Airbus forced landing

[ozrocker]

2nd Airbus had engine failure. Landed safely.

                                                              <S> Oz

[CAP1]

this is being caused by pretty much the same thing that causes constant recalls and tsb's on cars.

 the engineers are pushing things too far. on top of that, they're under the gun to get it to market "yesterday", and keep the cost down too.

 the problem is that with an aircraft such as this, the consequences are going to be much much worse.

[Vulcan]

2nd Airbus had engine failure. Landed safely.

                                                              <S> Oz

2nd airbus was a boeing 747

[68Wooley]

this is being caused by pretty much the same thing that causes constant recalls and tsb's on cars.

 the engineers are pushing things too far. on top of that, they're under the gun to get it to market "yesterday", and keep the cost down too.

 the problem is that with an aircraft such as this, the consequences are going to be much much worse.

Not sure I agree with this. Turbofan's have become incredibly reliable over the last 20 years and this is a very unusual event which suggests the engineers are on the whole getting it right. If engines were blowing up left right and center, I'd maybe go along with you.

Also, the desire of the accountants to get a product to market as fast as possible is countered by the lawyer's fear of the consequences of something like an A380 falling out of the sky because of a botched/rushed design.

[Die Hard]

Sorry you're incorrect.. The engines are made by RR.. you buy the plane, then choose your engine, so a problem with one doesn't mean the other is defective as well

I'm pretty sure that's what I said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the engines aren't the product of Airbus... and considering the fact that the aircraft survived an uncontained engine explosion and subsequent fire and landed safely with no injuries, I'd say they are quite justified in saying their product worked as intended.

[Ruah]

this is bs marketing stuff -

engine =/= airplane

so if the engine spits out a fan - then its clearly not a problem with the crate but with the weels.  As stated ealier.

what is forutnate is that th fan/lose blades did not sever the wing (death for all), ut the plane in half (death for all) or tak out the tail/elivators (death for all) - so considering all; the places it could have sput out to - it was a lucky outcome.

[-tronski-]

The blades don't necessarily need to server wings, or cut the fuse in half - as it was these passengers were pretty lucky considering the damage this A380 has taken.

Pieces of the engine punched holes through the wing, including one of the fuel tanks, severed the controls of the number 1 engine, tore a hole in in the front spar so big you can apparently put your head in it. Debris damaged the fuselage at the wing root but luckily didn't compromise the pressurised cabin.
At first it was thought it would take at least 2 months to repair - but now theres talk it could be a write off

 Tronsky

[2bighorn]

The engine is suppose to contain all parts during a failure, but this one didnt.

It's suppose not.