If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I personally think this is a combo of two factors, however I am not into aviation mechanics.
1. Issues with A380- engines- have been noted worldwide by un-commanded shut-downs and other things that have led to emergency landings by at least both Singapore and Qantas.
2. Australian Conditions- this is a theory, but either Qantas is really bad at maintenance on both Boeing or Airbus or there is some random factor in flying in that region, as plenty of Qantas jets have had non/electrical power failures, pieces of the plane coming off thus causing decompression and lots of engine issues.
Whilst this is a very serious incident, and yes they were RR 900 engines fitted, it does seem that the media and all these " aviation experts" that pass comment on this aircraft and its powerplant, seem to hell bent on overdramatising this event and trying their best to rubbish the whole aircraft.
No-one has even mentioned the recent take off, double engine failure of a certain ruskie An 124, i think there are photos in JP's library.
Does EA, GE or Pratt&Whitney not make an aero engine that very occasionally drops a rotor???
Is this a British arse kicking in progress??
By the way..."aviation experts" i mean the ones appearing on the tv.
Whilst this is a very serious incident, and yes they were RR 900 engines fitted, it does seem that the media and all these " aviation experts" that pass comment on this aircraft and its powerplant, seem to hell bent on overdramatising this event and trying their best to rubbish the whole aircraft.
No-one has even mentioned the recent take off, double engine failure of a certain ruskie An 124, i think there are photos in JP's library.
Does EA, GE or Pratt&Whitney not make an aero engine that very occasionally drops a rotor???
Is this a British arse kicking in progress??
By the way..."aviation experts" i mean the ones appearing on the tv.
Seems to me that this is success story, the aircraft sustained an uncontained engine failure, sustained damage to the wing, and flew on back home as if nothing happened. Looks like good aircraft ... engines, we will know more in the months to come.
I personally think this is a combo of two factors, however I am not into aviation mechanics.
1. Issues with A380- engines- have been noted worldwide by un-commanded shut-downs and other things that have led to emergency landings by at least both Singapore and Qantas.
2. Australian Conditions- this is a theory, but either Qantas is really bad at maintenance on both Boeing or Airbus or there is some random factor in flying in that region, as plenty of Qantas jets have had non/electrical power failures, pieces of the plane coming off thus causing decompression and lots of engine issues.
someone correct me if i'm wrong here but isn't it possible that the engine itself is (not in this case) may not be responsible for the uncommanded shut-downs? aren't other systems like FADEC potentially implicated in this? does RR manufacture the FADEC utilized with its engines?
someone correct me if i'm wrong here but isn't it possible that the engine itself is (not in this case) may not be responsible for the uncommanded shut-downs? aren't other systems like FADEC potentially implicated in this? does RR manufacture the FADEC utilized with its engines?
FADEC is part of the engine. Don't know if it's manufactured by RR itself or outsourced, but when you buy the engine it comes with the FADEC (or at least that's what I was told)
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
2. Australian Conditions- this is a theory, but either Qantas is really bad at maintenance on both Boeing or Airbus or there is some random factor in flying in that region, as plenty of Qantas jets have had non/electrical power failures, pieces of the plane coming off thus causing decompression and lots of engine issues.
Given that Qantas (and they operate 220 odd airframes) have not lost an a jet engined airframe (and they have been operating them for 51 years), I'd kinda doubt either point. In terms of flying in this region, both recent uncontained engine failures have not been in Australian skies. This was singapore, the 747 was leaving San Fran or LA. One other issue could be that as we are located at the arse end of the world, any international flight tends to be a fairly long distance. Long distances mean plenty of hours in the air, and thus more chances for problems to occur.
Whilst this is quite a major incident, if you took everything the media had supplied locally, you'd think that the end of the world was nigh...
One of the commercial tv channels locally had rushed a team to Sydney airport (only about 7 flying hours away).... Lead item on the news reporting an 'explosion' interviews with the passengers in Singapore (who reported hearing a 'bang' but no signs of panic and reported that the crew handled it well). Then the press stop conducted by Alan Joyce, then a live cross to SYDNEY airport where the reporter interviewed people flying on other Qantas flights (probably not even operated by A380's) on what they thought of the situation. Then interviews with other aviation luminaries who basically said "No-one has and facts about what happened all has ended well, we'll find out when the incident is investigated". Then after 5 minutes spent on sport and other stories, another live cross to Sydney airport where the reporter just 'filled' for 30 seconds... Sheesh!
It was mentioned earlier by another poster - and it struck me as strange too that the fire trucks were spraying water into the outer engine on the same wing. I thought maybe that this was an effort to cool that engine as a precaution aginst igniting any fuel that may have been leaking. But, no, it turns out that after landing, the pilots could not shut that engine down, and may have had difficulty controlling it in the air. This to me is the most serious issue - an engine going 'pop' is not good but is a rare fact of life. When it does go pop, you don't expect to hear of it effecting the other engine in this way.
MCM mentioned the damage occurred in a 'dry' space - obviously an area where engine control systems were run, and they must've been damaged. The Singaporean firefighters were directing the monitor on their fire truck into that outboard engine to 'drown' the bugger and shut it down. That's a worry.
That I think is probably a major part of this decision to ground the fleet.
An uncontained failure is bad. An uncontained failure that damages electrical systems to prevent shut-off control to an unrelated engine is worse (especially given the corollorary that it could potentially have prevented shutdown of the damaged engine). Has anyone asked why the gear doors remained extended too...
2. Australian Conditions- this is a theory, but either Qantas is really bad at maintenance on both Boeing or Airbus or there is some random factor in flying in that region, as plenty of Qantas jets have had non/electrical power failures, pieces of the plane coming off thus causing decompression and lots of engine issues.
Qantas' engine failure rate is lower than almost every other carrier in the world. You don't hear the reporter mentioning that. The problem is that anything that happens gets immediately broadcast around the world - and yet other incidents don't. How about the AA 757 the other day? Did that get weeks of press coverage throughout the world? Didn't even make the news here.
So as my MG slides sideways toward the fuel truck, I am asking myself, "Hmmmm, is it flammable or inflammable, no, no, it's non-flammable that I have to worry about right?"
According to the NTSB isn't the definition of a contained failure as anything that stays in the engine may exit the tailpipe and there is no immediate flight risk. Uncontained comes out the side and does or does not tear stuff up. Potential seems to be the key with no definition being perfect.
What constitutes the "side" of a circular structure like an engine? looks like a uncontained failure to me, whatever object departed the engine, it was exremely lucky that it chose to exit at approx 11.00 o'clock position and not the 9.00 o'clock. Would have been a different story then. The aircrew should be commended for their handling of the situation.
You cant have the best virtual airline in the world without the best people. Ansett Australia.
An uncontained failure is bad. An uncontained failure that damages electrical systems to prevent shut-off control to an unrelated engine is worse (especially given the corollorary that it could potentially have prevented shutdown of the damaged engine). Has anyone asked why the gear doors remained extended too...
There were many more complications other than the failed engine. The details are not yet public.
That being said, yes the gear doors are open....the slats are also not extended in the photos.....the video footage showed not all spoiler panels deployed.......symptoms!
I personally think this is a combo of two factors, however I am not into aviation mechanics.
1. Issues with A380- engines- have been noted worldwide by un-commanded shut-downs and other things that have led to emergency landings by at least both Singapore and Qantas.
2. Australian Conditions- this is a theory, but either Qantas is really bad at maintenance on both Boeing or Airbus or there is some random factor in flying in that region, as plenty of Qantas jets have had non/electrical power failures, pieces of the plane coming off thus causing decompression and lots of engine issues.
maybey it has something to do with qantas i mean Qantas Flight 30 in 2008 and Qantas Flight 72. Not that those had anything to do with engines but it shows that weird incidents are not uncommon with them
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment