Quantas A-380s grounded after engine explosion

[Oberon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11691197

The Boeing boys will be rubbing their hands in glee over this.

Kudos to Quantas though, they take their safety record (no fatalities since 1951) very seriously. :yep:

[Gerald]

Boeing sees little of this with joy, especially when it comes to the A380...

[Oberon]

Boeing sees little of this with joy, especially when it comes to the A380...

Anything that gives Airbus problems will bring Boeing and those who support Boeing great joy. ;)

[Gerald]

From an economic standpoint, and from a supplier, but not in its entirety, it is difficult for me to see that it would be beneficial for the company, possibly in the case of insurance for example..

[Herr-Berbunch]

Not great for RR either, although a lot of the engine is outsourced to other heavyweight indutrial companies. The casing (made by Volvo Aero and Goodrich Corp.) is supposed to retain any explosion - certainly shouldn't permit any part to puncture the wing and drop the casing on the ground. And oh :nope:, the footage of the casing dropped on Batam being manhandled through the street and possibly destroying any forensic evidence of failure :o.

So the upshot is, engine components failed, casing failed, RR will suffer, Airbus will suffer, Boeing will be happy (and confirming to client why they should've just gone for solely GE's engines in the 777 and 787). Passengers safe though :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWzg8w-0TBI

Edit: And the same aircraft had an emergency landing previously at Heathrow with an undercarriage fault! Talk about unlucky.

[CCIP]

Yikes, didn't think this was a big deal till I saw pictures of the wing - that is a seriously uncontained failure. Good to see it ultimately didn't do the damage it could've.

[Skybird]

Assuming that the problem emerged inside the turbine/engine, it is not Airbus' problem or fault then. Carriers choose by themselves the company providing the engines, Airbus or Boeing have little if nothing to do with that. Responsibility for maintenance is handed over to the carrier the same moment the plane gets delivered and is accepted.

Quantas has a very good maintenance and security reputation.

At this early stage, conclusions would be premature, but so far it looks as if RR are the ones to blame. If so, Boeing will not feel joy over it at all, but check their own types who have been ordered for delivery with comparable RR engines.

The A380 circled and released fuel for over one hour to get inside the landing weight. This speaks for the situation having been assessed by the pilot as being stable and under control. If it were not that, they would not have dumped fuel, but dared to land with the heavier plane immediately.

[Takeda Shingen]

Entering obligatory Airbus v. Boeing flamewar in 3....2.....1......

[Oberon]

Entering obligatory Airbus v. Boeing flamewar in 3....2.....1......

My thoughts exactly, although like both Sky and HB have said, the problem looks to be engine based in which case it'll be RR in trouble.

Still, it'll be good to have a flame-war which doesn't revolve around Obama or US politics for once, won't it? :yeah:

[Takeda Shingen]

Still, it'll be good to have a flame-war which doesn't revolve around Obama or US politics for once, won't it? :yeah:

:haha:

True!

[Jimbuna]

Entering obligatory Airbus v. Boeing flamewar in 3....2.....1......

LOL :DL

Only positive I can think of is that's another star for the Quantas safety rating.

This could easily have been the latest aircraft disaster.

[Skybird]

Entering obligatory Airbus v. Boeing flamewar in 3....2.....1......
Seeing the Airbus' engine smoking, I think Boeing started early. :O:

[Tchocky]

Assuming that the problem emerged inside the turbine/engine, it is not Airbus' problem or fault then. Carriers choose by themselves the company providing the engines, Airbus or Boeing have little if nothing to do with that. Responsibility for maintenance is handed over to the carrier the same moment the plane gets delivered and is accepted.

Quantas has a very good maintenance and security reputation.

Maintenance for Qantas' A388 engines is provided directly by Rolls-Royce, I'm not sure about Singapore Airlines and Lufthansa (the other two carriers using R-R on their A380's). So far, Lufthansa have continued operations, and Singapore have announced extra checks on their engines, causing some delays. Keep in mind that Singapore have the most R-R/A380 hours by a good margin.

So far it looks like a turbine issue more than a compressor blade failure, definitely not a bird strike or FOD. I don't think the protection for turbine blade failure is as strong as it is for compressor blades, hence the external damage to the wing.

[Tchocky]

Not great for RR either, although a lot of the engine is outsourced to other heavyweight indutrial companies. The casing (made by Volvo Aero and Goodrich Corp.) is supposed to retain any explosion - certainly shouldn't permit any part to puncture the wing and drop the casing on the ground.
That's a fan failure, debris should never leave the engine casing due to the forward position - the debris would hammer the fuselage instead of the wing. Turbine point-of-attachment failures are different, for some reason there's an awful lot more rotational energy to contain, and it's easier to design a cowling to mostly contain the damage and for the wing to take a hit. A wing full of kerosene at tens of degrees below freezing is less susceptible to flashfire from hot bits of metal, I think.
The casing can't be said to have failed as it's not designed to *fully* contain a turbine failure as it is a compressor failure.

[Oberon]

Seeing the Airbus' engine smoking, I think Boeing started early. :O:

:har::har::har:

[Platapus]

That is one big aircraft. Kudos to the pilots!

[krashkart]

Still, it'll be good to have a flame-war which doesn't revolve around Obama or US politics for once, won't it? :yeah:

Until somebody makes an indirect tie between the engine failure and the POTUS. :haha:


Seeing the Airbus' engine smoking, I think Boeing started early. :O:

I do admire your wit, Skybird. :rotfl2:

[bookworm_020]

Maintenance for Qantas' A388 engines is provided directly by Rolls-Royce, I'm not sure about Singapore Airlines and Lufthansa (the other two carriers using R-R on their A380's). So far, Lufthansa have continued operations, and Singapore have announced extra checks on their engines, causing some delays. Keep in mind that Singapore have the most R-R/A380 hours by a good margin.

Qantas A380 maintenance is done in Germany! The union's here in Australia are trying to get Qantas to bring all maintenance back "home" saying that Qantas Is trading on a safety reputation it no longer deserves. There has been a couple of major engine failures in the past six months. The pilot training has been good enough that it all works out, but there is a limit.

[CCIP]

Qantas A380 maintenance is done in Germany! The union's here in Australia are trying to get Qantas to bring all maintenance back "home" saying that Qantas Is trading on a safety reputation it no longer deserves. There has been a couple of major engine failures in the past six months. The pilot training has been good enough that it all works out, but there is a limit.

Good on them then - I do hope this incident helps tip the scales in the Aussie workers' favour!

[TarJak]

Just so you know there is and never has been a U in QANTAS. It is an acronym for Queensland And Nothern Territory Air Service harking back to its roots in Western Queensland 90 years ago.:03::know:

[TarJak]

Qantas A380 maintenance is done in Germany! The union's here in Australia are trying to get Qantas to bring all maintenance back "home" saying that Qantas Is trading on a safety reputation it no longer deserves. There has been a couple of major engine failures in the past six months. The pilot training has been good enough that it all works out, but there is a limit.
The engines are maintained by RR. The unions are talking bollocks to be honest. The failure rate has not increased one iota since some maintenance was moved offshore.

The bulk of Qantas maintenance is done inhouse by the Qantas Engineering staff.

If the engineering unions want to keep work here, then they need to stop asking for riduculous conditions making themselves uncompetitive with competent.

The A-380 maintenance is done in Germany by Lufthansa Technik, a world renowned and very capable maintenance team.

Qantas does not compromise when it comes to safety, bu they do get their money's worth as any smart business should.

http://media.smh.com.au/national/national-news/crew-handled-situation-superbly-2028417.html?from=newsbox

[papa_smurf]

Heres a video taken by a passenger onboard of the damage:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11692478

Something went seriously went wrong with the engine containment, as aircraft engines are supposed to contain any explosion to prevent any damage to the rest of the aircraft.

[CCIP]

By the way, one detail that I'm really wondering about: engine 2 blew, but after landing apparently engine 1 could not be shut down (and you can see this in pictures of it being blasted with water to shut it off). What sort of damage would this indicate?

[Jimbuna]

Heres a video taken by a passenger onboard of the damage:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11692478

Something went seriously went wrong with the engine containment, as aircraft engines are supposed to contain any explosion to prevent any damage to the rest of the aircraft.

The hole in the wing was 'gradually expanding' :o

[MH]

I think 747 had a problem with engines falling off when it was totaly new plane.

[Skybird]

Most carriers do not maintain a maintenance network as extensive as that of Lufthansa, for that reason several carriers send their machines to Lufthansa for certain key checks that need to be run on a regular basis.

Qantas without "u" :) has chosen for the RR engines, so any problem with the engine is not an issue of Airbus, but between Qantas and RR. Airbus neither designs nor supplies the engines, and also does not maintain them.

The European Aerial Traffic Adminsitration (or hoe they are called in English) has released a note saying that already several months ago they ahd send a warning to RR over the engines for the A380, calling them to do additional inspections on their design.

It seems to me that there is an issue with the very design of the RR engines for the A380 that amongst insiders is known since longer.

I wonder if now orders for the rivalling engine by Engine Alliance will rise. Emirates are using these, I think, and Air France. I assume for a plane with four en gines that capable to fly with even 2 engines only, thrust is not the factor deciding which engines are chosen by a carrier, but fuel consumption, noise, availability, and supply of spare parts, price, longevity, etc.

Engine Alliance is American (GE and Pratt&Whitney), Rolls Royce is British.

[FIREWALL]

Just a bunch of Knee-Jerk reaction hype. :roll:

If anybodys that worried about flying on a Airbus or Boeing plane, WALK. I say :haha:

[Skybird]

Qantas seems to have a run. Just in: a B747 has had engine troubles as well, and needed to make an emergency landing in Singapore.

[CCIP]

Qantas seems to have a run. Just in: a B747 has had engine troubles as well, and needed to make an emergency landing in Singapore.

Yup... the plot thickens :hmmm:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11702365

I guess Airbus was quick with their "flame war" response :D

also, a bump to my previous post - anyone have any technical explanation for why Engine 1 would fail to shut off?

[Task Force]

Hmm, maby they accidently hit a kangaroo on takeoff, though the effect was delayed till they got towards singapore.:lol:

[Tchocky]

Well, the 744's use a different engine, different generation, even. The coincidence of airport and operator is pretty strange though :)

CCIP - I don't know about engine #1, sometimes if signals are garbled/cut off the engine is commanded to run at the last power setting, the crew can shut it down using the fuel valve. I guess FADEC connection was cut and so it defaulted to the previous setting.
When a brand-new A340 jumped its chocks and destroyed it's wings/cockpit during an engine test in Toulouse a few years back a damaged engine ran for 9 hours until the fuel ran out!

The European Aerial Traffic Adminsitration (or hoe they are called in English) has released a note saying that already several months ago they ahd send a warning to RR over the engines for the A380, calling them to do additional inspections on their design.

That would be an Airworthiness Directive from EASA - European Aviation Safety Agency (any air traffic notices go through EUROCONTROL), and as far as I know all A380 operators are still within the adoption period for that directive.

Link - http://www.channel4.com/media/c4-news/pdf/EASA_AD_2010-0008R1_1.pdf

Specifies 400 cycles since the issuance of the AD, I can't imagine any of the aircraft being outside of that.

As to whether the Trent is a flawed design, I don't think the evidence is there yet. The worldwide usage of the 900 is just out of it's infancy, long-hour problems are just becoming noticeable, both serious and not-so-serious. The heat-exchanger problem that brought down BA38 short of the runway in Heathrow took even longer to arise, and wasn't even considered as a problem as far as certification went.

Still, way too early to tell anything major right now.

[Oberon]

Yup... the plot thickens :hmmm:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11702365

I guess Airbus was quick with their "flame war" response :D

also, a bump to my previous post - anyone have any technical explanation for why Engine 1 would fail to shut off?

Only thing I can think of is damage to the wiring caused by the wing damage by Engine 2 so the kill command didn't make it to the engine or there was a cross wire which kept power to the engine. Either which way though I would have thought a total kill of all engine power and switch off the APU would have shut it down. :hmmm: Still, not an aircraft engineer so can't say anything for definite.

I also just stumbled across this whilst looking up historical cases of fan blade failure (which I'd consider as likely the cause of this engine blowout):

On the early evening of 31 January 2001 at Melbourne International Airport, Boeing 777-300 A6-EMM aborted its take-off run at low speed as a result of a failure within the left (No.1) engine. Although the failure was associated with a large compressor surge within the engine, no subsequent fire developed and the aircraft was able to safely return to the terminal building on its remaining serviceable engine.

Failure of the RB211 Trent 892 engine as fitted to the aircraft was a result of the release of a single blade from the low-pressure compressor (fan) rotor disk. The blade release caused extensive damage to the remainder of the fan and the intake shroud, however the event was fully contained. The only escape of debris from the engine was small, low energy fragments, causing minor damage to the fuselage and the opposite engine.

Apparently the report also mentions consequences of sustained flight operations in a hot environment, the need for more power for take-off in the aforementioned environment and the effect this has on engines.
Regrettably the full report is no longer online. :damn:

[XabbaRus]

I have been reading that the engines have there own generators so if they keep spinning they keep power and thus the fuel pumps running.

Seriously when you see the video of the water test and the thousands of gallons of water they spray into them to see how much it takes to douse them then you wonder what effect if any the fire hoses were having, if only to keep the engine from over heating.

[CCIP]

Interesting! Just curious as all, the FADEC connection being cut totally makes sense. To me that just goes to show that the failure was indeed really alarming, as it could've cut other things - when I saw that this was definitely an uncontained failure, I immediately thought back to incidents where that cut things like hydraulic lines and proved fatal; I assume that's still an extreme case even for turbine failures like this, but still... whew!

And yeah, I'm almost certain that the 744 incident is coincidence, and probably a relatively pedestrian engine failure that got seized on by media that are rather hyped up on the previous day's 380 incident.

[TarJak]

Until the investigation is done it's pointless speculating on what happened with the other engine. The priority will be to concentrate on the initial cause of the failure of engine #2 then determine what the consequences were to the other parts of the aircraft.

[Platapus]

Until the investigation is done it's pointless speculating on what happened with the other engine.

Whaa?

Excuse me, Sir! But posting opinions totally disassociated from any facts is a important part of the Internets Tubes culture. And especially here in the GT forum. :yep:

Just where would we be if everyone had to wait for the facts and evidence before posting???? :nope:

What if these "facts" conflict with my biased and emotional opinion, huh? What do you suggest I do; change my opinion based on facts?? That's crazy talk!! :stare:

Waiting until an investigation is completed before speculating... where did we get this guy?

:D

[Jimbuna]

Anybody considered it could be deliberate....a pi$$ed off member of the maintenance staff at the airport....possibly refused entry into kangaroo country? :hmmm:

Not a serous suggestion...just a bit of further speculation :DL

[Herr-Berbunch]

No but I did consider the BBC report of the 747 harked back to the A380 and RR - about 50% of the article in fact. They keep this up they'll do more damage to RR than Goering ever managed :nope:

I doubt anybody with access airside would be able to do something to an engine that would cause a fault ten minutes after take off - take into account taxi time and holding, and the time sat on the apron waiting... just doesn't add up to human intervention.

[JU_88]

Yikes, though its still early days for the A380, its probably still safer than the ageing 747 with its dodgy locking mechanism on the cargo doors, several 747s have had explosive decompressions that have claimed lives - because of this fault and Boeing have no intention of addressing it either :o
Why the cargo doors on pressurised cabin airliners open outwards instead of inward like the passenger doors? I really dont understand.

Buts its the MD80's (formally DC-9s) that scare me the most, they have so many glaring design flaws its almost a wonder they are allowed to remain in service.

Search for 'hanging by a thread' on youtube, basically a boeing 737 became a '737 convertable' mid flight, yet it still managed to land safley, that is one hell of plane (and in this case it had one hell of a crew). it reminded me of another part of Boeings history, where B-17s managed to returned home with an astonishing amount of battle damage.
Overal I still prefer Boeings over Airbus.

[Jimbuna]

No but I did consider the BBC report of the 747 harked back to the A380 and RR - about 50% of the article in fact. They keep this up they'll do more damage to RR than Goering ever managed :nope:

I doubt anybody with access airside would be able to do something to an engine that would cause a fault ten minutes after take off - take into account taxi time and holding, and the time sat on the apron waiting... just doesn't add up to human intervention.

Oh I agree, your probably right...just thought I'd throw it into the consideration pot :DL

[sharkbit]

FADEC-schmadec.
Close the firewall shutoff valve. Cuts fuel to the engine. No fuel-no run. End of story.

:)

[Skybird]

Qantas confirms they found oil leaks in all other engines as well. All their A380s remain grounded.

I wonder if and when other carriers who opted for the RR engine, will ground their fleets of A380s as well. If it is a construction fault in the design, and maintenance has nothing to do with it, this step must come sooner or later since then all RR engines on all A380s are a risk, no matter the carrier.

[TarJak]

They shouldn't need to ground them as long as the safety checks they are recommending are carried out: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-08/qantas-engine-blowout-isolated-to-trent-900-model-rolls-royce-group-says.html

Qantas is being extra cautious.

[Tchocky]

Qantas confirms they found oil leaks in all other engines as well. All their A380s remain grounded.

I wonder if and when other carriers who opted for the RR engine, will ground their fleets of A380s as well. If it is a construction fault in the design, and maintenance has nothing to do with it, this step must come sooner or later since then all RR engines on all A380s are a risk, no matter the carrier.

All of them? From what I've heard 3 engines had oil issues.


Regarding the other carriers, Singapore (more aircraft, higher hours) have checked their engines and continued operations. Like TarJak said, this seems to be either extra caution or an internal Qantas issue.

[TarJak]

All of them? From what I've heard 3 engines had oil issues.


Regarding the other carriers, Singapore (more aircraft, higher hours) have checked their engines and continued operations. Like TarJak said, this seems to be either extra caution or an internal Qantas issue.
Correct 3 engines only: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=qantas+a380+engine&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=hmn&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=nv&source=univ&tbs=nws:1&tbo=u&ei=LzrZTLTGJI-avAOpsfGaCg&sa=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQqAIwAA#

[Skybird]

Correct, both the first German news headline and my referring to it was misleading. They initially said the other 3 engines (on the same jet) had oil leaks as well, and I then quoted that as saying "all other engines" had problems, as if the whole fleet were effected, where I meant all engines on that plane. No damage done, but "Sorry!" for the confusion nevertheless.

The 3 leaks were found when checking all 24 engines they have on their 6 A380s. Which makes 4 out of 24 being "non-normal".

Also, the RR engine is not all the same for different carriers, even this one engine type has small variations in design. That'S why other RR-operating carriers say they do not plan to ground their A380s.

If there would be a basic problem with the RR design, it would be good that there is the altenrative by General Electrics and Pratt&Whittney. 60% of carriers, they said, have choosen the American engine so far, 40% the British engine.

[bookworm_020]

This is not the way that Qantas wanted to celebrate it's 90th birthday! The fact that it was also their first A380 in service isn't helping!

I was look at the Trent engines and I came across a mention that the 1000 had a similar failure in testing to the 900 in service with Qantas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_1000

Here is the article reporting the failure

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/24/346509/faa-confirms-trent-1000-failure-was-uncontained.html

GE might be getting a leg up in future A380/787 orders!

[Skybird]

The plot thickens. Singapore Airlines is replacing several of their A380 RR-engines.

[Skybird]

And more. Lufthansa confirmed to run additional inspections on their RR-engines - and having replaced the first such engine.

[bookworm_020]

With Singapore and Lufthansa both admitting problems with the engines (Singapore has grounded three of it's A380's) it will be interesting to see how quick RR will be in fixing the problem. RR could find itself not just losing sales of A380 engines, but 787 (slightly different model engine, but seems to have some of the same issues) and other Trent engine sales.

As many of the aircraft can swap engine types with little issue on newer models (training and maintenance would still have to be addressed), RR could loose massive amounts of market share if they don't fix the problem and make some form of peace deal with the affected airlines.....

[Skybird]

Easa has ordered all carriers using Trent 900 engines to run separate, additonal special inspections. They say that doubts over the safety of this engine model are existent since longer, and rumour says they are readying a package of arguments now to withdraw the operation permission for this engine model.

[sharkbit]

Found this article on one of the trade magazine websites that I get:
http://www.amtonline.com/publication/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=12186

:)

[Skybird]

Again Qantas - fate is really going after them. :o A 767 with engines by GE returned to Perth. Reason: engine problems 5-10 minutes after takeoff.

:hmmm:

[TarJak]

Again Qantas - fate is really going after them. :o A 767 with engines by GE returned to Perth. Reason: engine problems 5-10 minutes after takeoff.

:hmmm:
This story wouldn't have gotten a run if the A-380 hadn't have happened. Precautionary turnarounds are not uncommon.

[bookworm_020]

RR has come out and said the engine problems are all it's fault

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/rollsroyce-reveals-a380-engine-redesign-takes-blame-for-failure-20101112-17r3s.html

Still it isn't much of a fix. There are the oil leaks that have being found.

[Skybird]

Qantas does the Grand Slam: a B747 returned to Sydney, after problems with the engine electronics in cockpit. That gives Qantas four strikes in a row. :doh:

[TarJak]

This story wouldn't have gotten a run if the A-380 hadn't have happened. Precautionary turnarounds are not uncommon.This
for this: Qantas does the Grand Slam: a B747 returned to Sydney, after problems with the engine electronics in cockpit. That gives Qantas four strikes in a row. :doh:The A-380 incident is the only reason you are hearing about these.

[Skybird]

I don't know what you are after, TarJak. I just researched via Google a bit, on the frequency of technical defects and malfunctions being so serious that they damage or crash a plane or force the plane to abandon the flightplan and land for safety concerns. 4 such incidents within just some days with just one carrier is anything but normal, but statistically is very unnormal. I do not mean the kind of "defects" that you have on every flight in the highly digitised computer environment of modern cockpits (German pilot's association once said that their investigations showed that per Atlantic flight a mean of 200 or 300 computer errrors happen per plane, due to the many circuits and CPUs interfering with each other, or software having "microscopic bugs", most of these errors are such that they do not even get recognised by the pilots (I wonder how many passangers would still board a plane if they knew this :) ).

I still think Qantas simply has hit a pit full of bad luck, but the series they have had now is anything but routine, or "normal".

BTW, huge passenger planes being redirected or aborting their flight over technical issues make a smaller or bigger appearance in the news in Germany almost every time it happens. ;)

[TarJak]

I'm not after anything Skybird. Just pointing out that two of these were very minor incidents that normally would not have been mentioned in the news without the first incident taking place. They fall into the category that you mentioned. Qantas's safety practise is to return to nearest airport or not to take off if there is evidence of a fault, even a minor one.

Statistically two more serious incidents close together is not really that significant given the number of aircraft and the miles flown without incident. I would say that statistically all of these four in the same period would be classified as normal. The reason we hear of them is simply the seriousness of the first incident.

[Skybird]

One of your two "just minor incidents" featured smoke developement in the cockpit, so we probably differ on the meaning of "minor". We also seem to differ on the understanding of what kind of atypical cumulation still is statistically "normal", and what not. If considering all airplanes flying around the globe, and watching at their cumulative flying hours, then you might hve a valid argument. But what strikes the eye here is that there have been 4 flight-interrupting incidents happening in short time, and to just one and the same actor. That is what breaks the statistical normality.

Yesterday at Frankfurt, another A380 of Lufthansa was grounded, passengers had to leave the plane after boarding withoiut the plane even having been moved, the pilot recoignised a "smaller problem" with the gear. Even that really unspectacular incident makes it into the regular news - and that is not just since the Qantas engine shreddered itself in midair.

Edit:
I forgot to mention the A321 of Midland Airways that four days ago lost all cockpit monitors for several minutes while being in midflight, and all steering controls were dead as well for the same time. A dead cockpit and steering gone - a nightmare scenario.

However! ;)

[sharkbit]

Continuing news:
http://www.amtonline.com/publication/article.jsp?siteSection=6&id=12223&pageNum=1

:)

[Jimbuna]

Possibly 40 engines @$10 million apiece....no wonder RR share prices are plummeting :o