Well that obviously just didn't happen.

Part of the issue is this happened on a Saturday. Anybody who has taken it upon themselves to be the sole arbiter of what to do in such a situation will invariably work Monday to Friday, 0900-1700 (leave earlier on Fridays). Anything that happens outside these times has to either wait until Monday morning, or not deviate from a handful of restrictive rules. The days of initiative by those on the ground, on shifts, have gone.

I don't know anything about the current Canadian Premier, but the family had some distant contact with his father, who was also Premier a generation ago. He would have had a FIT if the Canadian Government authorities had acted like this.

You appear to be assuming that the Canadians did not allow the pax off.

It may well be, on the other hand, that AF did not want to let them off the plane and then have to round them all up for onward travel when the relief A/C arrived.

(On the fresh air point, I have heard that the doors were opened).

There were two relief planes. The first was a 737 chartered from Nolinor that took F and J PAX to Los Angeles (with a refueling stop in Winnipeg). The second was an AF 777 that took the rest of the PAX to Atlanta, where Delta presumably took them to LAX or other of their final destinations.

What a nightmare.
Honestly, maybe it was just the best of a bad deal, most important thing is the damaged plane made it down safely, but still what a goddamned odyssey.

It seems that the missing parts have been found (or at least spotted by a Danish helo):
Air France engine that fell off mid-flight found in Greenland - CNN

Are there known cases when pax have been cleared at an airport which otherwise does not normally provide that service?

Yes, that news was posted here 4 days ago, on #272, with pictures further down.

i did post what I thought was a relevant thread that got deleted PDQ re the above discussion about Goose Bay and also re steps for 380's and pax welfare on the ground at these remote unscheduled alternate airports that now seem to be used with increasing frequency due to Tech reasons, medi-evacs and air rage diversions.

i also asked the question as to why perhaps they did not continue to gander (whom they were talking to on ATC with their mayday)
the runway is 1000' shorter at Gander v Goose Bay's 11000' but Gander does have better airport handling and pax facilities plus a few hotels in town

the flying distances difference between Goose and Gander from
the mayday position declared over Greenland were about 100-200km more to get to Gander - just a thought

@r747 well this time it was YYR and not Gander, so be it. I am however interested to know if/how the conditions could have been better for pax _and_ crew once at YYR. So far I have not seen anything specific (what was requested, what was denied). There is this:
Goose Bay Airport | Directory of CBSA Offices and Services | Canada Border Services Agency
which I understand as, YYR cannot serve as airport of entry for commercial traffic - correct ?
Now what could be the exceptions and protocols in place, I do not know.

I'm not sure the call sign of who they were talking to initially matters, in the upper airspace they won't have been talking to anyone in Gander Tower or Approach, they would have been on one of the generic upper airspace frequencies labelled "Gander", which covers most of that part of the world.

As for airport choice the 380 is not my type but looking at some company documentation Gander and Goose are both given equal status for that fleet when it comes to suitability to diversion. If AF use similar then maybe given the visible damage to the engine and possibly unknown damage elsewhere the crew made the choice to divert to the "nearest suitable"...which would have been Goose. I wouldn't ignore that 1000 foot difference in runway length either....given the way the engine let go there could have been issues with flaps/slats that might have compromised the roll out.......

TBH despite the grumbles about ground handling given what the crew knew at the time I think it is difficult to argue with their choice of airport.

I do agree wholeheartedly with that, no way the crew could have known the exact damage, they would certainly have had QF32 in mind (I know different engine). As a passenger I would encourage all the professional crew on this forum to never compromise reasonable safety for comfort or profit, I'm sure you don't.

Yep, I think some here now (with the benefit of hindsight) that seem to be a feeling that there was a minor error of judgement made in the use of Goose because the pax might perhaps have been much more comfortable going to Gander. How Goose handled it on the ground is something that the authorities at Goose can look at ( as someone above rightly mentioned). From a flight crew POV if you are faced with a potentially serious emergency ( and I'd suggest a visibly "blown" engine that might have caused collateral damage falls into that category) you simply can't compromise the whole shooting match just because folks think it would be a smart idea to fly 15 more minutes to somewhere that might have a Hilton. If you are just dealing with an engine run down or similar then passenger comfort on the ground might start to enter the thinking (on a 4 holer).

The A380 needs more runway to take off than to land. Maybe the option of flying it out with 3 engines played a part in deciding to go to Goose Bay, in addition to what has already been mentioned.

TBH in the case in question if the crew had the luxury of having time available to be able to factor in a subsequent three engined ferry into the decision making process my guess is they wouldn't have diverted into Goose or Gander at all.

There's a danger of Monday AM quarterbacking this to the n'th degree.

Number one priority is the old chestnut of the safety of passengers and crew. Not commercial considerations, not even comfort of passengers and crew.....just safety.

We know the engine failed in a spectacular manner, accompanied by vibration. If I had looked out of window after the WTF I would be wondering how well the engine was still hanging on and wondering if there were going to be any more probs (hydraulics, especially once gear and flaps start moving....fuel leaks?..)so personally I would be inclined to get the thing on the ground as soon as I safely could, at the nearest suitable airfield. Goose may or may not be great for passenger comfort beyond the basics, it may make a three engined ferry out easier than Gander or not, but frankly that's the least of my worries.

Goose Bay does have decent access stairs etc. They host approx one diversion for medical or technical a month.

Personally maybe I would like to get off, have a nice local lunch and/or dinner, have a good sleep, and resume my travel next day (or the day after) if possible starting not too late. Problem is, I am not alone ... and it seems this airport has no commercial traffic ... I probably cannot say I'll be fine with XYZ flight the next day. So what to do. Now on the other hand if you allow 400 people to go to sleep in various places (even not too far away) and tell them, see you at 8AM tomorrow when we all must be out of here ... what are the chances a) everyone will be there and b) everyone is happy with that. And for those left behind .. is AF still responsible towards them? Not sure, maybe it is complicated.
HOWEVER if somebody says I want to get off now, I'll take it from here, AF is off the hook, see you next time ... then I think he/she "should" be allowed to do that. (But I have not read the Contract of Carriage).

Biggest issue to let people off the plane would be immigration... Goose Bay only has capacity to handle small planes (15 occupants or less) and they would be overwhelmed with a 380. I expect that in case of an emergency evacuation a way would be found to herd pax and crew into a building, but in this case it is safe to keep the passengers in the hull that brought them and feed them there.

UHH- Goosebay is not the end of the world- but close. other than one nearby community- its a hundred miles or more via a single road to anywhere. Under the circumstances, IMHO ' immigration" is a non issue..

Reuters reports about the procedure to fly the plane back to France:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ai...-idUKKBN1CF2R6

Interesting that "a spare engine will be mounted on the right wing in the same outer position as the damaged one. But this will only be used to balance the weight during flight and that engine will not be operable." I guess that assumes that the pylon is in a state to hold a whole engine, and that the aircraft can be ferried despite the damage to the wing (or that the damage can be repaired on-site before the ferry). At first sight it seemed odd to bring a whole engine with all its complexity, if they're not going to run it but just use it for balance – anything weighing the same would do. But I suppose an engine is easiest in some ways: it's the right weight and it's designed to be hung on the pylon.

It's highly likely that the pylon will also be replaced.

I would expect they would have the spare engine on idle (not completely off) to minimize the forces on the wing.

Fan recovery pax recovery!
 

Landing at Goose was perfect. With a full-blown emergency its called land ASAP in Airbus terms.
AirFrance has looked at this in detail before opening this route.

The way it was handled on the ground was quite elegant.
The diversion perfect.

Now for something more interesting!
Is there any of you that know of the progress of finding the Fan and or the Fan assembly?

According Reuters they are flying in a new engine and ferrying on 3 engines.
A bit odd, but then again I never did much A380 ferry flights.

Any locals have any pictures of were it is parked, is there a hangar big enough to get at least the front and the wing inside?

As a complete non expert, I seriously doubt they would be running the replacement engine. Would make the whole job significantly harder. Given the damage done, to hang an engine you are principally looking at a metal bashing exercise.
To get it to run, you would need to make sure the fuel, hydraulics, air, and electrical/electronics are safe and functional.
This would be a lot more work.
Given that there is a significant amount of damage, it would (I would have thought) be much safer to isolate these supplies, and just use the engine as a known amount of ballast, with known aerodynamic properties.

And of course the fan won't fall off that one either

Completely off I suggest.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKBN1CF2RA
I assume this means it won't be allowed to free-spin either (bad terminology but you know what I mean).

Does a 3 engine ferry flight imply the A380 is capable of completing the entire flight with both engines inoperative on one side in the event of another engine failure?

Lifting a 5 tonne engine and then putting bolts in whilst keeping it in place seems a lot harder than connecting a few tubes and wires after that.

But it's not making the connections that's the issue...it's ensuring they are all fit to do the job they're supposed to. There could have been a lot of collateral damage from that failure, not all of which may be visible.

It strikes me, another non-expert, that the tubes & wires are the difficult bit.

They have main deck cargo loading equipment there, it would be relatively easy to send a freighter there with new slats, fairings, engine, hoists , manpower etc. Changing an engine can be done in under a day.

Lifting 5 tonne engine and bolting it to the pylon is a relatively easy job. Connecting "a few tubes and wires" may also be quite easy but you haven't taken into account the subsequent functional tests on those systems, including EGR's.

IT strikes me, another non-expert, that verifying that everything was done right is the difficult bit.

I"m not a Pilot but work in Aviation, could Fuel not be used as Ballast on the Damaged Engine side, in other words, an extra 5 tons of Fuel to replicate the Engine Weight. The Ferry Flight is just 2300 Nautical miles so it is not as if it will be Fuelled to the Max. Just a Random thought.

Providing that the appropriate engine hoists are in place, remember the worldwide DC10 grounding follpwing a seriously fatal accident because operators had been changing engines with fork lifts.

just some assumptions here based on *nothing whatsoever*

you may not start the newly mounted engine without the paperwork done. you cant get the paperwork done without approved and signed off installation. you cant sign off on the installation without thoroughly checking the wing structures for damage, i.e. mag res imaging. you cant MRI the wing sections with the wing on the plane. you cant remove the wing in the goose bay hangar.....

ferry flight on 3 engines on with 4th under the wing for aerodynamics is the only option.. I suspect it will go straight back to the 'bus farm at LFBO...

for the ferry pilots probably one of the more memorable and interesting entries in their pilot logs.

The following is from a captain who flies the A380:
The Air France A380 which suffered an engine failure is to be flown back with only 3 operating engines. Some notes about how that is done..

The operating crew have to have completed a special training course. They also have to complete a simulator session prior to actually conducting a 3-engine ferry flight in order to practice the required handling techniques and operational items. If possible, this simulator detail will match the actual weather conditions, aircraft state, and airports as closely as possible.
One extremely important consideration is the failure of an engine, leaving the A380 powered by only two engines. Therefore, the aircraft weight will be low. Obviously no passengers or freight are allowed!
The inoperative engine must be configured in one of two states. Either windmilling or have had the core removed. Note that the inoperative engine cannot be missing completely. Therefore, in some cases, the previously damaged engine may be removed and replaced by another which is left to windmill rather than supplying power. If an engine is to be allowed to windmill, consideration must be made as to whether the lubrication system is available. If not, maximum flight time is 7 hours.
The route flown must ensure the aircraft is never more than 240 minutes at 2-engine inoperative cruise speed from a suitable airfield.
The takeoff performance application usually used to calculate takeoff data can be run in a special 3-engine ferry flight configuration.
A speed termed Vstop is calculated. This is the speed to which the aircraft can be accelerated with 3 engines operating and still brought to a full stop within the accelerate-stop distance available. At or above Vstop, in the event of an engine failure, the aircraft must continue the takeoff.
Takeoff can be carried out on a dry or wet runway, but not a contaminated one. Maximum crosswind for takeoff is 10 knots. Takeoff configuration is always 1*F.
The engines must not be used to provide bleed air during takeoff.
TOGA (max) thrust on the operating engines must be used for takeoff.
At the start of the takeoff, the aircraft is positioned 5m to the side of the runway centreline on the side of the two operating engines.
There is a set procedure for accelerating the engines in a different way to a normal takeoff due to the thrust asymmetry. This varies depending whether it is an inner or outer engine which is inoperative.
Recommended speeds in flight are 250 knots below 10000 feet (if ATC require this). 300 knots above 10000 feet until Mach 0.79 is reached, then cruise at M0.79. Similar speeds in descent.

Music, I believe the term you are looking for is "wind-milling" as in allowing the fan/engine to spin, but with the engine in the off position, ie unpowered. I would think such a massive fan would have to windmill, or the drag would be enormous. Large fans can wind-mill without much fuss.

David
 

Sorry David, I have to admit I never did any A380 ferry flights.( Never flew it!)

Have had some fun on empty positioning flights in the past. Lately with OFDM and 9/11 and all I stick to SOP.

Anyway, David, has anyone , but the Airbus Test Pilots simulated OR done 3 engine ferry flights on the A380?
I can not recall having heard of any?

And , Yes You have to account for loosing another on T/O witch will be rather interesting with a loss of nr 3 in this case! I am sure MOT need some accurate test data to let them loose! And not just any Cpt from standby.

Bon Voyage

I take it that the word in the press "ballast" applies to more than just dead-weight balance but also covers the need to balance drag effects within the safe operational capabilities of the takeoff and flight.

I suspect that the pylon is structurally sound (no large rotor seizure effects) and that many of the tubes and wires will not be needed and just be discarded/capped. The complete pylon might be replaced after the ferry flight