Air France A380 uncontained engine failure in flight.

That's a quite amazing lack of secondary damage to the wing. Total fan failure, obviously.

In a previous A380 incident, Qantas flight 32 had an uncontained turbine failure. That one was a Rolls Royce engine and did a lot more damage because of the location of the turbine. No real relation to this incident obviously, just jogged my memory.

Systems separation for engine failures is something I spent rather a lot of time on when I worked at Boeing.
 
Trebuchet said:
That's a quite amazing lack of secondary damage to the wing. Total fan failure, obviously.

In a previous A380 incident, Qantas flight 32 had an uncontained turbine failure. That one was a Rolls Royce engine and did a lot more damage because of the location of the turbine. No real relation to this incident obviously, just jogged my memory.

Systems separation for engine failures is something I spent rather a lot of time on when I worked at Boeing.
Click to expand...

Christ! I too can hardly believe how little damage there was to the wing! You can see a few dents on the inside end of the outboard slat, and some paint off the outer end on the inboard slat, but that is bugger-all under the circumstances.
 
The thing that gets me is how calm the Pilot and Tower seem to be about the entire thing....

 
The pilots can't see the engines, and other than having an engine out, the lack of other damage meant there would be relatively little, if any, effect on flying the airplane.
 
Trebuchet said:
That's a quite amazing lack of secondary damage to the wing. Total fan failure, obviously.
Click to expand...

The leading edge outboard of the engine looked like it had been chewed on like a second-grader's pencil eraser, in the photos I've seen.
 
Will be interesting to see what they do to get the plane repaired. Do they repair it in place? Do they do a partial repair and then a 3 engine ferry?

I would bet on the partial repair and then 3 engine ferry back to Airbus.
 
Believe it or not, there is this thing called a "Repair Manual " which engineering generates on conjunction with design, and prior to certification. It describes in detail what damage is allowable, the required inspection, and the repair methods required, both permanent and temporary, as well as the allowable flight hours/cycles between reinspection and/or before a permanent repair or replacement is required

After permanent repair, tje.time between inspections is reduced, too

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
rwguinn said:
Believe it or not, there is this thing called a "Repair Manual " which engineering generates on conjunction with design, and prior to certification. It describes in detail what damage is allowable, the required inspection, and the repair methods required, both permanent and temporary, as well as the allowable flight hours/cycles between reinspection and/or before a permanent repair or replacement is required

After permanent repair, tje.time between inspections is reduced, too

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sure, but you could ship a new engine and parts in and repair it on site, or you could patch it up for a ferry flight and repair it back at home base.
 
Boeing has what are called "AOG Teams", for "Aircraft On the Ground". Highly skilled technicians sent out to help airlines fix disabled airplanes and get them back in service. I'm sure Airbus has the equivalent. They're no doubt already there evaluating the airplane to see if it can be repaired there or needs to go back to Toulouse. It'll be an economic decision as well as technical, of course.

Note that while the wing looks pretty good, the engine pylon looks like it's sustained some significant damage.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Sure, but you could ship a new engine and parts in and repair it on site, or you could patch it up for a ferry flight and repair it back at home base.
Click to expand...
Depends on the nature of the damage and where. The LE of the wing has a lot of plastic, and there's a lot of graphite epoxy lay-ups in the wing. You can't just slap a patch on those. A lot of tension load exists in the lower wing surface. If that is compromised, it can put the upper surface in compression--not a good thing.
There are scenarios run for turbine burst damage, and bird strike, but I don't recall ever seeing a criterion for fan burst damage. Bird strike should cover it pretty well, however.
Do the temp repairs, slap a new engine in, put a new cowl on, and put it back in service until it gets back to home repair center. No problems
 
Dr.Sid said:
Isn't the type supposed to be grounded, even for a while ? I know that would be costly in case of A380s .. but still ..
Click to expand...

I don't see why. Engine failures are a known phenomenon. Rare, but they happen. Airplanes are required to be designed and built to survive them. It did.

Evidence of a systemic problem with the GE engine could change that, of course, but still wouldn't affect 380's with RR engines.
 
I just fear-farted.

This is the 382nd reason I do not fly. I know that I'm more likely to die in a car accident, but I'm not going to see it coming for five minutes while I'm screaming and wetting my pants.

I'd rather be stomped to death by a hippopotamus.
 
Varanid said:
I just fear-farted.

This is the 382nd reason I do not fly. I know that I'm more likely to die in a car accident, but I'm not going to see it coming for five minutes while I'm screaming and wetting my pants.

I'd rather be stomped to death by a hippopotamus.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's reasonable reaction in this situation. I don't think the engine died horrible death. It must have been over in an instant.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Unless they fly out a replacement engine to it. Do A380s have a fifth engine station for that like 747s do? A five-engine A380 could be even cooler than a three-engine one.

Dave
Click to expand...


No. The A380 has no 5th engine station

I think one of the reasons 747s were fitted to do that is because at the time they first came out, there was no readily available civilian cargo aircraft big enough to transport a 747 Engine. Now that large civilian cargo aircraft are available, together with increased engine reliability (snicker, snicker) the need for this feature is redundant. A Trent900 will fit in the cargo area of a 747-400F.

boeing747freighter_4.jpg
 
Trebuchet said:
I don't see why. Engine failures are a known phenomenon. Rare, but they happen. Airplanes are required to be designed and built to survive them. It did.

Evidence of a systemic problem with the GE engine could change that, of course, but still wouldn't affect 380's with RR engines.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Of course there is going to be a (relatively) rapid ruling out (or finding) of the most likely scenarios that have the widest implications for concern. Failing that, like most cases in about 12-36 months there will be a few new metal fatigue and corrosion tests to perform during certain inspection intervals, etc, etc.

Which, over time, is why we've slowly gone from sobering tragedies to frightening, but ultimately successful recoveries being the norm.

If any given accident is 19-some odd things having to go wrong (carrier grade standards are not forgiving and for good reason), then there are lots of ways to prevent these things from happening through good training, good procedure, and the anal-retentive attributes of a typical theatrical company stage manager watching like a hawk over the whole thing.

I'm not so familiar with French or Canadian air investigators, though. In most cases, the investigative boards are straightforward and diligent. It's the agency over them (the FAA in the US) where good policy and industry interests compete and result in weak or watered down implementations of proposed changes to policy.
 
smartcooky said:
No. The A380 has no 5th engine station

I think one of the reasons 747s were fitted to do that is because at the time they first came out, there was no readily available civilian cargo aircraft big enough to transport a 747 Engine. Now that large civilian cargo aircraft are available, together with increased engine reliability (snicker, snicker) the need for this feature is redundant. A Trent900 will fit in the cargo area of a 747-400F.

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/pgyq4wnh9nsiumc/boeing747freighter_4.jpg?dl=1[/qimg]
Click to expand...

An assembled Trent XWB, however, will not.
 
Fitter said:
An assembled Trent XWB, however, will not.
Click to expand...

If you remove the cowlings and the thrust reverser fairing, it will (this from a CPC logistics manager in HK)

However, if you want to transport the whole thing, ready to hang, this is the only baby that will do the job.

An124-TrentXWB.jpg
 
That brings to mind the more unlucky case of United Airlines Flight 232

The tail engine blew apart, and cut through the hydraulic lines, killing ALL hydraulic control.

By lucky coincidence, they had pretty much an expert on that type of plane in the cabin, travelling, and he offered to help the pilots, who were struggling with the controls. They managed to land - well, crash land on an airport, with about half the passengers surviving.

Considering the impossible situation the accident put them into, any landing where they didn't all die, was an impressive feat.

There's a Mayday Aircrash Investigation epidsode on this event.
 
Swordfishtrombone said:
That brings to mind the more unlucky case of United Airlines Flight 232

The tail engine blew apart, and cut through the hydraulic lines, killing ALL hydraulic control.

By lucky coincidence, they had pretty much an expert on that type of plane in the cabin, travelling, and he offered to help the pilots, who were struggling with the controls. They managed to land - well, crash land on an airport, with about half the passengers surviving.

Considering the impossible situation the accident put them into, any landing where they didn't all die, was an impressive feat.

There's a Mayday Aircrash Investigation epidsode on this event.
Click to expand...

A DC10 at Sioux Falls IIRC. They used the differential thrust characteristics to control the plane. When other pilots tried to repeat it on a simulator, they weren't able to even get anywhere near the airport, let alone land.
 
Well, calling it "landing" is overstating it. There's video (not a common thing with unplanned events back then!). The plane looked like it was doing a cartwheel. It was just doing that cartwheel right at a well-prepared airport.
 
The fact that they got it inside the perimeter fence is amazing.

Sioux City Approach: "United Two Thirty-Two Heavy, the wind's currently three six zero at one one; three sixty at eleven. You're cleared to land on any runway."[4]
Haynes: "[laughter] Roger. [laughter] You want to be particular and make it a runway, huh?"[4]
 
I don't know where else to put this video, so I'm doing it in this thread. Why are the traffic controllers laughing in the tower?


Risky GO-around/Low pass over Düsseldorf Airport by Air Berlin Flight 7001 (3 different angles/videos)


The German federal aviation authority is looking into the incident. The pilots had the permission by the tower to do the go-around in this direction.

However this was the last long-distance flight of an airberlin plane. Airberlin is insolvent and already sold to Luft-Hansa.

I think the pilots just wanted to have some fun on their last day of work. *UPDATE* the pilots got suspended bc there was no emergency to do this Go-around.

Also some of the passengers are trying to sue them for playing with their lives for no reason.
Click to expand...


https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=31a_1508315027

Here are articles in The Mirror and Fortune: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/passengers-scream-terror-pilot-performs-11362861

http://fortune.com/2017/10/18/air-berlin-pilots-suspended
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom