Air France Flight 66 engine failure

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I suspect (from looking at the pictures) one of the fan blades developed a crack at its root and hit the containment ring.

can see the remnants of the failed fan hub...construction of it looks like it's a sacrificial element in the event of blade failure, let the whole wheel go, rather than have it shake a wing off.

...but having the high cycle fatigue that hub is going through, plus the inability to monitor it isn't my idea of a good design.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: Sunnyinhollister
Originally Posted By: Boomer
They were indeed stuck on the plane as the airport claimed they did not have facilities for that many passengers. They had to await the arrival of two other aircraft before they could leave and complete their journey!!


That is a crock and should never be allowed. Anything over a few hours and everyone should be taken off the plane. If someone had a DVT as a result of sitting for so long there would be a law suit. Unacceptable.




I read over on another forum that Goose Bay where this plane landed is not much on an airport at all. The passengers were likely more comfortable on the plane versus sitting or lying on the floor in a cold terminal. Food and beverages were provided.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Sunnyinhollister
Originally Posted By: Boomer
They were indeed stuck on the plane as the airport claimed they did not have facilities for that many passengers. They had to await the arrival of two other aircraft before they could leave and complete their journey!!


That is a crock and should never be allowed. Anything over a few hours and everyone should be taken off the plane. If someone had a DVT as a result of sitting for so long there would be a law suit. Unacceptable.


Aside from your lawsuit, what would you have done?

The airport didn't have equipment to handle the super jumbo. News flash: MOST AIRPORTS CAN'T HANDLE THE A-380.

So, would you wave a magic wand to make equipment appear in Goose Bay? Please take a look at Google Maps - see where Goose Bay is located.

Or, would you propose that the crew should have flown SEVERAL HOURS past Goose Bay, to, perhaps, Toronto, or JFK, where there is equipment? See my previous post - that would have been dangerous, and irresponsible. The damage to the airframe (structure, hydraulics) was unknown. They needed to put the airplane down on the nearest piece of concrete available, not keep flying to a place where there was equipment.

 

[4WD]

Flown in all of them in the last few years - but with our company wanting us to maximize productivity - that means time spent in one of our office buildings/facilities worldwide - as opposed to a layover in a ME hub.
That favors 787/350/777 flights

 

[4WD]

Yes - you have two level boarding on that big beast - so custom concrete and steel is how major airports accommodate
I was in St Johns Newfoundland on 9/11 - planes landed and packed together like sardines - can't even imagine these A380's in the mix and trying to unload them

 

[Kamele0N]

http://www.airlive.net/breaking-air-fran...gine-4-cowling/

 

[fdcg27]

The -800 model weighs quite a bit more than it would have had the basic structure been optimized for that size frame. It wasn't, since Airbus optimistically (cluelessly?) planned that the basic frame would be stretched to a -900 all along.
Airbus also found to its surprise that fuselage sections from different manufacturing facilities had electric bundles that simply couldn't be mated, due to differences in design software used. Sacre bleu!
Airbus then had to essentially custom rewire the first twenty or so frames at great expense, adding weight in the process.
The 787 may be leaving FAL as fast as Boeing can build them, but it too is probably doomed to a loss-making program life in that the incredible costs Boeing incurred in it with the many missteps in this program can likely never be recovered.
The A340 was intended as a 747 killer, so Boeing simply came up with their own 747 killer in the 777, which was also an A340 killer.
The day of the enormous four engine wide body may have passed, since as you correctly note, Airbus can't give away A380s on new orders.
The 747-8 at least makes a good freighter, which can't be said of the A380.

 

[tom slick]

An aviation "expert" on the national news claimed "It appears hot engine parts came out the front of the engine and destroyed the inlet". Hmm, hot parts traveled forward?

 

[4WD]

A340 was an A340 killer

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: tom slick
An aviation "expert" on the national news claimed "It appears hot engine parts came out the front of the engine and destroyed the inlet". Hmm, hot parts traveled forward?


Not a chance...those inner stationary blades (small wheel) are intact.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
A340 was an A340 killer


LOL!
Still, had the 777 not come along, the A340 would have been a high volume program.
The first cousin A330 has done pretty well and has been developed to an impressive level of capability.
It's also pretty cheap as compared to a genuine Boeing 777.

 

[4WD]

Yes+was in a nice South African A330 just a few weeks ago - much improved over the original versions from many moons ago

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

can see the remnants of the failed fan hub...construction of it looks like it's a sacrificial element in the event of blade failure, let the whole wheel go, rather than have it shake a wing off.

...but having the high cycle fatigue that hub is going through, plus the inability to monitor it isn't my idea of a good design.

Just seeing the fan case - the honeycomb looking material take the brunt of the failed fan instead of having it strike the wing and fuselage meant it did its job and kept an engine failure from turning into a major disaster.

I've seen a few of the bird test or fan failure videos, and it's amazing to see how engineers plan for safety in failure, so to speak.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
It missed its design weight goal by 100,000 pounds...I'd call that overweight...and if it's similar to the JT-9 747, well, the congratulations, Airbus, your new flagship has matched a fifty year old design with archaic power plants.

And it's built for a market that is rapidly dying.

AB can't give them away now...


Astro, Why do European aircraft companies go after dying markets, (A-380), or markets that never really existed in the first place, (Concorde)? It doesn't make sense. How many routes actually "need" a plane that holds more people than a 747? As far as supersonic, we bailed out of that market in the 70's. Because Boeing could see it was both a financial, as well as a practical disaster. Supersonic travel can only occur over oceans or desolate terrain. That's too limiting.

But Europe went ahead anyway, full bore right off the cliff. Concorde never made a dime. Then Russia copied it. With the exception of changing a few things to make it more dangerous. And wound up with the TU-144, that dumped money out the back end. Now Europe's got this giant dog with fleas, (A-380), they can't sell. I think a lot of this has to do with these socialist countries subsidizing their big corporations. That would normally have trouble standing on their own 2 financial feet. It would appear Europe builds their airplanes, the way we build our NFL football stadiums. Both leave taxpayers holding the financial bag.

 

[Mr Nice]

Airbus simply misjudged the demand for the A-380, especially when FedEx and UPS decided not to buy it. Many airports didn't want to spend money to be able to handle the A-380.

I'm waiting for the 777X to start service.

 

[4WD]

And counting on propped up carriers who think I want to make an extra connection somewhere they hate us

 

[KD0AXS]

Apparently the aircraft will be flown back to France with only 3 operative engines. The damaged engine is being replaced with a spare engine that will be inoperable for the flight.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-air-fr...t-idUKKBN1CF2R6

 

[MolaKule]

Some group at Engine Alliance or AB is going to get a kick in the butt if cracks were not detected during X-ray analysis.

 

[DeepFriar]

"Now Europe's got this giant dog with fleas, (A-380), they can't sell. I think a lot of this has to do with these socialist countries subsidizing their big corporations. That would normally have trouble standing on their own 2 financial feet. It would appear Europe builds their airplanes, the way we build our NFL football stadiums. Both leave taxpayers holding the financial bag."

Bilt460: Your suspicions are correct and it's understandable up to a point. Everybody wants to maintain the skillsets that aerospace supports and the results of the R&D that flow from them. That's why we in aviation clamor after the tax breaks on new aircraft - without at least that support we'd all just go out and rebuild the bottomless inventory from previous generations and the GA OEM's would probably dry up and blow away.

But the Europeans have repeatedly made economic failure in aerospace a high art. The latest is the A400M "Atlas", the European C-17. Read up on that one! May be the biggest loser yet. I remember when the A380 first went into serial delivery. Tom Enders, the Airbus CEO, said at the time that it would never turn a profit. Brave man. But like I said initially, it's understandable why they keep trying.

 

[DeepFriar]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Some group at Engine Alliance or AB is going to get a kick in the butt if cracks were not detected during X-ray analysis.


No doubt about it. Their butt cracks are showing and somebody's in trouble.