Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure

Old 4th Nov 2010, 19:45
  #281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Doubt it was a bird...

You usually get comments from the pax of a smell of "roast chicken" after a bird is ingested, and I haven't seen any suggestion of that. Not impossible, but unlikely.

I'm sure if it was one, the people looking at the engine would know about it by now.

With regard to the comments about the engine running for electrics... as disembarking pax with engines running is quite harzardous to say the least, I would guess the PIC only allowed it (disembarking with engine running) because there was no other option. A ground power source could be used if necessary- although, is that a good idea with possible fuel hazrds around?)

Also, stairs are the obvious choice; not that it mattered as they only disembarked on the RHS but a slide (if used on the LHS) could easily be ingested and then your problems are REALLY beginning.
Boomerang_Butt is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 19:52
  #282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,548
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Boomerang

.... stairs are the obvious choice;
Yep, agreed 100%, the aircraft appears to safely stopped, on the paved surface, on all it's gear, in a normal attitude with no signs of anything life threatening in the way of smoke or fire but, yes, there's the inconvenience of an engine running. Why anyone would consider throwing the passengers down the slides in such circumstances is beyond me.
wiggy is online now  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 20:02
  #283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ChristiaanJ: Somewhere around here I saw a photo or video of two fire trucks spraying water in to try and induce a flame-out. Later there appeared to be only one, then it stopped (I'm guessing it succeeded at that point?).

ECAM Actions.
ECAM_Actions is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 20:04
  #284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For those of you wondering:

Cabin crew and pilots due to work on the cancelled flights would be given full pay or moved to work on other aircraft, Mr Joyce said.
He said most of maintenance for the planes was done in Australia with heavy maintenance done in the Lufthansa facility Germany.
"The engines have been in service as long as the aircraft has operated which is two years," he said.
"These are new engines, they're a new design from Rolls Royce, they're engines that are particular for the A380 and they've been operating on all the A380 fleet."
(Yahoo news)
Boomerang_Butt is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 20:04
  #285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Or they realised that it had no effect, and so waited for it to run out of fuel?
Bolli is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 20:10
  #286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hunan factor

This matter is not to forget in my opinion since after all it's the biggest facto procentually to most accidents/ incidents . I remember at my old airline up in the north an JT8 engine on our MD-83 "exploaded " just 10 min after takeoff, that was caused by the engine overhauler " forgot" to put some lockwashers on one part of the turbine section ,(the engine had less than a 1000 hr of life at that time), and the part came off and went thru the pylon and also thru the cabin. Luckily no one was injured at that accident due to mo pax at the last two rows . Not impossible that something similar have happened now. They will very soon find out though as in our case. Just a thougt

Regards wings 1011
wings1011 is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 20:12
  #287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Appears to have been a fuel tank leak from the wing, based on photos and inside passenger video (taken from a seat behind the wing). So after the engine failure resulting in the loss of engine #2, the aircraft appears to have had a fuel leak, leading edge devices not working, loss of power control of engine #1, only half the spoilers deployed on landing (from video), landing gear doors did not retract, and indications of loss of one of the hydraulic systems.

Could it have gotten much worse and still been controllable? I think these passengers were pretty lucky.
Flight Safety is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 20:23
  #288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Appears to have been a fuel tank leak from the wing
Fuel or hydraulic fluid?
BillS is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 20:26
  #289 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,951
Received 855 Likes on 256 Posts
inflight photo: smoke or fuel?

FUEL.

#2 tank has been perforated, at least in 2 places. Engine exhaust is affected by the vortex sheet rollup and eventually is entrained into the tip vortex over some distance. (flaps alter this somewhat, but the inflight photo shows the trace from inboard of #2. The photos of the wing upper surface inboard of #2 show penetration behind the spar as well as in front of the spar). Question is whether the spar itself was penetrated which would be expensive to really expensive.


As far as making a dry area aligned with the area inline with the turbine disc, in the wing a swept span makes that volumetrically prohibitive. No practical amount of armoring is going to stop a penetration from a disc section release.

FDR
fdr is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 20:31
  #290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Age: 61
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Underwing pictures inboard of engine 2 would be interesting .... this terrible for RR .
dartmoorman is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 20:32
  #291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: overthehillsandmountains
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flight Safety

"I think these passengers were pretty lucky"...

Not much to do with luck, Mr Safety. Nor God, by the way.
Certification requires the airplane to be able to survive certain failure modes.
Thanks to the engineers at Airbus, this particular A380 certainly did.
Why Rolls Royce failed, we'll discover in due course.
kwateow is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 20:44
  #292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Age: 55
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@FDR, Flightsafety

Do you have positive confirmation of a fuel leak which you state as fact? What I saw on the video did not look like fuel - more like air moisture in a vortex. Plus I read in a comment from SDFlight over at Flightglobal that the fuel tank does not extend to where the wing was punctured.
The partial slats deployment might be connected to the slat drives being right there; otherwise, again according to SDFlight, it would appear the pilots may have shut down the "green" hydraulic system as a precautionary measure, rather than because of an actual leak.

So far, this is all speculation. Come next morning in Singapore, I hope we'll have a bit of fact from the investigation, or at least some of the wilder theories debunked.
Rengineer is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 20:48
  #293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
#2 tank has been perforated, at least in 2 places.
It would be interesting to see some confirmation.

I take it your on about the in and out holes? Top one aft does look very carbon fiberey.

Think your possibly looking at a wing change here, which could mean both off perhaps if it can't be jigged.

Oh btw, it's the No2 Feeder tank. Which raises more problems over ferry.

GR
glad rag is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 20:55
  #294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Luck is a word that does come into the equation when an uncontained engine failure occurs like this one. Certification ticks in the boxes reduced the chances that cataosrophic failures like these will end in a loss of life and frames, but no system built by us is 100% failsafe IMHO. Luck is in the direction of where that disc decided to depart etc.
Alber Ratman is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 21:23
  #295 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,951
Received 855 Likes on 256 Posts
AD?

There's an airworthiness directive on this engine:
http://www.channel4.com/media/c4-new...0-0008R1_1.pdf

Thoughts?
post 189


The failure is in the HPT or IPT region, too far forward for the LPT.
fdr is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 21:27
  #296 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,951
Received 855 Likes on 256 Posts
"cool down?"

Please can we have less wild speculation and more calm analysis.
The "shock horror drama" comments are just pointless noise.

Do we, for example, have any REAL FACTUAL evidence that No1 engine could not be shut down ?. All that I see so far is a picture of fire crew spraying cooling water on a hot cowling. From that scanty evidence we have wild speculations about common routing of controls and imagined horrors.

Please please pretty please calm down and get a grip on reality.
AG

agree with your sentiment, however #1 is certainly still running during the hose down, look at the efflux, at least QFA has a really clean compressor section on #1....
fdr is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 21:48
  #297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
previous video...

fine,erm but that was an engineered failure of an N1 blade on a static rig, whilst that may yet prove to be the case, the collateral damage seems to indicate another turbine stage. IMHO we are looking at something that with the kind of mass and heat around could well have resuled in a hull loss. The puncture to the rear of the obvious being the problem. In the video there appears to be a vapour trail of fuel coming from it, although that could possibly be atmospherics.
Teddy Robinson is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 21:51
  #298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: reading uk
Age: 77
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
cool down

Hi guys,

I joined this site looking for informed opinion, professional information and more than one gets from the press.
So far 70% or more of the content regarding the Qantas incident, is what one would expect to read in the `Sun`.

Dave
arearadar is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 22:05
  #299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So far 70% or more of the content regarding the Qantas incident, is what one would expect to read in the `Sun`.
Bigger words, though.

Greg
greg99 is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 22:13
  #300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually Top Bunk, I seem to recall that QANTAS took delivery of their first A380 in Oct 2008. I was working at the Airbus plant in Hamburg at the time. The aircraft may have first flown 2 years 10 months ago but was then ferried from Toulouse to Finkenwerder for painting and cabin fit.
Dual Ground and WilyB, thanks for the correction. I was merely going from the Jacdec figures, and, at the same time, trying to point out to peeps that engines often rack up hours very quickly with modern fleet utilisations.

8000+ hours and 800+ flights sounds about the right ratio of 10 hours/flight for a longhaul aircraft.

No matter what the life expectancy, no engine should fail like this given modern EHMS processes in place. A big issue for RR to resolve here, no doubt.
TopBunk is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.