long then the aircraft certification would impose a restriction on the range after a single engine failure. Too long for your comfort perhaps, but objectively there's no statistical reason to restrict the range. We've gone from 60 minutes ETOPS right up to 240 and beyond and thats flying on a single engine. There's no case for restricting the range on a quad operating on three engines.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wouldn't it be funny if?
wouldn't it be funny if you flew 5000 miles, got safely to your destination within all legal norms, only to find out the spare part (engine etc) was only available at the airport of departure? and that you could save money and time by returning and getting repaired instead of pressing on?
and the spare part couldn't get to the plane for a week? and that a three engine ferry couldn't be done because ferry permits were delayed due to a govt shutdown?
and the spare part couldn't get to the plane for a week? and that a three engine ferry couldn't be done because ferry permits were delayed due to a govt shutdown?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would expect any competent crew considering continuing on three engines to take the companys maintenance preferences into account when making the continue/divert decision. It's one of many factors that should be taken into account. Ultimately it's their aircraft and the crews job to take it where they want it to be if safe to do so.
