AF66: explosion of a GP7200 reactor on Airbus A380 over the Atlantic

Transport and new transport: energy, pollution, engine innovations, concept car, hybrid vehicles, prototypes, pollution control, emission standards, tax. not individual transport modes: transport, organization, carsharing or carpooling. Transport without or with less oil.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: AF66: explosion of a GP7200 engine on Airbus A380 over the Atlantic




by Christophe » 15/01/18, 14:43

Has anyone heard from the AF66 accident?

Otherwise, independently of this accident, the A380 program is in danger, due to a lack of control: https://lexpansion.lexpress.fr/entrepri ... 76108.html

If I were a pretentious green guy I would say "I knew it from the start", but I'm not : Cheesy:
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: AF66: explosion of a GP7200 engine on Airbus A380 over the Atlantic




by Did67 » 15/01/18, 15:15

I asked myself the question a few days ago, reading precisely the information relating to Airbus (order records, however, for the other ranges - even if the A380 may stop).

[It would also be very turbulent in the staffs!]
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: AF66: explosion of a GP7200 engine on Airbus A380 over the Atlantic




by Christophe » 15/01/18, 15:34

After a quick search, the last information I found dates from mid December when the A380 was repatriated to Europe ...

Nothing on https://www.bea.aero at the moment ... it may take years ...

Gaston's meteorite hypothesis seems to me the most credible although infinitely improbable! : Cheesy:
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: AF66: explosion of a GP7200 engine on Airbus A380 over the Atlantic




by Did67 » 15/01/18, 16:18

Christophe wrote:Gaston's meteorite hypothesis seems to me the most credible although infinitely improbable! : Cheesy:


If this were the case, it should make us think about another "very very unlikely" event: the explosion of a nuclear power station! "Very unlikely" does not mean "never" or "in a very, very long time"!
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: AF66: explosion of a GP7200 engine on Airbus A380 over the Atlantic




by Christophe » 15/01/18, 16:33

Absolutely but to detonate a nuclear power plant, you already need a hell of a meteorite (I think there are only 1 every 10 years old enough powerful ... like the one that was filmed in Russia some time ago ) ... and the probability that it affects a nuclear power plant is the same as an airplane reactor, that is to say that it is a bit of a puilleme : Cheesy: : Cheesy:

The possible meteorite from flight AF66 was much smaller (otherwise the wing would have disappeared and the plane with it and we would probably never have known exactly what would have happened!) And would have done nothing to the 2 or 3m of concrete from a nuclear reactor (or almost nothing) ... after that can damage other more fragile elements of a power plant and have a snowball effect ...

Nah, I think that human stupidity is enough .... The "human" risk is more likely in the nuclear risk: human that means, making the installations as profitable as possible ... until the accident ... :?
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: AF66: explosion of a GP7200 engine on Airbus A380 over the Atlantic




by Did67 » 15/01/18, 17:28

I was not thinking of a meteorite on the power plant.

Just that this incident, if it turns out to be a meteorite, had "almost no chance of happening"! This would therefore be an opportunity to understand that an event which has a very very low probability of happening can nevertheless occur without warning ...

I think above all, in fact, like you, of human error. As happens in airplane cockpits. Or the depression of a guy in charge. Or inappropriate reactions following an incident which could be only minor [I recently saw a film on German DTT which recounted, on the basis of facts, what happened in Chernobyl - with, in particular, the interview of a person who was in the control room on the famous evening, when contrary "orders" had arrived to ensure the necessary electricity production in Kiev while a "lapped" team had started a "test" of lowering planned and several times postponed; When the less polished night shift arrived, they found themselves faced with written procedures overloaded with erasures - and no one knew what to do: follow what was crossed out or what wasn't ? When someone finally decided to press the red emergency stop button, it was too late; it was already bubbling with Xenon and the sudden shutdown initially triggered a paradoxical reaction: it increased the bubbling, hence the explosion, and the rest we know ...]

You know this better than I do, since you're a pilot, but crashes are usually linked to inappropriate reactions in the cockpit. Or misunderstandings. Or arguments. The co-pilot of the Rio-Paris clung to his handle, whereas the aircraft which stalled (in the absence of speed data - frozen Pitot probes) had to be "plunged". In the crash in Switzerland, the Swiss air traffic controller gave an order contrary to the Russian plane, which had just received the order from its "automatic device" - I no longer know what these little gadgets are called - which had detected the other plane and asked him to get off (the other plane having received the automatic order to climb - if we had followed the automatisms, everything would have been fine. Unfortunately, the Russian pilot listened to the control! Most ( if not all of them?) some airlines have instructed their pilot that in the event of an identical situation (contrary orders), they follow the automatic gadget, deemed more reliable!

So yes, we learned as and when crashes ... But hey, a crash is 100, 200 dead (except Tenerife) and a black spot in the landscape (and then nature recovers in a few dozen 'years - we don't see the trace of the Airbus crash over Obernai) ... If we do the same in the cockpit of a power plant ...
2 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: AF66: explosion of a GP7200 engine on Airbus A380 over the Atlantic




by Christophe » 15/01/18, 17:41

For Chernobyl I had read that they had, as part of this test, voluntarily shunted more than 10 recursive levels of security ... that means 10 security doors opened successively ...

Chernobyl is not an accident of normal operation: it is an accident of a test which has degenerated, because of human errors which you most certainly evoke!

Fukushima (and others yet it is Chernobyl that still scares the most) is therefore a much more serious accident in my eyes (not to mention the fact that it is not just one reactor that has degenerated) because a safety design flaw (good safety means planning ahead ... the improbable: a few m of height of the dikes in addition and "nothing" would have happened ... put emergency groups in areas potentially floodable it's just madness ... yet the Japanese are far from being stupid and used to typhoons ...)

Besides, this is where Fukushima ???
0 x
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88

Re: AF66: explosion of a GP7200 engine on Airbus A380 over the Atlantic




by Gaston » 15/01/18, 17:46

Christophe wrote:Besides, this is where Fukushima ???
Everything's fine.

Sorry, I couldn't hold back, I'm already gone : Mrgreen:
2 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: AF66: explosion of a GP7200 engine on Airbus A380 over the Atlantic




by Christophe » 15/01/18, 17:47

Did67 wrote:You know this better than I do, since you're a pilot, but crashes are usually linked to inappropriate reactions in the cockpit. Or misunderstandings. Or arguments. The co-pilot of the Rio-Paris clung to his handle, whereas the aircraft which stalled (in the absence of speed data - frozen Pitot probes) had to be "plunged".


No modern air accident is due to a single cause it is a chain of "small" problems which make it a huge one. :(

Except in the event of a mechanical break ... and again when we search it is a chain of human failures of the maintenance system (a misunderstood info, a communication fault, a lost paper, a sick or distracted guy who forgot a key stroke !!)!

In short, fortunately, I am a solo pilot and that I am the only one to hold my "handle" (lol), knowing my character and my spirit of contradiction! : Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79121
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: AF66: explosion of a GP7200 engine on Airbus A380 over the Atlantic




by Christophe » 15/01/18, 17:50

Gaston wrote:
Christophe wrote:Besides, this is where Fukushima ???
Everything's fine.

Sorry, I couldn't hold back, I'm already gone : Mrgreen:


Ah ah ah ... You are right and the Pacific is a large swimming pool, the dilution should not pose major problems in appearance ... :? :? :?

But the Japanese will have to get used to other types of Fugu! :? :? :?
0 x

Back to "New transport: innovations, engines, pollution, technologies, policies, organization ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 161 guests