Qantas A380 uncontained #2 engine failure
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Universe
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Design flaw?
Source: Accident: Qantas A388 near Singapore on Nov 4th 2010, uncontained engine failure
The European Aviation Safety Agency has approved software updates to the Rolls Royce engine electronic control units, that is now incorporated into all operating aircraft. The new software version predicts intermediate turbine overspeed events and shuts the engine down before a turbine disk failure occurs.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: U.K.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really, was referring to this article in flightglobal. Thought they must be on about A, B, C builds rafter than software protections.
"Trent 900 shortage keeps Qantas A380s grounded " - but not Lufthansa or SIA
Trent 900 shortage keeps Qantas A380s grounded
"Trent 900 shortage keeps Qantas A380s grounded " - but not Lufthansa or SIA
Trent 900 shortage keeps Qantas A380s grounded
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: U.K.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some pundits are thinking that RR have bigger design issues, causing excessive vibration for example, and incurring greater costs than they are admitting. But I would expect RR to be playing with a straight bat and wish they would put on a press conference to go over all the technical issues to clear the air. Their stock price is holding up pretty well which is a positive sign.
Qantas may well be presiding over one of the most disruptive engine failures in the history of aviation - and that is down to poor decision making and failure to properly assess risks. Partly, Qantas management appears to be muddled by nonsense peddled by ALAEA about risks of outsourcing maintenance and false connection to spline wear going back to early 2010.
Qantas may well be presiding over one of the most disruptive engine failures in the history of aviation - and that is down to poor decision making and failure to properly assess risks. Partly, Qantas management appears to be muddled by nonsense peddled by ALAEA about risks of outsourcing maintenance and false connection to spline wear going back to early 2010.
Last edited by firstfloor; 10th Dec 2010 at 12:35.
Guest
Posts: n/a
first floor
If your post is a "summing up" in an effort to "move on", fair try.
I'll attempt to go the other way. It is a facet of aviation Press/Response that interest dies quickly, perhaps because of technical content. Perhaps other factors. Rolls seems bent on caching this event with other "Lone Defect" incidents, "Whirl Mode", "Skin fatigue", "IPT failure" (2003), etc.
Another look at the "Stub Pipe"?
"Misaligned Counter bore". Fine. What then induced the severe wear on this tube's end? Improper Connection? Incorrect Maintenance? Did the tube fail in service due to fatigue? Or was it Vibration induced by failing IP Shaft Splines?
The Emergency soft-ware "fix" is not a "fix". It is an accelerated warning to interrupt a chain of failure that Remains on the wing? Whereof Lufthansa? How did the Replace/Repair schedule seem to target Qantas for there Naivete? Out of sight out of mind "Engine Maintenance" ?
One dreads the continuation of outsourced Mx, and the loss of stable, and proven domestic care for Aircraft. No reflection on Lufthansa in this case, but Leasing one's Power might need another glance from people other than accountants?
what do you think?
rgds,
bear
If your post is a "summing up" in an effort to "move on", fair try.
I'll attempt to go the other way. It is a facet of aviation Press/Response that interest dies quickly, perhaps because of technical content. Perhaps other factors. Rolls seems bent on caching this event with other "Lone Defect" incidents, "Whirl Mode", "Skin fatigue", "IPT failure" (2003), etc.
Another look at the "Stub Pipe"?
"Misaligned Counter bore". Fine. What then induced the severe wear on this tube's end? Improper Connection? Incorrect Maintenance? Did the tube fail in service due to fatigue? Or was it Vibration induced by failing IP Shaft Splines?
The Emergency soft-ware "fix" is not a "fix". It is an accelerated warning to interrupt a chain of failure that Remains on the wing? Whereof Lufthansa? How did the Replace/Repair schedule seem to target Qantas for there Naivete? Out of sight out of mind "Engine Maintenance" ?
One dreads the continuation of outsourced Mx, and the loss of stable, and proven domestic care for Aircraft. No reflection on Lufthansa in this case, but Leasing one's Power might need another glance from people other than accountants?
what do you think?
rgds,
bear
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Devon
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A common feature of this incident and the Miami one is crew members trying to look out of the cabin windows to see what has happened and not being able to see anything. Considering how little video cameras cost, would it not be a good idea for cameras to be placed where all engines can be viewed? Recordings from such cameras would have provided useful information both for the crew at the time and for the subsequent investigation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shanewhite
An Off Duty Captain flying in back reported seeing a "Fuel Stream" exiting the wing on the Tail Camera feed to his seat. Torn Skin was visible on the Wing's upper surface. The engine's casing was in plain sight. The Casing's shredded state I assume to have been visible. There is a downside to over sampling, especially when it is Human eyes doing the sampling. This could literally have gone either way, and I doubt that the unfolding of events as it happened here, would be trained to the future.
Hindsight is keen, as above, but fraught with opinions that may indicate ways to deal with an unknown that are futile. Uncontained Bursting is not planned for, any provision for its occurrence steps rapidly into the unknown. It is such a potentially lethal situation that it cannot be assessed from a Risk/Benefit position.
Hindsight/Opinion, IMO
On second thought, A barrier against catastrophe is in the cockpit already. A savvy and Experienced Flightcrew. Kudos.
bear
An Off Duty Captain flying in back reported seeing a "Fuel Stream" exiting the wing on the Tail Camera feed to his seat. Torn Skin was visible on the Wing's upper surface. The engine's casing was in plain sight. The Casing's shredded state I assume to have been visible. There is a downside to over sampling, especially when it is Human eyes doing the sampling. This could literally have gone either way, and I doubt that the unfolding of events as it happened here, would be trained to the future.
Hindsight is keen, as above, but fraught with opinions that may indicate ways to deal with an unknown that are futile. Uncontained Bursting is not planned for, any provision for its occurrence steps rapidly into the unknown. It is such a potentially lethal situation that it cannot be assessed from a Risk/Benefit position.
Hindsight/Opinion, IMO
On second thought, A barrier against catastrophe is in the cockpit already. A savvy and Experienced Flightcrew. Kudos.
bear
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: U.K.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We rely on hindsight; Qantas, Rolls and the rest are working with all the known facts at each stage of the process. Qantas in particular may have been over influenced by the ALAEA briefing against their decision to outsource maintenance in an I-told-you-so fashion.
So ALAEA say things like SIA not safe, Qantas safe…..very safe in fact if they don’t leave the ground!
In principle I see nothing wrong in outsourcing provided you have oversight of the quality of work being done on your behalf. Bear in mind that previous success is no guarantee of future success and as technologies evolve there seems to be a natural tendency for expertise to become concentrated in one place.
So ALAEA say things like SIA not safe, Qantas safe…..very safe in fact if they don’t leave the ground!
In principle I see nothing wrong in outsourcing provided you have oversight of the quality of work being done on your behalf. Bear in mind that previous success is no guarantee of future success and as technologies evolve there seems to be a natural tendency for expertise to become concentrated in one place.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First floor
Not really, regarding 11 perfectly good engines, read this.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...0-engines.html
Turbine D
Not really, regarding 11 perfectly good engines, read this.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...0-engines.html
Turbine D
First floor
Thanks at least for not being a "me-too" but instead adding more thoughts to the discussion. 
IMO, it is not in RR interest to hold a press conference, instead providing only confirmation of working with the agencies and its customers. It's up to RR to provide a solution first to fully satisfy both the regulator and its customers that "safety" is their first priority and whether the customer is fully satisfied is a busiiness matter.
By accepting the RR recomendations both the regulator and the customer have confirmed RR decsision making and that is all that is needed at this time.
trying to make a suitcase out of a sows ear will only bring out more imaginative pundits
Some pundits are thinking that RR have bigger design issues, causing excessive vibration for example, and incurring greater costs than they are admitting. But I would expect RR to be playing with a straight bat and wish they would put on a press conference to go over all the technical issues to clear the air. Their stock price is holding up pretty well which is a positive sign.
IMO, it is not in RR interest to hold a press conference, instead providing only confirmation of working with the agencies and its customers. It's up to RR to provide a solution first to fully satisfy both the regulator and its customers that "safety" is their first priority and whether the customer is fully satisfied is a busiiness matter.
By accepting the RR recomendations both the regulator and the customer have confirmed RR decsision making and that is all that is needed at this time.
trying to make a suitcase out of a sows ear will only bring out more imaginative pundits
Guest
Posts: n/a
Non-disclosure is a format waiting to be challenged. Thus far, It appears Qantas is keeping open all "Options".
There are TWO HP/IP bearing co-locations. The AD re: the Spline Wear remains in force though I am uncertain as to its "Every Two Cycles" demand.
If the HP/IP co-located bearing structure is the aft (Roller) system, there are no Splines here, meaning that oil problems must have caused a Disc failure unrelated to the AD's language/description: "AFT migration". The possibility then becomes overheat/plastic, friction-caused loss of integrity, then drift into the Stator.
The "secondary" leak referenced in Turbine D's post could mean one in a different location, or a second leak at the failed Stub Pipe of a separate description.
The Wear on this duff pipe is evident and a leak from a compromised connection is assumed, at the least. If at some point the connection failed, the severed system has a different kind of problem, one of an acute nature, rather than merely chronic.
"Misaligned Counter Bore". This is a term that can be used in at least two ways. First, it can describe, as here, a manufacturing mistake.
Secondly, it can describe a poor connection of two lines. It is a parse, but technically correct to use this Phrase to describe merely a poorly connected Oil line.
It does not specify the cause of the "Counter Bore", and wants clarification. The appearance of the Stub Pipe in the image shows only what could be a machining mistake, since all evidence of machine signatures is missing. What is evident in the Photo is Wear, not Tooling.
bearfoil
There are TWO HP/IP bearing co-locations. The AD re: the Spline Wear remains in force though I am uncertain as to its "Every Two Cycles" demand.
If the HP/IP co-located bearing structure is the aft (Roller) system, there are no Splines here, meaning that oil problems must have caused a Disc failure unrelated to the AD's language/description: "AFT migration". The possibility then becomes overheat/plastic, friction-caused loss of integrity, then drift into the Stator.
The "secondary" leak referenced in Turbine D's post could mean one in a different location, or a second leak at the failed Stub Pipe of a separate description.
The Wear on this duff pipe is evident and a leak from a compromised connection is assumed, at the least. If at some point the connection failed, the severed system has a different kind of problem, one of an acute nature, rather than merely chronic.
"Misaligned Counter Bore". This is a term that can be used in at least two ways. First, it can describe, as here, a manufacturing mistake.
Secondly, it can describe a poor connection of two lines. It is a parse, but technically correct to use this Phrase to describe merely a poorly connected Oil line.
It does not specify the cause of the "Counter Bore", and wants clarification. The appearance of the Stub Pipe in the image shows only what could be a machining mistake, since all evidence of machine signatures is missing. What is evident in the Photo is Wear, not Tooling.
bearfoil
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did this from the Herald Sun get posted?
FEARS of fuel gushing from ruptured tanks gripped the pilots of the crippled Qantas A380jumbo.
In the first account by a member of the flight crew, senior Qantas check-captain David Evans reveals the most dangerous period during the three-hour drama was during the 50 minutes it took to offload the 469 passengers and crew, reported the Herald Sun.
Even a fire chief at the airport was reluctant to approach the jet because of fears of it exploding from high pressure fuel leaks from the left wing.
Highly flammable kerosene was escaping from a ruptured tank and was pouring on to the brakes, which reached 900C during the landing, Capt Evans said.
Capt Evans had been in the second observer’s seat on the flight deck, running checks on the pilot in command, Capt Richard de Crespigny.
Capt Evans told a British website that when, at 2100m, the No. 2 engine exploded, more than 45 error messages appeared, taking almost two hours to deal with.
“The next thing we were dealing with was the fuel. We had some obvious leaks, some severe, out of the Engine 2 feed tank … there was a fairly significant fuel trail behind the aircraft,” Capt Evans said.
The fuel became imbalanced, the anti-skid brakes were unserviceable, electrical systems failed, and air leaks affected the jet’s hydraulics.
“We lost one of the landing gear computers and once we’d extended the undercarriage using the alternate system we had no indication (at that stage) it was down,” he says.
“We didn’t have the ability to dump fuel, the fuel dumping system had failed and we were about 50 tonnes over our maximum landing weight.
“We had also lost the use of our leading-edge slats, which, consequently with the overweight condition made our approach speed quite fast - 35knots more than normal.
“From then on, it became an exercise in preserving the passengers as best we could.
“We’d lost our satellite phone so the trusty mobile phones came out and we called the company in Sydney to relay back to the company in Singapore, to dispatch some stairs and buses to the aircraft.
“We were 4000m down the end of the runway and it was nearly an hour before we got the first set of stairs to the aircraft and another hour by the time the last passenger departed the aircraft. So it was nearly two hours on the ground with major fuel leaks and engines running.
“I think that’s probably the most serious part of the whole exercise, when you think back.”
He said that with 433 passengers to unload, some elderly and others in wheelchairs, injuries would have happened had emergency slides been used.
“We were lucky enough to get everybody off very calmly and very methodically through one set of stairs,” he said.
FEARS of fuel gushing from ruptured tanks gripped the pilots of the crippled Qantas A380jumbo.
In the first account by a member of the flight crew, senior Qantas check-captain David Evans reveals the most dangerous period during the three-hour drama was during the 50 minutes it took to offload the 469 passengers and crew, reported the Herald Sun.
Even a fire chief at the airport was reluctant to approach the jet because of fears of it exploding from high pressure fuel leaks from the left wing.
Highly flammable kerosene was escaping from a ruptured tank and was pouring on to the brakes, which reached 900C during the landing, Capt Evans said.
Capt Evans had been in the second observer’s seat on the flight deck, running checks on the pilot in command, Capt Richard de Crespigny.
Capt Evans told a British website that when, at 2100m, the No. 2 engine exploded, more than 45 error messages appeared, taking almost two hours to deal with.
“The next thing we were dealing with was the fuel. We had some obvious leaks, some severe, out of the Engine 2 feed tank … there was a fairly significant fuel trail behind the aircraft,” Capt Evans said.
The fuel became imbalanced, the anti-skid brakes were unserviceable, electrical systems failed, and air leaks affected the jet’s hydraulics.
“We lost one of the landing gear computers and once we’d extended the undercarriage using the alternate system we had no indication (at that stage) it was down,” he says.
“We didn’t have the ability to dump fuel, the fuel dumping system had failed and we were about 50 tonnes over our maximum landing weight.
“We had also lost the use of our leading-edge slats, which, consequently with the overweight condition made our approach speed quite fast - 35knots more than normal.
“From then on, it became an exercise in preserving the passengers as best we could.
“We’d lost our satellite phone so the trusty mobile phones came out and we called the company in Sydney to relay back to the company in Singapore, to dispatch some stairs and buses to the aircraft.
“We were 4000m down the end of the runway and it was nearly an hour before we got the first set of stairs to the aircraft and another hour by the time the last passenger departed the aircraft. So it was nearly two hours on the ground with major fuel leaks and engines running.
“I think that’s probably the most serious part of the whole exercise, when you think back.”
He said that with 433 passengers to unload, some elderly and others in wheelchairs, injuries would have happened had emergency slides been used.
“We were lucky enough to get everybody off very calmly and very methodically through one set of stairs,” he said.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fchan
You're the only one now talking about "wing replacement". Where did you get that idea from?
It will be repaired, somewhere.
If by "the others" you mean the QF A380s, I think you'll find the answer a few posts above.
It will be repaired, somewhere.
If by "the others" you mean the QF A380s, I think you'll find the answer a few posts above.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: U.K.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbine D
Oil sediment! – not enough to sip – early model - one careful owner – nothing to worry about sir.
I think they’ll have to do better than that if they want compensation. Also note that RR has said as far as this engine failure is concerned, there is no difference between A, B and C build engines – i.e. (one reasonably assumes) the oil stub pipe is the same in each case. The C must have a better seal or something.
Thanks for the link.
Not really, regarding 11 perfectly good engines, read this.
I think they’ll have to do better than that if they want compensation. Also note that RR has said as far as this engine failure is concerned, there is no difference between A, B and C build engines – i.e. (one reasonably assumes) the oil stub pipe is the same in each case. The C must have a better seal or something.
Thanks for the link.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Earlier in this posting (or somewhere on pprune I thought) someone said it would have to be flown back to Toulouse for a wing replacement due to spar damage making a local repair inadequately safe, but that the insurers were nervous about insuring the trip back. Afraid the search function does not turn it up now.
Has it now been assessed as more easily repairable?
Has it now been assessed as more easily repairable?