PDA

View Full Version : Airbus A380 damage report



Sysman
19th November 2010, 10:01
The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/11/17/the-anatomy-of-the-airbus-a380-qf32-near-disaster/)

Troll
19th November 2010, 10:06
Should I sell my RR shares? :eek:

TimberWolf
19th November 2010, 10:20
So basically passengers of the A380 were fortunate they were in a plane built to withstand tuilpty RR engines?

scooterscot
19th November 2010, 10:52
Worth mentioning that the occupants of the flight deck had a 100 years of flying experience between them. Pilot training was in place with an instructor on deck, how jammy.

Read somewhere that 40+ warning messages popped up at the same time. Fun. Loss of control of the outer engine was the biggest concern at the time, they were unable to shutdown that engine.

Engineers are fantastic we enjoy all the good work they do day after day without so much as a thank you, but when something goes wrong...

TimberWolf
19th November 2010, 11:04
Engineers are fantastic we enjoy all the good work they do day after day without so much as a thank you, but when something goes wrong...


... = they pretend there isn't a problem?

kandr
19th November 2010, 11:13
Engineers are fantastic we enjoy all the good work they do day after day without so much as a thank you, but when something goes wrong...

Err they get paid, and their mistakes could have killed hundreds, they should be up at court for attempted manslaughter.

TimberWolf
19th November 2010, 11:16
Err they get paid, and their mistakes could have killed hundreds, they should be up at court for attempted manslaughter.

A good job IT doesn't work like that.

scooterscot
19th November 2010, 11:19
Err they get paid, and their mistakes could have killed hundreds, they should be up at court for attempted manslaughter.

It happens.

But then I might retort, politicians should be made to bare the same responsibilities.

Engineer = 100's of lives lost.

Blair and Bush = I've lost count.

scooterscot
19th November 2010, 11:23
... = they pretend there isn't a problem?


The media coverage this one has been given you'd think it's doom of epic proportions. Engines fail all the time from all manufactures, changes are you've been on a plane with a failure and never knew about it.

GEC I reckon have around 20 - 30 engine in flight shut downs everyday.

northernladuk
19th November 2010, 11:31
All seems a bit complex and meaningless until the last shot of the severed fuel pipe :eek:

That is a big pipe and presume would be pumping at pressure as well! Yikes!

kandr
19th November 2010, 11:34
It happens.

But then I might retort, politicians should be made to bare the same responsibilities.

Engineer = 100's of lives lost.

Blair and Bush = I've lost count.

Yeah but engineers make the tanks, guns, missiles so its their fault also, fecking engineers worse that Nazis :tongue

TimberWolf
19th November 2010, 11:36
The media coverage this one has been given you'd think it's doom of epic proportions. Engines fail all the time from all manufactures, changes are you've been on a plane with a failure and never knew about it.

GEC I reckon have around 20 - 30 engine in flight shut downs everyday.

They don't ground their entire fleet though, or leave holes in their aircarft.

Bunk
19th November 2010, 11:39
Err they get paid, and their mistakes could have killed hundreds, they should be up at court for attempted manslaughter.

Is that even possible? I thought manslaughter was when you didn't mean to kill someone. If it's attempted, then it's murder.

DaveB
19th November 2010, 11:39
Err they get paid, and their mistakes could have killed hundreds, they should be up at court for attempted manslaughter.

No such thing. Attempt implies intent and Manslaughter is the unplanned killing of another as a result of a related action. E.g. Someone gets punched, falls over, and dies as a result of their head hitting the kerb. It's manslaughter as there was no intent to kill, but the death was a direct result of the original punch. If the offender had attacked the victim with the intent to kill then it would be murder.

In this case the charge would most likely be Gross Negligence Manslaughter ( also known as Corporate Manslaughter) where death is alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the corporate body concerned. It's incredibly hard to prove, as shown in the case of the Potters Bar rail disaster. Charges of Gross Negligence Manslaughter against Railtrack and it's contractors have just been dropped and replaced by charges under H&S legislation instead.


The media coverage this one has been given you'd think it's doom of epic proportions. Engines fail all the time from all manufactures, changes are you've been on a plane with a failure and never knew about it.

GEC I reckon have around 20 - 30 engine in flight shut downs everyday.

But most of them don't blow panels off the engine and holes in the wing. Un-contained failures like this are far more unusual.

Bunk
19th November 2010, 11:41
No such thing. Attempt implies intent and Manslaughter is the unplanned killing of another as a result of a related action. E.g. Someone gets punched, falls over, and dies as a result of their head hitting the kerb. It's manslaughter as there was no intent to kill, but the death was a direct result of the original punch. If the offender had attacked the victim with the intent to kill then it would be murder.

In this case the charge would most likely be Gross Negligence Manslaughter ( also known as Corporate Manslaughter) where death is alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the corporate body concerned. It's incredibly hard to prove, as shown in the case of the Potters Bar rail disaster. Charges of Gross Negligence Manslaughter against Railtrack and it's contractors have just been dropped and replaced by charges under H&S legislation instead.



But most of them don't blow panels off the engine and holes in the wing. Un-contained failures like this are far more unusual.

WHS, but in more words and better explained than I did :o

kandr
19th November 2010, 11:47
No such thing. Attempt implies intent and Manslaughter is the unplanned killing of another as a result of a related action. E.g. Someone gets punched, falls over, and dies as a result of their head hitting the kerb. It's manslaughter as there was no intent to kill, but the death was a direct result of the original punch. If the offender had attacked the victim with the intent to kill then it would be murder.

In this case the charge would most likely be Gross Negligence Manslaughter ( also known as Corporate Manslaughter) where death is alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the corporate body concerned. It's incredibly hard to prove, as shown in the case of the Potters Bar rail disaster. Charges of Gross Negligence Manslaughter against Railtrack and it's contractors have just been dropped and replaced by charges under H&S legislation instead.



But most of them don't blow panels off the engine and holes in the wing. Un-contained failures like this are far more unusual.

Everyones a smartass when theve had 10 mins to google. :eyes

DaveB
19th November 2010, 11:49
Everyones a smartass when theve had 10 mins to google. :eyes

:spel
Studying Law.

ftfy.

kandr
19th November 2010, 11:52
:spel
Studying Law.

ftfy.

That as well

scooterscot
19th November 2010, 14:41
They don't ground their entire fleet though, or leave holes in their aircarft.

Wanna bet! The sheet companies do to stop that kind of news getting out you'd would believe. Bet then it's up to the operators not the engine manufactures.

James Tiberius Kirk
19th November 2010, 14:59
"The engines cannae take it Cap'n, they're gonna blow!".Cry havoc and slip loose the dogs of war!

Ooops sorry - wrong login :emb