View Full Version : A380 - VH-OQA Write Off.

Pages : [1] 2

4th Dec 2010, 19:47
I heard last night that VH OQA is going to be written off this week.

No regulatory authority will give approval for a ferry flight.

There is no repair scheme for the front spar.

OQA will leave Singapore in chunks, by ship.

This is a rumour website and I may be wrong.

Pat S
4th Dec 2010, 19:54
Yeah, i heard this last week from a friend who works at Qantas. Mind you, they also claimed (only half jokingly) that no one wants to fly her because she is possessed!

4th Dec 2010, 20:00
Jeez, that's funny. I heard the exact opposite.....rumours you make up whilst on the dunny don't count.

On the othe hand, she is haunted.

4th Dec 2010, 20:18
Haunted as in NBW walks the isle? Or OQA just has fault after fault?

The Kelpie
4th Dec 2010, 20:23
Would be interesting if true as that would I think be considered a jet hull loss and qf's 'never had a jet hull loss' claim to fame would be no more. The press would have a field day!!!

4th Dec 2010, 20:55
Well if you are going to have a write off this is probably not a bad one to have on your record.

No apparent fault of QF and the crew did a great job.

Capt Kremin
4th Dec 2010, 20:58
People make up a lot of things about QF. Claims about never crashing, never losing a passenger, never having a hull-loss, even the silly "Qantas pilot 'gripes' sheet" that regularly does the rounds.

These things never seem to come from bona-fide QF people though. If they write off OQA so be it. There are hull losses and there are hull losses. Anyone who tries to use it to make some sort of point will only be displaying their ignorance of the industry.

4th Dec 2010, 22:16
Do you honestly think that Airbus will allow it's premier aircraft to be written off? I very much doubt it, even if it means sending it by sea back to the factory in sections!

4th Dec 2010, 23:27
I agree with the above two posts. It is not a hull loss -full stop- look up what constitutes a hull loss then come back and talk on the site.
Great job done by a great professional crew trained by a first class C+T organization.
Always Craven

5th Dec 2010, 00:03
Qantas' claim is a carefully-worded claim that they have never had a hull loss or pax fatality in the jet age (1951 onwards, in QF claims). This claim is always modified by lax journalism, word of mouth, and ignorant people, into ... "QF have never had a hull loss or pax fatality, EVER."

It doesn't take much research to find that QF have had many major aircraft crashes, including total losses (pax & aircraft), and many crashes weren't even recorded in detail (1920's).
During WW2, QF was cheerfully regarded as an arm of the RAAF by many Australians... and the Japs most certainly didn't distinguish between civilian aircraft (particularly QF aircraft) and RAAF aircraft.

The worst QF disasters were...

De Havilland DH-9C G-AUED - 24 Mar 1927 - 3 fatalities
De Havilland DH-86 VH-USG - 15 Nov 1934 - 4 fatalities
De Havilland DH-86 VH-USE - 20 Feb 1942 - 9 fatalities
Short S-23 (flying boat) VH-ADU - 22 Apr 1943 - 13 fatalities
Lockheed 18 Lodestar VH-CAB - 26 Nov 1943 - 15 fatalities
Short S-23 (flying boat) VH-ABB - 11 Oct 1944 - 1 fatality
Avro 691 Lancastrian (BOAC G-AGLAX, operated by QF) - disappeared between Colombo & Cocos Is (no trace found) - 23 Mar 1946 - 10 fatalities
Avro 691 Lancastrian VH-EAS - 07 April 1949 - hull loss, no fatalities
De Havilland Drover II VH-EBQ - 16 Jul 1951 - 7 fatalities
Lockheed L1049 VH-EAC - 24 August 1960 - hull loss, no fatalities

Possibly the nearest that QF came to total disaster was the last event, the rejected TO of the Super Constellation at Mauritius. To have everyone survive a rejected TO crash of a Super Constellation loaded with 8280 US gallons of avgas, that caught fire immediately after crashing, was nothing less than a miracle.

5th Dec 2010, 00:08
Why not leave it in Singapore? , just sell it to Singapore Airlines as scrap metal and let them raid it for spare parts as needed for their 380's.

Maybe even QF could get a couple of 777's off SQ for it.

5th Dec 2010, 00:26
What's all the fuss about whether the A380 is/isn't a hull loss? :confused:

Hull loss *: Airplane damage that is substantial and is beyond economic repair.

Substantial Damage *: Damage or structural failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the airplane and would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.

Sunfish mentioned hearing that the aircraft maybe a write-off (ie., a rumour), and if that's the case, then the substantial damage resulting from the inflight event probably means that it is (by definition) a hull loss. So what?

Great job done by a great professional crew...

Totally agree! :D :D

* Definitions courtesy of Boeing, because despite popular belief, neither ICAO nor the NTSB has a definition for Hull Loss - refer Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST).

Capt Kremin
5th Dec 2010, 00:34
During the great Sydney hail storm of '99, VH-OGS apparently suffered so much damage they considered writing it off. The only reason they didn't was because it was a relatively young aircraft at the time. If it was OGA, then a different outcome.
I repeat my point. A hull loss from an insurance/repair POV is not the same as an accident.

5th Dec 2010, 02:21
The insurer not the airline will make the determination if the aircraft is a write off.

Lots of issues including recovery/repair and loss of use is covered. The insurer may then go after the 'third party' who caused the loss.

QF's claim vs. RR [and maybe Airbus] is separate from this.....

5th Dec 2010, 03:14
Qantas self-insures

5th Dec 2010, 03:27
Capt Kremin

Although it was the worst damaged out of the QF fleet, information at the time was that VH-OGS cost $9 mil to repair, not exactly a write off.
BTW a nice airplane to fly before and after the hail storm!

stubby jumbo
5th Dec 2010, 03:36
What about that QantasLink Boeing 717 that "bounced".....into DRW??

I thought that one was a Write Off

5th Dec 2010, 03:40

It may cost more than it is worth, but I am sure that Airbus will not allow it's premier aircraft to be a write off at such an early stage of it's career, commercially it would be very damaging!

5th Dec 2010, 04:52
Qantas does not self-insure its aircraft hulls. For a start it doesn't own all of them. Many are leased and I can assure you that lessors require 'real' insurance.

Why wouldn't Airbus want a write-off if indeed it was??

5th Dec 2010, 05:16

Premier aircraft - commercially damaging - European pride (French).

Crew rest.
5th Dec 2010, 05:56
Wasn't there a QF B707 upset over India one night during the 1970's? That would have come close to a disaster, I would think.

Capt Claret
5th Dec 2010, 07:01
stubby jumbo I flew that one yesterday, so I hope it wasn't a write-off. :eek:

5th Dec 2010, 07:10
I would find it very hard to believe that a near new A380, costing over US$300M would be written off, despite a long list of substantial damage.
Yes, the spar repair process isn't written up, because it's an entirely new plane, and nothing like this was specifically foreseen and planned for... but what's to stop the repair being carried out, and the process written up, as it's being done?

Let's see... despite all the aforementioned damage, the plane flew for a considerable period, under full control, and landed, still under control.
It wasn't a seat-of-the-pants, good-luck landing... it was still controllable. The fuselage is relatively undamaged.
There was no fire. Thus there is no heat-affected, or extensively-damaged-over-a-wide-area, style of damage.

Yes, there is a lot of damage to repair. Much worse damage has been repaired and the planes flew again.
QF VH-OJH cost $100M to repair. It was repaired and it flies again.
D-ABYU, a B747-230 Freighter of Lufthansa Cargo crashed at Kai Tek, suffering as much, if not worse damage than VH-OJH. It was repaired and flies again.
F-GITA, a B747-428 of Air France crashed at Papeete, suffering enormous structural damage. It was repaired and it flies again.

The A380 hasn't yet had a major incident... until now. Every incident with a new model adds to the learning curve. I don't think AB have designed the A380 to be turned into scrap, after one major incident. Yes, the trend is going that way with much manufacturing... but not with the worlds largest aircraft that boasts state-of-the-art engineering, and a brand-new design. I think what needs to admired, is that despite serious damage to a very complex aircraft, it landed safely, and there was no fire and no loss of pax. I don't know what else you could ask of an aircraft.

Airbus aircraft are no more susceptible to engine burst events than any other make, and the A380 has shown satisfactory durability after an engine burst event.
I will cheerfully wager it is repaired, and the model will continue to show durability.

Jack Ranga
5th Dec 2010, 07:22
The word I hear is that Airbus wants to write it off and Qantas wants it fixed?

5th Dec 2010, 08:06
Wasn't there a QF B707 upset over India one night during the 1970's? That would have come close to a disaster, I would think.

Crew rest.
My very imperfect memory of that event (I am sure someone with better information than I will correct me) was that a gyro (or something similar) stopped working in the autopilot of a 707 somewhere over the middle east. The aircraft pitched nose up very rapidly and the airframe suffered from being overstressed. The crew made an emergency landing. I thought the airframe was written off but I cannot be certain about that.

5th Dec 2010, 08:11
OQA is up for sale so airbus can buy it back and give them a new one, hence no write off on QF's Books :ok:

5th Dec 2010, 08:15
The word I hear is that Airbus wants to write it off and Qantas wants it fixed?

I don't know about Airbus, but me thinks RollsRoyce would want a decision made on OQA ASAP. Everyday it sits stored will only increase the claim for compensation by QF.

It would be interesting to compare how much money OQA would make in revenue flights compared to the amount of money that could be earned in terms of compensation and warranty claims with it sitting on the ground for the same period in the current situation.;)


5th Dec 2010, 08:25
I have heard the same intel as KrispyKreme.
None of the players, QF/Airbus/Rolls Royce want the bad publicity to continue and they want a quick resolution. I am hearing that Airbus will buy back the Dugong (as it is still a valuable assett), Rolls will pay QF compensation (still being dicussed) and QF inturn will get another Dugong as a replacement (keeping their 'good safety record' ). Rolls is willing to 'eat the sh#t sandwich' as it is their fault, and they want to keep QF and Airbus onside for future synergies. All three parties are working together to nut out the finances and therfore quickly bury the problem . I am also hearing that due to the spar damage the beast will be chopped up and shipped back to France, however this has not yet been confimed but is the most likely scenario.
Stay tuned.

5th Dec 2010, 08:48
Wasn't there a QF B707 upset over India one night during the 1970's? That would have come close to a disaster, I would think.

Yep, VH-EBB, later sold to the Kiwi's.
Story I heard was that the Captain's AI toppled and he followed it, doing a rough barrel-roll but with a few G's. One of the crew managed to crawl forwards and stop it all. Something like that, don't quote me but the rego is right AFAIK.

5th Dec 2010, 09:04

no mention of the golf course prang a few years ago??!!

Oh well...a repair job of $100M to replace an A/C that cost...wait for it!...$100M, is not really a hull loss is it? :rolleyes:

standard unit
5th Dec 2010, 09:05
Yep, VH-EBB, later sold to the Kiwi's.
Story I heard was that the Captain's AI toppled and he followed it, doing a rough barrel-roll but with a few G's. One of the crew managed to crawl forwards and stop it all. Something like that, don't quote me but the rego is right AFAIK.

I think we may be talking about the, "Bahrain Bomber" ???

The Bahrain Bomber > Retired and Ex Qantas Crew Community > Member Articles (http://www.qantas.org.au/Cabin/Articles/tabid/63/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2/The-Bahrain-Bomber.aspx)

Runaround Valve
5th Dec 2010, 09:14
This was the aircaft that did the 'barrel roll' near India. It was a B707-338C, later went to Young Air Cargo in Belgium, then was P2-ANA with Air New Guinea. I think after the incident near India it was used by Qantas for a Royal tour to Australia. VH EBB was a B747-238B.

5th Dec 2010, 09:20
Ah, thanks RV.

5th Dec 2010, 09:21
Don't recall ANY NZ outfit flying a 707, so I doubt EBB ever flew with a ZK rego. According to the Boeing data book, EBB went on to become N790SA, then D-ADAP, TC-JBP, N790FA and was written off as N138SR with Comtran Int'l 01/99 in Nigeria.


Metro man
5th Dec 2010, 09:24
I heard the problem with the A380 is repairing the damaged fuel tank, which is structural.

Perhaps they could use one of these to get it back to France


teresa green
5th Dec 2010, 09:32
If they got that BKK wreck back into the air, than they can get Nancy. That aircraft has spent more time in the hanger than in the air, but for Nancy's sake I hope she can be at least serve some time in the fleet, because her name sake was amazing. If she was called the Julia Gillard well what can I say, but Nancy Bird Walton, she should be a legend. Let her fly again.:D

Runaround Valve
5th Dec 2010, 09:35
Re Plane Makers Reply.
There were two aircraft registered as VH-EBB, the first one he describes was a B707-138, later confugured to a B707-138B, ended it`s days burnt out in Nigeria. The other later one VH-EBB was a B747-238B.

5th Dec 2010, 09:42
To those interested in fact rather than fiction (rumour) the following is recent information.

The a/c damage identified so far has been surveyed at $75M by Airclaims who are being assisted by Thomas Montagne; the Technical Services Manager for Airbus. The a/c was/is insured by the AON Corporation of the US.

5th Dec 2010, 10:27
Oh well...a repair job of $100M to replace an A/C that cost...wait for it!...$100M, is not really a hull loss is it?

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. It cost less than $100 Mill, the replacement cost was circa $160 mill. :rolleyes:

Eastwest Loco
5th Dec 2010, 11:00
Personally the Loco would like to see Miss Nancy repaired if it is viable.

Having flown on the girl on the 1st International passenger service before entering service, I and everyone else aboard fell in love.

One can only marvel at the expertise and airmanship of the crew to hold together what was a close to untenable set of circumstances. In WWII that would have drawn a bunch of DFCs.

God it's great to have our Aussie crews!!

If they can't fix OQA, I am sure LRE will find some space, a lot that is.

I hope they do, but I have always been a "favourite aeroplane" sook.

Maybe the fact that OQA is haunted by Nancy-Bird helped the guys and girls to get her down safely too. Think on that. Refer to the Eastern
L1011 in Ghost of Flight 401. If you haven't read it you must be a journo - shoo!!!:E

Bring the girl home - and fix her if you can.

Best all


Can't help it.

5th Dec 2010, 18:53
No regulatory authority will give approval for a ferry flight.

Just transfer it to the French register, problem solved.

Not sure what the insured value of that particular a/c is but I would have thought that the cost of one new wing, one new engine and labour was a lot less.

5th Dec 2010, 21:02

But Changi hasn't sent the Bill yet for the real estate the A-380 is covering.


5th Dec 2010, 21:36
Sorry ewl
nancy is a nice ride in P, but with all of the annoying non critical issues - graceful retirement is the best option. OQA was the first wave and carries all issues that 1st runs typically have - 380 is though a great a/c.

Shame the P76 like antics of RR, Airbus and QF have devalued the image. Still a lot of hard questions left unanswered.


Blocker Vlv
5th Dec 2010, 22:52
Heard yesterday form Singapore the 380 is to be wrapped in plastic and preserved for a min of 9 months.

International Trader
5th Dec 2010, 22:57
....and..... Never let a good story get in the way of the truth!

Was a used 747 was worth $160m at the time? Who can say now, what it was worth then, but, WOW....A $100m "incident on landing".

I'll bet it doesn't fly for QF today or not for very long after the cover,sorry ,I mean't to say... patch up

The Green Goblin
5th Dec 2010, 23:06
As far as I'm aware VH-OJH is still in the fleet and doing what it does best.

Capt Kremin
5th Dec 2010, 23:18
IT, stick to what you know.... whatever that is. OJH, a decade after the fact is still going strong.

5th Dec 2010, 23:18
Not sure if it has been recently sent to the boneyard, but OJH is now 20 years old, but she went back to work for QF and was at least a year or so ago in service. Keg or one of the QF folk would know.

training wheels
5th Dec 2010, 23:45
Is there a warranty for newly purchased aircraft? Would Airbus provide Qantas with a new replacement aircraft considering it was a design flaw that caused the incident?

Peter Fanelli
6th Dec 2010, 00:23
I'm sure Boeing would be only too happy to offer a substantial trade in value on it in return for an order of 747-8Is.
One can imagine the high profile ceremonial parting out of it.

Jay Arr
6th Dec 2010, 00:36
Flew OJH just last week. Definitely going strong.

Capt Claret
6th Dec 2010, 00:58
Me thinks thoughts that this one incident with be the ruin of Airbus or the A380, or that QF will ditch Airbus for Boeing, are fanciful in the extreme. :}

6th Dec 2010, 01:22
I concur with Captain Claret, writing off aircraft that are new is not viable.
Reminded off the Air France 747 that went into the drink Tahiti 1993.
Boeing repaired it locally including building a hangar just for fuselage, from memory took 6 months at least. Would think the expense here was considerable.
Also waiting for a replacement aircraft would take years, thats also years of lost revenue not captured by insurance claims.

AirDisaster.Com: Accident Photo: Air France F-GITA (4) (http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/f-gita/4.shtml)

Good pics here unfortunately text in le francais ;)

crash AF a Tahiti (http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/autre%20crash%20a%20Tahiti.htm)

6th Dec 2010, 01:48
Just out of interest, If OQA was ultimately written off. Would Qantas name another airframe down the track "Nancy Bird Walton"? Or do superstitions or other protocols come into play?

Eastwest Loco
6th Dec 2010, 10:00
If you follow the Eastern EA401 theorum YPJT then only if non structural items from the aeroplane were to be placed on other areoplanes.

What is that smell of brilliantine I copped in the avionics bay?

A haunted aeroplane with a friendly spirit aboard is a nice concept. I would like to think Nancy-Bird was riding with me.

Clear on two Nancy.:ok: Good to go and ground clear.

Best all


tea & bikkies
6th Dec 2010, 10:40
Had the good fortune to have Nancy in the jump in the good old days, about nine years ago now. What a delightful lady, full of first class wit, sharp as a tack. I remember handing her $20 bucks out of my wallet for a copy of her autobiography "My God, Its a Woman". About 5 days later arrived a signed copy, with a lovely note of thanks for a great flight.
If shes with OQA, it can only be a great thing.

6th Dec 2010, 11:00
Is there a warranty for newly purchased aircraft?

Edmerald Advantage? 100k or 5 years, whatever comes first. Fitted with ABC, DEF and GHI. Free Airbags?

9th Dec 2010, 07:37
OQA will be repaired.

Kangaroo Court
9th Dec 2010, 16:00
Believe it or not..it's probably going to be the best one they own after they're finished with it; can you imagine them doing anything less than a perfect job with the whole world watching?

I wonder if the whole left wing will have to be replaced?

qf 1
9th Dec 2010, 16:51
she will be repaired,engine replaced,spar repaired,looms replaced,various other grizzers replaced(within front spar area)wing blank replaced.job done...big deal.

Atlas Shrugged
10th Dec 2010, 01:38
Qantas self-insures


teresa green
10th Dec 2010, 01:49
Amazing how QF's luck keeps holding. Old Hudson Fysh must be up there in that great aircrew bar in the sky, just keeping it all together. If that piece of flying metal, had not hit the fuel pump, but instead entered the tank, thats how close they were to "all over red rover". And right now this country and the families of lost ones would be in mourning. Saved by a fuel pump, and a crew with airmanship, who relied on and trusted each other. There, but for the grace of God (whoever He is to you.)

10th Dec 2010, 03:45
Yes, QANTAS was lucky in that the debris didn't hole the fuel tank but the rest of the luck was manufactured. Manufactured by investment in excellent training which has been paid back time and time again by their flight crews.

As far as I am aware the only time this has not happened is when the flight crew was given a s**t sandwich by way of SOPs' in Bangkok. I am referring to mainline here and not the assorted sundry hangers-on. There may have been other occasions but I cannot recall them now.

The lesson for the bean counters is that investing in top maintenance and crew training is a no-brainer. It will repay its value over and over again. As has been said before, if you think training is expensive just try having a crash or even an incident.

10th Dec 2010, 05:25
Absolutely no way that QANTAS would be self insured. It is possible, but improbable, that they would self insure Personal Accident to employees, baggage claims and/or Loss of Licence insurance but even this is most likely covered in the Australian domestic market.

QANTAS hulls, liabilities and third party cover will be underwritten and re-insured on the world wide insurance market, as is usually the case with any airline of a reasonable size.

10th Dec 2010, 06:20
Yes, QANTAS was lucky in that the debris didn't hole the fuel tank

So how did all that fuel escape from the wing out those large holes? And then after landing make a large puddle on the ground?
I've said it elsewhere but they were incredibly lucky to not have the fuel catch on fire as they had all the requirements for combustion right there.

10th Dec 2010, 07:02
Ohh..jet fuel doesn't ignite that well..you try and get it to burn at minus 15 or 20 degrees..its quite good at putting out fires.

I was a refueller once before you all start and I did a rescue fire course!

(it burns ferociously once it gets up to its flash point though..don't muck around if your wing ever gets started just hang everything out and max rate to any flat ground or water IMHO)

10th Dec 2010, 08:27
So how did all that fuel escape from the wing out those large holes?

18-Wheeler, I thought the debris took out the fuel transfer lines, not the tanks.

10th Dec 2010, 08:32
18-Wheeler, I thought the debris took out the fuel transfer lines, not the tanks.

Righto - Can this be confirmed please?
And yes I know jet fuel is hard to ignite, but it seemed to do that rather well with the fatal Concorde flight.

Super Cecil
10th Dec 2010, 09:08
but it seemed to do that rather well with the fatal Concorde flight.
Didn't they use afterburner for take off? That would get a fuel trail going.

10th Dec 2010, 10:00
However I am uncertain as to what extent 'self insurance' reaches in the instance of a hull loss or something like the Dugong occurence in Singapore, but certainly eveything else is covered by self insurance.

For QANTAS to elect to self insure Hulls, Passenger Legal Liability, War Cover and Third Party Liability they would need a war chest that was measured in billions, several billions in fact and the third party element would have to be visible before they can overfly or fly into various foreign territories or ports.
Worst case scenario, a nearly full A380, ($250+Million?) crashes into the CBD of a major city, (Third party exposure in the order of billions) and all pax die, despite what it says on the ticket, allow about $1Million per seat, after court cases, much, much more in the USA and if QF went into the insurance market and said they would self insure hulls but wanted market cover for pax legal liability and third party they would be politely told to go elsewhere.

Unless they have been very clever at hiding it, I don't think QF have that kind of money.

10th Dec 2010, 10:13
Actually 18-Wheeler, I was wrong. :\ Sorry.

I went back and checked a source and it was a fuel tank that was punctured. However, the fuel transfer lines were also damaged preventing the crew from addressing the imbalance that was developing. :ugh:

10th Dec 2010, 10:36
Fuel system transfer galleries/manifolds are located inside the wing tanks, ergo for debris to have damaged same it must have breached the wing leading to a rather large leak.

10th Dec 2010, 12:24
Ta, PL, that perhaps makes it even more of a worry.

10th Dec 2010, 20:33
There was a pax on the upper deck watching flame shoot out the holes in the top of the wing for a few minutes. There are photos of the wing inside and out with a black residue over the green in places.

I reckon if they look into this, which I am sure they will the next report might be even more scary. :eek:

10th Dec 2010, 21:06
Plainmaker's right - dead wrong.

Mind you, wouldn't be the first time Oz has sold the Kiwis a pup, look at Ansett.

11th Dec 2010, 00:17
Mind you, wouldn't be the first time Oz has sold the Kiwis a pup, look at Ansett.

Let the buyer beware. But It depends what you want to do with it once you buy it......

11th Dec 2010, 00:29
That is why they introduced the 'Be Safe' program

I'm sure it's got nothing to do with their OHS obligations. Self insured, what rubbish! :ugh:

11th Dec 2010, 04:27
Not a lot of people understand that the premiums involved in many types of insurance are mind-boggling. Many large companies self-insure where they calculate the premium is out of proportion to the risk involved.

As an example (but not specifically aviation-related), a friend owned a large hardware/clothing/mixed goods store in the country. Every once in a while, a gang would come through the small town, and indulge in break-in and theft.
After one such event, when he was cleaning up, I was talking to him and said... "Well, I guess your insurance will cover this, but it will put your premiums up?"

His answer? "I don't carry insurance on the stock. It's not worth it. The insurance company want too much, in relation to the value of the stock, for an annual premium.
I have $200,000 worth of stock here. I get broken into once every 2 or 3 years, and lose maybe $2000-3000 worth of goods. That amount is vastly less than the total of the premiums for the same period. It's a no-brainer".

The Green Goblin
11th Dec 2010, 04:59
Until a fire runs through the place and burns every single item! Then that insurance just paid for itself ten fold!

Metro man
11th Dec 2010, 07:36
How often will he have a total loss of all his stock by fire ? If the insurance premiums over a ten year period would pay for the stock and he has a total loss after eleven years then he's ahead, assuming he has invested the money he would have paid the insurer. Note if he's squandered the money instead he can kiss his business goodbye.

I prefer to insure against catastrophic losses and wear the occasional minor one. Eg with travel insurance I will be covered if I am run over by a car and need emergency evacuation totaling thousands. If I cut my hand and have a doctors bill for a couple of hundred dollars I'll pay it myself. Making small claims just isn't worth it as your premium will only go up the following year.

11th Dec 2010, 08:44
The gent in question had comprehensive insurance against fire... he just didn't have insurance against theft. Lots of people just carry basic 3rd-party insurance on older vehicles, rather than comprehensive insurance, when they calculate their risk of total loss is low.
When a vehicle insurance premium is $700 annually for comprehensive insurance and $200 annually for 3rd party, you are going to be well in front after a few years, with a low value vehicle, that you deem to be at low risk.

I came across an old farmer in the early 1980's, who had had his entire wheat crop devastated by a hailstorm, just as it was ready to harvest. He'd lost about $200,000 worth of crop (in 1980 values).
When I discussed with him, how he'd go with insurance, he just stated blandly... "It wasn't insured, and I haven't insured a crop since 1934! I'm well in front! - rather than giving vast sums of money to rogue insurance companies, that always make more money than I do!!" :D

11th Dec 2010, 09:42
That's quite a clever farming/aviation parallel scenario you've drawn up there, Cactusjack. Have you been eavesdropping on certain management meetings? Are you in the employ of one Julian Assange, by any chance?
Let me ask this one last important question. Do you value your job in the aviation industry? You might want to rewrite that scenario, if you do. :E :suspect:

Atlas Shrugged
13th Dec 2010, 01:47
Actually they are self insured in the above areas.

Still wrong!

They self-insure Workers Compensation only.

Just the stamp duty alone on the aviation risk premium was around $5.14 million four or so years ago.

25th Jan 2011, 10:06
Any update on fate of this A380?
Repair in situ, or repair in France, or what?

qf 1
25th Jan 2011, 18:19
heard about a week ago from a source over there,that Airbus are struggling to come up with repair schemes,17 holes alone in the fuel tanks.$20 k a day alone just to park up the aircraft in the singapore hanger.Looking very close to a write off.looks like i was wrong.

Con Catenator
25th Jan 2011, 20:12
If this goes on too much longer, I would imagine the insurer will start looking at a commercial write off, if only to limit their liability.

Now, how to get it out of WSSS ?????

Scamp Damp
25th Jan 2011, 23:03
Push it in the bay - create an artificial reef....


Use it as a static display for the RFFF to us as a training aid...

27th Jan 2011, 12:10
Qantas does not self-insure its aircraft hulls. For a start it doesn't own all of them. Many are leased and I can assure you that lessors require 'real' insurance.

Lessors even require a right of approval of the insurer - no dodgy insurers allowed. Lease language sometimes allows lessee (airline) a choice, but from only a subset of insurers, and to the satisfaction of lessor.

Self-insurance might be possible for wholly-owned aircraft, but if there is any financing of them I'm sure the financiers would not allow it.

27th Jan 2011, 20:37
Has the name and tail symbol been painted over yet?


27th Jan 2011, 21:52
Believe it or not..it's probably going to be the best one they own after they're finished with it; can you imagine them doing anything less than a perfect job with the whole world watching?

I wonder if the whole left wing will have to be replaced?

Now there's a job for Mark Arbib!!


Transition Layer
28th Jan 2011, 00:29
Haha, that's gold Romulus!

Millet Fanger
28th Jan 2011, 01:45
Qantas does not self-insure its aircraft hulls.Qantas has only ever self-insured the first $100k of damage to anything, after that everything else is "fully insured". If they self-insured the whole lot OJH would not be flying today.

(OJH is the one they "parked" on the golf course in Bangkok)

walschaert valve
28th Jan 2011, 02:29
Millet Fanger is correct. One insurer for $100K to $1 Million (in the case of the A380) and a group of insurers for amounts above that. First $100K is the Qantas excess.

A lot of misinformation on this thread.

MF, I think I went to Tech with you back in the early eighties. A little known aircraft called a "Millet Fangar" that would be periodically discussed?

The Bungeyed Bandit
28th Jan 2011, 08:39
Quote from Romulus
"Now there's a job for Mark Arbib!!"

Obviously not a job for John Holland.

Well hello Romulus, long time no hear.

Please, pray tell us how would John Holland go about organising the repair job on the big bird had they been successful in getting the 380 maintenance gig.

I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.

sky rocket
28th Jan 2011, 09:04
John who? :eek:

1a sound asleep
28th Jan 2011, 11:47
Latest rumour is that repairs are underway. Rough estimate is back in fleet around May

28th Jan 2011, 22:48
As I mentioned in posts 65 and 73, the QANTAS retention of their insurance will be minimal, they simply don't have that kind of money.

An amount, ($100K is given in post #99), will be retained by the airline, the domestic Australian insurance market will also retain a slightly larger amount, a few million, but the bulk of the cover will be re-insurance into the London market and the other re-insurance markets, like Switzerland, Germany etc. etc.

30th Jan 2011, 00:37
"Now there's a job for Mark Arbib!!"

Obviously not a job for John Holland.

Why not?

Or are you one of those people who just make snide comments to cover your own insecurities?

Well hello Romulus, long time no hear.

Feel free to check the posting logs, I'm here very couple of days or so. That would mean you need to expand your reading list beyond your own self interest however...

Please, pray tell us how would John Holland go about organising the repair job on the big bird had they been successful in getting the 380 maintenance gig.

At a guess... pretty much the same as QF.

If you're asking about Singapore then fly some blokes over, engage with SIAEC etc.

If you're talking Aus then ferry her to Hangar 145 in Melb, apply the approved repair scheme in conjunction with Airbus experts from Toulouse(who I assume QF will also have on hand) and away you go.

There is even an advantage in that, JHAS Hangar 145 keeps her out of the way of regular QF daily operations works. Plus the A380 team would be fully utilised in the repair thus reducing non billable hours, thus reducing overhead costs thus leading to QF getting a reduced hourly rate and subsequent savings.

So to reiterate, in short the same as QF will do.

another superlame
30th Jan 2011, 05:03
I don't think any repairs have started as yet. The airframe is in a preserved state waiting for airbus to get their bit and pieces together before they start.
QF staff are still up there as required for keeping the preservation requirements up to date.

The Bungeyed Bandit
30th Jan 2011, 05:59
Romulus, going by your reply to my posting it's obvious you are a cross university bean counter/HR goose.

You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the logistics in doing this kind of repair. It pretty well confirms that you were the idiot who I had a phone interview with when I wanted to satisfy my curiosity and applied for the A380 John Holland gig.

Thank Christ I knocked it back cause God only knows where I'd be now.

I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.

30th Jan 2011, 07:02
There was talk of it being repaired to the stage where it could be flown back to France by Airbus pilots (at low alt) but believe it is now going to be repaired in SIN.

Peter Fanelli
30th Jan 2011, 07:22
Would make a hell of a gate guardian if they care to mount it on a stick.

30th Jan 2011, 21:14
Romulus, going by your reply to my posting it's obvious you are a cross university bean counter/HR goose.

Um, no. Amazing given your obvious brilliance (at least in your own mind) but you're just plain wrong. Not a bean counter, not in the HR sphere.

Feel free to try again.

You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the logistics in doing this kind of repair.

Feel free to point out where I'm wrong as opposed to merely stamping your foot and having a good old cry...

It pretty well confirms that you were the idiot who I had a phone interview with when I wanted to satisfy my curiosity and applied for the A380 John Holland gig.

Ah, so there we have it. You wanted to get in but didn't make it. Your bitterness is fuelled by your lifelong self loathing because nobody recognises your undoubted genius.

Feel free to take an extended lunchbreak so you can continue to believe in your own legend...

For the record, can't have been me as I didn't do any phone interviews but hey, why let that get in the way of your assumptions...

Thank Christ I knocked it back cause God only knows where I'd be now.

Sure you did.

But your statement does make the picture clearer. You're in a nice padded room somewhere surrounded by a whole life support system that means you don't have to face the real world or, God forbid, actually have to take responsibility for anything. Good luck with that BEB, maybe one day you'll be well enough for day release and can attmept a gradual re-entry to the broader civilisation but I suspect not, you seem to be too institutionalised. Hopefully you are happy there, whilst it's not a lifestyle for most people it is certainly all that some people can handle.

I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.

Sums you up quite well.

All the best


30th Jan 2011, 22:04
:rolleyes:must daddy come and take the toys away???:rolleyes:

teresa green
31st Jan 2011, 11:24
Take it up to Longreach and put her on a stick. Think what it will do for the town. NBW would be mortified if she thought she had a lemon named after her. Give her another aircraft. :{

31st Jan 2011, 21:37
That is going to have to be some stick.

VH-Cheer Up
31st Jan 2011, 23:32
That is going to have to be some stick.Beyond Airfix capabilities.

Better make that three sticks. Metal, not wood.

teresa green
31st Jan 2011, 23:50
Ok, just ship her up to Warrick, in Longreach, you'r right she would fall off any stick (sticks) you put her on. Your growing quite a stable up there lad, just as well you don't have to feed the buggers. If you have not made the trip to Longreach, put it on your must do list. Its worth it. As far as the aircraft is concerned, QF and Airbus would crawl over hot coals before they write it off, like QF did over the BKK "incident" they will have her flying again even if they have to take the mountain to Mohammed. I know em to well.

flying lid
2nd Feb 2011, 18:00
She'll mend. Just send a No 10 Meccano set to Singapore.


Why, even Rolls Royce has made a replacement Meccano engine !!



crocodile redundee
2nd Feb 2011, 21:35
Sadly , I think Airbus actually use this part in the A380!!!!! Also used by Peugeot & Citroen in their top line model vehicles.....

3rd Feb 2011, 06:10
Strewth! For a horrible moment I thought I was looking at an "exploded" view of an Allison T250!! :eek:

teresa green
3rd Feb 2011, 09:49
Bloody marvelous Flying Lid. I hate to admit it but I have still got my set from about aged 10.

Going Boeing
4th Feb 2011, 10:05
Feb 3, 2011 SINGAPORE - Singapore Airlines (SIA) said Thursday it found burn marks on electrical wiring in an Airbus A380 superjumbo after smoke entered a lavatory during a flight earlier this week.

The flight crew activated an extinguisher after smelling smoke coming from one of the aircraft's toilets while the plane was approaching Changi Airport from Hong Kong, said S. Supramaniam, an airline spokesman.

"When the plane landed, our ground crew inspected the aircraft and they discovered some burn marks on some electrical wirings underneath the lavatory, on the cargo hold," he told AFP.

"Airbus and SIA are investigating the matter. We have also inspected all the other A380s and nothing was found."

Supramaniam said there was no fire and the plane landed safely without incident.

SIA became the first airline in the world to commercially fly the double-decker A380 in October 2007. It has 11 A380s in its fleet.

In November last year, an explosion ripped through one engine of an A380 operated by Qantas shortly after takeoff from Singapore with 466 people aboard, forcing it to turn back and make an emergency landing.

by Lachlan Carmichael (c) 2011 AFP

5th Feb 2011, 04:00
Was told hat the a/c was a 'wave 1' delivery (ie as per OQA) where wiring etc was all done in the initial pre-production assembly mode - anyone confirm?

6th Feb 2011, 10:49
I would be rather interested in the repair scheme that has been designed for the forward spar...especially the test methods, additional inspection schedules and NDI techniques proposed to ensure the fatigue life and continuing airworthiness of this major load bearing element of the wing.

OTOH, perhaps outsourcing this responsibility to an outside agency such as Airbus will allow the clowns running the show to escape any future blame as has been seen so far with the "Power by the Hour Contract" debacle.

You start to wonder what the holder of an AOC is actually responsible for these days...oh, I forgot, good returns to the shareholders so as to guarantee management bonuses.

I hope that the future will prove me to be wrong...

6th Feb 2011, 11:15
She'll mend. Just send a No 10 Meccano set to Singapore.

Maybe not with those bits - utterly desirable though they are - but certainly with the sort of skills that a Number 10 Meccano set would have engendered. :ok:

Having said the #10 is desirable, I suspect that kit has never been used. Used rather than 'played with', because building Meccano projects was so much more than playing.

I note that Teresa Green admits to still having a set from childhood - I tell you what, I still have my dad's Meccano! Most of it dates from the nineteen-twenties and is in a box my grandfather made. It has components modern Meccano fans would kill for. Not only which, I also have - rebuilt by me many times and not in very good condition - a Meccano steam engine, not the Mammod one. :eek: My set hasn't been out of the loft for more than twenty years - my kids are not engineers, they are computer geeks and although they loved Technical Lego, they simply weren't up to the mighty Meccano. :ok:


6th Feb 2011, 19:43
Flexible Response - Do you think they will try and repair the wing or replace it? I ask as a pilot, not an engineer.

I appreciate spare wings are not kept on the shelf but would it not have been simpler to manufacture and ship a new wing to Singapore? Does the wiring have logical junctions at the point of attachment of the wing and body? Are the wings manufactured with wiring in place?

I would have thought that both QANTAS and Airbus would not want the old wing to fly again, even a subsequent and unrelated accident will have Joe public blaming it, if it does fly again!

another superlame
7th Feb 2011, 00:32
I know spar repairs are a big deal, but they do happen. Qf have in the past performed spar repairs to 747s when they had heavy maint in Sydney.
No doubt this is the first time is will be done to an A380 but realistically it is not over the top of what can and can't be done.

They also wont be replacing the wing, if they did choose to do it they would need to change both as any new build wing is a newer mod status to the wings already on it. Having 2 wings of 2 differing mod statuses and strengths would no doubt cause problems of its own.

7th Feb 2011, 04:38
This video gives an idea of the how the wings are installed, the tooling required and also the sheer size of the wings to ship.

YouTube - A380 assembly (How to build an A-380 7 minutes) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmDHJO3Iv30&feature=player_embedded#t=0s)

Some excuses for flight delays from Taaj.
YouTube - Come fly with me - Taaj flight delay excuses. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkgK_7mxJkc&feature=related)

7th Feb 2011, 05:06
Qf have in the past performed spar repairs to 747s when they had heavy maint in Sydney.

...if only we had that capability and experience nowadays! Well, that's bonuses and dividends for ya!

another superlame
7th Feb 2011, 06:12
I understand where you are coming from Sparky, but my point was more that the spar repair on Vh-OQA wont be the first time an aircraft has this done.
It might be the biggest but not the first,

10th Feb 2011, 11:13
...but it will be the first A380 spar repair.

We once repaired a spar on a L-1011 that was damaged in a heavy landing accident in Japan. Remove left wing and replace with another left wing from the desert. Superb job considering the new wing was re-installed outside the manufacturer's jigs. It only required 1 division of rudder trim at 300 knots to compensate for the installation.

The repair on VH-OQA will be a huge challenge and well worth tracking...

10th Feb 2011, 12:27
$80M looks to be the pay out figure...

Rolls-Royce reveals engine fire payout - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/10/3135848.htm?site=news)

17th Feb 2011, 21:41
Looks like it will be repaired and returned to service (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/17/353293/qantass-damaged-a380-to-return-to-service-this-year.html)

18th Feb 2011, 03:01
Thanks for that.I dont think there was ever any doubt about it being repaired.
QF and Airbus have far too much to lose by not doing whatever it takes.It is the flagship, high profile aircraft.
Especially if RR are paying !!

19th Feb 2011, 00:39
The L1011 wing repair Flexible Response refers too did not involve a wing replacement at all. The rear spar failed between the MLG trunnion and the root and there was no replacement spar cap material available for a repair so a section of wing containing the rear spar from MLG trunnion to root was removed from a parted out L1011 and spliced in. All done under a Lockheed approved scheme. The rudder trim might have been OK but it flew decidely one wing low and needed about 4 units of roll trim which was rigged in so the pilots set zero trim but the ailerons were offset to make it fly level.

7th Mar 2011, 05:43
I apologise for the tread creep here...but for the sake of accurate recording of history...

I agree that CV880's memory of the L-1011 Narita hard landing repair involving a wing splice to replace the broken rear spar rather than a full wing change is correct. A tremendous feat of engineering considering it was accomplished far away from the manufacturers jigs.

And yes I agree that the roll trim was mis-rigged to compensate for a wing low flying characteristic that the aircraft demonstrated after repair. However, the mis-rigged roll trim was only good for a certain speed range and the maintenance log advised that additional trim was required at speeds of above 300 KIAS?

And perhaps CV880 remembers the depressurization on the flight back from Japan as well? :)

33 Disengage
7th Mar 2011, 10:32
Ampclamp - My understanding is that the players and the insurance companies are still 'discussing' the repair. Yes it will be repaired, but the finer details have not been sorted.

Con Catenator
7th Mar 2011, 22:03
RR and the Insurers are arguing apparently. Qantas is waiting for them to sort out payout ratios and then the work will begin full time.

At this stage, RTS planned for last quarter this year.

1a sound asleep
7th Mar 2011, 23:31
Airbus would prefer not to have the liability of fixing it and to cover their ass - its easier for them to say we dont have an approval. Airbus is worried about future litigation if the repair fails. They claim potential weakening of frame

Nightmare continues. Qantas v Airbus v RR v Insurance

7th Mar 2011, 23:47
Airbus is worried about future litigation if the repair fails. They claim potential weakening of frame.If this is the case and Airbus won't risk a repair then who else will?

Jay & Silent Bob
8th Mar 2011, 00:31
Airbus is worried about future litigation if the repair fails

I would have thought they would be more worried about killing people.

1a sound asleep
8th Mar 2011, 00:34
Does anybody know if there is any truth behind the rumour that the frame has very minor twisting between the wings?

8th Mar 2011, 00:46
Oh FFS what would have caused that?:confused::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Any truth in the rumour that QF is getting 500 777s by next year?:p

8th Mar 2011, 01:57
I would have thought they would be more worried about killing people.

You do realise Airbus is a large corporation right?

They are only worried about killing people because it will affect their sales and could lead to litigation from the families. :E

walschaert valve
8th Mar 2011, 03:55
In the interest of clearing up the speculation....

Airbus have a proposal on the table and this is about to be signed by Qantas, once the amount of the deposit and some contract wording has been agreed. The repairs will be carried out in Singapore and it will take some time before the first rivet is drilled out, maybe another month or so. The Insurance companies (there is more than one) are ready with the funds. Airbus is ready, willing and able to do the structural work. The issue between RR and Qantas and Insurers is completely separate and has nothing to do with the repairs to the aircraft.

The total repair costs are substantial but the aircraft is no where near a write off, or more correctly a CTL. Don't know what that means? Look it up.

8th Mar 2011, 04:30
"CTL. Don't know what that means? Look it up."
Rather an arrogant and unhelpful attitude, that doesn't reflect well on the author.
I don't need to look it up.
Contingent Liability I presume?

1a sound asleep
8th Mar 2011, 04:58
CTL Complete Total Loss

The lack of progress on this raises eyebrows. I am sure reliable sources stated that it was going to be back in service in May and that 6 or 7 months was quoted.

Lets just hope it gets fixed properly:eek:

walschaert valve
8th Mar 2011, 05:17
Constructive Total Loss. Means there is still some salvage available to be sold after the Insurance companies have paid out the sum insured. As opposed to a Total Loss which is a smoking hole in the ground.

Sorry about the attitude. Just feel some of the mis-information on this site needs to be corrected. Everyone involved in this project is doing their best to get this aircraft serviceable again as soon as possible, but it is new territory for everyone - especially Airbus. Qantas, the insurance companies, Airbus etc are all working together.

There is no "twisting between the wings", or in the fuselage.

17th Mar 2011, 02:31
According to The Age, all repairs will be completed in Singapore. They also report that the cost of repairs are approaching the cost of purchase . . . but not replacement cost, I presume? (my bold/italic)

Repairs to damaged Qantas A380 set to begin

Matt O'Sullivan
March 17, 2011

The Qantas A380 superjumbo suffered extensive damage from a midair engine explosion in November last year.

Repairs to the Qantas A380 that suffered extensive damage from a midair engine explosion in November will begin in the next few weeks.

Estimates of the cost of the work reach as high as $150 million.

The A380 has been stored in a hangar at Singapore's Changi Airport while Qantas and the aircraft's manufacturer, Airbus, assessed the best options for repairing the double-decker plane. Its windows and exterior openings have been covered and silica gel used to prevent the A380 from corroding in the tropical heat.

A full analysis of the repairs that need to be done has been completed but no repair work has been undertaken since it was grounded in Singapore after the explosion on November 4.

Qantas has said that the repair bill would be at least $100 million, but more recent internal estimates have put it at closer to $150 million. The airline has repeatedly ruled out writing off the A380, named the Nancy Bird-Walton, despite the cost of the repairs nearing what it cost to buy the aircraft.

The airline bought the A380 for about half the list price of $327 million, gaining the discount because it was a launch customer for Airbus's flagship superjumbo aircraft.

A Qantas spokesman said the repairs would begin in the ''coming weeks'', and would be performed by Airbus engineers under the supervision of the airline's staff in Singapore.

''We have been working closely with Airbus on repairs. We have planned for most, if not all of the work, to be done in Singapore before the aircraft returns to Australia,'' he said.

The airline has said the damage to the A380 will be covered by insurance and contractual arrangements with the engine manufacturer, Rolls-Royce. However, it is still locked in negotiations with Rolls-Royce about the damages. Qantas has reserved the right to sue Rolls-Royce in Australia if they cannot reach a settlement.

The airline still expects the aircraft to be returned to Australia by the end of the year despite the delays to the repair work.

18th Mar 2011, 09:09
I'll just be glad to see this great bird take to the skys again, she deserves a 2nd shot after what she's been/about to go through.

18th Mar 2011, 10:18
What if it comes back painted silver and orange? :E

19th Apr 2011, 01:24
Anything new on his bird?

19th Apr 2011, 05:38
... an engine or two and bits of the wing ....

19th Apr 2011, 12:21
As she is in SIN, how about shoving her on top of a couple of hotels. After all there is
what looks like a boat(or is it a catfish) on top of the latest monstrosity built there!

21st Apr 2011, 10:08
Irrelevant post :ok:

21st Apr 2011, 10:29

Sure, walschaert valve's initial reference to CTL (post #144 on 8th March) seemed to be expressed with a bit of an 'attitude' problem, which he/she apologised for in post #147 the same day by elaborating that CTL = Constructive Total Loss.

If you read the posts, and did your supposed Google search using the term wv provided on 8th March, then this is what you would have found on the FIRST page of your search! In fact the first 'return' on page 1 of the search:

www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ANZMLJ/1989/10.pdf really said it all.

Return #4 on page 1 of the search also revealed:

In insurance, not an 'actual total loss' but a situation where (1) the actual total loss appears unavoidable (as in case of perishable goods), or (2) a partial loss has occurred to an extent that the property is beyond economical repair (cost of restoring it exceeds its insured value).

In CTL cases, the insured may (if terms of the insurance policy permit) abandon the property by giving a 'notice of abandonment' to the insurer who then assumes all rights to the property.

Source: What is constructive total loss (CTL)? definition and meaning, Business Dictionary (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/constructive-total-loss-CTL.html)

I can't understand why you seem to have a problem with this? :confused:

21st Apr 2011, 11:08
OK, the poster did come back later, I do agree, after reading the arrogant comment, I did a search on CTL and made my reply to his rudeness which he later expanded on explaining with a good definition. When I do d "CTL" search alone, at the point of impact we did not know what it meant, Google is of little help, the expanded version, there is much information, I agree.

As he did correct him self, I will happily Edit my thoughts. :ok:

Thanks fro the expanded definition links by the way. :ok:

21st Apr 2011, 11:44

No problems! :ok:

29th Apr 2011, 09:29
Heard today that poor
'Nancy' is in bad shape for future flying.....

It seems that Toulouse has changed the wing section / manufacturing process for this model, and to get the aircraft flying, it needs both wings to match...;)

Therefore....because they cannot get it to Toulouse, and this necessary work cannot be done ' in the field', it seems an 'impasse' has been reached.:eek:

It could well be that the only solution available, so I hear, is to scrap the one in 'Singers' for bits, and to supply QF with another one......

True or False..?? :hmm:


29th Apr 2011, 09:35
Therefore....because they cannot get it to Toulouse, and this necessary work cannot be done ' in the field', it seems an 'impasse' has been reached.

It could well be that the only solution available, so I hear, is to scrap the one in 'Singers' for bits, and to supply QF with another one......

Heard a similar rumour about a week or so back.

29th Apr 2011, 09:56
Air France might have a spare wing....

29th Apr 2011, 09:59
Hi Oz,

I would venture that if they did , it would be rather firmly attached to a fuselage with the other wing.......:}


another superlame
29th Apr 2011, 10:59
The latest hiccup is to do with hangar space. Singapore want it for some C checks and QF want it to start the repair. The only rumours I have heard is that the repair will happen but they cant shore the aircraft until they get the go ahead to use the hangar for the next few months.

29th Apr 2011, 21:07
ozbiggies posted:
Air France might have a spare wing...."Ex FSO GRIFFO responded:
I would venture that if they did , it would be rather firmly attached to a fuselage with the other wing...."I believe a portion of any such wing might have been embedded in the HS of a Comair CRJ at JFK. (http://i1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee418/desipilot/comaircrj.jpg)


29th Apr 2011, 22:01
I think it might just be dawning on some in Qantas management that there are risks associated with not having your own heavy maintenance facilities.

It sounds to me that QF priorities must take second place to Singapores priorities.

30th Apr 2011, 01:35
Too Troo 'Sunny', however the problem remains -

The aircraft is in 'Singers' and the 'new' wing - or any replacement thereof, is not!

Also heard that Toulouse have a rather 'tight' assembly line, and that also is a major complication in any re-tooling / re-jigging back to the 'old' way to build a 1 x of the 'older' wing to fix the prob.

Just a rumour.....:ok:

Could always try a 'DC-2 1/2' I guess........that HAS been done before.....


30th Apr 2011, 06:46
I see Nancy is out of the shed and parked on the runway.
Looks like an Xmas tree with all that tin foil blanking up holes.

another superlame
30th Apr 2011, 07:52
There will not be a new wing it will be repaired. A wing replacement would require both to be changed, it aint gunna happen.

I know it is a big repair but it isn't the first time a wing has been fixed. There are a number of aircraft both military and civil that have had major structural repairs before.

30th Apr 2011, 23:54
I know it is a big repair but it isn't the first time a wing has been fixed. There are a number of aircraft both military and civil that have had major structural repairs before.

Do Airbus have a repair scheme for the damage to the 380 wing? Will they ever have one?

Capt Claret
1st May 2011, 09:52
In '95 a DH8-100 hit an eagle, the bird passing through the wing-root to fuselage fairing and coming to a sudden stop when it hit the wing spar. The spar bent backwards and the top spar cap was cracked.

At the time, Bombardier didn't have a wing repair scheme but their gurus came to Broome from Canada and created one. Perhaps Airbus could do the same.

2nd May 2011, 10:27
Didnt they completely rebuild a hull that was totally burnt out many many many years ago so they can still claim they have never had a hull loss?

Going Boeing
2nd May 2011, 11:57
Didnt they completely rebuild a hull that was totally burnt out many many many years ago so they can still claim they have never had a hull loss?

No, what crap! You appear to believe in conspiracy theories.

2nd May 2011, 13:41
Didnt they completely rebuild a hull that was totally burnt out many many many years ago so they can still claim they have never had a hull loss?

They have lost a number of planes, but none rebuilt to that degree.

de Havilland DH-9C G-AUED 24 Mar 1927 - 3 died
de Havilland DH-86 VH-USG 15 Nov 1934 - 4 died
de Havilland DH-86 VH-USE 20 Feb 1942 - 9 died
Short S-23 (flying boat) VH-ADU 22 Apr 1943 - 13 died
Lockheed 18 Lodestar VH-CAB 26 Nov 1943 - 15 died
Short S-23 (flying boat) VH-ABB 11 Oct 1944 - 1 died
Lancastrian VH-EAS 07 April 1949 - 0 died
de Havilland Drover II VH-EBQ 16 Jul 1951 - 7 died
Lockheed L1049 VH-EAC 24 August 1960 - 0 died.

1a sound asleep
2nd May 2011, 14:08
Too much golf. We dont talk about some things



2nd May 2011, 23:02
Would have been interesting coming down that escape slide and over the tree:eek:

2nd May 2011, 23:14
Would have been interesting coming down that escape slide and over the tree:eek:

2nd May 2011, 23:50
VBPCGUY, before you take this thread even further off track, how about you go and read the QF1 report from 10 years ago, page 58, footnote 56, about that slide!

2nd May 2011, 23:50
Given that you were probably lucky to be in your teens when OJH ran off the end, the slide was popped was the next day by an engineer who was attempting to cool the cabin a bit and forgot to disarm the door before opening it. It wasn't done the night before when the precautionary disembarkation was done.

3rd May 2011, 07:11
Actually Going Boeing, I don't believe in conspiracies. That is why I asked the question, to find out a answer.

Stop being a trigger fingered know-it-all.

3rd May 2011, 12:15
49 out of 50 times that 'question' has been asked over the last decade it's been meant as a petty slur against Qantas and it's long history.

Eastwest Loco
3rd May 2011, 14:34
1a - Even the Royal and Ancient can't answer this question.

Do you get a drop for a 747 on the fairway or do you have to play through?

In regard to the damaged wing spar question, the first TAA A300B4 VH-TAA was on gate 2 I think at Tulla during a Pilot strike not long after delivery. A new guy was being trained on loading the containers on a faulty forklift.

The inevitable happened and he lost control of the fork and punched a hole in the spar.

The poor rookie was distraugtht to say the least but the supervisor who put him on a faulty unit knowingly got a huge reaming.

Airbus then had no idea how to replace a spar but TN did the entire job. Brilliantly. They even manufactured from the ground up from what I recall.

Outsource your LAMEs and you can't do that. Hopefully this is a "heads up" for those at Qantas who want no employees.

Travel Agents can't even talk to anyone at Cathay these days. We avoid them. If you have an after hours client problem you have to email andd it is unlikely the will get back, Guess when most schedule related matters occur? Yep - back of clock. Res refuse to talk to you.

That is why my high care Corporates are directed to the Rat and similar carriers that will talk to you if something goes pear shaped.

How long that will last is anyones guess (he says as he applies the bag tag to his luggage after issuing it himself).

Best all.


3rd May 2011, 23:21
EWL, was it the wing spar? I might be mistaken but I understood the damage was sustained to the structure under the forward cargo as distinct to the wing spar.
As for the rest of your post, particularly about in-house capability, you are spot on!

griffin one
5th May 2011, 04:58
Currently sits on gate 607 Changi International Airport
she will be repaired, In full ,In Singapore
no write off
no wing replacement
no conspiracy
no where near cost of a new 380
she will fly again early 2012

Eastwest Loco
7th May 2011, 13:26

From memory - and that is tenuous, the forks of the unit impacted the spar at the wing root.

Hopefully there are some LAMEs or ramp crew of the day that remember more clearly.

My father was a TN Engines LAME who moved to accountancy and I got the original detail through him and his mates who were still out there.

Best regards


21st May 2011, 14:31
I taxied past her on Tuesday arvo, looks like a few parts missing. Bits that weren't affected by the engine blowout, ie, tail rudders etc.

Parked next to an SQ 74 with 2 engines, and another SQ missing bits, stuck in a lonely corner of Changi...

Jethro Gibbs
22nd May 2011, 06:51
Why not just admit its had it scrap it and move on.

Buster Hyman
22nd May 2011, 08:55
Why not just admit its had it scrap it and move on.
What? And make them go back & re-edit Rain Man? (the Directors Cut)

Jethro Gibbs
22nd May 2011, 09:14
No need to re edit rain man Qantas can just say we are unaware of any such incident ever happening.

22nd May 2011, 09:17
and if anything did realy happen it was not a safety issue.....:yuk:

Jethro Gibbs
22nd May 2011, 09:30
WHAT ? safety issue there was no issue you are incorrect that aircraft is not owned by Qantas.:ok:

22nd May 2011, 09:32
I recall an incident as 1746 is describing. Around the same time as a ground handling dispute?


22nd May 2011, 15:08
Air France might have a spare wing....

The A380 that hit the CRJ on April 11 was ferried to CDG on April 24 and repaired, all up it spent around 3 weeks out of revenue service. Its first revenue flight after repair was as AF990 (CDG-JNB) on April 30.

22nd May 2011, 22:49
Qantas can't even bring themselves to scrap EBU so old 'Nancy bird' will be a nice relic in Singers for awhile yet.

22nd May 2011, 23:40
To write off or not to write off is not a Qantas decision, it is out of their hands and in the hands of the insurance underwriters who are strictly money men but who will be guided by the recommendations of organisations like LLoyds Aviation and Airclaims.

23rd May 2011, 03:54
No need to re edit rain man Qantas can just say we are unaware of any such incident ever happening

As before said on this web site the original Rain Man was WRONG!!!

23rd May 2011, 08:03
stuck in a lonely corner of Changi

Lonely? Quite visible from the end of the 'D' gates! But looking rather forlorn with both left pylons empty (at least that's how it looked to me... ).

Surprised the lads haven't been at it with the white paint to hide anything which could identify it from the punters.

23rd May 2011, 08:24
How long can it stay engineless for before issues with the wings become a problem, or have they added weight to the wings in another way?

23rd May 2011, 16:25

Sorry, but from my viewpoint in Terminal 1, I could not see whether or not there were any blocks under the wings.

27th May 2011, 07:40
Not the best angle due to the blast fence but here she is on the 26th of May.....


another superlame
27th May 2011, 08:45
Get your photos now boys, she is being put in the hangar shortly.

27th May 2011, 09:17
I can't seem to make it larger

Yes Givelda, I often have the same issue!! :}:}

stubby jumbo
27th May 2011, 11:38
........so does a certain CEO of an iconic Aussie airline:eek:

28th May 2011, 05:40
Fixed my photo sizing problem and edited my post #198 ......and it didn't take a little blue pill either !!!!!

The The
28th May 2011, 06:00
Whilst in the hangar in Singapore, apparently it is to be used as a cabin emergency procedures trainer for strike breakers!

standard unit
29th May 2011, 07:37
apparently it is to be used as a cabin emergency procedures trainer for strike breakers!
Longhaul CC still have well over 12 months to run on the EBA.

A bit early for management to start preparations for their next war I would have thought.......

16th Jun 2011, 06:48
Found this news, dated May 28th, saying that repairs would start "next week".

Qantas Airbus A380 Production (http://a380production.com/category/qantas/)

If that news is right then repairs should be under way now. Does anyone have any more details ? In particular, how is the wing spar going to be repaired ?

16th Jun 2011, 13:14
If that news is right then repairs should be under way now. Does anyone have any more details ? In particular, how is the wing spar going to be repaired ?

Six lengths of tram-track, two sets of oxy-acetylene welding gear, a TIG welder and Liv giving regular status updates on how the (Qantas) repaired aircraft will be lighter, stronger, more fuel efficient and even prettier then before, and indeed how Airbus are looking to modify all their aircraft to this new tram-track technology.


29th Jun 2011, 13:49
Some news about the repair;

Repair Underway (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=mro&id=news/awx/2011/06/28/awx_06_28_2011_p0-341864.xml&headline=Damaged%20Qantas%20A380%20Refurbishment%20Underway)

Going Boeing
29th Jun 2011, 22:09
Posted by rob_ginger
how is the wing spar going to be repaired ?

I understand that the main spar in the wing was not damaged - the damaged spar is the forward spar.

29th Jun 2011, 23:18
In Ben Sandilands "Plane Talking" comments, the Captain of QF32 refers to an incident with "Brian Lugg" at "El Gorah". I've googled and found a few details on Brian Lugg and El Gorah but nothing about any incident. Can anyone assist?
I am not a pilot but I would just like to understand, or try to, what the comment was about.

Roller Merlin
30th Jun 2011, 00:47
My understanding of the story is that Bluggy conducted a successful "running landing" in an iroquois after suffering a jammed tail rotor at El Gorah in the Sinai mid 80's. After that the Aussie chopper drivers were all sky Gods in the eyes of our pax who had though they were doomed. Pax were all US state dept observers whose job was to ensure the peacekeeping rules were complied with, and Fijian and columbian soldiers who deployed at observation points throughout the desert.

Back then the fling-wing types mostly belonged to the RAAF. We had a sinai peacekeeping detachment in El Gorah, a bombed out Israeli fighter base returned to the gypos in 1982. The were 11 nations based there each with different roles. The ozzies and kiwis (Anzacs) operated the only helo unit flying in the north, whilst sepo army covered helo flying based in the south.

It was common knowledge that we operated very differently to the yanks. We were all fixed wing/jet trained, and our SOPs reflected lessons and experiences from vietnam war to the present. Whilst the differences are another story, it would be safe to surmise the belief amongst the troops and yanks was that if anything nasty happened to the tail rotor operation, the helicopter would undoubtedly crash, as had occurred in virtually all cases in the us army operation. However unlike the yanks we RAAF drivers were far less regimented and amongst other things practiced simulated jammed tail rotor exercises in recurrent training, the result of having a smaller force size with more quality-based training program.

So when Bluggy encountered a jammed tail rotor (I recall it was at night) over the desert, the pax all knew they were done for. There is no room to muck around in such an emergency and slowing too quickly or miscalculation of wind effects can lead to loss of control. The procedure in the huey sets up the aircraft in a long, low approach where the slipstream on the fin balances the main rotor torque - typically at about 40-60 knots with 30-60 degrees of yaw over the fence depending upon the pedal positions. When all is stable across the ground, the throttle is wound off, the yaw reverses and aircraft is dropped on the skids and run along the ground to a stop. I was told in this case there was a nice sparklers show as the skids ran along the old runway which was the only place suitable. Of course when the troops got out without a scratch, they could not believe it was possible as all previous failures had crashed. After that all our desert choppers skids were reinforced with steelplate in case we needed to skate over the tarmac again. In my time there a crew did another running landing at night but I cannot recall the reason.

Of course the huey was originally designed as a throw-away airframe after 1000 hours. When I left choppers, our frames had around 7-8000 hours on them.

Eastwest Loco
30th Jun 2011, 14:33
It is so good to hear Miss Nancy is being fixed.

Having flown on her on the first ever international flight (and no - it was not MEL LAX) I was totally impressed.

100 million compensation seem a shortfall as compensation however.

The lost revenue from OQ Alpha being in operation, rescheduling and passenger disruption must surely call for a higher liabiulity from RR.

I guess they know what they are doing.

Best all


30th Jun 2011, 21:27
Roller Merlin
Thank you... some feat.

3rd Jul 2011, 08:29
Roller Merlin - you have most of it.

The part I want to add was that Brian had this failure at altitude en-route about 30 minutes before ETA El Gorah. He knew that although the acft was flying OK at speed, he would lose directional control when he slowed.

All the (generally USA) "orange" observers knew that their home pilots never practiced this failure to touchdown and so did indeed think-know that they would ultimately die.

The observers were not aware that RAAF helicopter pilots were trained to counter all failures of the tail rotor (there were many types of tail rotor failure - each requiring a variant (but grotesque) recovery technique).

Brian took his time. He contacted the instructors at "El Gorah" and discussed how he would make the approach. He circled to burn fuel and to give people at the base time to drive out and light up the runway with their car lights. Only when the fuel was reduced, the runway lit, and the approach thouroughly discussed-briefed inside the acft and on the ground did Brian make his approach.

His landing was impeccable and there was no damage to the acft - other than a few very acceptable scratched skids. Brian was a legend. The Observers "shouted the bar" at El Gorah for weeks.

This incident is a prime example of a very impressively managed emergency and why it's sometimes best to manage-stabilise the machine and crews in flight before panicking and rushing back to land in an unprepared state.

3rd Jul 2011, 13:52
Roller Merlin,

As a former US Army UH-1 pilot and instructor, I cannot imagine why anyone would think that a tail rotor problem in the Huey would be more than an average pilot could deal with. The UH-1 series was not difficult to fly and the military initial and recurrent training emphasized events such as engine failures and tail rotor failures.

Good on your mate that kept his cool and did a nice job!

Who were these US pilots that were so fearful of a tail rotor failure?

4th Jul 2011, 00:00
I can't comment beyond surprise and disbelief at the statements that US pilots are not trained in tail rotor failure.
Even PPL student in civil life are trained to handle tail rotor/pedal failure to touchdown in Australia, and I suspect in US as well.
I refrained from posting this as I didn't want to contribute to thread drift on this thread but feel we in Australia should resist the jingistic attitude to other services that deserve respect.

4th Jul 2011, 02:07
Who were these US pilots that were so fearful of a tail rotor failure?

Probably not pilots, RUMINT is a specialty of all branches of all militaries. Someone somewhere had a tail rotor problem and a resulting prang, as the story(ies) grew amongst non aviation types in assorted bars over years it becomes common knowledge that any problem with "X" is instant disaster. Pilots are helpful by pointing out that sky gods like themselves can deal with it while lesser pilots without their superior skills/training/ego can't.

4th Jul 2011, 03:29
The factory A380 that was supposed to fly at the Paris Air Show but was prevented due to a wing slicing through the corner of a building in which the wing tip fence 'fell off' may delay repairs to QF A380 in SIN according to a news blog.

This is the 4th time a A380 has suffered wing damage.

4th Jul 2011, 05:21
Isn't that a pilot problem then ?

(in relation to "This is the 4th time a A380 has suffered wing damage.").

Planes don't drive themselves into buildings.:)


4th Jul 2011, 14:22

MSN004 left the show on the Tuesday, was repaired overnight and was back at the show the next day. Winglets are CDL items, spares are kept for them worldwide. The aircraft did subsequently fly displays at PAS 11 on following days.


The aircraft was under tow, pilots had nothing to do with it. Likewise the incident in BKK, it was also under tow. The one in Toronto, the aircraft was stationary at the gate, and the catering truck hydraulics failed, collapsed on top of the wing. The JFK one was only out of action for a few days as well, they flew it back to TLS, got a new wingtip, all up that aircraft was out of revenue service for about 6 days for the investigation and repairs. In all cases, the aircraft were repaired quickly and were put back into service. If anything the aircraft has shown it can take a beating and recover rather quickly.

Kangaroo Court
4th Jul 2011, 17:46
You can buy a car that has aural and visual warnings when it's about to reverse over a childs toy, but we don't have similar warnings on a $200 million dollar jet that carries over 500 people...go figure!

Kangaroo Court
13th Jul 2011, 02:38
Well all of that is true and probably WILL happen, except everyone knows the Congo isn't democratic.

Brian Abraham
13th Jul 2011, 04:10
Post #209 by Roller Merlin is absolute tosh in his comments re US training and tail rotor failures. Was a check item on all check rides when I was with them during Vietnam. The only accident we had in my unit with tail rotor problems was when a Huey rolled onto its side upon landing following the departure of the tail rotor complete with gear box during the cruise. All others made successful landings. 1000 hour life on the Huey airframe is nonsense as well. Some of the higher time Vietnam airframes had close to 4,000 hours. Civil versions I flew were up around 20,000 hours and still going strong.

13th Jul 2011, 04:18

Pretty sure merlin's version was correct, so not exactly "tosh" as you so eloquently put it.

And he said "designed", whereas you are talking reality. I suggest you re-read his post before becoming abusive.

And what has this to do with Nancy - Bird, anyhoo?

13th Jul 2011, 05:46

I read Brian comments as applying to the reference in Roller Merlin's post about the supposed lack of training for tail rotor failure for the US pilots and not to his post as a whole.

Brian Abraham
16th Jul 2011, 05:57
Last night I asked a gentleman, who up to recently was the Chief Technology Officer for Bell Helicopter, the question re the Huey being designed as a 1000 hour throw away airframe. His reply,

never heard that one. I know Bell practice is to design for infinite airframe life, so I bet the story is dead wrong.

The 1000 hour throw away is quoted on a number of internet sites, none of them with any authority backing the statement. Good info can be had from the internet, but by golly there is a lot of nonsense as well, and I'll guarantee you this is one of them.

balace, I'm taking it you find the word "nonsense" abusive. My dictonary defines the word as having as one meaning, "absurd", which itself means "incongruous, unreasonable, ridiculous, silly". The proposition that it was designed 1000 hour/throw away qualifies in my book as incongruous (look it up) and unreasonable. Not to worry, I've posted nonsense on these hallowed pages as well.

19th Jul 2011, 22:51
Brian Abraham, can you make this clear please:

Did you fly Hueys in Vietnam?

If so, when in Vietnam, what were the types of Huey tail rotor failures that you trained your pilots to counter (from the many types of failures)?

Were these failures in the Hueys practiced from the air right down to stopped on the ground?

Did the US Army continue this exact training for all Huey pilots right through to the end of the Hueys life?

Thanks in advance.

19th Jul 2011, 23:09

Post #209 by Roller Merlin is absolute tosh in his comments

And again: And what has this to do with Nancy - Bird, anyhoo?

tail wheel
19th Jul 2011, 23:24
Thread title is A380 - VH-OQA Write Off.

If you want to discuss rotary wing go to Rotorheads Forum.

Back to the topic or thread closed. :=

Brian Abraham
20th Jul 2011, 04:42
And again: And what has this to do with Nancy - Bird, anyhoo?
For the answer to your question you'll have to ask Roller Merlin.

Back to regular programming.

1a sound asleep
26th Aug 2011, 10:19
We need an update on Nancy??????????????

26th Aug 2011, 10:41
Supposed to fly by the end of this year.

26th Aug 2011, 11:13
Not by the end of the year, may be by Feb 2012. The wing repair is well and truly under way.
Until the structural work is done the rest of the restoration is in limbo.
Lotsa work to do once Airbus have done.

Going Boeing
26th Aug 2011, 11:40
If our clever little management wanted to save time and money, they'd do the cabin refurbishment (ie reconfigure) whilst the external repairs are being done. I'll put money on the aircraft re-entering service early next year only to be taken out of service some months later for the cabin mods.

Jethro Gibbs
26th Aug 2011, 11:40
Good idea that the 747 reconfigs at Avalon are mess already a major amount of the drawings are wrong again:ok:heath tecna:D

21st Sep 2011, 00:12
Any info on how the repair to A380 Nancy Bird Walton is going?

21st Sep 2011, 02:25
Heard recently from someone who should know that, after a slow start it is now going "better than expected". He didn't elaborate sorry...

Kangaroo Court
29th Sep 2011, 15:35
Was the repair expected to go badly??:ugh:

30th Sep 2011, 04:58
I dont think anyone expected the repair to go "Badly", but there is the tendancy with these things to run into speed bumps along the way that hinder progress. Whether that be discovery of further damage, shortage of parts, slow process to approve work, or even damage incurred during the course of the repair.

1a sound asleep
1st Nov 2011, 00:58
Dear nancy

How are you doing in your hospital bed?

1st Nov 2011, 01:35
anniversary coming up.......

.........lots of quotes from Joyce re skills of pilots, professionalism from engineers .......the CC might even get a mention.........

sincere - ???

1st Nov 2011, 01:37
If our clever little management wanted to save time and money, they'd do the cabin refurbishment (ie reconfigure) whilst the external repairs are being done. I'll put money on the aircraft re-entering service early next year only to be taken out of service some months later for the cabin mods.

Yeah. Reconfigured for all Y/C, and a silver and orange paint job while they're at it if the Leprechaun has anything to do with it :E

1a sound asleep
1st Nov 2011, 01:50


1st Nov 2011, 09:26
Scheme shown looks almost correct, but shouldn't it be JetstarAsia.com and rego 9V-QFA?:E

vitamin B
1st Nov 2011, 10:09
i am surE nancy would turn over in her grave if her name was still associated with a *star operated aircraft as would many of our country's aviation pioneers - e.g Kingsford Smith, Bert Hinkler, Hudson Fysh et al


1a sound asleep
1st Nov 2011, 10:14
Do you really think the last A380s that have been delayed are going to go to QF? They have all they need - last 6 to JQ

Much Ado
1st Nov 2011, 10:28
I heard today from a contact in HKG that QF's cancelled A380 airframes are going to Hong Kong Airways.

404 Titan
1st Nov 2011, 12:42
Much Ado

Its actually Hong Kong Airlines. HKA ordered a number of A380s at the Paris Air Show a few months back. The Chinese government blocked the order because of their dispute with the EU and their ETS scheme to be rolled out in January. HKA is wholly owned by Hainan Airlines in China which in turn is owned by the Hainan government. Unless the Chinese have come to some arrangement with the EU, I cant see HKA getting any A380s any time soon.

Toruk Macto
1st Nov 2011, 12:59
That rumor has been doing the rounds of HK for awhile.

1st Nov 2011, 14:02
Going off topic here but HK Airlines is 45% owned by Hainan Airlines and 55% by a local HK investor. It has a HK AOC and operates under Hong Kong's bilateral agreements with other countries which is separate from China. It has majority HK ownership.

1a sound asleep
2nd Jan 2012, 02:36
Seem out of the hangar at SIN with an engine hanging off. First sign she must be nearing completion

2nd Jan 2012, 20:48
I see Nancy is parked on the run bay bcoz SQ have an A380 in the shed.
When the shed is free she will go back in again.
But i did see engines 1 and 2 were back on, but i couldnt see the other side.

3rd Jan 2012, 03:44
Qantas engine blast: A380 still under repair in Singapore (http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_750504.html)

3rd Jan 2012, 09:01
and the aircraft is expected to be back in Australia by the end of March.

perhaps a daylight flight...

4th Jan 2012, 03:35
Qantas set for return of blast-hit A380 after $135m repair job

by: Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
From:The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)
January 04, 201212:00AM

THE Qantas Airbus A380 superjumbo crippled by an engine explosion near Singapore in late 2010 should be back in service by March after $135 million in repairs.

The November explosion of the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine sent shrapnel ripping through the Nancy-Bird Walton, damaging vital structural components, puncturing fuel tanks, severing wiring and cutting hydraulic lines.
The fact the giant plane landed safely in Singapore was testament to the skill of the Qantas pilots and the aircraft's robust design.
Qantas originally hoped that the plane would be repaired by the end of last year and estimated it would cost about $100m. The cost of repairs is covered by insurance and compares to an average list price of an A380 of about $US375m ($364m), although discounts mean Qantas will have paid significantly less.
The decision to repair or write off an aircraft is ultimately taken by the insurer, as was the case with the $100m repair job on a Boeing 747-400 that left the runway in Bangkok in 1999. The airline last lost a plane, a Lockheed Super Constellation, in Mauritius in 1960.
Repairs on the A380 began in Singapore in May. Most of the repair work is being performed by manufacturer Airbus with a team of up to 40 people supported by Qantas and Singapore International Airlines Engineering Company staff.
All the original engines have been removed and replaced with new ones from Rolls-Royce.
The repair will be certified by Airbus and the aircraft will be returned to service by Qantas engineers after rigorous testing.
The work is also being audited by airworthiness authorities, who have been briefed regularly on the progress of the repairs.
Qantas has 12 A380s in its fleet, and a spokesman said steps had been taken to ensure a similar engine explosion could not happen again.
The repair costs are in addition to the $80m it cost to ground the A380 fleet after the engine explosion that was traced to manufacturing fault in an oil tube. Rolls-Royce covered the cost of the grounding and brand damage to the airline with a $95m compensation payment.


1a sound asleep
5th Jan 2012, 14:02
THE discovery of tiny cracks in one of the wings of a Qantas A380 under extensive repair in Singapore has led to the detection of similar problems in four other Airbus superjumbos worldwide.

'Formal guidance is being developed by Airbus that is likely to require A380 operators to inspect wing ribs for this type of cracking every four years - in line with scheduled maintenance checks. Qantas will comply fully with this guidance when it is published.''

Singapore Airlines confirmed yesterday a ''small number of cracks'' had been found on the wing rib feet of one of its A380s during an investigation in the second half of last year.

Read more: Cracks found in A380s during Qantas repairs (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/cracks-found-in-a380s-during-qantas-repairs-20120105-1pmyv.html#ixzz1ib2IKhEb)

5th Jan 2012, 19:39
But does Qantas have the in house capability to fix the aircraft?
Nope. Lets drive them up to Manilla.

Remember Alan said these new aircraft need less maintenance during the engineers eba stoush.
Nice one Alan.

5th Jan 2012, 20:40

Dear Lord,

Our Airbus who art in heaven, Rolls Royce be thy name.......
Lord please do not allow thy Dugong to be a cost burden.
Lord please do not let this aircraft type to negatively impact my bonus scheme.
Lord please no not allow this aircaft type to now stand between thy self and thy quest for world aviation domination.
Lord please do not allow thy aircraft to now require additional maintenance by any of those pesky Australian engineers.
Lord please do not allow this issue to become a media feeding frenzy in which I will need to roll out Queen Wirthless to front the media.

5th Jan 2012, 20:56

Deep in thought??
'And just when I thought that you and I had something special going on'!!