Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reports say the flight lasted 1h30 (other reports say 2h), burning fuel to allow a safe landing.
My ATP ground course reads "Air transport aircraft that have a Maximum Landing Mass (MLM) significantly lower than the Maximum Take Off Mass (MTOM) must have a fuel jettisoning system. The system must be capable of jettisoning enough fuel within 15 minutes to allow the aircraft to land at MLM following a take-off at MTOM. "
Why did they stay airborne such a long time?
My ATP ground course reads "Air transport aircraft that have a Maximum Landing Mass (MLM) significantly lower than the Maximum Take Off Mass (MTOM) must have a fuel jettisoning system. The system must be capable of jettisoning enough fuel within 15 minutes to allow the aircraft to land at MLM following a take-off at MTOM. "
Why did they stay airborne such a long time?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ESSL
Age: 79
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<If they had been damaged then the engine would continue to run no matter what happens in the flight deck as the engine has its own dedicated generator to power the FADEC and the LP fuel valve would remain open.>
I can understand as fail safe,that loss of data feed from the cockpit would leave No1 Engine running but there must be the ability to close all fuel valves or No1 Engine would just keep running until the tanks where dry
I can understand as fail safe,that loss of data feed from the cockpit would leave No1 Engine running but there must be the ability to close all fuel valves or No1 Engine would just keep running until the tanks where dry
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one of the pictures from Reuters.com looks a mighty lot like a fan blade, definately not the way Rolls Royce would want an engine to fail. Couldn't the damage to the wing be like this because slats where extended, so the front part of the wing was missed. There are usually hydraulic lines installed at the rear part of the slats (for obvious reasons), damage to the wing looks to be coinciding with the position of these lines, at least on aircraft types i have flown...
My two cents.
Well done to the fellow pilots who landed safely!
My two cents.
Well done to the fellow pilots who landed safely!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My ATP ground course reads "Air transport aircraft that have a Maximum Landing Mass (MLM) significantly lower than the Maximum Take Off Mass (MTOM) must have a fuel jettisoning system. The system must be capable of jettisoning enough fuel within 15 minutes to allow the aircraft to land at MLM following a take-off at MTOM. "
Why did they stay airborne such a long time?
Why did they stay airborne such a long time?
I find that a bit difficult to believe given that the 744 has a MTOW (MTOM? huh?) of about 394t and a MLW of 300 - 285 t and they dump fuel at 2 t a minute. It can take up to an hour to dump to MLW in some cases.
Perhaps you'd better look somewhere else for your scoop.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and what sort of considerations will apply to grounding all airlines A380 as there is only one engine type
It would appear that this aircraft went for a C check in September.
CHRISBA777ER | Member profile | Airliners.net
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would guess they were dousing the number 1 engine to remove all heat.........any heat isnt welcome with a hole in the wing..
This is a disastrous incident, and certainly isn't 'minor'. Grounding the fleet is totally justified given the still relatively low flying hours.
Watch this space.....the FAA/Boeing mafia will ban it from US airspace before the end of the week!!!!
This is a disastrous incident, and certainly isn't 'minor'. Grounding the fleet is totally justified given the still relatively low flying hours.
Watch this space.....the FAA/Boeing mafia will ban it from US airspace before the end of the week!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am supposed to be flying SIA A380 next month. Before updating my will, can anyone give the stats on uncontained engine failures for non-design reasons ( i.e. birds bigger than test chicken).
........ and what sort of considerations will apply to grounding all airlines A380 as there is only one engine type
........ and what sort of considerations will apply to grounding all airlines A380 as there is only one engine type
You may want to consider Emirates instead of updating your will. They are not into Rolls-Royces (aircraft engines that is, not cars).
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: U.K.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of nonsense is written about uncontained engine failures. Anything that comes loose will be blown out the back of the engine so is uncontained in that limited sense. The containment design problem refers to loss of a fan blade. In that event the fan case is designed to contain the blade so that it does not fly sideways and penetrate the cabin for example. But such a failure produces a lot of debris that will escape to the environment through the back of the engine.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: nz
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'unable to shut down No.1 engine'
The first photo in reply 27 shows the Fire Dept trying to shut down #1 eng by drowning it, you can see at the aft end the spray coming out of a running eng.
When the control signal is lost from the flight deck the eng will continue to run as stated in a previous post at what ever its last commanded setting was from the flight deck.
The first photo in reply 27 shows the Fire Dept trying to shut down #1 eng by drowning it, you can see at the aft end the spray coming out of a running eng.
When the control signal is lost from the flight deck the eng will continue to run as stated in a previous post at what ever its last commanded setting was from the flight deck.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Italy
Age: 77
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No containment
It appear a serious uncontainment, causes to be identified. Good job pilots, for the immediate shutdown. That damages are so limited is a real miracle, so landing without problems. Pax safe. Problems on ground, but no injuried at the moment.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So whats your point first floor? This was a major, uncontained engine failure by the looks of it. Large parts of the engine have penetrated the cowls, carried on and passed through the entire wing structure. It is a bit more than a simple shut down. And as for the previous post that Qantas have never crashed, hmmm, any golfers in the audience?
When the control signal is lost from the flight deck the eng will continue to run as stated in a previous post at what ever its last commanded setting was from the flight deck.
FN
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the rumour about them being unable to shut down the No1 is correct, I suspect damage to the wiring running through the wing?
As far as the confusion regarding contained or un-contained, the huge hole on the most critical surface would suggest it was UN-contained.
As far as the confusion regarding contained or un-contained, the huge hole on the most critical surface would suggest it was UN-contained.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the official statement from Changi Airport:
An A380 Qantas flight, QF 32, bound for Sydney, Australia, departed Singapore Changi Airport at 0956 hours today. For technical reasons, the aircraft turned back to Changi and landed safely at 1146 hours.
Changi Airport Group's Airport Emergency Service (AES) responded with six fire vehicles, in accordance with standard operating procedure for such incidents. In response to the pilot's request, checks were conducted on the aircraft by AES. Once the checks were completed, passengers and crew began disembarking from the aircraft at Runway 2. Buses were arranged to ferry them to the airport terminal. Disembarkation of all 469 passengers and crew on board was completed by 1340 hours.
Runway 2, which has remained closed since the landing, will reopen later today. Flights have continued to take off and land at Runway 1 and operations at Changi have, otherwise, not been affected.
Assuming the explosion occurred 10-15mins into the flight, it took about an hour and a half to defuel and prep for landing. Must have been scary for the pax for such a long time.
Then, it took almost 2 hours (!?) to get everyone off the plane. Note they did not launch the emergency slides.
An A380 Qantas flight, QF 32, bound for Sydney, Australia, departed Singapore Changi Airport at 0956 hours today. For technical reasons, the aircraft turned back to Changi and landed safely at 1146 hours.
Changi Airport Group's Airport Emergency Service (AES) responded with six fire vehicles, in accordance with standard operating procedure for such incidents. In response to the pilot's request, checks were conducted on the aircraft by AES. Once the checks were completed, passengers and crew began disembarking from the aircraft at Runway 2. Buses were arranged to ferry them to the airport terminal. Disembarkation of all 469 passengers and crew on board was completed by 1340 hours.
Runway 2, which has remained closed since the landing, will reopen later today. Flights have continued to take off and land at Runway 1 and operations at Changi have, otherwise, not been affected.
Assuming the explosion occurred 10-15mins into the flight, it took about an hour and a half to defuel and prep for landing. Must have been scary for the pax for such a long time.
Then, it took almost 2 hours (!?) to get everyone off the plane. Note they did not launch the emergency slides.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Up in the air
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone has a clue as to how long after the aircraft came to a stop the pictures of the fire brigade hosing down the no 1 engine was taken?
If it was immediately after two things come to mind:
1. Slats look retracted. Did they land flaps up due to the damage to the wing/slats?
2. Looks kind of odd having a set of passenger stairs being pulled up while the brigade is still spraying. What if the situation had taken a turn for the worse and they would have had to evacuate. That door would not have opened in that case? (Of course, if it was after 30 minutes or so on the ground itīs a different story)
If it was immediately after two things come to mind:
1. Slats look retracted. Did they land flaps up due to the damage to the wing/slats?
2. Looks kind of odd having a set of passenger stairs being pulled up while the brigade is still spraying. What if the situation had taken a turn for the worse and they would have had to evacuate. That door would not have opened in that case? (Of course, if it was after 30 minutes or so on the ground itīs a different story)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wellington
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From all accounts a normal landing so no affect on handling through hydraulic damage?
I have ultimate respect for Qantas folk, their aircraft have let them down of late but their airmanship remains esteemed.
I have ultimate respect for Qantas folk, their aircraft have let them down of late but their airmanship remains esteemed.
This appears to be a good job by the crew, with what look like multiple failures to deal with. One engine lost, another apparently not responding properly, hydraulic problems etc. Preparing the aircraft, and of course the passengers for an emergency landing, takes a much longer time than the non expert would think. If the aircraft is not falling out of the sky you take your time and get properly prepared, as the end result here suggests this crew did. Dumping fuel is only one part of the preparation. Rumour suggests that there were several captains on board and a portion of good luck. But then as they say the more you practice the luckier you get.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just an observation from the first photo in post # 43.
There is significant scorching to the white part of the engine casing indicating heat/flames in the airflow from the front half of the engine.
This has to be seen in light of the fact that the combustion chambers are located well aft of the burn/scorch marks.
In the picture the combustion area is located approx at where the second from left man is standing or at the point on the engine where the forward part of the white on red Qantas logo appears.
There is significant scorching to the white part of the engine casing indicating heat/flames in the airflow from the front half of the engine.
This has to be seen in light of the fact that the combustion chambers are located well aft of the burn/scorch marks.
In the picture the combustion area is located approx at where the second from left man is standing or at the point on the engine where the forward part of the white on red Qantas logo appears.