PDA

View Full Version : Qantas A380 Update


MyerFlyer
4th Jan 2011, 08:15
Hi all,

5 of the current 7 A380s are in service, with VH-OQA awaiting repairs in SIN, and VH-OQC still awaiting new engines in SYD.

Does anyone have any updates on when VH-OQC will be back in the air?

And does anyone know when the next 2 new A380s (OQH/OQI) will be delivered?

And finally any news on a LAX service return date?

Cheers

GalleyHag
4th Jan 2011, 09:34
REGO Available Entered into Service

OQB 20 Dec 22 Dec
OQC 10 Jan 11 Jan
OQD 10 Dec 13 Dec
OQE 23 Nov 27 Nov
OQF 22 Nov 27 Nov
OQG 16 Dec 20 Dec
OQH TBA TBA (end of Jan or Early Feb but still to be confirmed)
OQI 12 Jan TBA

Bumpfoh
4th Jan 2011, 10:06
OQC 11 Jan at this stage I'm told

another superlame
5th Jan 2011, 08:27
OQC is waiting for engines 2 and 3 at the moment, they are due any day. But I heard it might get pushed outside so it can get a breathe of fresh air and also to allow other aircraft hangar time for boro's etc.

I think OQC might be afraid of the sun it has been so long.

hoboe
5th Jan 2011, 22:23
QF93 YMML - LAX on Sunday 16th January is showing as an A380, with Tuesday 18th January showing QF11 out of YSSY as an A380 as well.

Capt Kremin
5th Jan 2011, 23:42
Looks like OQA will be out of service for up to a year.:eek:

GalleyHag
6th Jan 2011, 00:30
Rolls Royce clears Qantas A380 to LA

Thursday, 6 January 2011

Qantas has received permission from engine maker Rolls Royce to operate its A380s on the Los Angeles route at full load.

Thrust limitations put in place by the Rolls Royce last year prevented the Australian flag carrier from resuming flights to the US because it would mean flying fewer passengers and lighter cargo, The Australian reported.

The engine maker has since removed the thrust limitations and is confident it has resolved the manufacturing error which caused an A380 engine to disintegrate over Singapore last year.

“We have got advice from Rolls-Royce that they are comfortable to have the A380 operating to Los Angeles given the checks and technical analysis they’ve done on the engine,” Qantas spokesperson Olivia Wirth said.

Qantas said it expects to resume its A380 services to LA on 17 January but despite obtaining the go-ahead, the Australian flag carrier will need to receive permission to fly from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

According to the source the airline has organised a meeting with CASA for later this week.

Source = e-Travel Blackboard

hotnhigh
6th Jan 2011, 00:32
Heard OQA wont even be touched until at least may.

Jet-A-One
6th Jan 2011, 00:37
Until then it's "wrapped in plastic"...

Capt Kremin
6th Jan 2011, 00:41
Until then it's "wrapped in plastic"...


I believe they are trying to avoid the problems they had after the OJK repair in MNL. Aircraft don't like sitting around for months in hot, humid conditions.

Jabawocky
6th Jan 2011, 01:55
“We have got advice from Rolls-Royce that they are comfortable

My spelling and grammar is not perfect.........but sheeeez this girl needs a few years back in school :rolleyes:

We have received advice......;)

The Guru
6th Jan 2011, 02:30
Can someone explain to me how the ATSB consider the damage to the aircraft SERIOUS
(Source: Investigation: AO-2010-089 - Inflight engine failure - Qantas, Airbus A380, VH-OQA, overhead Batam Island, Indonesia, 4 November 2010 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-089.aspx))
but CASA, our illustrious safety regulator, has decided that in their latest magazine that the damage is only MINOR
(Source: Flight Safety Australia Jan/Feb 2011 Issue 78, p18)? :confused:

I don’t know of any publication or manual that is used within the operational or safety environments that would attempt to define the damage to QF32 as Minor. With openly reported damage to aircraft performance, replacement of components required, damage to more than one engine, and obviously an uncontrollable fuel leak, you would need to think that the either CASA does not have the expertise to be responsible for aviation safety in Australia, or Qantas PR are doing their best to play down this incident further and keep the problems associated with the A380 at a minimum.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Ken Borough
6th Jan 2011, 03:22
Jaba,

Sorry, as much as I hate to say it but I think she may be correct if QF asked RR for advice in which case 'got' and its meaning of 'obtained' is appropriate. That said, it may have been the only correct thing this lady has uttered. :mad::mad::ugh::ugh::eek::eek:

Mach2point7
6th Jan 2011, 06:22
Ken

"received advice" surely, but never "got advice". "Rolls Royce advised" is cleaner. She is meant to be a professional wordsmith.

blow.n.gasket
6th Jan 2011, 06:39
Told by an engineering mate that the early build a380 of which OQA is one, have a heavier spar construction than later built SJP's (Sarah Jessica Parkers ,fashionable, high maintainence, butt ugly, and inclined to go to pieces when pushed too hard).

Does this mean waiting on a complete new wing.?

Another question arises, if the early build spars are heavier and more robust, what would the outcome have been if an engine had let go on a later model ,lighter sparred SJP?

Ken Borough
6th Jan 2011, 08:21
Mach 2.7

Totally agreed. And the operative word is "meant"! :ok:

airtags
6th Jan 2011, 11:13
another chapter redefining the modern concept of aviation Quality Assurance........"trust us we're Rolls Royce and we should know what the real problems are because we wanted these issues to be kept low key in the first place......"

The AD and compliance regimes have changed to be more "commercially aligned", but the fundamental issue still remains and the failures on the 'non stub oil pipe' donks still remain unresolved. Reassuring to see consistency on the part of the Regulator.......it's still asleep on the verandah like an overweight old labrador that has forgotten how to chase a frisbee.

As for more of the QF Olivia factor....the holes in her and QF's integrity and cred are significantly larger than those on OQA.

:ugh:
AT

Peter Fanelli
6th Jan 2011, 14:41
Jaba,

Sorry, as much as I hate to say it but I think she may be correct if QF asked RR for advice in which case 'got' and its meaning of 'obtained' is appropriate. That said, it may have been the only correct thing this lady has uttered.


Don't think so.
Possibly...
We have gotten advice......
or
We have got (relevant/some/good etc) advice....

The Darkness
6th Jan 2011, 18:46
Blow.n.gasket,

SJP - Love it!!! One of the funnier ways to describe things. Very good stuff!!!!

And happy birthday too!

Apologies for the diversion off topic.

1746
6th Jan 2011, 22:17
“We have got advice from Rolls-Royce that they are comfortable to have the A380 operating to Los Angeles given the checks and technical analysis they’ve done on the engine,” Qantas spokesperson Olivia Wirth said.
If I recall Rolls knew of the issues and didn't advise QF - who is the AOC holder?!
The point is QF still appears incapable of making any independant input or decisions without RR making them.
Isn't this the exact situation that precipitated this whole drama!?!

another superlame
7th Jan 2011, 07:09
Qantas does not own these Trent 900 engines, they are all on some leasing arrangement with power by the hour.
That may have some reason to do with why they can't make their own decisions.

Jack Ranga
7th Jan 2011, 08:30
Surely they wouldn't change the size of the spar? Unless it was a new model or a variant?

Mach2point7
7th Jan 2011, 10:48
Superlame

Regarding QF not owning these engines - I have seen this comment a few times before on PPrune. I am not disputing this, as I have no knowledge of this particular situation.

However, most Power By the Hour ("PBH") contracts relate to engines which are owned by the airline concerned.

Do we know for sure that RR owns the engines ?

QF and JQ operate many aircraft that they do not own, but lease. This does not relieve them of any responsibility, as the AOC holder, for airworthiness compliance.

Qantas must "make their own decisions". Period. If they no longer have the professional competence to do so, then this should be investigated by the relevant authorities.

They may like to imply that they are no longer "responsible", as they have a PBH contract, but I do not think that this is correct.

TIMA9X
7th Jan 2011, 12:55
By another superlame Qantas does not own these Trent 900 engines, they are all on some leasing arrangement with power by the hour.
That may have some reason to do with why they can't make their own decisions.or is it...
By Mach2point7 most Power By the Hour ("PBH") contracts relate to engines which are owned by the airline concernedI don't know what the arrangement is either but reading between the lines with this story it appears, Qantas hanging on jumbo all-clear | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/business/qantas-hanging-on-jumbo-all-clear/story-e6frfm1i-1225983417878)

The national carrier desperately needs a boost to help stabilise its sliding share price, and a return to action for the A380s perfectly fits the bill.
Analysts yesterday blamed the mid-air engine explosion on the carrier's flagship double-decker in early November for more than $1 billion in share losses.
They told BusinessDaily the decision to ground the airline's entire fleet of big jets while British engine maker Rolls-Royce fixed its dodgy Trent 900 engines - now blamed for the explosion - had removed significant capacity from the carrier's international network.
1. I am sure that RR would not like the Australian press using words like "dodgy" IMHO created by QFs PR machine possibly leading to slow progress in getting the problem resolved and the A380 back on the pacific routes.

2. AJ was too quick to center the blame on RR in the press to get the load off his shoulders at the time, calling for compensation probably upsetting RR as all said and done QF and RR have had a long association with each other, and should have worked it out behind the scenes.

3. RR would most likely choose to work closer with SQ to sort it out as they have a fully functional engine shop unlike QF. Going back to 1746s comment... it struck me

By 1746.. If I recall Rolls knew of the issues and didn't advise QF - who is the AOC holder?!
The point is QF still appears incapable of making any independent input or decisions without RR making them.
Isn't this the exact situation that precipitated this whole drama!?! Yeh, spot on but I feel QF management haven't really understood the engineering logistics/issues/time frame to get the thing resolved. It feels like the whole thing was legally left in RR hands.

For me this quote from Mach2point7 says it all..
Qantas must "make their own decisions". Period. If they no longer have the professional competence to do so, then this should be investigated by the relevant authorities.

They may like to imply that they are no longer "responsible", as they have a PBH contract, but I do not think that this is correct. Indeed, and there may well end up being an investigation, "Corporate Wally Speak" for shifting the blame, has damaged the QF share price which is not a good look for AJ and his PR advisers.

The carrier was then valued by the market at more than $6.54 billion but yesterday that value had eroded to just over $5.5 That's a billion dollars since November 4th.

mmciau
7th Jan 2011, 18:41
More important outcome of the saga will be whether the A380 pilots have full and unreserved confidence in the engines when they are lifting off from Los Angeles Airport with an approx 14 hour flight ahead of them.

That will the crux of the issue IMHO.


Mike

breakfastburrito
7th Jan 2011, 21:00
Is there any truth to the rumour that RR are allowing 75 cycles at full rated takeoff thrust, before the engines needs to be removed from the wing?

airtags
8th Jan 2011, 00:33
Mike
it's actually more like a 16 hour hop ex LAX - none the less the comments by others continue to underscore the observations posted as early as the day of the incident.

Q Media under the direction of the pollie ferret have been an utter disgrace and have contributed to the implied credability losses through their inept communications and amateurish leaking of stories to try to push a few runs on the ASX scoreboard.

Until they and AJ understand that they must come clean and disclose the full facts of the current RR statements of faith - then the market will continue to sell down or at least stay at arms length.

It's about faith and confidence - something that Joyce continues to erode by not being open and accountable and hiding behind Olivia's ill informed meanderings.

Example: Burrito's last post: - heard same rumour today from reliable source.

If it is true then it affirms the fact that there are still issues otherwise, why would the inspection need to be off wing at 75 when the revised AD specifies 200. (that's approx 30% AQL - either the donk performs to the spec or it doesn't)

Even the fact that there is speculation over the inspection schedule clearly demonstrates the need to be genuine and open.

I believe however the reluctance to do so may be related to the "other" issues identified in the 'non stub bore problem' donks.

Maybe PriceWaterhouse need to offer Q a "Rolls Royce Audit Service" and then with INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT, EXTERNAL REVIEW, market confidence in Q and the share slide might just start going in the right direction.

(or could it be that to fully come clean with the facts may actually contradict the Q afidavit........)

:E
AT

Bootstrap1
8th Jan 2011, 00:47
The 75 cycle removal was only if they were non-modified engines running at full thrust ex LAX. It doesn't affect any brand new or latest mod engines.

All engines are still on a 20 cycle boro, not sure what they are looking at though.The EECs have had a software upgrade that monitors the areas in question more closely.

I heard a good point recently about QF engines, due to the fact that the T900 is overhauled/maintained off wing by a company which is a partnership with RR and one of QFs main competitors and the fact that there is no or very little QF representation during the outside work on these engines QF have in fact no control over these engines once they have left the A380 they were installed on.

Until QF get real about engine overhaul and outsourced quality they don't really have any comeabck when things go awry.

You only need to look at the RB211-524 dramas over the last few years to see the pattern that has formed.

And when things do go wrong, just by saying we don't overhaul the engines it is all XXXXXXXs fault,doesn't indemnify them in the eyes of the public.

If it was on a QF aircraft then according to Joe Public they are going to see it as QFs fault, not some overseas MRO.

Oakape
8th Jan 2011, 07:46
And when things do go wrong, just by saying we don't overhaul the engines it is all XXXXXXXs fault,doesn't indemnify them in the eyes of the public.

If it was on a QF aircraft then according to Joe Public they are going to see it as QFs fault, not some overseas MRO.


It doesn't indemnify them period! Frankly, it is QF's fault.

You can't abdicate the responsibility just because you decide to outsource. The decision to outsource belongs to QF & the responsibility also belongs to them. If they chose badly, didn't adequately monitor & supervise, or just had bad luck, it doesn't matter.

If you want to sell a product, then you, & only you, are responsible for the perfomance & quality of that product, regardless of where you sourced it.

The modern trend in society seems to be that someone else is always to blame & management these days is no different. In fact, it seems to be their mantra, drummed into them from day one & perfected on the job.

I'm sorry, but as far as I am concerned, if a decision made for expedience, cost cutting, greed, ignorance, or any other reason, goes wrong, then the person who made that decision has to wear it. And possibly even his or her superiors. That also goes for good decisions, as well as bad.

virgindriver
8th Jan 2011, 10:15
then the person who made that decision has to wear it. And possibly even his or her superiors. That also goes for good decisions, as well as bad.

Sounds good in theory but that person has probably already got his/her big bonus and moved on by now. :)

qfguy
8th Jan 2011, 18:26
Correct me if im wrong but isnt the a380 issues with LAX regarding the length of the runway for take off?

I know of an airport just north of there (SFO) that can handle the 380 very nicely. Wonder if anyone has thought of that?

ALAEA Fed Sec
8th Jan 2011, 20:05
SFO would require an extra 1500 kg of fuel and Qantas are trying to save some money you know....

Going Boeing
8th Jan 2011, 21:15
SFO would require an extra 1500 kg of fuel

Fed Sec, I rarely disagree with your posts but SFO is closer to SYD than LAX (by about 40NM) so the only fuel difference would be due to winds.

The loads on the SFO route would not make the A380 a suitable choice over the B744.

I know of an airport just north of there (SFO) that can handle the 380 very nicely.

The A380 causes major disruptions when it taxi's at LAX - it would be much worse at SFO (yes I know it has been approved for A380 ops but it wouldn't be a simple operation).

hotnhigh
8th Jan 2011, 23:11
GB, sadly the point re SFO and loads. You are right, Qantas would not put the 380 in there. Heaven forbid Qantas management trying to grow a route for Qantas. They probably think Lufthansa were crazy to launch the 380 into Narita. But I'm sure Lufthansa's loads and yield tell a different story.

The 380 doesn't give too many problems when parked in the right spot in la. Example: gate 123 and then departure off 24L

rob_ginger
10th Jan 2011, 07:19
In post 26 mmciau said:

More important outcome of the saga will be whether the A380 pilots have full and unreserved confidence in the engines when they are lifting off from Los Angeles Airport with an approx 14 hour flight ahead of them.while in post 29 Bootstrap1 said:

The EECs have had a software upgrade that monitors the areas in question more closely.I looked at the AD for the modifications to the EEC software
(EASA Airworthiness Directives Publishing Tool (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2010-0262)) and it gives me the willies. The relevant part of the AD is:

Rolls-Royce has developed a modification of the Engine Electronic Controller (EEC) software, featuring an IPT Overspeed Protection System (IPTOS). The purpose of the IPTOS functionality is to detect engine conditions that may
potentially lead to an IP turbine overspeed, and shut down the engine before the level of overspeed reaches the disc burst speed.I know that the A380 has four engines, so it's impossible to lose all four at once. But then that's what the pilot of a Tristar thought, when the same oil seal was left out of all 3 engines. If you want to quibble - yes, one engine was still running on touchdown, but I bet his freckle was puckering a little.

And then of course, this is comprehensively tested software, not unreliable hardware. But, what about the FADEC software on some 777's, that rolled back from the commanded flex thrust ?

As an engineer who's worked on high-availability control system software (SCADA) for 20 years or so, I can tell you that nearly all the easy bugs are found during system testing, while the really curly ones pop up once a complicated system is in service. So if I was the first "test pilot" on a fully-loaded A380 taking off on a hot day on a shortish runway I think my freckle would be puckering just a little. A bit fat alarm is one thing, but shutting down engines seems very drastic to me. What if the protection software falsely triggers due to a combination of factors, say a power bus glitch plus turbulence, or a lightning strike, etc etc. I hope it never happens !

airtags
10th Jan 2011, 07:52
Rob
re: the EEC software mod:
the acceptance testing question has been asked and the answer may be best paraphrased as "trust us"........

the bigger issue, some more learned than me argue is that the actual cause, is the higher oil pressure of the 900's - esp under load. There is some logic in their diagnosis in that OQA Eng 2 was carrying an (alleged) 'unrelated' overspeed MEL at the time of the 4 Nov incident and other donks had some ' unrelated oil issues'

.............V1.......kinda....maybe ......hope so......rotate or (in the case of LAX) surf

AT
:E

Trent 972
10th Jan 2011, 10:56
There is NO M.E.L. relief for 'Turbine Overspeed' on QF Trent972 engines.
Continuing the myth of an 'alleged' Turbine Overspeed MEL on OQA, indicates an ignorance of the facts.

mmciau
10th Jan 2011, 18:42
airtags,

I refer to your mention about 'high oil pressure'.

An engine builder of race cars told me that 'high' oil pressure was to be avoided as high oil pressure limited the capacity for the bearings to be properly lubricated. High oil pressure possibly "blasted away" the oil cushion between surfaces and led to increased wear or even failure of the bearing.

What was desirable was an increased volume of oil at 'medium' pressure.

Mike

GUARD
10th Jan 2011, 23:49
How about " we have been advised by Rolls Royce...."

That girl should NEVER have been elevated to that position. Her grammar is poor and her understanding of the industry is even poorer.

Great news for crew and pax that the 380 is substantially back.

GUARD:)

airtags
11th Jan 2011, 01:07
Trent:

sorry, docs show OQA eng was carrying reported overspeed fault at time of 4 November incident.

none the less core issue is still the same - RR knew about the potential risk and (allegedly) said nothing.

Trust is the new specification requiring compliance.

AT

denabol
11th Jan 2011, 02:51
Someone in the media is talking to the ALAEA? Torrid stuff following the announcement of a return to service over the Pacific.

What comes after the Qantas A380s resume LAX services? – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/01/11/what-comes-after-the-qantas-a380s-resume-lax-services/)

maggot
11th Jan 2011, 06:05
^^^ from the above article................

There are some really good accountancy arguments in favor of divesting excellence in engineering and maintenance, and for that matter, pilot endorsement training, to third party providers.

But the QF32 experience puts Qantas on notice that when it loses control over its standards it risks losing everything.