Qantas Emergency Return KSFO, Explosion in Engine?

[Checkerboard 13]

Qantas jet makes emergency landing at SFO after engine explosion (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/31/BA021F67JO.DTL&tsp=1)

"Explosion" is likely typical press distortion of facts.
Here's a decent look at the external damage:

http://i52.tinypic.com/2uzs7k7.jpg

[lomapaseo]

Well it probably made a decent noise as those parts tore through.

So they will replace the donk and get on their way again

[BRUpax]

Boeing 747s have four engines and "are designed to actually lose three of four engines and still be able to get back," said pilot and aviation consultant John Nance.

Perhaps when the a/c is relatively light, but would it really fly on 1 if it lost 3 dongs at the kind of weight they would have departed at? (Answer from a qualified B747-400 pilot please).

[TopBunk]

It appears to have been an 'uncontained engine failure' which is no laughing matter. In this instance it appears to be the outside of No.4 engine and so on the side away from the passenger cabin, fortunately.

Nonetheless, the engines are meant to contain bits on an explosion.

[Aviophage]

If close to MTOW, a 747-400 is not capable of flying on one engine and there would be an awful lot of drag on the side of the aircraft where the 2 engines have failed.

[protectthehornet]

I've heard that at lighter weights, flight on one engine is possible...provided it is one of the inboard engines sustaining flight.

good job QANTAS crew...the GAP departure out of KSFO takes you near mountains/hills and over part of San Francisco proper. United almost lost a 747 with much less damage in that area...flying so low as to set off car alarms.

[gimmesumvalium]

Ho hum,
Not another 3 engine landing!!!

[DingerX]

In my uneducated opinion, the press is perfectly legitimate calling any IFSD with a partial containment failure an "Explosion". Yeah, an IFSD is a "non-issue", but a partial containment failure makes it a non-issue with issues.

The crew only ended up calling panpanpan at 073712Z, when they finished dumping, so calling it an "Emergency Return" is a bit of a stretch, but permissible in the US (where, apparently, such expressions have no meaning).
(and that makes it 231 SOB and 72 T after dumping)
Oh, and check out this bit of fun:

ZOA (072310Z): Qantas 74, we're in communications with your Dispatch now and they're uh wondering if you know the reason for the engine failure at this time.
QA74 (072317Z): Uh Qantas uh 74 uh, look uh that sort of information — we don't know the reason, the exact reason, and uh tell Dispatch that we're not in a position to pass that sort of information at this stage.
ZOA (072330Z): Qantas 74, wilco.

(kudos to both parties for their professionalism, here and in the whole exchange. Both parties operated at a level of precision beyond what was necessary, even for a non-event)
Other fun facts from the tapes:
The QA74 crew, in addition to declaring SOB and fuel left, tried to declare to Approach that they had no hazmat on board. After three attempts, they gave up.


note: the ATC clips (from tower to landing; although the nerds could extract from Clearance delivery to Tower, if there were a point) are now available at Live ATC (http://www.liveatc.net/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8019.0;attach=4267). Enjoy and

[L337]

tried to declare to Approach that they had no hazmat on boar

Is that an Oz requirement?

What's that all about?

[N1 Vibes]

https://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040528X00693&key=1

[Spooky 2]

Pan Am flight 843 experienced an explosive disintegration of the third stage turbine disk of the No. 4 engine. The accident occurred shortly after takeoff from San Francisco, at an altitude of about 800 feet above the ground.
Disintegration of the turbine disk was followed by a fire in the No. 4 engine area and an explosion in the outboard
reserve fuel tank. The No. 4 engine and approximately 25 feet of the right outer wing separated from the aircraft.
The fire was extinguished and a successful emergency landing was accomplished at Travis Air Force Base, California, with no injuries to the 143 passengers or 10 crewmembers aboard the flight

[protectthehornet]

I knew the son of the captain who flew that plane. you never know when you have to be a hero.

[Standby Scum]

A more proficient sounding F/O on the radio for the latter half.

[costamaia]

Captain Charles Kimes :D

Aviation: On a Wing & a Prayer - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833903,00.html)

[DA50driver]

A pan or mayday is totally acceptable in the US, but since most of here speak English of some sort we can actually communicate by conveying actual information. As opposed to something you think is cool because you heard it in a movie.

I still don't know what the heck Charlie-Charlie means, what movie did that come from????? I hear that in Europe and Asia all the time.

[mrdeux]

I suspect he's not quite as busy in the latter part of the recording...

[Weapons_Hot]

Somebody, please, show me in any FAA, JAA, ICAO or other aviation related document where "Charlie Charlie" is accepted and/or approved term for "WILCO" or even "AFFIRM".
Please!

A legacy from the days of radio telegraphy is: "K" (meaning "over") or "R" (meaning "roger"). Never used "CC" EVER!

[Weapons_Hot]

Ah, yes, I remember those days (such as yesterday's flight), but I still haven't used "charlie charlie" in a mere 35 years of flying/communications. :=

[jtr]

Quote:tried to declare to Approach that they had no hazmat on board

Is that an Oz requirement?

What's that all about?

It's procedural stupidity (IMO) based around the concept that somehow PM/PNF telling Appch, Tower, or Ground that they have 200kg of Cat 4 DG will get the info to the Fire Commander who is now already rolling and flat out with his job, and that he will have no problem working out where cargo position 42A is.

Following a close second is reporting the fuel on board AND position. 160T.... 60T... does it make that much difference? "Oh its only 60T we wont send all the trucks....."

[mickjoebill]

ABC radio Australia reporting that an "explsion tore a hole in the aircraft":ugh:

Interview with passenegr indicates cabin crew did good job but once on the ground they were "left outside in the cold for 5 hours" shifted to a hotel then a few hours later went back to the airport to get on a delta flight where no tickets had been issued, so it was a free for all with the elderly left to "fend for themselves"


Channel Nine Australia has video of the sparks.

Qantas engine explodes mid-air (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/7954137/qantas-engine-explodes-mid-air)



Mickjoebill

[DickyPearse]

DA50driver

but since most of here speak English of some sort we can actually communicate by conveying actual information.


You have obviously forgetten the Avianca B707 incident near New York when plain english failed to convey the extreme nature of the situation. A mayday call is the clearest phrase possible

[david1300]

On the Channel 9 news clip in Australia this is the announcement from the flight deck, recorded on someone's video:

"Ladies and Gentlemen as you can appreciate we are a tad busy on the flight deck at the moment and we'll come back to you with some more information. In the mean time you must be assured that we are trained for this situation - normally in a simulator of course but we are trained for it so rest assured everything is under control."

The pictures don't show any slides deployed.

[Whatsit Doingnow]

Gotta love this gem from the channel 9 reporter:
...the pilot circled for about an hour, he had to dump all the fuel that he had...
Those QF pilots must be well practiced with their glide approaches.

[dream747]

If aviation journalism is this bad and inaccurate all over, how reliable are their other stories in all other fields? It makes you wonder!

[N1 Vibes]

dream747,

I don't think anyone would describe Channel 9 as "Aviation Journalism". More like Fox News with lots of:

"Oh My God! The pilot circled for about an hour, he had to dump all the fuel that he had. And now, a story about a 2 headed sheep from New Zealand"

The serious aviation journalists of this world are still relatively sober and not sensationalist.

Brgd's

N1 Vibes

[NSEU]

Replacement engine 5th-podded to SFO this afternoon from SYD :)

[JW411]

I may well be wrong but I believe that "Charlie Charlie" in the days of the morse key was the quick way of saying "Correct/Affirmative" or whatever.

[ExSp33db1rd]

I thought Charlie shot Roger and took over, unofficially. Something to do with certain Asian tongues having difficulty with their RRRR's ?? Certainly Charlie suddenly seemed to be around in certain areas. Could be wrong of course.

If aviation journalism is this bad and inaccurate all over, how reliable are their other stories in all other fields? It makes you wonder!


We've been wondering for years - but then weren't we told that five loaves and two fishes fed about 10 million once ? nothing new under the sun.

[highland cow]

I wonder if the QF Tech crews and LAMEs' have nice wet pockets after the following quote from Mr Epstein, the $300k motormouth. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/01/2999463.htm?section=justin

[BOAC]

Apropos nothing at all, I believe 'charlie charlie' was from Morse days for 'c c' = 'Message Correct'

[Pontius]

The pictures don't show any slides deployed

That's because they landed, normally, off a 3-engine approach (which is really NOT a big deal in a 747) and then made their way to a normal parking stand. There's no need to evacuate the aircraft just because you've had an engine failure, hence the lack of slides.

[glad rag]

Not having much luck with their 74's are they.....

.Air passengers' mid-flight terror as hole is blown in Qantas 747 fuselage - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4395076.ece)

[golfbananajam]

I see no mention of an explosion in the report linked in the first message of the thread so just where did the sensationalism come from?

['I' in the sky]

mm, that's what I thought too, but then If you read the small print caption underneath the photo, apparently "...authorities said" !!!!! :ugh:

[barit1]

An uncontained failure means the engine case was breached.

It takes a LOT of energy to do that. Think a piece of a rotor, with the mass and velocity of a cannonball, ripping through a steel case.

If you ever experienced one, YOU would certainly call it an explosion. The media get plenty of aviation stories wrong, but DON'T criticize them for calling this an explosion. :eek:

[TIMA9X]

Not having much luck with their 74's are they..... (http://www.pprune.org/Not%20having%20much%20luck%20with%20their%2074%27s%20are%20t hey.....)

Both very different stories, and after all the media hysteria settles down we will find that this incident was handled very well indeed by the crew as it was with QF30 at RPLL.

By Pontius That's because they landed, normally, off a 3-engine approach (which is really NOT a big deal in a 747) and then made their way to a normal parking stand. There's no need to evacuate the aircraft just because you've had an engine failure, hence the lack of slides.
The same can be said for QF 30 taxied all the way to the gate! B744s are tough birds!

y5F-Z2X8OrU (http://www.pprune.org/Not%20having%20much%20luck%20with%20their%2074%27s%20are%20t hey.....)

[twochai]

August was a bad month at R-R for uncontained failures!

[Basil]

Video here. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/7974825/Shock-as-shower-of-sparks-burst-from-plane-engine.html)

Qantas Airways spokesman said there was no fire, but an engine surge can often cause what appear to be flames.
Hmm, IMHO, a little economical with the actualité. :hmm:

[PAXboy]

Pax speaking:
To be pedantic it could be written, "The engine failed with explosive force" but the 'bang' would have sounded like an explosion. They were fortunate that it blew out so early in the sector and neither earlier nor later. I hate to say it but - gimme four of the beasties.

[Shytehawk]

Pretty lucky, dumping fuel with that source of ignition!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Re. any mention of hazardous materials in OZ., if you have any radioactive materials, don't mention it, if you want the ARFSS to come anywhere near you !!
From personal experience.
Tootle pip!

[big white bird]

Not really. I've dumped 35 tonnes. It comes out VERY quickly. We didn't have a source of ignition in that instance, at least not outside of the can (aka combustion chamber). Nor did these blokes as they'd have shut the engine down. Not a spark to be had then....even so, if you're flying at 300 knots there's little chance of anything coming anywhere near the buggered up engine, or source of ignition, if you like.

From recollection, we used "charlie charlie" a lot when speaking with Calcutta and Mumbai on the HF radio crossing the Bay of Bengal. Not saying it was in a book anywhere, only that it worked. Anyone who flew the Bay of Bengal or the Arabian Sea without CPDLC would well recall the difficulty in getting the message across to our Indian cousins. "Charlie Charlie" was merely used to confirm Calcutta's full repeat of one's just-passed position report details. Quaint, by today's standards.

Anyway, well done Qantas. Would it be rude to say "down with Bruce Buchanan" in this instance? I guess not....being the mongrel dog that he is.

[Pontius]

Pretty lucky, dumping fuel with that source of ignition

FFS, stop making bone comments :rolleyes:.

When the engine gets shut down the nasty sparky things reduce to virtually zero. Add to this the fact that the fuel dumping pipes are nowhere near the engines (and the nasty sparky things coming out the back) and you're faced with no source of ignition to get anywhere the vapourising fuel and, hence, no luck involved at all. It's almost as if someone thought of this ahead of time.....amazing!!

Yes, I know I'm being sarcastic but the stupidity of some comments and the attempts to over-dramatise never cease to amaze. :*



Edited to add: what Big White Bird said........he got in there whilst I was typing

[big white bird]

Sorry to be a bore but "really well done" is not at all OTT in commenting on the skills of the Qantas crew.

I'm not saying they're as flash as a rat with a gold tooth or anything, even if there is a rat on the tail, just that this was a bloody big explosion and would've shaken the plane a bit. No worries but, and they got her back on the ground alright and in one piece.

Mr Buchanan should take a pencil, lick the lead tip and hopefully poison himself. Failing that, he might get smart and write down what "went right" in this latest event and what "went wrong" in a Gulfstream out of Kerry Island the other day.

You can check that out here

http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/425784-serious-gulfstream-incident-kerry-ireland.html

or here

Air Accident Investigation UnitFull List of Reports (http://www.aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?id=12639&lang=ENG&loc=1652)

Buchanan's trying real hard to wreck everything that's safe about Australian aviation. He should pull his head in. It's not all about money. I think another pilot said something similar, only far better. His name was and still is 'Sully'.

Anyway, well done fellas :ok:.

PS No worries, Pontius. Timing was mine, that's all mate. Cheers all the same.

[ILS27LEFT]

video from pax here

Esplode motore sull'aereo: atterraggio di emergenza - Video - RepubblicaTv - la Repubblica.it (http://tv.repubblica.it/mondo/esplode-motore-sull-aereo-atterraggio-di-emergenza/52429?video=&ref=HREC2-6)

[DA50driver]

I remember it clearly. They didn't speak English, they told the controller a few times they had "minimum fuel" which doesn't mean anything anywhere. That would have been a good time for them to use a Mayday to get priority handling.

[protectthehornet]

fuel dumping is pretty well understood...

but:

most planes can't dump fuel. the 747 certainly can. A rough guide is really big planes can...smaller planes can't....some 767's can, some can't. A few very rare DC9'30's can...but most can't. Boeing published a detailed list of their planes, and McD's planes too.

When the first experiments of dumping fuel were done, the fuel was dumped over an open fire on the ground to see if the fuel would ignite...remember its vapor by then.

It didn't catch on fire....and the altitude of 4000' agl is generally accepted as minimum dumping altitude.

on the gap departure, one is over the pacific ocean quite soon after takeoff.

[Lonewolf_50]

I had an ASAC who used to use "Charles" or "Charlie" as often as he used "Roger" when we ran ASW problems. He was very old school in a lot of his radio comms, interesting to see the origin of the Charlie call.

I do not care for the media referring to a precautionary landing as an emergency landing.
But I guess it can't be helped. :(

For any members of the press reading this ...

Pan pan calls are for "a problem has come up, I need to land due to a malfunction" whereas "an emergency" or "In distress" call is identified by saying "mayday." Well, that's how we used to teach it. Panpan vs Mayday.

Looks to me that the crew correctly used panpan for their call to ATC.

Tip of the cap to the crew. :ok:

[protectthehornet]

oddly enough, a four engine plane shutting down one engine is not really an emergency...abnormal perhaps, but not an emergency.

(certainly other factors may turn it into an emergency...fire that won't go out etc).

The world is slowly becoming two engine minded...and losing one engine on a two engine plane would be an emergency...

and there is the difference between panpan and mayday3

again, good job to the crew

[N1 Vibes]

barit1,

an uncontained failure is when high-energy debris is released from the engine. I have seen turbine blades puncture the casing of a Trent 800 and hit the fueslage, but it was still classified as contained by RR and the authorities, because the single blade did not have 'high-energy'. If this is a disc failure then it is most certainly going to be classified an uncontained failure.

Best Regards,

N1 Vibes

[mrdeux]

The same can be said for QF 30 taxied all the way to the gate! B744s are tough birds!

QF30 was shut down on the runway, and towed to the gate. But you are right about them being tough.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

I'm not too sure that 744s have DU counterweights Saskatoon....

[FirstStep]

Something to think about,
Assuming the engine is shut down and no fire exists, all may not be well. I have witnessed the damage the the "other parts" that an uncontained engine failure can cause. Punctures of the wing and fuselage, and possible damage to the engine next door( I know, there will be a couple of light twin guys saying BS ) , as I'm referring to a 4-engine type like the 747. I doubt the extent of any such damage can be fully comprehended when viewed from the inside. I guess what I'm saying is that AFTER the engine is shut down, the REAL emengency may be just around the corner.....

On a side note, I do remember seeing a picture of an American 757? that during a ground run up, an uncontained engine failure in #1 resulted in a "chunk" of that engine passing through the fuselage, and damaging the #2 engine. I could only imagine what would have ensued had the event happened at V1.

[sb_sfo]

I've posted some pics of the damage:Flickr: sb_sfo's Photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53543488@N03/)

The aircraft is resting comfortably in AA's hangar, and the 5th pod is coming off this afternoon. Note some debris exited the L/H side of the engine as well, though probably low-energy. Didn't see that any hit the fuselage.

[TIMA9X]

QF30 was shut down on the runway
Oops I goofed Thanks mrdeux for clearing that up...but still a great result for the QF 30 crew and the same goes for the QF 74 crew, both very different situations, handled superbly! :ok:

[barit1]

FirstStep:On a side note, I do remember seeing a picture of an American 757? that during a ground run up, an uncontained engine failure in #1 resulted in a "chunk" of that engine passing through the fuselage, and damaging the #2 engine. I could only imagine what would have ensued had the event happened at V1.

It was a 767-200. That was about the scariest scenario I've ever seen. In fact, a chunk of disk penetrated (and was stuck in) the #2 core exhaust nozzle, not damaging the engine proper, and I believe #2 would have kept running OK.

But given a slightly different trajectory, disk fragments could easily have penetrated the pax cabin, such as happened to an MD-80 on takeoff (Pensacola?)

[barit1]

N1 Vibes:

That low-energy/high-energy distinction is one I've never encountered. In fact, I know of a military engine that had some record of "chucking" blades through the case, and in order to achieve a civil TC, some added protection (external shield) was required.

In that case the FAA was having no part of a low-energy/high-energy distinction. A case penetration is a case penetration.

[Old Fella]

No one should question the actions of the QF74 crew. Simply put, the engine suffered a severe failure (turbine blade shed) which caused a loss of thrust and engine vibration, internal and external damage and an obviously alarming, for the pax, discharge of sparks. The crew, rightly in my view, assessed the situation, advised ATC of a problem and proceeded to dump sufficient fuel to enable a landing below MLW and, after declaring a PAN, conducted an uneventful 3 engine approach and landing. Any discussion as to what they should or should not have done otherwise is pure speculation and serves no useful purpose. The operating crew were there, they had to make decisions based on available information and it seems to me that they did exactly what would be expected. Well done. PS. Inane comments like "Pretty lucky, dumping fuel with that source of ignition" serves only to highlight that some commenting on this forum have absolutely no system knowledge or understanding of what happens in the real world.

[barit1]

FirstStep:
I have witnessed the damage the the "other parts" that an uncontained engine failure can cause. Punctures of the wing and fuselage, and possible damage to the engine next door

The early NAL DC-10 accident in which #3 lost all fan blades is an example. One blade was tossed horizontally under the fuselage, disabling the #1 engine gearbox, ergo fuel starvation.

Some other shrapnel went high and was ingested by #2, although it kept running.

Another fan blade penetrated a pax window, and the unbelted passenger has never been found. :uhoh:

[lomapaseo]

The investigators and regulators take a dim view of any uncontained failure having demonstrated sufficient energy to penetrate the engine casing itself (I'm not going anywhere in a discussion about parts out the inlet or tailpipe)

However the airplane manufacturer also has to design to accomodate (by minimizing the effects of) any uncontained engine failure and at this point there is a distinction made between high energy particles, low energy particles numbers and trajectories.

The good news (if any) from the standpoint of uncontained engine failures, is that disabling an aircraft to the point of affecting safe flight and landing is quite rare now-a-days. Of course on-the-ground events may have different outcomes.

[Groaner]

This might be a little unpopular, but I'm not so worried about strictly-incorrect but perhaps still informative news reporting.

Some of us are experts here and know whether to use an "explosion" and an "uncontained" failure. But the general public doesn't, and the journalists have to write for the public.

In other fields, would you describe something as a "heart attack" or a "myocardial infarction"? A "court restraining order" or an "estoppel"?

I wouldn't mind so much if the terminology-specialists posted comments in the journalist's own publications (but then they might get flamed by the readers of those publications...). There's no real need to go on and on about their terminology here, when they probably never read this anyway...

[PaperTiger]

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/176099-use-term-charlie-charlie.html

[hsuman]

The cockpit audio of this emergency.

Well done crew!

Video - Cockpit audio as QF74 handles engine failure - The Sydney Morning Herald (http://media.smh.com.au/travel/traveller/cockpit-audio-as-qf74-handles-engine-failure-1897737.html?from=newsbox)

[N1 Vibes]

Barit1,

to be honest I'm with you, in that anything that can puncture/damage the fuselage should really be an considered as an un-contained failure. The definition I mentioned about 'high-energy' debris is generally trotted out by OEM's and is buried somewhere in FAA/EASA speak...

Best Regards,

N1 Vibes

[deSitter]

Spark stream probably from the remaining blades contacting the damaged casing of the engine. I don't remember any latter-stage uncontained failures - any other examples?

Man I sure hope the excitement from all these incidents calms down soon!

-drl

[Engineer_aus]

Sparks were definitely caused from the blades letting go and causing bending of the other blades rear of the initial damage. The blades then rub against the casing causing the sparks. It also appears from the image that the disc has failed big time and you can see its on a angle. I suspect that there was a disc failure which caused the large hole in the side of the engine. It is very lucky that it departed in that area and also I am wondering if there was enough velocity for the wing to be impacted? Has happened before. Its also interesting the amount of cra* that people talk on here.

[Ford Transit]

>"Sparks were definitely caused from the blades letting go and causing bending of the other blades rear of the initial damage. The blades then rub against the casing causing the sparks."

The sparks continued for some time, surely they shut the engine down more promptly than that ?

[Capt Claret]

Shutting the engine down won't necessarily stop the internal rotation. There'd be a lot of air passing through what was left of the core.

[N1 Vibes]

Ford Tranist, Capt Claret,

see these photos of the LPT area:

Flickr: sb_sfo's Photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53543488@N03)

You will see that all of the blades have come off the rotor and are now lying in the rear of the engine. Perhaps if it is the IPT disc that came out (or part of the disc) the enormous imbalance as the disc came out, could have cause the LPT to run very eccentrically, forcing the blades to distort and impact themselves and the LPT stator vanes.

In fact one photograph shows blades mising right through to the HPT NGV's, meaning LPT 1,2,3 and IPT blades are gone. Considering this is a large amount of metal and the fan at the front of the engine was windmilling merrily, as the a/c still had significant fwd speed, this would be why the sparks didn't stop for some time.

This is of course pure supposition and rumour...

Best Regards,

N1 Vibes

[RobShan]

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has stated there was flap damage to the aircraft caused by ejected material.

MEDIA RELEASE : 02 September 2010 - ATSB examines damaged plane in San Francisco (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2010/201018.aspx)

Rob

[TIMA9X]

Authorities begin Qantas jet examination | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/authorities-begin-qantas-jet-examination/story-e6frfku0-1225913493809)
Two investigators from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau today arrived in San Francisco to begin their investigation into the August 30 incident.
The ATSB investigators are expected to remain in San Francisco over the next few days to examine the engine and components and work with the operator and crew to determine the cause of the incident.

The engine will then be shipped to maintenance facilities in Hong Kong where it will be further examined by ATSB's technical investigators.



I don't understand, can't it be done / examined by the ATSB in Australia? Seems rather odd to me as QF have been using RR equipment since the B742 days. :confused:

[flaphandlemover]

Triebwerksexplosion - iptv.ORF.at (http://iptv.orf.at/stories/2012140/)

anothe stream if PAX video....

[LeadSled]

TIMA9X,
Maybe because a couple of weeks on expenses in Hong Kong is much more fun than Sydney.
Seriously, does QF still do RR overhauls in Sydney any longer??, or has it been offshored ??
Tootle pip!!

[lomapaseo]

Doesn't look like a disk failure (in the still photo sequence). Looks like an interstage non-rotating part came loose and tangled with the blades. The tangling probably drove the part through the case letting some blades out along the way.

The engine compression system and turbines could have kept the engine running above idle, hence the sparks until shutdown.

Nothing out of the ordinary relative to the time frame for shutdown

back to the overhaul shop to look at assembly details etc.

[gas path]

Looks like an interstage non-rotating part came loose and tangled with the blades
Funny you should say that the RB211 does on the odd occasion have a segment of NGV migrate onto the first stage LPT. Shows up as rub marks on the blade platforms sometimes contacting the blade root radius. Allowable in the AMM for 20 landings!

[lomapaseo]

Allowable in the AMM for 20 landings!

after detection I presume.

So how is it first detected as an abnormality?

[grimmrad]

Seems like a very calm and professional cockpit crew. Classic and for me somehow very british the last sentence of the clip "Ground, please pass to the emergency crews that we are much obliged for their trouble". So you are sitting there, probably sweaty hands, nervous at least a bit I guess as you have a still sparking engine back there - and they send their apologies to the emergency services. Wow, they have my full respect! Compare that with the recentAA exchange with ATC at JFK...

[gas path]

So how is it first detected as an abnormality?
It would only be picked up if a borescope was being done for.
a). Routine
b). If looking at something else.
The 20 landings limit is in place to plan the engine change. (for rub into the fillet radius I should add!)
IF the damage was caused by NGV's letting go. I think the manual might change:suspect:

[lomapaseo]

IF the damage was caused by NGV's letting go. I think the manual might change

From the photos, what appears to be a straight line fracture through a rivet hole and subsequent chaffing on the surface may be a clue

[N1 Vibes]

Lomopaseo and Gaspath,

have a look at this picture:

DSCF0020 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/53543488@N03/4949945434/)

You will see a green and white wire. This is the EGT thermocouple harness, the EGT probes are located at the IP turbine station on the RB211. You will also note the turbine casing has opened like a sardine tin lid. Turbine stator vane or blade material is never going to have enough energy to do that.

As for shipping the engine to HKG, RR have an engine facility here, HAESL, which in a sense is more easy for them to do the work. Because CX aren't doing any major work on their RB211's at the moment, the shop is 'twiddling it's thumb's'. Also geographically closer to Oz than Derby.

Plus a little californian bird tells me that it was indeed the IP turbine that let go. But after all this is only a rumour.

Best Regards,

N1 Vibes

[Mach2point7]

In the aviation section of today's The Australian a Qantas spokesman is quoted as stating:

"The last borescope inspection was July 8. We do it every 750 flight hours, or roughly every six weeks..."

Could somebody with QF RB211 knowledge please advise if this interval is normal for the engine maintenance program, or as a result of an airworthiness directive.

[CAVEDWELLER]

Qantas no longer overhauls its RB211 engines. All the overhauls have been outsourced since last year to Hong Kong. They only have a minor repair capability remaining in Sydney.
No word where or when this engine was last overhauled?

[Mach2point7]

Cavedweller

The article in The Australian (see earlier post) has Qantas stating that it was overhauled in August last year.

[TIMA9X]

By LeadSled...does QF still do RR overhauls in Sydney any longer??, or has it been offshored ??

Forgive me..... I thought the newspaper got it wrong.......:\
I can understand C & D check outsourcing (sort of) but I assume engines and airframes are on different maintenance cycles, particularly if a couple of engines go unserviceable over a short period of time, must be an operational nightmare, am I right or wrong? It just doesn't seem a good economical decision.

By CAVEDWELLER.....Qantas no longer overhauls its RB211 engines. All the overhauls have been outsourced since last year to Hong Kong. They only have a minor repair capability remaining in Sydney.
No word where or when this engine was last overhauled?


Thanks for that, I have only just arrived back in Australia after 10 years away, I just didn't realise how reduced the engine overhaul capability is today in Australia at QF.....:ooh: Wow.

A good point, where and when....

[gas path]

The last borescope inspection was July 8. We do it every 750 flight hours, or roughly every six weeks..."


That's about 'on the money'! for routine borescopes. The frequency would change but only for specific damage.... which all engines pick up from time to time.
For example: combustion chamber distress would be looked at say 250 hours intervals and the engine could stay on the wing for a couple of years.

[ozaub]

Bit off thread but someone else raised the depleted uranium topic. FAA has an interesting old Advisory Circular warning of possible poisoning due to ingestion of depleted uranium during accident investigation http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2020-123/$FILE/AC20-123.pdf. Manufacturers give similar stern warnings about production and installation of d/u balance weights. US Military of course insists there is no hazard to human health from all the depleted uranium munitions blasted over Iraq!

[Offchocks]

djfingerscrossed


As far as I know RR has not lost the contract, I believe QF's A380s have Rolls-Royce Trent 900s

[Bearcat]

The PA to the PAX by the Capt...........was this done prior to or after the engine was secured via the severve damage check?

Good job all round.:cool:

[nomorecatering]

In an engine failure of that magnitude, apart rom the obvious damage, what other damage would an engine typically suffer. I can imagie bearings would suffer a lot of stress from the imballance, would vibrational loads be transmitted forward to the compressor sections, hence damaging parts upstream?

Is there a protocol that dictates all components are scrapped or is a simple overhaul done and components that are still servicable returned to the parts pool.

[N1 Vibes]

nomorecatering,

in catastrophic failures very little is ever reused - if anything.

Best Regards,

N1 Vibes

[lomapaseo]

Is there a protocol that dictates all components are scrapped or is a simple overhaul done and components that are still servicable returned to the parts pool.

Typical protocol is that engine can be returned to service by virtue of an overhaul. Protocols for exceptions generally involve fires which visibly damage external cases, and/or deformations to the load carrying structures (major cases) caused by external impacts (typically with the ground).

For the subject event in this thread I suspect that the engine will be returned to service after an overhaul.

[D120A]

Are we absolutely sure this was an RB-211 powered aircraft? The last time I flew Qantas SFO-SYD, last year, the equipment in use was the Extended Range version of the 744, a 747-438ER. Judging by the length of the (very comfortable) journey, I think I worked out why.

And the engines on VH-OEH were, I think, General Electric CF6-80C2B5.

[Offchocks]

Yes the aircraft has RB-211 engines.

[GodDamSlacker]

Aircraft OJP RR RB211 Engines - nbr 4 engine overhauled in HKG last year, engine suffered failure nbr 3 bearing at 28000Ft on climb, had high vibes & then went EGT Amber 795 C. Turbines cut turbine overheat switches wiring & EGT when it let go. Believe engine is being sent back to HKG for strip investigation.

[Taildragger67]

D120A,

Qantas VH-OJ- series 747-400s are powered by RB211s.

VH-OE- series are/were those bought from Malaysian and Korean and the 747-400ERs; all are powered by CF6s.

[N1 Vibes]

#3 bearing? Do we mean the HP or the IP turbine bearing per chance...

[King on a Wing]

Good job done...no doubt about that!
:ok:

[N1 Vibes]

Lomopaseo,

as prev mentioned depends on the type/nature of failure if the enigne is rebuilt or scrapped. RR recently told one operator, whose engine had experienced only a fan blade failure, that they would not be getting the enigne back.

Best Regards,

N1 Vibes

[kiwi grey]

Believe engine is being sent back to HKG for strip investigation

Seems a bit unlikely. Surely this will be considered a 'serious incident' or even an 'accident' and the engine strip-down would be under AAIB (UK engine) or NTSB (happened in the US of A, aircraft US-certified) or ATSB (Oz-registered aircraft) supervision. You'd be wanting a major engine plant with all the clever toys for metallurgy, electron-microscopy, etc. etc. So not an MRO, a main plant, so I'd be guessing RR Derby.

[N1 Vibes]

Kiwi,

the AAIB travel to HKG, the HAESL facility strips the engine with AAIB and RR in attendance(Haesl has permanent RR staff onsite). Any clever metallurgy stuff is done in RR Derby. HAESL have done lot's of other incident investigation engines.

Best Regards,

N1 Vibes

[lomapaseo]

I bet an aussie beer that the clever metalurgy will be done in Canberra :)

[Feather #3]

I'd suggest that if it'd been a CF6 it would be a real mess!!:uhoh:

G'day ;)

[iskyfly]

An visual engine inspection following disassembly of the engine showed that all turbine blades had separated from the IP (intermediate pressure) turbine disk. The blades of the three LP (low pressure) turbine stages were fractured through the airfoil section of had separated from the disk. The LP stage nozzle guide vanes were destroyed, the remaining LP nozzles were substantially damaged. The LP turbine bearing and adjacent phonic wheel and speed probe were destroyed. The IP shaft was severed towards the aft end.

More info and pictures here;
Incident: Qantas B744 near San Francisco on Aug 31st 2010, uncontained engine failure (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4305467b/0003&opt=0)

[RatherBeFlying]

http://avherald.com/img/qantas_b744_vh-ojp_san_francisco_100831_3.jpg

It shows the blades thrown off the IP and Stage I LP turbines -- along with the departure of a good chunk of the stator housing. Perhaps a solid piece got in the way of the blades and sheared them off:ouch:

[barit1]

I'll propose another scenario - which may/may not be pertinent to the RB.

The fact that the IP SHAFT is sheared is very worrisome - and in fact that may be the initiating event. If this occured first, then the IPT is suddenly unloaded and very quickly overspeeds, since the N3 system continues to run and provide the gas flow. The overspeeding N2 turbine will at some point fail - and it's possible that the next part to break will be the IPT blade roots. The release of all the blades could rip open the case and the cowl, but then leave the IPT disc without a driving torque, so it does not burst (a very, very good thing!)

Maybe someone more familiar with specific knowledge of RB failure modes can comment.

[lomapaseo]

Barit1

I'll propose another scenario - which may/may not be pertinent to the RB.

The fact that the IP SHAFT is sheared is very worrisome - and in fact that may be the initiating event. If this occured first, then the IPT is suddenly unloaded and very quickly overspeeds, since the N3 system continues to run and provide the gas flow. The overspeeding N2 turbine will at some point fail - and it's possible that the next part to break will be the IPT blade roots. The release of all the blades could rip open the case and the cowl, but then leave the IPT disc without a driving torque, so it does not burst (a very, very good thing!)

Maybe someone more familiar with specific knowledge of RB failure modes can comment

Not sure what RB stands for:confused:

I do agree that the shaft separation is troubling, more so because the visible unbalance of the IP rotor looks unlikely to to put much of a load on its drive shaft (chicken-egg question)

The battered off LP blades sure look secondary to the IP debris, while the empty blade roots in the IP suggest either severe overspeed or fire and stretching of the disk.

Sucessful design if the shaft was primary and the rotor disk remained intact:ok:

[barit1]

lomapaseo - my assumption was that Ppruneists would translate my cryptic RB as RB211. Sorry for the excess brevity.

I also assumed it obvious that the downstream LPT damage is secondary. 99% of the time, that's the way the damage propagates.

In any event, I'll be very curious to learn what the experts think.

[Feather #3]

AFAIK, RB stands for RollsBarnoldswick? :confused:

G'day ;)

[barit1]

Interesting. This article on the QF A380 Trent failure (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/disc-failure-almost-brought-superjumbo-down/story-e6frg6nf-1225948586541) seems to confirm my speculation about the QF 747/RB211 failure. The two seem closely related.

[lomapaseo]

Interesting. This article on the QF A380 Trent failure (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/disc-failure-almost-brought-superjumbo-down/story-e6frg6nf-1225948586541) seems to confirm my speculation about the QF 747/RB211 failure. The two seem closely related.


I would hesitate to draw conclusive parallels between this thread subject (B747 with RB211 engine) and the speculative article above about an A380 with a Trent engine.

While I might agree with you about what likely happened on the RB211, the only similarity that fits with the Trent incident is the Rotor location.

Of course we could debate things like this in the more general Tech forum :)

[Capt Kremin]

The QF74 failure and the QF32 failure are related.

[Going Boeing]

The QF74 failure and the QF32 failure are related.

CK, can you let the rest of us in on your info?