It is being reported an Emirates A380 had an engine failure and was forced to return to Sydney.

 

The passengers describe a "flash" before 2 or 3 metre long flames were seen from the engine, accompanied with some vibration.

 

The aircraft returned to origin and landed uneventfully.

 

Emirates does not have the same engine type as Qantas, who is still having issues with RR engines, one aircraft is currently undergoing an engine change due to a cracked gearbox, and the rest of the fleet running at reduced power rates as their RR engines require a new mod which will render them out of action for a while.

Le ouch.

Saw that in the news pipes in this part of the world. Seems like everything went according to procedure.

 

I recall a British Airways flight 268 that had an engine failure 300 feet agl and continued on its flight from KLAX to EGLL, had to land in Manchester due to burning too much fuel, so good to see that practice wasn't used in these cases anymore:

http://en.wikipedia....ways_Flight_268

 

Better to turn back then to take unnecessary risks. Engines do fail from time to time regardless of what aircraft you are talking about.

 

Cheers

I recall a British Airways flight 268 that had an engine failure 300 feet agl and continued on its flight from KLAX to EGLL, had to land in Manchester due to burning too much fuel,

 

I'm amazed that they continued on after that. All the QRH's I have seen say land immediately at the nearest suitable airport. I don't think the nearest suitable was on the other side of the world haha.

 

Must of had a real hot date!

Is it usual for engines on new planes to have this many incidents??

 

I recall an engine fell off of a Qantas A380 after takeoff some time ago.

Any reporter that gave you the impression that engine 'fell off' isn't worthy of the name.

Is it usual for engines on new planes to have this many incidents??

 

I would say this aircraft is beyond new at this point, it is now 5 years old and has flown over 1 million passengers, and at this point only 2 minor incidents involving 1 of 4 engines each....pretty good track record so far if you ask me.

 

You can compare that to any other airliner that had an engine failure and it would rate fairly high at this point. The other two new aircraft being 787 and 747-800 both have had problems as well. But at the end of the day these are engine manufacture issues and not Airbus or Boeing. Customer chooses their aircraft and engines accordingly.

 

I feel the A380 has had a great track record so far and both these engine problems have been very minor, compared to total operating hours so far (and as Mickel pointed out no engines have fallen off anything, just part of a cowling).

 

Cheers

 

Must of had a real hot date!

 

LOL :lol:

I wonder if the problem is that because of the wingspan is that much larger that the outer engine extends past the edge of the runway (That's why they only use the inner engines for the thrust reversers) that maybe some FOD is being sucked into the engines on takeoff??

I wonder if the problem is that because of the wingspan is that much larger that the outer engine extends past the edge of the runway (That's why they only use the inner engines for the thrust reversers) that maybe some FOD is being sucked into the engines on takeoff??

 

On the QANTAS Flight 32 it was engine #2 (inner engine)

On this Emirates Flight EK-413 it was engine #3 (inner engine)

 

The inner engines don't extend past the runway and are 3' further out of the inner engine on the 747, but inside the 747 outer engine:

Any reporter that gave you the impression that engine 'fell off' isn't worthy of the name.

:LMAO:

 

Must of had a real hot date!

Talking about hot dates. Those are the best so far. http://en.wikipedia....oyd_Flight_3378

The flight departed at 10:59, after which it was noticed that it was not possible to fully retract the landing gear.

They've shortened but continued the flight. Gear still out on the A310!

However, the aircraft ran out of fuel with twenty kilometers (12.4 miles) to go, and the crew were left to glide the jet towards the runway.

 

Ah, good old times. :Black Eye:

Third EK engine failure in 2 days, watch out ETOPS!

 

With regards the BA 747 that kept on going, they would have been full on fuel, hence over weight for landing at LAX, though personally I'd just have continued on to JFK, landed there, and done the maintainence there as there would have been another 9 BA flights to LHR from JFK to take the effected PAX and have allowed for an underweight landing, instead of heading out over the Atlantic, but I wasn't there so can't judge.

 

Regards,

Ró.

With regards the BA 747 that kept on going, they would have been full on fuel, hence over weight for landing at LAX, though personally I'd just have continued on to JFK, landed there, and done the maintainence there as there would have been another 9 BA flights to LHR from JFK to take the effected PAX and have allowed for an underweight landing, instead of heading out over the Atlantic, but I wasn't there so can't judge.

 

That makes sense to me. You got to either dump the fuel or circle to burn it off to land back in KLAX. It is only ~5 hours to KJFK and many alternative landing locations en route if something else happens, after Goose Bay you are beginning to take a risk.

Third EK engine failure in 2 days, watch out ETOPS!

 

With regards the BA 747 that kept on going, they would have been full on fuel, hence over weight for landing at LAX, though personally I'd just have continued on to JFK, landed there, and done the maintainence there as there would have been another 9 BA flights to LHR from JFK to take the effected PAX and have allowed for an underweight landing, instead of heading out over the Atlantic, but I wasn't there so can't judge.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

I don't know how good a pilot you are Ro, but you would do well in the Ground centre for BA.

 

I agree with you, there are lots of airports in the US and rather than cross the pond it would be appropriate to land at JFK.

 

As usual, pilot consideration should be: (Safety of the passengers on board and aircraft) Just because you can keep going on three engines, however unlikely, another engine may fail so it would be expedient to land at the earliest opportunity. That is good airmanship and I think that is why they almost always return to Origin of flight. Maybe you can elaborate on this for me. What do you think?

Saw that in the news pipes in this part of the world. Seems like everything went according to procedure.

 

I recall a British Airways flight 268 that had an engine failure 300 feet agl and continued on its flight from KLAX to EGLL, had to land in Manchester due to burning too much fuel, so good to see that practice wasn't used in these cases anymore:

http://en.wikipedia....ways_Flight_268

 

Better to turn back then to take unnecessary risks. Engines do fail from time to time regardless of what aircraft you are talking about.

 

Cheers

I would say this aircraft is beyond new at this point, it is now 5 years old and has flown over 1 million passengers, and at this point only 2 minor incidents involving 1 of 4 engines each....pretty good track record so far if you ask me.

 

You can compare that to any other airliner that had an engine failure and it would rate fairly high at this point. The other two new aircraft being 787 and 747-800 both have had problems as well. But at the end of the day these are engine manufacture issues and not Airbus or Boeing. Customer chooses their aircraft and engines accordingly.

 

I feel the A380 has had a great track record so far and both these engine problems have been very minor, compared to total operating hours so far (and as Mickel pointed out no engines have fallen off anything, just part of a cowling).

 

Cheers

 

 

 

LOL :lol:

On the QANTAS Flight 32 it was engine #2 (inner engine)

On this Emirates Flight EK-413 it was engine #3 (inner engine)

 

The inner engines don't extend past the runway and are 3' further out of the inner engine on the 747, but inside the 747 outer engine:

 

 

Great commentary Matthew!

 

I tend to agree, so far so good. Not like the old DC-10 and Boeing 747 cargo door days where safety was always pushed to the bottom when considering manufacturing systems processes.

 

Engines fail often on takeoff and nothing is mentioned in the media usually. It is normal ops.....

Anyone know what happned to the captain? did she get fired? for some reason I recall that they contacted base and we're given to go ahead to cross the pond.

 

EDIT - http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Boeing%20747-436,%20G-BNLG%2006-06.pdf