I hope it works out better than his parents marriage…:D
but that sentiment may not be shared by tabloids, scandal sheets, silly TV programs, book publishers….

oh i wis him well , like i would anybody , but really wall to wall tv coverage 😮

:rolleyes: who cares

Do you mean Threads the BBC doc many years ago ?
If you do you can watch it online.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023790698427111488#

watched it not long ago , still very good

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

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

So they found the same problem on the SQ Trents that were found on the QF 380?

well not say RR , they say that if is a different stain to what was on the QANTAS engines , make of that what you will.
But still Singapore are going to change the engines on 3 of there A380’s for newer versions of the same engine
Even on 3 planes that is 12 engines , I dont know how long this will take , but it is a massive undertaking and also a massive cost ,who is going to stand this cost RR ?
To me who knows nothing about engine , but to change 12 multi million pound engine because of STAINING ,seems a bit over the top , unless there is more to this than staining.
If you had an oil stain on a new car engine you would not replace it you would fix it .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11723778

I wonder if there are any statisticians or actuaries on here.

What are the chances of two large airliners from the same airline suffering engine trouble shortly after take-off from the same airport in 2 days?

Pure coincidence?

of course it is, what else do you think it is?

Almost, Paul. QANTAS has never had a fatal accident with a jet airliner. Still a pretty remarkable record, all the same.

Here’s a little more information: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11702365

Let’s see someone try to blame Airbus for this one! 😎

Cheers Lance.
This sort of thing happens 100’s of times a day all over the world , running a 747-400 on three engines is OK and built into the safety system.
Id SKY made it it breaking news everytime it happened , thats all it would be saying.

With regard to containment, to the best of my knowledge, containment rings (normally made of composite materials) have only been added to the FAN casing on large engines in the last 15-20 years. The first generation of CF6/RB211/JT9 engines did not have fan containment rings, they only appeared on later iterations of these engines. Trivia question: which manufacturer was first introducing this feature?

Furthermore, Sioux City was a famous case of an uncontained fan, but there have been others. An Eastern Airlines L1011 lost a fan from number 2 engine (RB211) in the 70’s, which caused considerable structural damage but no deaths and no crash. An ONA DC-10 CF6 threw a fan from a wing engine which penetrated the fuselage and caused several fatalities. These are just the ones I remember off the top of my head; I am pretty sure there have been others.

I will agree with others who have stated that no commercial engine has any kind of containment system for a turbine….only the fan.

Finally, I reiterate my view (also stated after the RR for the 787 suffered an uncontained failure in the test cell a few months ago) that ANY uncontained failure is a very serious event indeed….thus the grounding.

Its hard to believe that in today’s day and age, after having so much experience designing and building other airplanes, that Airbus could have so many problems introducing this one type. Of course, this latest problem is the engine manufacturers fault, but its still very unfortunate, and they are lucky this did not cause a crash imho. The fact that the program seems to be a commercial failure only exacerbates the technical failings.

Can you back up this wild statement , I think Airbus would disagree with you.
Teething trouble yes and what happen to QF32 is very serious , but did Boeing not nearly go under till the 747 started getting mass orders.