Qantas A380 Engine Failure

[TeeVee]

you are, of course, correct. i take it back!

[guamainiac]

Parts? I would say that engine parts poking holes in the wing are out of context.

One thing I know for sure is that parts of an engine don't belong anywhere in the wing. They belong hanging off the wing on a pylon or something.

That much I know. Now back to my regularly scheduled

[Fear_of_Flying]

try not taking things out of context. i was responding to a post by Evan where he commented on design flaw. i also referred to the qantas exec's comment about design flaw. as of right now, since they have most likely ruled out foreign body ingestion, the flaw must be inherent in the engine, whether in its design or its components. either way, it's RR's baby and it will be their problem.

further, as THE manufacturer, even if the problem is later discovered to be a part that was supplied by some third party, RR is gonna pay. sure, they can go chase down the 3rd party for indemnification, but as far as qantas is concerned, RR is liable for payment.

see the similarity in the way the law functions re the defect in the airbus/honeywell adiru?

You can backtrack all you like, you plainly stated that if there was no external cause for the failure, then there was a problem with the engine's design. The engine's design is not anything whatsoever that may have gone wrong inside the engine, and if that's what you meant, it reduces your point to nothing. If my watch breaks and I didn't drop it on the floor or wear it in the shower, then yes, I guess there's something wrong with the watch. Brilliant. But is there necessarily a flaw in the watch's design?

[Fear_of_Flying]

As usual, Evan, you've completely missed my point. We still have large, heavy blades attached to spools going crazy inside cowlings. As long as that's the case, such arrangements will occasionally disassemble themselves. As you said yourself (in an amazingly rare moment of common sense), some vulnerabilities can't be designed out.

Your point was "what's changed" referring presumably to aviation from the early 1970's when there were problems with the 747 engines to present day. In that case, as Evan points out, a lot has changed. Perhaps if you meant something as simplistic as the above, you could have been less cryptic in your post.

[Curtis Malone]

Your point was "what's changed" referring presumably to aviation from the early 1970's when there were problems with the 747 engines to present day. In that case, as Evan points out, a lot has changed. Perhaps if you meant something as simplistic as the above, you could have been less cryptic in your post.

That's just it, I didn't think I was cryptic at all. Perhaps I (rather uncharacteristically) actually overestimated the audience.

[Curtis Malone]

One thing I know for sure is that parts of an engine don't belong anywhere in the wing. They belong hanging off the wing on a pylon or something.

Easy with the facts now, the blather is just getting going.

[Fear_of_Flying]

That's just it, I didn't think I was cryptic at all. Perhaps I (rather uncharacteristically) actually overestimated the audience.

Or perhaps blithe one-liners are the extent of your ability to express cogent arguments.

[Curtis Malone]

Or perhaps blithe one-liners are the extent of your ability to express cogent arguments.

I've never been much for wordiness, so you may be right.

[guamainiac]

I usually reserve this comment for barristers.

The fact that you have been clever of word does not necessarily mean that your are right or correct.

[Fear_of_Flying]

From http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...l/7289237.html (AP)

Europe's air safety agency says an oil fire inside the engine of a Qantas superjumbo may have caused the failure that forced it into an emergency landing last week.

The statement was the first indication that investigators suspect an oil fire may have preceded the disintigration of the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine on the Qantas jet.

The European Aviation Safety Authority on Thursday ordered airlines using the Trent 900 engine to carry out more checks to ensure the planes fitted with them are safe to fly.

[Evan]

Your point was "what's changed" referring presumably to aviation from the early 1970's when there were problems with the 747 engines to present day. In that case, as Evan points out, a lot has changed. Perhaps if you meant something as simplistic as the above, you could have been less cryptic in your post.

What hasn't changed, apparently, is the problem of containment. That NASA study from 1977 I posted about earlier addressed three main initiatives: 1)engine reliability; 2)containment of primary damage within the engine; and 3)minimization of collateral damage to the aircraft.

Point #1 has been well-addressed by newer designs, FADEC, materials and manufacturing, better maintenance procedures, etc.

Point #2 has been addressed to the extent that it can be, in containing a departing blade for instance, but no engine to this day can be expected to contain a high-energy rotor failure like this one. That aspect doesn't seem to have changed much in 40 years, mainly because the technology and materials probably don't yet exist to practically address it.

Which brings up point #3. This has been partially addressed through redundant systems and dissimilar routing of those systems, but there are certain vulnerabilities which cannot be designed out. Proximity of the engines to the fuel tanks for instance.

So for all the marvelous safety improvements that have gone into aircraft design over the past 40 years, it seems there are still a few situations that present the same risk now as they did then.

This state of the art A380 was almost brought down by an age old problem that apparently cannot be designed out with current technology: Containment.

[guamainiac]

TeeVee, quit rattling Erica Jong's cage. It makes her feel better that there is no defect in design or materials or anything.

What episode of "The Twilight Zone" am I thinking of?

[TeeVee]

hmmmm, i was never much of a fan. so ya got me!

[TeeVee]

You can backtrack all you like, you plainly stated that if there was no external cause for the failure, then there was a problem with the engine's design. The engine's design is not anything whatsoever that may have gone wrong inside the engine, and if that's what you meant, it reduces your point to nothing. If my watch breaks and I didn't drop it on the floor or wear it in the shower, then yes, I guess there's something wrong with the watch. Brilliant. But is there necessarily a flaw in the watch's design?

backtrack shmacktrack. go BACK and READ my post in its entirety. read it in context of the posts i was replying to and the entirety of what i wrote.

on second thought, never mind. i don't have to prove anything to you. it's no wonder you have a fear of flying...

[TeeVee]

riddle me this: other than the glaringly obvious issue of weight, why aren't all aircraft engine pylons placed like the 737-8/900? damn near all of the engine sits forward of the wing on these planes, so in the event of a "loss of containment" parts are less likely to end up ripping through the wing.