PDA

View Full Version : Renamed & Merged: Qantas Severe Engine Damage Over Indonesia


Pages : 1 [2]

fishers.ghost
8th Nov 2010, 20:36
QANTAS knows small problems can lead to catastrophes.

THE dramatic crash of United Airlines flight 232 at Sioux City, Iowa, in 1989 remains one of the most famous examples of an aircraft brought down by uncontained engine failure.
The DC-10 suffered an uncontained failure of its No 2 engine, which damaged all three of the aircraft's hydraulic systems and rendered unworkable flight control surfaces used to steer and land the plane. The crew had to attempt the landing using only the thrust levers of the two surviving engines in an amazing feat of skill that came unstuck in the final approach when the right wing hit the runway. Television footage showed the aircraft apparently cartwheeling along the runway - an illusion created by the separation of the wing - as the main fuselage skidded sideways, rolled over and slid to a stop upside down in a cornfield.
The cause of the crash, which killed 111 of the 296 passengers, was later tracked down to a microscopic flaw introduced during the purifying of a titanium ingot used to make a fan disk, which propagated a tiny crack that engineers had failed to pick up.
Airlines are aware that small things can cause mighty catastrophes. This is one reason Qantas is taking so much time to ensure it knows what happened to the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine that disintegrated on flight 32 near Singapore last week. Uncontained jet engine failures are rare and an analysis of accidents between 1998 and 2007 shows engine failures are at the root of just 2 per cent of fatal crashes.
Engines have also become more reliable: the in-flight shutdown rate has gone from 0.89 per 1000 hours for the piston-driven 1950s Boeing Stratocruiser to 0.0002 per 1000 hours for the Boeing 777-300ER.
"In the old days we used to pull an engine every 500 hours on the 747s," says University of NSW aviation expert Peter Marosszeky.
"The JT-9s at that stage were not as well designed mechanically and also the material technology wasn't there. Then the redesign of the engines altered all that. Now we have engines that literally stay on the wing for in excess of 40,000 hours, and that's a remarkable shift in the paradigm for these engines. They are very reliable."
All this, as Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce points out, makes the explosive failure of a relatively new Trent 900 on a two-year-old aircraft all the more mystifying.
Engineers have fingered the intermediate pressure turbine disc as the part that wreaked havoc with the engine after it disintegrated for unknown reasons. Containment devices made of kevlar (the substance used for bullet-proof vests) failed to stop parts ripping though a section of wing, destroying part of the engine cowling and even, according to a passenger, bouncing off the fuselage.
However, the containment ring may still have saved critical components of the aircraft from damage by flying debris that could have crippled the aircraft.
What caused the disc to disintegrate will likely be uncovered by Rolls-Royce engineers and Air Transport Safety Bureau sleuths, who have considerable expertise in metallurgical analysis, and parts recovered so far have been shipped to Britain for tests.
The Trent engines are a development of the RB211, the engine Rolls-Royce designed for jumbo jets and that drove the company into bankruptcy. More modern versions of this engine experienced an uncontained failure near San Francisco in August and shut down in Singapore this weekend, but these are viewed as coincidental events unrelated to the A380 problem. Part of the problem, says Marosszeky, is that Rolls-Royce opted for a more complicated three-shaft design rather than the simpler two-shaft design of competing engine-makers General Electric and Pratt & Whitney.
"Rolls-Royce engines over the years - and this goes back to when the first RB211 were flying - always did have an issue with the internals because they are a triple-spool engine, unlike the Pratts and unlike the GEs, and tolerances for operating and the balancing tolerances are super, super-sensitive in variations in oil pressure and temperature," he says.
Marosszeky also does not believe this is a case of faulty materials in the engine or their hi-tech nature. Rolls-Royce toyed with the idea of composite fan blades in RB211s but returned to titanium when these shattered when they had chicken carcasses fired at them to test for bird strike.
He says the components used in the Trent 900 are not lightweight per se but designed for their resistance to heat and stress.
"The issue as I see it, from the things I've seen and heard, is not so much the materials but in this particular case the way the engine was designed," he says.
"In other words, they seem to have problems with oil supply and keeping bearings and bearing shafts cool and free of heat."
Qantas says this is not the issue that has troubled it during the inspections, but it is worried about oil getting into places it should not on three of its engines.
Investigations of the engines is understood to have shown signs of spotting and pooling of oil in areas where it could catch fire.
According to respected industry journal Aviation Week, an August failure of a Trent 1000 at a test site in England was the result of an oil fire at high power. The Trent 1000 is a derivative of the Trent 900 and the heating is believed to have softened the intermediate pressure shaft, allowing the intermediate pressure turbine to spin too fast and disintegrate.
The issue caused consternation at Boeing because the engines are destined to power many of its new 787 Dreamliners and was another hiccup for the already delayed multi-billion-dollar program.
At least three engines have been taken off the A380s to further investigate the oil issue and Joyce says extensive checks are under way to explain "where oil shouldn't be on the engines".
"These are new engines on new aircraft and they shouldn't have these issues at this stage and so it's given us an indication of an area for us to focus into," he says.
Joyce rejects union attempts to claim maintenance issues are involved in the explosion, noting the engines have been maintained by Rolls-Royce since installation and the likely explanation is a materials or design issue.
The airline is also zeroing on the operational performance of the engines after none of the problems it has found have been uncovered by other Trent 900 operators Singapore Airlines and Lufthansa.
One line of inquiry centres on the Los Angeles-Melbourne run, a 15-hour-plus trip that sees the superjumbos leave fully laden at maximum take-off thrust instead of using lower power take-offs common to other routes. A theory is that extra stress placed on planes operating the route is different from out-of-factory expectations.
Joyce has vowed not to return the A380s to service until the problem has been resolved. While that may affect the airline's bottom line as it charters planes and recompenses passengers, it is better than the alternative.








http://secure-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/m?rnd=1289251460421&ci=newscorp&cg=0&cc=1&sr=1280x768&cd=32&lg=en-au&je=y&ck=y&tz=11&ct=lan&hp=n&fl=9&si=http%3A//www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/engine-design-hits-turbulence/story-e6frg6z6-1225949641009&rp=http%3A//my.yahoo.com/

captainrats
8th Nov 2010, 21:11
Who was consulted at Qantas before the RR AD was issued?
Did QF have a hand in the construction and issue of the AD?
Did Qantas not know that the AD was coming, and when it was coming?
Did Qantas know the contents of the AD?
Was Qantas already doing the planning to implement the AD, including scheduling aircraft for engine inspections / module changes and worked out any potential impact on the fleet?
Finally, did Qantas ask RR what they were going to do to fix the bloody problem and when they were going to fix it?
Basically no one was at home In Qantas To ask these Questions

watch your6
8th Nov 2010, 22:48
No one was home to answer them.
When this whole thing blows over it will be back to business as usual.
Qantas management will have learnt nothing and over a few glasses of french it will be "gee I hope that doesnt happen again"
Maintenance protocols will remain unchanged and negotiations for the next EBA wiil be just as hostile.
Unfortunately next time Qantas may not be so lucky
Emperor Clifford has been noticeably silent

breakfastburrito
8th Nov 2010, 23:50
Kudos to Sunfish, great post.
Maintenance protocols will remain unchanged and negotiations for the next EBA wiil be just as hostile.
Why is that? Because QF is just another resource to be plundered & looted as quickly as possible by the elite management before they sail off into the sunset with the booty. Wake up people, look around the world and see what is really going on, we are just a resource to be plundered.

If you want to see how the world really works read "What is Globalization" (http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/what-is-globalization/) by sy5551.

Fred Gassit
9th Nov 2010, 00:59
Apologies for the thread drift but were the old JT-9's really being pulled off wings every 500 hours? I never realized they were that troublesome.

Groaner
9th Nov 2010, 01:02
"Can an aircraft originally fitted with one engine type have a different type fitted later?"

In short, no, not for a modern airliner. Apart from purchasing the new engine type (and parts, repair contracts etc), there would need to be extensive (read, basically complete changeout) of engine mounting systems, instrumentation/avionics and a lot of plumbing.

Basically uneconomical.

The 787, however, with it's all-electric engines, was originally touted as being able to have swappable engine types (mostly at the request of leasing customers, who didn't want to be stuck with a fleet of unpopular aircraft because of a punt on an engine type that turned out to be poor). I'm not sure if that (swapping) is still the case.

alangirvan
9th Nov 2010, 01:27
One example of changing engines was Atlas Air who bought some 747Fs with JT9Ds and changed those to CF6s for commonality with the rest of their fleet.

psycho joe
9th Nov 2010, 01:34
I heard Allan Jones today explain that there are no problems. So you can all breathe easy and go about your business as there's nothing to see here.:ok:

ALAEA Fed Sec
9th Nov 2010, 01:41
Did the other Alan disclose how much the airline were paying him?

Red Jet
9th Nov 2010, 02:06
I'm not sure if that (swapping) is still the case.
I had the good fortune to come across the 787 flight test team for a/c 4, over in Victorville recently and a couple of very nice flight test engineers took some time out of their schedule to show us around their new baby. I asked that very question - are the engines gonna be swappable? - and they responded that it is just a matter of software update and a Rolls engine equipped aircraft, can come out of the workshop the same day with an engine of your choice. As mentioned, the engines are all electrical (no bleed air) and the wiring looms are identical, the engine mounts are the same, so unless Rolls Royce gets on top of this quickly, they may find themselves OUT of the Dreamliner game as operators abandon ship and goes with the competition. I would not like to own Rolls Royce stock if that comes to fruition.

B772
9th Nov 2010, 09:19
Groaner.

Do not forget some B727-100/200's were re-engined with RR Tay 600 series engines. Also engine positions 1 and 3 on some B727-200's were fitted with larger diameter higher-bypass JT8D-200 series engines.

teresa green
9th Nov 2010, 10:36
Pleased to hear times have changed Spotted reptile. They never gave a tinkers curse before, and I doubt if they still do.

bushy
9th Nov 2010, 11:19
I wonder how many hours those engines had run in their two years of service.

SpannerTwister
9th Nov 2010, 12:37
A jet I have flown had two overspeed protection systems; one electric and one mechanical. Either would shut down the engine if the front end (N1) became disconnected from the back end (N2). The electric overspeed protection system was MEL-able. That may be the situation here. Capn Bloggs, You obviously have no barkin' idea how a multi-spool gas turbine engine works. Day 1 of Basic Gas Turbine theory, and they would of told you that there IS NO CONNECTION between the "front end (N1)...the back end (N2)...." The fact that the engine "command" wiring was cut, and the engine kept operating, although at idle power, comfirms the integrity and robustness of the engine and the FADEC system. The aircraft was NOT at all close to a double engine shutdown. IMHO this is actually a far bigger problem then the uncontained turbine failure. Can you imagine a situation (in flight) where there is leaking fuel, that is tending to run towards a running engine, but is being carried away by the airstream ? Now imagine landing and having that leaking fuel streaming into a running engine that you had not been able to shut down ? Say like China Airlines Flt 120 in 2007 ? S.T

The Chaser
9th Nov 2010, 14:39
ST ... yup, add to that ... i'll bet more than few are/have been thinking about the what if's of outa control assem thrust, and what it might do to a very large Airbii fin/rudder :eek:
.
..... did anyone notice the rudder position after the players and umpires had retired hurt after leaving the foamie SIN pitch :ooh:

and ... before the peanut gallery start:-

Reuters Pictures (http://pictures.reuters.com/c/C.aspx?VP3=FlashSlideShow_VPage&R=2C0BF1T20AUW&T=A&H=1)

46 of 58

... I'm sayin' #1 in this case was not runnin' away ... at least not on roll-out .... the upper rudder is showin' near enough to full opposite :eek:. Thank the (insert deity of choice) ...that it (Vert Stab and Rudder) performed as per the tin instructions prior to and after touchdown .... ;)
.
Yeh Yeh ... hat ... coat .... door http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Rose_Thorns
9th Nov 2010, 18:00
I would bet a hard earned dollar that the No1 engine was at climb power, and remained at climb setting during the in flight events after the failure on No 2. Been wrong before, but??..

Makes it just a bit better than well done lads.

Selfloading
9th Nov 2010, 21:57
I would bet a hard earned dollar that the No1 engine was at climb power, and remained at climb setting during the in flight events after the failure on No 2. Been wrong before, but??..

Makes it just a bit better than well done lads.

Qantas may resume A380 operations within 48h (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/05/349370/qantas-may-resume-a380-operations-within-48h.html)

Quoted from the above if you don't want to read the whole thing.

Joyce confirms that in yesterday's incident the crew were unable to shut down the A380's number one engine after making their emergency landing back at Singapore, but he says that up until that point the engine had responded to control inputs normally

Galley Raider
9th Nov 2010, 23:09
Just heard that RR is grounding SIA A380 fleet.

peuce
9th Nov 2010, 23:27
From the previously quoted story:
He (Joyce) says that there were "three experienced captains" on board flight QF32. The operating captain has told Joyce that throughout the incident he remained "fully confident that there were no issues with the safety of the flight".

Well, that's great. Why was I pooing my pants after all?

Note to Mr Joyce: from a SLF's point of view, when I see:

Exploding engine
Flames out of said engine
Bits falling off said engine
Sundry parts impailed in wing
Sundry parts of wing missing
Dodgy engine control system on remaining engine on that side
Trailing stream of fuel
Overweight landing
Suspect hydraulics
Bursting tyres on landing


I think I'm entitled to feel a little doubt about my personal safety.
And don't tell me the PIC wasn't sweating bucket loads!

If it's so "safe" ... why don't you fly your A380s with only 3 engines all the time.

Reality Check Time Mr Joyce. Admit it. Fix it and move on.

breakfastburrito
9th Nov 2010, 23:37
Galley raider, your on the money.

Singapore Airlines crew refuse to fly A380 after oil found in turbine
CONCERNS over the future of Rolls-Royce powered A380s took a new turn this morning after one of Singapore Airlines big jets was grounded at London's Heathrow airport.

Heraldsun.com.au was told the crew refused to fly the jet which was due to take-off at 8.30am (AEDT) for Singapore after oil was found in one of the jet's turbines, the same problem that was detected at the weekend on three engines that were removed from Qantas jets.

The forced grounding came about at about the same time as another A380 owned by the same airline left Sydney for Singapore.

First reports suggest that passengers who were due to depart from London were told that engine-maker Rolls-Royce had placed an embargo on its now-suspect Trent 900 engine which was designed for the A380, the world's biggest airliner.

The grounding comes after Qantas said last night it had cleared the backlog caused by the grounding of its A380 fleet.
(story continues)...
Source: Courier Mail (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/singapore-airlines-crew-refuse-to-fly-a380-after-oil-found-in-turbine/story-e6freon6-1225950849435)

The Chaser
10th Nov 2010, 00:07
Thanks Trent972, that makes more sense!

appex
10th Nov 2010, 00:08
Te aircraft in question is in the air now according to the SQ web site. Sounds like irresponsible reporting from the paper.....

Any other info?

lesluxford
10th Nov 2010, 00:13
According to SQ's website this flight departed around 3 hours late at 1AM GMT today

Going Nowhere
10th Nov 2010, 00:24
Found another crew perhaps?:E

noip
10th Nov 2010, 00:44
peuce,

At the risk of sounding cavalier, which I do not intend to be,

Why was I pooing my pants after all?

Because sadly, too many people pay too much attention to Hollywood's fantasy world of exploding aircraft.

And don't tell me the PIC wasn't sweating bucket loads!

the PIC wasn't sweating bucket loads

He and his crew were just doing their jobs (as demanding as that was at the time). At some point, no doubt the Check Captains were accused of smuggling the Simulator Control panel on board to make the check harder.


If you'll excuse the mini Advertisement for the profession:

Whilst this scenario had the potential to have a significantly different outcome, it didn't. A combination of redundant engineering in today's aircraft, procedures and trained pilots resulted in a safe outcome.


And to illustrate WHY this is a serious incident, something from history:

In 1977 I think it was, a C-141 starlifter was taking off at maximum takeoff weight towards the West (the mountains) from Richmond. As he became airborne, one of his inboard engines exploded, taking out the other engine on the same wing and starting a cargo fire. He remained airborne in ground effect on the Nepean River, then was able to fly a sort of downwind over the flat land to the South of Richmond whilst being given directions by a C-130 overhead and an eventual successful landing. He was so low his radio aids were not receiving.


Well trained and paid technical expertise (ie Pilots and Engineers) are an essential part of the operational formula. Neglect them at your peril.


Thanks for listening.

N

Jetsbest
10th Nov 2010, 00:59
ABC News Radio is now reporting that SIA has grounded an A380 in each of SYD, MEL and LHR. The report goes on to say that passengers were de-planed after boarding due to the urgency of the decision.

Makes ya think! :hmm:

NAMD
10th Nov 2010, 01:09
It makes me think that people who don't really know what they're doing are running around holding bits of paper and bumping into each other. Stop the plane! Get the pax off! Get on the plane! Wait! No? Go! Come back!!

While the people that do know what they're doing are busy trying to get to the bottom of this. Hopefully in a bit of peace and quiet.

WorthWhat
10th Nov 2010, 01:13
Singapore Airlines grounds A380s for engine changes.

The fallout from Qantas's A380 mid-air emergency has escalated after Singapore Airlines today took three of its superjumbos out of service to replace their Rolls Royce engines.

Singapore Airlines grounded the aircraft for "precautionary engine changes" over concerns raised during inspections, an airline spokeswoman said today.

One aircraft in Melbourne, one in Sydney and another in London have been forbidden to fly until the engines are replaced.

Capt Kremin
10th Nov 2010, 02:12
But don't the SIA Trent 900's operate at 2000lbs less thrust?:ugh:

I am the last person to defend QF but this at last puts paid to the notion that this anything other than a Rolls Royce problem.

It also begs a few questions of Singapore Airlines and their much vaunted (on this thread anyway) maintenance.

Question 1. Why did it take you a week to discover the problem when QF knew about their problems within 2 days?

Question 2. Does this mean that suspect engines have been flying paying passengers around for almost a week?

aveng
10th Nov 2010, 02:49
You've hit the nail squarely on the head Capt Kremin. How could SQ clear their entire fleet for flight in just 1 night when the problem first occurred? 11 A380's = 44 engines - I find it unbelievable that they could boroscope that many engines in such a short timeframe. Perception of ideals me thinks.;)

peuce
10th Nov 2010, 04:30
NOIP,

Although I might have put my case forward in a slightly flippant manner, as I am often want to do, I think you have missed my serious point.

To spell it out more succinctly, the punters are sick of hearing the "safety was never compromised" spin from QANTAS ... and many other Airlines.

When, obviously, safety was at risk.

You even state:
Whilst this scenario had the potential to have a significantly different outcome, it didn't.

Hindsight is a very useful tool, but, at the time ... there was the potential for things to go extremely pear shaped. And in my book, that is a safety issue.

And although wrestling a fully laden, structurally damaged, power deprived, fuel spewing monster back onto the ground is "just his job"... it doesn't make it any safer.

All I ask is that the Airlines acknowledge these situations.

hotnhigh
10th Nov 2010, 05:19
Any one with any news on how the rest of the airframe is looking?

DrPepz
10th Nov 2010, 05:19
In an email from SQ, they said that they found the oil stains last week but Rolls Royce deemed them not a problem. However RR subsequently changed their mind and told them to change the engines.

rmcdonal
10th Nov 2010, 05:21
When, obviously, safety was at risk. What do you call safe? Flying is inherently dangerous. Travelling at .8 the speed of sound at 10K is not a natural state for anything let alone humans, and the number of things that can go wrong are huge.
However at what point do you stop and say "it is not safe?" Dick posted a bit about this a few years ago with NAS, "Affordable safety" was the term used.
What the passengers and the public need to know is that yes flying has risks, these risks are managed (hence having 4 engines). Flying is certainly safer now then it was 30 years ago, the growing split between aircraft movements and aircraft crashes demonstrates this (Flight Safety Nov-Dec 2010, p10).

As to the Qantas remark safety was never compromised it depends upon how you view safety. Is flying an A380 on 3 engines not a managed risk that is trained for in a simulator? Sure it may have a higher chance (risk) of ending badly then say flying on all 4 engines but it is still above the acceptable safety standard. In fact if the Qantas sims are anything like mine then an engine failure should fairly standard to deal with, with multiple failures and instrument approaches being the norm.

struggling
10th Nov 2010, 05:32
Here's an Idea!

Bonuses will depend upon safety, says BP boss

Bob Dudley, the recently appointed CEO of BP, sent an email to all employees stating that staff bonuses would depend solely on safety.

The energy company has been concentrating on a new management system for operational safety over the last four to five years, affecting all sites and employees across the organisation. Dudley’s initiative of safety-dependant bonuses are the next stage of this, and all 80,000 employees have been told they won’t receive a bonus for the fourth quarter of 2010 if they don’t meet the set requirements.

A BP spokesperson said that the new rewards structure was “a direct result of the [oil] spill” that occurred earlier this year, in the Gulf of Mexico.

Capt Kremin
10th Nov 2010, 08:47
I was told by a reliable source that at one stage, roll control was briefly lost.:eek:

This crew has earned it pay for the rest of their lives.

HotDog
10th Nov 2010, 09:21
Some inside information from a Qantas friend.



Earned at least a year's salary in an hour or so.
Everyone gave the pilots a glowing commendation for their professionalism & they deserved it.



Here are just SOME of the problems Richard had in Singapore last week aboard
QF32.... I won't bother mentioning the engine explosion!.... oops...
mentioned the engine explosion, sorry.....

* massive fuel leak in the left mid fuel tank (the beast has 11 tanks,
including in the horizontal stabiliser on the tail)
* massive fuel leak in the left inner fuel tank
* a hole on the flap canoe/fairing that you could fit your upper body
through
* the aft gallery in the fuel system failed, preventing many fuel transfer
functions
* fuel jettison had problems due to the previous problem above
* bloody great hole in the upper wing surface
* partial failure of leading edge slats
* partial failure of speed brakes/ground spoilers
* shrapnel damage to the flaps
* TOTAL loss of all hydraulic fluid in the Green System (beast has 2 x
5,000 PSI systems, Green and Yellow)
* manual extension of landing gear
* loss of 1 generator and associated systems
* loss of brake anti-skid system
* unable to shutdown adjacent #1 engine using normal method after landing
due to major damage to systems
* unable to shutdown adjacent #1 engine using using the fire switch!!!!!!!!
Therefore, no fire protection was available for that engine after the
explosion in #2
* ECAM warnings about major fuel imbalance because of fuel leaks on left
side, that were UNABLE to be fixed with cross-feeding
* fuel trapped in Trim Tank (in the tail). Therefore, possible major CofG
out-of-balance condition for landing. Yikes!
* and much more to come..........

stubby jumbo
10th Nov 2010, 09:49
To quote a PR Pro -far more literate than moi.

"Its all happening"

Sunfish
10th Nov 2010, 16:00
HotDog:
Hotdog:

Here are just SOME of the problems Richard had in Singapore last week aboard
QF32.... I won't bother mentioning the engine explosion!.... oops...
mentioned the engine explosion, sorry...

Not bad work for an overpaid under worked pilot of a "Legacy" airline to fix was it?

..I wonder how the young kids in Jetstar would have coped?

Pilots are just Bus drivers aren't they?

Mr. Joyce, care to think where the company and its much vaunted reputation would be today if Richard hadn't coped? Guess who has more immediate impact on your profitability? You, or the Airline staff?

What was that famous line by Chairman Jackson? Something about how the Board and senior management are solely responsible for Qantas prosperity?


You all have just experienced a demonstration of who has the real power in any organisation. The Board and Senior management makes decisions once in a blue moon that affect the organisation over decades. The people at the coal face have the company's future in the their hands every day.

Neptunus Rex
10th Nov 2010, 16:28
Hot Dog

Not even the Sim Instructor from Hell could have dreamed up that little lot. Hats off to Captain de Crespigny and his Crew.

Feather #3
10th Nov 2010, 18:44
Just to put some balance into Capt. Kremin's comment about thrust usage, the Trent 900 has a full rated thrust of, say, 72,000lb. LH and SQ buy their power at a rating well under this and QF a bit more than them. None of the A380's use the max rated thrust of the engine.

G'day ;)

Kangaroo Court
10th Nov 2010, 22:43
The management types at any airline need to remember that this industry started with an aircraft and two prospective pilots who flipped a coin...everything else came later!

HotDog
10th Nov 2010, 23:30
Latest Emergency AD:

EASA AD No : 2010-0236-E
EASA Form 111 Page 1/3
EASA EMERGENCY AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE
AD No.: 2010-0236-E
Date: 10 November 2010
Note: This Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued by EASA, acting in
accordance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 on behalf of the European Community, its
Member States and of the European third countries that participate in the activities of
EASA under Article 66 of that Regulation.
This AD is issued in accordance with EC 1702/2003, Part 21A.3B. In accordance with EC 2042/2003 Annex I, Part M.A.301, the
continuing airworthiness of an aircraft shall be ensured by accomplishing any applicable ADs. Consequently, no person may
operate an aircraft to which an AD applies, except in accordance with the requirements of that AD, unless otherwise specified by
the Agency [EC 2042/2003 Annex I, Part M.A.303] or agreed with the Authority of the State of Registry [EC 216/2008, Article
14(4) exemption].
Type Approval Holder’s Name :
ROLLS-ROYCE PLC
Type/Model designation(s) :
RB211 Trent 900 series engines
TCDS Number : EASA.E.012
Foreign AD : Not applicable
Supersedure : None
ATA 72 Engine – High Pressure / Intermediate Pressure (HP/IP)
Structure – Inspections
Manufacturer(s): Rolls-Royce plc
Applicability: RB211 Trent 900 series engines, variants RB211 Trent 970-84, RB211
Trent 970B-84, RB211 Trent 972-84, RB211 Trent 972B-84, RB211 Trent
977-84, RB211 Trent 977B-84 and RB211 Trent 980-84, all serial
numbers.
These engines are known to be installed on, but not limited to, Airbus
A380 series aeroplanes.
Reason: An uncontained engine failure has recently occurred on a Rolls-Royce
Trent 900 involving release of high energy debris and leading to damage
to the aeroplane.
Analysis of the preliminary elements from the incident investigation shows
that an oil fire in the HP/IP structure cavity may have caused the failure of
the Intermediate Pressure Turbine (IPT) Disc.
This condition, if not detected, could ultimately result in uncontained
engine failure potentially leading to damage to the aeroplane and hazards
to persons or property on the ground.
For the reasons described above and pending conclusion of the incident
investigation, this AD requires repetitive inspections of the Low Pressure
Turbine (LPT) stage 1 blades and case drain, HP/IP structure air buffer
cavity and oil service tubes in order to detect any abnormal oil leakage,
and if any discrepancy is found, to prohibit further engine operation.
The requirements of this AD are considered as interim action. If, as a
EASA AD No : 2010-0236-E
EASA Form 111 Page 2/3
result of the on-going incident investigation, a terminating action is later
identified, further mandatory actions might be considered.
Effective Date: 10 November 2010
Required Action(s)
and Compliance
Time(s):
Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously:
(1) Within the compliance times indicated in Table 1 of this AD,
accomplish the following actions in accordance with Rolls-Royce
Non Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) 72-AG590, Par 3.
Accomplishment Instructions, 3.A or 3.B as applicable to the engine
configuration:
(1.1) Carry out an extended ground idle run.
(1.2) Inspect the Low Pressure Turbine (LPT) stage 1 blades and
case drain.
(1.3) Inspect the HP/IP structure air buffer cavity and oil service
tubes.
Table 1
Compliance time
Engine
Configuration
Initial Threshold Repetitive Interval
On-wing Within 10 Flight Cycles
(FC) after the effective
date of this AD.
At intervals not exceeding
20 FC.
In-shop After the engine test
procedure and before
next flight.
Not applicable (after
engine installation refer to
on-wing repetitive
inspection intervals).
(2) If any discrepancy is found during the inspections required by
paragraph (1) of this AD, any further engine operation is prohibited.
Within one day after the accomplishment of the inspection, report the
findings to Rolls-Royce.
(3) Inspections accomplished in accordance with the content of NMSB
72-AG590 before the effective date of this AD, are acceptable to
comply with the initial inspections required by this AD.
(4) After the effective date of this AD, do not operate an engine on an
aeroplane unless it has been inspected in accordance with the
requirements of this AD.
Ref. Publications: Rolls-Royce RB211-Trent 900 Alert Non Modification Service Bulletin
72-AG590 dated 10 November 2010.
The use of later approved updates of this document is acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of this AD.
Remarks : 1. If requested and appropriately substantiated, EASA can approve
Alternative Methods of Compliance for this AD.
2. The safety assessment has requested not to implement the full
consultation process and an immediate publication and notification.
3. Enquiries regarding this AD should be referred to the Airworthiness
Directives, Safety Management & Research Section, Certification
Directorate, EASA. E-mail [email protected]
EASA AD No : 2010-0236-E
EASA Form 111 Page 3/3
4. For any question concerning the technical content of the requirements
in this AD, please contact:
Your designated Rolls-Royce representative or download the
publication from your Aeromanager account at
Aeromanager by Rolls-Royce (http://www.aeromanager.com). If you do not have a designated
representative or Aeromanager account, please contact Corporate
Communications at Rolls-Royce plc. PO Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ,
United Kingdom. Phone: +44 (0) 1332 242424, or e-mail from
Civil Aerospace - Rolls-Royce (http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp) identifying the
correspondence as being related to Airworthiness Directives.

ampclamp
11th Nov 2010, 00:18
Thanks for that hotdog.
No wonder SIA jumped up and saluted.

Grounding by qf was easier with RR picking up the bills but kudos to them for making that decision.
Did I just give qf a rap? bugger. someone slap me.:\
After that list of defects posted by hotdog(thanks too) give those drivers a medal.:DOfficial pat on the back from those that make it happen, not the itinerants that think they run the show.

hotnhigh
11th Nov 2010, 00:45
Will the bird ever fly again?

Eastwest Loco
11th Nov 2010, 00:52
Hi sportsfans.

Not sure if it has been released yet but just copped schedule changes for 20 November with QF93 MEL LAX reverting to a 744 and noted QF11 rescheduled out of SYD at 2230 on that day. It was a 744 in the first place.

This appears to extend through to 26 November with QF9 which is normally a 388 now showing a 744.

This all looks far from over.

Are we having fun yet?:(:mad:

Best regards

EWL

ampclamp
11th Nov 2010, 00:57
Rumours emerging of nasty spar damage that could be very serious indeed.Just rumours but it is the pprune.

Bleve
11th Nov 2010, 01:25
Yes, I've heard the same rumour (from a first-hand source) about significant damage to a wing spar. They expressed the opinion that IF it is repairable it will be very expensive. The aircraft will not be flying for quite some time (if at all).

They also expressed amazement that given the massive fuel leaks, the wing did not catch on fire.

They were very very lucky.

Jabawocky
11th Nov 2010, 02:36
I was told that the a/c involved was a write-off but QF chose to repair it rather than have it on record as a hull loss.

That has been proven time and time again to be an OWT (old wives tale).


I gather its not done very often if at all but what is a whole new wing assembly worth plus installation compared to a replacement a/c less the spares value of what is left.

Airbus may find selling a new airframe and salvaging parts to be the most viable option :ooh:

Keg
11th Nov 2010, 02:45
The rumour going around is that airbus are going to buy it back and use it as a test bed. Third or fourth hand.

HARDNUT
11th Nov 2010, 02:58
Qantas should just buy some more 747-400 ER's , someone will take the 380's off their hands!!!!

stubby jumbo
11th Nov 2010, 05:57
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2010/11/Total-Care.jpg

Got this fron the RR website.

It made me feel all warm and gooey inside reading that RR:

...."offers the opportunity to remove UNCERTAINTIES from engine management and provides financial CONFIDENCE from managing PREDICTABLE costs"

Oh right....it all makes perfect cents now:eek:

B772
11th Nov 2010, 06:21
The Emergency Airworthiness Directive dated 10 November 2010 will have a huge impact upon the QF, SQ and LH A380 aircraft availability. Every engine will need an extended ground run within the next 10 flight cycles followed by the following:

1) An inspection of the LPT stage 1 blades and case drain.
2) An inspection of the HP/IP structure air buffer cavity and oil service tubes.

The interval between each engine check must not exceed 20 flight cycles. (The engine run is not counted)

If any discrepancy is found during the inspections further engine operation is prohibited. (Not even a ground run)

The down time for each aircraft will be significant and expensive. Some QF A380 flying will have to be removed from the schedule to allow for the grounded aircraft in SIN and allow time for the checks until new aircraft are delivered. (This assumes engines will be available for new production aircraft)

If any engine changes are required it will just add to the workload and reduce aircraft availability even more. I doubt if QF has sufficient qualified man power to perform the inspections for the current fleet.

As it appears the engines are only 'good' for 500 flight cycles due to spline wear and other conditions I can see further aircraft being grounded due to lack of engines.

puff
11th Nov 2010, 06:24
I reakon the person at EK that chose the EA engines on the A380 probably just got a really big bonus for the decision they made !

Does anyone know why QF went with RRs on the A380 when the A330s and 744ERs went with GEs ? Why after such a long history with RB211s and a short one with the GEs on the ugly sisters pushed them back towards GE ?

Jabawocky
11th Nov 2010, 06:34
puff

I think the GE's on the 744 were all about thrust and the 744ER design.

Checks every 20 cycles, you would want to be doing them at Sydney and with a backup plan for when you find a dud. It cruels your fleet.

Maybe having spare engines and a spare A380 on the ground in Sydney being rotated in and out of service would be the only way to do it, having your schedule based on only 4 a/c available at best at any one time. Otherwise you could have more drama's scattered around the globe again.:uhoh:

Not exactly a smart and efficient way to operate :eek:

B772
11th Nov 2010, 06:55
Puff.

The Trent option on the A380 is cheaper than the Alliance option. The Trent is lighter and smaller; being the only A380 engine that can be carried on a B747F without the fan being removed.

I also believe QF were influenced by the SQ decision to go with the Trent 900 as QF were talking to SQ at one stage re A380 maintenance being done in SIN.

RR claim the Trent uses less fuel than the Alliance engine. EK claim the Alliance engine burns less fuel at M.85 than it does at M.83 and is performing well above expectations.

The RB211 is/was not an option on the QF B747-400ER

Ps. All the talk about the massive engines on the A380 is a bit of a joke. The GE90-115B available on the B777 is rated at 115,540 lbs thrust and has been pushed to around 128,000 lbs thrust on the test bed.

Phixer99
11th Nov 2010, 07:14
"I was told that the a/c involved was a write-off but QF chose to repair it rather than have it on record as a hull loss. That has been proven time and time again to be an OWT (old wives tale).

I gather its not done very often if at all ......"


Airbus recently condemned a nearly new A320 for stressing the pylon after heavy landing - not for the first time by this operator. The airline persuaded a repair scheme because a write-off would have an adverse affect on their insurance premiums.

Normasars
11th Nov 2010, 07:41
I very much doubt that the RR powered 380s will fly again very soon.

This will very much test RR's mettle(no pun intended) and could very well send them to the wall. The British economy(and indeed the EU/USA), are basket cases and this is diabolical for RR.

Sounds like a design flaw with the Trent and/or the metal alloy used is not to the design criteria required.

QF and SQ are going to take them(RR) to the cleaners with this. Even though it appears not the fault of the carriers concerned, this is doing enormous damage to their brands.

B772
11th Nov 2010, 08:48
Normasars

The development costs of the RB211-22B for the L1011 Tristar forced RR into bankrupcy in 1971 and nationalisation by the British Government. As a result the L1011 Tristar was late in the market place and never realised its full potential. The planned twin engine L1011 did not proceed and the the A300 was born.

Airbus are 'lucky' they can offer the Alliance engine as an option on the A380 as it appears the Trent 900 problems will take some time to solve.

Normasars
11th Nov 2010, 09:06
B772,

I have a mate who was an F/O on the L1011 for CX at the time, and he quite often says that the a/c was so far ahead of its time and an absolute "sportscar" to pole.

Yes, I can see this saga sending RR to the wall. Massive implications to future a/c deliveries and the 787. As I type this I am watching the news and QF have grounded the 380 indefinitely. Do RR have the funds to pay for this???

Redstone
11th Nov 2010, 09:58
Better for the carriers to work with RR rather than drag them through the courts. RR will survive, a fix will be initiated, lots of engine changes in the mean time the guys and gals working on the dugong are going to get very good at that!!!

teresa green
11th Nov 2010, 10:07
The engineers in the "Connie" years built their homes and paid them off on overtime alone. Looking good for current batch of engineers!:O

LeadSled
11th Nov 2010, 10:40
Folks,
If it has not already been posted here, the AD on the Trent 900 published by EASA on Jan 15/2010 is interesting reading. It is EASA AD 2010-0008.

re: Alliance engine used by Emirates, it is performing enough ahead of book that a new set performance data has/will be certified, not just using "delta" flight plan adjustments.

The Trent 900 apparently does not make book figures, even after a mod. program to reduce the shortfall.

Going right back to the Conway, bearing/lubrication/seals have been a continuing "issue" for RR.

Early days of the RB211 C/D/524 weren't too bright, either.

Talks of an RB211-900 harmonic vibration raises old memories of the QF engine shop (when we had one) telling RR their engines were not balanced well enough in production. ROS were proved correct,when the QF balancing procedures and tolerances were adopted by RR, this had a measurable effect on RB 211 engine reliability.

Tootle pip!!

Sunfish
11th Nov 2010, 18:00
Leadsled:


Folks,
If it has not already been posted here, the AD on the Trent 900 published by EASA on Jan 15/2010 is interesting reading. It is EASA AD 2010-0008.

re: Alliance engine used by Emirates, it is performing enough ahead of book that a new set performance data has/will be certified, not just using "delta" flight plan adjustments.

The Trent 900 apparently does not make book figures, even after a mod. program to reduce the shortfall.

Going right back to the Conway, bearing/lubrication/seals have been a continuing "issue" for RR.

Early days of the RB211 C/D/524 weren't too bright, either.

Talks of an RB211-900 harmonic vibration raises old memories of the QF engine shop (when we had one) telling RR their engines were not balanced well enough in production. ROS were proved correct,when the QF balancing procedures and tolerances were adopted by RR, this had a measurable effect on RB 211 engine reliability.

Tootle pip!!

This is why you need an engine shop.

The alternative is similar to being a dumb blonde female waiting for the mechanic to tell her how much her car repairs will cost.

F.O.G.
11th Nov 2010, 20:35
B772 Said
If any engine changes are required it will just add to the workload and reduce aircraft availability even more. I doubt if QF has sufficient qualified man power to perform the inspections for the current fleet.

QF does indeed have the manpower for the inspections…..they are just choosing not to utilise a certain 20+ man section with vast expertise.

All because one man holds a grudge!!

Jabawocky
11th Nov 2010, 20:44
Well unless that is AJ himself, you would be best serving the airline (if you work there) to walk up to AJ's office and if he is not there wait till he is.

That is the kind of [email protected] that some moron in upper management gets away with and the CEO can fix swiftly, but the BS filter stops it from getting through.

3 kinds of people in the world.............
1. Those that make things happen
2. Those that watch things happen
3 Those that wonder what the F:mad: happened

F.O.G.
11th Nov 2010, 21:36
It's not even upper management.

Unfortunately you can't march into AJ or CN's office based on putting 2+2+2 together and coming up with an emphatic 6…..especially when you aren't privvy to 'The Plan' :eek:

Sunfish
11th Nov 2010, 21:43
Do you think AJ now appreciates the feeling of helplessness that occurs when an outsourced service screws up?

Do you think the Board now understands what "loss of control of a core competency" means with respect to outsourcing?

It is perfectly OK to outsource a function where there is already a thriving highly competitive market from which to choose a supplier from; a supplier who can be changed at will at zero real cost. Examples abound; office cleaning, computer repair, telephones, etc.

As an aside, which airline is going to receive priority from RR? I'll bet it won't be Qantas.

To put it another way, every time I'm buying a new car I ask the same question; "Are the official service manuals available for purchase?" If the answer is no I walk away. I spent my weekly flying money on buying a new set of front disks for the 'cruiser and put them on yesterday. It actually stops now.

Short_Circuit
11th Nov 2010, 22:18
QF does indeed have the manpower for the inspections…..they are just choosing not to utilise a certain 20+ man section with vast expertise.

they also choose not to utilise a 500+ man section (Qantas Engineering, SYD) with vast expertise. Instead outsource the entire maintenance to "Team A380", All because one man holds a grudge!!

chuboy
11th Nov 2010, 22:31
RE: Post #300

Thanks for the info HotDog but everybody let's not forget that the media are watching this page closely... compare the list in this article with HotDog's post and a copy and paste job appears clear as day!

Qantas 'scarebus' QF32 was a flying wreck | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/qantas-scarebus-qf32-was-a-flying-wreck/story-e6frfq80-1225952363505)

Perhaps keeping speculation to a minimum is best at the moment...

peuce
11th Nov 2010, 23:29
Perhaps keeping speculation to a minimum is best at the moment...

I disagree.
If something's appears a bit smelly and no one appears to be doing anything about it (who should) ... then why not involve a larger investigative audience?

The Sunstate Thread is a good example ...

dragon man
12th Nov 2010, 03:44
Press conference tonight from Rolls Royce at either 1800 or 1900 Sydney time. I believe a fix will be announced. Dont know how long it will take.

Short_Circuit
12th Nov 2010, 03:51
Heard on the radio news it is a software fix? :confused:

dragon man
12th Nov 2010, 04:01
You are correct. It will shut the engine down before the catastrophic failure can occur. Personally i dont think its an acceptable fix, you still have the problem that caused the failure in the first place.

chuboy
12th Nov 2010, 04:34
If it means the operators are able to fly without worrying about the engine exploding then it is better than no fix and keeping the aircraft grounded.

If it is indeed a major design flaw airlines don't want to sit around and wait for RR to design, test and get certified a Mark II engine while their aircraft sit on the ground...

Keg
12th Nov 2010, 05:19
Great. Still lots of diversions with an engine out aeroplane. Is Urumqi suitable for the A380? Tashkent? Almaty? Ashgabat? :ok:

airtags
12th Nov 2010, 05:57
given the lack of success with software patches on the 380 for everything else, it hardly inspires confidence. The potential issue still remains.

Interestingly, the liklihood and consequence hardly makes this 'control' an effective mitigator. Guess the Q Risk Matrix is about to have some modifications of its own.

On non Pacific operations the question of commercial viability must also be raised as compliance with the AD will see the a/c back in the hanger potentially on a weekly basis.

Stby for the '$afety first' cliches to get another run

AT

Short_Circuit
12th Nov 2010, 06:06
Just wondering how well an A380 climbes out on 4 engines at idle, if the software kicks in? :8

Trent 972
12th Nov 2010, 06:09
Maybe I should be a truck driver. Hey Mav you know the name of that truck driving school. Truck Master I think. I might need that. :{

Jabawocky
12th Nov 2010, 06:45
Just wondering how well an A380 climbes out on 4 engines at idle, if the software kicks in? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/nerd.gif

No Kidding!! :eek:

At the rate they have found dud engines that is not likely but statistically quite possible.

You would hope they have some overriding management code that lets you know if one goes close to shutting down, before it actually does and then alerts you as to the state of others. Giving you time to divert.

Non Etops routes perhaps for a 4 holer :hmm:

blow.n.gasket
12th Nov 2010, 09:35
4 burning, nothing turning!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif(it appears may now be possible)

God bless the Sarah Jessica Parker!
Mon dieu, sacre bleu,
Is this now becoming the cheese eating surrender monkys revenge on the rest of the world?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/icon25.gif

Sunfish
12th Nov 2010, 18:39
The bearing retainer for the IP shaft bearing is to be strengthened and a software patch is issued to shut the engine down if "something" occurs.

Guessing between the lines from the newspaper article; It sounds like RR apparently had already redesigned the bearing retainer/box/housing probably because it was aware that it was distorting under load and allowing oil to get where it wasn't supposed to be in some circumstances.

No problems with that, modifications happen all the time as experience accumulates. The part concerned is probably an elegant tracery of Inconel that might just be a poofteenth too thin..

QF engine that failed apparently didn't have this mod, which probably suggests that RR didn't think it was that critical.

Considering that QF apparently no longer even has the engineering skills to modify a cockpit door lock (Dash 400), and that the A380 engines are owned by RR, QF merely paying a low hourly charge for their use, would there be anyone at Qantas who even knew that RR was having problems with this engine? Would Qantas even have an IPC for the engine? Did QF know that RR made a modification to production and why it made it? Does QF run configuration management on its Trent 972 engine modules or is that left to RR? Would it know which modules had the old or the new part? Would Qantas have had the option of requiring the mod to be made to its engines, or does it have to take what RR gives it?


Exactly how in 2010 is Qantas managing the supply of propulsion to it's aircraft? ....Or is Rolls Royce giving us ignorant colonials what it thinks we deserve? We lost the Westgate Bridge that way.


P.S. "Software patches" have a way of introducing more bugs.


A380 fire: only new engines were fixed


ENGINE-MAKER Rolls-Royce modified its newer Trent 900 aircraft engines to address a potentially dangerous oil leak.

But it failed to fix the issue on older engines such as the one that exploded on a Qantas Airbus near Singapore last week.

The disparity was revealed by a senior Airbus executive yesterday as he explained two fixes the British engineering firm was proposing to get airlines hit by the problem back in the air.

The repairs and an offer by Airbus to send new engines from its production line could lead to the first of the Qantas A380 fleet being back in the air as early as next week.

........

Rolls-Royce has produced software that will shut down a Trent 900 engine before it has turbine disc failure, like the one that destroyed the QF32 engine near Singapore and extensively damaged the plane.

It will also install a part, believed to be a bearing box, in engines aimed at preventing the oil leak thought responsible for the fire that caused the intermediate pressure turbine disc to disintegrate.

News that the modifications have already been made to newer Rolls-Royce engines has raised questions about why the engine-maker did not address the problem on older models before last week's spectacular failure.

Rolls-Royce, which faces a hefty compensation bill and is copping flak for its public handling of the explosion, issued a statement last night. It confirmed that the failure of "a specific component in the turbine area of the engine" on QF32 had caused an oil fire that led to the disintegration of the IP turbine disc.

"Our process of inspection will continue and will be supplemented by the replacement of the relevant module according to an agreed program," it said.

...........................

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce said yesterday the airline believed it would be just days before the first A380 flew again.

Mr Leahy said Airbus had not yet seen any signs the Qantas incident had damaged its brand.

A380 fire: only new engines were fixed | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/a380-fire-only-new-engines-were-fixed/story-e6frg6nf-1225952927654)

hotnhigh
12th Nov 2010, 21:56
Keep asking the questions sunfish. You never know who is listening out there. Mind you it wouldn't be clifford and the likes after the "senior management only" gig yesterday.

Oakape
13th Nov 2010, 05:44
Rolls-Royce has produced software that will shut down a Trent 900 engine before it has turbine disc failure

Great! Now we have the aircraft able to shut down an engine without input from the pilots.

Can't wait for the first software glitch to shut down a perfectly servicable engine. Hopefully it won't be all 4 at once!

But of course "it can't happen" can it?

Short_Circuit
13th Nov 2010, 06:14
Of cause not, nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong ...., .... ......, ..... ,:\

Eureka Pete
13th Nov 2010, 11:34
Computer driven systems instead of computer assisted systems!

Piano Man
13th Nov 2010, 12:31
I wonder if any A380 current or future operators would be reconsidering the 747-8I :ok:

AnQrKa
13th Nov 2010, 16:18
"Great! Now we have the aircraft able to shut down an engine without input from the pilots."

I think you will find the software fix results in setting the engine at idle as apposed to shutting it down.

This is something that Airbus has been designed to do for 25 years, its nothing new.

Welcome to the new world. Is a software glitch any more concerning than a rudder hardover? Or fuel icing flaming out both engines?

Oakape
13th Nov 2010, 16:51
Is a software glitch any more concerning than a rudder hardover? Or fuel icing flaming out both engines?


I would have to say yes. A software glitch can be much more difficult to prove/find/replicate, and is therefore harder to fix. It can also manifest itself in many different ways, making it difficult to develop procedures to deal with the problem before the fix is found & implemented.

It has also been my experience that engineers tend to dismiss these sort of problems as 'finger trouble' on the part of the pilot. If the machine & it's computers are designed not to do something, people find it hard to accept that it can actually do the very thing it was designed not to do.

A number of years ago I was flying the 767. In the cruise, when you changed the altitude in the MCP, the selected altitude would appear in the FMC scratchpad. This would make it easier to make the change to the cruise altitude in the FMC - just line select it in & execute. We were told that the system was designed to only send the signal one way - from the MCP to the FMC. A signal couldn't travel the other way, from the FMC to the MCP.

Well it happened to me not once, but twice. An altitude appeared in the scratch pad without any pilot input & then the MCP altitude changed to match. The first time I didn't immediately notice the MCP change, as I was looking at the FMC wondering how the altitude had magically appeared in the scratch pad. The second time it happened (different day, different airframe) I immediately looked at the MCP & witnessed the digits in the altitude window rolling to match the altitude in the FMC sratchpad.

oicur12.again
13th Nov 2010, 17:45
The 767 was developed when the Vic20 was flashmate and the commodore 64 was a dream.

"A number of years ago"

I suspect times have changed in aviation software too.

breakfastburrito
13th Nov 2010, 19:59
Welcome to the new world. Is a software glitch any more concerning than a rudder hardover? Or fuel icing flaming out both engines?
AnQrKa, the issue with software vs mechanical is this.
Whilst no watch maker, I'm sure there would be relatively few "classic" watch mechanism designs - a function of the physical nature of the mechanism. Even a new design would be easily understood by an expert watchmaker who had not seen it before, and its design limitations would be relatively easy to imagine.

However, software is infinitely variable, precisely because it is not limited by the physical - it is only limited by the imagination of its creator. On the one hand this offers an enormous opportunity to free a device from the physical world's constraints. However, there are downsides. Complexity & lack of standardisation. Whilst there are coding principles & techniques, looking over thousand, or hundreds of thousand of lines of code & abstracting that back to a complex working program is not what the human brain does well. A new software engineer looking through code may not pick up a critical, but subtle flaw. Further, unlike a mechanical device that literally has thousands of ground engineers examining a component out on the line, monitoring performance & noticing flaws, software "black box" solutions have a limited number of eyes to examine the code.

It is not obvious that flaws in software can lurk for years or decades prior to discovery. Developer fixes 33-year-old Unix bug (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9108978/Developer_fixes_33_year_old_Unix_bug).

This is software's Achilles heel, the promise of infinite variability leads to the consequence of infinite complexity.

Sunfish
13th Nov 2010, 20:13
what would have happened if the disk had gone into the electronics bay and taken out the computers?

airtags
13th Nov 2010, 21:23
Sunfish - your pitch is quite valid although a few people would be no more if the debris got that far (let's not mention where the avionics are located)

The extent of the damage to OQA, including the loss of so many essential systems is undeniable testimony to the fact that you just can't isolate 'the engine' as the risk and mitigate it by proclaiming a 'band aid' software patch.

The incident has also identified a number of other risk potentials/flaws in the redundancy fetures of the aircraft's design.

Aside from the sidebar questions about what prior knowledge of the risk that RR/QF & ors., had - the significant questions now relate to the integrity of the "fix".

These questions include: (journos pls write them down for use at the next AJ stand up)

1. Given the 380's history of software problems - everything from main gear, cabin pressure, to emergency lights, what aceptance (flight) testing and assurance will crew have that the 'patch' will actually work?

2. Will the 'patch' override pilot command? (remember the 330 !!)

3. Will the software be tested in flight inc., in non routine events? - In such circumstances whose cmds are subordinate - pilot or software?

4. Even with a change of the type of seals used, the physical design of the engine remains unchanged, therefore the actual risk still remains. Will QF abandon it's risk matrix & SMS protocols in order to put the 380's back up?

5. Assuming the current A.D. remains, QF will be self managed in the prescribed checks. Will it be done every 10 cycles, or will it be taken out to the max 20 cycles?...or in the absence of Regulatory oversight, will it slip (as is the QF way) due to operational needs? (eg., OQF and the tea towel in the door fix last April)

6. Who will carry out the inspections - can RR & QF be trusted to self audit? The pressure to sign out an aircraft is already immense.

7. What is QF's position if further adverse findings are made during an inspection after reinstatement of operations? - will the fleet be immediately grounded or will they roll the dice and hope it is still a 'one off'?

8. The 'rolling reinstatement of ops' that QF internally is running with 72 hour status reviews, suggests that pending RR, QF will seek to return the 380 to ops prior to the ATSB interim report. This raises questions in connection with the effectiveness of the CASA/ATSB joint Regulatory environment.

9. Was told that last week QF advised CC that the soon to be delivered a/c 7, 8 & 9 all have "already received the RR mods and the a/c have been 'tested' and approved?" - When was the mod carrid out?, When was it tested and what was the test methodology? Given the conditions of the current A.D., who has approved it?

It certainly seems that the underscore will be more about trust and integrity - two things that are a little light on at Q these days.

AT :E

Oakape
14th Nov 2010, 01:22
The 767 was developed when the Vic20 was flashmate and the commodore 64 was a dream.

"A number of years ago"

I suspect times have changed in aviation software too.


I was simply using something I have personally experienced, rather than hearsay, to illustrate a point.

I don't suspect that times have changed - I know they have. However, I don't believe that the issue I was talking about has changed at all.

oicur12.again, perhaps you should take a couple of steps back & have a look at the forest.

Helmut Smokar
14th Nov 2010, 02:09
A software patch that prevents the engine getting to the point of disk fracture has to be a plus, I guess it probably looks for indication of turbine overspeed and idles the engine hopefully prior to disintegration?
Given the catastrophic results of such a failure, even if they are rare, I'm ok with it :ok:

QFBUSBOY
14th Nov 2010, 05:32
There has not much mention being made of the previous Qantas management under Geoff Dixon's stewardship that put in place this train of events. All these woes are as a result of decisions that were made in the previous 5 to 10 years.



If you outsource your maintenance, always take the lowest quote possible, let your money making machines leave Base & Heavy Maintenance with deferred items in the Tech Log, then this was always going to be the result.



Qantas management thought that the Engineers industrial action did major damage to the brand, well its about time that they shoulder the blame for this debacle. This is far worse in terms of damage to the airline. The root problem is not the A380, it is a culmination of top management decisions related to running the airline. Its everything from pilots, to cabin crew, to engineering,to ramp staff, to cleaners,to check in staff, etc. This list goes on. It is having managers in engineering who have no engineering background, but rather Bachelor of Arts majoring in Australian History. It is this sort of people we have running an airline. I am not saying that they don't try to do the right thing, but you have to question the reason for people with no technical knowledge in positions of managing a business that is highly reliant on knowing what the outcomes are for not managing your equipment properly. It is understandable that the CEO is not a pilot or engineer, but when your middle management don't have the right qualifications for the position, then it is only a matter of time. Alan Joyce and previously Geoff Dixon have gone on the record stating that these new aircraft require less maintenance. I don't know if they have noticed, but geez, all the engineers I know have never been so busy. If this is how they are brand new, God help us when they start to age and require Major Maintenance. I am sorry to say, but we as employees are in REAL trouble for the future.



Its always great to have the newest toy on the block, but when it doesn't perform as advertised and you don't seek proper recompense for what damage is being done to the brand, then you would expect staff and the public to lose faith in the managers making these critical decisions. Maybe its time to really listen to some of your staff on the floor, and not your Yes men/women, and stop paying lip service through Employee Engagement Surveys. It might also be a good idea to trot out some of your Senior pilots and engineers to explain what is really happening to your aircraft. Sorry Alan, but some of your explanations of Technical detail leave a lot to be desired. It might sound good to the media(who have no clue) but even Technical people can explain things in layman's terms. In my own opinion, Qantas would look far more professional if the explanations were from experts in their field, and not from people who have no technical knowledge.

Short_Circuit
14th Nov 2010, 07:09
QFBUSBOY,

A realistic statement of the state of affairs. A lot unsaid though.

Any word of the OQA wright off / buy back?

ALAEA Fed Sec
14th Nov 2010, 08:02
Nice post bus boy.

In short, Alan and his spokesmodel keep saying that this is not a maintenance issue. It is.

This issue is about maintenance that was not carried out.

601
14th Nov 2010, 08:13
It has also been my experience that engineers tend to dismiss these sort of problems as 'finger trouble' on the part of the pilot. If the machine & it's computers are designed not to do something, people find it hard to accept that it can actually do the very thing it was designed not to do.

We had a omega nav system that would display and indicate us on a track that was in the opposite direction to our planned and actual track. The catch was that it only happened from one location that we flew out of on a weekly basis. The fault did not appear at any other departure points The manufacturer said it was impossible - could not happen.

If the unit was reset after departure it would then work fine.

Trouble was we could replicate the fault on every departure from this particular location. We recorded the lat.long readings over several flights and passed them on to the manufacturer. They asked for the unit and we received a new replacement unit.

No explanation was forthcoming.

So software can have hidden bugs that the developers cannot foresee.

How many time have you sat at a computer and wondered "why did it do that"

A pilot will to react in a particular situation an a certain way, based on their training, knowledge and experience. A computer programmer may have the knowledge to program a system for x number of foreseeable events. But as we know there is always a situation that comes out of left field you will need experience for.

Sunfish
14th Nov 2010, 09:12
The European airworthiness directive was issued in January 2010. It required repetitive inspections of the IP turbine splined coupling, measurement of the amount of meat left in it and requirement for further inspection or engine replacement as a result.

Did QF carry out these inspections? Were RR supposed to carry them out? Were they performed at all? What were the results of the inspections? What decisions were made by QF and/or RR as a result of these inspections assuming they were carried out? Did QF make a decision at all? Was it RR's call?

Exactly who is responsible for what? What did they know, and when did they know it?

Exactly what is going on? The silence is deafening.

airtags
14th Nov 2010, 09:19
Fed Sec
100% on the money ($afetyfirst!)

Theissue is now not only that maintenance was not done, but moreover how can passengers and operating aircrew be assured that it will will be in the future.

Just like if the car comes back from the carwash with smears on the windscreen - you start looking to see what else has been missed.

AT

empire4
14th Nov 2010, 10:43
Just watched a video of 747-800 pax version going together.....I wonder if Qf will wake up to themselves and make an order. The Jumbo has been serving the airline proudly for how long? maybe they should buy a few russian aircraft next!

topend3
14th Nov 2010, 11:46
all of the above questions will no doubt be answered in the final atsb report I would presume? will make for interesting reading...

The Professor
14th Nov 2010, 22:09
FedSec

"This issue is about maintenance that was not carried out."

Every airline defers maintenance. It is not illegal.

Are you suggesting that QF deliberately ignored a directive from the manufacturer to undertake a rectification that would have prevented the A380 incident?

PACIFIC BARON
14th Nov 2010, 23:42
from the Brisbane Tmes

THE British jet-engine maker Rolls-Royce has told Qantas that it is likely to have to replace another seven engines on its A380 superjumbo fleet after inspections found the potential for oil leaks. Singapore Airlines is also believed to have been informed that it will have to change up to 20 of the Trent 900 engines used on its fleet of 11 A380s, while the German airline Lufthansa faces two replacements.
The latest advice from Rolls-Royce means up to 29 replacement engines will have to be found. It confirmed on Friday that the failure of a ''specific component in the turbine area of the engine'' on a Qantas A380 on November 4 shortly after take-off from Singapore caused an oil fire that led to a turbine disc exploding.
The need for replacement engines creates headaches for the three airlines whose A380s are powered by the Rolls-Royce Trent 900s due to a lack of spares. Because the A380 superjumbos are such new aircraft, Rolls-Royce and the aircraft manufacturer Airbus do not have a ready supply of engines. Qantas has already had discussions with Airbus and Rolls-Royce about obtaining replacement engines should they be required, placing it ahead of Singapore Airlines and Lufthansa. However, the likelihood of further engine changes means it could take longer for Qantas to return its A380s to service and cost it more in lost revenue.
''The longer it goes on the worse it gets for them - they don't want those planes out of service for too long,'' an analyst said. Qantas has so far replaced three engines on three separate aircraft since it grounded its A380 fleet on November 4 but has been told by Rolls-Royce that it could have to replace as many as seven more. Even if some do not have to be changed, engineers are likely to have to make modifications to the engines.
Singapore Airlines grounded three A380s last week to allow for three engines to be replaced. Two of the aircraft have since returned to service while the engine change to the other A380 is almost complete. It takes up to 36 hours to replace an engine.
A spokesman for Singapore Airlines, Nicholas Ionides, said last night that he could not ''speak definitely'' about the number of engines that might have to be changed because investigations had not been completed.
Qantas said it was continuing to inspect engines on its A380s to meet the requirements under the airworthiness directive issued last week by the European Aviation Safety Agency.
Meanwhile, air-safety investigators have discovered that the audio from QF32's cockpit voice recorder at the time of the engine failure has been lost. The safety bureau said the audio was overwritten because the recorder, which is on a continuous loop, taped the pilots for more than two hours after the engine blew.
A bureau spokesman, Richard Batt, said the loss of the audio was not a significant issue.

PACIFIC BARON
15th Nov 2010, 00:00
from The Australian, by Steve Creedy

ABOUT half the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines powering Airbus A380s, including 14 Qantas engines, will need to be taken off and dismantled.

The process would fix components involved in a potentially dangerous oil leak.
The Australian has been told about 40 engines on the 20 A380s operated by Qantas, Singapore Airlines and Lufthansa need to be modified to fix the leaks. This includes 24 at Singapore Airlines and two at Lufthansa.
The modification, described by Rolls-Royce as the replacement of a module and understood to involve a bearing box, requires the engines to be taken off the wing and stripped down so engineers can access the affected area.
Industry players expect the work to strain both resources and parts availability and say the British manufacturer is looking at establishing stations around the world to do the work.
The modifications aim to prevent a repeat of an oil fire blamed for the disintegration of a turbine disc that saw a Qantas Trent 900 rip itself apart, peppering the wing of an A380 with shrapnel and causing substantial damage.
Rolls also plans to introduce a software fix that will shut down the engine before it reaches a point where the turbine disc is in danger of disintegrating.
The incident prompted Qantas to ground its A380 fleet and the airline was still unsure yesterday about when the superjumbos would resume flying.
It expects the A380s to be returned to service on a plane-by-plane basis and Airbus has offered to help by taking already modified engines from its production line and shipping them to Qantas.
A spokesman said Qantas would work with both Airbus and Rolls-Royce to work out "the fastest and most effective way of ensuring its engines were up to the latest variation".
Singapore, which has grounded three planes and has the oldest A380s as well as the biggest fleet of 11 aircraft, would not confirm the number of engines requiring modifications.
A Singapore spokesman said the airline was continuing to inspect the engines in accordance with a European airworthiness directive that allowed operations to continue safely.

satos
15th Nov 2010, 00:10
Meanwhile, air-safety investigators have discovered that the audio from QF32's cockpit voice recorder at the time of the engine failure has been lost. The safety bureau said the audio was overwritten because the recorder, which is on a continuous loop, taped the pilots for more than two hours after the engine blew.A bureau spokesman, Richard Batt, said the loss of the audio was not a significant issue.
Yeah right!
It was not a significant issue because the aircraft returned safely.
If it had crashed I'd bet he wouldn't be using those words.
Another question.
What will be come of the aircraft.
Is the the damage it sustained repairable as I have heard the front wing spar might of been damaged.

UnderneathTheRadar
15th Nov 2010, 00:28
Yeah right!
It was not a significant issue because the aircraft returned safely.

ummm, if they'd crashed, the recording wouldn't have continued......

Eureka Pete
15th Nov 2010, 01:28
Every airline defers maintenance. It is not illegal.
Are you suggesting that to defer maintenance is acceptable?

Going Boeing
15th Nov 2010, 01:58
First Japanese airline to order the A380
http://www.asdnews.com/data_news/ID31817_600.jpg
Blagnac - Skymark Airlines, Japan's third largest and growing airline, has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Airbus for the purchase of four A380s, the most advanced, spacious and eco-efficient airliner in service today.

The aircraft will be operated on major international long-haul routes from Tokyo. Engine choice and cabin details will be revealed at a later stage.

Its excellent take-off and landing performance enables the A380 to operate on the shorter 2,500m-runways at Japan's Narita and Tokyo Haneda airports carrying a full passenger payload and cargo to destinations in Europe, North America and Australia.

"By introducing the world's most cost-efficient, modern and environmentally friendly aircraft in our fleet, we will offer the travelling public the best comfort in the sky and a new way of flying. With the A380's spacious and extremely quiet cabin, we'll enter a new era in terms of economic air travel," said Shinichi Nishikubo, President of Skymark Airlines.

"We are extremely happy and proud that Japan's growing and ambitious airline Skymark Airlines has become the first Japanese airline to order the A380 and a new customer for us. This is a historic milestone for Airbus and a breakthrough in this important market. We are delighted to see Skymark Airlines sharing our vision of the A380 as the key aircraft for meeting Japan's air transport needs," said John Leahy, Airbus Chief Operating Officer Customers.

Source : Airbus, an EADS N.V. company (Paris: EAD.PA)

RR Will have to do a very good sales pitch to be selected for this order.

Max Tow
15th Nov 2010, 02:08
Eureka Pete
Yes, of course it is. I would assume the fact that you are asking the question means that you are outside the industry so I'll be gentle, however let us for a moment assume you are sitting in the back of a fully loaded 747 and the Captain announces that the flight is cancelled because one of the many thousands of non-safety critical components has just broken....for example a single toilet flush.
The ability to fly with any such defects, under what restrictions and for how long is covered by a Minimum Equipment List plus a modicum of common sense, and I hate to have to break it to Joe Public but just about every aeroplane you fly on will carry a list of defects deferred until a suitable maintenance downtime.
The question of course is one of quantum. A situation where an airline which has traditionally operated with a minimum of deferred defects finds increasing quantities of carried forward items and longer delays until clearance might well be symptomatic of a decline in standards, hence most operators' QA mechanisms will carefully track any adverse trends.

ampclamp
15th Nov 2010, 02:49
Max tow, eureka pete is probably talking in context.

Your point is of course correct, however there is indeed a vast difference between a crapper and a disintegrating engine blowing holes in your wing.I know you know this but just to make the point for many out of industry readers.

The point being of course did QF / RR know of a serious issue and did they fail to act quickly enough to a problem?

If so, were there signs of oil leaks already and not considered a problem at the time?
Was any mod or special inspection deferred?

I cast no blame or infer any wrong doing just wanting the facts.

Can anyone confirm that RR are indeed picking the QF losses?
I though I heard QF were not chasing RR.I find that odd if so.

It is looking that AJ's "days not weeks" statement was poorly advised.
Like line repairs, think of a sensible time frame and at least double it to have some Murphy's Law insurance.

Going Boeing
15th Nov 2010, 05:07
Amp Clamp, the issue of compensation is never publicly disclosed - I believe that the insurers insist on it.

We were never told how much compensation QF got for the ex Malaysian B744 paint job cracks, the 2 year delay of the A380 and the 4 year delay of the B787, etc.

I suspect that we'll never hear the final outcome of the RR compo.

TWT
16th Nov 2010, 04:12
Are the A380 crews (tech +CC) sitting around twiddling their thumbs at the moment or have they been re-deployed around the network ?

Autobrakes4
16th Nov 2010, 04:44
How do you redeploy A380 tech crew? They're endorsed to fly one aircraft which is grounded!

Jabawocky
16th Nov 2010, 05:45
How do you redeploy A380 tech crew? They're endorsed to fly one aircraft which is grounded!

EASY

Get them all in to senior management circles for "Crisis Meetings" on how they should start running an airline. Let them have it from all quarters!

Jabawocky
16th Nov 2010, 06:32
For the folk who do not frequent the R&N forum check out the pics poster by SafferNZ

http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums/h390/saffernz/4.jpg?t=1289854067

http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums/h390/saffernz/6.jpg

HOLY COW! :eek:

Proffessor
17th Nov 2010, 03:15
sooooooo , how many rpm do these engines spin at ??

Sump Monkey
17th Nov 2010, 03:40
Has QF sent A380 teams over to the various ports where the A/C are grounded to carry out inspections, daily/weekly checks etc...?

With L.A in mind, most Line Stations are staffed by the bare minimum LAME's to cover their daily operations, 3 extra A380's sitting on the deck would be a manpower black hole, and with all the usual movements, customers (if any) etc.... still needing to be attended to, surely they would require assistance?

mightyauster
17th Nov 2010, 03:49
Surprisingly, these engines don't rev that hard - I haven't got the specifics at hand, but the masses (ie weights) of the rotating components is what does the damage.

fruitloop
17th Nov 2010, 03:55
"Suffering Sucatash" A few good electricans and sheetmetal/composite people required !!!

Helmut Smokar
17th Nov 2010, 04:00
Are the A380 crews (tech +CC) sitting around twiddling their thumbs at the moment or have they been re-deployed around the network ?

Yes, fully redeployed to the mid north coast with a dozen oysters and glass of Veuve Clicquot in hand :E

GalleyHag
17th Nov 2010, 05:03
SIA Airbus fleet returns to service as Qantas mulls grounding till December

UPDATE: Steve Creedy, Aviation writer From: The Australian
November 17, 2010 12:48PM

QANTAS may wait till December before its Airbus A380s fly again, while Singapore Airlines has returned its 11-strong fleet to service.

The flying kangaroo is considering whether to divert engines meant for its undelivered aircraft to its grounded superjumbos.

Qantas today said it was looking at taking modified new engines meant for two of its aircraft on the Airbus production line in Toulouse, France to replace Trent 900 engines on grounded planes that have shown potentially dangerous oil leaks.

But it now appears that it will be next month at the earliest before the first Qantas Airbus A380 takes to the air, amid worries the peak summer season will be affected.

The flying kangaroo is taking an ultra-conservative approach to safety after the disintegration of an engine on an A380 near Singapore almost two weeks ago. An oil fire in the engine is believed to have caused the disintegration of an intermediate pressure turbine disc, which peppered the left wing with shrapnel and caused substantial damage.

Qantas immediately grounded its entire A380 fleet in the wake of the engine explosion, while the other operators with Trent 900 engines, SIA and Lufthansa, kept planes flying under a series of inspections that were ordered by manufacturer Rolls-Royce and European regulators.

SIA later took three A380s out of service, including two that were operating on Australian routes, for precautionary engine changes.

A spokesman for SIA, Nicholas Ionides, yesterday declined to comment on the Qantas decision to ground its planes, but said safety was SIA’s first priority and it would not fly if it believed its planes were unsafe.

Mr Ionides said: “We remain in very close contact with Rolls-Royce and Airbus, and all checks that we have carried out to date have been in full compliance with their recommendations and instructions.

“We are also continuing with inspections of all our Trent 900 engines in full compliance with the (European Aviation Safety Agency’s) Airworthiness Directive, which ensures the safe and continuous operation of the fleet.”

Ngineer
17th Nov 2010, 08:21
Nice piccies Jabawocky.:ok:

(Didn't know they used yellow twine to hold the bus's wing together!! Lucky that didn't get severed).

denabol
17th Nov 2010, 09:02
Even more pictures here:
The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/11/17/the-anatomy-of-the-airbus-a380-qf32-near-disaster/)

Sandilands gets stuck into Rolls Royce too:

One thing needs to be kept firmly in mind. Rolls-Royce the maker of the Trent 900 engine which disintegrated knew about the faults that the current airworthiness directive concerning these engines says are likely to have caused an intense oil fire in a structural cavity in the intermediate pressure turbine area of the engine.
Rolls-Royce had designed and was introducing a fix for the oil leak issues for this into the engines at its own speed. Qantas was left in the dark. It is fair to suggest that Qantas needs to review relationships with engine manufacturers in which it pays for power by-the-hour and leaves much of the maintenance and oversight of those engines to the designer and manufacturer.
To emphasise the obvious. The interests of the engine maker and holder of the service agreements are not the same as those of the airline. A carrier might want to correct and replace inadequate design features to a different, more urgent timetable that the party that benefits from the support contract, and has its own brand image to protect.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2010/11/damage-5-596x450.jpg

Mr. Hat
17th Nov 2010, 19:47
A fine job by the crew involved.

ANCDU
17th Nov 2010, 20:18
I agree with Mr Hat, the more that comes out about this incident, the more i am impressed by the crews efforts.

Maybe instead of constantly kicking the roo in the guts here, shouldn't we also be asking why Singapore Airlines is still flying australians around in aircraft that have a design flaw? Of course Qantas is an easier target (not undeserved!) but i find it interesting that there seems to be no questions of Singapore Airlines operating this aircraft while Qantas '80's remain grounded.

Sunfish
17th Nov 2010, 20:57
ANCDU:

shouldn't we also be asking why Singapore Airlines is still flying australians around in aircraft that have a design flaw?

Perhaps because SIA has both the technical ability and manpower to conform to the AD and QF does not?

QF no longer has the technical ability even to modify a door lock.

Capt Kremin
17th Nov 2010, 23:36
Sunfish, are you sure you are not letting your oft-quoted antipathy towards QF get the better of you in your recent posts?

I get the feeling that, and if I could be bothered I could probably find a direct quote from you somewhere, that you won't be happy until QF goes the way of your beloved Ansett.

Qantas is being very conservative. IMHO SQ is not and may regret their actions.

QF22
18th Nov 2010, 02:08
Sunfish I can assure you Qantas Engineering still has and always will have more technical ability than Singapore Airlines.
I don't have any idea of the differences between the QF and SQ trents but if one trent can blow-up it could happen again.
There again it may never happen again.
That's the gamble an operator takes i guess.

Sunfish
18th Nov 2010, 02:32
Capt. Kremin:

Sunfish, are you sure you are not letting your oft-quoted antipathy towards QF get the better of you in your recent posts.

Qantas is being very conservative. IMHO SQ is not and may regret their actions.

1. When QF provides a quality service to ALL Australians that is the wonder of the Airline world, I will dance with joy.


QF22:

Sunfish I can assure you Qantas Engineering still has and always will have more technical ability than Singapore Airlines.


2. I sincerely hope for all our sakes that QF Engineering does have that technical capability.

It would appear that RR and QF between them whatever the cause, have not done a particularly good job of explaining their action in this matter.

GalleyHag
18th Nov 2010, 02:49
News and analysis ninemsn

Qantas says 14 A380 engines affected

18/11/2010 1:27:02 PM

Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce says up to 14 Rolls Royce engines on the airline's A380s will need to be inspected and potentially replaced.

Rolls Royce had indicated about 40 A380 engines needed to be swapped worldwide, Mr Joyce said.

The airline expects to know within two days how many engines need to be taken off its planes so Rolls Royce can make a modification.

"Rolls Royce are still working through the criteria for which engines need to be changed," Mr Joyce told reporters in Sydney on Thursday.

"We'll have a daily dialogue with Rolls Royce to determine which engines actually need to be taken off.

"We're hoping to understand precisely which engines need to be replaced and therefore we can have a firm timeline for when they will be back in the air, but we are still a few days away from that."

Qantas grounded its six A380s on November 4 after oil caught fire in one of fleet's Rolls Royce Trent 900 engines on a flight over Indonesia.

The fire heated metal parts and caused the motor to disintegrate before the jetliner returned safely to Singapore.

Four days later, the airline said checks had revealed suspicious oil leaks in three engines on three different grounded A380s.

Mr Joyce on Thursday said airline capacity had been reduced by four per cent due to the grounding its A380 fleet.

"We have taken about four to five per cent of capacity off by scaling down the size of aircraft," he said.

"So where A380s were planning to fly we've got 747s. Where 747s were planning to fly, in some parts of the network we've got 330s."

Qantas would seek compensation from Rolls Royce once the A380s were back in the air, Mr Joyce said, although it was still too early to determine the financial impact of having six A380s on the ground.

"The disruptions we're experiencing because we don't have a number of aircraft in the fleet, that is something that once this is all resolved we will have to talk to Rolls about as a consequence," he said

"But we are not even thinking about that yet. We are just thinking about getting the aircraft back into the air."

Rolls Royce had made changes to the design and manufacture of new A380 engines to stop oil leaks, but it had not done so to the engines on the Qantas A380 fleet.

"If this was significant, and was known to be significant, we would have liked to have known about that," Mr Joyce said.

"It doesn't look like it is a significant modification, but it is a modification that has an impact on how the engines are performing and it is a modification that indicates whether you are going to have a problem or not with the engine."

Rolls Royce was responsible for all maintenance on the A380 engines, Mr Joyce said.

He said the modification made by Rolls Royce to the engines on the production line appeared to be an indicator of potential problems.

Normally any modification made by an engine manufacturer would be retrofitted to each engine when it returned to the workshop for routine inspection and maintenance, Mr Joyce said.

"If this incident hadn't occurred, eventually all these engines would have had this modification," he said.

"Now because it is an indicator, we are not taking any risks.

"We're taking the engines off and making sure this modification is in place before the engines are put back on the aircraft."

Qantas is in talks with Airbus to replace some of its existing Rolls Royce engines with new engines from planes still in production on the Airbus assembly line

Sunfish
18th Nov 2010, 04:32
Read above and weep. QF is now a supplicant of Rolls Royce.

Fris B. Fairing
18th Nov 2010, 06:18
Capt Kremin

The date was 11 Sept 2004 and the Sunfish quote was:

RIP Ansett. I'd just like to see Qantas disembowelled the same way.

rob_ginger
18th Nov 2010, 07:32
A lot of the focus (not surprisingly !) has been on the engine manufacturer (RR). However, there were some issues listed in the comments to the crikey.com article:

1 Bus #2 is supposedly automatically powered by Bus #1 in the event of Engine #2 failure – didn’t happen.
2 Buses #3 & #4 will supposedly power Bus #2 in the event that the auto transfer from Bus #1 fails – didn’t happen.
3 After some time the RAT deployed for no apparent reason, locking out (as a load-shedding function) some still functioning services
etc.

Can anyone comment on the accuracy of these issues ? If true I would have thought that the malfunctioning of backup systems would be a serious issue that Airbus would have to address pretty quickly. I don't imagine that the A380s would be grounded (after all, the 737 was allowed to fly after several fatal "rudder hard-over" events), but they seem quite serious to me.

As an OLD electrical engineer who has worked on control system software I know how hard it is to get software right, and I just don't like the way all aircraft (and cars, and phones, and..) are getting way too complicated, so that when something does go wrong the effects are often unpredictable and unexpected.

Section28- BE
18th Nov 2010, 07:44
Ah Ha- the third party Propulsion Provider abrogation defense ............


"If this was significant, and was known to be significant, we would have liked to have known about that," Mr Joyce said.And yet-

Rolls Royce was responsible for all maintenance on the A380 engines, Mr Joyce said.Given that RR has mod'ed engines on the floor of the Airbus Factory and operators have them on wing, 'apparently' and I seem to recall it raised somewhere, that the issue was mentioned/documented by the European Regulator last or earlier this year????

As an Accountable Officer, (or was it said here- that in fact a Mr L Someone?? [ex AN & VA] wears that responsibility?????.....), what does the QF Engineering/QA audit history tell us about this emerging 'Issue' ?????, so as we comply with our responsibilities (at least as I understand them...??) to The Act and in-turn Pax/Shareholders....... Particularly, given it being a new type and engine.

Not being pedantic- but since the 'buy in of significant operational critical functions/responsibilities, don't need to provide' model (be that Training or Aeronautical Systems) was launched in our jurisdiction circa 2000-ish to keep the air fair/fare. Does- 'it broke and it's not my fault' now suffice as compliance with the Regulator?????......., or do the Regulator monitor your preferred supplier of whatever at your expense, so as you can set and forget until a helpful regulatory operative gives you a call???

For the sake of saying it- well done that Crew & training system, a journey that explored new ground on many levels, and more so as further details come to light, I reckon.

Rgds
S28- BE

Sunfish
18th Nov 2010, 07:53
Frisby - and if QF keeps performing the way it is, favouring Sydney at the expense of every other State capital, I stand by what I aid.

Even you must understand that for every dollar QF makes it stops Australian industry from making $2.00. that is not in the national interest.

mrdeux
18th Nov 2010, 08:19
After some time the RAT deployed for no apparent reason, locking out (as a load-shedding function) some still functioning servicesNone of the images I've seen show an extended RAT, and thinking about it, I'm pretty sure I did see a picture of the RAT fairing, with the doors closed. Of course, that doesn't mean the aircraft didn't think it was extended.

Capt Kremin
18th Nov 2010, 09:14
The leopard doesn't change his spots. Thanks Frisby. All further posts by Sunfish on this matter will have the appropriate filter applied.

GalleyHag
18th Nov 2010, 10:14
Sunfish

Why do you even care what QF does? You have Virgin Blue, Tiger and any number of international airlines, we get the point you hate that Qantas flys from Sydney, build a bridge and fly with someone else. That frees up a seat for a passenger that really appreciates all that is good about Qantas OR better still thats a spare seat for senior executives or staff LOL!

P.S. Your next generation bag tag is in the mail NOT!

rmcdonal
18th Nov 2010, 10:50
Sunfish
QF no longer has the technical ability even to modify a door lock.
Is an incorrect statement. The door locks were modified (I assume you are talking about the Dash8 doors).

Helmut Smokar
18th Nov 2010, 11:25
None of the images I've seen show an extended RAT, and thinking about it, I'm pretty sure I did see a picture of the RAT fairing, with the doors closed. Of course, that doesn't mean the aircraft didn't think it was extended.

I saw one with a piece of reverse blocker door hanging out of a hole just forward of the RAT doors. Most probably that ruined the RAT's day :8

Sunfish
18th Nov 2010, 19:14
RMcdonal:

QF no longer has the technical ability even to modify a door lock.

Is an incorrect statement. The door locks were modified (I assume you are talking about the Dash8 doors).

I think I need to make myself clear, QF appears to no longer have the ability to design and certify even a tiny mod to a door lock and instead had to contract it out to "Auto Avia Design" of Bankstown. Don't you keep your own professional aeronautical engineers any more??

Image below from ALEA Fed Sec's post.


yfrog Fullsize - 22424748.jpg (http://yfrog.com/f/jw22424748j)

HANOI
19th Nov 2010, 05:47
Sunfish

For someone who claims to have an MBA and goes to a yacht club you certainly make some pretty pathetic posts.

Sunfish
19th Nov 2010, 08:25
Hanoi:

For someone who claims to have an MBA and goes to a yacht club you certainly make some pretty pathetic posts.

There was a time when QF, Ansett and others actually knew what made their aircraft tick, often they knew more than the manufacturer and actually educated them as to the direction they should go.

Of course these days Alan Joyce has said you are just contract drivers of a hired Taxi with no idea what goes on under the hood, you probably don't even own the Taxi. That is self evident from AJ's post blaming Rolls Royce for all problems and saying that QF knew nothing about the engine problems.

Maybe, Hanoi, you should hang out with all the Sudanese taxi drivers waiting at the airport. That is where it would appear that your management wants to put you.

Section28- BE
19th Nov 2010, 10:20
Sunfish-

I hear what your saying and feeling- and had a crack myself yesterday on what I feel the "Issues" are in a Reg Compliance sense ........ vis the topic of this thread, but it was probably not relevant.

But, I fear that an Aeronautical/Compliance or Safety Culture vis Section 28 of the Act- has been evolved out of the system from both sides be it Regulator/Operator- to accommodate Worlds Best Practice, so as- all can participate (Gen X, Y or Zed as be your preference) in a field that, like the Sea is Very Unforgiving of Fools.

As you allude, a CAR35 approval in days gone by- was not an issue as the Approvals/Delegations were in-house- and be it to accommodate a seat pack fit/a repair or whatever, you had confidence that you could stand and rely on the work in-house, along with the people- as did the Regulator. Today that's a cost saving not to have that capability and oversight...........

Engine monitoring- and have RR done any up-grades on a Trent???, I would have thought to be CORE BUSINESS- but 'Apparently Not' they were operating in secret- there was once an Operator who missed an AD on pylons on B76......

Rgds & A good weekend to all.
S28- BE

A_B_P
23rd Nov 2010, 00:18
This just in from the web. Herald Sun 23/11/10

AUSTRALIAN airline Qantas announced today it will resume A380 flights on November 27, with initial flights departing to the UK, Sky News Australia said.

"We are completely comfortable with the operation of the aircraft," chief executive Alan Joyce said in Sydney today.

Mr Joyce said the planes would start flying again from Saturday, November 27.

The carrier's six A380s were grounded earlier this month after a Sydney-bound plane was forced to return to Singapore when one of its engines exploded mid-air.

The planes were grounded on November 4, after QF32 flying from Singapore to Sydney suffered an explosion in one of its four engines over the Indonesian island of Batam.

Qantas engineers then began investigations into all of the Rolls Royce Trent 900 engines on the aircraft.

"We have grounded this fleet for 19 days ... to make sure we are fully comfortable before putting them back in the air," Mr Joyce said.
Mr Joyce said Qantas would have four of the A380s operating by Christmas.



The first flight will be QF31, an A380 due to fly from Sydney to London via Singapore on Saturday, November 27.

The aircraft for that service will be transported to Sydney on a ferry flight from Los Angeles.

A second aircraft is expected to depart Los Angeles for Sydney later this week.

Initially, Qantas plans to operate a single A380 on routes between Australia and the United Kingdom.

As more of the fleet returns, Qantas will assess when and how best to deploy them.

"In line with its conservative approach to operational safety, Qantas is voluntarily suspending A380 services on routes that regularly require use of maximum certified engine thrust, and will do so until further operational experience is gained or possible additional changes are made to engines," it said in a statement.

"This is an operational decision by Qantas and pilots still have access to maximum certified thrust if they require it during flight.
"It is not a manufacturer's directive."

Qantas also said its A380 engines remained subject to a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) airworthiness directive issued on November 11.

The directive mandates that all the Trent 900 engines undergo certain inspections every 20 flying cycles.

Qantas says it will comply with the directive for A380s brought back into service and for new aircraft entering its fleet.

The airline plans to take delivery of two more A380s by the end of 2010 and another two in early 2011.

Asked if Qantas would seek compensation from Rolls Royce Mr Joyce said: "We will have that dialogue, but now is not the time".

Mr Joyce said Rolls Royce had been "fantastic" during the process to get the fleet back in the air, but he also said the British engine maker was aware of the impact.

Mr Joyce was not ready to put a figure on the likely compensation or cost to the airline from the disruption.

"We have said that our priority continues to be to get all of the aircraft back in the air," he said.

"We are working with Rolls Royce to make sure we have a supply of spare engines to get the other aircraft back into service as quick as possible.
"I want everyone to continue to focus on that, and when the time is appropriate we will have the dialogue with Rolls Royce."

Ken Borough
23rd Nov 2010, 05:24
Alan Joyce was just interviewed at length by Richard Glover on ABC702 in Sydney. I don't give a rat's about what anyone else might tink but I reckon that Alan was truly impressive and credible. He will be travelling on QF31 next Saturday as an expression of confidence in those who maintain and fly the A380. :ok::ok:

It's a great shame dat he and a couple of his senior execs aren't heard a lot more instead of the L-platers that pass for PR experts usually seen and heard.

Onya Alan! :D:D

peuce
23rd Nov 2010, 05:44
Who would have thought the day would come when the CEO of QANTAS has to travel on an aircraft ... just to prove it's safe.

Reminds me of the barnstorming days ! ... and no, I wasn't there.

standard unit
23rd Nov 2010, 05:47
James Strong did the same on the repaired aircraft that had the mishap in BKK.

Eureka Pete
23rd Nov 2010, 06:39
James Strong did the same on the repaired aircraft that had the mishap in BKK.
That was one heck of a mishap!

Captain Nomad
24th Nov 2010, 03:48
As a QF frequent flyer member, got this in the email today:

Dear Mr XXXXX Your Frequent Flyer number: XXXXX
Current points balance: XXXXXX

I am pleased to advise that Qantas will resume A380 services, commencing with an initial A380 service to London via Singapore on Saturday 27 November.

We have undertaken a rigorous inspection program in conjunction with Rolls Royce and Airbus to ensure the fleet is ready to return to service.

We always put safety first, and we continue to take a conservative approach to the reintroduction of the A380 fleet. So we will initially operate the A380 between Australia and the United Kingdom. As more A380s come into service, we will assess when and how best to deploy them.

I want to assure you that we have full confidence in our A380 aircraft fleet, and will not fly any individual aircraft unless we are completely sure that it is safe to do so.

Qantas has six A380s in its fleet, and is scheduled to take delivery of two new A380s before the end of this year, and a further two next year. With our fleet of more than 250 aircraft, we are able to maintain a full international and domestic network, so you can book and fly with us with confidence.

I want to thank you for your loyalty and patience. On behalf of all of us at Qantas we deeply regret any inconvenience. We look forward to welcoming you warmly when next you fly.

ALAN JOYCE
Qantas Chief Executive Officer

FlexibleResponse
28th Nov 2010, 14:13
Power by the Hour?

Hello?

Who holds the Air Operators Certificate?

Who is authorized to ensure the continuing airworthiness of the engines and the aircraft airframe and systems?

Who is responsible to ensure the continuing airworthiness of the engines?

How are these authority and responsibility functions ensured by the Operator?

Can this authority and responsibility be delegated to a third party company or consultant?

Shell Management
28th Nov 2010, 15:31
@flexible response

Power by the Hour?
A commercial arrangement that spreads the cost of purchase, spares and oerhauls over the lifecycle of the engine.

Hello?
Hello!

Who holds the Air Operators Certificate?
The operator - Qantas in this case.

Who is authorized to ensure the continuing airworthiness of the engines and the aircraft airframe and systems?
Qantas.

Who is responsible to ensure the continuing airworthiness of the engines?
Qantas.

How are these authority and responsibility functions ensured by the Operator?
By their quality system and CAME (or equivalent).

Can this authority and responsibility be delegated to a third party company or consultant?
You can sub-contract work but not control or accountability, and why would you want to when you reliability, safety and reputation are on the line? Of course if you have a poor safety culture you blame others.

404 Titan
28th Nov 2010, 21:39
FlexibleResponse

If you look where we work, our employer has the same “Power By the Hour” with RR and GE. Even our APU’s are on a “Power By the Hour” arrangement.

Section28- BE
29th Nov 2010, 07:55
Oh-Wow, Oh................/OK..

FlexResponse/Shell Mgt/ probably 404 more:

Could you please expand/explain, ref: 3rd Party Suppliers - and how (& if you like whom, you both work for......), that "we/whom you work for ", stress test and Real Time Verify the integrity of our 'Preferred Supplier' & product delivered, as to our satisfaction/& thus compliance with our responsibilities .........

Apologies, guess I'm getting Old- no dig, but keen to understand how you see it and indeed how it now 'Works'..................

Rgds
S28

404 Titan
29th Nov 2010, 10:35
Section28- BE

I can’t speak for “Shell Management” but a quick search of both Flex and my past posts will reveal who we work for.

I really don’t have an opinion on “Power By The Hour” where I work and its legal ramifications regarding our AOC and the regulator. I'm not an engineer.

FlexibleResponse
29th Nov 2010, 12:55
I have postured specific and somewhat rhetorical questions for very good reasons.

Already the speculation is that Qantas had no idea about the modified parts in the new Trent engines that addressed the failure mode that led to the event experienced in SIN. Apparently, Rolls forgot to tell them and Qantas has lost the expertise to self-monitor in this department...

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with power by the hour...but systems must be in place to ENSURE that continuing airworthiness is maintained by the OPERATOR and AOC holder.

This function CANNOT be delegated.

...nobody should go whinging that Rolls has dropped the ball...Rolls are neither the OPERATOR or AOC holder and their sole responsibility is in making the best profit they possibly can for Rolls shareholders.

I leave the rest of the crumbs for the masses to argue over...

airtags
30th Nov 2010, 02:14
Flex don't entirely agree that Rolls is without blame here - but certainly even more disturbing is the allegation that "Q did not know" - given this is a new a/c type and there are not too many in the skies, one would have thought the claim of ignorance on the part of Q is far from an acceptable defence. - especially given that:1) you have more of the a/c are on the way

2) the initial issues subject to the early AD's would have at least prompted a question
Accepting or denying Q's position still leaves open the question of the future and the need for independent audit/compliance.

The local council does not build a roundabout without external independent QA - Due diligence 101 says that a $304 million capex item is at least deserving of the same.

It's now a question of cred and integrity - the 380 issue has shown Q, Rolls, Airbus and too some degree, CASA, to be a little short in these attributes.

AT :E

Redstone
30th Nov 2010, 03:25
I think you have hit the nail on the head Tags, and remember that it was "supply chain" who had oversight of the 380 introduction and I think they still have a big say in the day to day, not ops and not engineering. The waters are very muddy indeed.....

chimbu warrior
30th Nov 2010, 06:54
From Australian Aviation comes a report that the damage to the aircraft in Singapore could reach $70 million. Ouch.

Jabawocky
30th Nov 2010, 08:54
Does that include the two engines? I would guess not given all the other damage and out of factory repairs required to spars or entire wings :eek:

Section28- BE
30th Nov 2010, 09:20
Flex/404-

This function CANNOT be delegated., think we're all on the same page here- .....

Chimbu: circa $70 mill (for a start)- now that is impressive for an 'incident' of someone else's making, apparently......, & 'That' I guess, should be an excellent learning experience- for someone, not sure who.

Rgds
28

GalleyHag
2nd Dec 2010, 02:24
Sydney Morning Herald - Business & World News Australia | smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au)

New warning over A380 engines

Craig Platt, Andrew Heasley

December 2, 2010 - 1:55PM

A new photo of the engine damage to Qantas flight QF32, posted on the internet.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has issued a new safety warning over Airbus A380 engines after a new manufacturing defect was discovered.

The warning comes ahead of the ATSB's preliminary report into the engine failure of Qantas flight QF32 over Indonesia last month.

The newly discovered defect, which relates to an oil tube connection in the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine, is believed to be the cause of the engine failure of flight QF32.

Advertisement: Story continues below The problem is caused by the 'off-axis' boring of the oil tube that supplies the engine bearing with oil, resulting in a thinning of the material on one side that "could lead to fatigue cracking, oil leakage and potential engine failure from an oil fire", the ASTB said.

A380s with Rolls-Royce engines will again be required to undergo careful examination by the airlines that use them: Qantas, Singapore Airlines and Lufthansa.

Qantas grounded its fleet of A380s following the engine failure on November 4. Two A380s have since returned to service.

The problem has been found in the first series of Trent 900 Rolls-Royce engines, dubbed 'modification A'.

Three of these engines have been removed from service by Qantas.

Qantas will begin examinations this afternoon, including later series engines 'B' and 'C' to check for evidence of the flaw using 3D-imaging equipment.

It is not yet known whether Qantas or the other airlines will be required to ground their A380 fleets.

Qantas said the discovery of the defect "appears to provide a more definitive explanation for the engine failure that occurred on QF32."

Qantas said it did not anticipate at this stage that the inspections will have an impact on international services, but that contingency arrangements will be in place, if needed.

The ATSB is believed to be making last-minute changes to its preliminary investigation report into the QF32 incident to reflect the new information.

ATSB chief commissioner Martin Dolan will tomorrow present the information gleaned so far and the key safety issues resulting from the investigation to date.

GalleyHag
2nd Dec 2010, 02:30
Qantas A380 Update

Sydney, 02 December 2010

Qantas will conduct further, more detailed one-off inspections of Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines on its A380 aircraft following the results of an additional examination of components from the engine involved in the QF32 incident on 4 November.

After discussions with the Australian Transport and Safety Bureau (ATSB) and Rolls-Royce, it was decided it was prudent to conduct further inspections of engine components, although there is no immediate risk to flight safety. This is in line with Qantas' conservative, safety first approach.

The examination took place at the Rolls-Royce facility in Derby, United Kingdom, and appears to provide a more definitive explanation for the engine failure that occurred on QF32. This resulted in a safety recommendation by the ATSB following discussions with Qantas, Rolls-Royce and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

The ATSB's recommendation is that these one-off inspections be conducted within two flight cycles, which provides a level of inspection over and above the current 20 cycle inspection required by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The findings apply to all relevant variants of the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine operated worldwide.

Qantas currently has two A380 aircraft in operational service, following the grounding of the fleet on 4 November. Both A380 aircraft will be inspected at the Qantas Jet Base in Sydney. Inspections will commence this afternoon.

Qantas will determine any further response after it has finalised the inspection regime and consulted with both regulators and the manufacturer.

Qantas does not anticipate at this stage that the inspections will have an impact on international services, however contingency arrangements will be in place, if needed.

The ATSB has described recent developments as follows:
Recent examination of components removed from the failed engine at the Rolls-Royce plc facility in Derby, United Kingdom, have identified the presence of fatigue cracking within a stub pipe that feeds oil into the High Pressure (HP) / Intermediate Pressure (IP) bearing structure. While the analysis of the engine failure is ongoing, it has been identified that the leakage of oil into the HP/IP bearing structure buffer space (and a subsequent oil fire within that area) was central to the engine failure and IP turbine disc liberation event.
Further examination of the cracked area has identified the axial misalignment of an area of counter-boring within the inner diameter of the stub pip; the misalignment having produced a localised thinning of the pipe wall on one side. The area of fatigue cracking was associated with the area of pipe wall thinning.


Issued by Qantas Corporate Communication (5048)

denabol
2nd Dec 2010, 03:08
Description by Qantas off different versions of the engines here way down page.

New safety defect found in Qantas A380 engines – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/12/02/new-safety-defect-found-in-qantas-a380-engines/)

Also a wrap here which I picked up on Twitter

A380 engines may have manufacturing fault - Business - msnbc.com (http://on.msnbc.com/eNOazt)

Sunfish
2nd Dec 2010, 04:04
I have asked repeatedly if QF maintains the in house engineering expertise to understand what is happening to its engines and thus be proactive as opposed to reactive.

As a member of the management team of one of Australias first outsourcing companies involved in the IT industry, I know that one of he first moves we made is to "lobotomise" the customer so that no one within the customer organisation remains with the technical experience capable of taking issue with, or criticise, our service at all.

We did this first by the simple means of hiring away the best brains in the customer organisation. Secondly, we argued for the customer to retrench or fire any remaining technical staff on the basis that they were superfluous.

Finally we went to the manager who had made the outsourcing decision and told them in no uncertain terms that allowing potential technical "troublemakers" to remain in his organisation risked compromising the "success" of the outsourcing program by perhaps calling into question the wisdom of his outsourcing decision, with the obvious implication that if he relied totally on us, we would keep his career safe.

We used very well dressed, very smooth talking and intelligent people to convey this message and it succeeded every time. Hundreds were retrenched at our suggestion in many organisations, leaving them totally reliant on us for technical input, and thus immune from criticism. We produced brightly coloured reports every month that showed how well we were complying with contract performance requirements too.

It generally took about Five years before the organisation realised that they had lost operational control of a core capability that was now affecting their strategic business plans. They then had to begin the long, expensive and difficult task of building technical capability again, then prising our greasy little fingers off their computers.

What happened to the staff of the now closed Qantas RR centre of excellence?

To put it another way, in Five years time Qantas decides it wants to start a service to "Buttistan" in central Asia, and the airport is 4000 ft high and summer temperatures are 37C. Qantas then has to go cap in hand to RR regarding the thrust limits on the engines, and therefore its payload. In other words, RR now has a say in QF operational decisions. Am I being far fetched?

hadagutfull
2nd Dec 2010, 07:58
One would have to think that the powerplants engineering section would be monitoring engine trending data, however the technical knowledge of the internals of an engine would have been the Engine Overhaul Centre. Even if it was still in operation, I dont know if there would have been the sufficient experience gained as the engine is a new type.

As for the 744 RR engines, it has really hurt the operation not having the on hand expertise. We have never seen a higher level of engine issues and quality problems.Wether its directly related to the attention to quality and detail given in house or the lack it shown by the outsourced MRO's, who just do the bare minimum in the minimal time.. i dont know.

Even simple things like the amount of parts fitted U/S ex stores, failure of components that require engines to be dropped to replace, HP bleed and firewall shutoff valves failing tests,etc etc... all these things seem to be of regular occurrences in current times... whilst not major defects, they create a strain on manpower and scheduling, which impacts the operation.( I think most of these components are now outsourced, as opposed to the full overhaul facilities we used to have... meaning any parts failing tests would be back in the workshop to be fixed.. and not make their way to the flight line)

As for the 380 engines, the entire engine build manual is available on the intranet for those who want to see it. It also has a list of ALL the AD's that were issued for that engine type, explaining how and why and when.
The information is not a secret... I just wonder who is actually monitoring these publications from the manufacturer, and assessing the applicability or requirement to implement these directives into the QF fleet.

cheers.

kellykelpie
2nd Dec 2010, 09:13
Am I being far fetched?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes...

To suggest that the manufacturer (whether aircraft or engine) doesn't already have a say in an airline's operational decisions is naive. But this is not as far fetched as your story of a company agreeing to mass redundancies of skilled workers at the request of its contractor...:suspect:

Sunfish
2nd Dec 2010, 16:28
Kellykelpie:

But this is not as far fetched as your story of a company agreeing to mass redundancies of skilled workers at the request of its contractor...

Mate, that's not far fetched at all. I've done it. The key to successful outsourcing is lobotomising the customer so that they become totally dependent on the supplier.

To do that you have to remove the customers technical expertise. The first thing you do is hire the customers best people to work for you. The customer needs no encouragement to get rid of the remaining workforce, that's why they outsourced didn't they - to save money!

Any remaining technical experts are a threat, so you run a character assassination campaign, pointing out the danger to the managers career of having an internal expert around who might become critical of the outsourcing program and have the credibility to make their criticism stick.

This is done routinely in the IT industry, you are being naive if you don't think it happens. These contracts are worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and the boys from Accenture, IBM, EDS, etc. play for keeps. Don't try to tell me that Rolls Royce haven't taken a leaf out of their books.

You make your customer totally dependant on you, then ....profit!

JohnMcGhie
3rd Dec 2010, 02:30
But this is not as far fetched as your story of a company agreeing to mass redundancies of skilled workers at the request of its contractor...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cwm13.gif

You must work with some very nice people up there on the 15th floor. I don't. I work in the IT industry, consulting to major corporations.

While working for "a very large Australian Bank" not so many years ago (say, 2005...) the staff were informed that the Bank would begin a massive (and mega-expensive) project to "re-in-source" their IT systems. The reason given was ".. it is evident that we have lost control over our IT strategic direction and operational capability..."

What Sunfish was saying, in other words. I'm not going to embarrass him (or me...) by naming either of the organisations, but I know exactly which one he was in, and he will know exactly which one I was in :-)

Just to amuse you, I could go further and say that, last time I looked, all of the IT services for a large Australian airline are provided by the same organisation. Which airline? Nope: won't say.

I've been in IT 30 years, give-or-take. It has taken the major corporations a very long time to figure out that "out-sourcing" is almost always a bad idea. It's not a complicated calculation: you can do it on the back of a beer coaster... "If you remove an activity from our business and move it to another business: that has to do the same job, plus account for that job in detail so they can send us a bill, plus buy a whole lot of expensive insurance which we do not need in case they make a mistake, plus make a profit, then either it will cost us more or they will do less."

Which is what we told them, 20 years ago. Which is what they're now "discovering", roughly at the time when the people who decided to outsource in the first place retire. Which is why Sunfish said you have to lobotomise the customer...

Jabawocky
3rd Dec 2010, 04:07
Yep :D

In the engineering world too. Our existence is mostly because our customers can not fend for themselves.

Some of them can, and we happily supply goods and some services, others....well they just have to pay the price!

J:ok:

And we did not force our customers as said above.....they had all done it to themselves! :rolleyes: Onya Bean counters:ugh: you should hear the questions I get from Mrs Jaba at QR National.......their stratergies to save money make me laugh so hard :}

kellykelpie
3rd Dec 2010, 05:00
Interesting responses. It surprises me that such a tactic would work. I must be the naive one...

Arnold E
3rd Dec 2010, 11:32
Mate, that's not far fetched at all. I've done it. The key to successful outsourcing is lobotomising the customer so that they become totally dependent on the supplier.

To do that you have to remove the customers technical expertise.

Are you proud of that??:confused::confused:

Sunfish
3rd Dec 2010, 19:26
Arnold E:

Are you proud of that??

Actually I'm not, but I was giddy from my first six figure salary and the "Group General Manager" title on my door and business card, and I didn't do it by myself or invent the practice, just went with the flow.

I did penance afterwards by working for Three Years on contract in the Victorian public service on industry development matters that I like to think produced a few jobs. That was very rewarding. Most Public servants are the salt of the earth.

Bad Hat Harry
6th Dec 2010, 02:13
Qantas A380 engine hit by earlier problem

By Steve Creedy December 06, 2010 12:00AM

THE engine that disintegrated on an Airbus A380 near Singapore last month had earlier been taken off the aircraft to fix another problem.
The engine was only refitted in February, investigators have revealed.
An Australian Transport Safety Bureau report released last week shows the No 2 engine was originally fitted as the aircraft's No 4 engine but was removed last year after metal was found in a chip detector.
Chip detectors are often a permanent magnet used to gather metal fragments, usually from lubrication oil.
The relatively new engine had performed just 3419 flight hours and 416 landing and take-off cycles at the time.
The engine was sent to a Singapore workshop certified to maintain and repair Rolls-Royce engines in September last year.
Engineers found spalling in a low-pressure compressor bearing and replaced the bearing assembly. Spalling occurs when flakes break off from a larger component and is usually associated in mechanical systems with high-stress points.low-pressure compressor is a different part of the engine than the one that failed in the dramatic Singapore incident.
The repair was completed in December last year, the engine was fitted to the aircraft on February 24 and had completed a further 2895 flight hours since then, the report said.
Last week's report revealed the extent of the damage inflicted on the superjumbo and the crucial role the crew played in nursing the crippled plane back to Singapore.
It also confirmed that damage extended beyond the left wing, including damage to the fuselage structure from a small piece of turbine debris.
Qantas has returned two A380s to service on the London route but is unable to fly the planes to Los Angeles because limitations still placed on the engines mean it would have to carry as few as 80 passengers on the return leg.
The Australian.

cart_elevator
6th Dec 2010, 08:12
Qantas has returned two A380s to service on the London route but is unable to fly the planes to Los Angeles because limitations still placed on the engines mean it would have to carry as few as 80 passengers on the return leg.


I am really interested in this quote..

What is the basis of the quote that the A380 can only carry 80 pax on the Pacific route?

If this is true, what are we gonna do with them? Their main purpose was the Pacific routes SYD-LAX-SYD, MEL-LAX-MEL

I have been told they have to fly with 'reduced-thrust', and therefore very weight restricted.

But if they can't do the Pacific runs, then what exactly is the point of having them? Will they ever be able to do that run again?

In flight attendant open-time, the QF 11 is now being operated by the A330 SYD-AKL-LAX. Have we run out of 747s?

I know, its alot of questions, but any ideas?
:confused:

JohnMcGhie
6th Dec 2010, 10:16
Not an engineer, but my attention is drawn to the fact that this engine had a prior problem: it was dropped off the wing at about 3,000 hours because the chip detector indicated metal in the oil. Engineers found spalling in the low pressure bearing.

If I think back 45 years to when the airforce attempted to teach me metallurgy, "spalling" is often the result of inadequate lubrication.

About 3,000 hours later it blew up (sorry... 'burst'...) due to another lubrication problem.

I wonder if the engine shop in Singapore missed the real problem the first time?

Inquiring minds...

winglets747
10th Dec 2010, 00:55
From Flightglobal:
Qantas' spokesman says the stub pipe defect is unrelated to the carrier's announcement last week that 16 of its Trent 900 engines require "modification to the latest standard or full replacement".
"That is not related to the stub pipe issue," the spokesman says. "The only stub pipe [fault] we have found is on this aircraft awaiting delivery." He declines to specify why the 16 other Trent 900s require change.
Three more Trent 900s found with manufacturing defect (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/12/09/350752/three-more-trent-900s-found-with-manufacturing-defect.html)

So if not the stub pipe, why is QF changing 16 engines?

Is this to bring A mod and B mod engines to C mod standard? What does the C mod have the A and B mods don't?

GalleyHag
10th Dec 2010, 01:44
Qantas still waiting for OK to Los Angeles

Steve Creedy, Aviation writer From: The Australian December 10, 2010 12:00

ROLLS-ROYCE is expected to provide guidance as early as today that will tell when Qantas can send its A380 superjumbos back to Los Angeles.

A Qantas spokeswoman yesterday cautioned against using updated information in the global distribution system used by travel agents as an indicator of its plans for the key Melbourne-Los Angeles and Sydney-LA routes.

Trade publication Travel Daily reported that the updated entries showed Sydney-LA A380 flights resuming on January 18 and operating every second day until January 31, when they would return to daily service.

The system showed Melbourne-LA flights resuming as a one-off on January 16, with four-times-weekly flights resuming on February 3.

The spokeswoman said Qantas hoped to be in a better position to comment on Los Angeles next week. "We've got operational restrictions in place that were recommended by Rolls-Royce," she said.

The restrictions remain despite inspections that have shown existing Qantas A380s do not have an oil-pipe manufacturing flaw believed responsible for the failure of a Rolls-Royce engine last month. The restrictions limit the amount of thrust the airline can apply to the engines and mean it is not able to operate on the Los Angeles routes with a normal payload.

The A380 needs to use its maximum 72,000-pound thrust on take-off from Los Angeles, particularly on runway 24L, and Qantas says the restrictions make its trans-Pacific A380 operations uncommercial. It estimates that in some cases it could be limited to carrying 80 passengers instead of the 450 it would typically carry.

Qantas has reserved the right to sue the British engine-maker for misleading and deceptive conduct relating to engine performance guarantees, but it is hopeful of reaching a settlement.

But the cost of that settlement continues to grow.

Merrill Lynch put the cost of the debacle at $207 million, including $137m for lost revenue and $70m for repairs.

Previous estimates had put the cost at $100m to $130m.

Merrill analysts, who retained a buy rating on the stock, said they expected compensation to cover direct costs and revenue loss, but said this did not cover the cost of rebuilding the Qantas brand.

A global inspection of 45 engines found three with the oil-pipe flaw, including one on an undelivered Qantas A380

1746
10th Dec 2010, 23:44
Accident: Qantas A388 near Singapore on Nov 4th 2010, uncontained engine failure


By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Dec 9th 2010 16:13Z, last updated Thursday, Dec 9th 2010 16:13Z

The Australian Transportation Safety Board reported, that on Dec 2nd Rolls Royce released a new revision of its non-modification service bulletin (NMSB) 72-G595 defining assessment and engine rejection criteria for the measurement of potential oil feed stub pipes counter-bore misalignment. At the same time the NMSB tightened the compliance time frame from 20 to 2 flight cycles.

Since issue of the NMSB 45 Trent 900 engines have been inspected (standing Dec 8th):

29 engine were installed on operating aircraft
8 engines were not installed on aircraft
4 engines were about to be delivered
4 engines were on a flight test aircraft

Of these 45 engines 3 engines failed the inspection and were removed from service for further examination. All Qantas engines currently flying were found with no defects and remain in service.

The European Aviation Safety Agency has approved software updates to the Rolls Royce engine electronic control units, that is now incorporated into all operating aircraft. The new software version predicts intermediate turbine overspeed events and shuts the engine down before a turbine disk failure occurs.EVERY 2 FLIGHT CYCLES! The issue still exists!

Redstone
11th Dec 2010, 00:23
At the same time the NMSB tightened the compliance time frame from 20 to 2 flight cycles.

EVERY 2 FLIGHT CYCLES! The issue still exists!

1746, I think you will find this refers to "time to comply" (ie when you must start the mandatory inspections). It has been revised. Was within 20 cycles now 2.

Initially all operators had to start within 20 cycles, in other words for example SIA could operate 20 cycles before they started their inspection programme. Now it's 2 cycles.

Hempy
14th Dec 2010, 10:51
EXCLUSIVE - Qantas QF32 flight from the cockpit | Aerospace Insight | The Royal Aeronautical Society (http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/aerospace-insight/2010/12/exclusive-qantas-qf32-flight-from-the-cockpit/)

http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/aerospace-insight/files/2010/12/QF32-cockpit-2.jpg

One of a series of Cockpit pics during the emergency by Harry Wubben, Route Check Captain using an iPhone

FlexibleResponse
29th Dec 2010, 13:39
Sunfish

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,412

I have asked repeatedly if QF maintains the in house engineering expertise to understand what is happening to its engines and thus be proactive as opposed to reactive.

As a member of the management team of one of Australias first outsourcing companies involved in the IT industry, I know that one of he first moves we made is to "lobotomise" the customer so that no one within the customer organisation remains with the technical experience capable of taking issue with, or criticise, our service at all.

We did this first by the simple means of hiring away the best brains in the customer organisation. Secondly, we argued for the customer to retrench or fire any remaining technical staff on the basis that they were superfluous.

Finally we went to the manager who had made the outsourcing decision and told them in no uncertain terms that allowing potential technical "troublemakers" to remain in his organisation risked compromising the "success" of the outsourcing program by perhaps calling into question the wisdom of his outsourcing decision, with the obvious implication that if he relied totally on us, we would keep his career safe.

We used very well dressed, very smooth talking and intelligent people to convey this message and it succeeded every time. Hundreds were retrenched at our suggestion in many organisations, leaving them totally reliant on us for technical input, and thus immune from criticism. We produced brightly coloured reports every month that showed how well we were complying with contract performance requirements too.

It generally took about Five years before the organisation realised that they had lost operational control of a core capability that was now affecting their strategic business plans. They then had to begin the long, expensive and difficult task of building technical capability again, then prising our greasy little fingers off their computers.

What happened to the staff of the now closed Qantas RR centre of excellence?

To put it another way, in Five years time Qantas decides it wants to start a service to "Buttistan" in central Asia, and the airport is 4000 ft high and summer temperatures are 37C. Qantas then has to go cap in hand to RR regarding the thrust limits on the engines, and therefore its payload. In other words, RR now has a say in QF operational decisions. Am I being far fetched?

Sunfish's comment above is perhaps one of the most succinct and challenging comments I have ever read on PPRuNe. It is most chilling when one considers its depth and the far reaching consequences yet to be realized as a direct result of strategic decisions taken by inept (should I say ****wit?) CEO s and seniors Management at Qantas.

teresa green
29th Dec 2010, 20:16
A simple reply to your question Sunfish. My brother was a QF Flight Engineer. He came up thru the hanger floor to this job. When QF purchased the 747/200 he and a couple of other engineers were sent to the Boeing factory, where they stayed for 6 months, and watched and checked just about every bolt and nut on the growing hull which was to become the first 747 that QF purchased. Ditto for the donks. There were times they disagreed with Boeing engineers, and wanted alterations to suit the long haul flying these aircraft were being prepared for, mostly Boeing bowed to their wishes though not always gracefully. The enormous amount of infomation learnt was of great benefit to QF, who at that time ran a really tight engineering outfit, in fact probably one of the best in the world, with outstanding engineers, unencumbered by bean counters, and the result was aircraft beautifully engineered for the job, engineers with a huge bank of infomation behind them, Flight Engineers more than happy with performance, and pilots confident with their training and a delight in the aircraft they were flying. Of course there were gliches, but nothing serious, and the best part was engineering was seamless, parts very seldom left the base, and QF had a great product. Now I am not privy to what engineering does now or what it did whilst the A380 was being built, but what I do know engineering is only a shell of its former self, almost destroyed by lack of knowledge, stupidity, and greed from people who simply have no idea other than profit, and this must have had a flow on effect on the engineers who oversaw the production of this aircraft. No blame on them, they are working under conditions imposed on them by beancounters, not by experienced manager engineers. My brother is gobsmacked this problem was not picked up on the factory floor, in the test pads, and will not have it that the engineers of the 70's and 80's would have not seen it coming, his opinion, not necessarily mine. There it is from the horses mouth, so to speak Sunfish, I don't know the answer, other than back to basics, and to hell with costs.:ugh:

mmciau
29th Dec 2010, 21:21
teresa green,

I'm an ex APS that specialised in apprenticeship training. After getting the flick on my 55th birthday, I spent the next 10 years working for a Group Training Organisations that I set up while in the APS!!!!. My job was setting up a Registered Training Organisation to train the apprentices - (Adelaide's PEER VEET is a joint GTO and RTO that trains over 500 plumbing, electrical, electronic and refrigeration apprentices for the services industries). Most of the Trainers and Assessors used by PEER VEET are ex DCA, DSTO and Aircraft trained Tradespersons who had been 'flicked' by the former DCA and aircraft shops.

From the early 1980s, there was a decision by companies and government 'beancounters' to withdraw from 'direct' apprenticeship training effort.

As a result, the number of apprentices being trained dropped dramatically. Companies that had industrial and commercial advantage and high intellectual proprietorship capability were suddenly without a continuing skilled workforce.

The organisations' capacity to 'compete' was lost and with it all the skill base of the organisations was seriously compromised.

Bean counters, to justify their existence, shut down their Australian production capacity and sourced the organisation's products and services from overseas.

The companies have never really recovered and the beancounters, realising that their worth in the organisation is now not sufficiently rewarded, pick up their lunch boxes and move to another organisation and do the same to them.

I call bean counters 'parasites on society'.

Mike

Fabrice691
1st Jan 2011, 14:51
PICTURES of the damaged wing structure of the Qantas Airbus A380, flight
QF32, 4th November 2010, „Nancy-Bird Walton“, MSN 0014, Reg. VH-OQA

http://www.filedropper.com/a380-qfa-msn014-damageoverview

http://www.filedropper.com/damagesdescriptionwingtopskin

:8

Rollingthunder
16th Apr 2012, 11:26
"Sioux City"

An old turbine blade in a Rolls-Royce engine fitted to a Qantas jumbo, carrying 213 passengers and 18 crew, broke off and set in train a sequence of events that led to an uncontained engine explosion at 25,000 feet, safety investigators have found.

The explosion led to an emergency landing after the Sydney-bound jet took off from San Francisco on August 30, 2010, after pilots were forced to (off?) shut down the damaged engine and dump 70,000 litres of jet fuel.

High-speed engine shrapnel tore a hole in the engine's casing and hit the jumbo jet's wing.

Footage shot by passengers showed showers of sparks shooting from the engine across a pitch-black night sky.

The pilot calmly announced to passengers: "You must be assured we are trained for this situation. Normally we do it on a simulator of course."

Relying on a technical analysis by Roll-Royce's own engineers, investigators from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau concluded the engine had an older-design housing holding the engine bearings, which failed when the spinning engine rotors became unbalanced, severing blades and shafts and allowing internal components to thrash about.

Investigators found the last time the engine was overhauled in May 2009, the turbine bearing had accumulated nearly 72,000 hours of operation, or more than 9000 take-offs and landings.

Although maintained by the book, the turbine blades had accumulated about 80,000 hours of of operation or about 10,000 take-offs and landings.

When one blade broke off, it caused other blades to shear, creating an imbalance, overloading the turbine roller bearing, which failed, allowing one turbine shaft to ''orbit'', striking another shaft that snapped.

As the engine started to destroy itself, the heavy turbine disc span too fast and out of centre, ''losing its axial and radial location'', investigators said.

The spinning disc and blades crashed into components, ultimately leading the turbine casing to rupture as shrapnel that flew out, striking the wing.

Rolls-Royce told investigators the blade that broke was the only one of its kind to do so in the history of the RB211 engine type, totalling 40 million hours of service over 23 years of global operation.

But investigators found ''high-service time'' blades of the type that broke ''were susceptible to a reduction in fatigue endurance as a result of vibratory stresses sustained during operation at speeds close to maximum''.

As a result, investigators recommend airlines replace high-service blades and retrofit a newer, more robustly designed bearing housing during ''the next maintenance visit''.

A Qantas spokesman said 28 of its 72 of its Rolls-Royce RB211 engines had been updated so far, and all remaining in service would be completed in the next 12 months

OK, old story, so no probs.

SMOC
16th Apr 2012, 11:32
...can you say....."Sioux City"

In a 747............ NO.

gobbledock
16th Apr 2012, 11:35
The Roller was maintained by the book?
Obviously it spent it's life being maintained in Australia then and must have escaped overseas meddling.