AN-124 in trouble

[ian16th]

It does seem unusual these days that the loss of a single engine can wreak so much havoc on so many systems. It's not quite what used be described as a "single point" failure but the list of systems that were unavaible to the crew was remarkably extensive. Chapeau! as the ffrench would say.

The Ancient Mariner

Rather an illogical conclusion there AM.

An un-contained engine explosion isn't a 'single' point of failure.

There were at least 2 failures, the engine itself and the failure to contain it.

All the rest were consequential damage due to the 'shrapnel' cutting through cables et al.

This incident does demonstrate just how lucky was everyone on board the Qantas A-380 that 'blew a donk'.

[Rossian]

I didn't reach a "conclusion", and I did say that it wasn't what could be called a single point failure.

The Ancient Mariner

[ian16th]

I didn't reach a "conclusion", and I did say that it wasn't what could be called a single point failure.

The Ancient Mariner

Sorry, I misread your original post.

[CremeEgg]

Surely any engine containment system is only ever designed to cope with the loss of one fan blade - a relatively low energy event when compared to the loss of a turbine disc as was the case here. No present sytems will contain that - think Qantas A380 or for those with good memories the Sioux City DC-10 and I'm sure plenty of others.

[Rwy in Sight]

I was thinking the event of AF over eastern Canada has some similarities with the damage here.

[tango15]

I was thinking the event of AF over eastern Canada has some similarities with the damage here.

That similarity crossed my mind too, but more in connection with the consequences of what happened, eg moving the beast to firmer ground and offloading the cargo. At least the A380 was able to taxy to the terminal.
I suspect that somewhere in Austria a manufacturing facility is closed, waiting for 80-odd tonnes of components which didn't arrive.
S7 has a new hangar at Novosibirsk, but I doubt very much whether they would allow it to be used for the Antonov, so if it is salvageable, they will have to build significant housing around the working areas, because OVB is not going to get any warmer at this time of the year...

[ricardian]

Armoured engineer vehicles help rescue AN-124

[ian16th]

You have to use what you have!

At Istres we had a Canberra land with a brake failure and an incident report was sent off about it. In the report it was mentioned that it was towed in with a Land Rover.
A signal came back from Bomber Command saying that a Land Rover couldn't tow a Canberra.

Bomber Command were informed that you can, but it makes the clutch smell a little.

[AtomKraft]

I think an uncontained engine failure, like a burst turbine disc or fan disc is a potential single point failure.
Absolutely nothing will stop these broken parts from going where they fancy.
If they hit something vital, its going to break.
The only reason these guys went off the end is that they had no brakes, spoilers or reversers.
Top job.

[barkingmad]

The (successful) departure shown in TGG’s post 18 was either a very lucky circumstance, stretching what used to be known as ‘Perf A’ to the limits, but might also be a prime example of that other con foisted on aircrew and known by the optimistic phrase “Improved Climb”?

Maybe that was the real definition of “Balanced Field”, being balanced on the MLG at Vr as one runs out of TORA?

In my last year in seat 0A, the EASA approved company in the EUSSR for whom I worked, were sewing together in one take-off manoeuvre, derating the engines, temperature assumed reduction calculations and improved climb practices, all in attempts to save a € here and a $ there.

Until the DFDR readouts showed several tyre speed exceedances on departure, (not mine!) notably at Taba, which put a curb on too many ‘fiddle-factors’ for a while.