Talk:'Critical safety issue' with A380 engines

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The lede is missing who and where. "Investigators" is too vague. --Pi zero (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully addressed wackywace 20:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Cause verification[edit]

Is the problem always a single misaligned component? In one particular case it was a particular misaligned component, but all I see in general in the sources is that a manufacturing fault increases the likelihood of fatigue cracking etc.; there might (for example) be more than one component that could be misaligned. --Pi zero (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks as though the BBC article has been re-written since I wrote the article. The BBC article formerly stated that it was a misaligned component in all Trent 900 engines. I will re-phrase that part of the article to clarify what has now been stated. wackywace 13:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Now done. wackywace 13:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I have doubts about that edit, as it transforms the sentence from a general one that naturally fit into the lede but had a bit of no-longer-sourced content, into a specific one that doesn't obviously belong in the lede (nor elsewhere, I suspect — but while I might be able to tweak it myself to good effect... without compromising my uninvolved-reviewer status... I frustratingly don't have time to work it out just now, as I've got real-world tasks that will take me off-line for at least the next four or five hours). --Pi zero (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I know what you mean, I'm jut not sure how to go about fixing it... :-/ wackywace 16:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I note use of the 'catastrophic' quote. I should caution that my understanding (I may have got this wrong) is that as-used in this context, it is not the sensationalism it appears to be and is, in fact, a well-defined term. If I'm right, it's something along the lines of a failure that compromises the ability of a particular function to be performed - in this case, the engine cannot work. In any event, here's the actual ATSB piece - that should be at least an external link, if not cited directly for information. We may also want to take a photo as fair use from there; unless, of course, they release under a free license. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • As far as I am aware, "catastrophic engine failure" is a genuine aviation term, and I can assure you it is certainly not intended to be sensationalist. I believe the term to mean the failure of an engine that involves, for example, an explosion or something coming off the engine during flight. In short, I think it means the failure of an engine that does not simply involve it stopping working (for example, due to lack of fuel), but a major, or "catastropic", event occurring in the engine. I will add the report as an external link. wackywace 18:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Parts coming out of the engine is an 'uncontained failure' i.e. the cowling did not contain the loose bits of crap. I think the definition of catastrophic is such that virtually all uncontained failures are catastrophic, though this rule of thumb does not work in reverse. Let me do some digging for a proper definition. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • w:Catastrophic failure gives quite a general definition; Googling without any attempt to go in-depth gives several variations on this theme. All-in-all, it boils down to sudden and complete. Which makes a kind of sense. I'm happy enough with the WP explanation to link it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1139483 [Failed][edit]

I know they didn't ground them. Singapore "delayed" all flights while they carried out checks, and I remember reading that Lufthansa didn't ground them at all. I can't find any sources to prove these, though, so I think it might just be best to remove that sentence, it doesn't add a great deal to the article. wackywace 21:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1139500 [Passed][edit]