AndDee

Okay well perhaps stay at home then, don't drive a car either as that's dangerous too

I actually feel safer flying the A380 than ever with these extra checks!

Keep in mind the plane flew for 2 years before something happened! Given they are checking engines every 20 cycles for hints of oil stains, it's a safe flight indeed

Traveloguy

Interesting article on the incident which focuses on a number of areas not discussed here:

http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_...ted/index.html

number_6

Having read the article, every issue mentioned in it has been discussed on FT except for the electrical system failure to auto-switch. Also the article mentions that "every bit of the 13000 foot runway" was used on an overweight landing -- implying that it was almost a crash. I have it on reliable sources that the braking was modulated to deliberately use all of the runway and to stop near the emergency vehicles; QF32 could have stopped earlier if need be. Overall a pretty good article, but incomplete with some crucial facts (not mentioned on FT). The preliminary ATSB report is due out in less than a week, which will shed a lot more light on all this.

The bottom line is that the technology has enabled creation of increasingly complex systems, with great improvement in capability but increasingly unexpected and even surprising failure modes. The A380 is not alone in this respect. Boeing scapped the flying wing airliner (ala B2 bomber) due to this aspect -- overly complex technology and reliance upon it for stable flight. Airbus has always put more faith in computers (with good and bad results).

NM

Given that the "inspection" to be undertaken at least every 20 flight cycles takes around 8 hours per engine (some parts of the process can be performed in parallel so does not mean 32 hours elapsed for an aircraft), it is a significant effort and has to be included in the aircraft rotation schedules.

BOB W

You have totally missed my point. Any system that needs to be inspected has a reason for that. The part that provides the thrust that keeps the plane in the air needs to be JUST A LITTLE MORE RELIABLE than that (weekly inspection). I will continue my flying routine, but I will now be more aware of the systems being used on the plane.

Nice platitudes though (I've seen them before)

Traveloguy

Considering QF's action against other big A380 operators, I know who I feel safer travelling with.

There are still quite a number of unexplained events on both Boeing and Airbus birds. Are you therefore saying that you won't fly at all? That would be daft if you were. QF are being extra cautious as at the end of the day, they deem their image that has been built around safety as being necessary to protect. Hopefully the changes that RR and Airbus will propose will sort the problem out, although only time will tell. Inspections are therefore a prudent course of action.

BOB W

What part of " I will continue my flying routine, but I will now be more aware of the systems being used on the plane." was unclear?

number_6

QF is doing this inspection every 10 cycles (gov't mandate is every 20 cycles). Luckily there is lots of down time for A380s so it doesn't affect their scheduling unless the inspection fails.

perthite

Where are they doing them? 10 seems to fit in a tad awkwardly with the SYD-SIN-LHR operation. Unless they do them at SYD sometimes, and LHR othertimes.

number_6

In the past the inspections were done at whatever airport the A380s were at; I'm guessing RR personnel do the inspections, perhaps supervised by QF staff. As QF doesn't own the engines and rents them by the hour, presumably all maintenance is under the control of RR (and at no cost to QF). Just an educated guess, no inside knowledge except the engine leasing arrangement is public record.

Traveloguy

I don't know your routine!

To be honest, a slight positive and negative in the statement suggests caution, so hard to exactly gauge.

What's your feeling on the 787 then considering recent serious events? Personally I'm still looking forward to stepping on that bird.

ba273

There's a report that it will cost US$70m to repair the aircraft.

Traveloguy

Significantly cheaper than a new bird, although still a considerable sum. I bet the insurers are not happy.

number_6

No, the report is that the insurers' are paying USD 70m towards the total cost of repairing the aircraft -- which will be higher than that. Just the engine cost is USD 25m, and I think both engines need to be replaced (that is USD 50m right there). The wing replacement will be a fascinating repair.

Also there is an additional USD 100m in costs to QF for all the disruptions (presumably to be paid by RR eventually) -- though some estimate these costs to be under USD 20m, but I'm sure QF will err on the high side.

The A388 list price is USD 327m (though QF is rumored to be paying under USD 250m per plane). So the repair cost is a fair fraction of the price.

BOB W

My routine is to get on a plane and go where I want or need to go. Up until now the type of plane has only been of interest for long haul where I prefer twin aisle planes. 757 TATL

The 787 will be a fine ride once it is certified airworthy and I will go out of my way to fly on one. Unfortunately, there won't be any in U.S. service anytime soon.

As a side note, one of the latest incidents that have caused another delay of the 787 was due to a RR Trent engine coming apart on a static stand in a manner similar to what happened to QF. It is a different series engine, but very similar occurrence.