Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A fact.
One fact:
our beloved engine performed perfectly well on the LHRSIN leg (12 hours or more?), we are talking about several hours of continuous operation without a glitch. It cannot be a coincidence that something happened just after taking off from SIN, there must be a link in between the stop on the ground and the accident.
So I would exclude the engine design or materials and look carefully into what happened on the ground. I think this is a fact.
So either maintenance related or "ground related" (ingestion, or similar).
We cannot ignore the fact that engine nr2 had operated for many hours without a glitch just before landing at SIN, the stop at SIN must have a factual significant relation with the problem, whatever this was.
our beloved engine performed perfectly well on the LHRSIN leg (12 hours or more?), we are talking about several hours of continuous operation without a glitch. It cannot be a coincidence that something happened just after taking off from SIN, there must be a link in between the stop on the ground and the accident.
So I would exclude the engine design or materials and look carefully into what happened on the ground. I think this is a fact.
So either maintenance related or "ground related" (ingestion, or similar).
We cannot ignore the fact that engine nr2 had operated for many hours without a glitch just before landing at SIN, the stop at SIN must have a factual significant relation with the problem, whatever this was.
One fact:
our beloved engine performed perfectly well on the LHRSIN leg (12 hours or more?), we are talking about several hours of continuous operation without a glitch. It cannot be a coincidence that something happened just after taking off from SIN, there must be a link in between the stop on the ground and the accident.
our beloved engine performed perfectly well on the LHRSIN leg (12 hours or more?), we are talking about several hours of continuous operation without a glitch. It cannot be a coincidence that something happened just after taking off from SIN, there must be a link in between the stop on the ground and the accident.
The other day the fuel pump in my car quit. I had just stopped at McDonalds... I guess I need to interrogate the entire staff to figure out what they did. Damn them for breaking my fuel pump...
Mechanical things break. Often after they have been subject to a cooling/heating cycle, just like stopping off in Singapore for a drop of avgas, during which I presume they turned the engines off (cooling) and then on again (heating)....
FWIW: the fuel pump in my car had run fine for the 243,000 miles prior to my McDonalds stop, so those ba#@$rds really owe me.
- GY
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With reference to the 2 versus 4 argument ...
It is interesting to note that one of the marketing strategies of Boeing when introducing the B767 large twin in the early '80's as a competitor to the L1011/ DC10 involved a perverse logic .. and that was that the most likely source of catastrophic failure on an A/C were the power plants, therefore the fewer engines an aircraft had then the less chance of a catastrophic failure ??
It makes sense .. but it is nontheless a difficult concept. 30 years have passed and it has been proved to be correct ..
I.Duke
It is interesting to note that one of the marketing strategies of Boeing when introducing the B767 large twin in the early '80's as a competitor to the L1011/ DC10 involved a perverse logic .. and that was that the most likely source of catastrophic failure on an A/C were the power plants, therefore the fewer engines an aircraft had then the less chance of a catastrophic failure ??
It makes sense .. but it is nontheless a difficult concept. 30 years have passed and it has been proved to be correct ..
I.Duke
..... the stop at SIN must have a factual significant relation........
The stresses and strains of stopping and starting at Singapore could well have been a factor of course, so yes, why not hold Singapore responsible !!!!
It is more likely that the engine decided to go tits up at a finite time and had the first sector been to Jakarta instead of Singapore, then the incident might have happened at top of descent.
Garage Years - I hope you got fries with that.
therefore the fewer engines an aircraft had then the less chance of a catastrophic failure ??
The statement I like was that no Captain will ever be really staisfied until the Flight Engineer can say - " we've lost number 8, Sir. " and the Captain asks - " which side "
Join Date: May 2010
Location: SOF BG/EU
Age: 63
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines maintainance.....
Qantas press release 5/11:
About Qantas - Media Room - Media Releases
“The A380 involved in the Singapore incident recently underwent its first heavy maintenance check by Lufthansa Technik in Germany. Lufthansa is a leading international airline, a top tier engineering and maintenance provider and an operator of the A380 itself. Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines are overhauled at Rolls-Royce facilities. "
“To suggest that Lufthansa and Rolls-Royce do not have the expertise and experience to undertake the highest quality aircraft and checks is ludicrous. "
About Qantas - Media Room - Media Releases
“The A380 involved in the Singapore incident recently underwent its first heavy maintenance check by Lufthansa Technik in Germany. Lufthansa is a leading international airline, a top tier engineering and maintenance provider and an operator of the A380 itself. Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines are overhauled at Rolls-Royce facilities. "
“To suggest that Lufthansa and Rolls-Royce do not have the expertise and experience to undertake the highest quality aircraft and checks is ludicrous. "
collateral ground?
One of the of the key tenets of civil aviation safety is that you're not allowed to injure people on the ground. Passengers are to an extent expendable, they signed up to fly on the thing and there's an understanding in the public consciousness that sometimes things go wrong on aircraft. Yes the airlines have a liability, but it is to some extent reduced.
er, good consideration, risk management position, and excellent "fly neighborly" advice, however the Rome Convention of 1952, (Oct 7), "Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface", specifically addresses this issue. (Oddly Australia denounced the treaty in Y2K.... but only one assumes so to ratify the "International Conference on Air Law on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties Arising from Acts of Unlawful Interference or from General Risks", held at Montreal, 20 April - 2 May 2009, which appears to encompass parts of the Rome, Tokyo, and Montreal Conventions neatly). It is an ICAO convention, which ipso facto is a "key tenet" of "Civil Aviation". Even had it's own stamps and everything....
The Postal History of ICAO
beautiful stamps....
a380 operating environment
A further issue has been discussed concerning the operations of the A380.The theory as to this failure although not established could also be caused by ingestion on takeoff under certain conditions.Remember the Air France Concorde accident? Debris left on the runway by other aircraft? Due to the large size of this aircraft and the immense power of the Trent. Air ingested is sucked in from a larger area in front of the A380 including off runway areas on narrow runways not experienced by other aircraft types.Proximity to the ground with such power may produce a higher risk curve for ingestion or delayed ingestion failure than other aircraft types?
A further issue has been discussed concerning the operations of the A380.The theory as to this failure although not established could also be caused by ingestion on takeoff under certain conditions.Remember the Air France Concorde accident? Debris left on the runway by other aircraft? Due to the large size of this aircraft and the immense power of the Trent. Air ingested is sucked in from a larger area in front of the A380 including off runway areas on narrow runways not experienced by other aircraft types.Proximity to the ground with such power may produce a higher risk curve for ingestion or delayed ingestion failure than other aircraft types?
"..... what would have happened if #1 had been affected in some way by #2 and needed to be shut down?" Food for thought indeed if anyone still wants a 2-engines vs 4-engines debate. The latter fly very badly on two engines. Twins fly very well on one engine.
OK, can I use that as an argument next sim to not do the obligatory 2 engine approach? After 33 years doing that dreaded event 2 or 3 times in the sim every 6 months, once for real in the military, it really is, what? very badly? What can be bad is a B763ER at 182T doing a turning OEI departure... or a B772ER or 773/3ER at 645k, 660k, or 750k doing the same, almost as bad as a 4 engine normal departure of an A343....
Last edited by fdr; 5th Nov 2010 at 20:39.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS27LEFT, you cannot make that assumption at this point, that the engine failure was related to being on the ground before the flight. Any number of things can cause a turbine burst including a design defect, a manufacturing defect, or a maintenance error. We'll have to wait and see what light is shed by the investigation.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wokingham, Berks
Age: 30
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hydralics
On another, completely separate, note it looks like the engine ruptured one of the hydraulics systems (Gear doors hanging down and partial spoiler deployment on landing) Can anyone give there expert opinion on this?
Thanks
Arobin
Thanks
Arobin
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One must be impressed and reassured by the determination of the Number One engine to keep on running despite the equivalent of a monsoon deluge administered by the airport fire brigade.
Frank Whittle had a similar problem on 12 April, 1937, when one of his early models on a testbed at Rugby raced out of control and set fire to the rope shed. Workers ran for cover, but FW stayed cool and managed to shut off the fuel supply. That was only 73 years ago.
The Trent engine probably wouldn't even fit into Frank's rope shed.
Frank Whittle had a similar problem on 12 April, 1937, when one of his early models on a testbed at Rugby raced out of control and set fire to the rope shed. Workers ran for cover, but FW stayed cool and managed to shut off the fuel supply. That was only 73 years ago.
The Trent engine probably wouldn't even fit into Frank's rope shed.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARobin says:
robdean says: noted more than once earlier in thread
On another, completely separate, note it looks like the engine ruptured one of the hydraulics systems (Gear doors hanging down and partial spoiler deployment on landing) Can anyone give there expert opinion on this?
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Cairns, Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From and article in today's Australian it looks as though they are starting to pinpoint the cause of the failure:
"Disc failure almost brought superjumbo down"
"ENGINEERS say an intermediate pressure turbine disc in the No 2 engine of QF32 failed, triggering the explosion that ripped through the engine casing of the A380".
Disc failure almost brought superjumbo down | The Australian
"Disc failure almost brought superjumbo down"
"ENGINEERS say an intermediate pressure turbine disc in the No 2 engine of QF32 failed, triggering the explosion that ripped through the engine casing of the A380".
Disc failure almost brought superjumbo down | The Australian
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After five pages of posts, I consider a thread useless. Most of the commenters from there on out haven't read a word of the preceding posts, and the thread becomes like the KuKu bird, which flew in ever-decreasing circles and ultimately flew up its own ***hole.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: On the Bay, Vic, Oz
Age: 80
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst there have been comments about the potential for ingestion of foreign materials on leaving Singapore, given the second Qantas engine problem also on leaving Singapore, has thought been given to other things that go into engines like the FUEL. It would be nice to think that all Avtur meets the same standards, but is that really so?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Views from a passenger....
Was sitting towards the pack of the plane and watching the take off on the skycam. Was clearlly visible that what I initially thought was a puff of smoke coming from the engine followed by the bang and a sound of grating metal.
I'd like to thank the crew for getting us back on the ground safely. I've not got through all the posts on this thread, but a couple of responses to some questions:-
It was announced there were five qualified pilots on board, so lots of experience to deal with issues
There were multiple system failures reported and the checklists took an hour to run through, hence the extended time circling.
The No.1 engine would not shut down and they were trying to close it down by water ingestion on landing
No.2 was leaking fuel, and it was decided to keep everyone onboard until this was dealt with
Please no flaming posts if I've used a wrong word of terminology above, I'm just a simple passenger with a passing interest in aviation.
If anyone has any specific questions then please post them here.
I'd like to thank the crew for getting us back on the ground safely. I've not got through all the posts on this thread, but a couple of responses to some questions:-
It was announced there were five qualified pilots on board, so lots of experience to deal with issues
There were multiple system failures reported and the checklists took an hour to run through, hence the extended time circling.
The No.1 engine would not shut down and they were trying to close it down by water ingestion on landing
No.2 was leaking fuel, and it was decided to keep everyone onboard until this was dealt with
Please no flaming posts if I've used a wrong word of terminology above, I'm just a simple passenger with a passing interest in aviation.
If anyone has any specific questions then please post them here.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: reading uk
Age: 77
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
volcanic ash
Has Volcanic Ash ingestion been considered? I understand that there is a volcano active in Indonesia right now.
How about sabotage. I believe that in view of recent events, the UPS crash at Dubai is being re-examined with that in mind, depite ruling it out at first examination.
Dave
How about sabotage. I believe that in view of recent events, the UPS crash at Dubai is being re-examined with that in mind, depite ruling it out at first examination.
Dave
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@kwateow - Indonesia is where the contingency occurred.
@several other folks - why add to the thread if you couldn't be bothered to read the thread first?
@mods - sorry to add to the cr@p you have to clean up around here...
@several other folks - why add to the thread if you couldn't be bothered to read the thread first?
@mods - sorry to add to the cr@p you have to clean up around here...
RE: Indonesia, volcanos and winds
Indonesia is roughly 2,900 nm in length, so two events occuring "in Indonesia" may be as far apart as London and Riyadh (or Miami, FL and Vancouver, BC).
The Merapi volcano (of recent news interest) is about 800 nm SE of the Indonesian island on which engine debris fell.
The SE trade winds in that latitude do flow from the volcano in the general direction of Singapore and the location of the engine failure. Whether it was a factor (IMHO, no) will be fairly easy to determine by looking at all 4 engines for tell-tale glassy residue, etc.
Indonesia is roughly 2,900 nm in length, so two events occuring "in Indonesia" may be as far apart as London and Riyadh (or Miami, FL and Vancouver, BC).
The Merapi volcano (of recent news interest) is about 800 nm SE of the Indonesian island on which engine debris fell.
The SE trade winds in that latitude do flow from the volcano in the general direction of Singapore and the location of the engine failure. Whether it was a factor (IMHO, no) will be fairly easy to determine by looking at all 4 engines for tell-tale glassy residue, etc.