[quote]Arench aviation investigators arrived in Canada on Sunday amid questions over the cause of an apparent engine explosion that forced an Air France airliner to make an emergency landing.
Passengers reported hearing a loud bang on the Paris-Los Angeles flight, followed by vibrations that shook the cabin for 20 minutes.
By the time the Airbus A380 superjumbo jetliner landed at a military airfield in Goose Bay, Newfoundland on Saturday, the cowling covering one of the plane’s four engines had been completely torn off.[/quote]
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/30/passengers-describe-seeing-fireball-engine-air-france-flight/[/url]
[url]https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/airplane-mode/investigation-launched-serious-airbus-a380-engine-failure-n806301[/url]
Not the first time an Airbus has suffered a violent engine failure. QF32 comes to mind. This aircraft was running different brand engines though.
Airbus-planes are just overall bad planes IMO. Whoever thought it was a good idea to have a [I]joystick-maneuvered passenger airliner[/I] should be fired.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52738419]Airbus-planes are just overall bad planes IMO. Whoever thought it was a good idea to have a [I]joystick-maneuvered passenger airliner[/I] should be fired.[/QUOTE]
And what exactly does that have to do with an uncontained engine failure?
[QUOTE=download;52738424]And what exactly does that have to do with an uncontained engine failure?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't, I'm just berating Airbus in general.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Offtopic and derailing shitpost - Unrelated to the topic on hand, stick to it or don't post" - Reagy))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52738419]Airbus-planes are just overall bad planes IMO. Whoever thought it was a good idea to have a [I]joystick-maneuvered passenger airliner[/I] should be fired.[/QUOTE]
It's called Fly-By-Wire, it's not a direct control lol. Airbus is pretty damn good, especially the A380.
[QUOTE=BandClassHAH;52738435]It's called Fly-By-Wire, it's not a direct control lol. Airbus is pretty damn good, especially the A380.[/QUOTE]
Well, okay, I should clarify that I meant the A3xx planes have really shitty stick-positioning because you get an accident like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447"]Flight 447[/URL] (oh hey look another Air France flight) where in a high-altitude stall it's likely the pilots couldn't figure out what was going wrong as the stick in an A3xx [URL="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/air-france-flight-447s-lessons-four-years-later/"]doesn't really have an equally visible motion as a regular yoke/center-stick[/URL].
You can argue this was a sign of lacking competence on the pilots side, but nonetheless if they'd use yokes/center-sticks the pilot would see what the FO was doing and take control probably preventing the whole thing. Just saying you can get fly-by-wire without resorting to inferior controls. The Boeing 777 does it right, with the controls being in a visible location with visible range of motion.
[editline]2nd October 2017[/editline]
I mean I'm not an expert, but I feel like the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger"]guy who executed a perfect water-landing after a bird strike & dual-engine loss in the Hudson river with an A320[/URL] and has been a highly saught-after air-safety consultant has a decent idea of[URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7413898n"] what might or might not be an issue with a planes design[/URL] but probably not amirite
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52738467]Well, okay, I should clarify that I meant the A3xx planes have really shitty stick-positioning because you get an accident like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447"]Flight 447[/URL] (oh hey look another Air France flight) where in a high-altitude stall it's likely the pilots couldn't figure out what was going wrong as the stick in an A3xx [URL="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/air-france-flight-447s-lessons-four-years-later/"]doesn't really have an equally visible motion as a regular yoke/center-stick[/URL].
You can argue this was a sign of lacking competence on the pilots side, but nonetheless if they'd use yokes/center-sticks the pilot would see what the FO was doing and take control probably preventing the whole thing. Just saying you can get fly-by-wire without resorting to inferior controls. The Boeing 777 does it right, with the controls being in a visible location with visible range of motion.
[editline]2nd October 2017[/editline]
I mean I'm not an expert, but I feel like the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger"]guy who executed a perfect water-landing after a bird strike & dual-engine loss in the Hudson river with an A320[/URL] and has been a highly saught-after air-safety consultant has a decent idea of[URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7413898n"] what might or might not be an issue with a planes design[/URL] but probably not amirite[/QUOTE]
Yeah but what does any of this have to do with an engine explosion.
i know this means nothing and i am no plane person
but i've always had better experiences in flights in airbus' aircraft than boeing aircraft, but 99% of that isn't dependent on the aircraft. guess it's a testament to how well both are built that my experiences in either don't depend on what aircraft they are, eh?
It was actually Rolls-Royce's fault last time afaik and not Airbus
I just realized this isn't a Rolls-Royce engine but the fault is likely with the engine manufacturer all of the same.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;52738577]did an airbus kill your parents
you seem to have a beef with them[/QUOTE]
he's mad he couldn't use his metro pass to take the airbus to skyville
Correct me if im wrong but the plane can fly and land with any 2 of the 4 engines offline, and the pilots know how to do so, right?
It's not really as bad as it sounds.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52738467]Well, okay, I should clarify that I meant the A3xx planes have really shitty stick-positioning because you get an accident like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447"]Flight 447[/URL] (oh hey look another Air France flight) where in a high-altitude stall it's likely the pilots couldn't figure out what was going wrong as the stick in an A3xx [URL="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/air-france-flight-447s-lessons-four-years-later/"]doesn't really have an equally visible motion as a regular yoke/center-stick[/URL].
You can argue this was a sign of lacking competence on the pilots side, but nonetheless if they'd use yokes/center-sticks the pilot would see what the FO was doing and take control probably preventing the whole thing. Just saying you can get fly-by-wire without resorting to inferior controls. The Boeing 777 does it right, with the controls being in a visible location with visible range of motion.
[editline]2nd October 2017[/editline]
I mean I'm not an expert, but I feel like the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger"]guy who executed a perfect water-landing after a bird strike & dual-engine loss in the Hudson river with an A320[/URL] and has been a highly saught-after air-safety consultant has a decent idea of[URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7413898n"] what might or might not be an issue with a planes design[/URL] but probably not amirite[/QUOTE]
You're bringing up an issue that is completely unrelated to any sort of mechanical reliability of Airbus aircraft, and if you're one of those "IF IT AIN'T BOEING, I AIN'T GOING" kind of people, the engine that exploded on this flight has the same manufacture of most of Boeing airliners' engines.
[QUOTE=Str4fe;52738995]Correct me if im wrong but the plane can fly and land with any 2 of the 4 engines offline, and the pilots know how to do so, right?
It's not really as bad as it sounds.[/QUOTE]
It is pretty bad, because the engine casing is supposed to withstand an engine failure like that. Even if the turbine explodes, the shrapnel should be contained in the casing. Since the casing is missing, either the casing itself failed along with the engine (which is bad, could have resulted in uncontained shrapnel hitting the plane) or the engine failure itself was severe enough to destroy the casing. The casing itself isn't related to the failure, but it is a symptom of severity.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;52738467]Well, okay, I should clarify that I meant the A3xx planes have really shitty stick-positioning because you get an accident like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447"]Flight 447[/URL] (oh hey look another Air France flight) where in a high-altitude stall it's likely the pilots couldn't figure out what was going wrong as the stick in an A3xx [URL="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/air-france-flight-447s-lessons-four-years-later/"]doesn't really have an equally visible motion as a regular yoke/center-stick[/URL].
You can argue this was a sign of lacking competence on the pilots side, but nonetheless if they'd use yokes/center-sticks the pilot would see what the FO was doing and take control probably preventing the whole thing. Just saying you can get fly-by-wire without resorting to inferior controls. The Boeing 777 does it right, with the controls being in a visible location with visible range of motion.
[editline]2nd October 2017[/editline]
I mean I'm not an expert, but I feel like the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger"]guy who executed a perfect water-landing after a bird strike & dual-engine loss in the Hudson river with an A320[/URL] and has been a highly saught-after air-safety consultant has a decent idea of[URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7413898n"] what might or might not be an issue with a planes design[/URL] but probably not amirite[/QUOTE]
How many times has this been a problem? How many flights have been done with a A3xx plane?
Seems like blaming the autopilot of a Tesla car for that one crash that happend because the driver didn't react to any of the popped up warnings.
damnit peter i said 20 ft-lbs of torque not 15! (and before you correct me, this is a GE/Pratt engine, they work in american units)
ill be quite honest, you have to fuck up a few things for what appears to be the entire turbofan to detatch from the compressor
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Airbus_Lagardère_-_GP7200_engine_MSN108_%281%29.JPG/1280px-Airbus_Lagardère_-_GP7200_engine_MSN108_%281%29.JPG[/t]
here's the engine out of a nacel
[t]https://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/components/video/201710/2017-10-01t22-47-53-7z--1280x720.nbcnews-ux-1080-600.jpg[/t]
and here's the airbus's engine. clearly a large amount of the turbofan just flew right off the engine
Looks like a bearing failure where the compressor/turbofan join up. The entire turbofan will just go off kilt and destroy the nacelle from the sheer mass of the fans.
[t]https://i.imgur.com/uxhL0QT.jpg[/t]
It looks like that bearing is the failure point.
Typically when a bearing fails, it will generate immense heat and likely shear the shaft, like in a car when you throw a rod.
[QUOTE=Str4fe;52738995]Correct me if im wrong but the plane can fly and land with any 2 of the 4 engines offline, and the pilots know how to do so, right?
It's not really as bad as it sounds.[/QUOTE]
Engine failures on airbuses are piss easy, when it fails ECAM goes whoops, shuts down the engine, automatically sets the rudder so that the aircraft flies straight while maintaining wings level. All the pilots have to do is set thrust to max continuous, disengage the auto-thrust, and then descend to an altitude where flight can be maintained. All that while smart little ECAM shows what to do next on the screen. The rest of the flight is pretty much flown normally with the only difference being auto-throttle not available and climb performance is reduced so landings are normally done somewhat hot and high.
For sad Boeing drivers we have to kick the rudder to keep the aircraft straight (except 777 and 787), otherwise autopilot starts to run out of control authority and turns itself off. Turn auto-throttle off, thrust to max continuous (and unlike airbuses where MCT is a special position where the levers lock to, you have to manually find out what's MCT on the FMC and move it there). Then we have to manually identify and shut down the engine, try to maintain altitude until the airspeed reaches a specific speed then start descending. When we have free time the pilot flying can start trimming the rudder and relax their legs because by this time it would be very sore now. whoever isn't flying takes out the QRH (which is a huge bloody book) and reads off the "Engine Fire, Severe Damage or Separation" checklist and do as it says. The rest of the flight is flown more or less the same but on Boeings we have to constantly trim the rudder with any speed changes so that the aircraft flies within the autopilots control authority.
[QUOTE=BlackPhoenix;52739096]It is pretty bad, because the engine casing is supposed to withstand an engine failure like that. Even if the turbine explodes, the shrapnel should be contained in the casing. Since the casing is missing, either the casing itself failed along with the engine (which is bad, could have resulted in uncontained shrapnel hitting the plane) or the engine failure itself was severe enough to destroy the casing. The casing itself isn't related to the failure, but it is a symptom of severity.[/QUOTE]
While this is true. Its worth noting that the containment test for certification is done with relation to a blade failure. A single blade detaching itself from the engine, that's it (if the blade and disc is made out of a single piece then only 80% of the blade has to "fail"). Its a whole different story for other failures spool/shaft/hub/disc/etc and for now nobody is sure on what happened to this engine.
[QUOTE=Str4fe;52738995]Correct me if im wrong but the plane can fly and land with any 2 of the 4 engines offline, and the pilots know how to do so, right?
It's not really as bad as it sounds.[/QUOTE]
Adding to the previous answer, the reason containing shrapnel is so important is to avoid causing other damage. The other A380 engine failure resulted in the loss of use of some flight controls which then made the aircraft very difficult to fly, iirc.
[QUOTE=Str4fe;52738995]Correct me if im wrong but the plane can fly and land with any 2 of the 4 engines offline, and the pilots know how to do so, right?
It's not really as bad as it sounds.[/QUOTE]
It can fly, but can the pilots fly it like that? We'd all like to think the pilots would always know exactly what to do but when put into an emergent situation sometimes they make flat out stupid mistakes.
Like once on an Airbus the speed indicators were all fucked up because ice got in the pitot tubes, and the pilots were over the ocean at night so had nothing to look at but gauges, giving false speed readings, which disabled the autopilot and was triggering stall warnings and causing the pilots to descend to increase speed and so on until finally they crashed. But the Airbus has a trim setting and a throttle setting that if you just put them in that configuration, it will fly mostly level. It'll climb some until the speed dips then drop some until the speed increases then climb again, and it'll stay within a small block of altitude. So if you don't know your speed or you think your artificial horizon is on the fritz or you can't trust any gauges, you can do that and at least won't crash
Instead they just flew the plane based on information they knew they couldn't trust until splash
But that's far and away from a single engine going out. This situation would be nothing and wouldn't even be too terribly different from just a normal landing
[QUOTE=BlackPhoenix;52739096]It is pretty bad, because the engine casing is supposed to withstand an engine failure like that. Even if the turbine explodes, the shrapnel should be contained in the casing. Since the casing is missing, either the casing itself failed along with the engine (which is bad, could have resulted in uncontained shrapnel hitting the plane) or the engine failure itself was severe enough to destroy the casing. The casing itself isn't related to the failure, but it is a symptom of severity.[/QUOTE]
Protective casing is for the fan only, which is to protect against loss of blades when the engine ingests a foreign object (supposedly the only time an engine should experience an uncontained failure) This engine has, as amplar pointed out, lost everything forward of the guide vanes, which includes all of the containment armour (the yellow wrap around the outside at the front in Amplars photo). The engine was not designed to withstand this kind of failure.
[editline]3rd October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=BlackPhoenix;52739096]It is pretty bad, because the engine casing is supposed to withstand an engine failure like that. Even if the turbine explodes, [B]the shrapnel should be contained in the casing[/B]. Since the casing is missing, either the casing itself failed along with the engine (which is bad, could have resulted in uncontained shrapnel hitting the plane) or the engine failure itself was severe enough to destroy the casing. The casing itself isn't related to the failure, but it is a symptom of severity.[/QUOTE]
A loss of a lot of turbine blades (I'm assuming that's what you mean by a turbine "explosion") would not be contained by the casing, you'd be stuffed. You can usually get away with partial loss of a blade though, because they tend to melt.
[QUOTE=Str4fe;52738995]Correct me if im wrong but the plane can fly and land with any 2 of the 4 engines offline, and the pilots know how to do so, right?
It's not really as bad as it sounds.[/QUOTE]
It depends on which engines fail, as if you lose both starboard engines on a 747, correcting for the disparity in lift across both wings is going to be extremely challenging, and I doubt the ailerons are up for the task. There is enough power for continued flight though, yeah.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Bump month old thread" - OvB))[/highlight]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
