Newbiepilot
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:37 am

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
So what is the prognosis on the airframe likely to be? From initial appearance, there is limited damage to the structural components -- at least nothing that can't be fixed/replaced. I presume fixing these issues, plus a new engine and she'll be back in service within a few months?


3-4 weeks most likely. The pylon is damaged and those structural parts can take a few weeks to fabricate replacements. I expect Air France has a spare engine so all the parts on the pylon and any airframe damage will take a few weeks.


Can't Airbus take a pylon in production for one of the A380's in production and divert it to the Air France plane? It's not as if airlines are in a big rush to get their new A380's delivered.


Robbing production often can be a solution. It depends on exact configuration and what is damaged. Given the slow A380 rate, it there may not be one in a configuration ready to go. Pylons also are installed later in the build process shortly before an engine gets installed and the customer who is getting its plane robbed from while in production may not consent. An entire new pylon may be more expensive that replacing some structural components on the pylon. Structural parts usually have to be replaced with new parts because you can't drill out structure from on plane and easily get it to fit on another.

Airbus may have a pylon available for lease or Air France could have a spare (but that is unlikely). There are lots of options. Most take a week or longer to get the parts, tooling and manpower to the airplane. I don't think a regulatory authority is going to grant a ferry permit without at least some parts replaced amd repaired.
 
Planetalk
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:12 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:52 am

LAXLHR wrote:
gadFly wrote:
I'm thoroughly amused by all those anti Air France posts. We don't even know what happened, but surely the pilots are to blame for an engine disintegrating in mid-air, of course; just like we should blame AF for destroying all types of planes it flies, right? By this kind of logic, we should have stopped boarding AA/US a long time ago, since they totalled MDs, Boeings and even Airbuses. Jasum.
If you read up on the problems that did affect AF cockpit culture in the early 2Ks (lots of skygods à la PanAm) and culminated in the 447 crash, you will see that they instituted a full reform of the crew standards. Does this change right away? Of course not. Must we stop flying AF? See my first point.


The new reforms are clearly not working :), will get to that.

Anti AF?..or perhaps there is a different way to look at all of these comments. Most people on this forum spend their lives in the sky for work or business and we are sick of the "apparent" culture at AF!! We love aviation, aircrafts, airlines ....and are in wonder of it all!!. Major incidents and crashes saddened a lot of us to no end. People become frustrated and vent, mostly without a lot of knowledge or even experience, expertise...the beauty of mankind online haha :-))

I have not seen one post blaming these pilots for the engine disintegrating in mid-air (perhaps I missed it). Questioning diversion airports etc (sure, means little)..but if I was the pilot I would wish to be on the ground asap. Look I am not here to argue (and I do not enter into such ruffles on here) These are my thoughts, which actually mean very little to nothing in the bigger picture of things to do with AF or AF66. But when we look at AF, images come to mind of the A320 crashing in trees (its been a while, but still bloody spectacular), Concorde (say no more - not assigning that to AF, but the visual adds to the overall AF narrative ), A340 burnt out at the end of a runway, AF447 A330 - just the thought :-(, and now the images of the A380 engine.

Early 2000s you say?...I think it continues. Air France nearly ran a 777 into an active volcano on 2.5.2015...clearing it by 400ft. 400!!!! Programmed a 777F at 100 tons under its actual weight heading to MEX, the plane did not accelerate fast enough on the runway at CDG for take off nearly crashing on 22.5.2015 ...and actually there is a long list of other incidences in addition to the actual crashes/incidents of Air France in recent memory. Oh we could get into their strange series of BOG take off issues, what happened in MRS with the A320 on approach and many many others. THIS is what comes to mind with Air France, along with their dirty unwashed planes and holding KLM hostage haha (I joke).

TK is a hot mess as well, along with other carriers, but jeeez...this is AIR FRANCE!!! For appearances sake you'd ground the A380 fleet for a day at least. But no, its the French, so business as usual. Not that AF cares about turning a profit, since KLM handles that burden.

It is frustrating to see.


So, the short version of that is you have no idea that Air France did anything wrong? Qantas spent 2 hours troubleshooting before landing QF32, should they have got it on the ground ASAP? BA and Korean recently had uncontained engine failures on 777s on takeoff. They didn't ground their fleets afterwards. What exactly is frustrating to see in this?
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4580
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

Re: AF66: what exactly happened?

Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:00 am

UAL747422 wrote:
Air France flight 66 was a regularly scheduled flight from CDG-LAX. Due to an uncontained engine failure in the number 4 engine, the plane diverted to Goose Bay. I'm sure that this is all over A.net, but what exactly happened to cause the engine to disintegrate? The A388 has had engine problems before, like Qantas flight 32. I believe the fan blade cracked, triggering the engine to fall apart. I also am aware that it is very early in the investigation, and much is still unknown. I'd be intrested to hear all thoughts.

UAL747422

1) A "fan" blade did not crack on QF32, it was a turbine disk in the hot section that failed due to a manufacturing fault. A much more "high energy" event.
2) QF uses Rolls Royce engines on their A380s, AF use Engine Alliance engines. No comparison is possible.

Gemuser
 
User avatar
EK413
Posts: 4684
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:16 am

FGITD wrote:
EK413 wrote:
zeke wrote:

The diversion decision is only up to the captain, they have the final authority, control, and responsibility. They will take onboard the input from others, but they have the final call to make.


I agree the captain has final say. In this instance AF66 was an emergency & captain would've made the decision but in the event of medical or weather operations control would have an influence on the decision based on alternate airports, ground support, customer recovery etc.

EK413


The captain can contact the operations center, who will then contact the station manager (assuming it's a staffed outstation) or the operations dept of whatever airport they're planning on going to.

In the case of most diversions, the captain makes the decision based on what those people have to say. There are times when even a company staffed outstation will advise that no, diverting here is not recommended. Find somewhere else. But in the end, it's the captain's plane, and his decision. He's the one on the line for the decision, good or bad.

In the case of this incident, he most likely wanted a nice long runway, and wanted to get it down as quickly as possible. In this case no ground manager or airport would advise them to keep looking.


I agree the Captain is the Captain of the ship. AF66 would've been Captains decision based on location of the event occurring, nearest airstrip with long enough airstrip and Operations would have had input.

Going back several months ago, QF1 DXB-LHR diverted to Larnaca due to a medical onboard when they could've diverted to several airports within close proximity such as Ankara or Athens. This would've been a Ops decision and not Captains. I'm simply pointing out that the Operations do have some say where the plane ends up too.

EK413
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with reports of suspected damage to leading edge above #4 engi

Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:39 am

DocLightning wrote:
This is absolutely astounding. It appears as if the N1 shaft just sheared off (if you look at the pictures you can see where it sheared), and this is so strange. We usually think of takeoff and climb as being the phases of flight in which an uncontained failure is most likely, those phases in which the engine and airframe are under the greatest stress, and also when the aircraft is at altitudes where birds fly. In this case, they were at cruise over Greenland a good six or so hours into the flight when suddenly the engine decided to fail in the most spectacular way without any obvious provocation.

Why have the pax been onboard all this time? This airplane isn't leaving Goose Bay under its own power for a week or two at the very least and so they need to deplane the passengers, charter flight or no. When the charter flight does arrive, they will need to deplane the passengers to get them on the new A/C.

This entire incident will cast AF in a bad light as it is. It will cost them enormous amounts in money just to handle the immediate crisis, not to mention compensating the passengers. Images of darkened cabins and weeping people talking about inhumane conditions will lead to a PR disaster. With a local population of ~7,500, surely there is somewhere to put 400-500 passengers other than the plane. More amazingly, people who wanted to smoke cigarettes were evidently permitted to deplane for a smoke. (https://nonbiasedreviews.com/air-france ... e-blew-up/)


Other reasons why I thought a diversion to JFK would have been better.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20550
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:35 am

qf789 wrote:
Close up picture of #4 engine

Image


Sweet mercy...

OK, admittedly an amateur, but if you look at the conical drive section, the ragged edges suggest that the failure occurred here, perhaps first slow and then catastrophic propagation of an existing microscopic crack. This would eject the entire fan and disk in one direction. The containment ring is meant to contain a blade-off, not the entire disk separating at once.


PITingres wrote:
I really shouldn't speculate based on a couple photos and the thinnest of evidence, but here goes anyway...

I'm going to suggest that you almost have to postulate some sort of crack, large or small, in the fan disk. I could see a bearing failure seizing the shaft and causing the fan to twist off, maybe, but wouldn't it do just as much damage to the LPC and LPT? and while I grant you they can't be seen directly in those photos, I would have expected some sort of visible havoc in the rear of the engne, at least enough to post a photo from the ground, and I haven't seen any. A single fan blade failure should have been contained. Some sort of catastrophic fan case failure? yeah, maybe, but I would have expected such an event to be a little more drawn-out as blades take their leave. If you throw a disk crack into the mix, though, it's easier to imagine the entire fan twisting off and (luckily) exiting without hitting much of anything else.

Now I'll wait for the real experts with real evidence to figure out what actually happened. :-)


I'm inclined to agree. If the N1 shaft had just seized up, you'd expect turbine and/or compressor blades to dislodge. A fan case failure shouldn't have separated the fan AND a fan case is usually under much less load than it's designed to take unless a blade blows off.

LAXLHR wrote:
I have not seen one post blaming these pilots for the engine disintegrating in mid-air (perhaps I missed it). Questioning diversion airports etc (sure, means little)..but if I was the pilot I would wish to be on the ground asap. Look I am not here to argue (and I do not enter into such ruffles on here) These are my thoughts, which actually mean very little to nothing in the bigger picture of things to do with AF or AF66. But when we look at AF, images come to mind of the A320 crashing in trees (its been a while, but still bloody spectacular), Concorde (say no more - not assigning that to AF, but the visual adds to the overall AF narrative ), A340 burnt out at the end of a runway, AF447 A330 - just the thought , and now the images of the A380 engine.


How about the A340 (on which I flew on a later flight) where the pilot decided to pull the stick back thinking that there was on onccoming aircraft that wound up being (IIRC) Venus?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:43 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
To answer your question; yes, in theory one of your B777s would have an engine failure at exactly the same time the A380.
The whole essence of the 4-engine vs 2-engine argument, is what happens next? The A380 (on 3 engines) has the luxury of considering it's options, and may even continue on to it's original destination. The B777 struggling along on 1 engine is most likely looking for the first opportunity to reach terra firma. A further consideration is what happens if the unthinkable happens - a second engine failure. For the A380, this would be quite bad news, and much more so if the double engine failure was on the same side, resulting in asymmetric thrust. Meanwhile, on the B777 glider - I'll let you do the math.(*)

(*) Ok, so it is also possible that the second engine failure on the B777, happens to the second B777, giving us two single-engine B777s. But that's another can of spaghetti.


I totally agree with you that after a single engine failure it is much safer - at least subjectively - to be travelling on a quad than on a twin (although the second engine to fail independently should be extremely rare).
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 25073
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:03 am

The investigation has yet to start. Apparently there is some debate about who will take the lead.

Air accident investigators from both sides of the Atlantic have been struggling to decide who should lead a probe into an engine explosion that forced an Air France A380 to make an emergency landing in Canada, people familiar with the matter said.

Two days after the damaged superjumbo landed at Goose Bay in Labrador with more than 500 people on board, a formal investigation had yet to be announced, a step that typically takes hours.

...

Fournier said a formal accident investigation had not been launched and jurisdiction “remains to be confirmed.” The flight data recorder and cabin voice recorder will be arriving in Ottawa on Tuesday for analysis, he added.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-air-f ... SKCN1C726E
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
maxudaskin
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:33 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:00 pm

EK413 wrote:
FGITD wrote:
EK413 wrote:

I agree the captain has final say. In this instance AF66 was an emergency & captain would've made the decision but in the event of medical or weather operations control would have an influence on the decision based on alternate airports, ground support, customer recovery etc.

EK413


The captain can contact the operations center, who will then contact the station manager (assuming it's a staffed outstation) or the operations dept of whatever airport they're planning on going to.

In the case of most diversions, the captain makes the decision based on what those people have to say. There are times when even a company staffed outstation will advise that no, diverting here is not recommended. Find somewhere else. But in the end, it's the captain's plane, and his decision. He's the one on the line for the decision, good or bad.

In the case of this incident, he most likely wanted a nice long runway, and wanted to get it down as quickly as possible. In this case no ground manager or airport would advise them to keep looking.


I agree the Captain is the Captain of the ship. AF66 would've been Captains decision based on location of the event occurring, nearest airstrip with long enough airstrip and Operations would have had input.

Going back several months ago, QF1 DXB-LHR diverted to Larnaca due to a medical onboard when they could've diverted to several airports within close proximity such as Ankara or Athens. This would've been a Ops decision and not Captains. I'm simply pointing out that the Operations do have some say where the plane ends up too.

EK413


Ops has a say. The captain has the say.
 
qf789
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 3398
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 3:06 pm

Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:59 pm

zeke wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
Wasn't that the cause of AA191 where the engine came detached on the DC10?


The reason that became uncontrollable was not the weight of the engine, some slats retracted on one side creating an aerodynamic roll moment that could not be corrected at low speed.


Yes.

Or, to be even more exact, the crew was unaware of the slats retracting, and neither the crew or the procedures at the time took into account that with slat damage they should have kept a higher speed. As sad as it is, they lowered their speed a bit, based on the procedures recommended at the time. Once the roll/stall was initiated, there was no time or altitude to correct, even if they had known what was wrong.

We should also remember El Al in Amsterdam. Another case of engine leaving causing damage to wing.

Fortunately no (major) damage in this case. And luckily the damage in the QF case was survivable.
 
qf789
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 3398
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:30 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
The investigation has yet to start. Apparently there is some debate about who will take the lead.

Air accident investigators from both sides of the Atlantic have been struggling to decide who should lead a probe into an engine explosion that forced an Air France A380 to make an emergency landing in Canada, people familiar with the matter said.

Two days after the damaged superjumbo landed at Goose Bay in Labrador with more than 500 people on board, a formal investigation had yet to be announced, a step that typically takes hours.

...

Fournier said a formal accident investigation had not been launched and jurisdiction “remains to be confirmed.” The flight data recorder and cabin voice recorder will be arriving in Ottawa on Tuesday for analysis, he added.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-air-f ... SKCN1C726E


Looks like a decision has been made now, BEA will be the one doing the investigation

https://twitter.com/ReutersAero/status/ ... 7922665474
Forum Moderator
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16072
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:38 pm

AirlineCritic wrote:
Yes.

Or, to be even more exact, the crew was unaware of the slats retracting, and neither the crew or the procedures at the time took into account that with slat damage they should have kept a higher speed. As sad as it is, they lowered their speed a bit, based on the procedures recommended at the time. Once the roll/stall was initiated, there was no time or altitude to correct, even if they had known what was wrong.

We should also remember El Al in Amsterdam. Another case of engine leaving causing damage to wing.

Fortunately no (major) damage in this case. And luckily the damage in the QF case was survivable.


Reminds me of Katilla N709CK in 2004:

Image

Kalitta Air Flight 825 departed from Chicago O'Hare International (ORD) at 20:10, and was en route to New York-JFK. While climbing through about 15,000 feet over Lake Michigan the crew heard a loud bang, the airplane yawed to the left, and the number one engine cockpit indications showed that the engine had lost all power. A visual inspection by the crew of the number one engine to check for damage revealed the pylon was still in place, but the engine was missing. The airplane diverted to DTW and landed without further incident.
After the airplane landed, the examination of the pylon revealed the forward portion was damaged with the entire forward bulkhead including the forward engine
mounts separated from the airplane. The examination also revealed that the top of the mount rails and circumferentially inclusive of the four
mount bolts remained attached to the aft mount on the pylon.

Ref: https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20041020-0

Ref: viewtopic.php?t=291621
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
Marcello47
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:34 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:42 pm

Is anybody able to explain what is going to happen now... How do they think to "fix" the problem? Where are they going to work. Season is not favourable and I guess there will be a need of some kind of shelter... I'm very curious about all of this....
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16072
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:50 pm

Marcello47 wrote:
Is anybody able to explain what is going to happen now... How do they think to "fix" the problem? Where are they going to work. Season is not favourable and I guess there will be a need of some kind of shelter... I'm very curious about all of this....


It'll probably go down similar to DL's 767 engine swap in Cold Bay, Alaska.

Flikr photos show the Antonov's load-out, etc: https://www.flickr.com/photos/deltanewshub/32109430800
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
airnorth
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:30 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:34 pm

Where are they going to work. Season is not favourable and I guess there will be a need of some kind of shelter... I'm very curious about all of this....[/quote]

Its not THAT cold there yet! The seven day forecast doesn't even show any frost, downright balmy I would say!
https://weather.gc.ca/city/pages/nl-23_metric_e.html
 
trent900
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:06 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:36 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
keesje wrote:
Sometimes it's good to have 4 engines.


If this had happened to a twin, the single good engine would have still enabled the plane to land safely.


Unfortunately I think a twin would have sustained far worse damage due to the engine being closer to the fuselage etc.
It would be interesting if anyone actually saw this failure happen from inside, there’s usually at least one person looking out. If so it must have been quite spectacular!

D.
 
ghYHZ
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:26 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:55 pm

Marcello47 wrote:
Is anybody able to explain what is going to happen now... How do they think to "fix" the problem? Where are they going to work. Season is not favourable and I guess there will be a need of some kind of shelter... I'm very curious about all of this....


Goose Bay daytime temps are 7C to 16C (45 to 60) over the next 2 weeks. It's a former US Air Force Base with several large Hangers but don't know if they could accommodate a A380. Probably a tented enclosure would suffice.

https://goo.gl/maps/V6fmK6Qkq6m

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/we ... -goose-bay
 
User avatar
UAL747422
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:44 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:22 pm

why are we talking about weather?? I thought this was an aviation forum!! :scratchchin:
"I think we could build a better one" -William Boeing
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:44 pm

Marcello47 wrote:
Is anybody able to explain what is going to happen now... How do they think to "fix" the problem? Where are they going to work. Season is not favourable and I guess there will be a need of some kind of shelter... I'm very curious about all of this....


Air France has a choice between doing the work themselves or having an Airbus AOG team come out. Mechanics will be flown in. All the tooling and equipment can also be flown in. They will fly in a spare engine most likely, but they don't have to. They will need to repair the strut as well as the damaged electrical, hydraulic, fuel, and pneumatic systems that may have been damaged. They can put up a tent if necessary, but most of that work can be done outside without too much trouble.

The driving items are going to be whether they can do a three engine ferry or have to change an engine. THe pylon and leading edge of the wing will need repairs. That is heavy duty structure and has to be inspected and repaired. Some of those components can take a while to fabricate if necessary.

I would expect the plane to be there 7-10 days unless there are some long lead parts.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 978
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:45 am

DocLightning wrote:
How about the A340 (on which I flew on a later flight) where the pilot decided to pull the stick back thinking that there was on onccoming aircraft that wound up being (IIRC) Venus?


You seem to have your wires crossed Doc. The fatigue related incident you're referring to occurred onboard a transatlantic Air Canada 767 flight.
 
User avatar
Classa64
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:40 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:34 am

What are the odds they find the disc.... I wonder has that been a discussion while they decide who is going to investigate. I guess though its a big black maybe still round piece on a hopefully white surface but it just as well could have disappeared deep into the ice and snow. Or its in the Atlantic.
"Freedom is the miles i'm rolling on"
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20550
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:44 am

Chaostheory wrote:
You seem to have your wires crossed Doc. The fatigue related incident you're referring to occurred onboard a transatlantic Air Canada 767 flight.


My apologies and I stand corrected.

Here is the incident report. The crew failed to run the "Severe Turbulence Checklist," which resulted in them not noticing that the A/P had disconnected.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=138594
http://avherald.com/h?article=44280b2a

I flew on F-GLZU DTW-CDG in 2015.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:10 am

I have a theory, based on the picture that Karel had linked to:

KarelXWB wrote:


I'm looking at the debris in front of the remaining fans. I'm wondering if the debris would have stayed on like this, if the engine was actually still spinning in the airflow? I find that perhaps possible but perhaps not so likely.

So here's the theory: the shaft froze up (perhaps due to bearings failure), and at that moment, the head of the shaft broke, breaking the fan free of the rest of the assembly. The rest of the engine stays on, now unmovable and not spinning.

(But I don't know enough about jet engines... is the turbine disk on the same shaft, or can the turbnine continue to turn if the fan shaft freezes up? If all parts of the shaft froze up, I would find it unlikely that the turbine disks would have stayed in place either. But maybe they would have.)
 
User avatar
Balerit
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:14 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:51 am

If a bearing had seized we would see twisting of the metal that is visible but what we see is typical damage from a crack that has propagated from near the hub maybe from incorrect torque of the nut.
Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (retired).
 
StTim
Posts: 2440
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:55 am

The investigation report is sure going to make interesting reading.
 
Gasman
Posts: 1596
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:06 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:41 am

There really are only two possible scenarios here:

a) This was a freak event caused by bad maintenance or an incredibly rare, one off defect or
b) This is a reflection of an inherent engine flaw and all engines of the type are at risk.

If you cannot establish a) and establish it quickly, then you have to assume b). In which case it becomes a very brave call indeed to not ground the entire fleet. The next event could be a UA232 type situation.

The question is, how long do you wait.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:46 am

Balerit wrote:
If a bearing had seized we would see twisting of the metal that is visible but what we see is typical damage from a crack that has propagated from near the hub maybe from incorrect torque of the nut.


I don't know, maybe we would.

But I don't think we can say it so directly. What kind of forces are involved if the bearings seized? If the forces are far beyond what the fan structure can take, it will fail. Will it fail by bending first or by cracking? Not clear to me...
 
WIederling
Posts: 3994
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:48 am

AirlineCritic wrote:
I'm looking at the debris in front of the remaining fans. I'm wondering if the debris would have stayed on like this, if the engine was actually still spinning in the airflow?


What you see is the set of stator vanes behind the fan.
( The smaller bladed ring visible around the shaft is the entry to the LP compressor.
not quite sure if that is static or rotor vanes )
the fragments there were kept in by airflow.

cutaway drawing GP 7000 :
http://www.pw.utc.com/Content/Photos/Fe ... y_high.jpg

looks like the fan hub separated into two pieces : splined coupling and the cylinder holding the fan blades.
Splined coupling part and its fixing nut still there.

Cause or result ? open?
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 3994
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:54 am

AirlineCritic wrote:
But I don't think we can say it so directly. What kind of forces are involved if the bearings seized? If the forces are far beyond what the fan structure can take, it will fail. Will it fail by bending first or by cracking? Not clear to me...


If "torqued off" IMU the shaft would give first. not the fan rotor hub.
Murphy is an optimist
 
packsonflight
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:08 am

Looks like classic metal fatique crack of the fan wheel. I guess they order airworthiness directive to inspect all fan wheels from the same manufacturing batch soon.
 
User avatar
SomebodyInTLS
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:01 pm

AirlineCritic wrote:
I have a theory, based on the picture that Karel had linked to:

KarelXWB wrote:


I'm looking at the debris in front of the remaining fans. I'm wondering if the debris would have stayed on like this, if the engine was actually still spinning in the airflow? I find that perhaps possible but perhaps not so likely.

So here's the theory: the shaft froze up (perhaps due to bearings failure), and at that moment, the head of the shaft broke, breaking the fan free of the rest of the assembly. The rest of the engine stays on, now unmovable and not spinning.

(But I don't know enough about jet engines... is the turbine disk on the same shaft, or can the turbnine continue to turn if the fan shaft freezes up? If all parts of the shaft froze up, I would find it unlikely that the turbine disks would have stayed in place either. But maybe they would have.)


I think you're mistaking fixed stator vanes for a "frozen" turbine disc...

Edit: never mind, WIederling beat me to it. BTW. anyone know why I can never delete posts any more...?
"As with most things related to aircraft design, it's all about the trade-offs and much more nuanced than A.net likes to make out."
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16072
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:13 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Edit: never mind, WIederling beat me to it. BTW. anyone know why I can never delete posts any more...?

You only get a few minutes where you are allowed to delete the post, then the X disappears.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:49 pm

Gasman wrote:
There really are only two possible scenarios here:

a) This was a freak event caused by bad maintenance or an incredibly rare, one off defect or
b) This is a reflection of an inherent engine flaw and all engines of the type are at risk.

If you cannot establish a) and establish it quickly, then you have to assume b). In which case it becomes a very brave call indeed to not ground the entire fleet. The next event could be a UA232 type situation.

The question is, how long do you wait.


That's not how investigations work. There's no quick attempt to discover it was a freak event. There's a thorough investigation to get to root cause. Without a root cause that can be linked to increased risk in failure on other airplanes, there's no substantiation to ground an entire fleet. Grounding a fleet happens when there is a design defect or unforseen failure mode that has a hazardous or catastrophic effect without adequate redundancy low enough probability of recurring to maintain the certification basis. There's no quick assessment to come to that conclusion. Regulatory authorities don't ground fleets just because one failure happened without an explanation. If the regulatory authorities grounded fleets due to "what if it is the next UA232" then we would see airplanes grounded every day.

The only quick regulatory action that I could see is a mandatory inspection in a short time frame if there are any initial findings.
 
User avatar
Marcello47
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:34 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
Marcello47 wrote:
Is anybody able to explain what is going to happen now... How do they think to "fix" the problem? Where are they going to work. Season is not favourable and I guess there will be a need of some kind of shelter... I'm very curious about all of this....


It'll probably go down similar to DL's 767 engine swap in Cold Bay, Alaska.

Flikr photos show the Antonov's load-out, etc: https://www.flickr.com/photos/deltanewshub/32109430800


Revelation, You are right but Cold Bay operations (even in very bad conditions) were on a fault engine. Here, they seem to have structural pylon and wing problems in addition... that will need time and accurate inspections not easily feasible at open air... and in a few days... thanks for your attention and kind answer.
 
pugman211
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:29 pm

qf789 wrote:


I'm just curious here, but the centre part of the engine is the fan hub nut correct? So the part we can see where the fan sheared off, is that the part that would normally rotate? If it is, then does that mean the shaft is bent/bearing seized, which you would expect really considering the forces involved losing the fan and surrounding area etc. I ask because if a fan can rotate from the wind blowing it, surely it should of changed position during flight. Does that make sense?

I find the turbine engine amazing and can wait to see the report on this event when it comes out.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16072
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:37 pm

Marcello47 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Marcello47 wrote:
Is anybody able to explain what is going to happen now... How do they think to "fix" the problem? Where are they going to work. Season is not favourable and I guess there will be a need of some kind of shelter... I'm very curious about all of this....


It'll probably go down similar to DL's 767 engine swap in Cold Bay, Alaska.

Flikr photos show the Antonov's load-out, etc: https://www.flickr.com/photos/deltanewshub/32109430800


Revelation, You are right but Cold Bay operations (even in very bad conditions) were on a fault engine. Here, they seem to have structural pylon and wing problems in addition... that will need time and accurate inspections not easily feasible at open air... and in a few days... thanks for your attention and kind answer.

I agree with what you write. Conditions were far worse at Cold Bay and the engine did not disintegrate so the scope of the task is different. However there are some parallels. The pictures show that a heavy lifter can bring a large support team and their equipment (including portable shelters) and the replacement parts to some very challenging locations.

I presume AF will not want this valuable aircraft out of service for long periods of time so I presume a similar effort will be made to get it back into service.

Many above write that the authorities are not likely to grant permission for a 3 engine ferry flight. I will defer to their opinions. Therefore it seems a large scale effort will be needed to repair this aircraft at its location in YYR.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2563
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with reports of suspected damage to leading edge above #4 engi

Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:04 pm

kearnet wrote:
While some are quick to associate this with QF32 (which was the release of the IPT due to oil leaking on it), I'm associating this more with WN 3742 (which a quick google search shows that an official NTSB report has not been released on yet - been curious about this one) ......


Why would there be an NTSB report on an incident in Singapore, on an aircraft manufactured in Europe, operated by an Australian airline and which no US airline operates? There is the official ATSB report:


http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv ... 0-089.aspx
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16072
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:21 pm

pugman211 wrote:
I'm just curious here, but the centre part of the engine is the fan hub nut correct? So the part we can see where the fan sheared off, is that the part that would normally rotate? If it is, then does that mean the shaft is bent/bearing seized, which you would expect really considering the forces involved losing the fan and surrounding area etc. I ask because if a fan can rotate from the wind blowing it, surely it should of changed position during flight. Does that make sense?

The seizure theory is one theory. Another theory is a materials failure ie microscopic deficiency leads to crack forming and then catastrophic failure.

pugman211 wrote:
I find the turbine engine amazing and can wait to see the report on this event when it comes out.

I agree.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
SAAFNAV
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:41 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with reports of suspected damage to leading edge above #4 engi

Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:22 pm

ozglobal wrote:
kearnet wrote:
While some are quick to associate this with QF32 (which was the release of the IPT due to oil leaking on it), I'm associating this more with WN 3742 (which a quick google search shows that an official NTSB report has not been released on yet - been curious about this one) ......


Why would there be an NTSB report on an incident in Singapore, on an aircraft manufactured in Europe, operated by an Australian airline and which no US airline operates? There is the official ATSB report:


http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv ... 0-089.aspx


I'm pretty certain he referred to the WN 3742 NTSB report (which did happen in the US), not the QF32 report.
L-382 Loadmaster; ex C-130B Navigator
 
m1m2
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:39 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:28 pm

Without having specific knowledge of this type of jet engine, from the cutaway diagram it looks like that first stage into the compressor is a stator vane assy. Then I am seeing 5 stages of low pressure axial flow compressor, followed by 9 stages of axial compressor rotors (each will be followed by a stator vane assy.), followed by the combustion section then two turbines and finally 6 more turbine wheels at the back of the engine. If it's like all other jet engines I've worked on, the first two stages of turbines are used to power (spin) the compressor, and the last 6 stages are used to power the fan at the front of the engine. This engine would have two shafts that can rotate independently of each other, so when the fan disk departed the engine, the N1 speed may have actually increased due to no load on the shaft and the turbine wheels still providing power. I'm also fairly certain that a modern engine such as this would have overspeed protection so it may have shut itself down, or at least governed it's own speed automatically. That's my take on the operation of the engine, why the fan disk separated would have to be left to the investigators although my gut feeling is it's a manufacturing defect and not related to anything Air France did in maintenance.

One side note as well, it looks as though there is already a patch on the leading edge just inboard of the #3 engine.
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2563
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with reports of suspected damage to leading edge above #4 engi

Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:02 pm

SAAFNAV wrote:
ozglobal wrote:
kearnet wrote:
While some are quick to associate this with QF32 (which was the release of the IPT due to oil leaking on it), I'm associating this more with WN 3742 (which a quick google search shows that an official NTSB report has not been released on yet - been curious about this one) ......


Why would there be an NTSB report on an incident in Singapore, on an aircraft manufactured in Europe, operated by an Australian airline and which no US airline operates? There is the official ATSB report:


http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv ... 0-089.aspx


I'm pretty certain he referred to the WN 3742 NTSB report (which did happen in the US), not the QF32 report.


Ok. Clear. Sorry.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
lowbank
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:28 pm

WIederling wrote:
AirlineCritic wrote:
I'm looking at the debris in front of the remaining fans. I'm wondering if the debris would have stayed on like this, if the engine was actually still spinning in the airflow?


What you see is the set of stator vanes behind the fan.
( The smaller bladed ring visible around the shaft is the entry to the LP compressor.
not quite sure if that is static or rotor vanes )
the fragments there were kept in by airflow.

cutaway drawing GP 7000 :
http://www.pw.utc.com/Content/Photos/Fe ... y_high.jpg

looks like the fan hub separated into two pieces : splined coupling and the cylinder holding the fan blades.
Splined coupling part and its fixing nut still there.

Cause or result ? open?


Looking closely at the cutaway the bladed ring is static. These engines are two shaft engines. So the LP compressor (Fan) connects to the LP turbine at the back. The HP compressor ( 9 sets of blades ) connects the HP turbine.
Every days a school day.
 
ubeema
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:48 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:54 pm

DocLightning wrote:
Chaostheory wrote:
You seem to have your wires crossed Doc. The fatigue related incident you're referring to occurred onboard a transatlantic Air Canada 767 flight.


My apologies and I stand corrected.

Here is the incident report. The crew failed to run the "Severe Turbulence Checklist," which resulted in them not noticing that the A/P had disconnected.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=138594
http://avherald.com/h?article=44280b2a

I flew on F-GLZU DTW-CDG in 2015.

Doclightning is there a connection between the incident report you just referenced and AF066?
 
747megatop
Posts: 1514
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:53 pm

AirlineCritic wrote:
I have a theory, based on the picture that Karel had linked to:

KarelXWB wrote:



What is that rod dangling from the engine and touching the ground? It seems damaged.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2889
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:16 pm

AirlineCritic wrote:
So here's the theory: the shaft froze up (perhaps due to bearings failure), and at that moment, the head of the shaft broke, breaking the fan free of the rest of the assembly. The rest of the engine stays on, now unmovable and not spinning.

(But I don't know enough about jet engines... is the turbine disk on the same shaft, or can the turbnine continue to turn if the fan shaft freezes up? If all parts of the shaft froze up, I would find it unlikely that the turbine disks would have stayed in place either. But maybe they would have.)


I think that is unlikely: the total energy (turbine drive + rotational mass) in the shaft is so huge, that no bearing seizure would be able to do this. The bearing itself would simply fail and reduce the bearing elements (balls / rollers) to shred, and/or tear the bearing mounts and/or their support structure.

Have you read my theory . . . ?
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 16072
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:24 pm

747megatop wrote:
AirlineCritic wrote:
I have a theory, based on the picture that Karel had linked to:

KarelXWB wrote:



What is that rod dangling from the engine and touching the ground? It seems damaged.

Seems to be the part shown in green at the bottom of:

Image

Not sure what its function is.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
SAAFNAV
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:41 pm

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 7:46 pm

Revelation wrote:
747megatop wrote:
AirlineCritic wrote:
I have a theory, based on the picture that Karel had linked to:




What is that rod dangling from the engine and touching the ground? It seems damaged.

Seems to be the part shown in green at the bottom of:

Image

Not sure what its function is.


That schematic is from the Trent 900 (the three spools give it away), but the part might have the same purpose.

Might it be a driveshaft for the accessory drive?
L-382 Loadmaster; ex C-130B Navigator
 
m1m2
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:39 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Wed Oct 04, 2017 8:14 pm

I would say it's a strut to secure the cowl in the open position.
 
User avatar
77west
Posts: 850
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:52 am

Re: AF66 CDG-LAX (A388-F-HPJE) diverts to Goose Bay (YYR) with an uncontained engine failure to #4 engine

Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:25 am

m1m2 wrote:
I would say it's a strut to secure the cowl in the open position.


No, too big. The part you are refering to is a black rod with a yellow band in the middle, higher up on the engine. There are a few of them.
77West - AW109S - BE90 - JS31 - B1900 - Q300 - ATR72 - DC9-30 - MD80 - B733 - A320 - B738 - A300-B4 - B773 - B77W

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos