Quantas A-380s grounded after engine explosion - Page 3

Tchocky · 11-05-10, 03:38 PM

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

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-new...0-0008R1_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 · 11-05-10, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

Yup... the plot thickens

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

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

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.

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):

Quote:

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.

XabbaRus · 11-05-10, 03:57 PM

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 · 11-05-10, 04:01 PM

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 · 11-05-10, 04:53 PM

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 · 11-05-10, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarJak

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.

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

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!!

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

Jimbuna · 11-05-10, 07:03 PM

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

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

Herr-Berbunch · 11-05-10, 07:45 PM

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

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 · 11-05-10, 08:17 PM

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

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 · 11-06-10, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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

sharkbit · 11-08-10, 08:40 AM

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

Skybird · 11-08-10, 09:16 AM

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 · 11-09-10, 06:59 AM

They shouldn't need to ground them as long as the safety checks they are recommending are carried out: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...roup-says.html

Qantas is being extra cautious.

Tchocky · 11-09-10, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 11-09-10, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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=qa...d=0CCUQqAIwAA#

11-05-10, 03:57 PM	#33
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	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. __________________

11-05-10, 04:01 PM	#34
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	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. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

11-05-10, 07:03 PM	#37
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,539 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Anybody considered it could be deliberate....a pi$$ed off member of the maintenance staff at the airport....possibly refused entry into kangaroo country? Not a serous suggestion...just a bit of further speculation __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

11-05-10, 07:45 PM	#38
Herr-Berbunch Kaiser Bill's batman Join Date: May 2010 Location: AN72 Posts: 13,203 Downloads: 76 Uploads: 0	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 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. __________________

11-05-10, 08:17 PM	#39
JU_88 Silent Hunter Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: UK Posts: 3,803 Downloads: 11 Uploads: 0	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 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. Last edited by JU_88; 11-05-10 at 08:40 PM.

11-05-10, 04:53 PM	#35
TarJak Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,052 Downloads: 150 Uploads: 8	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.

11-08-10, 08:40 AM	#41
sharkbit The Old Man Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 1,529 Downloads: 334 Uploads: 0	FADEC-schmadec. Close the firewall shutoff valve. Cuts fuel to the engine. No fuel-no run. End of story. __________________ “Prejudice is blind. There will always be someone who says you aren’t welcome at the table. Stop apologizing for who you are and using all your energy trying to change their minds. Yes, you will lose friends, maybe even family. But you will gain your self-respect. You will know your worth. Once you have that, nothing can stop you.”

11-08-10, 09:16 AM	#42
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,630 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

11-09-10, 06:59 AM	#43
TarJak Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,052 Downloads: 150 Uploads: 8	They shouldn't need to ground them as long as the safety checks they are recommending are carried out: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...roup-says.html Qantas is being extra cautious.