Singapore crew refuses to fly A380

Insurance will pay yes your right , but what about the other things.
The effect of RR them selves.
The money cost will be covered by insurance yes , but airlines might not buy RR engines after this.
What about the a380’s that are in service that need there engines replacing ,there downtime will cost money , will RR pay for that too.

Mods it might be a good idea to merge the 2 A380 thread , they both seem to be going the same way.

The first engines on the 747 were very troublesome. Yet, airlines saw the bigger picture. The 747 prospered, as did the engines.

This is but a glitch in the whole grand scheme of it all. RR will weather it and remain a premier engine supplier.

Changing 40 engines? Will they not just rebuild the recovered exchanged engines and send them out as new?

but airlines might not buy RR engines after this

I guess that puts the whole A350 project in jeopardy! 😉

It was a major incident and one that was very lucky to have the plane land safely, but this won’t be the end of RR. This is not the first time any type of engine has had major problems. And if the RR civil aerospace venture does somehow fail, perhaps they can fall back on the billions they earn through military and industrial contracts.

I imagine RR will pay, but do they carry insurance against such calamities?

Insurance will pay yes your right , but what about the other things.
The effect of RR them selves.
The money cost will be covered by insurance yes , but airlines might not buy RR engines after this.
What about the a380’s that are in service that need there engines replacing ,there downtime will cost money , will RR pay for that too.

Mods it might be a good idea to merge the 2 A380 thread , they both seem to be going the same way.

I imagine RR will pay, but do they carry insurance against such calamities?

RR are now saying that they are going to replace 40 😮 engines.
What sort of time scale are they going to change them over?
It took 1 IL96F to bring the damages QANTAS engine back to East Midlands.
They cant have that many in stock and it must impact on the A380 delivery schedules.

This is a massive cost , but to who , I guess it must be RR.
Can they afford to replace 40 engines and the associated cost of transport and fitting.

There could me many extra cargo flights into East Midlands over the comming how ever long it takes.

Another trick they also play is that they send the engineers on the fith pod aircraft with all the stands and engine change kit and expect them to do a long flight, get off the aircraft, assemble one engine stand, remove the 5th pod and then get on with the engine change!!!

Rgds Cking

Pogno: “You dont see engines lying on car tyres very often(it has been done).”

Truck tyres in my case 😀 – but it was a long time ago! (Base ‘forgot’ to send an empty stand).
The forecast of consequential damage to the engine nacelle (piston radial) was accepted (in advance) by the powers-that-be, as an operational necessity.

Still much easier that getting permission to ferry the plane with one engine inoperable. I’m sure the red tape for such a manoeuvre would be 4 foot thick.

No not realy. Obviously it requires a few extra tech log entries and a management crew to fly it back but it is now the standard way to recover a quad and tri jet.
Engineeringly you have to boroscope the other engines and make sure they can reach max power (Some times done by the ferry crew at the end of the runway).Then you remove the fan blades and put a fairing over the core intake of the duff engine.

Rgds Cking

Still much easier that getting permission to ferry the plane with one engine inoperable. I’m sure the red tape for such a manoeuvre would be 4 foot thick.

The 5th pod was always a bit of a logistics nightmare especially if you were sending a spare engine to another station for another aircraft, especially if its a station without equipment.
The biggest problem is where to put the spare engine when it gets there, that means sending a stand as well, then where do you put the failed engine when it comes off the wing, so another stand has to go.
You dont see engines lying on car tyres very often(it has been done).

Richard

Awesome find.
Never expected to see that again.

Most quad operators have abandoned the idea and it has become the stuff of legend, in fact if ever it happens again “Airliners.net” will explode with pictures!

Rgds Cking

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6979701 😀

Cking….so if the crew that refused the A380 doesn’t get disciplined, we can assume airline management feels their refusal was justified.

THAT is the big worry. If they don’t get their A***s kicked it will give all cabin crew the idea that they can do the same.
Now airline management being what it is and cabin crew management being as protective of it’s members as it is, I can see this all being forgotten about.
As you said it is a sad statement and in my opinion a very bad development.
Never mind eh, Ryanair have sugested that the cabin crew can fly ’em, let them have ago at diagnosing a few defects!

Rgds Cking

Cking….so if the crew that refused the A380 doesn’t get disciplined, we can assume airline management feels their refusal was justified.

Maybe they have been talking to O’Leary’s girls….. and oops boys

Maybe they have been talking to O’leary’s girls and dare I forget boys too.
If I recall only a few weeks ago O’Leary used more stunt publicity about removing the first officer on his flights, (I find it derogatory that O’Leary equates First Officers in the same league as removing toilets – less of anything makes money equation)and having the stewardesses ready to take over should anything befall the Captain.
So maybe the SQ girlies have been thinking that they will have to actually fly a A380….
Or maybe they just have been watching the Airplane series of spoof movies.

I’m in the UK and the aircrew can refuse to fly any thing they want, as long as they can give a good reason to the chief pilot;).
If the engineering staff offer an aircraft to the pilots that is servicable in accordance with the maintenance manual and the pilots refuse to take it, it up to them.
When ever I offer an aircraft to the captain under an MEL or with a within limits leak I always say “Are you happy with that captain?” I don’t go down the back and run it past the girls though!

Rgds Cking

I’m not sure what country you are in, and therefore what rules you are under, but where I live, refusing an airplane is not a fire-able offense. The Captain bears the final responsibility and no one can make him/her fly. Having said that, it if gets to be a habit for a particular individual refusing airplanes over and over again, then management may step in and take certain actions….normally short of an out and out termination of employment.

IF the cabin crew did refuse to fly I do hope they are invited to review their choice of carreer when they get back to base!
I know when I declare an aircraft servicable I use limits and perameters laid down in the approved maintenace manual. Try as I might I havn’t found the reference for “It doesn’t feel right”

It’s not uncommon to charter a civil C-130/L100 or even 747 freighter to move a widebody engine when/if it needs to be moved nowadays.

Regarding the crew refusing to fly the airplane, its a rather sad statement imho. The crew felt the bureaucratic inertia was so great that it (the regulators/manufacturers/airline) were not taking the incident seriously enough and that they (the crew) had to intervene. And now, an emergency AD has been issued……I can hear it now, “The crew were right, the airline wanted to force us to fly, but we saved the passengers.” Thereby emboldening every future crew whenever any little thing ever happens.