Qantas A-380s grounded after engine explosion
 

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:

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. ;)

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..

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.

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.

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.

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:

:haha:

True!

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.

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

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.

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.

:har::har::har: