Rolls Royce have fixed the Airbus engine problem

[FUBAR]

[Simpo Two]

I presume the assymetric engine spacing is for some subtle aerodynamic reason

[FUBAR]

Don't let the details get in the way of a good gag

[FUBAR]

I had an email a couple of weeks ago from my FiL's best mate, who is quite well known within (parts of) the industry, so I wouldn't question the provenance of it, however it's all gobldy gook to me. It is, obviously, 3rd hand:

email said:

Here are just SOME of the problems Richard had in Singapore last week aboard
QF32.... I won't bother mentioning the engine explosion!.... oops...
mentioned the engine explosion, sorry.....

• massive fuel leak in the left mid fuel tank (the beast has 11 tanks, including in the horizontal stabiliser on the tail)
• massive fuel leak in the left inner fuel tank
• a hole on the flap canoe/fairing that you could fit your upper body through
• the aft gallery in the fuel system failed, preventing many fuel transfer functions
• fuel jettison had problems due to the previous problem above
• bloody great hole in the upper wing surface
• partial failure of leading edge slats
• partial failure of speed brakes/ground spoilers
• shrapnel damage to the flaps
• TOTAL loss of all hydraulic fluid in the Green System (beast has 2 x 5,000 PSI systems, Green and Yellow)
• manual extension of landing gear
• loss of 1 generator and associated systems
• loss of brake anti-skid system
• unable to shutdown adjacent #1 engine using normal method after landing due to major damage to systems
• unable to shutdown adjacent #1 engine using using the fire switch!!!!!!!! Therefore, no fire protection was available for that engine after the explosion in #2
• ECAM warnings about major fuel imbalance because of fuel leaks on left side, that were UNABLE to be fixed with cross-feeding
• fuel trapped in Trim Tank (in the tail). Therefore, possible major CofG out-of-balance condition for landing. Yikes!
• and much more to come..........

Richard was in the left seat, FO in the right), SO in the 2nd obs seat (right rear, also with his own Radio Management Panel, so he probably did most of the coordination with the ground), Capt Dave Evans in the 1st obs seat (middle). He is a Check & Training Captain who was training Harry Wubbin to be one also. Harry was in the 3rd obs seat (left rear). All 5 guys were FLAT OUT, especially the FO who would have been processing complicated 'ECAM' messages and procedures that were seemingly never-ending!

[Quaint]

fk me, that's quite a list of issues.

Still, I suppose it goes to show that (with a really good crew aboard) the A380 is fundamentally a very sound airframe. I imagine the engine explosion caused damage not dissimilar to a small man-portable SAM, so getting the thing back on the ground with all aboard in one piece was a heck of an achievement.

[MarkK]

Isn't that a list of things that still worked rather than a list of those that didn't?

[Tango13]

[RDMcG]

Ah,,the new engine is the Titan 1 C?.....

[TVR1]

FUBAR said:

I had an email a couple of weeks ago from my FiL's best mate, who is quite well known within (parts of) the industry, so I wouldn't question the provenance of it, however it's all gobldy gook to me. It is, obviously, 3rd hand:

email said:

Here are just SOME of the problems Richard had in Singapore last week aboard
QF32.... I won't bother mentioning the engine explosion!.... oops...
mentioned the engine explosion, sorry.....

• massive fuel leak in the left mid fuel tank (the beast has 11 tanks, including in the horizontal stabiliser on the tail)
• massive fuel leak in the left inner fuel tank
• a hole on the flap canoe/fairing that you could fit your upper body through
• the aft gallery in the fuel system failed, preventing many fuel transfer functions
• fuel jettison had problems due to the previous problem above
• bloody great hole in the upper wing surface
• partial failure of leading edge slats
• partial failure of speed brakes/ground spoilers
• shrapnel damage to the flaps
• TOTAL loss of all hydraulic fluid in the Green System (beast has 2 x 5,000 PSI systems, Green and Yellow)
• manual extension of landing gear
• loss of 1 generator and associated systems
• loss of brake anti-skid system
• unable to shutdown adjacent #1 engine using normal method after landing due to major damage to systems
• unable to shutdown adjacent #1 engine using using the fire switch!!!!!!!! Therefore, no fire protection was available for that engine after the explosion in #2
• ECAM warnings about major fuel imbalance because of fuel leaks on left side, that were UNABLE to be fixed with cross-feeding
• fuel trapped in Trim Tank (in the tail). Therefore, possible major CofG out-of-balance condition for landing. Yikes!
• and much more to come..........

Richard was in the left seat, FO in the right), SO in the 2nd obs seat (right rear, also with his own Radio Management Panel, so he probably did most of the coordination with the ground), Capt Dave Evans in the 1st obs seat (middle). He is a Check & Training Captain who was training Harry Wubbin to be one also. Harry was in the 3rd obs seat (left rear). All 5 guys were FLAT OUT, especially the FO who would have been processing complicated 'ECAM' messages and procedures that were seemingly never-ending!

quoted for the up an coming....

[FUBAR]

TVR1 said:

quoted for the up an coming....

up an coming?

[mrloudly]

Speaking of odd engine layouts, anyone know what the 747 is often seen in the background on Top Gear? Noticed it has twin engine pods?

[Hard-Drive]

I think it was a ficticous aircraft used in a recent 007 film, and that configuration, along with a different cockpit, was to make it not look like a 747...

[M-J-B]

Hard-Drive said:

I think it was a ficticous aircraft used in a recent 007 film, and that configuration, along with a different cockpit, was to make it not look like a 747...

Dunsfold Wings and Wheels 2008 by Martin_Bennett, on Flickr


Dunsfold Wings and Wheels 2008 by Martin_Bennett, on Flickr

This is the 747 used in the films, but with CGI the cockpit and shape of the fuselage changed subtly. As mentioned, it's at Dunsfold where TG is filmed and used as various backdrops for music videos and films etc.

[The real Apache]

If that list is real, the they were a gnats cock away from a huge disaster

[M-J-B]

The real Apache said:

If that list is real, the they were a gnats cock away from a huge disaster

A very close friend of mine works for the CAA, and whilst he keeps this type of information close to his chest, from what has been said, it was very, very close.

Airbus are potentially in a bit of trouble as the aircraft has only two failsafe somethings and should ideally have three.

I suspect there is a lot more to this then we know.

[M-J-B]

Mojocvh said:

M-J-B said:

The real Apache said:

If that list is real, the they were a gnats cock away from a huge disaster

A very close friend of mine works for the CAA, and whilst he keeps this type of information close to his chest, from what has been said, it was very, very close.

Airbus are potentially in a bit of trouble as the aircraft has only two failsafe somethings and should ideally have three.

I suspect there is a lot more to this then we know.

nudge nudge wink wk bullshine.

Edited by Mojocvh on Tuesday 30th November 22:32

Whatever - yawn.......

[MarkK]

M-J-B said:

Mojocvh said:

M-J-B said:

The real Apache said:

If that list is real, the they were a gnats cock away from a huge disaster

A very close friend of mine works for the CAA, and whilst he keeps this type of information close to his chest, from what has been said, it was very, very close.

Airbus are potentially in a bit of trouble as the aircraft has only two failsafe somethings and should ideally have three.

I suspect there is a lot more to this then we know.

nudge nudge wink wk bullshine.

Edited by Mojocvh on Tuesday 30th November 22:32

Whatever - yawn.......

I've also seen the list presented first hand by a very well respected lecturer, author and avionics engineer so I believe it to be an accurate list - very close call indeed.

[MarkK]

Mojocvh said:

MarkK said:

Isn't that a list of things that still worked rather than a list of those that didn't?

Isn't that the point ie "what they were left with" ?

You posted in response to an earlier post of items that had failed saying that this was "the REAL list" - it therefore appeared you were discrediting the previous list in favour of your own source. Flight Global was detailing SOME of the systems left available and therefore it cannot be assumed that systems not named had all failed.

[The real Apache]

Mojocvh said:

Some further damage pictures.



check the saw tooth out!





Ref. http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/gallery-e6frfq8...


A good case for mandatory fuel tank inerting on ALL airliners?? No doubt it'll never happen unless forced by regulation.

Edited by Mojocvh on Friday 3rd December 10:26

Christ on a penny farthing!! VERY, VERY LUCKY

[MarkK]

Mojocvh said:

MarkK said:

Mojocvh said:

MarkK said:

Isn't that a list of things that still worked rather than a list of those that didn't?

Isn't that the point ie "what they were left with" ?

You posted in response to an earlier post of items that had failed saying that this was "the REAL list" - it therefore appeared you were discrediting the previous list in favour of your own source. Flight Global was detailing SOME of the systems left available and therefore it cannot be assumed that systems not named had all failed.

Actually,

I wrote,

"The REAL list .....well it's not been retracted yet...."

which was from a NAMED source, not some imaginary friend, and qualified it's authenticity with the second statement.



Get over it princess.

My issue isn't with your source (Flight Global wow that must have taken some digging), my issue is with you seemingly calling bullst just because someone respects a sources' wish to stay anonymous. And no need for the Princess bit - if you can't have a reasonable debate or respect other people's contributions then fk off and leave the adults to continue without you.