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

Closed Thread

Old 10th Nov 2010, 13:18
  #721 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Universe
Posts: 70
Just read the news that Lufthansa has replaced one engine on their A380 fleet. There was no impact on flight schedules.

Of course LH mentioned that this was purely precautionary.

The 970 engines are affected as well and so we can assume a design or manufacturing flaw?
dicks-airbus is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 13:32
  #722 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,620
Or possibly a case of playing it VERY safe in a completely transparent manner?
glad rag is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 14:23
  #723 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 59
Posts: 5,112
Or possibly a case of playing it VERY safe
Yes, cap tipped to our German friends.
in a completely transparent manner?
Not for common definitions of the words completely and transparent. The kimono is at best partly open ...
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 15:31
  #724 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 100
From two posts above:
“Singapore Airlines has grounded A380s in Melbourne and Sydney this morning after a crew's refusal to fly in London this morning.”

“It took a flight crew to make a safety decision in London and a second directive from Rolls Royce to actually cause them to stop flying.”

If it was the flight crew, who is flying the plane back to SIN?
kappa is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 16:10
  #725 (permalink)  
NWT
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 86
Can just see the flight crew getting stuck in with a boroscope, then deciding they are not going to fly....me thinks this not quite a true story...
NWT is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 16:11
  #726 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Burbs of The Motor City
Age: 48
Posts: 2
Feathers,

Thank you for the clarification...it's just that those soot marks seemed pretty dark indicating alot of heat and combustion gases coming forward while in flight...i reckon it was similar to and automobile engine with out of sync ignition timing where the airflow reverts through the intake system
Thrusty One is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 16:12
  #727 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I think true, and they found some Ernie Ganns to ferry it back to SIN. Thrusty, you mean a backfire? Turbine Engines burp flame from time to time, without a spinning IPT in the way, those sooty trails could be expected?

bear

Last edited by bearfoil; 10th Nov 2010 at 19:22.
 
Old 10th Nov 2010, 18:21
  #728 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course
Posts: 2,097
An unattributed list of the damage to QF32:


* massive fuel leak in the left mid fuel tank (the beast has 11 tanks, including in the horizontal stabiliser on the tail)

* massive fuel leak in the left inner fuel tank

* a hole on the flap canoe/fairing that you could fit your upper body through

* the aft gallery in the fuel system failed, preventing many fuel transfer
functions

* fuel jettison had problems due to the previous problem above

* bloody great hole in the upper wing surface

* partial failure of leading edge slats

* partial failure of speed brakes/ground spoilers

* shrapnel damage to the flaps

* TOTAL loss of all hydraulic fluid in the Green System (beast has 2 x
5,000 PSI systems, Green and Yellow)

* manual extension of landing gear

* loss of 1 generator and associated systems

* loss of brake anti-skid system

* unable to shutdown adjacent #1 engine using normal method after landing

due to major damage to systems

* unable to shutdown adjacent #1 engine using using the fire switch!!!!!!!!

Therefore, no fire protection was available for that engine after the
explosion in #2

* ECAM warnings about major fuel imbalance because of fuel leaks on left side, that were UNABLE to be fixed with cross-feeding

* fuel trapped in Trim Tank (in the tail). Therefore, possible major CofG
out-of-balance condition for landing
TopBunk is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 18:35
  #729 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,890
I doubt that the words "Massive, "Bloody Great" and Major Imbalance" will be in the AAIB report
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 18:36
  #730 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 17
Complete s.n.a.f.u , that is alot of complications will cost them alot to regain airworthiness of the airplane
Vik_atpl is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 18:40
  #731 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Euroland
Posts: 7
@ Thrusty, Feathers, and others who are discussing the pic of the recovered disk in post #682:

You are aware that the poster has INVERTED the colors of that image as described, and as per instructions of post #629, and that the dark marks are thus actually bright marks in reality?

The round star shaped thing anyways is with 99% certainty the boundary of a reflection of a bright window to the right of the image. You can even see the outline from a part of the cart handle...


@topbunk: Just to clarify: I daresay most people would expect the generator of the affected engine to be gone (possibly literally :-) )- the fact that it is specifically mentioned does not by any chance mean another generator was lost for some reason?!

Darn scary list, either way!!
Grumpi is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 18:55
  #732 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Norden
Posts: 131
@TopBunk,
may i ask what is your background ?
Hope you are not PIC on A380.Or an engineer troubleshooting on the "beast".
Your system knowledge is sufficent for a spotter.
no-hoper is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 19:03
  #733 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 22
@no hoper: Have you a reason to doubt his list?

Way too much of this "just who are you to comment" on this board IMO.
BobT is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 19:07
  #734 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 59
Posts: 5,112
no-hoper, if you check TB's public profile, you will find ...

Licence Type (eg CPL. Pilots only): ATPL Current a/c Type (eg B737. Pilots only): B747-400 (retired)
May I suggest that Top Bunk is a bit more than "a spotter" here?

@ Top Bunk: my jaw dropped at that list, if it's what the crew had to deal with. Ouch!

Yet again, very nicely done by the crew to bring the bird home safely.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 19:14
  #735 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 60
Posts: 215
As a non-expert, I'm curious to know whether this list of issues means that Airbus have got problems with A380 design? Or are they not expected to design for an uncontained engine failure?
overthewing is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 19:33
  #736 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,853
Overthewing:

As a non-expert, I'm curious to know whether this list of issues means that Airbus have got problems with A380 design? Or are they not expected to design for an uncontained engine failure?
No, they aren't bloody well supposed to design for an uncontained engine failure! Is you car designed for an uncontained crankshaft failure?

The energy contained in a spinning turbine disc, like any massive rotating body, is considerable, and when it breaks up for some reason you have large chunks of metal moving at very high speed in no particular direction and nothing short of making the engine casing out of Four inch thick armour plate is going to contain it.

Instead, we settle for making the disks out of the finest materials and using the finest manufacturing and inspection techniques available on this planet, and then throwing them away at a fraction of their (computed and tested) life in service and replacing them with brand new ones.

That is why there is such a fuss about this engine failure. All sorts of other things are allowed to happen and must be catered for by the designers of the engine and the aircraft, but not this....and don't for one minute say that they had better start now. I don't have enough time to explain why it's not practical or cost effective.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 19:35
  #737 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 68
Posts: 167
reassurance.

I'm an engineer by training, and used to be a journalist. Journalists take planes too, you know? And they can help push companies and regulators to take some problems seriously.

That list by TopBunk looks scary. Not a case of "Oh,one engine stopped, no worry, three left".

What would be interesting to know is whether this incident could have taken out the other hydraulic system too, or whether just one system is routed in each wing?

Edmund
edmundronald is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 19:49
  #738 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: California
Posts: 17
Someone suggested earlier in this thread it was a non-event, get over it, engines fail all the time etc. After reading the laundry list, can the same dismissive statement be made?

I am curious about the disc's departure. Was it a disc fragment that went through the wing? #2 is quite close to the body, radially the body of the plane presents a decent target, back of the envelope guess says maybe 60 degrees of arc from the #2. Thats a 1/6 chance of a body hit, or perhaps 1/3 if you consider the disc separating in two halves and angular momentum taking over.

The previous posters Q about Airbus and design. I think their design is fine, they are not in the tank business. If you see spaceage metal leaving an engine I think you are indemnified, esp as RR so it is said on this thread does their servicing.

Finally, I do believe the people on that plane were lucky. Some here dismissed that thought also.
morbos is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 19:50
  #739 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course
Posts: 2,097
@no hoper (to use the current vogue)

My profile details my background accurately - have also flown A320 family and am familiar with Airbus jargon.

I posted the list (and the first line (mine) said it was unattributed). What do I mean by that? I mean that I don't know the original source, but I have replicated it from a worthy forum populated by solely, and authenticated aviation professionals.

To my way of thinking, it looks horrendous but totally understandable when one examines the known photograhic evidence, and as such I felt that it deserved posting here.

I too, commend the Qantas flight crew for the successful outcome,
TopBunk is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2010, 20:07
  #740 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,890
All airplane manufacturers have to design for possible uncontained rotor burst. Its in the regs along with advisory material that typically satisfies the regulators. All of this laundry list has to be considered. It's the combinations that turns an incident into an accident. Aviation designers and regulators know that.

There is no need in postulating "what-ifs" regarding the damage as it has already been taken into account in the design. However there is no practical way of ensuring that all the possible what-ifs won't get you some day, so the design intent for both the engine and the aircraft in combination is to minimize to a practical extent taking account of lessons learned.

In this case the aircraft landed safely so the minimization worked Behind the scenes there probably are some new lessons learned, so I suggest that we await the ATSB etal. reports
lomapaseo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service