A380 Engine Failure

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

beaupower32

Tech Sergeant
1,824
47
Jun 10, 2007
Lancaster, California

Qantas jumbo makes emergency landing in Singapore - Yahoo! News

 
I remember seeing photos of the debris on CNN a few hours ago. Holy cow, that is some damage to an A380 engine.

Though it's great to hear everyone's on the ground safe.
 
Unless you are sitting in the rotorburst area. Or it severs multiple hydraulic lines. Or slices open a wing tank. Or destroys you landing gear/tires. Or it takes out...
 
Unless you are sitting in the rotorburst area. Or it severs multiple hydraulic lines. Or slices open a wing tank. Or destroys you landing gear/tires. Or it takes out...

Which never happened.

Modern engines are designed to contain any failure within its nacelle.

As aviation enthusiasts we dont want to be all crazy news media about this saying that this could have been a disaster and hundreds could have died.

Dont mean it aint serious but You can be killed driving a car or falling down stairs. Gotta keep the big picture and dont overdo the overkill.

I would happily fly a A380...just need someone to pony up the dough...
 
Last edited:
Yeah.

An engine going bang is not end if world.

No harm no foul.

Unless it is your only one, or it explodes, or the turbine blades and debri break into the rest of the wing, or you lose all of them.

I have lost both engines in a twin engine aircraft on takeoff before. Good thing Helos can auto-rotate.
 
Last edited:
One issue we have in the USA is that FAA standards don't always keep pace with new technology so some aircraft get approved before they've been thoroughally tested. Problems get corrected after the planes have been in service - with passengers. I don't know how the Aussie approval system works.

But Airbus seems to have recurring issues with cowlings coming loose, not just on the 380 but on earlier models as well. And it's happened often enough to make one wonder if there are congenital defects, as opposed to operator or maintenance error.

I'm not cricizing the aircraft overall but clearly something needs to be done about the cowl problems before one of these mishaps does turn into a tragedy.
 

What cowling problems? I have not heard of any. Not saying it is not true, but I have not heard of any. I have flown on tons of Airbus aircraft as well, and never had a problem.
 
April 2010 Jet Blue (320) loses cowl
April 2007 Frontier (319) loses cowl
January 2010 Volaris (320) loses cowl

And this Mexicana from just last August to name a few.

It is possible that all of these incidents are due to maintenence error, I'll grant that. But it does make you wonder...
 

Attachments

  • Mex17.jpg
    43.2 KB · Views: 2,768
Unless it is your only one, or it explodes, or the turbine blades and debri break into the rest of the wing, or you lose all of them.

I have lost both engines in a twin engine aircraft on takeoff before. Good thing Helos can auto-rotate.

I was talking about the A380.
 
I'm glad to see everyone is ok....but I'm not an airbus fan.....Boeing lover here...
 

Since I knew nothing about these, I went and looked them up right after I got home. It is very weird. I would be interested in finding out if it is a maint issue or an issue with construction.

I have not found any major airlines such as Lufthansa that have had these problems though.
 
Lufthansa has a great safety record so there may be something to the maintenance aspect - that's the other side of the argument. In fact, I always go to Lufthansa first when I'm flying to or around Europe.
 
Losing one engine out of four is hardly a big issue, losing one engine out of two isnt a huge issue, modern twin engined passenger planes can fly and land on one engine, the big issue on this flight was that having just taken off it was too heavy to land so it burned fuel off for a while..........hardly a world shattering event, its a new plane so its the focus of attention.
 
Which never happened.

Modern engines are designed to contain any failure within its nacelle.

Not true. They are designed to minimize risk of a catastrophic rotorburst via multiple engineering methodologies. If it were true we would not have experienced recent accidents/incidents and airplane manufactures would not perform zonal analyses as part of their type design approval activities.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread