Some of the details now emerging from the Qanta A380 incident.

[Marcus]

Also scary that a Jetstar (subsidiary of Qantas) Pilot was sacked last week for going public about the dangers of Qantas and Jetstar outsourcing their aircraft maintenance to save $$$.

Pete,

maybe the guy shouldn´t have stabbed his employer in the back in a critical situation by making such across-the-board comments in the public.

I stand to be corrected, but to my knowledge, the particular above A 380 undergoes regular maintenance at Lufthansa, one of the world´s highest reputed aircraft maintenance facilities.

BTW...some of the reports read as though the SUN could have written them.

The most interesting point to me is: Would any other huge airliner from the past have survived such "massive" (SUN-style) damages? If not so (as indicated above with regard to older airframes), the incident seems more or less to be a credit to the A 380´s safety, leaving aside it´s RR engines.

Best,
Marcus

 

[David Morton]

Hi Marcus,
I don't think the integrity of the A380 and the airframe servicing is in any doubt and nothing in the aforementioned reports seems to say anything to that effect.
I would contend that the number of ECAM warnings (an airbus sytem standing for Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitor and derived from the EICAS that Boeing use
[Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System] were massive and seemingly occupied one of the pilots full time - and would also seem to not necessarily to have helped the pilots in their predicament. Combined with problems of being unable to give FADEC commands to the #1 engine (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) and unable to automatically lower the gear, and use fuel out of the horizontal stabiliser (tail plane tank) kept five pilots occupied full time and realising they were rapidly losing the ability to keep it in pitch trim, they went ahead and landed it with speeds that were from their heads (and not from the FMCS which could not cope
with the multiple problems). Luckily the speeds worked for them albeit they used a lot of runway to stop and after the successful landing, the #1 engine continued to run after the pilots egressed the aeroplane and continued running until the foam contents of two major fire appliances literally choked the engine into stopping. Now that is very worrying - no - in fact extremely worrying because my last ditch idea to stop any engine would be to lift the fire bottle selector for that engine.(A mechanical none digital system that works even if the aeroplane has no electricity supplies).
I dont think any of the articles about this incident are written in anything but objective terms, and it really is a major concern for anybody with any experience on EICAS/ECAM and glass cockpits.
I make this comment because the problems they were faced with were way, way beyond the capabilities of the normal complement of two pilots around which the whole system is developed. Remember this system was to negate carrying a Flight Engineer.
There are plenty of comments flying about, many by people who talk the talk. These sort of incidents invariably always attract those sort of comments.

 

[Marcus]

Ahoi Dave,

now I see the point you´re making. Thanks for the enlightment.

See you on Dec 10/11!

Best,
Marcus

 

[David Morton]

Great. Looking forward to it. I'll get in a few extra bottles of Cachaca and a sack of limes and we'll have a caipirinha session.

 

[Mike Drew]

As both an airline pilot (American Airlines) and a military pilot (Air Force Reserve), I have a hard-and-fast rule:

"If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!" :laugh:

(Well, technically my C-5 Galaxy is a Lockheed product, but the point is, it isn't made by Airbus, which is the most incredibly screwed-up multi-national socialist clusterf**k company on the planet!)

 

[Ron Earp]

I'll get in a few extra bottles of Cachaca and a sack of limes and we'll have a caipirinha session.

THIS ^^^^

is how to do it. None of those Mojitos that are passed off in the states as being "the same" as a Caipirinha or "just as good". Make sure you have a good mortar and pestle to mash up the limes & sugar, I like brown sugar in mine.

 

[David Morton]

Hi Ron,
I go for the Paulista Caipirinha which uses Cinquante Uno Cachaca 51 | Pure Spirit Drinks
one and a half limes, unfrefined cane sugar, and loads of ice and a muddling stick.
One of the Brazilian bars in London gave their Lime squashing machine to my eldest
daughter when she made a superb caipirinha in the bar to everyones amazement.
She learned how from Eddie the barman in the Club Athletico de Sao Paolo when we did Interlagos together and in turn she gave it to me. It's a bit like a big garlic press.
I learned how to do it on a beach in Jaquitimar near Santos.
Making Caipirinhas that is.

YouTube - How To Make Caipirinha
This clip is taken on Le Blon Beach in Rio.

 

[David Morton]

Mike - I echo your sentiment. Unfortunately BA use a lot of the mini buses on European routes and my rebate is on BA.

 

[Chris Simpson]

I thought that modern commercial jet engines had an armoured ring round at least the hot stage to contain any debris caused by a catastrophic explosion in the event of a turbine disintegration. This was obviously not the case in this event. The wing tanks were punctured but luckily not the fuselage. In the latter case an explosive decompression could have occurred if the fuselage had been penetrated at altitude.

Hats off to the 5 pilots involved in the successful landing.

Chris

 

[Marcus]

"If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going!"

Sounds a bit like "Toyota is better than Nissan."

I´m neither pro nor contra AIRBUS or Boeing but being not an expert like others here I wonder if there are any numbers or statistics proving this point.

Just hoping something like this won´t happen again:

Lauda Air Flight 004 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Best,
Marcus

 

[Keith]

Marcus, I would have thought that at the very least , you would have been a Focke Wulf kind of guy..

 

[Jack]

But I thought 'dem fokkers were messerschmitts..

 

[Marcus]

Marcus, I would have thought that at the very least , you would have been a Focke Wulf kind of guy..

Aaah Keith, Molleur...if only I could afford one of these:

FlugWerk

 

[Keith]

My favourite aeroplane Marcus and very underated in WWII.

Hey Jack that's ein Dutch company mate as in Anthony Fokker as opposed to ze Cherman Henrich Focke.

Purely in the interests of historical accuracy of course!

It is fokking confusing though.... :worried:

A friend of mine from South Africa actually flew one of those 190's after WWII. They must have, ahem, acquired a few...

Apologies for thread drift.

A380. Yes.

 

[Jack]

Keith, I do know my Messer's and FW's. That was a line from a very old joke.

"'Dem fokkers were at 6 o'clock, 12 o'clock, 9 o'clock. 'Dem fokkers were everywhere".

"So, did you shoot down any fokkers ?"

"No, 'dem fokkers were messerschmits!"

 

[Keith]

You really ARE 66 Jack... :laugh:

 

[Ian Anderson]

It amazes me with all the "If it Ain't Boeing I ain't going" stuff

Have there not been more crashes and fatalities in Boeing planes than any other manufacturer? Sure I accept there are probably more Boeings in the air but crash stats seem to show this to be the case.

And this last incident it's a Rolls Problem and no doubt that breed of engines can also be fitted to Boeing planes. Sure losing the electrics and a way to stop the outside engine is a flaw (major one) but the engine letting go is a biggie!

Ian

 

[David Morton]

Maybe you are missing the point Ian.
The software seemed to be inadequate and needs to be addressed PDQ.
Once they survived the engine problem they were faced with the second part of the incident and that second pahse seemed to be hell bent on giving the crew a major nightmare trying to keep it in the air. Just think, this was supposed to be handled with just two guys and it took five.
As of this morning Qantas are seeking legal redress from RR with potential damages to the power of n (actually undisclosed but it has to just colossal).
As for the Boeing/Aibus debate - How long has Airbus been in existance compared with Boeing? Nuff said.
I would hazard a guess there ae probably ten to fifteen times (or more) as many Boeings as there are Airbuses.

 

[domtoni]

Guys,

Here the NYT talks about the incident. My concern from before, and perhaps I should have clarified it, was the number of electronics and hydraulics that were destroyed by the engine explosion. I frankly thought the aircraft engineers would have ensured the design was secure in the event of an engine explosion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/business/global/03qantas.html?_r=1

For whatever reason, I feel far securer on a long haul flight in a Boeing than I do in an Air Bus. Perhaps its the history of the B17, B24, B29 and the subsequent 707/727 etc program.

If we look back at WW2, how many B17s were shot up, had engines destroyed etc and the plane got back home?

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Guys,

For whatever reason, I feel far securer on a long haul flight in a Boeing than I do in an Air Bus. Perhaps its the history of the B17, B24, B29 and the subsequent 707/727 etc program.

If we look back at WW2, how many B17s were shot up, had engines destroyed etc and the plane got back home?

The B24 was Lockheed, not Boeing, but your point is well taken, Boeings brought a lot of guys home.

The B29 had numerous issues and never really encountered the type of attacks the 17 and 24s did. In fact much of the armament was removed from the 29s in the Pacific theatre to allow greater payloads and range. Look at the Wikipedia entry for the issues B29s had including the 54(!) spark plugs per engine which were subject to fouling problems.....