Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines that need to be replaced still flying
Obviously if 40 engines in the world wide fleet of A380 a/c need to be replaced, a fair swag of those must be on the Singapore Airlines fleet.
Meaning there are currently Singapore aircraft flying with RR engines that are known or feared to be prone to the same fault that caused the uncontained event on QF. On those numbers there is also a high probability that could be one or more a/c with 4 engines slated to be replaced. One is more than enough for me.
RR say they think they know the cause. And have a fix in the works. It will be interesting to discover if number 2 on QF had a history in the tech log of any oil leaks. Or indeed any other maintenance issues/clues prior to the event.
I've read, unconfirmed reports, the pilots had no indication of any problems what so ever prior to the event. If this is the case and say for example number 2 had a clean bill of health in the tech log, it was after all a very new engine, how then can RR and SQ be 100% sure they can prevent another similar event simply by ground checks - however frequently they might be conducted?
Meaning there are currently Singapore aircraft flying with RR engines that are known or feared to be prone to the same fault that caused the uncontained event on QF. On those numbers there is also a high probability that could be one or more a/c with 4 engines slated to be replaced. One is more than enough for me.
RR say they think they know the cause. And have a fix in the works. It will be interesting to discover if number 2 on QF had a history in the tech log of any oil leaks. Or indeed any other maintenance issues/clues prior to the event.
I've read, unconfirmed reports, the pilots had no indication of any problems what so ever prior to the event. If this is the case and say for example number 2 had a clean bill of health in the tech log, it was after all a very new engine, how then can RR and SQ be 100% sure they can prevent another similar event simply by ground checks - however frequently they might be conducted?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sales/Lease/Liability
It is interesting to ponder the liability. Whether owned outright or leased, the subject of responsibility for engines failure is fairly well described elsewhere. That there were no (bless us all) injuries on this flight is important for legal reasons. A Plaintiff must demonstrate at Court an injury (of any kind), a loss, or harm to recover anything of value from defendant in Plaintiff's quest to be "made whole". This is a civil action, separate from tortius action as described above. I reviewed my post, and believe I included reference to criminal prosecution, but did not expand on it due to this flight's good fortune. The Regulatory body would be instrumental in framing the nature of technical deviance from a "Standard/Duty of care", but would not be a party to the State in its pursuit of criminal sanctions against a Corporate and or Private entity that engaged in "Criminal" negligence, or "Fraud". Fraud is generally charged as a felony, especially if there is injury and death resultant from the Fraud.
The Regulator would pursue sanctions of a financial nature against any defendant, at their determination of violation. The State would pursue a criminal action separate, perhaps to include even manslaughter, or other Capital crimes. If the State chooses not to pursue a criminal indictment, what is left is what is called in the US "Private Attorneys General". As above, this exercise, thought quite legal and effective, is met by the Judicial establishment (in general) with great disdain, and a lack of co-operative effort is forthcoming. Having passed on prosecution, Attorney's General take poorly to civilians taking up the "Cause of Action".
US Law is based on Queen's Bench, and shares vast amounts of "Body Parts" with the UK and likely Australia.
If Rolls Royce was adherent to all of the regulations, there is no negligence, and this would be the primary theory of defense. If, however, linkage to the 1000 explosion is patent, and provable at Court, there is a thread with which a manufacturer could be pursued . In steps 'language', and the single most important consideration at Law: Intent. These are the challenge for State attorneys, and if they see a lack of evidence of clear Intent, they would take a pass on indictment. Again, the door would yet remain open for civil pursuit in tort. There is no "Statute Run" with re: Fraud, or negligent cause of death. The "Defendant" remains liable to prosecution in perpetuity. I believe even the Estate of the Party in Question can be pursued after the subject's passing.
As before, in this case I see virtually no possibility of criminal action, and for reasons evident, this discussion does not pertain to Qantas/Rolls here. Kudos to both Qantas and RR for rapid attempts to mitigate, and to prevent further problems.
bear
It is interesting to ponder the liability. Whether owned outright or leased, the subject of responsibility for engines failure is fairly well described elsewhere. That there were no (bless us all) injuries on this flight is important for legal reasons. A Plaintiff must demonstrate at Court an injury (of any kind), a loss, or harm to recover anything of value from defendant in Plaintiff's quest to be "made whole". This is a civil action, separate from tortius action as described above. I reviewed my post, and believe I included reference to criminal prosecution, but did not expand on it due to this flight's good fortune. The Regulatory body would be instrumental in framing the nature of technical deviance from a "Standard/Duty of care", but would not be a party to the State in its pursuit of criminal sanctions against a Corporate and or Private entity that engaged in "Criminal" negligence, or "Fraud". Fraud is generally charged as a felony, especially if there is injury and death resultant from the Fraud.
The Regulator would pursue sanctions of a financial nature against any defendant, at their determination of violation. The State would pursue a criminal action separate, perhaps to include even manslaughter, or other Capital crimes. If the State chooses not to pursue a criminal indictment, what is left is what is called in the US "Private Attorneys General". As above, this exercise, thought quite legal and effective, is met by the Judicial establishment (in general) with great disdain, and a lack of co-operative effort is forthcoming. Having passed on prosecution, Attorney's General take poorly to civilians taking up the "Cause of Action".
US Law is based on Queen's Bench, and shares vast amounts of "Body Parts" with the UK and likely Australia.
If Rolls Royce was adherent to all of the regulations, there is no negligence, and this would be the primary theory of defense. If, however, linkage to the 1000 explosion is patent, and provable at Court, there is a thread with which a manufacturer could be pursued . In steps 'language', and the single most important consideration at Law: Intent. These are the challenge for State attorneys, and if they see a lack of evidence of clear Intent, they would take a pass on indictment. Again, the door would yet remain open for civil pursuit in tort. There is no "Statute Run" with re: Fraud, or negligent cause of death. The "Defendant" remains liable to prosecution in perpetuity. I believe even the Estate of the Party in Question can be pursued after the subject's passing.
As before, in this case I see virtually no possibility of criminal action, and for reasons evident, this discussion does not pertain to Qantas/Rolls here. Kudos to both Qantas and RR for rapid attempts to mitigate, and to prevent further problems.
bear
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dak Man:
Has this been publicly stated by any of the principal parties? 
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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cardiff UK
Age: 70
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear
I accept that US law has it's foundations in UK law. Yet since 1776 your courts etc have had no connection with the UK. Therefore over the following 230 years it is highly likely that your case law, prescedent,etc will vary from that in the UK.You mention "felony" and this is a US concept which will have been developed since independance Historically Australia has remained closer to the UK and it is therefore more likely that it's legal framework has more in common with the UK. So to be blunt I think you are mistaken to assume that only US law would be used if this incident ever reached court.
None of us have details of any possible contracts betwen the parties involved so in my view it is pointless to speculate on the outcome of any legal action.
Regards
Nick
I accept that US law has it's foundations in UK law. Yet since 1776 your courts etc have had no connection with the UK. Therefore over the following 230 years it is highly likely that your case law, prescedent,etc will vary from that in the UK.You mention "felony" and this is a US concept which will have been developed since independance Historically Australia has remained closer to the UK and it is therefore more likely that it's legal framework has more in common with the UK. So to be blunt I think you are mistaken to assume that only US law would be used if this incident ever reached court.
None of us have details of any possible contracts betwen the parties involved so in my view it is pointless to speculate on the outcome of any legal action.
Regards
Nick
Guest
Posts: n/a
I like Sandilands post of diagrams. In the first, however, there is quite an off putting lack of scale re: damage and position of #2 Pylon. Anyone else catch it?
Nick: Noted. There is an incestuous relationship in Aviation that one may overlook at one's own handicap. I stated my post as being conjecture only, and by definition its relevance is in the eye of the beholder. Mine is not the presumption that US Law would prevail in Jurisdiction. If you think it is, you are incorrect.
regards, bear
Nick: Noted. There is an incestuous relationship in Aviation that one may overlook at one's own handicap. I stated my post as being conjecture only, and by definition its relevance is in the eye of the beholder. Mine is not the presumption that US Law would prevail in Jurisdiction. If you think it is, you are incorrect.
regards, bear
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South Carolina
Age: 72
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lease Engines & Oil Leak
I did not know that the Trent and the EA engines are directly interchangeable on the A380. A terrific feature that was probably never anticipated that it would actually be needed. Just a capability resulting from abilities of the large memories and computing power of on-board computers. If I were and EA sales person I'd be out offering "compassionate lease rates" to the 3 affected airlines with Trents.
On a more technical note, someone was questioning if there were any relevant squawks in the tech logs for QF #2 engine. My experience says that there is a very good chance that the oil leak needed to cause a fire in the turbine area sufficient to affect the IP turbine strength could be small and therefore essentially undetectable in oil consumption monitoring. Still it would be interesting to see that actual consumption data.
On a more technical note, someone was questioning if there were any relevant squawks in the tech logs for QF #2 engine. My experience says that there is a very good chance that the oil leak needed to cause a fire in the turbine area sufficient to affect the IP turbine strength could be small and therefore essentially undetectable in oil consumption monitoring. Still it would be interesting to see that actual consumption data.
Bearfoil
Not sure which picture/diagram you're referring to.
Is it the green coloured view of the bottom wing skin?
OK, I think you're referring to the diagram FTF 2; this is the Flap Track Fairing (not pylon).
Not sure which picture/diagram you're referring to.
Is it the green coloured view of the bottom wing skin?
OK, I think you're referring to the diagram FTF 2; this is the Flap Track Fairing (not pylon).
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dartmouth, Devon U.K.
Age: 90
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry SandyW..we crossed
Guest
Posts: n/a
SRMman
The first diagram. I initially saw it as top view, I still think it is, for there is no evidence of the LE cuff (at the Root) that would be apparent in a bottom up view. It also shows the first Spar, and that was my downfall, I should have immediately looked at the supporting photo. The scale is correct, and the view is not architectural, so some latitude should have been granted, my bad. I do think the indication for droop motor damage is displaced. The indicating line shows the motor as inboard of the major upper wing penetration, the motor is in fact located outboard the "projectile path"?
thanks, bear
The first diagram. I initially saw it as top view, I still think it is, for there is no evidence of the LE cuff (at the Root) that would be apparent in a bottom up view. It also shows the first Spar, and that was my downfall, I should have immediately looked at the supporting photo. The scale is correct, and the view is not architectural, so some latitude should have been granted, my bad. I do think the indication for droop motor damage is displaced. The indicating line shows the motor as inboard of the major upper wing penetration, the motor is in fact located outboard the "projectile path"?
thanks, bear
Last edited by bearfoil; 18th Nov 2010 at 14:16.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mrbigbird
I suspect by "replaced" they mean "removed" while certain components are replaced by new standard parts, then engine refitted. Until that happens, then certain inspection / monitoring regimes will be put in place on vulnerable engines. In order to expedite this, I imagine there will be a lot of rotating engines between aircraft, even fleets.
I think you will find the operators and airworthiness regulators also have a part/opinion in this 
Pilots, the Tech Log v a modern engine. We pilots are (as here?) usually the last in the chain to know what's going on 
Engineers / data monitors / QARs etc. know far more, and I suspect these, plus boroscope records mean the diagnosis and monitoring of the problem will I think mean more than looking for simple "oil leak" writeups.
All the talk above of "100% safety", must remove these engines, RR liability etc. Think back to volcanic ash - how many posted here the grounding / rules were "ridculous"? We are in the risk management business...
NoD
Obviously if 40 engines in the world wide fleet of A380 a/c need to be replaced, a fair swag of those must be on the Singapore Airlines fleet..... One is more than enough for me
RR say they think they know the cause. And have a fix in the works.
It will be interesting to discover if number 2 on QF had a history in the tech log of any oil leaks. Or indeed any other maintenance issues/clues prior to the event.
I've read, unconfirmed reports, the pilots had no indication of any problems what so ever prior to the event
I've read, unconfirmed reports, the pilots had no indication of any problems what so ever prior to the event
Engineers / data monitors / QARs etc. know far more, and I suspect these, plus boroscope records mean the diagnosis and monitoring of the problem will I think mean more than looking for simple "oil leak" writeups.All the talk above of "100% safety", must remove these engines, RR liability etc. Think back to volcanic ash - how many posted here the grounding / rules were "ridculous"? We are in the risk management business...
NoD
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Seattle area
Age: 52
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Seattle Times (via AP) has an interesting article about the severity of the incident.
Business & Technology | Cascading failures followed airline engine blowout | Seattle Times Newspaper
My apologies if already posted.
Business & Technology | Cascading failures followed airline engine blowout | Seattle Times Newspaper
My apologies if already posted.
Bearfoil
To avoid confusion let's call it the 'green' diagram is undoubtably the bottom skin. If you look at the outboard section you can see the tank access holes - there are none in the top skin.
As I interpret the photos there are two major exit damage areas on the wing top surface, relatively close to each other. One, in the LE 'D' nose forward of the front spar is where the light skin has been peeled back and where a photo shows the heavily damaged droop nose motor, as well as other structure and systems damage (see Figure 2, with the guy in btm right of picture).
The other large damage (top surface) is aft of this, coming up through the front spar and wing top skin (see rectangular hole Figure 6, with 2 legs to right of picture). Both these damage sites are inboard of the No 2 Engine pylon.
Interestingly we don't seem to have any photos of the wing bottom surface damage, although the 'green' diagram shows 2 penetrations 'c' and 'd'.
To avoid confusion let's call it the 'green' diagram is undoubtably the bottom skin. If you look at the outboard section you can see the tank access holes - there are none in the top skin.
As I interpret the photos there are two major exit damage areas on the wing top surface, relatively close to each other. One, in the LE 'D' nose forward of the front spar is where the light skin has been peeled back and where a photo shows the heavily damaged droop nose motor, as well as other structure and systems damage (see Figure 2, with the guy in btm right of picture).
The other large damage (top surface) is aft of this, coming up through the front spar and wing top skin (see rectangular hole Figure 6, with 2 legs to right of picture). Both these damage sites are inboard of the No 2 Engine pylon.
Interestingly we don't seem to have any photos of the wing bottom surface damage, although the 'green' diagram shows 2 penetrations 'c' and 'd'.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I still am not clear. The "Damage a-A" schematic I link to "Projectile Path" schematic.
As such, the beefier portion of the left part of the a-A would be the Root? The path of the projectile in a-A shows outboard to inboard and upward path, no? The arrow itself shows this path. What am I missing? Thanks for your patience here.
bear
As such, the beefier portion of the left part of the a-A would be the Root? The path of the projectile in a-A shows outboard to inboard and upward path, no? The arrow itself shows this path. What am I missing? Thanks for your patience here.
bear
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting information from Wikipedia
Rolls-Royce Trent 900 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Rolls-Royce has seven risk and revenue sharing partners on the Trent 900: Industria de Turbo Propulsores (low pressure turbine), Hamilton Sundstrand (electronic engine controls), Avio S.p.A. (gearbox module), Marubeni Corporation (engine components), Volvo Aero (intermediate compressor case), Goodrich Corporation (fan casings and sensors) and Honeywell (pneumatic systems). In addition, Samsung Techwin, Kawasaki Heavy Industries and Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries (IHI) are programme associates.
Whereas most members of the Trent family are controlled by Goodrich FADECs, engine controllers on the Trent 900 are provided by Hamilton Sundstrand, a United Technologies (UTC) company. UTC is also the parent company of Pratt & Whitney, who, with GE Aircraft Engines, is partnering to produce the Engine Alliance GP7000, the other engine available for the A380. This kind of cooperation among competitors is prevalent in the aircraft market as it provides for risk sharing among them and diversity in source countries, a significant factor in an airline's choice of airframe and powerplant."
Rolls-Royce Trent 900 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Rolls-Royce has seven risk and revenue sharing partners on the Trent 900: Industria de Turbo Propulsores (low pressure turbine), Hamilton Sundstrand (electronic engine controls), Avio S.p.A. (gearbox module), Marubeni Corporation (engine components), Volvo Aero (intermediate compressor case), Goodrich Corporation (fan casings and sensors) and Honeywell (pneumatic systems). In addition, Samsung Techwin, Kawasaki Heavy Industries and Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries (IHI) are programme associates.
Whereas most members of the Trent family are controlled by Goodrich FADECs, engine controllers on the Trent 900 are provided by Hamilton Sundstrand, a United Technologies (UTC) company. UTC is also the parent company of Pratt & Whitney, who, with GE Aircraft Engines, is partnering to produce the Engine Alliance GP7000, the other engine available for the A380. This kind of cooperation among competitors is prevalent in the aircraft market as it provides for risk sharing among them and diversity in source countries, a significant factor in an airline's choice of airframe and powerplant."
Bear
Sorry, I must be missing something! Everything you say is correct. The projectile(s) leave the engine at an approximate 45 degree upwards and inboard angle, (looking at the engine from the front). There must be at least 2 large pieces, both penetrating the wing bottom surface and travelling in a similar direction. One passes through the 'D' Nose structure and systems therein and leaves the D Nose forward of the front spar; I think this is a-A. The other initially through the D Nose, then the front spar and then the main top skin. This I reckon is b-B.
Am I answering the right question?
Sorry, I must be missing something! Everything you say is correct. The projectile(s) leave the engine at an approximate 45 degree upwards and inboard angle, (looking at the engine from the front). There must be at least 2 large pieces, both penetrating the wing bottom surface and travelling in a similar direction. One passes through the 'D' Nose structure and systems therein and leaves the D Nose forward of the front spar; I think this is a-A. The other initially through the D Nose, then the front spar and then the main top skin. This I reckon is b-B.
Am I answering the right question?