So an aircraft engine broke....

[asterix]

Apparently the deceased bird remains are called 'snarge'! There are no reports of any snarge being found (or not found) and Qantas are already blaming the aircraft's design. Presumably they are concerned lest poor maintenance might be blamed.

 

[asterix]

Ooops it's happened again Second Qantas jet in engine scare..

 

[moggsy100]

If you have all got any sense you will now realise that the only way to fly is on an Airbus... They can safely land on water without breaking up and causing no casualties or fatalities.. aka the hudson river incident...
and they can have catastrophic engine failure which consequently punches a huge hole not only through the leading edge false work but also through the actual fuel tank leaving a gaping hole for the fuel to literally pour out of.. then fly around for another 90 mins with flying systems and electrical harnesses severed to that wing... land safely and everyone walk off breathing a hugeeeeeeeeee sigh of relief...
Give me an Airbus over a crappy Boeing anyday....

But then again i am probably a bit biased as i work for Airbus on the A380 making the wings up in Broughton north wales..

 

[asterix]

I'm not sure how good this is, but China has placed an order for RR engines.

The Chinese market is fast growing with a clear need for additional aircraft capacity. Rolls-Royce is well established in China, where it now enjoys a 56 per cent share for large civil aero engines.

It's to be hoped that in a few years time they won't be selling them to us.

 

[PpPete]

If you have all got any sense you will now realise that the only way to fly is on an Airbus... They can safely land on water without breaking up and causing no casualties or fatalities.. aka the hudson river incident...
and they can have catastrophic engine failure which consequently punches a huge hole not only through the leading edge false work but also through the actual fuel tank leaving a gaping hole for the fuel to literally pour out of.. then fly around for another 90 mins with flying systems and electrical harnesses severed to that wing... land safely and everyone walk off breathing a hugeeeeeeeeee sigh of relief...
Give me an Airbus over a crappy Boeing anyday....

But then again i am probably a bit biased as i work for Airbus on the A380 making the wings up in Broughton north wales..

well said that man!
I've worked as supplier to Aerospace companies for many years. I can tell you as an established fact that Airbus & Rolls-Royce material quality control is far superior to that of any US company. Still sh1t happenz, as they say. Fortunately uncontained engine failure is very rare, because as Sioux City showed it has the capacity to bring down planes...and of course Airbus had the benefit of hindsight (as it were) when designing the A380. A fact that I'm sure all the passengers are grateful for.

 

[ASC1951]

Yet air travel remains one of the safest modes of transport, whatever.

Only if you use the airline industry's preferred measure, deaths per passenger mile.

If you look at deaths per journey hour, rail and bus are safer. If you look at deaths per passenger journey, planes are worse than everything except bicycles and motorcycles.

 

[Spinney]

Only if you use the airline industry's preferred measure, deaths per passenger mile.

If you look at deaths per journey hour, rail and bus are safer. If you look at deaths per passenger journey, planes are worse than everything except bicycles and motorcycles.

Which is rather ironic really, given that this thread is on a cycling forum!

 

[ASC1951]

Which is rather ironic really, given that this thread is on a cycling forum!

Well, if it reassures you, Spinney, motorcycle deaths per journey are more than all other forms of transport put together - in fact about five times more. Thinking back to when I had a Norton Commando, I can understand why.

 

[Spinney]

Well, if it reassures you, Spinney, motorcycle deaths per journey are more than all other forms of transport put together - in fact about five times more. Thinking back to when I had a Norton Commando, I can understand why.

I think part of the 'fear of flying' is that you cannot do anything about it. In a car (or on a bike) you feel you are in control (however illusory this may be, and whatever your standard of driving/riding!).

I've done a lot more take-offs in aeroplanes than landings...

 

[Spinney]

Are you a parachutist?

An ex-parachutist - long ago, when I was young and daft!
(that was too easy, wasn't it!)

 

[theclaud]

Edit: Removed in response to removal of the post it responded to!

 

[asterix]

An ex-parachutist - long ago, when I was young and daft!
(that was too easy, wasn't it!)

Yes, if you were really clever you'd do a lot more landings in aircraft than take-offs.

 

[Arch]

Fortunately uncontained engine failure is very rare, because as Sioux City showed it has the capacity to bring down planes...

Astonishing that anyone survived that, let alone 185. And that 13 had no injuries!

I like this example of pilot cool:

Sioux City Approach: United Two Thirty-Two Heavy, the wind's currently three six zero at one one; three sixty at eleven. You're cleared to land on any runway.
Haynes: [laughter] Roger. [laughter] You want to be particular and make it a runway, huh? (Haynes was alluding to the extreme difficulty in controlling the aircraft and their extremely low chances of making it to the airport at all)[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232#cite_note-3[/sup]

 

[PpPete]

This thread reminded to go looking for any real news on the Quantas incident, rather than just speculation. Browsing around I came across this. As previously mentioned sh!t happenz....

 

[PpPete]

I see Quantas have resumed flights with their A380s (although with certain restrictions)

I also found this, a bit technical, but there is a lot of redundancy there. Holes in wings, and missing engine cowls may look spectacular, but this thing was a LONG way from being in serious danger.