Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Northwich
Age: 49
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the crew realised that they had no control over No 1 when they were still airborne then it would be reasonable to question whether they would be able to get reverse thrust on it
I thought the '380 only had thrust reversers on Engs 2 & 3, so they would only have had 1 engine (3) providing reverse thrust
I thought the '380 only had thrust reversers on Engs 2 & 3, so they would only have had 1 engine (3) providing reverse thrust
Ashling
The number 1 & 4 engines on the A380 are not fitted with reverse thrust!
During the Singapore incident, the number 1 engine operated normally. It just would not shut down after they arrived!
Edited.... Oops.. too slow!
The number 1 & 4 engines on the A380 are not fitted with reverse thrust!
During the Singapore incident, the number 1 engine operated normally. It just would not shut down after they arrived!
Edited.... Oops.. too slow!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine shutdown problem
I have followed this thread from the beginning but can't recall if the actual achieved thrust setting(s) for Engine #1 have been reported for the various stages of flight up to the attempted shutdown.
I can add that the fuel valve associated with electronic engine control systems of earlier FADECs did latch at the current setting after some failures but later ones, and I assume the Trent 900 is included, the valve would drop back to an idle setting.
I would be very surprised if a high power setting existed during the approach and landing due to the huge handling problems that would arise.
I can add that the fuel valve associated with electronic engine control systems of earlier FADECs did latch at the current setting after some failures but later ones, and I assume the Trent 900 is included, the valve would drop back to an idle setting.
I would be very surprised if a high power setting existed during the approach and landing due to the huge handling problems that would arise.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: overthehillsandmountains
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emm4
How many times will the QF CEO have to say "eng #1 responded normally in the air, just wouldn't shut down on the ground" before people get it?
It's been restated in countless posts.
Or folks don't believe anything anymore.
It's been restated in countless posts.
Or folks don't believe anything anymore.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
"During the Singapore incident, the number 1 engine operated normally. It just would not shut down after they arrived!"
.
Operated normally ??? could mean many things for various conditions ???
1. Thrust control was avail over full range via thrust lever and autothrust inputs.
2. Thrust was normal for inputs to engine system.
Can anyone advise if engine thrust was low/med/hi when they poured that fluid in to in ???
I would guess, 4 normal inputs can shut down engine, Master lever and fire handle via the spar and fuel valves, sounds like none of these 4 were avail, all very interesting.
Anyways, many lessons to be learned I'm sure, this event will make the 380 even more safer than it was on Wednesday.
A very well done to all involved, great job.
"During the Singapore incident, the number 1 engine operated normally. It just would not shut down after they arrived!"
.
Operated normally ??? could mean many things for various conditions ???
1. Thrust control was avail over full range via thrust lever and autothrust inputs.
2. Thrust was normal for inputs to engine system.
Can anyone advise if engine thrust was low/med/hi when they poured that fluid in to in ???
I would guess, 4 normal inputs can shut down engine, Master lever and fire handle via the spar and fuel valves, sounds like none of these 4 were avail, all very interesting.
Anyways, many lessons to be learned I'm sure, this event will make the 380 even more safer than it was on Wednesday.
A very well done to all involved, great job.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KWATEOW
I was trying to recall a reliable statement about No #1 engine control. Unfortunately, Alan Joyce's (QF CEO) statement was lost in the noise of the other 500+ posts. Your reply helped me use the SEARCH function to find that statement.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@lompaseo
"...One can't expect the general public to know whats going on behind the scene but you can expect that when a major airline puts their fleet back in the air that they are darn sure that they are satisfied."
Lompaeo, I agree with your comment.
But it intrigues me that SQ could so confidently put their fleet back in the air within 12 hours, having first decided that they wouldn't stop to make checks, then, then presumably after advise from RR deciding to do so. Their haste to fly again on the face of it appears lacking caution. Particularly given that they have had an inflight shutdown themselves and multiple unscheduled engine changes on the Trent 900.
I also agree that there are many good techos doing hard yards behind the scenes to resolve this event quickly for insight and understanding, but I can't reconcile the two quite different attitudes between the two airlines.
Is it a rivalry thing, or a public-face thing, or are there genuinely valid reasons why these two major airlines would take quite opposite approaches?
Genuine inputs only please. Not interested in bashing either airline.
Lompaeo, I agree with your comment.
But it intrigues me that SQ could so confidently put their fleet back in the air within 12 hours, having first decided that they wouldn't stop to make checks, then, then presumably after advise from RR deciding to do so. Their haste to fly again on the face of it appears lacking caution. Particularly given that they have had an inflight shutdown themselves and multiple unscheduled engine changes on the Trent 900.
I also agree that there are many good techos doing hard yards behind the scenes to resolve this event quickly for insight and understanding, but I can't reconcile the two quite different attitudes between the two airlines.
Is it a rivalry thing, or a public-face thing, or are there genuinely valid reasons why these two major airlines would take quite opposite approaches?
Genuine inputs only please. Not interested in bashing either airline.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd been under the impression that engine designs early in their lifecycle tended to have these kinds of problems, as even the best testing will never fully replicate real-life conditions.
While it's only right that RR should look into this in as much depth as is humanly possible, I think a lot of the opprobrium directed at them is a little excessive. Specifically my mind wanders back to the CFM56-3C-1 and it's teething troubles - another derived and uprated design that suffered multiple failures which in one case led to a nasty accident (Kegworth).
While it's only right that RR should look into this in as much depth as is humanly possible, I think a lot of the opprobrium directed at them is a little excessive. Specifically my mind wanders back to the CFM56-3C-1 and it's teething troubles - another derived and uprated design that suffered multiple failures which in one case led to a nasty accident (Kegworth).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two more engines found with problems:
Qantas to change engines on two A380s
Confirmation that it was indeed a rotor disk that was found:
Qantas A380 likely lost engine disk
Qantas to change engines on two A380s
Confirmation that it was indeed a rotor disk that was found:
Qantas A380 likely lost engine disk
Guest
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 80
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't all shout because I really do not know: however a friend in NSW has said to me that not all QANTAS engine maintenance is carried out in Europe or Australia. Any truth in this ?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: us
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"During the Singapore incident, the number 1 engine operated normally. It just would not shut down after they arrived
Engine shut down/fuel cut off is a not connected to the Fadec.
It takes a powered command to shut down the engine ie close the fuel valve. It appears that wire or wire bundle that controls the fuel shut off valve was damaged or in some way unpowered. Not an issue just ask the AA guys that tried to do a USA continental flight on 30 min battery power in a 57. They made it from SEA to ORD but landed safely but could not shut down the engines. You do not want to shut down an engine for disruption of electrical power, lightning stike, switching busses, the list is pretty endless.
The thrust/throttle control in non linkage/non cable control or Fadec type applications actually generates its own power and is routed to the throttle controls and back to the engine to give thrust control. Thrust control is a seperate system and does not shut down the engine. It appears this cable bundle was unaffected.
VFD
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: overthehillsandmountains
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OFSO
"The two-year-old plane was Qantas' first A380. The engine was fitted in February after being overhauled at the Rolls-Royce plant in Hong Kong"
Can't confirm, though.
Can't confirm, though.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFD
It sounds as though you are an engineer?
Had that cable bundle been damaged, and I appreciate that it appears not to have been in this incident, could it leave the engine developing high thrust or would the local control, adjacent to the engine, have reduced it to idle? i.e. would the the engine stay at the last commanded thrust setting, or would it, in the absence of valid command input, have defaulted to some pre-configured value -- if so, what? Is there some other means of controlling thrust or shutting down in an emergency -- maybe not from the cockpit, even?
Thrust control is a separate system and does not shut down the engine. It appears this cable bundle was unaffected.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would the checklists check that you could throttle No 1 back while in the air? Would have thought it would be needed to run at a safe continuous max to minimize imbalance - pretty close to where it was before No 2 gave up?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: overthehillsandmountains
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know whether the systems connected to the fire handle are those apparently damaged in this A380?
I've not seen it stated whether the crew pulled the #1 fire handle in an attempt to shut it down.
It may well have worked but on the other hand it's overkill for an engine that's not on fire and can be shut down with a fire hose.
I've not seen it stated whether the crew pulled the #1 fire handle in an attempt to shut it down.
It may well have worked but on the other hand it's overkill for an engine that's not on fire and can be shut down with a fire hose.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sweden
Age: 56
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Morrisey
Sounds to me like a free fall deployment, which is consistent with the photographs of the aircraft showing the gear doors open.
Very pleased that you are around and able to post on here by the way.
Sitting two rows back from the emergency aisle one of the senior cabin staff came round and briefed the crew that it would be a fast landing. You could feel the landing gear coming down - this personally was my primary concern - but it sounded all wrong. There was almost a flapping sound and then a gap prior to the gear took an age to clunk into place. One of you more experienced guys can comment if we were sitting directly above the gear , all i can say was the floor was vibrating significantly below our feet, enough for me to lift my feet from the floor.
Very pleased that you are around and able to post on here by the way.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
multiplied by 10 to the power of n, where n tends towards infinity.Bits of #2 emerged uninvited through the top of the wing, punching through hydraulics, cabling and fuel as they sailed by.
#1 handled things just like many a good pilot would - steadily and by the book until safely stationary, followed by the urgent need for a stiff drink.