Talk:'Critical safety issue' with A380 engines

Lede

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

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]

Revision 1139483 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I cannot source the claim that Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines did not ground their A380s. The earlier WN article has a BBC source that seems to at least partially contradict the claim. This is the only remaining obstacle I see to publication. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1139483 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I cannot source the claim that Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines did not ground their A380s. The earlier WN article has a BBC source that seems to at least partially contradict the claim. This is the only remaining obstacle I see to publication. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

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]

Revision 1139500 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1139500 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.