Another A380 Woe?

[Sound Engineer]

Engine 4 is out according to the internet...

Currently holding near Aylesbury, presumably still dumping fuel.

[Airbubba]

Originally Posted by Sound Engineer

Engine 4 is out according to the internet...

Currently holding near Aylesbury, presumably still dumping fuel.

Well, another contribution to the A380 engine reliability discussion then.

And, to me, they appear to be holding off of Westcott (indeed near Aylesbury) at FL130, 180KIAS.

[RufusXS]

Originally Posted by Sound Engineer

Engine 4 is out according to the internet...

Currently holding near Aylesbury, presumably still dumping fuel.

G-XLEE, Trent 900's.

[golfyankeesierra]

appear to be holding off of Westcott (indeed near Aylesbury) at FL130, 180KIAS

Odd, if they're dumping they're overweight. If they're overweight, 180 seems a little slow.. Probably not very reliable data (FR?)

[autoflight]

180k might not be too strange if the speed choice is related to their squawk code

[Commander Taco]

It was a Pratt JT9D powered B767-200 (not a particularly fine engine BTW. I hate to tell you, but your operative words in your quote above weren't just hedgy, they just weren't true. I know because a co-worker of mine was on that aircraft and said the silence was eerie. The pilot who operated the switches did so without looking, the memory of his flying 727s and switch positions was etched in his mind. The CF6-80 had the quickest start time compared to the JT9s or RB211s, the RBs being the slowest. The Aircraft was within 300 feet of the ocean when the first CF6-80 started and began to generate enough power to begin a slow climb out. The pilots flew the aircraft on to Cincinnati, never explaining to the frightened passengers what happened.

Wasn't trying to be hedgy, or even edgy for that matter, but thanks for the correction Turbine D. Looks like the one we're talking about was a Delta 767 with the CF6 engines as you state. My memory was of a UAL Pratt 767. Too many years, too many incidents/accidents to keep straight.

[Airbubba]

Originally Posted by golfyankeesierra

Odd, if they're dumping they're overweight. If they're overweight, 180 seems a little slow.. Probably not very reliable data (FR?)

I was thinking the same thing unless they were trying to burn rather than dump and had some flaps out in the hold. The 180 knots was indicated airspeed from the transmitted Mode S EHS data. They were in the hold for about 90 minutes from what I see. The groundspeeds seem to bounce between 260 and 170 as the plane goes around the hold at FL130.

Originally Posted by Turbine D

I don't think either of us engineers ever suggested dual thrust loss is somehow fine. The only dual engine thrust loss that I recall happened on a Boeing 767 out of LA when the pilots on the pointy end accidentally shut off the fuel flow to the engines. It was a new aircraft to them at the time having transitioned from the Boeing 727. Luckily, the CF6-80 engines restarted quickly before the aircraft hit the sea.

I believe there have been a half-dozen cases of dual engine thrust lost on the 767 alone.

Air Canada certainly has the primacy claim with the world famous Gimli Glider:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

Originally Posted by Turbine D

I know because a co-worker of mine was on that aircraft and said the silence was eerie. The pilot who operated the switches did so without looking, the memory of his flying 727s and switch positions was etched in his mind. The CF6-80 had the quickest start time compared to the JT9s or RB211s, the RBs being the slowest. The Aircraft was within 300 feet of the ocean when the first CF6-80 started and began to generate enough power to begin a slow climb out. The pilots flew the aircraft on to Cincinnati, never explaining to the frightened passengers what happened.

That Delta LAX-CVG flight was a classic screwup. With both engines shutdown in flight, the RAT deployed as advertised and buzzed merrily all the way to Cincinnati. The feds did an emergency revocation of the captain's ticket and went in person to retrieve it instead of sending a letter asking for its surrender. Apparently the crew contacted flight ops in ATL after the motors were restarted and the VP Flight Ops (was it Harry Alger?) said they were OK to continue. When the feds went ballistic, the company's attitude changed to that Animal House quote: 'you f***ed up, you trusted us!' Or, so the tale was told by some Deltoid friends at a brewpub years ago.

[tdracer]

Turbine D & tdracer: respectfully, you both must be engineers if you can so blithely dismiss these serious engine issues as “temporary thrust losses and engine damage”. What you both are elucidating is called “the normalization of deviance” when you suggest that dual thrust loss is somehow fine, especially so if it’s just temporary.

Taco, I was going to write a length post to educate you on items that you are so clearly poorly informed about (ICI has been an issue since at least 1990 and it caused a dual engine shutdown on a CF6-80C2 powered 767 ~ten years ago - after ~100 million engine hours to name just two).
But then I re-read the above and realized I know your type, and I'd just be wasting my time.
Welcome to my ignore list...

[tdracer]

OK, I'll bite one more time...
You're both right - there were two events on the 767 where the pilots shutdown both engines immediately after takeoff. One was JT9D-7R4, one was the CF6-80A. The first event was the JT9D (UAL sounds right but I'm not 100% positive) - one engine restarted, the other went into a non-recoverable stall. The pilot circled back around and landed right away on the one good engine. After that event the general feeling was that the pilot was an idiot for making such a silly mistake. Then the second event occurred, which was the CF6 out of LA which continued on to Cinci with the RAT merrily buzzing away.
That's when we realized we had a serious problem and the EEC switches were relocated to the overhead - with the infamous 'half a broomstick' interim fix.

[Turbine D]

Original Post by Commander Taco
Your collective attitude is reminiscent of the Challenger Disaster - IE: "We don't know enough about the behaviour of the O-rings in subzero weather but nothing has ever happened before so let's launch anyway". We all know how that turned out and the resulting investigation led Professor Diane Vaughan to say:
Quote:
"Social normalization of deviance means that people within the organization become so much accustomed to a deviant behavior that they don't consider it as deviant, despite the fact that they far exceed their own rules for the elementary safety"

Once again, if you really believe what you posted here, you wouldn't have had a 41 year flying career. One sentence out of Diane's book isn't even the whole story as to what happened and why. Your personal IE in quotes is wrong. Re-read the rest of the book, again. I can assure you that isn't the way things are in either the aircraft engine or major aircraft businesses. It seems to me you have an axe to grind for whatever reason in the industry you were a part of for years...

[RufusXS]

Originally Posted by Sound Engineer

Engine 4 is out according to the internet...

Currently holding near Aylesbury, presumably still dumping fuel.

Any more on this? I haven’t seen much online other than “engine fault” reported.

[beamender99]

The UK papers find some details

"I'LL BA BACK
Arnold Schwarzenegger suffers mid-air scare on British Airways flight after an engine problemThe former Governor of California was said to be 'shaken' after the flight to Los Angeles was forced to turn back to Heathrow due to technical problems

[Sound Engineer]

Could be anything on a four engine engine jet.

Flying as cabin crew years ago I was on the flight deck of a 744 when the two first officers were discussing an engine shutdown due to an oil quantity warning... 4 hours from LHR, but routine enough that they weren't going to wake the captain from rest.

​​

Originally Posted by RufusXS

Any more on this? I haven’t seen much online other than “engine fault” reported.

[Hussar 54]

In French I'm afraid....

Often rumoured, finally confirmed. Copious amounts of Gallic pride being spilled on TV news tonight as you might expect....

https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-se...80-2224287.php

It might have been the whole fleet but, as I always understood it, AF actually own five frames, so probably are keeping them for the simple reason they can't find a buyer for those.

[Wizofoz]

Originally Posted by Hussar 54

In French I'm afraid....

Often rumoured, finally confirmed. Copious amounts of Gallic pride being spilled on TV news tonight as you might expect....

https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-se...80-2224287.php

It might have been the whole fleet but, as I always understood it, AF actually own five frames, so probably are keeping them for the simple reason they can't find a buyer for those.

Any chance of a summary for those pf us unversed in Le French?

[c52]

AF reducing their fleet from 10 to 5.

[Hussar 54]

Originally Posted by Wizofoz

Any chance of a summary for those pf us unversed in Le French?

Very briefly -

They currently have 10 frames five owned, five leasedf

Smith, just come in from Air Canada, has approved the previous plan to cut the fleet to five.

Two frames going back to lessor in 2019

Five frames ( presumably those owned ) to have $ 45 million refit $ 45 million per frame !!!!! starting 2020

Nothing about the other three frames.

Rest of the article is a Video and a generic put down of A380 and why it hasn't been a success, although 330+ frames sounds pretty good to me

And a few brief details of operational problems ' last summer ' so maybe 2017 or 2018

[tdracer]

although 330+ frames sounds pretty good to me

Except that 'breakeven' is estimated to be between 500 and 600 units.
IIRC, the program was originally intended for a 250 unit breakeven, but that went out the window with various delays, cost overruns and redesigns, and uneconomic production rates.

[Hussar 54]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Except that 'breakeven' is estimated to be between 500 and 600 units.
IIRC, the program was originally intended for a 250 unit breakeven, but that went out the window with various delays, cost overruns and redesigns, and uneconomic production rates.

I never really ' followed ' the history of the 380 - at the time iit was all a bit ' so what ' as far as I was concerned.

But interesting question might be - Who has lost the most $$ so far....Boeing with the 748 or Airbus with the A380 ?

The other thing for those on here who might know about these things - what is the ' real cost ' of manufacture ( ie, without the added on R&D costs ) of interior panels, seats, carpets, AVOD, etc if AF are talking $ 45million per frame for a refit. Easy to believe that the F&F suppliers are probably the most profitable companies in avaiation.....

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by RufusXS

Same question...seems high but on a per seat basis is it normal? Anybody here know?

The fancy First Class and Business Class seats are quite expensive - between $250k and $500k - each! Boeing final assembly started putting covers on them with a picture of new Lamborghini on the cover to help emphasize the value of what the machinists were handling...
I don't know what mix AF might be planning, but typically the A380 is being targeted at the higher end traveler so I'd expect the mix to be strongly biased to First and Business.
The Korean A380 I rode on a few years back had the entire upper deck Business Class - 94 fancy lie-flat seats. At $250k per seat that's over $20 million just on the upper deck...

Easy to believe that the F&F suppliers are probably the most profitable companies in avaiation.....

I don't know how profitable they are, but I do know that the certification costs for interior components is massive. Not only do they have to show compliance for all those regulations, but operators rarely buy 'off the shelf' - especially for the First and Business class stuff - they want their interiors to be unique.