Would you rather fly on a Russian plane or an Airbus plane?

[H54]

:hmm:

Fair enough. If you want to argue semantics, I dealt in absolutes with that statement. I figured that most people on this board would be smart enough that there is no such thing as 100%. I'll make this minor concession...

 

[H54]

quantas A380 last year, containment my ass

I'm trying to find statistical data from the FAA to show you that the vast majority of the jet engine failures are contained. One flight that was sensationalized is merely anecdotal.

 

[H54]

I don't know what you are talking about, THEY HAD NO POWER, read the transcript, it went silent in the cockpit, both engines flamed out, no power, APU and RAT used because NO engine power. If this was Boeing, they would had the same problem, this is not about some FADEC software or whatever, if big gooses fly into your turbofan, it's going to dye, simple as that

this is what happens if one bird hits you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2frjSvo9BBc

I'm fully aware of what happens...

Like I said, it wasn't a total power loss. This info is strait from the horses mouth; the NTSB.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2010/AAR1003.htm

On January 15, 2009, about 1527 eastern standard time, US Airways flight 1549, an Airbus Industrie A320-214, N106US, experienced an almost complete loss of thrust in both engines after encountering a flock of birds and was subsequently ditched on the Hudson River about 8.5 miles from LaGuardia Airport (LGA), New York City, New York. The flight was en route to Charlotte Douglas International Airport, Charlotte, North Carolina, and had departed LGA about 2 minutes before the in-flight event occurred. The 150 passengers, including a lap-held child, and 5 crewmembers evacuated the airplane via the forward and overwing exits. One flight attendant and four passengers were seriously injured, and the airplane was substantially damaged. The scheduled, domestic passenger flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 on an instrument flight rules flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the ingestion of large birds into each engine, which resulted in an almost total loss of thrust in both engines and the subsequent ditching on the Hudson River. Contributing to the fuselage damage and resulting unavailability of the aft slide/rafts were (1) the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) approval of ditching certification without determining whether pilots could attain the ditching parameters without engine thrust, (2) the lack of industry flight crew training and guidance on ditching techniques, and (3) the captain’s resulting difficulty maintaining his intended airspeed on final approach due to the task saturation resulting from the emergency situation.
Contributing to the survivability of the accident was (1) the decision-making of the flight crewmembers and their crew resource management during the accident sequence; (2) the fortuitous use of an airplane that was equipped for an extended overwater flight, including the availability of the forward slide/rafts, even though it was not required to be so equipped; (3) the performance of the cabin crewmembers while expediting the evacuation of the airplane; and (4) the proximity of the emergency responders to the accident site and their immediate and appropriate response to the accident.
The safety issues discussed in this report relate to the following: in-flight engine diagnostics, engine bird-ingestion certification testing, emergency and abnormal checklist design, dual-engine failure and ditching training, training on the effects of flight envelope limitations on airplane response to pilot inputs, validation of operational procedures and requirements for airplane ditching certification, and wildlife hazard mitigation. The report also discusses survival-related issues, including passenger brace positions; slide/raft stowage; passenger immersion protection; life line usage; life vest stowage, retrieval, and donning; preflight safety briefings; and passenger education. Safety recommendations concerning these issues are addressed to the FAA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the European Aviation Safety Agency.

I work in the industry and the company I work for, my colleagues, the FAA, etc discussed this incident at great length because its obviously pertinent.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Obviously given the choice you'd pick Boeing since it's made in America and America is the best.

But to pick a distant second, would you rather fly on a plane like this or an Airbus?

Airbus:
Pros: ???
Cons: Terrible safety record, made in EU by a bunch of socialists. I'm scared to fly on these.

Russian Plane:
Pros: Hasn't been proven to be dangerous like the Airbus planes yet.
Cons: The worker putting it together was probably drunk.

american planes drop you off at the office. Is that a pro or a con?

 

[H54]

You do realize that we're not talking about ingesting sparrows, right? These things sucked in Canadian geese. Feeding a turbofan something the size of a thanksgiving turkey is going to do some serious damage.

I'm fully aware. I'm painfully aware because I've hit large fowl before. Jet engines are incredibly tough. If you see what they (The FAA and the manufacturers) put them through for certification, you'd be surprised. 1549 was unique because multiple bird strikes with birds that size very, very rare.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Whatever you do do not fly quantas airlines. They never had a plane crash and there's always a first.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

I'm fully aware. I'm painfully aware because I've hit large fowl before. Jet engines are incredibly tough. If you see what they (The FAA and the manufacturers) put them through for certification, you'd be surprised. 1549 was unique because multiple bird strikes with birds that size very, very rare.

luckily ostriches don't fly

 

[GoSharks]

Fair enough. If you want to argue semantics, I dealt in absolutes with that statement. I figured that most people on this board would be smart enough that there is no such thing as 100%. I'll make this minor concession...

I see you are new around here. :thumbsup:

BTW, I believe that the engines/containment are designed to contain blade failures, not disc failures.

http://www.flightglobal.com/article...oeing-767-200-uncontained-cf6-80a-engine.html

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

^birds that hits the engines don't damage the engine they block the air intake. After take off the aeroplane engines go through it ruffest patch than it would go through a entire flight due to the altitude and speed

 

[Bignate603]

I'm trying to find statistical data from the FAA to show you that the vast majority of the jet engine failures are contained. One flight that was sensationalized is merely anecdotal.

Yes, fan failures or single blade failures are contained. However while disk ruptures like what occurred on the A380 are rare they also tend to chuck large chunks out of the engine.

Boeing 767
That chunk of turbine disk sticking out of the engine in the first picture came out of the engine on the other side of the plane. It chewed a gash across the belly of the plane as it shot past from one side to the other.

Then again, you can just overspeed the engine and chuck some of the turbine blades into the side of the plane like happened on this Rolls Royce engine in an A350 when oil coking plugged one of the tubes on the engine.
Turbine blades blasted off the engine

 

[coxmaster]

Yes, fan failures or single blade failures are contained. However while disk ruptures like what occurred on the A380 are rare they also tend to chuck large chunks out of the engine.

Boeing 767
That chunk of turbine disk sticking out of the engine in the first picture came out of the engine on the other side of the plane. It chewed a gash across the belly of the plane as it shot past from one side to the other.

Then again, you can just overspeed the engine and chuck some of the turbine blades into the side of the plane like happened on this Rolls Royce engine in an A350 when oil coking plugged one of the tubes on the engine.
Turbine blades blasted off the engine

Engine issues should be completely seperate from Boeing/Airbus/Whatever else.. The engines are designed, tested, and implemented by companies other than Boeing and Airbus and are often used on a wide variety of planes..

 

[Bignate603]

I'm fully aware. I'm painfully aware because I've hit large fowl before. Jet engines are incredibly tough. If you see what they (The FAA and the manufacturers) put them through for certification, you'd be surprised. 1549 was unique because multiple bird strikes with birds that size very, very rare.

I do see what they do to the engines, I walk past big huge pictures every day at work of the blade out tests they run at our engine test facility. They tend not to use the bird tests as decor because somebody would probably think that in poor taste.

The engines take the small stuff and usually though damaged will keep spinning. Anything as big as those geese is pretty likely to kill it. There's just too much mass to them.

 

[Bignate603]

^birds that hits the engines don't damage the engine they block the air intake. After take off the aeroplane engines go through it ruffest patch than it would go through a entire flight due to the altitude and speed

No, they do damage the engine. Feeding solid objects through something spinning high speeds with long skinny blades on it most assuredly damages it, often quite badly. They may keep on spinning but that doesn't mean it isn't in need of a teardown.

 

[H54]

Yes, fan failures or single blade failures are contained. However while disk ruptures like what occurred on the A380 are
rare they also tend to chuck large chunks out of the engine.

... words ...

That maybe true but I'm not willing to dig through the FARs. Like I said before, statistically speaking, the likelihood of a jet engine failure is rare and its even more rare for the failure to be contained. End of story.