Another A380 uncontained failure

If you are referring to what happened at Goose Bay I don't think that can be construed as typical 'airline experience' operating the A380. First off it was an international flight so they couldn't just let them off the plane and go wandering around the terminal or beyond. Secondly, Goose Bay is not a routine destination for wide body aircraft, and thus would not have the typical infrastructure to handle the passenger ground ops. One picture I saw showed a single stair positioned at the fwd LH entry door. This door is approx the same height above ground as a 777 or A330/340/350 so the same situation would have existed with these aircraft, i.e. it wasn't an A380 specific issue. Then consider getting 500 people off through a single door and it takes a while. All in all it was not a normal airline operation.

 

Do not think the 787 has the legs to do London to Australia direct, but have not really checked.

 

Supposedly 2018 per this article: https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-melbourne-perth-london-boeing-787-flights-start-march-24

Edit: And a more recent article from last week: http://www.businessinsider.com/qantas-boeing-787-9-dreamliner-plane-perth-to-london-flight-photos-2017-9

 

Latest report in Aviation Week said even the programmed stretch 777s could not do the London-Sydney trip and they were talking about adding extra fuel tanks to give a capability in the 20s. Only the jumbos could handle it. Guess it depends on what part of Australia you are attempting to reach, especially since Australia is very close to the same size as the continental US.

 

Boeing already has certified lower lobe tanks for the 777-200LR. Shouldn't be much effort to put them on the 777-X.

 

As mayor said the 777 is nowhere near the 380 experience for a passenger. In fact a 777 is one of the more noisy aircraft about, and of 15hrs that alone is a big difference, no upgrade is going to change this.

If most passegers knew the difference and booked as such the A380 may have a chance. but most passengers do not fly regularily to know the difference and most care just about price.

Sometimes the travel experience just goes backwards.

Persoanly my favorite aircraft is the 747 esp the top deck which is small enough to feel like private or small jet, yet you still have the ride qualities of a large plane. Virgin or Ba business upper deck 747 was always hard to beat.

 

The dominate noise is most likely from the Environmental Control System (ECS) not aerodynamic. My experience was that the A340 was worse in this.

 

I would say a lot of the extra noise on a 777 is aero. As the plane speeds up it gets far worse. M<aybe that can be mitigated with insulation i dont know.

Even the A340 is relatively quiet compared to a 777

That all being said I dont think there is a safer plane out there than the 777 so my preference woudl be with that.

 

Let me say I do like the Dreamliner. I was just on one Paris to SFO and its quiet and comfortable, if not a bit small for a long haul aircraft. When I took it LA to Melbourne non-stop it didn't bother me at all.

It's not the fanciest plane inside though. But, a quiet, comfortable plane. Boeing I think got this one right. The 777 to me is one they need to improve on long haul situations.

But the A380 and 747-800 are still one and two for long hauls. The 747 though is a not as quiet. On an A380 you can barely tell the plane is at full thrust when taking off from the motor noise. Give Airbus credit --they built a really good plane here. Whether it makes any money is another issue but as a work of art, it's a fine machine.

 

A god friend that handles soundproofing packages for VIP aircraft told me how he tried and tried to pitch solutions to/for airliners. He said finally someone leveled with him that they didn't want the interior to be quieter as then passengers would start hearing noises that might be concerning.

I used to fly the A340-500 regularly. It had horrible ECS noise, at least in the front 2 zones of the interior.

 

Really shows how far commercial aviation has come in the last 30/40 years, that we are complaining about noise levels on current wide bodies. Wasn't that long ago that people thought a 707 was quiet compared to all the turbo props and piston engines of the day. The triple 7 is and "old" design compared to the 380 so it being a little harsher is of no real surprise. I don't Fly long haul nearly as much as I used to, and anyone that thinks a triple 7 is noisy should try taxing a 172 without head phones

 

I flew on a TWA Constellation as a kid ; right next to the prop on #2... window and tray table vibrated. Loud enough that you had to talk loudly.

Then on a Continental Viscount turboprop... heavenly quiet, comparatively. Vibration free.

Then a 727... almost silent... but then, you noticed the wind noise since the engines at the rear were so quiet. And the airspeed was much higher.
Noise has stayed about there since, give or take.

It's just 'white noise'... no big deal, unless you're looking for something to complain about.

 

I haven't tried them yet, but my brother has a set of pretty high end Bose noise-cancelling headphones and says it works wonders on flights. I just bring ear plugs...I need them to sleep even at home unfortunately.

 

I never travel long haul without my Bose QC2's. I like the over the ear type. I actually sleep in them

 

I worked for several years on the ECS systems on the 747, 767, and 777 airplanes and the only way to get the conditioned air into the cabin from the ECS down below is to duct it up in risers in the sidewalls to the overhead distribution system. Muffling the sound of high speed air coursing through oval shaped ducts next to the passenger is an almost unsolvable problem in an airplane smaller than the A380. If you want to put lead sheathes around it then pay the weight problem. We designed the 777 in 1989-1992 and it was the best effort of the best engineers and management that the industry ever saw and it is still a great airplane.

 

Yep. I've flown long haul in the last few years on 777, 787, A330/340, A380. Haven't flown on the 747-8.
(Will be going on the A350 soon, so interested in what that's like).

The 787 and A380 are noticeably quieter than the others, but really you'd have to be a professional whinger to have a big problem with any of them.
Personally I love the 777, even if it is a bit noisier.
It helps drown out the other passengers' snoring / farting / boring conversations / screaming kids etc.

 

I take about 25 flighrs a year, a fair amount long haul and I've never been on any 747 in my life. I would love to some day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yeah absolutely, as a passenger experience the A380 nowadays is unbeatable.

Speaking about the noise I actually find the 777 a lot better than the 747.. for me the 747 is really noisy. But I've only tried the lower deck, never been in the upper.

Now, back on topic, the AirFrance engine failure.
From my aviation experience (I'm an airline pilot and currently an Airbus Captain) I was very surprised to see such a failure on an Engine Alliance GP7000, because can be considered a proven design now. I mean, such big failures, if related to some design flaws, come up early in the operational history of an engine like the RR Trent 900 on the Qantas.
RR was already aware that some bearings were wearing up much faster than they were intended and they were already thinking about the corrective actions. Unfortunately a catastrophic failure occurred before they were able to fix the design flaw.

Losing the fan and the whole intake is really a big thing to happen after many years of service. I'm actually thinking about some maintenance issue