As per Capt. Dave's write-up on the 3-engine ferry, it has to be done on a non-contaminated R/W. So they need to do it soon to avoid the winter ops in Goose Bay where the winter comes early.

Nope, both those reports are still based on the conclusions jumped to in that same Reuters article, rather than adding any new facts.

The BA captain's piece, while interesting, is a "what if", based on the a priori assumption that a 3-engined ferry might be necessary.

If there is significant wing damage, that will likely preclude any ferry flight in the short-term, making discussion of how many engines academic.

Let's wait to hear what Air France, Airbus and the regulators say.

The remaining 3 engines on F-HPJE, would they have the emergency inspections done? They're likely to be the same age as the engine that failed, and have experienced the same stresses, but seeing as the aircraft doesn't fit any hangar at Goose bay, is it likely?

The news reports say that Air France plans to fly F-HPJE back to France. What other options are there? Could they target a destination in North America, which would make for a safer flight, but more expenses?

Will they have a reasonably accurate estimate of the a/c repair costs, before it leaves its current location?

In fact, we got to LA way after the 380 :ugh:It was one of the first thing I noticed on arrival. Out of my head, it took 39 h to make CDG-LAX :bored: but glad to be still alive

Ok probably a provocative thought but what about scrapping the aircraft (after, of course, recovery of all usesable parts such as the 3 remaining engines)?
I understand this is a relatively old hull and the in situ winter repair costs (if there are wing damages for example) might be quite scary.

The other three engines each have between 300 and 500 cycles less than the one that failed but I'd be very surprised if they don't have the AD-mandated inspections completed before she departs.

Musician: They're likely to be the same age as the engine that failed.

I think that is unlikely. All operators that I ever flew for had a policy of moving engines around between aircraft so that you don't end up with one aircraft with four new engines and one old dog with four old engines.

Anything happened yet, it's been two weeks since last post.
....

apparently things are moving, an engine having been found at Engine Alliance. Nobody else had any as a spare, mainly due to the fact that in a normal engine damage situation said engine would still be hanging off the wing and the plane could be ferried to main base. Then only the damaged parts would be changed. The problem here is they needed a complete engine (with pylon and all) plus the Antonov to bring it (Antonov has a three or four week waiting list I have heard).
hope they get it out of Goose before the heavy weather starts...

Sounds like a big $$$ hit to all involved. Could be that some insurance is involved since the damage is larger than most operators carry on their own.

Does it have to be an Antinov or can an Airbus Guppy handle it?

If you mean one of the Balugas, I think they are all kitted out with Racks to take the pairs of Airbus wings from Broughton.

(The 380 wing sets go by sea, after being loaded on a barge in the river Dee.)

Are they not on power-by-the-hour, and thus it's Engine Alliance's problem to pay the bills for a replacement ?


Engine Alliance is essentially finished, they have built their last engine, there being no more EA-powered A380s to be built, and presumably the ongoing support falls back to the two owners. Wonder if this sort of situation was fully envisaged in the break up.

Not what I hear - they had 8 aircrafts sitting idle at LEI past WE. I'm pretty sure that for the right money that engine could be on it's way Canada within 48h.

depends on the fine print. Typically the costs associated with operating an airline, e.g. diversions, delays, cancellations and insurance are an operators responsibility.

A manufacturer may use his own experience in associated cost of parts and replacements in the support. I don't know the fine print in a specific contract relating to repair logistics, thus my questions.

anybody got any info on what broke and why? all I know is what's missing

if you look at their website Air France industries offers customers full support facilities on this engine type so probably in-house.

I doubt that shipping the replacement engine and pylon is on the critical path (yet).

While removal of what's left of the failed engine is essentially a standard maintenance task, dropping the pylon isn't, and then there's assessment and rectification of any collateral damage to the wing structure.

Only once that's done can the new engine and pylon be installed.

I certainly agree.

And as mentioned earlier sourcing an actual engine might not be trivial...

Just out of curiosity: is a mixed engine configuration something possible (not for commercial flights obviously but as an ad hoc solution to recover the aircraft)?

If you mean installing a Rolls engine, it may not even be practical - on most aircraft the interfaces are totally different (I don't have any knowledge of the A380 - there was an attempt at 'plug and play' on the 787 but last I heard it hadn't been certified). Then getting an experimental ferry permit would be a nightmare.
I find it hard to believe that there are not spare GP7000 engines available - the very last thing an engine manufacture wants to do is ground airplanes because there are not sufficient spares. It tends to make the customers look elsewhere next time they are looking to buy. If the EA were planning to cease production, they'd make darn sure adequate spares were available first.

In your message I understand "things are moving" means an engine was found at EA?
Re. the transport, does your message imply that the accident engine (or what is left of it) is still somewhere at Goose, or ... without the fan attached ... has it left already?

If I recall ... from the 3 engine ferry document ... the core without the fan was one of the allowed configs (?) so then you still need the Antonov to bring that?

Pardon the questions from a SLF, but no one has addressed them.

How will anyone be able to work on this huge aircraft outside with no proper facilities -- shelter, lights, electricity, compressed air, and specialized tools, some of which have to be tied in to systems that do not exist in Goose Bay?

And -- it has been said upthread that the wing was damaged during the incident. How did anyone know that that had happened? And how will a anyone be able to determine the full extent of that damage when this huge aircraft is sitting outside with no proper facilities for inspection and work?

Thanks for any info anyone can give.

If you look at the thread about the Swiss 777 which had an engine failure over Canada earlier in the year, all will be revealed.

Hangars are for wimps! :E
Portable inflatable shelter/igloo can be used, generator for electrics and lights and a compressor for air!
It won't be the first time an engine has been replaced in the middle of nowhere with no facilities! It's what we do.

As for the wing, not sure what the damage is, I'm sure some sheet metal experts will deal with it.

Mark 1 Eyeball is probably how they found the initial damage.

Further detailed inspections will reveal what type of repair is required. This may involve some NDT work (Ultra sound, X-Ray etc) which will require specialist equipment and inspectors. :ok:

We Canadians have been operating large aircraft year round in the Arctic for the past 100 years. As previously mentioned, you just need the right kit.

The Russians are pretty good at it too. And the Norwegians, ... and Swedes.

Assuming that the wing and pylon are similar to other Airbus aircraft (which I'm pretty sure they are) there's no doubt that some NDT inspections would be required, probably Ultrasound and Eddy Current, this is fairly straightforward using nice battery powered portable equipment. Although some of the pylon attachment fittings extend up into the wing so would require tank access, they may get away without defueling the aircraft if there's not too much fuel left in there by transferring everything into the centre tank.

They were slightly less than half way, as the goose flies.

CDG YYR 2,664 mi
YYR LAX 3,097 mi

I seem to remember they dumped fuel?

The aircraft forward fuselage and wings will fit in the hangar. The tail will remain outside and temporary shuttering will seal the gap between the hangar doors and the fuselage. Other than the repairing any (minor) damage to the underside of the tail, all work will take place in the relative comfort of the hangar.

Does this mean nothing has been done to get this plane back flying? Being a large revenue stream for AF, I expected replacing the engine, pylon, and repair wing damage to the point it could be ferried back to Europe to have happened by now, unless the damage to the wing is more extensive than reports indicated. I do realize that spare pylons for #4 engine are not sitting around in parts storage; however, having been involved in producing large equipment my entire career, getting a customer's disabled machine back operating and generating revenue took precedence over nearly everything.

There are currently no spare engines. Earliest they are expecting one to be available is around 25 November.

Spare pylon shortage I could maybe imagine, they are not normally required. No spare engines for replacement however is a bit of an indictment of EA, given the fleet size of the A380/EA installed base. That's two months since the loss.

Does this imply everything else has been done, including the accident engine completely removed and sent to where it was needed; inspections and other repairs (if needed) done?

And out of curiosity, the 3-engine ferry with #4 completely missing, is this mostly a (big) "paperwork" problem OR there are difficult structural and/or balance issues?

The damaged engine has been preserved and will be shipped to GE Cardiff on the same aircraft which will bring its replacement. The temporary repair work will commence once the aircraft is hangared.

Interesting, thank you!

Would it be excessive speculation to say that, since shipping the damaged engine "can wait", it means that essential information (re. what caused the failure) is NOT expected to be found inside ... meaning that what is known already today, is significant?

Torquelink
Which hanger are you referring to at Goosebay. Last time I was there they didn't have a hanger tall enough to fit an A380?

Roybert,

I'm told it's a hangar that used to be used by the German Air Force? Just wide enough for the wings and high enough for the forward fuselage but the tail will stay out in the weather.

Pax2908

I don't know what progress has been made iro the investigation - it could be, of course, that some of the damaged engine parts have already been removed for examination by the investigation team but I don't know I'm afraid.

Not the German hangar, that was used for fighters. It will be one of the bigger hangars. HistoricPlaces.ca - HistoricPlaces.ca

It may merely mean that the interesting bits (apart from the ones in Greenland), from an investigation point of view, have already been removed from the damaged engine (and shipped elsewhere if necessary) for analysis. Which bit failed first and where is quite possibly obvious just from looking at the damaged engine, (if it isn't obvious from just looking at the photos of it!), the why and how of the failure may take a lot more work, but often won't need all the bits of the engine (anymore than it needs all the aircraft).

I am sure that the remains of the rest of the engine will be very interesting for EA, for all sorts of reasons, but may not add much to the investigation.

I would imagine that some of the inspection required to return the aircraft to certified service may be accomplished elsewhere, following a ferry flight. A flight permit (issued in Canada) has the required standard of "safe for flight", which is not the same thing as "conforming to its type design", which would be required for certified commercial service. This is the purpose of a flight permit, which among many other limitations, prohibits carriage of passengers.