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

[Christophe]

Serious incident that could have ended very badly on an A380 today: GP7200 engine number 4 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_Alliance_GP7200 exploded, the Fan and the engine fairing completely disappeared ... Uh I never saw that ...

Lots of luck that the centrifuged parts did not damage (at least seriously because there may have been other damage) other sensitive or vital parts of the aircraft ...

The investigation will tell what happened but it is already fairly easy to assume a break of (at least) a fan blade or a tree break (less likely anyway) having led to the total destruction of the reactor by snowball effect ... or a big drone or UFO?

DK_CWRcUQAAKA8s.jpg (35.51 KIO) Accessed 6131 times

DK_KadfW0AERIv3.jpg (107.96 KIO) Accessed 6131 times

A380_vol066.jpg (37.01 KIO) Accessed 6131 times

DK_CmKrXUAA8BCo.jpg (84.01 KIO) Viewed 6131 times

The Air France flight from Paris to Los Angeles had to make a crash landing on Saturday 30 September after a "serious damage" on one of its four reactors, as announced by the airline.

"The 066 aircraft landed safely at the Goose Bay military airport in Canada and all 520 people on board were evacuated without injury or damage," said a spokesman. the company. The rerouting took place as the flight passed over Greenland, the plane landed in Goose Bay at 15H42 GMT, 17H42 French time, said the spokesman. 496 passengers were on board, as well as 24 crew members, including three flight crew members, he said.

The landing went "normally" on this military base, which is a so-called clearing airport on transatlantic airways. Air France immediately sent staff from Montreal and New York to take care of the passengers. The company is "examining all the solutions" to get passengers as quickly as possible to the United States, he added. Air France operates a total of 10 super-jumbos Airbus A380, very large carriers equipped with four reactors.

http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/un-airbus-a ... 122_24.php

Other source: http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/ ... 48331.html

Ce forum gives very good analysis and information on the incident (or accident? At this level I do not know which term to use): http://www.crash-aerien.news/forum/dero ... 37244.html

[chatelot16]

the quality of an airplane or other gear is not only to never fail ... it is also and above all that when there is a breakdown it continues to work without accident ... so bravo airbus! a fan who disintegrates does not put the plane down

they landed at the first possible place, as a precaution, but it is quite possible that he could have finished his normal flight

[Christophe]

It is the application of the concepts of "self-safe" (a part replaces or supports the rupture of another) applied for a long time in aeronautics which makes it possible to arrive at this ...

There is therefore nothing miraculous that a four-jet engine flies on 3 engines (it can do it with 1 ... some have landed on 0 engine but there it becomes "sport" ...).

What is miraculous is that such a break did not cause more damage ...

So of course we can say bravo Airbus and not a little ...

But I think there was a lot of luck anyway!

[Remundo]

wow, awesome,

what would have been really dangerous is that the centrifuged parts pierce a tank and / or declare a fire ...

otherwise the A380 is very redundant with 4 huge reactors, I believe it can fly with only one cruise. So it's a story that ends well.

[Christophe]

what would have been really dangerous is that the centrifuged parts pierce a tank and / or declare a fire ...

Yes that's what I'm trying to say since before: a lot of luck ...

A tank yes, or any portion of wing containing (or not) vital hydraulic or electrical circuits ... and of course the pressurized cell ...

I can not wait to see the BEA report on this incident! They are published publicly and for free ... but it will take months (see more) ...

[chatelot16]

it is also the diference between the aeronautical mechanics and the agricultural mechanics ... it is necessary that the weight of all the piece which turns is limited to the strict minimum so that in case of breakage, it does not break too far

Is it just lucky that it has not been more serious? I think it's also design quality, and I say congratulations to the designer of the engine and the plane

[Christophe]

There is certainly a big luck factor yes ...

Some planes crashed for much less ... let's say "impressive" parts breakage ....

I do not know if the explosion of a fan is taken into account in the design of the aircraft ... It is a rare fact: I do not even know if it has already happened with such a level of destruction in civil aviation ??

It must be taken into account in the design of the reactor not to save the reactor (which would necessarily be destroyed) but to save the rest of the aircraft ...

In short, the survey may be interesting! Very!

[Christophe]

The first testimonies fall: http://m.quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/ ... _23228417/

Some talk about a ... bird ... uh, but how big and how big are they to do such damage?

[Remundo]

I had thought zozio ... because it looks quite like (big damage to the turbojet engine).

oh it doesn't have to be that big. There are tests being carried out on this problem; but no turbojet engine easily "digests" even a small bird.

[Christophe]

Disagree: a turbo reactor can absorb unpleased chickens without serious worries ... they are also tested like that during their design (at least they were ... we even say that we used live chickens ...)

The main risk of a collision with birds is the extinction of the reactors and the impossibility to reignite in flight (more air or obstructed combustion chamber or damaged injector ... etc etc ...) it is exactly what happened during the Hudson accident: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vol_1549_US_Airways but not an explosion like yesterday ...

Here is the article specifies the "bird" test conditions of the A320 reactors:

According to the NTSB Report's fourth update21, 12 February 2009, the aircraft struck a flight of Canada geese. The DNA tests carried out on the remains of birds found in the reactors show that at least 4 geese were sucked by them.

These birds have on average a mass of 2,6 at 4,8 kilograms. Gold, the standard with which the aircraft's reactors were built includes a clause that an engine must be able to withstand a direct impact with a bird with a maximum mass of 1,8 kilogram. The mass of birds involved in the shock is therefore greater than this certification.

The destruction of the reactor that happened yesterday seems to me the result of a collision (if there was a collision) with a much harder / heavier / massive object than a bird or a bird's bench (in more birds 10 000 m is rather very very rare ...- 56 ° C they do not like too much ... not to mention the pressure ...)

Should see what they think about the forum aero, more rigorous than us on the subject ...