I was qualified to carry out three engine ferries on the 747/744. There were very strict rules about the condition of the 'dead' engine. There is no way that an aircraft would be certified for a ferry flight in this condition.

AF66 - continue to LAX engine-out ??
 

Big part of nacelle missing, lots of extra drag - might have made it to Montreal or Halifax, but not to LAX. However, bits might still fall off, so best not to fly over densely populated areas.

We "talk" a lot about this type of situation in recurrent training and during line checks. These guys show us how it's done, for real. Well done, I say.

Any initial thoughts as to how this may affect the rest of the EA engined A380's?

Agreed. What you could do at a stretch isn't really the basis for sound decision making in a situation like this.

The flight crew will have seen the damage and would have it in the back of their mind the possibility of secondary damage to the other engine, fuselage, wing or hydraulic systems. Get the thing on the ground!

LiveATC recording
 

CYYR is monitored by LiveATC: DEL GND TWR APP

You may start at 1500z/30SEP and the subsequent ones.
Interesting to hear that the crew was also concerned by their weight.
Crew also requested during the approach to climb again to 7000' due to freezing conditions...
i didn't check the archives with "Center" ...

I think tdracer is most probably correct about not having certfied a three engine ferry with the engine missing. On a 747 Classic, the normal three engine ferry procedure was to sprag the damaged engine so it wouldn’t rotate and leave it on the wing.

The main handling issues with a failed outboard engine were directional control on the runway and the critical period during the take-off run when it is neither possible to continue nor to stop if there is another engine failure. In effect, there is a short ‘gap’ of about 10 knots of airspeed between V1 and VMCG, typically around 130 and 140 knots respectively. If an engine fails when the airspeed is below V1 there is room to stop (just) before the end of the runway. If the engine fails after passing this ‘gap’, the aircraft is above VMCG and you can continue the take-off with just enough rudder control to keep the aircraft straight. If the engine fails within that 10 knot ‘gap’ you can neither stop nor continue. If you try to stop, you will go off the end of the runway doing about 50 knots despite using full braking. If you try to continue, there is insufficient rudder control, it is impossible to keep straight, and you will career off the side of the runway doing about 150 knots.

The other problem is directional control during the first part of the take-off run. With full rudder applied to counteract the asymmetric thrust, you hold the aircraft on the brakes while spooling up all three engines. Then, you release the brakes and the flight engineer opens up the two inboard engines as fast as reasonably possible. Once you start moving you open up the outboard engine yourself, keeping the power just within the capability of full rudder control – in effect, steering the aircraft with the engine until you are above the critical control speed.

Can you see the No1 engine from the cockpit in an A380?

Is 3 engine ferry (with all engines present) already in the A380 manuals?

I would have thought the DA could do a special clearance with the engine removed - it would not be the first time. Its even been done on a B-1B with an engine missing.

You'd probably want to remove the failed engine ASAP and carefully freight it to a lab. And then consider a min-weight 3 engine ferry to somewhere close with major repair facilities like Montreal to replace the missing engine.

The Norlinor 737 went to Winnipeg, presumably refuelled and is now en route LAX
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/NRL580

(pax). Is the strut buckled and did that load cause the leading edge damage?

Appears initially that the fan hub has failed.

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 .....

Fan recovery.
 

If they lost the fan 100km NE of Bluie West One, Narsarsuaq and it did not fall into a crevasse, they might only have some 24 hrs to find it.
There is rain and +5 at old Erik the Reds lair and once the snow falls at altitude it joins all those WW2 wrecks that are embedded in the ice sheet.

I suppose they have the most important part of the evidence, but if the whole Fan Assembly left intact as it looks like, it would be good for the Canadian NTSB and AB and engine manufacturer to have the whole story.

Can any of You Flight trackers see any activity over this area?

On what other models of aircraft do we have this engine?

Anyone!?

3 engine ferry certification is usually for one engine inoperative, not missing.
The BAe 146 ‘engine missing’ event was approved after design and simulation reviews of the effects of asymmetric weight and roll control; they were insignificant compared with the basic fuel imbalance and control requirements. However, because the configuration had not been flown previously, the certification approval to ferry required that a manufacturers test pilot was captain, which in turn required local authority validation to fly the foreign registered aircraft.
The 146 event involved many more aspects of airworthiness - collateral damage and temporary repair, overland only and one refuelling stop.
The #3 had failed, but the #4 pylon was damaged such that an engine should not be fitted for ferry; gear down unpressurised.

The A380 should be easier to approve, after all it arrived in that condition.
Assuming that there is little collateral damage, then a ferry in the current configuration should be feasible. However if the engine has to be removed, then there could be a choice between approval to fly without it, or shipping in a new engine and repair team.

Arriving in that condition and departing in that condition are two very different things!

The decision to land at the nearest suitable, in this instance, does not create an ETOPS certification issue for four-engine planes as operating after a failure on a tri or quad was always possible, but not always advisable. The outcome depends on aircraft condition, damage, terrain, fuel, etc. I think they made the right decision but have no idea the ECAM messages, training, AF SOP.

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

As a couple of minutes with Wikipedia will tell you, the A380 is the only application for the GP7200 series engine.

Just under 60% of the aircraft in service are powered by it.

AF4080 landing in Atlanta in 30 mins. Long night !

Yes it did, as did its higher bypass variant the RR Tay.

According to FR24 there's no such activity at 1100lt. UAK appears to
have no flight movements today either.
The only possibility I can think of is if the RDAF happens
to have one of their Challengers on a surveillance job for the time being,
however I doubt it will show up on a tracker.

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.

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.

How bout a 747?:E

Boeing 747-132(SF) - American International Airways - Kalitta | Aviation Photo #0224038 | Airliners.net

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

That'll be a nasty chain reaction.

Those two 777s were obviously going to be heading back to CDG anytime soon.

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

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.

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.

I'm assuming there are no ex military hangars in Goose large enough for this machine ?

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.

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.)

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

Which photo are you referring to ?

I can't see any that don't show an engine still firmly bolted onto the pylon.

Another picture taken from the tarmac

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..............................

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. :ok: 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! :ok:

Fuller ATC coverage here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrbxtVPY0rE

Previous failures?
 

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?

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 :ok:

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.:D