A380 navigated probe with flying colours, says Airbus

[Gerald A]

LAST YEAR'S spectacular Qantas A380 engine explosion has not hurt the superjumbo's image, according to Airbus head of A380 product marketing Richard Carcaillet.
Mr Carcaillet said Airbus, which had been working closely with Qantas on a technical level and supporting the aviation investigation, had not seen an impact in the marketplace.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1226068181129

[Philip Argy]

Whilst I agree that Rolls-Royce has to shoulder the blame for the incident, I don't agree that the A380 survived totally unscathed.

The damage it suffered did reveal what in my view were a few design flaws in terms of the adjacent routing or co-location of supposedly backup/redundant systems, making both vulnerable to the same shrapnel/impact source.

Also, I think the avionics in most Airbus a/c needs some rethinking in terms of how alarms and problems are communicated and displayed. Again, just my personal view, but I've seen in a number of incidents over recent years flight crews being bombarded with mixed severity error messages, alarms, buzzers and anunciations that cease or scroll off the screen before their import can be absorbed and acted upon. I'd like to see more simulator testing of alternative ways to present warnings, alerts and important information to determine what will optimally assist a busy crew in an emergency to fly the damn plane instead of being distracted by a myriad of conflicting and lengthy checklists! And in my view this area needs to be the subject of more rigorous requirements during a/c certification.

[Laurent Sanhard]

I don't think that every aircraft should be designed to cope with an uncontained engine failure , If you look at the extra costs invloved in making every part of the aircraft ( mainly the wing ) bullet proof , then airliners are going to have to pay a lot more for aircraft , take the Concorde for example , it flew for decades without major incident , and crashes in Paris in 2000 , due to a freak series of events before leaving CDG , the engine expolsion ( uncontained ) on QF32 last November was also a freak event , and I think you have to give credit to the QF 32 Pilots and Airbus for having systems in place to cope with such incidents ...

[Philip Argy]

An uncontained engine failure is not so remote and unlikely an event that an aircraft design doesn't need to take it into account. I'm not saying every remote possibility needs to be designed for but I am saying, in the context of this thread, that a few things came to notice in the case of OQA that in my personal view didn't reflect the best design principles of the aircraft systems or the avionics.

[Laurent Sanhard]

I agree , as I read it in the report by the Australian , Airbus is also looking to learn from what happened to VH OQA last November to improve A380 system survivability in the future ( with regards to Avionics on board and back up systems and engine shutdown) , as bad as it was what happened to QF32 last year, at least it was a test of the Aircraft , and a chance to improve in the future ..

[A McLaughlin]

The aircraft's systems prioritised all of the faults it was experiencing thus allowing the crew to make informed decisions as to its health or otherwise, and it subsequently landed safely with no injuries or loss of life.

I'd say the A380 passed its first major test with flying colours!

[damien b]

Philip

Knowing the avionic system and how information is displayed and prioritised in modern aircraft, what you are saying is a incorect in my view. Events requiring immediate action are displayed first and will remain displayed on the front page until cleared. Minor problems will also remain viewable on secondary pages until cleared and can be accessed by crew at any time. Airbus and Boeing have very simular display designs in this area and it has been formulated over many years.

You could revert to the old style analogue system where unless the crew saw the fault they had no idea what was going on with a damaged aircraft. Too much information can be bad, but so can no information - at least crews have a chance to fight and understand the problem these days.

Routing of system wiring, plumbing etc needs to take into account many things and aircraft are designed to very high requirements and a lot of "what if's" must be answered before certification is approved. Redundancy is critical but in OQA's case - where the engine would not shut down due to a loss of system contact with the engine, it is actually a design built into the aircraft (actually most modern large aircraft) to ensure the aircraft can be flown to a safe landing area. The thought is a engine that is still serviceable should be able to operate even if contact with the engne has been lost due to inflight damage. The way the A380's system are run through the aircraft is no different to many modern passenger jets.

Crews are taught to fly first, diagnose later - simulator exercises teach them immediate response actions, they can then go to the check lists later when the aircraft is under control. If you have ever been on a sim ride where crews are beng tested (i have) it is full on and the responses must be dead on or they can fail the check ride and have to resit it again before being able to fly. They will push a crew until they do fail or the aircraft is unflyable just to see how they react under pressure so when the real emergencies do happen they can handle it.

[Philip Argy]

These things are a bit subjective, Damien, but in my personal opinion the ECAM system didn't operate in a way that optimised the flight crew's workload. But let's see what the ATSB has to say when their final report is written up. It may well come to your view.

[Mick F]

but in my personal opinion the ECAM system didn't operate in a way that optimised the flight crew's workload

2 questions:

1) How did the ECAM system not operate in a way that optimised the flight crews workload? And,
2) On what experience, background or knowledge do you base this opinion on?

Mick

[Brad M]

ditto on Micks number 2 question there..
im always interested in reading responses to topics, but with your comment stating "personal opinion" does it come with any physical experience with the airbus systems ? obviously not A380, but A320/330 ?
it must of been designed the way it is for a reason, it just would be good to have the understanding that serious responses are given by a knowledgable pilot/engineer etc , not just someone with FSX.