Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure

[bearfoil]

The IPT failed for a fault that should have been mitigated before the disc failure (we think). I cannot see it any other way at this point. If this a/c (operator) was violative of Two AD's, we can't very well pin the cavernous casing on the powerplant. We'll have to see. If so, absolutely nothing needs to change as yet in design or manufacture, only maintenace/inspex. There are a myriad of branching discussions to be had, but only hypothetical, and not germane to this discussion. If disc failure a la UAL232, a defect in metal, then there we are, but I entirely doubt it. "Containment" is meant to be for blades only, not discs as has been said before. The brightly painted "blade" in the RRTRENT900 disc ejection on youtube is a FanBlade, and was contained in the fan shroud, a kevlar, composite, honeycomb and light weight structure. There are Fan Blades, there are turbine blades, then there are discs, then Shafts. Containment, here, did not fail. And the engine casing could be inch thick Titanium, but it most likely wouldn't "contain" a disc, anyway. The safest a/c would have enough useful load for only a few passengers, all other mass would be "Containment".

edit. If the AD mandatory maintenance is insufficient as written, there will be a new AD

Has anyone else noticed a slight alteration of the geometry of the engine? it looks (to me) as though the pylon has sagged.

bear