Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure
Maybe morbid questions, but...
1. if an ac crashes, with fatalities, and it was due to an aircraft airworthiness issue, who is liable for damages - airline, or aircraft designer?
2. if an ac crashes, with fatalities, and it was due to an engine airworthiness issue, who is liable for damages - airline, or engine maker (assuming power-by-hour lease type situation)?
1. if an ac crashes, with fatalities, and it was due to an aircraft airworthiness issue, who is liable for damages - airline, or aircraft designer?
2. if an ac crashes, with fatalities, and it was due to an engine airworthiness issue, who is liable for damages - airline, or engine maker (assuming power-by-hour lease type situation)?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Who's liability? Everyone's. The Court thing is to attempt to diminish as far as practicable one's own responsibility. There are No cases where one entity is at fault entirely. A shrewd attorney can concoct a theory of liability out of thin air faster than I grab the last piece of pie. There is no "Prove" at Court, only "Convince".
bear
bear
Wing Damage
kwateow
Based only on the photos published so far my view is that the damaged wing still had significant residual strength. The LE damage forward of the front spar can be discounted as contributing to overall strength. The spar web is damaged but not the flanges. The wingbox top skin hole is small in relative terms.
Aircraft for many years have been required to demonstrate the same strength requirements, 1.5 x limit load, so I would not necessarily agree that aircraft of earlier designs, with proportionately the same damage, would have faired worse that the A380.
Based only on the photos published so far my view is that the damaged wing still had significant residual strength. The LE damage forward of the front spar can be discounted as contributing to overall strength. The spar web is damaged but not the flanges. The wingbox top skin hole is small in relative terms.
Aircraft for many years have been required to demonstrate the same strength requirements, 1.5 x limit load, so I would not necessarily agree that aircraft of earlier designs, with proportionately the same damage, would have faired worse that the A380.
Bear,
So basically it depends. Hence, you can conclude that e.g there is just as much incentive on rolls Royce as quatas to not be subject to any negligence. The suggestion in the austrailian? Media that rolls might not have told quantas stuff etc. is irrelevant - if anything the more open rolls are the more liability can be shared you could argue.
So basically it depends. Hence, you can conclude that e.g there is just as much incentive on rolls Royce as quatas to not be subject to any negligence. The suggestion in the austrailian? Media that rolls might not have told quantas stuff etc. is irrelevant - if anything the more open rolls are the more liability can be shared you could argue.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A carrier has a legal responsibility to maintain a "duty of Care" wrt its passengers and crew. If Qantas uses the properly specified lubricants and fuels, maintains the engines as agreed in the lease, it has satisfied the contract with Rolls, and with the passengers.
If Rolls exercises its responsibilities under the lease agreement, it to is in compliance with the contract with Qantas.
There is a separate "Administrative" duty to follow regulations as set forth by the Regulator (ATSB).
Here is the issue. First of all the question asked is a hypothetical one, to include injuries and fatalities. No injuries or fatalities in this incident, so what remains is twofold: Rolls duty as manufacturer, and their relationship with the Regulator, and Qantas, same.
It is a standard of Contractual Law: A Party to a contract, gaining information that has a material bearing on the terms and conditions of said contract, who does not disclose said information to the other Party, or to appropriate entities whose interest is served by said contract, commits Fraud.
It is not permissible to allow sleeping dogs to Lie. Compliant under current AD and regulations, when in possession of information that would certainly bear on existing Contracts and Laws, is not compliance.
I do not believe for a moment RR left the existing 972 on the wing, whilst "believing" the engine would explode prior to next available check.
In this instance, anyway, the likelihood of suit other than for financial losses is about nil.
The four powerplants on the 380 (972) with support and spares, is an investment of ~125 Million dollars. About one third the total cost of the aircraft. I would prefer to Lease the Power also.
If Rolls exercises its responsibilities under the lease agreement, it to is in compliance with the contract with Qantas.
There is a separate "Administrative" duty to follow regulations as set forth by the Regulator (ATSB).
Here is the issue. First of all the question asked is a hypothetical one, to include injuries and fatalities. No injuries or fatalities in this incident, so what remains is twofold: Rolls duty as manufacturer, and their relationship with the Regulator, and Qantas, same.
It is a standard of Contractual Law: A Party to a contract, gaining information that has a material bearing on the terms and conditions of said contract, who does not disclose said information to the other Party, or to appropriate entities whose interest is served by said contract, commits Fraud.
It is not permissible to allow sleeping dogs to Lie. Compliant under current AD and regulations, when in possession of information that would certainly bear on existing Contracts and Laws, is not compliance.
I do not believe for a moment RR left the existing 972 on the wing, whilst "believing" the engine would explode prior to next available check.
In this instance, anyway, the likelihood of suit other than for financial losses is about nil.
The four powerplants on the 380 (972) with support and spares, is an investment of ~125 Million dollars. About one third the total cost of the aircraft. I would prefer to Lease the Power also.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Turbine Overspeed System
In the Dunnunda forum, early on it was reported that the A/C was operating under a MEL on the TOS for engine number 2. I am wondering why this hasn't attracted wider comment.
Alliance/RR interchangeability. One of my engineer friends has confirmed that either the Alliance or the Trent can be put on the wing of an A380 with no problems. The relevant computers will recognise either and there are no idiosyncratic connections/restrictions on either engine to prevent installation on a wing that prevously had another type.
Maybe RR should be worried in that case?
Alliance/RR interchangeability. One of my engineer friends has confirmed that either the Alliance or the Trent can be put on the wing of an A380 with no problems. The relevant computers will recognise either and there are no idiosyncratic connections/restrictions on either engine to prevent installation on a wing that prevously had another type.
Maybe RR should be worried in that case?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cardiff UK
Age: 70
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear
I presume your are American and your post re the legal position in the US could well be right.
In the UK negligence is covered under the law of tort and not contract law. Under the law of tort "a duty of care" is owed to people regardless of whether or not there is a contract between the parties involved. Therefore it is possible for an engine manufacturer to owe "a duty of care" to the passengers of an airline. The test used to see if they have discharged that duty would be to ask if it would be reasonable for an engine manufacturer to have foreseen the incident etc.
Contract law is different and would apply to the parties of the contract. The contract can take many forms and without knowing the contract conditions and who is party to the contract, or if there are any colateral warranties etc it would be unwise to speculate on the position under contract law.
I am not sure of the position under Australian law but I would guess it would be nearer to the UK model. I would also think that any contract would state which countries law would apply and in this case I doubt it would be US law.
I am SLF so am not an expert on aviation but I have some proffesional experience of UK law of tort and contract, so I hope that my small contribution to this thread is helpful.
Regards
Nick
I presume your are American and your post re the legal position in the US could well be right.
In the UK negligence is covered under the law of tort and not contract law. Under the law of tort "a duty of care" is owed to people regardless of whether or not there is a contract between the parties involved. Therefore it is possible for an engine manufacturer to owe "a duty of care" to the passengers of an airline. The test used to see if they have discharged that duty would be to ask if it would be reasonable for an engine manufacturer to have foreseen the incident etc.
Contract law is different and would apply to the parties of the contract. The contract can take many forms and without knowing the contract conditions and who is party to the contract, or if there are any colateral warranties etc it would be unwise to speculate on the position under contract law.
I am not sure of the position under Australian law but I would guess it would be nearer to the UK model. I would also think that any contract would state which countries law would apply and in this case I doubt it would be US law.
I am SLF so am not an expert on aviation but I have some proffesional experience of UK law of tort and contract, so I hope that my small contribution to this thread is helpful.
Regards
Nick
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bath, UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has just appeared on the BBC News website:
LATEST: Australian airline Qantas says up to 40 engines in A380 aircraft worldwide will need to be replaced
No further details available as yet.
LATEST: Australian airline Qantas says up to 40 engines in A380 aircraft worldwide will need to be replaced
No further details available as yet.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick. Bearfoil is correct as far as he goes. However, even in the US there is a cause of action for torts in common law. Generally, however, US judges frown upon that course of action if there is a contract that is applicable. A common law cause of action is usually only used if there is no contract or if the contract is unconsciousnessable or self-serving in some way. But anyway, here in the US people can and do sue for anything and everything. Whether a judge/jury can be convinced is an entirely separate matter.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cardiff UK
Age: 70
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that Mountainbear. I was not implying that Bear was wrong about US law, just that UK law is different and as none of the parties involved (as far as I know) have a US connection(excluding SLF) then UK or Aussie law is more likely to apply.
Whilst SLF will have a contract with the carrier they will not have one with the manufacturer or engine supplier and then in the UK the law of tort will apply.
JFZ90 mentions fatallities and in that case then the relatives would be party to any action against the manufacturer or engine supplier and if they were US citizens then it is (I would think) more likely that contract law would not be appropiate.
From what you say Mountainbear maybe the best place for US relatives to bring any case would be the USA.
JFZ90 has asked an interesting question and one thing am quite confident about is that there are many possible answers. Maybe that's why our legal friends in every country will always make money!
Regards
Nick
Whilst SLF will have a contract with the carrier they will not have one with the manufacturer or engine supplier and then in the UK the law of tort will apply.
JFZ90 mentions fatallities and in that case then the relatives would be party to any action against the manufacturer or engine supplier and if they were US citizens then it is (I would think) more likely that contract law would not be appropiate.
From what you say Mountainbear maybe the best place for US relatives to bring any case would be the USA.
JFZ90 has asked an interesting question and one thing am quite confident about is that there are many possible answers. Maybe that's why our legal friends in every country will always make money!
Regards
Nick
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This article does not appear to have been posted as far as a search would assume.
The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster – Plane Talking
The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster – Plane Talking
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I very much doubt if Rolls Royce owned the Qantas engine(s). Rolls would have sold them to Qantas, together with a power-by-the-hour maintenance contract, in which Qantas would pay $X per flight-hour (adjusted for stage length, unusual conditions such as a high proportion of low-derate takeoffs), which covered maintenance overhauls. The only way Rolls would have owned this engine would be if it was a spare that they had leased to Qantas. Cost of ADs and some SBs may have been included in the PBH contract.
The original sale contract and the PBH contract would have had warranties that covered manufacturing defects and overhaul defects. It's a fair bet that this failure would have been a design and/or manufacturing defect. The cost of the repair is almost certainly Rolls', however Qantas would have considerable operational costs, and considerable (maybe much more) reputational costs due to the damage to the brand and loss of revenue. No-one was injured, I presume, so there shouldn't be tort claims by passengers or people on the ground (of course, there may be claims regarding pax accommodation, rebuilding the bathroom that copped debris etc). Qantas I imagine would be pushing for tort/negligence claims against Rolls that might (or might not) cover some costs if there was evident negligence, however I doubt either Rolls or Qantas would like it to end up in a court getting dirty linen washed, so there will likely be a monetary settlement (or a discount on future deals or costs) when the dust has died down.
The original sale contract and the PBH contract would have had warranties that covered manufacturing defects and overhaul defects. It's a fair bet that this failure would have been a design and/or manufacturing defect. The cost of the repair is almost certainly Rolls', however Qantas would have considerable operational costs, and considerable (maybe much more) reputational costs due to the damage to the brand and loss of revenue. No-one was injured, I presume, so there shouldn't be tort claims by passengers or people on the ground (of course, there may be claims regarding pax accommodation, rebuilding the bathroom that copped debris etc). Qantas I imagine would be pushing for tort/negligence claims against Rolls that might (or might not) cover some costs if there was evident negligence, however I doubt either Rolls or Qantas would like it to end up in a court getting dirty linen washed, so there will likely be a monetary settlement (or a discount on future deals or costs) when the dust has died down.
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News - Forty Rolls Royce Airbus A380 engines 'need replacing'
Forty Rolls Royce Airbus A380 engines 'need replacing'
"Up to 40 Rolls-Royce engines on Airbus A380 superjumbos worldwide will need to be replaced, according to Australian airline Qantas.
Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce was speaking two weeks after a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine on an A380 exploded in mid-air, forcing an emergency landing."
[...]
"Mr Joyce told reporters at Sydney airport the airline had already replaced three engines on its planes.
"We've been talking to Airbus and Rolls-Royce and we understand that the number [of engines to be replaced] is around 40," he said.
"We'll have a daily dialogue with Rolls-Royce to determine which engines actually need to be taken off," he said."
R
Forty Rolls Royce Airbus A380 engines 'need replacing'
"Up to 40 Rolls-Royce engines on Airbus A380 superjumbos worldwide will need to be replaced, according to Australian airline Qantas.
Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce was speaking two weeks after a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine on an A380 exploded in mid-air, forcing an emergency landing."
[...]
"Mr Joyce told reporters at Sydney airport the airline had already replaced three engines on its planes.
"We've been talking to Airbus and Rolls-Royce and we understand that the number [of engines to be replaced] is around 40," he said.
"We'll have a daily dialogue with Rolls-Royce to determine which engines actually need to be taken off," he said."
R
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Londinium, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found this article interesting, but can't vouch for its' accuracy as I don't fly or repair heavy metal
The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster – Plane Talking
The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster – Plane Talking
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Torono
Age: 56
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbine Overspeed System
So does Tay and all BR700 series (slightly different but same principle).
The mechanical system operates in about 22 milliseconds in reducing fuel flow to below engine self sustaining levels. The electronic systems are slower (about 50 milliseconds) but the larger size of the rotatives have a higher inertia so they reach red line (disc burst speed) in a slower time.
It's this time that defines the system, i.e. how fast does the turbine reach red line speed.
This was not a shaft break event, this was a disc burst due to a turbine oil fire, as I said about 50 pages back, so all this talk about overspeed protection, although interesting, is rather moot.
The mechanical system operates in about 22 milliseconds in reducing fuel flow to below engine self sustaining levels. The electronic systems are slower (about 50 milliseconds) but the larger size of the rotatives have a higher inertia so they reach red line (disc burst speed) in a slower time.
It's this time that defines the system, i.e. how fast does the turbine reach red line speed.
This was not a shaft break event, this was a disc burst due to a turbine oil fire, as I said about 50 pages back, so all this talk about overspeed protection, although interesting, is rather moot.
Last edited by Dak Man; 18th Nov 2010 at 09:02.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am wondering what the Certification Authorities view will now be about ETOPS certification "out of the box". In particular how will this affect the Boeing 787 which I know has a "totally different" power-plant to the Trent 972 A380.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: U.K.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speculation has gone hyperbolic. I would recommend a large pinch of salt be taken with Ben Sandilands comments about who knew what and when, etc. The diagrams are interesting though.
There is not yet any information that connects the spline wear AD thing with this particular accident. The spline wear apparently can lead to oil leakage and oil fire but it does not mean that this oil fire was caused by slpine wear.
We can be confident that the accident investigators and engineers will not be making the same mistakes as Ben Sandilands.
There is not yet any information that connects the spline wear AD thing with this particular accident. The spline wear apparently can lead to oil leakage and oil fire but it does not mean that this oil fire was caused by slpine wear.
We can be confident that the accident investigators and engineers will not be making the same mistakes as Ben Sandilands.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nairn, Highland
Age: 85
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Alliance/RR interchangeability. One of my engineer friends has confirmed that either the Alliance or the Trent can be put on the wing of an A380 with no problems. The relevant computers will recognise either and there are no idiosyncratic connections/restrictions on either engine to prevent installation on a wing that previously had another type."
A380 has detected new hardware. It appears to be an unlicensed version. Please consult your administrator.
Jack