• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Air France A380 uncontained engine failure in flight.

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.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom