Sell Your Airbus Stock

[Strong Eagle]

Looks like they are zeroing in on the cause.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... royce.html

[sundaymorningstaple]

Still find it odd that the "component" failure (or signs of impending failure) was only detected in three Australian planes. Was the component failure a direct result of too much thrust too often? I reckon that if it's component failure, all might fail eventually, but the higher thrust used by their pilots hastened the part's demise. Guess it's a good thing though, that they weren't out over the mid-pacific, when it happened. Especially considering the destruction of fuel tanks, and other control systems/surfaces and the ability to trim the fuel tanks as a result of the disintegration of the component.

I wonder where our resident expert, sierra(bunch of numbers)alpha is. I'd like to hear his viewpoint on this one.

[carteki]

Haven't said anything here yet, so here goes:

747 incident the next day

apparently it was the same flight crew as were on the A380. Given the explanation of what they had to deal with on the A380 incident - I'll fly with them (flight crew) any day.

Where is Mr P?

He has mentioned the incident in another forum, but been focusing more on the cargo cartel that the european commission just busted and nailed what I'm assuming is an ex-employer of his.

All of the news at lunch is the freefall that the Rolls Royce stocks are in at the moment...

[Strong Eagle]

Still find it odd that the "component" failure (or signs of impending failure) was only detected in three Australian planes. Was the component failure a direct result of too much thrust too often? I reckon that if it's component failure, all might fail eventually, but the higher thrust used by their pilots hastened the part's demise. Guess it's a good thing though, that they weren't out over the mid-pacific, when it happened. Especially considering the destruction of fuel tanks, and other control systems/surfaces and the ability to trim the fuel tanks as a result of the disintegration of the component.

I wonder where our resident expert, sierra(bunch of numbers)alpha is. I'd like to hear his viewpoint on this one.

The higher thrust settings would only be used at take off and climb out. That's not to say that the damage could have been done at take off, with a fire and engine disintegration later.

It wasn't 'too much thrust', it appears to be a design deficiency in the Trent 900 engine that was clearly exacerbated by the higher thrust engines but which has also been found in 3 SIA engines (standard thrust). Three SQ A380's are being flown to Singapore for engine replacement.

[EADG]

Thanks for the pprune link SE, it continues to make for very interesting reading.

[ksl]

Airbus safety warning!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11746699

Another Qantas plane turns back
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101112/wl_ ... tas_engine

[sierra2469alpha]

...I wonder where our resident expert, sierra(bunch of numbers)alpha is. I'd like to hear his viewpoint on this one.

Hi SMS - no real opinion either way at the moment. I prefer to let the investigators do their job.

Certainly there is a lot of speculation on the professional pilot-only and public areas of the usual forums. There has been a lot of highly technical discussion about the version of the 900 that QF operates (972) and whether the thrust increase in these versions is an issue (as KSL alludes to in his post), however given the EAD (Emergency Airworthiness Directive) checks earlier this week, there were some other carriers who operate the other versions finding oil issues.

The incident has certainly raised some very interesting questions surrounding not just the engine itself, but actions by various airline management, engine and airframe design, human factors, and a multitude of others. Aside from the usual alarmist nature of the press and sections of the public at large, the incident provides the opportunities for a healthy analysis of all facets of modern aviation.

Certainly a remarkable show of airmanship by the tech crew. Knowing Rich de Crespigny many moons ago, I am not suprised. Particularly now the list of failures has made its way into the public forums.

As an aside, pprune bashing and all that - fair points, but when you've been a pilot you can find the wehat from the chaff. My suggestion is to follow the ATSB site - after all they are the experts.

Direct link to the incident at ATSB http://atsb.gov.au/newsroom/news-items/ ... apore.aspx

Mr. P

[sierra2469alpha]

...apparently it was the same flight crew as were on the A380. Given the explanation of what they had to deal with on the A380 incident - I'll fly with them (flight crew) any day...

Just to clarify - tech crew from 32 were DH'ing back to SYD as passengers on that flight. They got home eventually

[x9200]

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/ne ... d=12420792

The pilots were inundated with 54 computer messages alerting them of system failures or impending failures during the two-hour airborne drama with more than 450 passengers aboard, said Richard Woodward, a vice president of the Australian and International Pilots Association who has spoken with all five pilots who were in the cockpit.
With only about eight to 10 messages able to fit on a computer screen, pilots watched as screens filled only to be replaced by new screenfuls of warnings, he said.[..]
The shrapnel sliced electric cables and hydraulic lines in the wing. The wing's forward spar — one of the beams that attaches the wing to the plane — was damaged as well. And the wing's two fuel tanks were punctured. As fuel leaked out, a growing imbalance was created between the left and right sides of the plane, said and a Qantas A380 pilot.

The electrical power problems prevented pilots from pumping fuel from tanks in the tail to tanks farther forward, he said. Gradually the plane became tail heavy and the aircraft's center of gravity began to move, he said.[..]

Sounds much more serious than it was from the initial press reports.