Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Airbus 380 loses engine, goes 5000 miles

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Airbus 380 loses engine, goes 5000 miles

Old 27th Dec 2013, 14:30
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 3,037
Received 17 Likes on 9 Posts
Some very well argued points Ulugbek. But perhaps you should define how much safer your little twin is on One eng (or even 2) for 120min than the 380 was on 3 Engs?
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 14:42
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Midlands
Age: 77
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Haven't we already had this debate - several times?
Old and Horrified is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 14:44
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,407
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
flarepilot,

Don't you think MainTrol isn't brought into the discussion on a repair plan? Heck, even in the somewhat dysfunctional USAF, and failure in flight, after brought under control, was discussed on a HF phone patch as to repairs, best divert, etc. I had a crew have a gear failure to retract leaving a classified location before Iraq II. At one point, the HQ, Lockheed and our maintainers were all discussing options. The crew didn't just head off with nary a fare-thee-well.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 15:03
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Age: 92
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Engine failure

2 Engines = 100% power available = 50% BACK-UP AVAILABLE WHEN 1 ENGINE FAILS


1 Engine = 50% POWER LEFT = 0% BACK-UP AVAILABLE WHEN THE REMAINING ENGINE FAILS


4 Engines = 100% power available =75% back-up when 1 engine fails
3 engines = 75% power available =50% back up when 2 ,, ,
2 engines = 50% power available =25% back-up etc


This tells me that any in-flight departure from full power availability to something less behoves one to land at the closest opportunity. Are there places on this globe where one is 5000 km away from a "closest" opportunity to land ? Is it possible that commercial flights are increasingly venturing over areas (North pole, longer tracks over water) where "closest" opportunity is compromised ? Responsibility for many lives (say a fully loaded A380) has to take precedence over expediency.............which has the potential to lead to snowballing problems.
Yankee Whisky is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 15:43
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,786
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
Haven't we already had this debate - several times?
Sadly, nowadays it's deemed acceptable to jump into a thread without bothering to read any of the previous posts.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 17:41
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I know but 5000miles are too long and getting eng failure right after take off...
Take a boat mate

I'd rather be flying my 380 with an engine out for 5,000 miles than being a passenger in your twin with an engine out!!!

Originally Posted by flarepilot
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?
27th Dec 2013 14:24
What a stupid post! Really
White Knight is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 18:27
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With such a big prize in orders on the 380 programme, Airbus and Emirates know they can no longer have a zero tolerance approach to issues which may lead to operational disruption.
Sober Lark is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2013, 00:03
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: middle Asia
Age: 45
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We make different decisions cos we're human,some wouldn't take a risk to continue (though with very reliable quad the risk is too low but still persist),some would continue,anyways it'd be the right decision if ended safely
ulugbek-pilot is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2013, 01:49
  #269 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
galaxy flyer

first off, I was saying what iF?


second off, I can think of a time when some pilots called their version of ''control'' and ended up dead listening to them.

(I remember calling mx control and telling them we needed a part on the starboard/right side of the airplane. THEY promised itwould be on the next plane along with mechanics to fix it. The part showed up less than 2 hours later, with people to fix it...oops, they sent the part for the port/left wing.)

maybe if you try to remember, you can think of the one I was thinking of.

hint, dead in the pacific.
flarepilot is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2013, 16:22
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MD80 west of LAX talking to MX about faulty stab trim.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2013, 20:04
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Single point of failure. Where's the single point of failure on an A380?
Yellow Pen is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2013, 22:28
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think the point of letting your company deciding what you do versus you as PIC is you make the final decision. It always will be this way. That is why we have always done it this way in the US.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2013, 23:05
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think anyone said otherwise. Ironically the view from the other side of the Atlantic is that in the US it's the flights dispatcher who makes all the important commercial decisions and the PIC is just there to do his bidding as far as is safely possible. I certainly hear a lot of US crews advising ATC they'll need to ask their dispatcher what to do next.
Yellow Pen is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2013, 23:11
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,407
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Just to clarify things, I NEVER said let the "office" make the decisions, but consulting with them and accommodating the best way to proceed. Using AS262 is a giant red herring, a specialty of flarepilot.

In a quad, following simple engine failure, continuing has been SOP for decades, FAR 121 considers it, airlines continue when conditions permit, and is fine. Flying around with a stab trim problem was wrong, flight control malfunctions on a plane with a history of problemsm are very different from simple engine failure.

Immediate return or landing on a quad is applied twin engine thinking.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2013, 23:15
  #275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,407
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Yellow Pen

And, in my experience, the ones loudest in denouncing management, saying "it's MY plane! I'll handle it MY way" (which it isn't), buckle under to stupidities of dispatchers or maintenance the fastest.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2013, 01:22
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I certainly hear a lot of US crews advising ATC they'll need to ask their dispatcher what to do next.
That's not necessarily a problem. If safety is an issue, the flight deck does what is necessary and that's what I'd expect. In the world as run by beancounters, if it's a commercial consideration, as in "where would you like me to fly this perfectly serviceable aircraft?" I can see that consulting is likely to be less career limiting.

In the case of this A380 incident, I would assume that the discussion would include the relative cost of (a) dumping fuel and returning to departure point, fixing the aircraft and paying hotel costs for passengers and (b) having to do that somewhere downstream at short notice where the airline might not have a convenient office to handle it, and how likely (b) might be compared to getting the aircraft home on 3.
llondel is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2013, 04:44
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bubbers44
I think the point of letting your company deciding what you do versus you as PIC is you make the final decision. It always will be this way. That is why we have always done it this way in the US.
And that dear fellow is how we generally do it outside of the US! However, it is always good to get INPUT from relevant sources Final decision is the skipper's...

Besides, the information downlink to Maintenance from a 380 would be far greater and informative, than would it from an old bird like an MD80, if it even has the capability at all.
White Knight is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2013, 17:09
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WK, happy we are on the same page about profit vs safety decisions. We always try to help each other out but ultimately the captain is responsible for safety of flight decisions. It will always be this way for most pilots.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2013, 17:33
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Remember the Greek Athens flight that called mx and said the TO warning horn was going off in their Boeing? They continued climbing until they passed out and all died. Everybody forgot it also means cabin altitude above 10,000 ft. It happened to me one day in a B737 but remembered so knew it was not a faulty TO warning but cabin altitude above 10,000ft. Know your aircraft first, then call mx.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2013, 04:33
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I actually achieved a whole new view of the matter.

Apparently:

1. An engine failure on a quad is considered a “simple failure” ….
2. …. with such a “simple failure” today’s quad captains are trained well enough to be able to decide to continue over poles and deserts for many hours, because ….
3. …. they are constantly assisted by competent maintenance departments that give them sound advice ….
4. …. without ever disclaiming any of such ….
5. …. over regions that guarantee constant connection via datalink or satcom ….
6. …. further assisted by network control that put safety absolutely above any commercial reasons ….
7. …. and because double failures are statistcally so rare to be discarded


So far so good, my gut feeling however always knock at my conscience.

My take is:

1. …. not to me anyway. An engine failure is a serious malfunction, be it on a quad or not.
2. …. having spent many years in the sandpit I have my reservations ….
3. …. dito ….
4. …. having received many of such, it was always very unpleasantly present ….
5. …. 4 hours not uncommon ….
6. .... let’s not dig too deep here ….
7. …. just lately two same components failed on the same whale flight, leading to unusable fuel and diversion ….

I know it’s reheated in the microwave, but experienced and avid aviators never consider an engine failure as a “simple failure”. Others scare me.
glofish is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.