|
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. |
Originally Posted by glofish
(Post 9909738)
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 ..... |
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
(Post 9909776)
A B-1 operating with an engine removed does not inform this discussion-entirely different risk analysis in the military. 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 |
Originally Posted by whiteb
(Post 9909243)
No hotel needed, Two 777's are in the air on the way to relieve them from Montreal.
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 |
Originally Posted by b1lanc
(Post 9909858)
How bout a 747?:E
Boeing 747-132(SF) - American International Airways - Kalitta | Aviation Photo #0224038 | Airliners.net 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. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 9909496)
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...
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 |
Originally Posted by Sorry Dog
(Post 9909964)
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...
I can't see any that don't show an engine still firmly bolted onto the pylon. |
1 Attachment(s)
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..............................
|
Originally Posted by pax britanica
(Post 9910019)
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 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: |
|
Previous failures?
Originally Posted by Dune
(Post 9909901)
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 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
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:16. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.