Quote

As I understand it, evolution in technology is similar to biological evolution in that it happens in leaps and plateaus, not a steady plod. I seem to recall the engines on the early 747s, which were the biggest in their day, much like the A380's now, had similar recurring problems. I suspect the next big leap will initially suffer, too.

Just a small point, A380 engine power is between about 70 to 90 IIRC.

The 777 has had been using 115 for about 7 or 9 years I think.

IIRC, engine makers have operated upto 120/130 in testing for normal aircraft type engines, guess thrust ASIM at hi power steeings will be an interesting read..!!!

What Units
 

Joetom, for those of us who don't fly A380s or 747s, what are the units you're using?

Figures match thrust in lbf x 1000.

Joetom is referring to engine TO thrust in KLbs, I believe.

But I won't think in the same terms (higher thrust => higher risk) - it is entirely possible the newer GP7270 engine in the A380 is higher tech than the decade-old GEnx and therefore marginally more risky at this time.

In other words, risk is more associated with newness.

Aviation safety is predicated on certification to standards and maintenance to standards.



Every new product enters with unknowns and enters the total fleet with long standing products that have a mix of known risk (under maintenance plans) and unknowns (defects that haven't been exposed yet, and last but by no means least, maintenance hacks). On top of all this is the learning curve of the operators (crew members and mechanics).



The new products end up on the left edge of the bathtub curve mostly because the user plan (how to fly it and how to maintain it) haven't adjusted yet to the individual new problems that crop up. By the time the product is in service a year or more these lessons are well learned and we end up at the bottom of the curve as things begin to wear faster than anticipated in inspections and maintained plans. The curve turns upwards when the used product shifts to 3rd tier operators who are unable or unwilling to keep up0 with the wear out modes.



From a risk standpoint one simply looks at the rates of serious consequences in balance with exposure (how many similar products).



Sure, one bang sounds serious only when you imagine a hundred more in quick succession. But then again the response of the manufacturers and the operators to understand and provide closure on the problem is always fast enough to limit the total exposure to the passenger.



Nothing new here in this thread and maybe time to move it to more technical discussions until something else shows up in R&N

Nothing new ?
 

Thanks learned Gentlemen ( Lomapaseo) .

I must admit that I have a little difficulty extrapolating anything new from what has been added - - - but my curiosity goes on and thanks for :ok:the earlier comments about how I should stick to reading !

Just for the record - - I and my entire family live under the flight path just east of Mudgee Australia where the most recent events happened , so I like to know whats going to give my 6 grandchildren headache at that hour of the day - - and help prevent it if possible.

In the past I have taken part in solving Engine problems and supplying new solutions , but as I dont work for an Airline Engineering dept - - I look for little Clue's on your threads when incidents like this happen .

Incidentally I have travelled on both Emirates and Qantas A380's - - I like them both - - to keep flying just fine .

Love your work Gents .

:)

Perhaps Garuda, 1-2-Go, or Swazi airways, Air Botswana should also sue Emirates for tarnishing the esteem that their aviation companies are held in... ? Seems fair.:D

Just saw this thread now.
There was another very similar incident where Emirates lost an engine climbing out of Lusaka mid Oct. That was an A330-200
see

Emirates blows engine out of Lusaka

in African Aviation forum

A slow climber !!