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, 10:30
  #61 (permalink)  

Pilots' Pal
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 58
Posts: 1,157
Jeez, guys and gals, this thread has already degenerated.
The photographs indicate an uncontained failure (maybe related to turbine but that could be the result of another failure further foward; who knows?). That debris had punctured the wing makes a serious incident more serious.
This has happend before to other aircraft with engines from other manufacturers (American Airlines had to scrap a 767 in LAX as the result of a liberated disc from one of its CF6-80s during a ground run).
Nobody hurt, probably testimony to design, airmanship and other factors.
Let's wait for the reports from the experts.
Bus429 is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 10:31
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: london uk
Age: 47
Posts: 8
The design criteria for jet engines state they must be able to contain fan AND/OR turbine disc failiures, think united DC10, these pictures look remarkably like a turbine disc fail. If any fan blades are damaged or missing its usually after the initial turbine fail and a result of shaft imbalance , a bad disc fail will usually result in the translating sleeve damaged or missing.
Will be interesting to see the official findings on why such a new , low hours engine failed so spectacularly.
lcyboy is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 10:32
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wellington
Posts: 26
From Stuff.co.nz:

Meanwhile, Elfhinta radio quoted a police officer in Batam, Eryana, saying some of the plane had been found.

"We are still collecting debris," he said.

"It looked like a big plane. Like a Boeing 737 - 400.
speaker is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 10:37
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by Bus429 View Post
The photographs indicate an uncontained failure (maybe related to turbine but that could be the result of another failure further foward; who knows?). That debris had punctured the wing makes a serious incident more serious.
Areas of the wings in the axis of the rotors are dry and do not contain fuel, in case of a failure like this. The AA fuel leak and fire you talk about occurred because the aircraft was on the ground, which reflected the debris back up.
catiamonkey is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 10:44
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 909
There's always a muppet trying to turn this into a Boeing v Airbus thread.
I agree.......the fact that this an engine issue, and Roll's Royce to boot, I think we can leave the E v W debate out of this!
How many triple 7's are in the air at this moment with trents under the wing??
WindSheer is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 10:44
  #66 (permalink)  
Fzz
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 25
This picture definitely appears to show the no 1 engine still running, even after the stairs have been brought to the aircraft.

Fzz is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 10:48
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 909


Given the water testing that goes on, surely they weren't trying to drown the number 1?
WindSheer is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 10:51
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tropics
Posts: 310
In certification how much water is the engine expected to ingest without flaming out?

At least engine 1's living it up - didn't flame out... as it shouldn't!
dream747 is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 10:51
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Global Vagabond
Posts: 623
Doesn't this type have a forward looking camera mounted on the VS? I wonder how much it assisted the crew being able to see the actual damage as opposed to trying to build a picture based on instruments alone.
mini is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 10:52
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,313
Well I've thought about this a lot, and read the whole thread. To me, it appears to be some kind of engine failure...

They aren't supposed to do that, are they?
remoak is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 10:52
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 184
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.
Completely ignoring the issue at hand, namely a turbine disk failure. However, these are invariably uncontained as the energy involved is too large to be able to effectively contain it.
A photo shown taken from a passenger shows some debris has shot through the wing less than twelve inches in front of the wing front spar. Behind the front spar is the fuel tank! I'm tipping that if a piece of hot turbine had gone though the wing tank it would have made the Air France Concorde disaster look like a fairly small accident.
It could be that the passengers are still alive by the grace of god... Or it could be that the engine was positioned so that a turbine disk failure would not penetrate the fuel tanks. I know the latter isn't as exciting, but it's got the advantage of factual accuracy.
WillDAQ is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 10:56
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 26
With reference to the response on dry bays on wings, I am not familar with the complete layout of the A380 wing but if its like most Airbus wings then there is no dry bays for the purpose you state.

The A340 series aircraft have a inner tank split valve (In the L and R inners on a A340-200/300 and in Inner 2 and 3 on a A340-500/600) which allows a portion of the inner tank to be isolated from the rest of the tank in the event of a rotor burst thus preventing complete fuel loss.

Jimpy
jimpy1979uk is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 10:58
  #73 (permalink)  

Pilots' Pal
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 58
Posts: 1,157
See AMC 20 at the bottom of the linked page
Bus429 is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 11:00
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: U.K.
Posts: 62
Uncontained engine failure

I worry about the use of the term uncontained engine failure because it suggests that not only did the rotating machinery fail in some way but also that the containment was inadequate (because it failed). I suspect that total containment is impossible (because of weight considerations) but that some sensible design point is chosen by risk analysis.

Therefore, there will always be situations in which the design case or the certification standard is exceeded by an actual occurrence. I agree that the damaged wing does suggest that at least one piece of machinery was not contained but it does not follow that there was anything amiss with the containment system.

Unless a design, manufacturing or maintenance error exists, the containment will have performed as designed (if not as expected) even if it was penetrated.
firstfloor is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 11:01
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: HK MTR
Posts: 143
No L/E slat however T/E flaps out. Emerg Landing Gear extension. Normal brakes??? Only 1 reverser (A380 only has reversers on the inboard engines). I thought the A380 had multiple hyd pumps scattered around the aircraft instead of eng driven hyd pumps. Overall would have been an interesting landing considering the FADEC on #1 may have frozen at power setting when failure occurred (full power in climb?) and only 1 reverser on landing.
Now how much are pilots worth in situations like this???? (side issue)
Sand Man is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 11:08
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 26
The A380 has two engine driven hydraulic systems Green and Yellow and on top of this a number of electrically powered hydraulic actuators.

I believe engine 1 and 2 drive the green system and 3 and 4 the yellow system. Please someone correct me if I am wrong.
jimpy1979uk is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 11:09
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
"Getting back on track, is it me or have RR had a few of these in recent weeks? Any commonalities wit the 747 incident? Didn't the 787 RR engine test have problems too? Common components/maintenance/manufacturing...?"

Yes Indeed, the 747 UCF was probably a RR as well as was the UCF of a 787 engine on a test bed recently.

Lets not foget though it's not just RR having these problems all manufactures suffer these problems, they are all pushing the bounds of technology to try and improve SFC and reliability. A GE UFC recently caused a write off of an AA 767. AF has had a number of issues with their GE powered 777s resulting in IFS and diversions.

Lets just wait and see what the cause of this was before writing off RR engines or indeed the A380!
HOODED is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 11:12
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 1,349
Uncontained failure

Firstfloor. By definition an "uncontained" failure is one where part of the engine which has failed is not contained within the engine casing. Clearly, the failure suffered by QF32 was an "uncontained" failure of rotating members of the engine. These engines are a triple spool type. i.e. the Fan section is supported on a shaft driven by its own turbine assembly. Likewise for the Intermediate compressor and the High Pressure Compressor. A failure of any one of the rotating members of the engine will, among other things, cause severe vibration which in turn often leads to secondary failures. Lets wait until the engineers have time to determine the primary failure and what followed. Rolls Royce will be very anxious to determine the cause of the failure and to take whatever remedial action is required to prevent further failures, and they will do so.
Old Fella is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 11:21
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: sydney
Age: 48
Posts: 4
only for taxing aid

Yes, one camera is installed on VTP. But, it can be used only during taxing and below 60km/h of speed.
SSDR1999 is offline  
Old 4th Nov 2010, 11:26
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,426
Are those the rules regarding camera use or is the camera actually inhibited whilst airborne and/or above 60km/h?

(777-300 FCOM contains similar comments and limitations on the use of it's camera systems but turn them on whilst airborne and they do work).
wiggy is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.