Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: U.K.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RR's main problem now is engine production to make up for the lack of spares. As to PR, I am not sure what they could add to the information already given. We already know that the full accident report will take about a year to produce. They will not waste time reponding to unfounded rumours.
I am interested to know how Airbus are going to fix the damaged aircraft. I suppose they might be able to patch it up sufficiently to fly it back to the factory. Does anyone know the plan?
I am interested to know how Airbus are going to fix the damaged aircraft. I suppose they might be able to patch it up sufficiently to fly it back to the factory. Does anyone know the plan?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who pays?
I wonder who pays what. Does Rolls Royce's liabilities entend from the engine modifications to the lost of use of the aircraft and to the cost of disrupted flights? Also should an aircraft under warranttee suffer a disruption due to technical issues, say in an air turn back, is the aircraft manufacturer liable for the cost of repaires, lost of use and passenger handling? And what is the warrantte period of a A380? Can the legal types please comment. Thanks
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flight arre reporting that airbus are willing to use engines allready supplied to `ease` the issue:
Rolls-Royce could tap Airbus to secure spare Trents
Rolls-Royce could tap Airbus to secure spare Trents
Airbus says it is prepared to supply Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines from A380s on its production line to operators that require replacements following mandated inspections.
Toulouse says replacement engines could be sourced from the Rolls-Royce production line, airlines' spares or Airbus assembly lines, explaining: "Airbus is supporting Rolls-Royce and the customers when requested to do so, by demounting engines from customers' production aircraft in Toulouse and Hamburg."
Toulouse says replacement engines could be sourced from the Rolls-Royce production line, airlines' spares or Airbus assembly lines, explaining: "Airbus is supporting Rolls-Royce and the customers when requested to do so, by demounting engines from customers' production aircraft in Toulouse and Hamburg."
which would tie into what was mentioned earlier , about compensation ; that being that they can supply engines (unused) now so long as RR can make new ones fast enough so the deliveries are not delayed.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder who pays what. Does Rolls Royce's liabilities entend from the engine modifications to the lost of use of the aircraft and to the cost of disrupted flights? Also should an aircraft under warranttee suffer a disruption due to technical issues, say in an air turn back, is the aircraft manufacturer liable for the cost of repaires, lost of use and passenger handling? And what is the warrantte period of a A380? Can the legal types please comment. Thanks
I was once a "professional" warranty & Guarantee administrator for a now defunct airline and , have until now, kept my mouth shut. This being due to the fact that no blame has yet been attributed. If i was a warranty administrator at Charlie Q i would be champing at the bit and compiling a very hefty list of any claim i could lay my name to including, all of the above. Each airline negotiates it's warranty conditions with the manufacturer. The standard warranty period (when i was employed) was 3 years or 3000 hours whichever expired first. This was Airbus. I do not know the warranty RR negotiated with QF or, what they negotiated with Airbus. As i said above, each airline negotiates its unique situation.
Having said that, i would have a field day with this one.
I was once a "professional" warranty & Guarantee administrator for a now defunct airline and , have until now, kept my mouth shut. This being due to the fact that no blame has yet been attributed. If i was a warranty administrator at Charlie Q i would be champing at the bit and compiling a very hefty list of any claim i could lay my name to including, all of the above. Each airline negotiates it's warranty conditions with the manufacturer. The standard warranty period (when i was employed) was 3 years or 3000 hours whichever expired first. This was Airbus. I do not know the warranty RR negotiated with QF or, what they negotiated with Airbus. As i said above, each airline negotiates its unique situation.
Having said that, i would have a field day with this one.
firstfloor
I don't know any plan, but my guess is that the aircraft will be repaired 'in situ'. There appears to be too much structural/systems damage to warrant temporary repairs and a ferry flight back to France; in any case I imagine that SIN has adequate facilities. Of course the repair costs have first to be established . . .
I don't know any plan, but my guess is that the aircraft will be repaired 'in situ'. There appears to be too much structural/systems damage to warrant temporary repairs and a ferry flight back to France; in any case I imagine that SIN has adequate facilities. Of course the repair costs have first to be established . . .
After the engine issues are resolved, If I were SLF, I would do my utmost to travel on the A380. The damage absorbed by this airframe and still be able to return its passengers and crew safely to the ground, is a great testament to the engineering and design of the most magnificent passenger jet yet to take to the skies.
I have read all (I think) of this thread and note that one or two have posted that the RR and EA engines are interchangable. I find this very hard to believe. Is there a citation somewhere? If it's true it has to be a first, surely.
Also regarding boroscope inspections, someone posted that this can not be carried out by line maintenance. Why not?
I've done enough boroscoping out in the wind and rain to know it can and is done, so what makes this case any different?
I'm here to learn, not criticise.
EHAs/EHBAs. Are they similar to the units used on the Vickers VC10/Avro Vulcan etc?
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read all (I think) of this thread and note that one or two have posted that the RR and EA engines are interchangable. I find this very hard to believe.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trent 972
Without detracting from the great work of airbus etc in building the aircraft, but can't agree. Will always bee the 747, from a purely emotional point of view, since you mentioned "magnificent", maybe a connie as well.
opps scrub connie, forgot you metioned Jet
After the engine issues are resolved, If I were SLF, I would do my utmost to travel on the A380. The damage absorbed by this airframe and still be able to return its passengers and crew safely to the ground, is a great testament to the engineering and design of the most magnificent passenger jet yet to take to the skies
opps scrub connie, forgot you metioned Jet
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Spain
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PhilW1981
Barrymung,
If you'd bothered to read much of the thread you'd surely already be aware that no engine containment system can contain such a failure without making the aircraft unfeasibly heavy.
As an SLF who enjoys reading these fora I find it incredibly frustrating that people don't bother to read before posting. You professionals have my sympathy but please keep the fora open to SLF, we're not all lazy idiots like this fella.
If you'd bothered to read much of the thread you'd surely already be aware that no engine containment system can contain such a failure without making the aircraft unfeasibly heavy.
As an SLF who enjoys reading these fora I find it incredibly frustrating that people don't bother to read before posting. You professionals have my sympathy but please keep the fora open to SLF, we're not all lazy idiots like this fella.
As to the substance of his post however, namely containment by the engine covers. Perhaps the future answer will be a 1mm lining with Graphene.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read all (I think) of this thread and note that one or two have posted that the RR and EA engines are interchangable. I find this very hard to believe.
My understanding is that the 787 and its engines/pylons are the first to be designed to permit engine interchangeability. Therefore, I doubt that is the case on the A380.
Iro insurance/damages, I'd be very surprised if the warranty and liability conditions attached to the supply of the engines, and the airframe come to that, leave RR exposed to consequential losses beyond the replacement of the engines. However, under TotalCare there may be further obigations to guarantee the availability of serviceable engines but I would have thought that even under this agreement RR's liabilities will still be limited.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that it took two non-flying captains, and presumably the first and second officers, 50 minutes to work through the 54 alarms, it would be interesting to replicate the 54 alarms in the sim with just a three-person crew and see whether the workload compromised the ability to fly the plane.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to the substance of his post however, namely containment by the engine covers. Perhaps the future answer will be a 1mm lining with Graphene.
From a chemical and technical point of view that is just stupid.
This thread has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
The site is becoming more like a.net everyday
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine interchangeability
As far back as the A300-600 and A310, the pylon design enabled either the GE or Pratt engines to be fitted. The different suspension arrangement of the RR RB211 meant that it would have had to have a specific pylon design, which was one reason for Saudia choosing not to have RR engines.
The later versions of the RB211 for the A330 and A380 have re-designed mounting attachments and allow interchangeability, though I assume that this is at contract negotiation stage, rather than in the field - I doubt that A380 operators would be able to do a kind of "mix & match" within their fleets, let alone on the same airframe. *
* This is not to suggest that any Ppruners have even remotely suggested this, and is not meant as a criticism of those who mentioned "interchangeability", rather as a kind of reductio ad absurdum.
The later versions of the RB211 for the A330 and A380 have re-designed mounting attachments and allow interchangeability, though I assume that this is at contract negotiation stage, rather than in the field - I doubt that A380 operators would be able to do a kind of "mix & match" within their fleets, let alone on the same airframe. *
* This is not to suggest that any Ppruners have even remotely suggested this, and is not meant as a criticism of those who mentioned "interchangeability", rather as a kind of reductio ad absurdum.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Norden
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"At lift-off the EBHA's seal themselves from the normal aircraft hydraulic systems"
No.As long as normal hydraulic supply is available EBHAs are working like conventional servocontrols.There is no change when airborne.
No.As long as normal hydraulic supply is available EBHAs are working like conventional servocontrols.There is no change when airborne.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RR's main problem now is engine production to make up for the lack of spares.
As I understand it the engines are leased by RR on a "Power by the hour" basis with a number of spare engines always available at each customer's base.
The latest production engines are believed to already have the required modification so the problem can be simplified.
1) How long can the 40 existing engines remain in safe service given regular (daily ?) inspections.
2) How long does it take to change, strip, modify and replace each engine.
3) Are adequate supplies of modification kits available and if not when will they be available.
From this it is possible to determine how many more spare engines are required to keep the fleet in the air while modifications are carried out, the shortage is probably rather less than 40.
Just my 5p worth, I have no inside knowledge, just trying to inject some sanity into the speculation.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: overthehillsandmountains
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who mentioned the VC-10?
Google is wonderful. Just discovered that Boeing were evaluating VC-10 EHAs in 1970.
"Title: EVALUATION TESTS ON BOULTON-PAUL VC-10 AILERON INTEGRATED FLIGHT CONTROL ACTUATOR,
Corporate Author : BOEING CO RENTON WASH COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE DIV
Report Date : 10 MAR 1970
Abstract : The results are presented of tests conducted on a Boulton Paul Aircraft integrated electro-hydraulic actuator of the type used on the British Aircraft Corporation VC-10 commercial airplane flight control surfaces. The tests include frequency response with manual and autopilot inputs, response to step input, steady state operating temperatures, and a number of function tests."
"Title: EVALUATION TESTS ON BOULTON-PAUL VC-10 AILERON INTEGRATED FLIGHT CONTROL ACTUATOR,
Corporate Author : BOEING CO RENTON WASH COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE DIV
Report Date : 10 MAR 1970
Abstract : The results are presented of tests conducted on a Boulton Paul Aircraft integrated electro-hydraulic actuator of the type used on the British Aircraft Corporation VC-10 commercial airplane flight control surfaces. The tests include frequency response with manual and autopilot inputs, response to step input, steady state operating temperatures, and a number of function tests."
Last edited by kwateow; 19th Nov 2010 at 14:02.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If any one is still interested in Contracts? I'll be brief. From information that is out, but unsubstantiated, the following is important to remember if engaged in a discussion of Commercial Contract.
A Contract really only requires three separate things to be valid, enforceable, and legal.
One, It must follow the Law, it may not contain elements that are illegal.
Two, At least two parties, who are competent.
Three, Consideration, generally money, but can be other benefit.
As re: RR and Qantas/Airbus, I'll repeat what I wrote earlier; given Joyce saying RR did not inform Qantas/Airbus of the "modification". This is important, and I'll explain why after.........
"A Party to a Contract, who acquires information that has a material bearing on the Contract, who then does not disclose this information to the other Party commits a Species of Fraud."
This is the linchpin of many lawsuits, civil and criminal. What it describes in legalese is what is known as a breach, (gap, or "break"). A Breach can be innocuous, or negligent, or willful, or fraudulent. It always puts the one in Breach at a profound disadvantage. At Breach, all language, and spirit, is suspended. Something that was contained in the language of the actual agreement can rear up and disallow the contract itself.
Any (and perhaps all) part of the contract is vulnerable, depending on how the Breach is to be healed, as both parties retain (hopefully) an interest in mitigating eachother's losses. In the case of the "Modification", each party will assess how important it was/is, and whether or not it was non-disclosed, and whether or not the non-disclosure (if it exists) affected the rights of the aggrieved Party. Any opinion on this matter is way premature, but I thought a basic positioning on the ball field is important.
A Contract really only requires three separate things to be valid, enforceable, and legal.
One, It must follow the Law, it may not contain elements that are illegal.
Two, At least two parties, who are competent.
Three, Consideration, generally money, but can be other benefit.
As re: RR and Qantas/Airbus, I'll repeat what I wrote earlier; given Joyce saying RR did not inform Qantas/Airbus of the "modification". This is important, and I'll explain why after.........
"A Party to a Contract, who acquires information that has a material bearing on the Contract, who then does not disclose this information to the other Party commits a Species of Fraud."
This is the linchpin of many lawsuits, civil and criminal. What it describes in legalese is what is known as a breach, (gap, or "break"). A Breach can be innocuous, or negligent, or willful, or fraudulent. It always puts the one in Breach at a profound disadvantage. At Breach, all language, and spirit, is suspended. Something that was contained in the language of the actual agreement can rear up and disallow the contract itself.
Any (and perhaps all) part of the contract is vulnerable, depending on how the Breach is to be healed, as both parties retain (hopefully) an interest in mitigating eachother's losses. In the case of the "Modification", each party will assess how important it was/is, and whether or not it was non-disclosed, and whether or not the non-disclosure (if it exists) affected the rights of the aggrieved Party. Any opinion on this matter is way premature, but I thought a basic positioning on the ball field is important.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nairn, Highland
Age: 85
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "it would be interesting to replicate the 54 alarms in the sim"
If I was doing well, the instructor/examiner would sometimes would pile on more and more problems until I reached the limit of my capabilities. Mine was more like 5 decimal 4, not 54
So very well done that crew.
Jack
If I was doing well, the instructor/examiner would sometimes would pile on more and more problems until I reached the limit of my capabilities. Mine was more like 5 decimal 4, not 54
So very well done that crew.
Jack
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wallisellen, Switzerland
Age: 75
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Video of wing in flight after event
I don't believe this has been posted before:
LiveLeak.com - Qantas Grounds A380s After Jet Engine Fails
LiveLeak.com - Qantas Grounds A380s After Jet Engine Fails