Qantas A380 in landing drama

A few more

Here is a closer look at the damage.

ditto!

I’m ever so glad it’s not just me……

And…….?

How many safety valves go open every day?
I can remember me on a event where all tires blown on a B747 after a emergency stop. :rolleyes:

is that like…a riddle or something?:confused:

Errrrrr.

Yes.

Jolly good.

:confused:

Yes, but the 777 comes with multiple engine options, I’d guess that the 380 only has one gear supplier.:D (Also, if it were engine problems, how much of that can you lay at Boeings feet?).

Because of its size, the A380 will attract media attention (because of its potential for a large loss of life should there be a serious mishap) a minor fault/occurence that would go unreported on another type will make the news.

It was like that in the early days of the 747 and Concorde.
And any new aircraft in the future will also face media scrutiny.

What will be only once when a Chinese rice bag falls over in a B787.

Not really surprised by this tosh, from the usual same quarters.

All planes have snags when they enter into service. That applies to the 777 and/or the 380, notwithstanding the revisionists posts above. Ask UA about the issues they had when they inducted the 777 (see below). We may also add that last month only, the FAA requested boeing to correct a software snag that cause this type to potentially overshot the runway (software to be found on the 777 since its induction).

+++

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960306&slug=2317566

Risks Taken By Boeing Underscored By Letter
By Byron Acohido, Polly Lane
Seattle Times Business Reporters
The Boeing Co. prefers to handle its customer complaints quietly.

But a copy of a scathing letter from a top United Airlines executive, characterizing the Boeing 777 as a “major disappointment,” found its way into today’s Wall Street Journal.

The letter from Joseph O’Gorman, United’s executive vice president for fleet operations, to Ron Ostrowski, Boeing’s 777 manager, cites the airline’s frustration with “pilot write-ups and flight cancellations as well as the airplane’s out-of-service time.”

Company sources told The Seattle Times the problems ranged from door seals wearing out to glitches in the flight-management computer to landing-gear parts jamming.

United 777s have made five unscheduled landings because of mechanical or electrical problems. The most serious involved an engine losing most of its oil and having to be shut down in flight.

Boeing watchers and safety experts say the surfacing of O’Gorman’s letter reflects a changing business environment, while underscoring the risks Boeing accepted in introducing the highly complex, computer-operated jetliner under an immovable deadline.

Coming off a 69-day Machinists Union strike last fall and busy with new airplane orders, Boeing has been slow to respond to warranty claims filed by United.

“These are normal teething problems,” said a United insider. “United is just trying to get Boeing off the dime. Our people are saying we’re not going to sit here and fix this stuff ourselves because it’s expensive.”

Some analysts think United may be trying to get Boeing to pay penalties or offer some concessions for problems with the early 777s.

“It’s the ’90s, and in-your-face management is in style,” said Wolfgang Demisch, an analyst at BT Securities in New York. “My assumption is we wouldn’t be seeing this kind of friendly message unless United wanted to create some heartburn for Boeing and get people to pay attention.”

Another take on O’Gorman’s letter is that it reflects problems associated with Boeing’s scramble to deliver the first 777 on time last June, despite major delays in developing and testing the company’s first fly-by-wire model.

Copyright (c) 1996 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.

Er…No. Ny BA contacts tells me they had a dredful reputation within BA for the first few years and it was mainly due to the engines.
Rgds Cking

Yes, but the 777 comes with multiple engine options, I’d guess that the 380 only has one gear supplier.:D (Also, if it were engine problems, how much of that can you lay at Boeings feet?).

Because of its size, the A380 will attract media attention (because of its potential for a large loss of life should there be a serious mishap) a minor fault/occurence that would go unreported on another type will make the news.

It was like that in the early days of the 747 and Concorde.
And any new aircraft in the future will also face media scrutiny.

The point still stands.

You can’t treat any manufacturer’s website as an 100% objective source for information on the quality and reliability of their own products.

Uh….note that they compared the 777 reliability to other Boeing products…..you conveniently truncated that part of the post.

WRT to reliability of 777 at service entry, I took the following data off the Boeing website……

Which is every bit as objective and unbiased as the Airbus counterpart.

:rolleyes:

WRT to reliability of 777 at service entry, I took the following data off the Boeing website which says the 777 achieved the reliability levels out of the gate that the 767 and 747 took 18 and 38 months, respectively, to get to. As I stated in my previous post, I’m not just making this stuff up.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1995/news.release.951030.html

777 Gets High Marks At First Operations Conference

SEATTLE, Oct. 30, 1995 — The 777’s in-service report card so far is excellent, reported Dean Muncey, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group director of 777 Service Engineering, at the first 777 All Operators Flight Operations Symposium in Seattle this week.

In its first three months of revenue service, United Airline’s 777 fleet has experienced a cumulative schedule reliability of 97.7 percent, he said. Schedule reliability is the industry measure for the percentage of time an airplane is free of mechanical delays and able to leave a boarding gate within 15 minutes of scheduled departure. This is a dramatic improvement over the introductions of the 767 and the 747, which achieved this level at 18 months and 38 months respectively.

Sixteen 777 customers, other airlines and major suppliers attended the symposium, held five years to the week from program launch Oct. 29, 1990. The participants heard a number of Boeing reports ranging from flight tests and certification to action plans under way to resolve those few technical issues Muncey highlighted in his remarks.

“We are very pleased with results so far, and attribute the airplane’s success to all the early-on accomplishments of working together with our customers. They deserve the credit for helping to design these systems,” said Muncey.

An in-service experience report by United Airlines’ fleet captain Lew Kosich was a highlight of the symposium. “The 777 has shown itself magnificently during its first four months of service,” he said. United is now flying six airplanes, all powered by Pratt & Whitney engines.

Kosich called the 777 the most challenging and unique in his experience. “Personally, I’m certified to fly 20 heavy jets, and my background has been in flight test. I’ve never seen a program go like this,” he said.

“Working together was absolutely awesome,” Kosich said. “Our learning curve started five years ago. I don’t think a single person involved thought when we started that we could achieve ETOPS certification at delivery. But we did. When the airplane was finally inaugurated into service June 7, it was almost a non- event. We were inaugurating a mature airplane! Two of our inaugural flights were ETOPS flights.”

The unique Working Together atmosphere extended beyond the design table where Boeing and its launch customers first met in 1990 and during the manufacturing process itself. The regulatory authorities, the Federal Aviation Administration and Europe’s Joint Aviation Authority were involved in early planning to provide concurrent requirements so important to ETOPS certification.

Today, 50 percent of UAL flights are ETOPS (Extended Twin Operations) routes that could fly 180 minutes from suitable airports.

“There have been some technical problems, but they’ve been minimal compared to other programs,” Kosich continued. “But ask any 777 pilot and you’ll undoubtedly get a glowing report! Across the board, they love flying the 777.”

Kosich devoted much of his presentation to describing United’s readiness programs, including pilot training. He said that to meet UAL’s aggressive delivery schedule, United’s flight training simulators will be running 24 hours a day by next spring.

United Airlines is the new model’s largest customer, accounting for 34 of the 187 orders. Since Boeing entered the market with its twin, the 777 has captured 79 percent of orders for this class airplane, outselling the A330 and A340 combined. All Nippon Airlines, second largest 777 customer, took delivery of its first 777 earlier this month. Sixteen airlines have placed firm orders for 777s.

Not to mention the thousands of A320s and 737s sold. Airlines are still ordering planes, so you can’t blame the economic climate for the state of the A380s order book.

You’re right about airlines ordering planes still. Only the other week I believe Air Berlin ordered -10 of the 787. Don’t recollect too many passenger orders being cancelled for the A380 -a few deferrals yes but not cancellations. The B748i hasn’t exactly been setting the world alight either….makes me wonder whether Boeing has wisely spent money developing the B748 as there were no real challengers to the B744F programme.

To Bemused and Bograt

WRT to fuel icing on 777 aircraft, the only other similar incident that I am aware of was experienced by Delta Air Lines with another RR powered 777. The GE and PW powered 777’s haven’t experienced this icing problem, and they have esssentially the same fuel system on the airframe. Basically, miniscule particles of ice in the fuel system accrete on the RR fuel/oil heat exchanger and clog up the fuel flow. Apparently, the fuel systems on the GE and PW powered 777’s don’t have this problem…..at least none have been reported. If you can find one, please link to a report showing that a GE or PW 777 has experienced this problem.

It’s all public knowledge….the reports are out there….even Wikipedia has this one mostly correct……I’m not making this stuff up when I say, and stand by, my statement: The only 777 hull loss accident was due to RR engines. If you prefer to be more specific and say “…was due to the fuel/oil heat exchanger on RR engines” so be it.

Furthermore, I can’t find it right now, but Boeing produced a chart at one point that showed the delay and cxl rate of other airplanes verus the 777 from service entry onward, and the 777 was by far the most service ready airplane of all time (up to that time) when it was introduced. The GE90 was an all new engine at that time, it may have experienced some teething pain but not so much as to preclude 180 ETOPS approval from day 1.

Back to the original topic, I would hope even the most ardent A380 fan would agree by this point that the service entry has been somewhat of a disappointment, especially when one considers the 2 extra years Airbus had to perfect the airplane because of the program delays. And they STILL haven’t sold any more…..and now the Airbus leaders are even acknowledging publicly that the program is in trouble financially and that it will be years before the program breaks even. What an abomination!

Well not quite an abomination, the skies are littered with aircraft more deserving of that title than the A380. I seem to remember another very large capacity wide body being plagued by problems of many kinds back in the late 60s……..it happens.;)

I believe the 777 had the most trouble free entry into service of any type….at least that was the Boeing hype at the time.

Er…No. Ny BA contacts tells me they had a dredful reputation within BA for the first few years and it was mainly due to the engines. They were called “The concrete queens” or “The cripple seven” for quite a while.

Further, I don’t recall the GE90 issues you refer to at all. IMHO the real reason BA switched back to RR (remember the uproar when they had the audacity to buy GE’s on the early 777 models?) was nationalistic in nature.

The reason why BA chose the GE90 in the first place was all tied in to BA’s sale of their engine overhaul buisness in South Wales.

And see what that got them: The only 777 hull loss to date has been caused by RR engines….. .

Don’t belive that;)

The aircraft now is one of the most reliable aircraft that I deal with. I have had a lot of problems with the GE90,s. It does consume oil by the crate load were as the Trent sips it. The GE90-110 as fitted to the -300ER and -200LR have had the oil consumption issue resolved. The aircraft as a whole is a little over complicated in places. They seem to have taken tried and tested ideas off other Boeings and added extra un neccessary bits to it.

Rgds Cking

The only 777 hull loss to date has been caused by RR engines…..

What a load of utter tosh. It was ice in the fuel system. Something several 777s with GE engines have also had, fortunately, the ice blockage cleared in time for the other aircraft.

Its far to early to tell how good or bad the A380 will do.OK orders have not moved much, not really a surprise considering the current economic climate and looking at this http://plane.spottingworld.com/A380_production_list it would seem that it will be about 3 years before a good percentage of the current orders are delivered.
One think is for sure it will see some routes having less flights, Man Dub being one.

Paul

It has been on offer for about 8 years now. In that time, airlines have ordered hundreds of large twin aisle planes, primarly twin jets. Not to mention the thousands of A320s and 737s sold. Airlines are still ordering planes, so you can’t blame the economic climate for the state of the A380s order book.
I fear we may have seen all the large orders its ever going to get.