Sigh.
People posting out of ignorance of the risks and of airplane construction.
I hope they are NOT aircraft technicians or pilots.
As for poor decision making for economics, I tell the story of an experienced airliner technician and trainer who was fired from Pacific Western because he:
- authorized dispatch of B737 to High Arctic with only one radio working
- authorized dispatch of B737 to Mexico without a working weather radar
Good way to get airplane stranded for several hours. (While:
- Radio and avionics tech flown to it, which takes a few hours.
- Airplane waited out weather before crossing southern US on return, or had tech and parts flown to it or perhaps another airline’s staff could help for a price.
In hindmemory, I am thinking that flight dispatch and pilots were not wise to accept the flight. (The offending mx tech was embedded in SOC to assist dispatchers and planners, and pilots in the event of problems during the flight.)
I agree. If the pilot heard the noise and somehow knew the level of damage (not significant since the A380 was still operable) then he was right to use his ADM and continue. However, if I was in that situation and (more realistically) had no idea how much damage there was, it would be incredibly stupid to continue on and try to make the destination.
(And a sidenote: I, personally, wouldn’t try to make it to my destination if I thought I had a blown tire)
I seem to have the belief that wings on airplanes serve not only as structural support for the aircraft…but also as fuel tanks…with pipes that lead that fuel toward the fuselage and engines and cross-feeds etc etc. I’d be very nervous about continuing….but cannot find fault with success of a crew who excersized their prerogative and judgment to have a successful outcome. Maybe they knew their airplane better than internet junkies? Maybe they consulted their ops chiefs? Maybe they had more at personal risk than those who sit on sofas and pontificate on the internet…?