Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure

[SRMman]

I've tried to assess the trajectory angle of the piece that exited through the top of the wing and I reckon it is about +45 degrees to the horizontal; this would obviously take it over the fuselage to starboard of the track. So if the "120" theory is correct then the piece they have found would have come off in a horizontal or even below direction (to port of track as we know). To me this would not be at a sufficient elevation to have travelled the distance calculated - or it was travelling even faster! Of course the aircraft's altitude is a factor, but I can't find a mention of it. Perhaps around 7000'?

[forget]

I've got some experience of searching for a turbine disc which has gone walkabout. Olympus 301, No2 on Vulcan XM604, approx 1,200 feet over Rutland fields in January 68. The flight path of the aircraft was known precisely.

Dozens of us searched for days. Nothing was ever found. I also lived in Singapore for 14 years and know that a Rutland Field is as concrete compared to the soil on Batam Island.

I'll be amazed if more shrapnel is ever found.

[StrongEagle]

Originally Posted by RatherBeFlying

There looks to be quite a bit of low lying and likely boggy ground, maybe even mangrove swamp, in the area the ATSB plans to search for the IPT remnants. The missing pieces may be several feet underground/water. Perhaps there might be a mud spray pattern about the entry hole -- until washed off by rain.

The water area on the flightpath is the northern tip of a freshwater containment lake. The area around it is generally scrub as most of the trees have been taken down. There will be very little swamp in the area. However, the predicted dispersal area is heavy tropical rain forest. Trying to move through that will prove to be quite a challenge.

[Teddy Robinson]

These things happen, and if anybody thinks they are imune .. it's time for a rethink. The cause will be found, but nothing can absolutely mitigate an uncontained failure on any engine, on any aircraft.. let the engineers do their job. uncontained means just that, and if we are flying it, our job is to get everyone safely to earth and be thankful that there will be a fix.
They did that well.

[mickjoebill]

Only 2 presumably undamaged engines, the number 1 engine was drowned by fire fighting foam to shut down so it's damaged by the use of the foam

Considering the $$$ penalty of the corrosive foam bath and that all passengers had disembarked, who makes the decision to shut the engine down in this manner, the captain or the fire chiefs?

Would it have been feasible to let the engine run whilst engineers tried to shut it down?
Presumably there was a fear that it too could have failed and injured airport staff or further damaged other parts of the airframe?


Mickjoebill

[lomapaseo]

Perhaps the technical folks would like to have a go at calculating trjectories for the missing pieces. Don't forget A/C speed and windage.

[Chu Chu]

Considering there seems to have been leaking fuel in the area, they probably wanted the engine shut down as quickly as possible.

[corestore]

mickjoebill, whilst different jurisdictions may have slightly different rules, in my experience, just as the Captain is God in the air, the fire chief is in ultimate command at any emergency scene - which is as it should be.

[kristofera]

@kristofera

PPRuNe is possibly the most technically incisive forum on the internet, particularly where fault tree analysis is concerned. Therefore, any journalist researching such, would have to be 'clinically thick' not to reference the insight provided!

I agree, that's why I lurk around here. (I'm just a SLF but read here every now and then just out of curiosity/interest).

What I objected against was that the news.com.au article was composed of stuff copied-and-pasted off pprune without crediting the source. In my opinion it would have been fair if they had included a footnote saying "we copied-and-pasted half of this article off the web forum pprune.org" or something.

[SandyW]

Looking at photographs of the main wing damage it looks as if the "entry wound" is a lot smaller than the "exit wound". Furthermore the wing damage does not appear to be in the plane of the disc. Makes me think a relatively small thing went through the wing leading edge and not a major part of the turbine disc.

[SRMman]

Wing damage

Referring to the picture in Post 36 there is an obvious 'exit' damage with skin peeled outwards but this is forward of the front spar and in relatively light structure. The real damage is the hole to rear of this through the top main wing skin. We can't see, or I haven't seen, what the damage is on the bottom surface but it is clearly extensive and at least similar size; it might also involve the spar(s). Wingbox damage, i.e. to main skins, spars, stringers etc is always serious, particularly towards the root, and repairs difficult to engineer. The only plus point is internal access should not be a problem because of the scale of the A380!

[HalloweenJack]

can an A380 still take off if 2 engines roll back at or just before V1?

quation was asked on another forum- but there was no `good` answer

[parabellum]

Here is what they had to deal with:

From this the engineers may be able to ascertain more about the damage;


Here are just SOME of the problems in Singapore last week aboard 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 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. Yikes!
* and much more to come..........
The captain was in the left seat, FO in the right), SO in the 2nd obs seat (right rear, also with his own Radio Management Panel, so he probably did most of the coordination with the ground), Capt XYZ in the 1st obs seat (middle). He is a Check & Training Captain . U/T C & T capt was in the 3rd obs seat (left rear). All 5 guys were FLAT OUT, especially the FO who would have been processing complicated 'ECAM' messages and procedures that were seemingly never-ending

[hetfield]

@parabellum

Thx for your summary.

What about ENG#2 fire switch? I mean, was it operativ, did the agents work?

Sorry if this has been asked/answered before.

[Bergerie1]

Parabellum

What is the source of this information? Does it come from an accredited engineering source or is it a media report?

[Fargoo]

See posts 728 and 827 on this thread, looks like we're going round in circles....

[HalloweenJack]

would seem the media copied pprune , which in turn is being posted as reliable.....

[aarrboy]

Trent 900 is first Trent to feature contra-rotating HPT sysytem. Given it looks like this is HP/IP bearing chamber related does anyone think CR could be a factor?

[O'Neill No6]

NTSB report of past Trent failure

Piperr. Excellent link to the Edelweiss Trent failure (No 849).

I wonder what type of engine oil QF are using?

NTSB report makes for a very informative read.

Thanks Piperr.

O'Neill.

[heavy.airbourne]

THE PROBLEM: An Airbus executive said that Rolls-Royce has identified a faulty bearing box as the cause of the oil leak problem implicated in the disintegration of an engine on one of the world's largest airliners.
THE COMMENTS: Airbus Chief Operating Officer John Leahy said that Rolls-Royce had at some point fixed the bearing box on newer versions of the Trent 900 engine, which was designed for the A380 superjumbo.
THE REACTIONS: His comments did not address why Rolls-Royce had not fixed the bearing box in older versions. Airbus did not elaborate and Rolls-Royce declined to comment.
Airbus says bearing box failed in Rolls engine - BusinessWeek

The best part is about RR knowing about the oil leak and fixing it in new engines, but never coming around to rectify old ones. In this country this might be called negligence.