User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16646
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:18 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
In post #536 Revelation quoted CaptainDave detailing specific training and procedures to be used by this A380 ferry crew. I'm not certain how to provide a link back to that, but I'm sure it would be right up your street.

You can right-click on any of the #NNN markers at the upper right of the posts and use 'Copy Link Location' to copy the URL for the exact link.

Then you can just paste it: => viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375147&start=500#p19885231

Or you can wrap it in URL tags => #536

Which looks like this in the 'Post a reply' window:

[url=http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375147&start=500#p19885231]#536[/url]


And God Bless you for mentioning the key issue of "asymmetric thrust"; you are only the third person to directly mention it, or eighth if you count indirect quotes by others.
Now if only I could remember who it was first mentioned it way back 1½months ago at the outset of this thread......

Let me guess! :biggrin:
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
Catfry
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:20 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:53 am

It has taken longer than I would have thought. If it is indeed due to repairs to the wing you start to wonder, if they are already into that territory whether simply proceeding with installing a new functional engine wouldn't be most straightforward. I thought the problem with Goose Bay was the difficult working conditions, but apparently not for wing repair.
Another issue is it seems like there has been no more discoveries of the rest of the engine parts in Greenland since the first few bits were seen. This is bad news for the malfunction investigation. At this point I'd imagine the searchers will have tried quite a few different ways of searching the immediate area around where the parts were found, with no luck. Does anyone know how easy or difficult it would be to find ceramic or aluminum parts buried under a metre of snow with metal detectors?
Are the already found parts sufficient or not to come to a conclusion? Who knows but I'm sceptical.
 
D L X
Posts: 11959
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:48 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
D L X wrote:
Three engine takeoffs are tricky and dangerous. Assymmetrical thrust meets speeds too slow to correct with rudder. It's a different animal than landing a bird with three engines. Indeed, the amazing amount of thrust is part of the problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/18/us/at ... -to-3.html

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... R9506.aspx

Yes indeed, and likewise the Spantax CV990 mentioned earlier in the thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Span ... vair_crash
Of course these are the two that made the headlines, not the thousands of similar events that passed without any problem.

In post #536 Revelation quoted CaptainDave detailing specific training and procedures to be used by this A380 ferry crew. I'm not certain how to provide a link back to that, but I'm sure it would be right up your street. Post #536

And God Bless you for mentioning the key issue of "asymmetric thrust"; you are only the third person to directly mention it, or eighth if you count indirect quotes by others.
Now if only I could remember who it was first mentioned it way back 1½months ago at the outset of this thread......

Then why did you post this if you already knew why it was tricky from other posts?
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:59 am

KarelXWB wrote:
iahcsr wrote:
Rather surprised there is a hanger large enough for a 380 at YYR.. unless it’s just the wing inside.


Image
https://twitter.com/gilleslaurent81/sta ... 6869987330


LOL!

"Tee hee hee! No-one can see me hiding in here!"

Reminds me of my old cat...
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:00 pm

D L X wrote:
Three engine takeoffs are tricky and dangerous. Assymmetrical thrust meets speeds too slow to correct with rudder. It's a different animal than landing a bird with three engines. Indeed, the amazing amount of thrust is part of the problem.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Yes indeed, and likewise the Spantax CV990 mentioned earlier in the thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Span ... vair_crash
Of course these are the two that made the headlines, not the thousands of similar events that passed without any problem.

In post #536 Revelation quoted CaptainDave detailing specific training and procedures to be used by this A380 ferry crew.


D L X wrote:
Then why did you post this if you already knew why it was tricky from other posts?

If you are having trouble understanding my point, let's go back to what I said, since it was missing from your reply.
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
...it worries me that 50 days have elapsed and painfully slow progress is only being made at enormous cost & inconvenience. This is a FOUR engine a/c with a massive surplus of power when flying empty, that has already proved itself capable of flying on three engines whilst heavily loaded with pax.. What kind of sorry world have we arrived at where this ferry flight is such a problem?


At one end of the scale we have two catastrophic accidents (DC-8 & CV990), where the pilots just got on with it, apparently with little or no preparation, and it went pear-shaped (in one case mainly due to extremely adverse meteorological conditions). Meanwhile what about the thousands of similar events that passed without any problem.?
At the other end of the scale, we have an A380 off-line for 50 days (& counting)

Yes, taking off with three engines is tricky, But is it really 50 days worth of tricky? Or have we arrived at a world where everybody is busy covering their backsides and therefore afraid to sanction a take off in an aircraft that even in it's current state is probably several degrees safer than the average Cessna152, that pilots jump into every day of the week. I thought the question was worth asking.

Unless I have missed something, Airbus are insisting that a replacement engine (non-functioning) is mounted in place, and that an equivalent metal slug or counter-weight was unacceptable. And yet I recall seeing a Kuwaiti 747 at LHR, on a standard passenger flight, carrying a spare fifth engine in a pod under it's wing.
Indeed, here is a thread from a rival site that I have only just come across, referencing Qantas 747s carrying a fifth engine, and whether the A380 could do the same. It also mentions three-engine ferry flights. This was Jan 2016, long before the AF66 event.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/ques ... ke-the-747
Qantas pilots say that a 747 flying with the fifth pod doesn’t really handle differently than a normally configured 747, but that special flight configurations, such as trim, are used to keep the aircraft flying straight and level

Obviously in the Qantas case they had four functioning engines, plus a dead weight plus additional drag, all taking place close to the centreline. They also carried a full quota of passengers!
With this A380, the missing engine results in an absence of weight and drag, and we also have no passengers on board, but only three functioning engines. Whilst by no means a direct comparison [understatement], the differing attitude is leaving me perplexed.

I'm guessing AF will ask for volunteer pilots, or even ask Airbus for one of their test pilots(?). Are there any pilots on this site who would have qualms about stepping forward if they were certified on the A380?
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
D L X
Posts: 11959
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:57 pm

Yes, taking off with three engines is tricky, But is it really 50 days worth of tricky? Or have we arrived at a world where everybody is busy covering their backsides and therefore afraid to sanction a take off in an aircraft that even in it's current state is probably several degrees safer than the average Cessna152, that pilots jump into every day of the week. I thought the question was worth asking.

Unless I have missed something, Airbus are insisting that a replacement engine (non-functioning) is mounted in place, and that an equivalent metal slug or counter-weight was unacceptable. And yet I recall seeing a Kuwaiti 747 at LHR, on a standard passenger flight, carrying a spare fifth engine in a pod under it's wing.
Indeed, here is a thread from a rival site that I have only just come across, referencing Qantas 747s carrying a fifth engine, and whether the A380 could do the same. It also mentions three-engine ferry flights. This was Jan 2016, long before the AF66 event.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/ques ... ke-the-747
Qantas pilots say that a 747 flying with the fifth pod doesn’t really handle differently than a normally configured 747, but that special flight configurations, such as trim, are used to keep the aircraft flying straight and level

Obviously in the Qantas case they had four functioning engines, plus a dead weight plus additional drag, all taking place close to the centreline. They also carried a full quota of passengers!
With this A380, the missing engine results in an absence of weight and drag, and we also have no passengers on board, but only three functioning engines. Whilst by no means a direct comparison [understatement], the differing attitude is leaving me perplexed.

I'm guessing AF will ask for volunteer pilots, or even ask Airbus for one of their test pilots(?). Are there any pilots on this site who would have qualms about stepping forward if they were certified on the A380?


Remember, there is substantial airframe damage as well. The fact that they are putting an engine on the pylon but not operating it for the flight suggests that they cannot safely operate the engine (or at least believe there is unmitigated risk) such that they would choose a three-engined takeoff instead which, as we have discussed, carries its own risks.

Damage. I would therefore suspect that a significant portion of the 50 day delay has to do with the damage to the plane, repairing it as best they can at a remote outstation, and training for this particular flight. Maybe even waiting for the perfect meteorological conditions. This has to be perfect -- the A380 draws a lot of attention.

And seriously, is 50 days worth more than possibly losing the frame?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:31 pm

SheikDjbouti,

It’ll take as long as it takes to get it ready for flight, 50 days or 50 months! One doesn’t rush into it. I’ve flown planes “on the ground “ for 10,000 hours. There’s no rush.

That said, it will be either a AI or AF operating crew trained in 3-engine ferry flights, not “volunteers” or line crew.
The “fifth engine” 747 was an AFM approved configuration, authorized for line crews. Totally unrelated to this situation. BTW, removing the engine doesn’t necessarily make the flight characteristics better—it affects weight and balance, aerodynamics, and wing loading.
GF
 
Pendennis
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 4:36 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:24 pm

Catfry wrote:
It has taken longer than I would have thought. If it is indeed due to repairs to the wing you start to wonder, if they are already into that territory whether simply proceeding with installing a new functional engine wouldn't be most straightforward. I thought the problem with Goose Bay was the difficult working conditions, but apparently not for wing repair.
Another issue is it seems like there has been no more discoveries of the rest of the engine parts in Greenland since the first few bits were seen. This is bad news for the malfunction investigation. At this point I'd imagine the searchers will have tried quite a few different ways of searching the immediate area around where the parts were found, with no luck. Does anyone know how easy or difficult it would be to find ceramic or aluminum parts buried under a metre of snow with metal detectors?
Are the already found parts sufficient or not to come to a conclusion? Who knows but I'm sceptical.


I am led to believe that a new engine wasn’t the sole problem, it was also the pylon. Airlines don’t have spare pylons and Airbus aren’t making them for the GP7200 anymore, so I am told. I’m guessing that the replacement engine AND pylon have come off the Le Bourget Museum aircraft.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:26 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

At one end of the scale we have two catastrophic accidents (DC-8 & CV990), where the pilots just got on with it, apparently with little or no preparation, and it went pear-shaped (in one case mainly due to extremely adverse meteorological conditions). Meanwhile what about the thousands of similar events that passed without any problem.?


There have not been "thousands of similar events" becasue nothing is similar to a 3 (or 2 -- trijet) engine takeoff and they don't happen every day, every week or every month. An engine failure on takeoff after V1 is an entirely different scenario.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:14 pm

Multiple airworthiness authorities, pilot union, OEM, insurers, owners, financiers, countries being over flown. All required to approve.

For example, a specialist insurer will cover the one off flight. Depending on the extent of the damage, and amount rectified pre-flight (including OEM assurances), the insurance cost could exceed 50% of the hull value. Absolutely everyone will want to be indemnified by this insurer, for example, the airport refuelling company.

One of the delays will be arriving at the cost of getting the aircraft to flyaway condition and then repair, versus scrap on site and removing all trace. Presumably the maths and confidence levels stack up in favour of extraction and repair.

Significantly different to an airborne flight continuing to a safe landing. This aircraft's airworthiness certificate will have been suspended. Initiating a flight in a damaged aircraft is a big deal, and a flight in a very big aircraft, an even bigger deal.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:05 pm

Planesmart wrote:
Multiple airworthiness authorities, pilot union, OEM, insurers, owners, financiers, countries being over flown. All required to approve..


This part of it is not that big a deal.

When Boeing was still doing 3/2 engine ferries in the 80's the main delay was getting the flight crew to the airplane. When BA determined they had a 747 with a engine failed at JFK that needed to get to LHR for an engine change they immediately called Boeing who put together 2 pilots and an FE that were 3 engine qualified. They grabbed the 3 engine ferry package (charts/performance, etc) and headed for JFK. By the time they got there the airplane was set up per procedures already established and ready to go. They landed at LHR generally within 24 hours of the call. IIRC it was part of the AFM so the airworthiness wasn't an issue, the pilots union was not involved, the OEM provided the procedures and everybody else just signed off.

In this specific instance the main issues which have been discussed above are confirming there's no other damage and getting another engine/pylon to hang on the wing. Getting the selected AB or AF pilots some simulator time too. Once any repairs have been signed off and an appropriate engine/pylon have been installed you've got your airworthiness certificate back and depending on whether the flight is covered in the AFM, everything else should fall easily in place. If the insurance came even close to 10% of the hull value, it would be fixed on sight -- the sky is not falling.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:29 pm

7BOEING7 wrote:
In this specific instance the main issues which have been discussed above are confirming there's no other damage and getting another engine/pylon to hang on the wing. Getting the selected AB or AF pilots some simulator time too. Once any repairs have been signed off and an appropriate engine/pylon have been installed you've got your airworthiness certificate back and depending on whether the flight is covered in the AFM, everything else should fall easily in place. If the insurance came even close to 10% of the hull value, it would be fixed on sight -- the sky is not falling.

It's the 'confirming there's no other damage' and repairs are signed off will be the big deal.

The wing and pylon repairs are either going to be completed as new, so no problem with the sign off, or they are going to be qualified. If the former, then it's 'only' a three out of four engine flight risk. If the latter, it's a very big deal.

If the wing and other repairs are qualified, it's unlikely a conventional aviation insurer will be involved. Strangely, it's often marine salvage insurers that have the appetite for this type of risk.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:02 pm

7BOEING7 wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:

At one end of the scale we have two catastrophic accidents (DC-8 & CV990), where the pilots just got on with it, apparently with little or no preparation, and it went pear-shaped (in one case mainly due to extremely adverse meteorological conditions). Meanwhile what about the thousands of similar events that passed without any problem.?


There have not been "thousands of similar events" becasue nothing is similar to a 3 (or 2 -- trijet) engine takeoff and they don't happen every day, every week or every month. An engine failure on takeoff after V1 is an entirely different scenario.

Ok, fair enough, you got me. I admit I have no idea how many times engine out ferry flights have happened in the 47 years since the Spantax incident in 1970.
Except Boeing had a contract to support BA in such circumstances in the 80's. And Airbus have written procedures in place for the A380. I took that to mean they both saw it as a very real situation that would occur from time to time. And 47 years is a pretty long time. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong - no worries.

Either way, as the world moves towards twin-engine operation across all spheres, I suspect this whole engine out ferry procedure will die a complete death anyway. I might have some strange ideas rattling around my head, but taking off in a single engine twin is too far even for me to contemplate. :shakehead:
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
DTWLAX
Posts: 701
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:19 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:47 am

On a side note, flightaware shows that AF66 was operated by a B77W on November 17th. Anybody know why?

Also since one A380 has been out of service for almost 2 months now, which A380 route has been downgauged?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25781
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:23 pm

The Antonov that will deliver the dummy engine has departed from DWC and will make a stop at CDG before continuing to Goose Bay.

See https://fr24.com/ADB2166/f9e70e1
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16646
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:16 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
The Antonov that will deliver the dummy engine has departed from DWC and will make a stop at CDG before continuing to Goose Bay.

See https://fr24.com/ADB2166/f9e70e1

Hopefully it also brings a working pylon.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
boeing767300
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 6:17 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:04 pm

Does anyone know what aircraft viewing is like at Goose Bay? I have an opportunity to visit the airport and wondering if the A-380 is visible when not in the hangar. Additionally would the AN-124 be visible as well while off loading and loading. Might seem like a silly question given the size of the aircraft but a google view shows a lot of areas hidden by surrounding forest. I did call the airport authority people but they refused to talk. Not exactly a prime tourist location and I am hesitant to visit if viewing is limited.
 
goldorak
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:29 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:50 am

Pendennis wrote:
I am led to believe that a new engine wasn’t the sole problem, it was also the pylon. Airlines don’t have spare pylons and Airbus aren’t making them for the GP7200 anymore, so I am told.

You are 100% correct. That’s what I have been told by several AF employees and so it will take some time...
 
goldorak
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:29 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:53 am

DTWLAX wrote:
Also since one A380 has been out of service for almost 2 months now, which A380 route has been downgauged?

Just after the incident, I looked at A380 routes and it was IAD which was downgraded. I don’t know if this is still true as, now that we are in the winter season, IAD was usually not having the 380.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 6118
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:40 am

goldorak wrote:
Pendennis wrote:
I am led to believe that a new engine wasn’t the sole problem, it was also the pylon. Airlines don’t have spare pylons and Airbus aren’t making them for the GP7200 anymore, so I am told.

You are 100% correct. That’s what I have been told by several AF employees and so it will take some time...


Finding a pylon should not have been difficult, there is, and now perhaps was one or several, on MSN4.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25781
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:16 pm

The Antonov has arrived in Goose Bay.

Here is the freighter at CDG airport before it went to Canada:

Image
https://twitter.com/Pierre_Jbr/status/9 ... 880566272/
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
needmolegroom
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:55 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:22 pm

Saw an indication elsewhere that the Antonov was on it's way from Goose Bay to East Midlands Airport. Assuming that it was carrying the damaged engine, the latter is presumably now on a truck heading for the manufacturers site in Wales? If so, that presumably leaves the 3 engine powered A380 to make it's own way over the pond....
needmolegroom
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16646
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:36 pm

needmolegroom wrote:
Saw an indication elsewhere that the Antonov was on it's way from Goose Bay to East Midlands Airport. Assuming that it was carrying the damaged engine, the latter is presumably now on a truck heading for the manufacturers site in Wales? If so, that presumably leaves the 3 engine powered A380 to make it's own way over the pond....

AF uses GP7200s and there is a GE engine maintenance site in Wales, so perhaps you're on to something.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ADB2292 says she landed at EMA at 01:28AM GMT.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
ltbewr
Posts: 13002
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:29 pm

I would presume this plane will be brought to Airbus' manufacturing facility in France for further inspections and repairs and was a number of reasons for this delay. Figuring how to fix it enough for a safe ferry flight as this was a 1st time for such damage on this model a/c, and having to do a major repair on site. Determining among AF, Airbus and the engine makers who is responsible for this and therefore who or who's insurers pay for it. That this plane ended up at a relatively minor airport with limited repair facilities unlike if ended up at lets say JFK, so a lot of people and equipment has to be brought in with its significant logistical issues that take time.
I would bet the costs of this loss including the lost use of the aircraft has to be pushing to $ 75 Million +.
 
sharles
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:29 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:00 pm

Another reason to not certify "pure" three engine ferry on the A380: when the 747 was developed, engine reliability was way lower, so there was a better cost/benefit ratio. With the A380, it IMHO was deemed an unnecessary expense to certify the engine removed case, while the engine disabled case was a lower extra expense.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:25 pm

sharles wrote:
Another reason to not certify "pure" three engine ferry on the A380: when the 747 was developed, engine reliability was way lower, so there was a better cost/benefit ratio. With the A380, it IMHO was deemed an unnecessary expense to certify the engine removed case, while the engine disabled case was a lower extra expense.


If by "pure" you mean "no engine attached", I don't think anybody ever certified that (in modern history), including Boeing for the 747.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25781
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:30 pm

The faulty engine was transported to EMA.

Image
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25781
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:11 pm

Loading of the replacement engine in Paris:

Image

Image

https://twitter.com/airplusnews/status/ ... 2985345024
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:39 pm

It's not like if it was really important but I'd think that's more loading then unloading.
The truck, its ident plate looks like french.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
Tedd
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:22 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:56 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
It's not like if it was really important but I'd think that's more loading then unloading.
The truck, its ident plate looks like french.


Karel`s post says "Loading of the replacement engine in Paris" nothing about unloading. But you are correct
in saying they are French plates..........just what you`d expect to see in France :)
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Sun Dec 03, 2017 8:00 pm

Tedd wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
It's not like if it was really important but I'd think that's more loading then unloading.
The truck, its ident plate looks like french.


Karel`s post says "Loading of the replacement engine in Paris" nothing about unloading. But you are correct
in saying they are French plates..........just what you`d expect to see in France :)


Hell you´re right, how did I read this UN* ???
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
TC957
Posts: 2618
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:44 pm

I've seen elsewhere that the ferry flight will be on Dec 6 all being well.
 
D L X
Posts: 11959
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:02 pm

TC957 wrote:
I've seen elsewhere that the ferry flight will be on Dec 6 all being well.

Has anyone seen confirmation that today is the day?
 
xaapb
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:08 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:25 pm

Checking Goose Bay airport departure board on Flight Radar is showing that the flight is schedule to leave at 12:00 as AF371V to Paris CDG.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/af371v

Greetings.
Jorge Meneses
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25781
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:26 pm

There is goes:

https://fr24.com/AFR371V/fc069bb

On the way to CDG.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:39 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
There is goes:

https://fr24.com/AFR371V/fc069bb

On the way to CDG.


According to someone who works at AF dispatch, it is operating with all 4 engines.

https://twitter.com/niklospilot/status/ ... 7197268992
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 25781
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:51 pm

Given the wing repairs that have been performed inside the hangar, perhaps AF decided to repair the aircraft in Goose Bay.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16646
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:52 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
There is goes:

https://fr24.com/AFR371V/fc069bb

On the way to CDG.


According to someone who works at AF dispatch, it is operating with all 4 engines.

https://twitter.com/niklospilot/status/ ... 7197268992

Bon voyage!
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
D L X
Posts: 11959
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:56 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
There is goes:

https://fr24.com/AFR371V/fc069bb

On the way to CDG.

I hope someone was there to film it!!

Kudos to the crew getting it safely up. Is my understanding correct that the takeoff was the hard part, and the rest of the flight is more pedestrian in nature?

EDIT: I had not seen that this may have been a normal, four-engine takeoff. Bravo!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16646
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:03 pm

D L X wrote:
Kudos to the crew getting it safely up. Is my understanding correct that the takeoff was the hard part, and the rest of the flight is more pedestrian in nature?

EDIT: I had not seen that this may have been a normal, four-engine takeoff. Bravo!

Indeed, and if so, probably less stressful to take off from a relatively unused military base with no pax and luggage aboard, rather than a normal takeoff at JFK with controllers barking at you scrutinizing your every movement!
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
mabadia71
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:02 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:13 pm

Anybody know the 3 engine service ceiling for the A380?
mabadia71
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:15 pm

mabadia71 wrote:
Anybody know the 3 engine service ceiling for the A380?


Aircraft seems to be operating with all 4 engines so in this case it would not apply, however I'm unsure of that ceiling. I think it would be dependent on weight and I don't think it would be too far off of a normal 4 engine cruise.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:18 pm

PW100 wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
According to someone who works at AF dispatch, it is operating with all 4 engines.
https://twitter.com/niklospilot/status/ ... 7197268992


Perhaps subject engine operating at Flight Idle (or just above) to overcome windmilling drag, but not to stress the pylon?


Looking at the aircraft's speed and everything it looks like it's operating normally, especially since it's cruising at a regular speed.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:19 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
According to someone who works at AF dispatch, it is operating with all 4 engines.
https://twitter.com/niklospilot/status/ ... 7197268992


Perhaps subject engine operating at Flight Idle (or just above) to overcome windmilling drag, but not to stress the pylon?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 4748
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:29 pm

And how soon will it re-enter service?
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2886
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:24 pm

So was the engine flown in from TLS?

2 months in YYR - must have been quite a repair job.

Couldn't the plane be flown to JFK on 3 engines? Surely they are better equipped for a repair job than YYR.
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:58 pm

bmacleod wrote:
So was the engine flown in from TLS?

2 months in YYR - must have been quite a repair job.

Couldn't the plane be flown to JFK on 3 engines? Surely they are better equipped for a repair job than YYR.


A 3 engine ferry still requires 4 engines,so they couldn't fly it anyway until the wing/pylon repairs were complete enough to hang a new engine.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:02 pm

Update at 18:50 GMT
F-HPJE is at 41,000 ft with a groundspeed of 530 kts
I cannot speak for the winds in that part of the Atlantic, but....the nearest aircraft on a similar track is QR728, an A359, making 490-500 kts at 35,000 ft, and obviously much more heavily laden. Alternatively there are three UPS a/c in that area too, all at FL350, and 490 kts.

Clearly the A380 is out-performing all of them.

So yes, it appears that all four engines are contributing in some way.

ps it's just passing AF378, an A343 heading in the opposite direction. :wave:

Edit; recommended 3-engine ferry speed is M0.79 above 10,000 ft
Last edited by SheikhDjibouti on Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There are two things that happen when you get old.
1. You start to lose your memory.
2. What was I saying again?
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2612
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:06 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Update at 18:50 GMT
F-HPJE is at 41,000 ft with a groundspeed of 530 kts
I cannot speak for the winds in that part of the Atlantic, but....the nearest aircraft on a similar track is QR728, an A359, making 490-500 kts at 35,000 ft, and obviously much more heavily laden. Alternatively there are three UPS a/c in that area too, all at FL350, and 490 kts.

Clearly the A380 is out-performing all of them.

Not to mention I recall earlier in this thread that three-engine ferry flights were limited to 10,000 ft ceiling.

So yes, it appears that all four engines are contributing in some way.

ps it's just passing AF378, an A343 heading in the opposite direction. :wave:


If it's at FL410, it's got all four engines running.

3 engine ferry flights are not limited to 10,000 ft TMK (unless there is also a pressurization issue), but it might have been required to stay out of the "tracks".
 
citationjet
Posts: 2320
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:10 pm

Looks like A380 is being ferried from Goose Bay to Paris today (Dec 6, 2017). It is currently in flight.
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos