Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure
Pilots' Pal
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: london uk
Age: 52
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Will be interesting to see the official findings on why such a new , low hours engine failed so spectacularly.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wellington
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"We are still collecting debris," he said.
"It looked like a big plane. Like a Boeing 737 - 400.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's always a muppet trying to turn this into a Boeing v Airbus thread.
How many triple 7's are in the air at this moment with trents under the wing??
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.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: U.K.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: HK MTR
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
Now how much are pilots worth in situations like this???? (side issue)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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!
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!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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).
(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).
