|
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 9981299)
Given everything else that goes on there I wonder if Airbus even have the space/hangarage at Blagnac...(? genuine question) it might well be more convenient for them to shuttle people as and if needed up to Paris and use AF facilities at CDG than to tie up AB resources and space at Toulouse.
|
Why has this thread been moved to the spectators balcony? We are still waiting for the accident report...
|
But isn't there 'spare capacity' in the A380 build facility? |
Back home yesterday ...
Air France retrieves stranded A380 from Canada 07 DECEMBER, 2017 SOURCE: FLIGHT DASHBOARD BY: DAVID KAMINSKI-MORROW LONDON Air France has retrieved the Airbus A380 stranded in Canada, flying it back to Paris, but the aircraft will not be returned to service for several weeks. The aircraft (F-HPJE) had been parked in Goose Bay since 30 September after it diverted following uncontained failure of one of its Engine Alliance GP7200 powerplants. Air France tells FlightGlobal that its own crew, rather than Airbus personnel, flew the aircraft back to Paris Charles de Gaulle on 6 December. It landed around 22:00. The aircraft has been taken to the H6 hangar at the airport, a facility which was specifically designed for A380 maintenance. Air France says the aircraft will undergo checks for "a few weeks" before it is returned to scheduled service. The A380 suffered failure of its starboard outboard engine during a flight to Los Angeles. Its engine was subsequently replaced in Goose Bay, having been transported by an Antonov An-124, and the A380 departed Canada with all four powerplants functioning, says the airline. Air France says the detached engine has been shipped to the UK for further analysis to determine the nature and cause of the failure, which included the loss of its fan disk. 06 Dec Goose Bay (YYR) Paris (CDG) AF371V 4:53 STD12:00 PM ATD12:15 PM STA 9:59 PM Landed 10:09 PM |
Mods:
Please tell us: why was this extremely important and very interesting thread moved? Moving it essentially buried it where few will see it and few will be able to find it. And it was moved -- AFA*I*K -- before the 380 even left Goose Bay. Thanks in advance for any info you can give us. |
I think Tech Log is the best place for this thread at this juncture.
Edit: I've been enjoying this thread since the beginning |
Evening everyone, first post here, so please go easy. I'm largely an SLF but have previously worked for a large company that makes flying things, still occasionally consult for them, and have been a long-time and very enthusiastic reader. Registered mainly to post the following that some will hopefully find interesting and relevant:
Am reliably informed by someone with first-hand knowledge that, as of late last week at least, the GP7200 from F-HPJE was still under a tarpaulin in the car park at GEAES Nantgarw awaiting inspection. Friend also mentioned that (at least) significant parts of the fan had been recovered (more than was seen in the photos earlier in the thread) but had not been sent to Wales with the rest of the unit, going elsewhere for inspection. Also that the lack of urgency in examining the core is partially explained by the failure mode already being relatively well understood - and that there was no risk to other engines in the fleet. Hearing him say that led me to draw certain conclusions but hopefully those of you with the experience will be in a position to comment on what it may or may not imply. He suggested part of the delay in stripping it was due to the damaged fan hub requiring specialised tooling to be constructed to secure the shaft - and also that there had been very 'vigorous' discussion between the BEA, FAA, TSB and AIB Denmark over who should lead the investigation. Hardly headline news there, but felt some of you might find the relative lack of urgency in stripping it either surprising or indicative. |
And tonight F-HPJE returns to active service - now en route to Jo'burg
|
Yes, landing shortly at Jo'burg...
Am I wrong saying that no report has been published by the BEA yet? |
Originally Posted by Squawk_ident
(Post 10021150)
Am I wrong saying that no report has been published by the BEA yet?
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10021547)
It would be very surprising for a final report on a major incident like this to be published so soon after the event.
OAP |
"aviationweek" reports that the BEA is "considering" going back to Greenland to look for parts ... !
|
Apparently a large part has now been found.
https://www.airlive.net/breaking-eng...-in-greenland/ |
Fan disc & blades found by the look of it. Good effort looking at the depth of snow they were buried under.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...and-sn-459399/ |
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer
(Post 10507400)
Fan disc & blades found by the look of it. Good effort looking at the depth of snow they were buried under.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...and-sn-459399/ BEA had recently disclosed that it was exploring various high-tech methods, including synthetic-aperture radar fitted to a Dassault Falcon 20 jet, in a bid to locate the parts. |
Final Report is out. https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_elyd...17-0568.en.pdf
Fan Hub affected by a crack and fracture in a blade slot. Crack initiation was subsurface. Also interesting, crew could not maintain calculated drift down altitude, had to go below that by 7000ft. That's more than a small inacurracy, isnt it. From BEA Final Report page 47: https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1fe2aec705.jpg Left slot 10 was the initiate of the fracture https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....11a88a363d.jpg Detail View of slot 10 Quote from report: The metallurgical examinations of this fragment found that the fracture was due to a cold dwell fatigue phenomenon. It originated in a macro-zone where the orientation of the grains is unfavourable with respect to the (hoop) maximum stress direction, in the middle of slot No 10. The crack progressed around 19.7 mm (0.775 inches) before becoming unstable. No material quality (chemical composition, microstructure) or manufacturing related anomaly was found which could be associated with the area in which the fracture originated. No evidence of damage arising from a maintenance activity was found on the front face of the hub in the vicinity of slots No 10 and No 18. The various metallurgical and mechanical checks carried out during the investigation found that the material was consistent with properly processed Ti-6Al-4V alloy vs. existing P&W requirements for rotor-grade material. |
Interresting
In layman terms they know what happened but not why? 🤔 |
Originally Posted by waito
(Post 10892549)
crew could not maintain calculated drift down altitude, had to go below that by 7000ft.
|
Originally Posted by atakacs
(Post 10892589)
Interresting
In layman terms they know what happened but not why? 🤔 |
Originally Posted by MarianA
(Post 10892982)
Could that be due to the damaged engine pod causing more drag than a dead but structurally intact engine?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:11. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.