Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner)
Reload this Page >

AF66 CDG-LAX diverts - uncontained engine failure over Atlantic

Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner) If you're not a professional pilot but want to discuss issues about the job, this is the best place to loiter. You won't be moved on by 'security' and there'll be plenty of experts to answer any questions.

AF66 CDG-LAX diverts - uncontained engine failure over Atlantic

Old 1st Oct 2017, 13:29
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
If

a. There are serious risks involved in flying this particular aircraft back to Airbus
b. This airport is 90% unused with lots of spare hangar space

might it be possible, after survey, for the mountain to come to Mohammed (Airbus to come to the A380 with suitable spare parts, tools, etc)?

I write this (obviously) as an aviation enthusiast, not a professional pilot or maintenance pro.
msjh is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 13:40
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 62
Posts: 424
Originally Posted by glofish View Post
Well, well. All that whoo whaa about the advantage of a 4 pot over two pots ….

If there is concern about secondary damage to another engine, then the modern 4 pots (if “modern” can still be applied to them) are no better than Comets, IL62s or Concords: Because you argue that when one breaks, it could take the other one with it. So basically they return to 2 pots! Considering damage to other systems, fuselage or wing, the same applies. If this could really lead to a permanent argument, the authorities would have to start applying ETOPS to 4 pots as well.
Additionally, with all of the above and especially your statement “Get the thing on the ground”, we would have to re-evaluate the Qantas 380 incident and take away all the awards from the crew, because with your arguments, they’d have violated common sense by staying airborne so long to work out all periphery ECAMs and do all the (imho futile) calculations.
It’s funny that with the AF 380 that was still fully controllable, albeit one pot less, the decision to land asap on a remote emergency airport, with icing and apparently overweight, with many operational and discomfort problems, is deemed sound. But in Qantas case, with a heavily wounded 380, one pot exploded, a hole in the wing, two other pots not obeying and fuel not under control, the decision to stay airborne for almost 4 hours is deemed sound as well.
Yes, both landed and no one got hurt. Good job, agreed, but there's room for debate .....
Please take the time to read the Qantas report. The aircraft had numerous issues to work through before a safe landing could be attempted. Sometimes you need to make judgement calls on priorities. A hasty landing in the case of the Qantas flight likely would have resulted in a disaster. In addition they had to burn down fuel in order to be able to stop! In the case of this flight it appears the arrival was more or less a standard 3 engine approach. In no case however could I see a Captain bypassing a fully suitable airport with a engine having sustained the degree of damage visable on the photos. There was also no rush to land. They lost the engine over Greenland. They had plenty of time to work through any issues.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 14:29
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 477
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post

A B-1 operating with an engine removed does not inform this discussion-entirely different risk analysis in the military.
How bout a 747?

Boeing 747-132(SF) - American International Airways - Kalitta | Aviation Photo #0224038 | Airliners.net
b1lanc is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 15:07
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 212
This is the 2nd major engine failure on EA A380 engine. Emirates had a failure 11 Nov 2012 coming out of Sydney.

Here is the full report from Av Herald:

Incident: Emirates A388 at Sydney on Nov 11th 2012, engine shut down in flight, engine failure rated contained despite holes in engine case
Dune is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 15:34
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by whiteb View Post
No hotel needed, Two 777's are in the air on the way to relieve them from Montreal.

That'll be a nasty chain reaction.

Those two 777s were obviously going to be heading back to CDG anytime soon.
Navcant is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 15:38
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 65
Posts: 2,846
One of them was in YUL. They have cancelled the return YUL-CDG flight. Likely one of their very high density models.

The other is a B737 chartered from somewhere. It had to stop in YWG to refuel but is/was headed for LAX
ExXB is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 15:49
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 651
The B-1 example is not entirely irrelevant. I assume ferry without an engine was not in either the B-1 or 747 manual - nor would I expect either operator to just "guess" it would be OK. I assume in either case some advice from the DA was sought on performance impacts etc. to understand the risk being taken.

The appetite for risk might be different - but I suspect the USAF military don't just guess or act recklessly as to the implications of operating with an engine missing - it would have been a reasonably informed choice.

I only mentioned it as ferry with a missing engine is not impossible - subsequently proven with a civil example.
JFZ90 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 16:03
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Mosquitoville
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
While I don't disagree, the problem would be did Airbus bother to certify 3 engine ferry with the engine completely missing (my money would be no). I'm familiar with the 747 3 engine ferry, and it all assumes the engine is there. It'll probably be easier to do the needed repairs on site than to get the necessary certifications to do an "engine missing" ferry...
It's a little hard to tell from only 2 picture angles but it almost appears the remainder of the engine nearly fell off after the event. The entire assembly appears torqued around the pylon with the pylon starting to crumple from the force. It all depends on how quickly the remaining rotating assembly stopped but it's easy to imagine that torque being in 10 thousands plus of foot pounds. Then you have to think about the wing structure the pylon is tied to...

On an engine missing ferry, I would wonder if a ballast load is needed to keep the same general flutter margins. The first 74's needed DU weights on the outer engine pair to pass flutter test in certification.
Sorry Dog is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 16:17
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Interloper
Posts: 108
I'm assuming there are no ex military hangars in Goose large enough for this machine ?
TylerMonkey is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 16:30
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 477
A couple of new pictures on Simon's site - one from the ground. One shows damage to the inboard rear of the pylon. Hard to tell, but possibly a crack in the rear outboard pylon skin and marks on flap? Clearly dents on leading edge outboard.
b1lanc is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 16:44
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
The Guardian has an article on the incident ("Engine breaks up on Air France Airbus A380, forcing emergency landing in Canada") featuring a picture by David Rehmar showing the airplane on the ground, with the front edge and the underside of the wing visible. (It's a larger and better quality version of the one b1lanc described.)
Musician is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 16:52
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,221
Not a pilot or aircraft engineer but I am assuming the Captain went back to look at this mess and he must have been pretty startled at what he saw and even more startled by what he couldnt see but knew might have happened.

All sorts of nasty things could happen under the wing, and out of sight, that didn't trigger ECAM messages. I would think that the air resistance/drag would put immense stress on an already overstressed pylon with the risk the whole thing coming adrift at 500kts and doing god knows what damage -over Greenland too.

On the recovery side I think AF didnt do a bad job for the pax, after all if you were in AF Ops and someone said whats the worst possible non fatal injury situation we could face, I think a 380 emergency diversion to a remote Canada field would be high up the list
pax britanica is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 16:54
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,158
Originally Posted by Sorry Dog View Post
It's a little hard to tell from only 2 picture angles but it almost appears the remainder of the engine nearly fell off after the event. The entire assembly appears torqued around the pylon with the pylon starting to crumple from the force. It all depends on how quickly the remaining rotating assembly stopped but it's easy to imagine that torque being in 10 thousands plus of foot pounds. Then you have to think about the wing structure the pylon is tied to...
Which photo are you referring to ?

I can't see any that don't show an engine still firmly bolted onto the pylon.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 17:02
  #114 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: France
Posts: 163
Another picture taken from the tarmac
Attached Images
File Type: png
outside.png (679.4 KB, 953 views)
Squawk_ident is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 17:06
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
looks like a bit of damage to the leading edge bur not as much as you'd expect when you think of the size of what is missing..............................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 17:12
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Originally Posted by pax britanica View Post
I would think that the air resistance/drag would put immense stress on an already overstressed pylon with the risk the whole thing coming adrift at 500kts and doing god knows what damage -over Greenland too.

On the recovery side I think AF didnt do a bad job for the pax, after all if you were in AF Ops and someone said whats the worst possible non fatal injury situation we could face, I think a 380 emergency diversion to a remote Canada field would be high up the list
Depends what you call "immense stress". These pylons are designed to withstand or accommodate the overload forces of any engine failure. They can withstand a maximum load blade failure and continuous huge vibration from a post blade-off condition. Also, cruise speed is around 300KIAS not 500knots.
Goose Bay is not that remote. Agreed, not LAX but, even 10x A380 diverting there together are going to be safe if they had to be!
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 17:16
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hornby Island, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 102
Fuller ATC coverage here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrbxtVPY0rE
McGinty is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 17:22
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cornwall
Age: 65
Posts: 42
Previous failures?

Originally Posted by Dune View Post
This is the 2nd major engine failure on EA A380 engine. Emirates had a failure 11 Nov 2012 coming out of Sydney.

Here is the full report from Av Herald:

Incident: Emirates A388 at Sydney on Nov 11th 2012, engine shut down in flight, engine failure rated contained despite holes in engine case
P&W's website states:

The GP7200 entered service in 2008 with the world's largest A380 fleet, Emirates. The first GP7200-powered A380 was delivered to Air France in 2009. Since entering service, the GP7200 has achieved a 99.9% departure reliability rating without experiencing a single in-flight shutdown.

GP7200 ENGINE

Am I missing something?
Roseland is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 17:33
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 543
Three engines

Several B707 ost engines in flight due to pylon failures
We had one of Transbrazil drop the complete No 4 engine and pylon going into Recife. They pop rivetted a sheet of aluminium over the leading edge and flew it to San Paulo
GotTheTshirt is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2017, 17:58
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
tdracer might have more on this. AFAIK, the 707 pylon/engine separations were the failsafe method of accommodating the engine seizure mode of engine failure on those 1950's design structures. i.e. the engine/pylon broke off rather than the wing. Seems to me that, like most cases, the engineering was good.
Onceapilot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.