QF32 A380 engine failure investigation
Thread Starter
QF32 A380 engine failure investigation
Just read this WSJ article today:
Probe Likely to Urge Review of A380 Alerts - WSJ.com
from Wall Street Journal:
"
The report is scheduled to be released Thursday in Canberra by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
The officials said the report isn't expected to make any significant new recommendations affecting the Rolls-Royce engines that powered the double-decker Airbus A380 aircraft, which landed safely after the incident. Airbus is a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.
A manufacturing defect caused a metal disc in one of the plane's four engines to disintegrate, sending fragments exploding outward like supercharged shrapnel. That resulted in a fuel leak, extensive damage to electrical systems and degradation of flight controls, brakes and numerous sensors. Rolls-Royce has already made a host of manufacturing and other changes to prevent a repeat.
The report also isn't expected to recommend major changes to the design of the jet's airframe or its massive electrical grid, which includes bundles of electrical conduits inside the wings that suffered extensive damage in the incident.
The November 2010 accident attracted world-wide attention because of the extent of damage to the A380, which had taken off from Singapore carrying more than 440 people and was flying over Batam Island, Indonesia, when the crisis occurred. None of the passengers was injured.
The pilots heard two loud bangs, the plane's handling changed abruptly and the jetliner started leaking fuel, according to a preliminary report on the incident and the pilots' public statements.
The central alerting system set off a cascade of audible alarms in the cockpit, along with a barrage of computer messages warning pilots about damage to various systems.
The dozens of individual alarms meant constant low chirps and a string of louder, shrill warnings about malfunctions or developing problems.
The stream of alerts was so overwhelming that at one point Capt. Richard de Crespigny, who was in command, ordered other crew members to try to sort through the computer chatter while he focused on determining what systems remained intact in order to safely land the plane. After the A380 touched down, the cockpit crew had trouble turning off all its engines.
The Australian safety bureau's chief commissioner previously said the aircraft wouldn't have landed safely "without the focused and effective" efforts and cooperation of the pilots onboard.
During the course of the investigation, which initially was supposed to be over by the fall of 2012, Airbus safety experts have looked at possible changes to the cockpit-alerting system that would de-emphasize lower-priority messages, according to industry officials.
The concept is to perhaps reduce the overall number of warnings and allow pilots to focus on the most important ones, without having to address lower-priority messages.
Australian investigators have discussed the issue internally over the years, according to industry officials familiar with the matter. The final report is expected to at least raise the question of whether the current alerting system excessively increases pilot workload and—in an emergency—may have the unintended consequence of distracting the cockpit crew by providing huge amounts of marginal information.
The report, among other things, is expected to provide details about how the defective engine part was manufactured and inspected, as well as enhanced quality-control procedures put in place by Rolls-Royce since the event.
A Qantas spokesman said the company was unable to comment until the report's official release
"
editited QF10 to QF32 !
Probe Likely to Urge Review of A380 Alerts - WSJ.com
from Wall Street Journal:
"
- By
- ANDY PASZTOR
The report is scheduled to be released Thursday in Canberra by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
The officials said the report isn't expected to make any significant new recommendations affecting the Rolls-Royce engines that powered the double-decker Airbus A380 aircraft, which landed safely after the incident. Airbus is a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co.
A manufacturing defect caused a metal disc in one of the plane's four engines to disintegrate, sending fragments exploding outward like supercharged shrapnel. That resulted in a fuel leak, extensive damage to electrical systems and degradation of flight controls, brakes and numerous sensors. Rolls-Royce has already made a host of manufacturing and other changes to prevent a repeat.
The report also isn't expected to recommend major changes to the design of the jet's airframe or its massive electrical grid, which includes bundles of electrical conduits inside the wings that suffered extensive damage in the incident.
The November 2010 accident attracted world-wide attention because of the extent of damage to the A380, which had taken off from Singapore carrying more than 440 people and was flying over Batam Island, Indonesia, when the crisis occurred. None of the passengers was injured.
The pilots heard two loud bangs, the plane's handling changed abruptly and the jetliner started leaking fuel, according to a preliminary report on the incident and the pilots' public statements.
The central alerting system set off a cascade of audible alarms in the cockpit, along with a barrage of computer messages warning pilots about damage to various systems.
The dozens of individual alarms meant constant low chirps and a string of louder, shrill warnings about malfunctions or developing problems.
The stream of alerts was so overwhelming that at one point Capt. Richard de Crespigny, who was in command, ordered other crew members to try to sort through the computer chatter while he focused on determining what systems remained intact in order to safely land the plane. After the A380 touched down, the cockpit crew had trouble turning off all its engines.
The Australian safety bureau's chief commissioner previously said the aircraft wouldn't have landed safely "without the focused and effective" efforts and cooperation of the pilots onboard.
During the course of the investigation, which initially was supposed to be over by the fall of 2012, Airbus safety experts have looked at possible changes to the cockpit-alerting system that would de-emphasize lower-priority messages, according to industry officials.
The concept is to perhaps reduce the overall number of warnings and allow pilots to focus on the most important ones, without having to address lower-priority messages.
Australian investigators have discussed the issue internally over the years, according to industry officials familiar with the matter. The final report is expected to at least raise the question of whether the current alerting system excessively increases pilot workload and—in an emergency—may have the unintended consequence of distracting the cockpit crew by providing huge amounts of marginal information.
The report, among other things, is expected to provide details about how the defective engine part was manufactured and inspected, as well as enhanced quality-control procedures put in place by Rolls-Royce since the event.
A Qantas spokesman said the company was unable to comment until the report's official release
"
editited QF10 to QF32 !
Last edited by ChrisJ800; 27th Jun 2013 at 05:44.
5.11 Wing fire
The ATSB determined that there was a fire in the left wing inner fuel tank. A large
hot fragment from the IP turbine disc penetrated the left inner fuel tank and was
likely to have been the ignition source for the fire.
The absence of thermal damage to the internal and external wing structure and
painted surfaces indicated that the associated temperature rise was relatively low,
consistent with a short duration (flash) fire.
The conditions within the tank were suitable for a flash fire; however, they were not
suitable to sustain the fire (refer to Appendix D).
The ATSB determined that there was a fire in the left wing inner fuel tank. A large
hot fragment from the IP turbine disc penetrated the left inner fuel tank and was
likely to have been the ignition source for the fire.
The absence of thermal damage to the internal and external wing structure and
painted surfaces indicated that the associated temperature rise was relatively low,
consistent with a short duration (flash) fire.
The conditions within the tank were suitable for a flash fire; however, they were not
suitable to sustain the fire (refer to Appendix D).
Crew did a great job.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, lucky is an understatement. Not to take away the fact that excellent airmanship was involved by a focused team on the flight deck, but the damage to the wing, tank, and the engine flame out should have resulted in a giant fireball to put it bluntly.
Perhaps it was just 'the luck of the Irish' on the day? Either way 470 people live to tell the story, and I like that outcome.
Perhaps it was just 'the luck of the Irish' on the day? Either way 470 people live to tell the story, and I like that outcome.
Last edited by 004wercras; 27th Jun 2013 at 04:43.
This is a bit of .........."has man gone too far with automation"?
Safety is the name of the game but remember all the computers & fancy gizmos built into these infernal flying machines in the name of safety still have to be managed/handled by the ever venerable weak link in all this...the human!.
Takes a strong mind with years of experience to prioritize when the spam hits the fan, pilots of the future (IE Cadets) face a huge challenge.
Have we learnt anything over the years since the "Wrong Bro's" started this crazy notion man could fly? In some ways not a damned thing!
Wmk2
Safety is the name of the game but remember all the computers & fancy gizmos built into these infernal flying machines in the name of safety still have to be managed/handled by the ever venerable weak link in all this...the human!.
Takes a strong mind with years of experience to prioritize when the spam hits the fan, pilots of the future (IE Cadets) face a huge challenge.
Have we learnt anything over the years since the "Wrong Bro's" started this crazy notion man could fly? In some ways not a damned thing!
Wmk2
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refreshing.
Ben Sandilands – Plane talking. A refreshing article, not only able acknowledge the outstanding efforts of the crew and define them as the asset they truly are; but, also able to praise the ATSB effort and a return to world class analysis.
It is most pleasant to say "well done all"; most refreshing. Long may it continue that way....
..
It is most pleasant to say "well done all"; most refreshing. Long may it continue that way....
..
Last edited by Kharon; 27th Jun 2013 at 21:23.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Beyond The Envelope
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the report, the F/O and S/O had over 30 hours logged in the last 7 days. Is there special dispensation for long haul crews on the 30 hours in 7 days limit?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
t w- read for yourself.
CAO 48.1 Flight Time LimitationsWHERE THE FLIGHT CREW INCLUDES 3 OR MORE PILOTS
#3 (last section is the relevant one)
CAO 48.1 Flight Time LimitationsWHERE THE FLIGHT CREW INCLUDES 3 OR MORE PILOTS
#3 (last section is the relevant one)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
t w- read for yourself.
CAO 48.1 Flight Time LimitationsWHERE THE FLIGHT CREW INCLUDES 3 OR MORE PILOTS
#3 (last section is the relevant one)
CAO 48.1 Flight Time LimitationsWHERE THE FLIGHT CREW INCLUDES 3 OR MORE PILOTS
#3 (last section is the relevant one)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like this thread has gone from being about an ATSB report on the QF32 incident into a pilot nitpicking duty hours.
The end result was RDC and all the crew performed without question and the Singapore engineering, ground staff,fire services,ATC did a fantastic job.
The old saying opinions are like.
ROLLS ROYCE on the other hand had a lot to answer for and still do.
The end result was RDC and all the crew performed without question and the Singapore engineering, ground staff,fire services,ATC did a fantastic job.
The old saying opinions are like.
ROLLS ROYCE on the other hand had a lot to answer for and still do.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't nitpicking flight duty hours; it was genuine question out of curiosity and Trent972 has pointed me to the answer in CAO48.1.
Totally agree that all the crew performed a great job in getting the flight back safely. An inspiration to many.
Totally agree that all the crew performed a great job in getting the flight back safely. An inspiration to many.
