I believe that my question in this thread, was why if real time data (error messages) in the case of AF447 on a A330 were transmitting until it crashed; where was the real time data received and was it being monitored in the case of the QF A380 ?

When the aircrafts systems detect a parameter going out of limits a signal is sent to the airline maintenance control center. This will be looked at by the engineers there who will decide what to do and contact the crew if neccesary or, more likly contact the maintenance crews meeting the aircraft and talk to them.

Surely if error messages were received automatically were they early enough to have forewarned the flight crew of the QF A380 to take possible damage limitation measures with the engine that was getting into trouble?

In the case of the 380 I don’t think that there were any indications that there was anything wrong. The thinking is now that there was an oil fire in the IP turbine rear bearing chamber that heated the disc up till the properties of the metal were changed causing the disc to burst. No engine has any kind of temperature monitoring in this area so it would not have been picked up.

As for real time trend monitoring, as you say Bombardier are developing it so it will spread to other aircraft in time.
Most airlines spend a lot of time on trend monitoring. Downloading infomation from each aircraft almost on a daily basis. They take oil samples, check filters and magnetic chip detectors. It has to be said the main reason they do it is to save money but it’s “side effect” is to increase aircraft safety.

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.

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

Fantastic! Now lets see a formation:D
They must have been dead miffed that the plastic pig couldn’t have been there

Rgds Cking

I stand ready to be corrected but am I right in thinking that the A380 was indeed an explosion whereas the 787 incident was smoke in the cabin? So unless an ‘unknown power’ is attempting to destabilise the AI and Boeing empires for its own nefarious ends, my money’s on coincidence. Interesting thought though;)

I think they are refering to an un contained engine failure on a 787 engine on a test bed at Derby(?) The “Smoke in the cabin” (Sombody should write a song about it) incident was totaly un related……Unless the aliens didn’t cover their tracks well enough;)

Rgds Cking

If my memory serves me correctly, spare engines used to be slung on serving airliners to carry to where they were needed, making the aircraft appear as if they had five engines.

Ah the ledgendary “5th pod”!
I have not seen an A380 with a 5th pod. The VC-10, DC-8, 707, 747, DC-10 and Tristar all had the options of ferrying a spare engine under the wing.
The problem is that as good an idea as it sounds, the practicalities make it a VERY expensive way of moving an engine.
You mention the fuel penalty. It slows the aircraft down and restricts the payload. It takes time to prepare the engine, hang it on the wing, get it off the wing and re build the engine at the other end.
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

Cheers for that ,but do Singapore have 12 spare engines? 8 in Australia?

My thoughts too. I would expect one at each end of a long supply chain and the rest at main base but TWELVE? Also getting one engine from main base to an AOG is involved at the best of times but a bunch of them to Australia from anywhere will be a major undertaking. Antanovs don’t grow on trees and I imagine can only take one at a time anyway.
Glad I’m not involved:cool:

Rgds Cking

Hysterical SLF and now hysterical airborne dinner ladies! A heady mix.
I got “Flight International” today to see their take on the incident. There was not much more than we already know but there was an interesting artical on page 18.
The FAA have issued an Airworthiness direective requiring operator of the PW4000 series engines, as fitted to the 777. To remove or inspect certain HP turbine discs as they have had reports of cracks in 53 discs. This could lead to an UNCONTAINED FAILIURE of the discs. Although the disc’s effected are high time (12,000 cycles)
I wonder who makes the HP turbine on the GP7200????

Paul. You get the aircraft back into the air quicker by changing the engine and doing repairs in a workshop. The repair of the “Core” of the engine is a specialist job that requires special tools and training. An engine change is relativly quick. At home base with a good team, 12hrs. Down the line maybe 24hrs (Once you get the engine) A repair of the core part of an engine probarbly a week or more. Mind you both jobs can become “Epics”:D
I remember the first A320 engine change we did at main base………….a week!! That engine went up and down more times than….You know;). The hoists were wrong, the stand was wrong, the mounts were wrong and finaly
“Did you order new mounting bolts?”
“No I thought you did”
“I thought you did”
“well I didn’t, go and order them then”
“ok”
“we havn’t got any and nore have Airbus”
and so it went on!:D

Rgds Cking

Was Mr King perhaps being a little sarcastic in his reply? :p

No, not sarcastic, a blocked airway or oil way within an engine can cause overheating and, if severe enough for long enough can cause the properties of a metal to change.
I personaly don’t think that it was volcanic ash BUT… I don’t know all the infomation.
I am not trying to play down this incident. There are hundreds of Trents flying round. Whilst this was a Trent 900 the other Trents share a lot of the same componants.
Oh one other thing. The Qantas spokes person has said a few “Interesting” things. Almost the first thing he said was it wasn’t to do with our maintenance……Odd?????
And then he said it was a design flaw….. Also odd, where did he come up with that????

Rgds Cking