Re: A330 Crashes, 7 die

From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
Date:         08 Jul 94 18:18:10 
References:   1 2 3
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <2vgoc6$21a@agassiz.cas.und.nodak.edu>,
Anders Pedersen <pedersen@cs.UND.NoDak.Edu> wrote:
>Helen Trillian Rose (hrose@kei.com) wrote:

>: I can't imagine its the P&W engines. These engines (tho not this exact
>: *variant* have been operating successfully for ages now).

>They where the P&W engines

I believe Helen's point was that the engines were not the *cause* of
the crash, and, so far, that does appear to be consistent with the
available evidence.  It's possible that the #2 engine (the one which
was not intentionally shut down) stalled, perhaps due to the extreme
angle of attack, but what I've read says they did recover control,
albeit at too low an altitude to do them much good.  It doesn't seem
like there's enough time there to recover from a compressor stall.

>they have not been very succesfull as of late.  There was a rash of
>in flight shutdowns on 767s last year ...

Not to mention the problems with PW4460-equipped MD-11s, which seemed
to command more attention.

>which is no big deal when one goes in flight, but at least two
>(seperate incidents) had an engine quit rigth after take off.

That may not be terribly meaningful.  Earlier this year I was on a
747-400 (coincidently equipped with PW4056 engines) which suffered
a series of compressor stalls, followed by an in-flight shutdown,
immediately after takeoff.  However, after our return, the pilots
said the engine had actually started showing signs of trouble even
before V1.  Since the engine was still developing power, they chose
to continue the takeoff, with the expectation of immediately going
back to the airport, rather than risk a rejected takeoff.

The increased angle of attack during the initial climb was probably
the last straw for an already dicey engine.  While it was in fact an
in-flight shutdown, that seems almost a technicality in light of the
pilots' knowledge, even before we were committed to taking off, that
it was likely to happen.

>: Boeing is *not* happy. I was at Boeing-Everett when I heard about the
>: crash! 

>Let me guess!  The engines that was on the A330 is basically the SAME as on
>the 777, and this might just stop Boeing from getting ETOPS from day one,
>which will make the A330 (despite this crash) a lot more appealing to the
>airlines?

That's a bit unfair to Boeing -- no aircraft manufacturer likes to
see a plane crash, especially if people are killed.

As for the impact on the 777, the crash might have an impact if the
engines are shown to be at fault, but again, there doesn't seem to be
any reason to blame the engines at this point.  Even if there was, the
installed base of PW4000 engines which have accumlated a vast amount
of experience largely count *for* the 777's PW4000s.

>(Are we in the bizare situation that Airbus have created a situation
>that one of their aircraft crashing have made them be able to sell 
>more aircraft?)

A fascinating notion, but I doubt this crash will hurt the 777 much,
if at all.  More likely, coming on top of the A310 and A300 crashes
earlier this year, it'll hurt Airbus, though perhaps not as badly as
it might have since the USAir crash seems to have caught most of the
media's attention around here.  (Whether this is fair to Airbus is
another matter -- it's awfully hard to blame them for the Aeroflot
A310 crash!)

-- 
Karl Swartz	|INet	kls@chicago.com
1-415/854-3409	|UUCP	uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
		|Snail	2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
 Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com