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.