A380 engine strike at NRT

NJayM

You appear to have a real Bee in your bonnet about FBW so I thought id remind you about the A320 that ditched in the hudson.

Everything talks about the Pilots skills etc and quite rightly, however the dirty secret taht no one likes to mention is that it would have been a damn site harder if not impossible in an aircraft without FBW, because the pilot would have had a bigger fight on his hands to maintain attitude.

As For AF344? The Pitot static system iced up manual or FBW makes no difference beacuse all the information presented to the aircraft or crew is unreliable.

Not being FBW didnt help the 757 with a blocked pitot head a few years back either.

I had a huge distrust of FBW ever since the A320 hit the trees at the airshow back in the early 90s (I think). I remember all the speil about how the plane took over from the pilot and wouldnt let him fly. In reality a lot of the problem was Pilot error.
As an engineer I have developed more faith in the sytem, and of course now i have a better knowledge of the reality of that incident – not just the headlines I am more than happy with FBW.

Since that KAL A380 is probably going in and out of many busy airports …

Since that KAL A380 is probably going in and out of many busy airports I sincerely hope that it is given a complete check quite soon (all Toulose technology that is portable or back to Toulouse) as ‘metal fatigue’ in hidden areas can be initiated/catalysed by such a visibly superficial incident but can have long term repercussions.

That is why we hopefully don’t see guys testing aircraft structures like they did the wheels of railway locos and carriages (may still do) with a large metal hammer/mallet.:rolleyes:

As somebody already stated in this thread ‘Fly By Wire’ has made some pilots so ‘laid back’ that the flight crew appear to simply go along for the ride.:rolleyes:

There was a post on airliners that indicated only the drain mast on the engine was damaged. A fairly quick replacement and good to go.

I wonder if there is or ever will be a formal incident report?
There appears to be the pic. and similarly wonder if there was a vid. which may help clarify any issues as to how long in milliseconds the engine pod/cowling made contact with the ground.
NRT is getting busier everyday and the cross wind problem isn’t going to get better.

There is always a formal incident report. (disregarding certain 3rd world airlines and countries)

As for the inspection level it would depend on where it struck and obviously how har/ how hard it appeared to strike.

clearly if the fairing is only grazed it has only touched gently.

There are frangiable links on the engine pylons designed to give way before wing damage occurs.

It may well be it will go for further inspection later.

BTW, note that the airplane only had 168 folks onboard, I guess a VLA wasn’t really needed on that flight!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580775/Plane-flies-five-passengers-from-US-to-London.html :rolleyes:

Would be more telling if we knew what the return load was for KE. 🙂

Here’s another KAL – crazy landing at Kai Tak – just to keep the above company

Here’s another KAL – crazy landing at Kai Tak – just to keep the above company
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTl1nQ9bO1Y
Must be something in the cuisine on board.:D
on the other hand as a friend has reminded me they probably have this in continuous loop as mood music
“Amen Corner – Bend Me, Shape Me – Top Of The Pops (1968)”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM-y1a1oeCo (from the archives)

I wonder if there is or ever will be a formal incident report?

I wonder if there is or ever will be a formal incident report?
There appears to be the pic. and similarly wonder if there was a vid. which may help clarify any issues as to how long in milliseconds the engine pod/cowling made contact with the ground.
NRT is getting busier everyday and the cross wind problem isn’t going to get better.

Well… it would depend where the graze was IMO.

If its only a panel that is grazed in the middle, i.e. well away from any ‘solid’ structure, then chances are very little force transmitted through the important parts of the nacelle/pylon.

Facts from Korean Air Routine flight scheds.

Facts from Korean Air Routine flight scheds.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=korean+air+KE701
KE701 ETA at NRT 11:30 hrs

http://kr.koreanair.com/main/service/inflight/equipment/inflightService.aspx?lang=eng&rgn=eu

KE702 ETD from NRT 13:00 hrs

1.5 hour turnaround routinely (daily)

add 1 hour from news report makes 2.5 hours on the ground following engine cowling/pod contact with the ground – Great work – magicians obviously:rolleyes:

I am no Airbus engineer and am not capable of inspecting the aircraft for safety.

Simple laws of physics apply even to the modern structures of an A380 (CRFB and other materials).

Outer Starboard engine pod (damage visible on cowling) makes contact with ground while A380 is making a unorthodox landing in high cross winds at NRT. Yes it’s seconds worth of contact but unlike the landing gear an engine pod and its mounting structures to the starboard wing are NOT designed to absorb even such momentary shocks (to my humble knowledge).
The contact energy distributed would have gone into the ground and through the engine pod/cowling to wherever it was finally absorbed. The accompanying forces that resulted could have affected the entire structure and at NRT unless they had all the tools and skills of a complete A380 assembly plant how can they be sure of the possible hidden structural damage caused?

Does anyone know if the A380 was at Seoul on its return as KE702 held until Airbus cleared the problem ?

Not that I care as mentioned earlier as I am unlikely to fly Korean Air but that aircraft reg HL7611 serial 0035 could move on in the future without a full inspection/disassembly of the complete engine mount.

It’s in the interests of Airbus that I voice these concerns as it’s their reputation of their current flagship model that will be possibly at stake if possible damage is not cleared.

What sort of check was carried out I wonder in that short space of time?

Easily enough time.

Kick the tyres a few times, declare, “ach, she’s grand”, and check done. 😀

I believe that it said the return flight arrived one hour late, it did not say the NRT departure was only delayed one hour.

In other words, who knows how much ground time was originally scheduled in NRT?

For example, if it had a long layover, say 8 hours, and the ground crew required 9 hours to perform the required inspections and maintenance, that would provide for an hour delay upon arrival back at home base and still given the ground crew in NRT 9 hours.

Difficult airport with respect to wind but 1 hour turnaround delay ?????

Difficult airport with respect to wind but 1 hour turnaround delay ?????

What sort of check was carried out I wonder in that short space of time?

I just flagged never fly Korean Air in my mental notebook.