Close calls don’t show up in airline accident statistics. But they can be more consequential than actual crashes. Two incidents in 2010 have big implications for the future of air safety. They have not had the attention they deserve: The fact is that the two most advanced airliners in the world came very close to crashing.

Strangely, these close calls happened within five days of each other:

On November 4, an Airbus A380 flown by the Australian airline Qantas, with 433 passengers and 26 crew aboard, suffered a catastrophic engine failure a few minutes after taking off from Singapore. This is the super-jumbo, capable of carrying as many as 800 passengers. The loss of an A380, early in its history, would have been the equivalent for aviation of the loss of the Titanic for ocean liners—and, like the puncturing of the Titanic’s supposedly impregnable hull, the incident raises questions about the A380’s structural integrity.

On November 9, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, on a test flight and making its final approach at Laredo, Texas, suffered a fire so sudden and serious that the pilots were left with only a final emergency source of power and very basic flight controls to make their landing. The 787 is already almost three years late because of serial technical crises. Losing a test airplane before any airline gets one fit to fly could have seriously jeopardized both the program and Boeing. As it was, all 787 test flights have been grounded while the cause of the fire is investigated.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...d-close-calls/

Are you trying to make a point? I think this community as a whole knows about these and are likely better informed than much of the news media.

I wonder what Mr. Irving would consider enough coverage? I think both incidents received considerable press.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=...c676e6ca915cda

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=...c676e6ca915cda

(1) Multi-engine civilian aircraft must be able to fly on ONE engine. The loss of 1 of 4 engines in an A380 is not that big a deal. Jet engines are mounted in pods rather than within the wings to minimize the possibility of structural damage.

(2) Flight testing of the 787 resumed over a week ago. The situation was not as bad as you described:

There was still an APU that could have been started up as well.

Both these incidents were covered exhaustively in the mainstream press, and more closely still (with more expertise and perspective) on Flyertalk. I agree that there seems to be little point to this post.

http://avherald.com/ reports on these things on a regular basis, and while there does exist the occasional and rare completely disaster, it's more of a testament to how we keep flying, and continue to do so despite occasional 'bumps in the road'

You are still more likely to croak on the they way to/from the airport, than in commercial aircraft.

I'm just tired of the word "chilling" being overused. The TSA uses it regularly to make their point to keep everyone scared. And one engine blowout on an A380 is not "chilling," it's proof positive that deliberate construction of the aircraft and redundancy in backup systems worked.