Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You certainly cannot conclude that RR were trying to hide anything."
Perhaps not. But what I said was that RR hadn't told Qantas about problems. A court may take the view that a willful failure to inform may well imply "hiding". Certainly a failure to disclose.
That is difficult - Qantas (not RR) is the AOC-holder and legally responsible as far as the flight-safety regulator is concerned.
Normally, warranties are actually somewhat negotiated (especially in the case of PBH contracts, which are relatively newer than aircraft purchase contracts). It is a bit lawyerly sloppy if there was no requirement in either contract for the manufacturer/overhauler (RR) to inform the airline of engine issues (and there may well be tort issues as well).
Warranty compensation can be negotiated to include (free) supply of spare engines, and maybe even cover the cost of alternate lift (can be negotiated - but is not perhaps normal...). Would (imho) be difficult to include the cost of "brand damage" and ancilliary costs (because they are difficult to quantify), best perhaps to rely on tort to cover that, knowing in any case that there would be a commercial settlement most likely as the parties would need to keep working cooperatively together anyway. Warning: I don't have any special knowledge of Qantas' contracts.
Tort (liability) exists independent of contract wording, so warranty length, arrangements etc may be less important.
Perhaps not. But what I said was that RR hadn't told Qantas about problems. A court may take the view that a willful failure to inform may well imply "hiding". Certainly a failure to disclose.
That is difficult - Qantas (not RR) is the AOC-holder and legally responsible as far as the flight-safety regulator is concerned.
Normally, warranties are actually somewhat negotiated (especially in the case of PBH contracts, which are relatively newer than aircraft purchase contracts). It is a bit lawyerly sloppy if there was no requirement in either contract for the manufacturer/overhauler (RR) to inform the airline of engine issues (and there may well be tort issues as well).
Warranty compensation can be negotiated to include (free) supply of spare engines, and maybe even cover the cost of alternate lift (can be negotiated - but is not perhaps normal...). Would (imho) be difficult to include the cost of "brand damage" and ancilliary costs (because they are difficult to quantify), best perhaps to rely on tort to cover that, knowing in any case that there would be a commercial settlement most likely as the parties would need to keep working cooperatively together anyway. Warning: I don't have any special knowledge of Qantas' contracts.
Tort (liability) exists independent of contract wording, so warranty length, arrangements etc may be less important.
The certification basis is typically based on the experience base of 3 equal HE fragments released simultaneously.
If such design exists, would a higher number of smaller pieces be easier to contain or be more desirable than three larger pieces?
Mickjoebill
If true the "3 equal HE fragments" certification assumption is interesting.
I've been studying the published Airbus presentation overview of major damages photos, which unfortunately I can't paste here, and it appears that the wing was impacted by 2 HE fragments very close together.
Fragment b-B did the most damage, entering the wing bottom surface, passing through the front spar and exiting through the top skin panel (see page 5 and also pic showing narrow rectungular exit damage).
The other major impact a-A is very close, again coming up from the bottom surface, through the D nose structure (many pics of this) and exiting through the LE droop nose leaving a large irregular hole.
So it seems that the disc didn't fail in 3 equal parts, or at least they didn't leave the engine in equal 120 degree directions. At least 2 fragments followed almost the same paths, and presumably after exiting the wing passed over the fuselage to starboard. Of course we know that another major fragment was found to port, about 2.8 km off the aircraft's track.
I've been studying the published Airbus presentation overview of major damages photos, which unfortunately I can't paste here, and it appears that the wing was impacted by 2 HE fragments very close together.
Fragment b-B did the most damage, entering the wing bottom surface, passing through the front spar and exiting through the top skin panel (see page 5 and also pic showing narrow rectungular exit damage).
The other major impact a-A is very close, again coming up from the bottom surface, through the D nose structure (many pics of this) and exiting through the LE droop nose leaving a large irregular hole.
So it seems that the disc didn't fail in 3 equal parts, or at least they didn't leave the engine in equal 120 degree directions. At least 2 fragments followed almost the same paths, and presumably after exiting the wing passed over the fuselage to starboard. Of course we know that another major fragment was found to port, about 2.8 km off the aircraft's track.
Last edited by SRMman; 22nd Nov 2010 at 09:33. Reason: correction
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: U.K.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But what I said was that RR hadn't told Qantas about problems.
When Leahy (Qantas PR) and Epstein (Qantas corporate and government relations) were asked about modifications and recalls they said that they did not know and did not remember. Why would they? Do you think these guys read the technical stuff?
As time goes by it looks increasingly odd that SA and Lufthansa can fly their A380’s but Qantas cannot.
BTW good news from RR this morning of new order to supply engines for 20 x Airbus to Air China ltd. The RB 211 is some machine! It has a development history of more than 40 years.
So it seems that the disc didn't fail in 3 equal parts, or at least they didn't leave the engine in equal 120 degree directions. At least 2 fragments followed almost the same paths, and presumably after exiting the wing passed over the fuselage to starboard. Of course we know that another major fragment was found to port, about 2.8 km off the aircraft's track.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guest
Posts: n/a
The bits that went "uncounted" came from the hub, as well. The fracture (Tear?) in the disc, is remarkably free of random trail, it is "straight". To say again, the failure seems from the Photographic Evidence to have started at the Hub. If the disc failed prior, there would be evidence of "Wobble" and chaotic fracture, not a clean line. This is consistent with DevX' statement that the fire was involved at the hub, and bearing. If the Titanium Disc had relaxed from heat, and remained attached while the Hub was "Failing", the disc damage would have a completely 'duff-erent' signature, imo.
This is what the available evidence says to me.
firstfloor
Groaner may be repeating what Alan Joyce said, a few pages back, "RR did not inform us of the change..."
Capot Thanks for the link.
TWIMC: Wanted: qualified and certificated A&E's for service. Top Pay and conditions, must own borescope. Fluent in Oz, preferably. Open immediately and until someone has a real fix.
Every TEN flight cycles???? Why launch at all?
That is not an AD, it is a babysitter.
Hard mounted in-flight borescope, to be monitored continuously in flight?
This is what the available evidence says to me.
firstfloor
Groaner may be repeating what Alan Joyce said, a few pages back, "RR did not inform us of the change..."
Capot Thanks for the link.
TWIMC: Wanted: qualified and certificated A&E's for service. Top Pay and conditions, must own borescope. Fluent in Oz, preferably. Open immediately and until someone has a real fix.
Every TEN flight cycles???? Why launch at all?
That is not an AD, it is a babysitter.
Hard mounted in-flight borescope, to be monitored continuously in flight?
Last edited by bearfoil; 22nd Nov 2010 at 16:38.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: jordan
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every TEN flight cycles???? Why launch at all?
That is not an AD, it is a babysitter.
Not what it says in the AD. It says the following:
Then it continues with the repetitive inspection:
I guess it's read first, sensationalise later......
That is not an AD, it is a babysitter.
Not what it says in the AD. It says the following:
Within 10 flight cycles (FC) after
10 November 2010 [the effective
date of AD 2010-0236-E]10 November 2010 [the effective
Then it continues with the repetitive inspection:
At intervals not
exceeding 20 FCI guess it's read first, sensationalise later......
Mea Culpa, let's make that every month instead of every two weeks There's some latitude!! Everybody on board with that, then?
Is this AD relevant to Quantas engines - and will this get them flying again, or are they staying grounded until Rolls replaces them all?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
That's 5 AD in two years from EASA about the engine RR Trent 900 ......
Wonder if somewone was concerned about this engine when EASA delivered the certification !
2008-0202
2009-0051
2010-0008R1
2010-0236-E
2010-0242-E
Wonder if somewone was concerned about this engine when EASA delivered the certification !
2008-0202
2009-0051
2010-0008R1
2010-0236-E
2010-0242-E
Guest
Posts: n/a
JFZ90
I get that. Of course it takes all considerations, and what is left? A compromise!! With a proven defect, these engines are dependable for 30 days. Fine. At that point a rampie with an unfamiliar tool in hand looks up the lady's skirt, and declares "What, exactly, am I looking for?
As you Board, do you ever ask the prior Captain, or the Mechanic.....
Is she safe to fly? Yes, Sir!! She has "plenty of margin and safety."
One man's "plenty".....etc.
(What does the "90" refer to, in your handle?)
In 30 days, and she fails one inspec, she gets a "new" engine? I should think, "she was perfectly safe for a month......" From flightworthy to needing an engine off the wing. Does anybody else think someone is stopping a little short of "absolutely safe"?
I get that. Of course it takes all considerations, and what is left? A compromise!! With a proven defect, these engines are dependable for 30 days. Fine. At that point a rampie with an unfamiliar tool in hand looks up the lady's skirt, and declares "What, exactly, am I looking for?
As you Board, do you ever ask the prior Captain, or the Mechanic.....
Is she safe to fly? Yes, Sir!! She has "plenty of margin and safety."
One man's "plenty".....etc.
(What does the "90" refer to, in your handle?)
In 30 days, and she fails one inspec, she gets a "new" engine? I should think, "she was perfectly safe for a month......" From flightworthy to needing an engine off the wing. Does anybody else think someone is stopping a little short of "absolutely safe"?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bear
Forgive me, but I do not recognise some of your terminology.
I understand the most plausible failure scenario is an oil fire leading to shaft disconnect and disc overspeed to tri-hub burst. Are you suggesting that there is the possibility of some kind of fatigue failure in an area of disc unconnected with the hub?
Note that the the term 'disc' includes the whole of the component ie hub, diaphragm and rim. It is a single component.
And I am surprised to learn that the IP turbine disc is titanium, but I may not be as current in metallurgical matters as you are.
Finally, I think you should be aware that a number of excellent people will be working very hard on this problem, at RR and the various regulators, as would have been the case had it have been anyone else's engine. I do not think we should be questioning their integrity at this time or mocking their efforts.
The bits that went "uncounted" came from the hub, as well. The fracture (Tear?) in the disc, is remarkably free of random trail, it is "straight". To say again, the failure seems from the Photographic Evidence to have started at the Hub. If the disc failed prior, there would be evidence of "Wobble" and chaotic fracture, not a clean line. This is consistent with DevX' statement that the fire was involved at the hub, and bearing. If the Titanium Disc had relaxed from heat, and remained attached while the Hub was "Failing", the disc damage would have a completely 'duff-erent' signature, imo.
This is what the available evidence says to me.
This is what the available evidence says to me.
I understand the most plausible failure scenario is an oil fire leading to shaft disconnect and disc overspeed to tri-hub burst. Are you suggesting that there is the possibility of some kind of fatigue failure in an area of disc unconnected with the hub?
Note that the the term 'disc' includes the whole of the component ie hub, diaphragm and rim. It is a single component.
And I am surprised to learn that the IP turbine disc is titanium, but I may not be as current in metallurgical matters as you are.
Finally, I think you should be aware that a number of excellent people will be working very hard on this problem, at RR and the various regulators, as would have been the case had it have been anyone else's engine. I do not think we should be questioning their integrity at this time or mocking their efforts.
I get that. Of course it takes all considerations, and what is left? A compromise!! With a proven defect, these engines are dependable for 30 days. Fine. At that point a rampie with an unfamiliar tool in hand looks up the lady's skirt, and declares "What, exactly am I looking for?
As you Board, do ever ask the prior Captain, or the Mechanic.....
Is she safe to fly? Yes, Sir!! She has "plenty of margin and safety."
One man's "plenty".....etc.
(What does the "90" refer to, in your handle?)
As you Board, do ever ask the prior Captain, or the Mechanic.....
Is she safe to fly? Yes, Sir!! She has "plenty of margin and safety."
One man's "plenty".....etc.
(What does the "90" refer to, in your handle?)
90 = 1990. Not the year of my birth though, sadly.
Guest
Posts: n/a
CAAAD
No, the Disc is made up of separate components. They have different tasks, and because they comprise one assembly, they have nomenclature of their own. It is a convenience, to call this wheel a "disc". If separate, they would function in isolation, doing what they are designed to do. The Turbine Blades are separate , the Rim is a different "area" as the Disc, the Hub, etc.
In a "blended" wing, where is the Root? the Fuselage? Carving the components out of Billet saves couplings, splines, heat, the need for lubrication, MONEY, etc. It is also a safer assembly.
I am not implying anything here. I am stating what I think may have happened. I don't think it wants explanation, if it is unclear, well, I may be the only one to see it this way, and even if I got a biscuit, I'm ready to move on.
Cheers,
bear
No, the Disc is made up of separate components. They have different tasks, and because they comprise one assembly, they have nomenclature of their own. It is a convenience, to call this wheel a "disc". If separate, they would function in isolation, doing what they are designed to do. The Turbine Blades are separate , the Rim is a different "area" as the Disc, the Hub, etc.
In a "blended" wing, where is the Root? the Fuselage? Carving the components out of Billet saves couplings, splines, heat, the need for lubrication, MONEY, etc. It is also a safer assembly.
I am not implying anything here. I am stating what I think may have happened. I don't think it wants explanation, if it is unclear, well, I may be the only one to see it this way, and even if I got a biscuit, I'm ready to move on.
Cheers,
bear
bear, where does the data point come from that turbine discs are made from Ti? 
I may be out of date, but I didn't think Ti handles those sorts of temperatures (and ye olde expansion contraction) particularly well.
However, I would be pleased to be enlightened. Maybe the newer alloys handle that well enough.
EDIT: well, learn a bit new each day. From Wikipedia, so grain of salt ...
I may be out of date, but I didn't think Ti handles those sorts of temperatures (and ye olde expansion contraction) particularly well.
However, I would be pleased to be enlightened. Maybe the newer alloys handle that well enough.
EDIT: well, learn a bit new each day. From Wikipedia, so grain of salt ...
The Airbus A380 may use 146 metric tons {of Ti} , including about 26 tons in the engines. In engine applications, titanium is used for rotors, compressor blades, hydraulic system components, and nacelles. The titanium 6AL-4V alloy accounts for almost 50% of all alloys used in aircraft applications.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear - If you are to have any technical credibility, you really must try to use the same conventions as the rest of the engineering world.
'Component' means a discrete part which may be fastened to another part to form an assembly.
We never refer to areas of a single part as components, since it causes confusion.
Repeat after me - 'The IP turbine disc is a single piece of metal' and write it out 50 times.
Moving on, I agree with JFZ90. You are scaremongering in a most unhelpful manner.
When the accident happened an unsafe condition was identified. A course of action has now been identified which will restore the airworthiness of the engine to the certification standard. That course of action has the ageement of the Regulators. End of story.
And if you need to know if an aircraft design is safe, don't ask the pilot or mechanic. Ask the professional engineers who certificated it.
But I don't doubt your contractual knowledge.
'Component' means a discrete part which may be fastened to another part to form an assembly.
We never refer to areas of a single part as components, since it causes confusion.
Repeat after me - 'The IP turbine disc is a single piece of metal' and write it out 50 times.
Moving on, I agree with JFZ90. You are scaremongering in a most unhelpful manner.
When the accident happened an unsafe condition was identified. A course of action has now been identified which will restore the airworthiness of the engine to the certification standard. That course of action has the ageement of the Regulators. End of story.
And if you need to know if an aircraft design is safe, don't ask the pilot or mechanic. Ask the professional engineers who certificated it.
But I don't doubt your contractual knowledge.
Last edited by CAAAD; 22nd Nov 2010 at 21:52. Reason: Greeting
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South Carolina
Age: 72
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got caught up after some travel.
Rottenray I don't see a reply to your question about engines "borowed" from the Airbus assembly line later being sold as new.
Generally the answer is no. However, this appears to be an exceptional case.
In my career I've had occasion to deal with this type of thing several times. In those cases an operator found something with an engine during the delivery process that was unacceptable to them and did not for some reason lend it self to reconciliatin and so an alternate new engine was supplied for delivery. The original engine went to a shop if necessary and an alternate owner was sought for the original offending engine. There are many reasonable and knowledgeable engineering managers that are quite willing to accept as their next spare engine a fully serviceable engine with an FAA 8130 certifying serviceability and for a reasonable additional discount. That is how I would expect one to several of these "borrowed" Trent 900's to be dealt with.
However, considering the quantity needed it might be possible for the affected operators, QF, SA, & LH to take "early delivery" of modified engines, probably still at a negotiated discount, and use them in their fleets and then supply them back to Airbus for installation of future aircraft. That would not be normal practice but the numbers are so large that I expect that something like that would have to be worked out.
Rottenray I don't see a reply to your question about engines "borowed" from the Airbus assembly line later being sold as new.
Generally the answer is no. However, this appears to be an exceptional case.
In my career I've had occasion to deal with this type of thing several times. In those cases an operator found something with an engine during the delivery process that was unacceptable to them and did not for some reason lend it self to reconciliatin and so an alternate new engine was supplied for delivery. The original engine went to a shop if necessary and an alternate owner was sought for the original offending engine. There are many reasonable and knowledgeable engineering managers that are quite willing to accept as their next spare engine a fully serviceable engine with an FAA 8130 certifying serviceability and for a reasonable additional discount. That is how I would expect one to several of these "borrowed" Trent 900's to be dealt with.
However, considering the quantity needed it might be possible for the affected operators, QF, SA, & LH to take "early delivery" of modified engines, probably still at a negotiated discount, and use them in their fleets and then supply them back to Airbus for installation of future aircraft. That would not be normal practice but the numbers are so large that I expect that something like that would have to be worked out.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just announced. (I have cut out all the usual media rehash of why they were grounded).
Qantas' A380 superjumbos will start returning to service on Saturday.
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce says will have four back in the air by Christmas.
"We have grounded this fleet for 19 days ... to make sure we are fully comfortable before putting them back in the air," Mr Joyce said.
Mr Joyce said Qantas would have four of the A380s operating by Christmas.
The first flight will be QF31, an A380 due to fly from Sydney to London via Singapore on Saturday, November 27.
The aircraft for that service will be transported to Sydney on a ferry flight from Los Angeles.
A second aircraft is expected to leave Los Angeles for Sydney later this week.
Qantas' A380 superjumbos will start returning to service on Saturday.
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce says will have four back in the air by Christmas.
"We have grounded this fleet for 19 days ... to make sure we are fully comfortable before putting them back in the air," Mr Joyce said.
Mr Joyce said Qantas would have four of the A380s operating by Christmas.
The first flight will be QF31, an A380 due to fly from Sydney to London via Singapore on Saturday, November 27.
The aircraft for that service will be transported to Sydney on a ferry flight from Los Angeles.
A second aircraft is expected to leave Los Angeles for Sydney later this week.