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.

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...contained.html

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

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

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

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.....

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.

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

:)

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.

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

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-...112-17r3s.html

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

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:

This
for this: The A-380 incident is the only reason you are hearing about these.

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. ;)

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.

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! ;)