Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

An open discussion of aviation safety related issues.

Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore

Ed
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:27 am

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby Ed » Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:11 pm

Example: if I were to take the equivalent number of atoms (compared to fuel) of a soluble radioactive material (for example CsCl, with the Cs being Cs-137) and released it as a liquid at 1000 ft AGL, would anyone be concerned?

If it also involved toilet paper, then yes.
I know you are interested in this topic, so I requested the Good and Clewell paper through inter-library loan. As it turns out for the fuel, the wind dispersion post-evaporation suggests that the fuel density would be too low to change significantly atmospheric composition (i.e. it is diluted)...now of course these are fuel droplets vapourizing, not suspended particulate, which will have different characteristics.

Good paper in any case....highly recommended reading.
Ed

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby flyboy2548m » Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:23 pm

Unless, again, it's possible (i.e. technicaly and economically feasible) to make a temporary repair good enough for a light and slow flight to ferry the plane to the new wing and equimpent (not the other way around), and THEN replace the whole wing.
Gabriel,

Suppose they do this "temporary, but good enough for Gabriel" repair. The airplane proceeds to lose that well-repaired wing in mid-air, the wing comes down and takes out one of your kid's school, while the rest of the aircraft comes down and takes out the other one's school. Do you still want that heap flown anywhere?

Yes, I know, your kids don't go to school anywhere near the slanteye continent, but you get my point...
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Sickbag
Posts: 2969
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Spine-fuhrer of Hoboken

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby Sickbag » Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:26 pm

Good paper in any case....highly recommended reading.
Ed
Is it also soft, absorbent and perforated?
2022: The year of the Squid Singularity

Ed
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:27 am

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby Ed » Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:16 pm

Good paper in any case....highly recommended reading.
Ed
Is it also soft, absorbent and perforated?
I suspect, for a donkey, it would be.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby Gabriel » Fri Nov 26, 2010 2:22 am

Gabriel,

Suppose they do this "temporary, but good enough for Gabriel" repair. The airplane proceeds to lose that well-repaired wing in mid-air, the wing comes down and takes out one of your kid's school, while the rest of the aircraft comes down and takes out the other one's school. Do you still want that heap flown anywhere?

Yes, I know, your kids don't go to school anywhere near the slanteye continent, but you get my point...
Actually, no, I don't get your point.
Why would such a thing happen?
It's not like you are the one who would design, make and inspect the repair.
And in fact, you are not even going to fly it. Not for $2.50/hour (or whatever) anyway.

But let me explain you how it works:
But let me explain you how it works:
1- The plane was able to sustain flight for a couple of hours at a heavy weight. Heavy enough, in fact, that the landing was reportedly overweight.
2- If the damaged wing structure was strong enough to withstand that, it is, with no further repair, strong enough to withstand the load after removing all the payload (400+ passengers, their luggage, and any cargo that the plane was carrying) and some misc items (cabin crew, most of lavs and drinkable water, even the interior can be taken out).
3- But the structure will not be left like that. It will be repaired.
4- The repair will be done by a team of knowledgeable engineers. If you don't trust them, then better stay away of planes because they will likely be the same kind of teams that design the original structures to begin with.
5- Rest assured that any repair made on it will be to strengthen it, not to weaken it.
6- Since this structure will be used only for a ferry flight and never be part of a revenue flight, weight efficiency is not a main goal. Not even close to that. Practical effectiveness is. Be sure that it will be over-engineered. If the airplane will brake in flight, it will be somewhere else.
7- After the design is complete, a simulation will be made to validate the design and the expanded safety margin.
8- An application authority (or maybe more than one) will verify the design and the analysis.
9- Another team of professions, involving engineers and mechanics, mainly from the manufacturer but also from the airline, will make the repair.
10- Another team of engineers and QA, again involving the manufacturer, will inspect the repair, both in the field and documentally.
11- The application authority will oversee the whole process, and sign off the ferry permit.

Technically, It's perfectly possible to do it and do it right with a great margin of safety (how great? greater than the original plane). Nobody will want this wing to fail in this flight so the due diligence of all the parties involved will be, well, due.

In fact, since efficiency is not a goal here, I'd almost say that it's quite easy. Much easier than designing the original part. You don't care about the weight of the repair and the cost is of secondary concern (compared to the cost of a new wing or a write-off). Put enough metal there to withstand 10 Gs and there you go.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby flyboy2548m » Fri Nov 26, 2010 4:32 am

Gabriel,

Suppose they do this "temporary, but good enough for Gabriel" repair. The airplane proceeds to lose that well-repaired wing in mid-air, the wing comes down and takes out one of your kid's school, while the rest of the aircraft comes down and takes out the other one's school. Do you still want that heap flown anywhere?

Yes, I know, your kids don't go to school anywhere near the slanteye continent, but you get my point...
Actually, no, I don't get your point.
Why would such a thing happen?
It's not like you are the one who would design, make and inspect the repair.
And in fact, you are not even going to fly it. Not for $2.50/hour (or whatever) anyway.

But let me explain you how it works:
But let me explain you how it works:
1- The plane was able to sustain flight for a couple of hours at a heavy weight. Heavy enough, in fact, that the landing was reportedly overweight.
2- If the damaged wing structure was strong enough to withstand that, it is, with no further repair, strong enough to withstand the load after removing all the payload (400+ passengers, their luggage, and any cargo that the plane was carrying) and some misc items (cabin crew, most of lavs and drinkable water, even the interior can be taken out).
3- But the structure will not be left like that. It will be repaired.
4- The repair will be done by a team of knowledgeable engineers. If you don't trust them, then better stay away of planes because they will likely be the same kind of teams that design the original structures to begin with.
5- Rest assured that any repair made on it will be to strengthen it, not to weaken it.
6- Since this structure will be used only for a ferry flight and never be part of a revenue flight, weight efficiency is not a main goal. Not even close to that. Practical effectiveness is. Be sure that it will be over-engineered. If the airplane will brake in flight, it will be somewhere else.
7- After the design is complete, a simulation will be made to validate the design and the expanded safety margin.
8- An application authority (or maybe more than one) will verify the design and the analysis.
9- Another team of professions, involving engineers and mechanics, mainly from the manufacturer but also from the airline, will make the repair.
10- Another team of engineers and QA, again involving the manufacturer, will inspect the repair, both in the field and documentally.
11- The application authority will oversee the whole process, and sign off the ferry permit.

Technically, It's perfectly possible to do it and do it right with a great margin of safety (how great? greater than the original plane). Nobody will want this wing to fail in this flight so the due diligence of all the parties involved will be, well, due.

In fact, since efficiency is not a goal here, I'd almost say that it's quite easy. Much easier than designing the original part. You don't care about the weight of the repair and the cost is of secondary concern (compared to the cost of a new wing or a write-off). Put enough metal there to withstand 10 Gs and there you go.
Gabriel,

When was the last time you so much as saw (let alone were involved in the preparation of) a ferry permit?
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby Gabriel » Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:09 am

Gabriel,

When was the last time you so much as saw (let alone were involved in the preparation of) a ferry permit?
About the same as the last time you saw and where involved in a spar repair by when you posted your previous post where you've said that the wing would fall off the plane.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby flyboy2548m » Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:27 am

About the same as the last time you saw and where involved in a spar repair by when you posted your previous post where you've said that the wing would fall off the plane.
So, at the very very best, you're the same kind of windbag I am, right?
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Ancient Mariner
Posts: 3774
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:24 pm

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby Ancient Mariner » Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:10 am

About the same as the last time you saw and where involved in a spar repair by when you posted your previous post where you've said that the wing would fall off the plane.
So, at the very very best, you're the same kind of windbag I am, right?
Old age softening you up, Ike?
Per

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby Gabriel » Sat Nov 27, 2010 6:35 am

So, at the very very best, you're the same kind of windbag I am, right?
No, no, no, please.
You are such a much better windbag than me.
On the other hand, I am such a much better AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER than you.

IntheShade
ISGPOTM, 2nd only to Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:26 pm

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby IntheShade » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:01 am

So, at the very very best, you're the same kind of windbag I am, right?
No, no, no, please.
You are such a much better windbag than me.
On the other hand, I am such a much better AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER than you.
I highly doubt it.

To call yourself an Aeronautical Engineer or any engineer for that matter, you must have a accredited degree in a engineering discipline, passed the "Professional Engineer" exam, and worked five documented years as an Engineer.

You see, I also have an Aeronautical Engineering Degree, but I have never claimed to be an Aeronautical Engineer.

In your ongoing quest for exactness I know you understand the difference, so why are you now claiming this about yourself?

On a side not I have just returned from Singapore and I did not observe the aircraft in question, but I did see and photograph two Singapore Airline A380 with all the engines pulled off. This was an expensive incident for everyone involved.
Aviation Pilot, Author, Genius

GlennAB1
Posts: 1455
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby GlennAB1 » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:17 am

To call yourself an Aeronautical Engineer or any engineer for that matter, you must have a accredited degree in a engineering discipline, passed the "Professional Engineer" exam, and worked five documented years as an Engineer.
Wrong. Mechanics are referred to as "Engineers" everywhere (it seems) other than the USA. How do you think Don justified calling himself an Engineer?
Last edited by GlennAB1 on Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
you still have to find a crew willing to fly this "barely airworthy" heap
no such thing as "barely airworthy" it's either Airworthy or Not
100% incorrect Ever hear of Ferry Permit? issued for Non airworthy aircraft
LOL

IntheShade
ISGPOTM, 2nd only to Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:26 pm

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby IntheShade » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:26 am

To call yourself an Aeronautical Engineer or any engineer for that matter, you must have a accredited degree in a engineering discipline, passed the "Professional Engineer" exam, and worked five documented years as an Engineer.
Wrong. Mechanics are referred to as "Engineers" everywhere (it seems) other than the USA. How do you think Don justified calling himself an Engineer?
Grow up Glenn.
Aviation Pilot, Author, Genius

GlennAB1
Posts: 1455
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby GlennAB1 » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:32 am

To call yourself an Aeronautical Engineer or any engineer for that matter, you must have a accredited degree in a engineering discipline, passed the "Professional Engineer" exam, and worked five documented years as an Engineer.
Wrong. Mechanics are referred to as "Engineers" everywhere (it seems) other than the USA. How do you think Don justified calling himself an Engineer?
Grow up Glenn.
Good answer.... anyway..... Ha, got you to respond! lol
you still have to find a crew willing to fly this "barely airworthy" heap
no such thing as "barely airworthy" it's either Airworthy or Not
100% incorrect Ever hear of Ferry Permit? issued for Non airworthy aircraft
LOL

IntheShade
ISGPOTM, 2nd only to Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:26 pm

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby IntheShade » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:36 am

Grow up Glenn.
Good answer.... anyway..... Ha, got you to respond! lol
I really feel sorry for you.
Aviation Pilot, Author, Genius

GlennAB1
Posts: 1455
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby GlennAB1 » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:38 am

you must be drinking again.
you still have to find a crew willing to fly this "barely airworthy" heap
no such thing as "barely airworthy" it's either Airworthy or Not
100% incorrect Ever hear of Ferry Permit? issued for Non airworthy aircraft
LOL

IntheShade
ISGPOTM, 2nd only to Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:26 pm

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby IntheShade » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:50 am

you must be drinking again.
How long will this be allowed?
Aviation Pilot, Author, Genius

GlennAB1
Posts: 1455
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby GlennAB1 » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:51 am

Pilots kill whole plane loads of people...... I would never look at it that way. They are terrible accidents that pilots die in also.
Your comment about a mechanic killing two pilot friends made me think it was premeditated or something. And then I find out the whole story, the mechanic also died, and the NTSB also points blame on the pilots. I feel sorry for you buddy.
you still have to find a crew willing to fly this "barely airworthy" heap
no such thing as "barely airworthy" it's either Airworthy or Not
100% incorrect Ever hear of Ferry Permit? issued for Non airworthy aircraft
LOL

IntheShade
ISGPOTM, 2nd only to Capt. Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger
Posts: 1444
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:26 pm

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby IntheShade » Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:00 am

Pilots kill whole plane loads of people...... I would never look at it that way. They are terrible accidents that pilots die in also.
Your comment about a mechanic killing two pilot friends made me think it was premeditated or something. And then I find out the whole story, the mechanic also died, and the NTSB also points blame on the pilots. I feel sorry for you buddy.
You really need to step away from the Internet.
Aviation Pilot, Author, Genius

PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby PurduePilot » Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:01 am

To call yourself an Aeronautical Engineer or any engineer for that matter, you must have a accredited degree in a engineering discipline, passed the "Professional Engineer" exam, and worked five documented years as an Engineer.
Wrong. Mechanics are referred to as "Engineers" everywhere (it seems) other than the USA. How do you think Don justified calling himself an Engineer?
This has always bothered me. In the US, people who work on planes are mechanics and people who design planes are engineers. By your method, what makes the distinction between
an "engineer" Image
and an engineer Image
?

User avatar
ZeroAltitude
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:35 am
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby ZeroAltitude » Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:07 am

This has always bothered me. In the US, people who work on planes are mechanics and people who design planes are engineers. By your method, what makes the distinction between
an "engineer" Image
and an engineer Image
?
Their monthly paycheck.
space intentionally left blank

User avatar
ZeroAltitude
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:35 am
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby ZeroAltitude » Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:08 am

Wrong. Mechanics are referred to as "Engineers" everywhere (it seems) other than the USA.
NOT true.
space intentionally left blank

GlennAB1
Posts: 1455
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby GlennAB1 » Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:15 am

This has always bothered me. In the US, people who work on planes are mechanics and people who design planes are engineers. By your method, what makes the distinction between
an "engineer" Image
and an engineer Image
?
Their monthly paycheck.
:clap:
So, which makes more?
you still have to find a crew willing to fly this "barely airworthy" heap
no such thing as "barely airworthy" it's either Airworthy or Not
100% incorrect Ever hear of Ferry Permit? issued for Non airworthy aircraft
LOL

PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby PurduePilot » Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:31 am

This has always bothered me. In the US, people who work on planes are mechanics and people who design planes are engineers. By your method, what makes the distinction between
an "engineer" Image
and an engineer Image
?
Their monthly paycheck.
:clap:
So, which makes more?
That's one of the things I was looking at a couple years back when deciding which track to follow.
The lowest paid 10 percent of aerospace engineers were paid $58,130 or less as of May 2008, explains BLS. The highest paid 10 percent earned $134,570 or more.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics states that as of May 2009, the median salary for aviation mechanics is $25.39 per hour or $52,810 per year, with the bottom 10 percent making $16.04 or $33,360 and the top 10 percent earning $34.42 or $71,600.

User avatar
Pipe
Posts: 623
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:33 pm
Location: Germany / Brazil

Re: Qantas A380 emergency landing in SIN

Postby Pipe » Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:47 pm

Forum user´SmallDickSyndrom´ is posting heavily in this thread.
Res Severa Verum Gaudium


Return to “Aviation Safety Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 7 guests