i would probably view this differently should i have been on that plane....but to the best of my knowledge, these aircraft are certified to be able to lfy short distances in the event of an engine failure....at least to get them to a safe landing area. this is reinforced by the fact that they circled for a bit to burn off fuel before doing their emergency landing...........The plane is certified to take off and climb on three engines after reaching "go-no go" speed on the runway. It probably has a fuel dump system to get to landing weight.
The plane is certified to take off and climb on three engines after reaching "go-no go" speed on the runway. It probably has a fuel dump system to get to landing weight.
This was more than an engine shut down. Parts falling off can lead to changes in flight characteristics and damage to nearby components.
:salute to the QANTAS guys for not making a bad situation worse.
"The tanks are located and designed to be protected in case of such problems. The wing was affected, but absolutely not the fuel tank," said Airbus spokeswoman Aude Lebas.
My uncle, aunt, and cousin were on a 737 otw to Hawaii and one engine went out like half way there, they said it was soooo scary.
-BigBOBCH
There ya have it folks, Airbus claiming their _single lone_ fuel tank in the A380 is designed to be protected in exactly such a cases as this. :huh :O :uhoh
This was significantly more serious than a contained engine failure or outage. In this case debris from the engine was uncontained and that is a serious failure/incident, they are very lucky nothing else (besides some of the external skin on the wing) was critically damaged, compromised or ignited by the engine debris/shrapnel. This incident is worth warranting the grounding of the rest of the A380s in use until the problem is discovered and/or resolved.
An out engine can be scary but it happens, you usually have to descend in altitude and then fly slightly off-level since you only have power to one side of the aircraft. I'm sure it felt awkward and uncomforitable for them, but they were perfectly safe, the 737 has some pretty robust engines, even if one of two of them is out. In their case an incident investigation into why the engine failed would be warrented, but not grounding the rest of the B-737 fleet.
The Rolls Royce engines are also used on Boeings, should they be grounded too?
You sure about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent
This was significantly more serious than a contained engine failure or outage. In this case debris from the engine was uncontained and that is a serious failure/incident, they are very lucky nothing else (besides some of the external skin on the wing) was critically damaged, compromised or ignited by the engine debris/shrapnel. This incident is worth warranting the grounding of the rest of the A380s in use until the problem is discovered and/or resolved.
WTF are you on about? The A380 has ten fuel tanks.
The Rolls Royce engines are also used on Boeings, should they be grounded too?
Only the A380s equipped with the Trent 972s have been recommended to be grounded. Those with the other ('GP7000') type are unaffected.
737 is powered by cfm engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56
It was most likely a typo by the writer of the news article the OP posted
in all honesty, i never worry when i get on an airliner. as long as nothing important falls completley off, and the aircraft maintains forward speed, it can fly.
i flew to florida on an a-320 10 days after that one landed in the hudosn river.
we're a hundred times safer in one of those giant cigar tubes with wings, than we are in our car on the highway.
Even your own quote said tanks so it goes down to reading comprehension more than anything else.
Go grammar Nazi trolls that haven't finished grade school, unless you're waiting for hell to freeze over and for me to admit Airbuses are equal or superior to Boeings.
It was most likely a typo by the writer of the news article the OP posted, but other than that typo, ever notice every problem/failure with airbuses has an imediate explanation and/or rebutal of "it was deisgned to do that, our product is perfectly working as intended" before their engineers even get on the scene or even before the first letter is printed on an investigation document?
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.
Go grammar Nazi trolls that haven't finished grade school, unless you're waiting for hell to freeze over and for me to admit Airbuses are equal or superior to Boeings.
I love people who begin rebutals before even reading more than half a complete sentence. No wonder people let ABs get in the air without listening to Boeing's concerns that their products aren't as safe or developed as theirs.ROFLOL! You're basing your 'expert' evaluation on an article that a layman reporter has written? I don't know which is worse this or the fact that you're trying desperately to dodge your huge single tank ASSumption blunder :facepalm:
"The [insert name, model and manufacturer of specific product] tanks [<- plural, as we are talking about the product series and not a single tank of the product series] are located and designed to be protected in case of such problems. Thewing [<-singular, so they are refering to a single whole wing assembley] was affected, but absolutely not the [singular->] fuel tank,".
I'm not an AB fan or expert, but I'd be willing to bet there's more than one tank in a single wing assembly. We can also most likely, contrary to the statements from AB's public relations department, also find another tank or two along the aft fuesalage that were within LOS of the failed engine and in potential danger from a catastrophic uncontained engine failure.
Go grammar Nazi trolls that haven't finished grade school, unless you're waiting for hell to freeze over and for me to admit Airbuses are equal or superior to Boeings.
what engine is your 320 running?
2nd Airbus had engine failure. Landed safely.
<S> Oz
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.
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
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.
The engine is suppose to contain all parts during a failure, but this one didnt.