A380 Crash

[overseas boy]

Passing along info does not start with the tag line "this is why i fly boeing"!
Surely you can't be that stupid to think that it's not inflammatory...... oh wait
Nevermind, enjoy passing along info.

 

[WYOMINGPILOT]

Passing along info does not start with the tag line "this is why i fly boeing"!

You put your family on a Rolls powered A-380, I'll keep mine in a BOEING.

 

[overseas boy]

Thanks Wyoming you have now removed all doubt.....

 

[Dornier 335]

You put your family on a Rolls powered A-380, I'll keep mine in a BOEING.

What about a Rolls power BOEING? Or a GE powered Airbus? Or a PW powered MD 80?

 

[flyboyike]

What about a Rolls power BOEING? Or a GE powered Airbus? Or a PW powered MD 80?

Well, FWIW, so far the only serious accident involving a 777 also involved RR Trents. The AAIB would have us believe that two chunks of ice made it past both FOHEs at the exact same time around 700' AGL.

Just sayin...

 

[WYOMINGPILOT]

Thanks Wyoming you have now removed all doubt.....

Still want to fly in a Rolls powered A-380?

SYDNEY (AP) -- An oil leak was the most likely cause of the mid-air disintegration of a superjumbo engine last month that prompted a global safety review of the world's newest and largest jetliner, investigators said in a preliminary report on Friday.
The Australian investigators also said they found a potentially dangerous manufacturing defect that may still exist in Rolls-Royce engines used by three airlines on their Airbus A380s. Airlines said they were already checking for the new problem

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Inves...32.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=

 

[WYOMINGPILOT]

Deleted

 

[bcp7]

Can we change the title of this article please? There was not a crash.

 

[milflyboy]

- The autopilot was kept engaged till about 700 feet Radio Altimeter, time at which the crew took over manually. Flight Directors were ON.

Is this standard procedure when you have an emergency with controllability issues? I have slim to none experience in Airliners, but I would have thought you would want to fly the thing manually if your flight controls were messed up.

Just asking out of interest

 

[WYOMINGPILOT]

Subject: More on the A380 saga
You'd think that the Qantas A380 saga would be winding down by now, but you'd
be wrong. Qantas is still struggling with the fact that it can't operate the
A380 to the U.S. because the engines simply can't handle it. This means that
things continue to get worse for engine-maker Rolls-Royce, and I imagine
legal bills have only started to pile on. Rolls needs to get this thing
under control, because right now Qantas is in a bad place.

While Singapore and Lufthansa both use the Rolls-Royce Trent 970, Qantas had
to use the 972 to get 2,000 pounds more thrust for its operation. There
actually isn't much of a difference in the engines at all, but one is rated
to give a little more power. For Qantas, that little bit extra is really
important. Qantas has re-started flights from Sydney to places like
Singapore on the A380, because it doesn't need full thrust to operate that
route. However, the prize has always been flights to Los Angeles, and that's
a different story.
At nearly 7,500 miles, Qantas needs every bit of thrust to get off the
ground at LAX with a full passenger load and a lot of fuel. And that full
thrust requirement is apparently why Qantas is having bigger engine problems
with this airplane than anyone else. Any time you use full thrust, you put
more stress on the engine. Engines are supposed to handle that just fine,
but not in this case.Qantas has now found that it can operate no more than 75 flights at top
thrust before it needs to replace an engine. That's ridiculous, considering
each engine can cost $10 million or more. And it leaves Qantas with a huge
problem.
Rolls-Royce had suggested last month that Qantas operate the engines with
less thrust. That suggestion is completely worthless since it would mean
Qantas could carry a mere 80 passengers on the LA to Sydney route. The
airline might as well just operate a 747 at full capacity for a lot less
cost with a lot more passengers. If it can't carry a full load on the A380,
that airplane is worthless. The funny thing is that Qantas didn't even want
the more powerful engines in the first place. It opted for the same ones as
Lufthansa and Singapore originally, but then Airbus announced the A380 would
weigh 5 tons more than planned. That pushed Qantas to order the
higher-thrust engines in order to make the airplane viable on the LA route.
So now Qantas is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It has A380s on the
property but it can't fly them where it wants without needing a multimillion
dollar engine change every few months. Rolls-Royce is going to have to
fix this problem or Qantas is going to have to find an alternative.
The silver lining for Qantas is that it's not going to be responsible for
any of the cost here. Rolls-Royce and Airbus (to a lesser extent, if any),
however, are going to have to open up those wallets. For Qantas, however, itwould much rather just have an airplane that functions properly. Instead,
Qantas now has to go through its peak travel season without the ability to
use the A380 to the U.S.