Given the damage to the engine and cowling I would have thought a 3 engined ferry direct to Airbus would be on the cards.

Still on the plane
 

Here are my pics, videos and what not. It's been a long day, glad to be alive though. https://nonbiasedreviews.com/air-fra...ngine-blew-up/

You could check it out on my UK or French site if you would prefer. https://nonbiasedreviews.co.uk/passenger-on-af66/

Given your occupation, I trust that's a joke.

If not, good luck trying to hang a new engine on what's left of that pylon.

Just my unqualified opinion but I doubt if this bird will be ferried anywhere for some time until a substantial overstress inspection has been satisfactorily completed. How long might it take to make that inspection?

...oops and the above reconstructive surgery.

Wikipedia says in the region of 100 Ecam alerts on QF32.

Partial Goose Bay ATC recording here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCKg4zObV_U

Ref: CARs AWM 505 Schedule A & B Part V - Airworthiness Manual Chapter 505 - Delegation Of Authority - Transport Canada

TC is really tight about allowing aircraft to do three engine ferry flights nowadays. Even with a Avro RJ they wouldn't allow it when we had an engine pooch up north in the boonies. Plane & crew was fully capable & certified for it. Although this is a foreign registered/operated aircraft so there may be some back & forth.

This is of course if the 380 is even certified to do three-engine-ferry (ie: training and procedures are developed for it and approved).

There's also a difference between "ferry flight with one engine inoperative" VS "ferry flight with one engine missing (or partially)". Notwithstanding the famous early-90's ferry flight of a 146 out of South America where they took all of #3 (I think?) off.

Video from AF66 and transfer
 

The YouTube channel "nonbiased reviews" has a couple of videos allegedly from the cabin and showing the first-class transfer to the first replacement aircraft to have arrived.

I can't post the link (not enough posts) but it's easily findable from the above.

Comparison with RR failure
 

This may be a much more serious failure, than the Quantas A380 RR failure. The reason the RR failure became serious, is that the turbune section is under the wing, and so the wing was peppered with schrapnel, causing multiple secondary failures. Which were heroically dealt with.

However, in this EA failure the entire N1 hub has fractured and the entire N1 fan departed (those 'blades' you can see are the stators behind the missing fan). And the N1 fan is deliberately positioned ahead of the wing to reduce secondary damage (which is why jet and piston engines poke out the front of the wing, on nearly all aircraft). But had this huge fan hit something on the way out, like the El Al 747 engine that came lose out of Schiphol, the secondary airframe and engine failures could have been catastrophic. They were lucky that the fan flew off without hitting anything (as it can fly off in any direction).

I see fleet groundings from this, as this may be a much more fundamental and serious problem, than the RR failure. The RR failure was a simple component manufacture issue, that leaked oil into a bearing and overheated it. So the rectification was to ensure that one small component costing a few dollars was manufactured correctly. A simple rectification. But why did a complete N1 fan fail and depart? (an almost unheard of failure). Could it have been something simple, like an oil pipe fracture starving the bearing? There is an amount of oil staining on the cowl, which may point towards oil loss, before the failure. Conversely, if this was a design problem in the strength of the N1 shaft, then all these EA engines will have to be grounded, for a complete redesign and overhaul.

Only time will tell.

Silver

3-engine ferry RJ
 

Regards 3-engine ferries, I have done a 3-engine ferry on a 146. Simple as pie, with an empty aircraft. But the engine has to be secured, to prevent rotation. You roll with two symmetric engines, and then bring in the third after 80 knots.

This A380 would need a thorough inspection, but no reason it cannot do a 3-engine ferry with just a bare pilon and no engine. As long as all the ancillaries are secured, it would be easier without the engine than with. One of the prime reasons for the fat cowling on jets, is to reduce drag after an engine fails. Having no cowl would increase drag beyond the 3-engine ferry certification data.

Silver

If this is found to be a design flaw - is it even possible to re-engine planes with RR engines?

I think they will recover that fan. :) Judging from FR24, looks like event at 1348/49Z F370, about 100km NE of Narsarsuaq, over the ice sheet.
Good result.

OAP

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...

With regard to a 3 engine ferry, we know it can fly and land with 3, so surely it's simply a matter of can it get off the ground on 3 when empty-ish?!?! Should be a simple paperwork job ;-)

Shaft missing
 

Looking at the photos, the fan shaft appears to be missing, indicating a shaft failure and fan departure. I imagine a shaft failure would result in a spinning fan departing forward then falling forward and down, taking the fan case with it.The forward motion would be very brief, but enough to clear the plane.

Ah, I'd heard the initial thinking that it was hydrogen embrittlement caused by insufficient baking after a plating process...

As an engineer it's always frustrating when the people building your design don't build it in the way one has specified. Grrr.

Some of our guys were (and probably still are ) certified to do it on the 747/744 but it involved the handling pilot (usually management ) having done the appropriate sim work up and some slightly cunning procedures that had no doubt been certified by Boeing by virtue of flight testing. There was always had an inert engine, or at least it's core, on the appropriate pylon.

I would expect that they would want to redo the structural analysis of the aircraft with respect to induced oscillations and resonant frequencies if such a large weight with so much leverage was absent.

Must be having issues getting the 777 out it’s still on the ground in Goose Bay they estimated it out of there 2.5hrs ago.

EDIT: Just started up, looks like it’s going to Atlanta I assume to refuel.

Journey from absolute hell.

I seem to recall that the R.R. Spey had a cable & lever system that would close the HP fuel valve should the LP shaft move rearwards; the old designers had thought it possible!!