QANTAS A380 Uncontained failure.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: EPWA
Age: 65
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Derg:
have you invented a new Deduction Generator
?
Looks like too much of a guesswork at play, why don't we stick to facts pls
have you invented a new Deduction Generator
?Looks like too much of a guesswork at play, why don't we stick to facts pls
- Fan - carbon fibre is lighter but more expensive. Companies do gamble with new technologies sometimes.
- Balance - lighter does not easier to balance - depends on quality of machining, and the rotational speed also and this is low speed ...
- Oil Temp: are you sure we can use the data from such article to make such bold statement about 10% engines not passing final tests? Any wise manager would make a fortune by properly implementing 6sigma methodology there to squeeze it down to 1% in 24 months. High oil temp may be caused by vibration but these are caused by 3 shaft design principle. It is a strategic gamble by RR to pursue this road.
- Manufacturing tolerances: OK, see point 3.
- Vibration detection: usually small vibrations are more dificult to detect
- Vibration allowance: as far as i understand, one cannot use the maintenance stand to measure vibrations during engine operation
- 3 spool design: it has own advantages thou, simply something was not ready in Trent 900 version when started selling it
- Oil feed pipe: ever heard scape pipe? (sometimes referred to as scapegoat)
- Communication failure: another reason why kaizen principles should be implemented in RR.
- Management Character: You have assumed sth based on an univ paper so why shouldn't they? Roller bearings and managers must have tough b..s. Univ papers are seldom treated as robust. At least here... And MIT is from USA, right? For scientists there are two models: coach them or buy them - if you want to get govt support better coach them... Recently Barcelona home grown team plays much better team than Real Galacticostly stars (search for Spanish soccer results)
Selecting new suppliers in tough times is usually caused by search for economic solutions. Takes time to gain experience. - The failure to be able to shut down the #1 engine on the stricken Qantas A388 was unforseen: a big lesson that i am sure has been properly thought over.I do not know the results but from the discassion over here it is not a simple problem.
The Facts
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: EPWA
Age: 65
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah, you're right but would you build anything valuable (say: a 0,1M$ house or a 10M$ bridge or a 10M$ turbine engine) based on such facts as we have here
I would say these are good for discussion or creating opinions but too weak for making real decisions.
I would say these are good for discussion or creating opinions but too weak for making real decisions.
Last edited by WojtekSz; 9th Feb 2011 at 21:34. Reason: added argument
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basic Designs
WojtekSz
I couldn't let this pass without some comments:
1. The composite material may be more expensive, but the end product isn't. You have to look at the bigger picture. Here is a site that gives you a picture of the machining that is required (none). Also, think about what is all required to produce a hollow titanium fan blade and inspect it for all the things that could present a problem.
GE to Auction GE90 Fan Blade at Oshkosh
The GE90 composite fan blade was not a gamble, the technology was there to do it and it was done.
2. Balancing of the GE90 fan is easier, remember, no machining of the fan blade, only the simple disc and attachment slots.
3. Read the Oxford/Rolls Royce study again. From 4/9/02 - 9/30/03, 11 Trent 500 production engines failed pass-off testing for abnormal vibrations. These are known in the business as "hanger queens". In 17 months, you can barely afford to have one hangar queen, let alone 11. This is indicative of systemic problem that requires lots of attention.
4. The best phrase here is an acronym: K.I.S.S. It means "keep it simple, stupid".
5. Small vibrations are not as hard to detect as unknown vibrations.
6. Vibrations can be measured on an instrumented engine in a test cell. The problem is they may not be the same vibrations encountered in flight on the wing of the aircraft, but, it is a good start.
7. The advantage of a three spool engine is shorter length. Therefore a shorter nacelle can be used that normally produces less drag and better aerodynamic performance for most aircraft. However, the disadvantage is the SFC of a three spool engine is generally less than a longer two spool engine and it could turn out to be a wash. It has been reported the GP7200 engine has better SFC than the Trent 900 in the same nacelle, not a surprise.
8. Only the weak link in the chain.
9. Continuous improvement is important in any business and every organization making up the business including top management. This starts at the very top, water always flows down the staircase and rarely up.
10. Maybe going back to the Trent 500 days, there was some handwriting on the wall there, that was missed as the technology envelope was pushed.
11. A lesson learned on the A-340 that hit the wall on the ground in which they couldn't shut off the engine for 5 hours was thought to be a not repeatable incident.
I couldn't let this pass without some comments:
1. The composite material may be more expensive, but the end product isn't. You have to look at the bigger picture. Here is a site that gives you a picture of the machining that is required (none). Also, think about what is all required to produce a hollow titanium fan blade and inspect it for all the things that could present a problem.
GE to Auction GE90 Fan Blade at Oshkosh
The GE90 composite fan blade was not a gamble, the technology was there to do it and it was done.
2. Balancing of the GE90 fan is easier, remember, no machining of the fan blade, only the simple disc and attachment slots.
3. Read the Oxford/Rolls Royce study again. From 4/9/02 - 9/30/03, 11 Trent 500 production engines failed pass-off testing for abnormal vibrations. These are known in the business as "hanger queens". In 17 months, you can barely afford to have one hangar queen, let alone 11. This is indicative of systemic problem that requires lots of attention.
4. The best phrase here is an acronym: K.I.S.S. It means "keep it simple, stupid".
5. Small vibrations are not as hard to detect as unknown vibrations.
6. Vibrations can be measured on an instrumented engine in a test cell. The problem is they may not be the same vibrations encountered in flight on the wing of the aircraft, but, it is a good start.
7. The advantage of a three spool engine is shorter length. Therefore a shorter nacelle can be used that normally produces less drag and better aerodynamic performance for most aircraft. However, the disadvantage is the SFC of a three spool engine is generally less than a longer two spool engine and it could turn out to be a wash. It has been reported the GP7200 engine has better SFC than the Trent 900 in the same nacelle, not a surprise.
8. Only the weak link in the chain.
9. Continuous improvement is important in any business and every organization making up the business including top management. This starts at the very top, water always flows down the staircase and rarely up.
10. Maybe going back to the Trent 500 days, there was some handwriting on the wall there, that was missed as the technology envelope was pushed.
11. A lesson learned on the A-340 that hit the wall on the ground in which they couldn't shut off the engine for 5 hours was thought to be a not repeatable incident.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: EPWA
Age: 65
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbine D, Derg:
hey, you are both right !- there are basic problems somewhere within RR design and business but being an European i am a little biased towards trying to understand RR problems while not being British i do also understand that US has made flying a huge business not without merit. Certain competition is always good for us customers - for me it is good that Boeing has Airbus and GE+PW has RR to watch at. Problem starts when established leader looses the edge over its followers or the followers take shortcuts to try to overcome the leader.
But actually the biggest threat comes from what has been defined as 'innovate downwards' movement that has been started long time ago by certain Sam Walton and transferred into aviation by SouthWest Airlines later. So instead of 'citus-altus-fortus' we have 'everyday low prices'. And people got used to this: all of us! And this attitude has deep consequences - american car producers are just recovering, nike is not making any shoes in US, a new stealth plane was recently presented in China
Cheaper is fine as long as customers allow for lower quality because without profits there is no development and no quality. Just look how many more customers want to fly A380!
Unfortunately times of Apollo and Concorde are gone...
hey, you are both right !- there are basic problems somewhere within RR design and business but being an European i am a little biased towards trying to understand RR problems while not being British i do also understand that US has made flying a huge business not without merit. Certain competition is always good for us customers - for me it is good that Boeing has Airbus and GE+PW has RR to watch at. Problem starts when established leader looses the edge over its followers or the followers take shortcuts to try to overcome the leader.
But actually the biggest threat comes from what has been defined as 'innovate downwards' movement that has been started long time ago by certain Sam Walton and transferred into aviation by SouthWest Airlines later. So instead of 'citus-altus-fortus' we have 'everyday low prices'. And people got used to this: all of us! And this attitude has deep consequences - american car producers are just recovering, nike is not making any shoes in US, a new stealth plane was recently presented in China
Cheaper is fine as long as customers allow for lower quality because without profits there is no development and no quality. Just look how many more customers want to fly A380!
Unfortunately times of Apollo and Concorde are gone...
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would I build?
"would you build anything valuable (say: a 0,1M$ house or a 10M$ bridge or a 10M$ turbine engine) based on such facts as we have here 
I would say these are good for discussion or creating opinions but too weak for making real decisions."
Civil Engineers are involved in many projects which are multi disciplinary and the most recent failure was the BP, Trans Ocean and Halliburton accident in the Gulf of Mexico. I was not involved.
Unlike building an engine to a set pattern each job is different so we are familiar in using first principal methods to achieve the result. And all the time we have the finished project in view while building. Safety is paramount.
The value of the project in terms of money is important to the accounts but our job is to build the structure "on schedule, on quality, and on budget". This is often impossible.
I have to say that building a gas turbine is relatively less stressful because you have total control of the variables. In that sense mechanical engineering is easier because you know the materials, the environment and loads and temperatures it will have to endure.
The designers, the architects, are often ambitious in what they want to build. "Walt Disney" concepts in perfect world where the sun always shines and the ground never moves.
The facts we have here are abstract ideas based on what we have seen and read. Would I build on them? Or maybe you should ask would I invest in the product or the company using facts we have uncovered. No, I would not.
I would say these are good for discussion or creating opinions but too weak for making real decisions."
Civil Engineers are involved in many projects which are multi disciplinary and the most recent failure was the BP, Trans Ocean and Halliburton accident in the Gulf of Mexico. I was not involved.
Unlike building an engine to a set pattern each job is different so we are familiar in using first principal methods to achieve the result. And all the time we have the finished project in view while building. Safety is paramount.
The value of the project in terms of money is important to the accounts but our job is to build the structure "on schedule, on quality, and on budget". This is often impossible.
I have to say that building a gas turbine is relatively less stressful because you have total control of the variables. In that sense mechanical engineering is easier because you know the materials, the environment and loads and temperatures it will have to endure.
The designers, the architects, are often ambitious in what they want to build. "Walt Disney" concepts in perfect world where the sun always shines and the ground never moves.
The facts we have here are abstract ideas based on what we have seen and read. Would I build on them? Or maybe you should ask would I invest in the product or the company using facts we have uncovered. No, I would not.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although being a little off subject, in the USA, Southwest Airlines is a real good thing, not a innovate downward business at all. They developed a business model long ago that has withstood the pressures of the aviation business in both good times and bad. They adhere to the K.I.S.S. philosophy, point to point flying, no expensive hubs, one airplane model (Boeing 737's) and reservations only through their site. You can fly anywhere in their system for $120 one way and at times, $59. There are no extra fees, add ons, no charges for checked luggage. While the US majors were all filing for bankruptcy, Southwest was making a good profit. Why? Because they had money to hedge fuel and recognized the need to do so when others didn't or couldn't. I can fly to Florida for $198 on Southwest verses $425 on Delta, roundtrip. The seats are the same or better, the airplanes may be better, 737 verses a regional jet on Delta, and the service is great. It's not the same as Walmart.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just came off reading a book "How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenge" written by a retired Boeing executive Mohan R. Pandey and my head is full of ETOPS. The book implies that the additional ETOPS rigor in design/testing enhances the overall safety. Does anyone know or have the expertize to say if RR would have probably found the problems if the engines were required to undergo the additional rigor required for ETOPS certification?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: WA
Age: 84
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radken
DERG
As to no. 11 in your list - the “unforeseen”, I know this 380 thread is primarily concerned with the engine event itself, rather than the effects of its shrapnel on other systems/structures. However, it does seem that in PPRune it’s the only thread to use right now to point up and discuss the matter that it is Airbus itself, and not RR, which has also let down the flying public v/v the No. 1 fuel cut-off issue. But they’re not alone.
It’s quite discomforting and significant to know, without any doubt whatsoever, that the QF32 crew would have had absolutely no control (except fire bottles- if they would have worked) over a fuel fed engine/pylon fire at #1 at any point after the #2 burst. What a way to discover a long existent “unforeseen” engineering oversight, to be forced into the full realization that lack of well designed redundancy in this critical system truly endangered everyone on board. The truth is, though (I believe), no cmcl jets have redundancy in this area.
So, we get to learn from QF32... and we get to learn it without loss of life. How wonderful and fortunate is this unusual opportunity for EADS/Airbus to sit back, take a deep breath, clear the mind, and begin thinking about obligations to others besides their “bean counters.”
Trent 972 pointed out that the A380 FCOM shows “fire” is not one of the sensed FADEC parameters. That makes total sense. I’m sure it’s this way for a very good reason. An engine shut-down decision based on supposed fire is much more in the purview of the skipper than it should ever be as the purview of some remote device, which itself may have been instructed erroneously by any number of other devices, themselves of dubious reliability.... such as fire detect loops. But when called for it'd better work!
I can only add that the re-exposure of a previously demonstrated (Turbine D - A340 versus the wall) weak link in what should be an “infallible” engine/pylon fuel cut-off system should be addressed by Airbus (Boeing, etc.) ASAP. Redundancy in hydraulics, electrics, tank plumbing? Why not in fuel shut-off, too? It apparently could be real handy at times. It may not be “Rocket Science,” but it sure sounds like good “Jet Science.”
As to no. 11 in your list - the “unforeseen”, I know this 380 thread is primarily concerned with the engine event itself, rather than the effects of its shrapnel on other systems/structures. However, it does seem that in PPRune it’s the only thread to use right now to point up and discuss the matter that it is Airbus itself, and not RR, which has also let down the flying public v/v the No. 1 fuel cut-off issue. But they’re not alone.
It’s quite discomforting and significant to know, without any doubt whatsoever, that the QF32 crew would have had absolutely no control (except fire bottles- if they would have worked) over a fuel fed engine/pylon fire at #1 at any point after the #2 burst. What a way to discover a long existent “unforeseen” engineering oversight, to be forced into the full realization that lack of well designed redundancy in this critical system truly endangered everyone on board. The truth is, though (I believe), no cmcl jets have redundancy in this area.
So, we get to learn from QF32... and we get to learn it without loss of life. How wonderful and fortunate is this unusual opportunity for EADS/Airbus to sit back, take a deep breath, clear the mind, and begin thinking about obligations to others besides their “bean counters.”
Trent 972 pointed out that the A380 FCOM shows “fire” is not one of the sensed FADEC parameters. That makes total sense. I’m sure it’s this way for a very good reason. An engine shut-down decision based on supposed fire is much more in the purview of the skipper than it should ever be as the purview of some remote device, which itself may have been instructed erroneously by any number of other devices, themselves of dubious reliability.... such as fire detect loops. But when called for it'd better work!
I can only add that the re-exposure of a previously demonstrated (Turbine D - A340 versus the wall) weak link in what should be an “infallible” engine/pylon fuel cut-off system should be addressed by Airbus (Boeing, etc.) ASAP. Redundancy in hydraulics, electrics, tank plumbing? Why not in fuel shut-off, too? It apparently could be real handy at times. It may not be “Rocket Science,” but it sure sounds like good “Jet Science.”
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radken
"Trent 972 pointed out that the A380 FCOM shows “fire” is not one of the sensed FADEC parameters. That makes total sense. I’m sure it’s this way for a very good reason. An engine shut-down decision based on supposed fire is much more in the purview of the skipper than it should ever be as the purview of some remote device, which itself may have been instructed erroneously by any number of other devices, themselves of dubious reliability.... such as fire detect loops. But when called for it'd better work!"
I know Airbus made a statement that they had made changes to the software so this issue was addressed. Just how or what they did they did I don't know. I agree entirely about automation and I have argued a for big red "master off" button elsewhere on this site. I know Airbus have issued statements to encourage a return "to basic flying skills", to always keep up the skill, because I think they too are scared at how much crews rely on the machine.
I don't view Airbus as a culprit in this event. Structurally the wing structure took the missiles very well and there was clearly enough redundancy in the design. The Qantas crew was very confident that the aircraft was doing OK-ish until they could not shut down #1. To me this was the most dangerous part of the event until the passengers were off.
As to the loss of the controls by the missiles: the electrical loom did not cause a fire and there was a circuit some where that could energise the motors that drive the hydraulics. There were five qualified people on the flight deck to work out what the machine was telling them and they were able to sift the chaf from the wheat. They all had previous Airbus experience so knew the basic systems well.
If the escaping fluids had caught fire it would have been a total loss and I would be nowhere near this thread passing opinions. I am not sure it was good fortune though. There is a concept called "the unforseen point load" which will be familiar to civil engineers. Basically this means that at any point on the structure it is subject to improbable events or abuse. I am sure that Airbus had considered and addressed this possibility.
The fact that sparks from the broken wheels did not ignite the fuel was again luck perhaps..but maybe they had chosen a certain alloy for the wheel construction that did not spark so easily. The brakes must have been red hot too.
Looking back, the first thing that came to mind was the way the emergency fire crews dealt with the still running engine, fuel on the floor, hot brakes and rims and 469 souls still on board. It was then that I saw a need for an external stop control. An emergency panel that rescuers could access to shut down the fuel flow.
I agree with the pylon failure yes. That should be easy enough to do. This A380 was designed as a load carrier and as such made some compromises.
I know Airbus made a statement that they had made changes to the software so this issue was addressed. Just how or what they did they did I don't know. I agree entirely about automation and I have argued a for big red "master off" button elsewhere on this site. I know Airbus have issued statements to encourage a return "to basic flying skills", to always keep up the skill, because I think they too are scared at how much crews rely on the machine.
I don't view Airbus as a culprit in this event. Structurally the wing structure took the missiles very well and there was clearly enough redundancy in the design. The Qantas crew was very confident that the aircraft was doing OK-ish until they could not shut down #1. To me this was the most dangerous part of the event until the passengers were off.
As to the loss of the controls by the missiles: the electrical loom did not cause a fire and there was a circuit some where that could energise the motors that drive the hydraulics. There were five qualified people on the flight deck to work out what the machine was telling them and they were able to sift the chaf from the wheat. They all had previous Airbus experience so knew the basic systems well.
If the escaping fluids had caught fire it would have been a total loss and I would be nowhere near this thread passing opinions. I am not sure it was good fortune though. There is a concept called "the unforseen point load" which will be familiar to civil engineers. Basically this means that at any point on the structure it is subject to improbable events or abuse. I am sure that Airbus had considered and addressed this possibility.
The fact that sparks from the broken wheels did not ignite the fuel was again luck perhaps..but maybe they had chosen a certain alloy for the wheel construction that did not spark so easily. The brakes must have been red hot too.
Looking back, the first thing that came to mind was the way the emergency fire crews dealt with the still running engine, fuel on the floor, hot brakes and rims and 469 souls still on board. It was then that I saw a need for an external stop control. An emergency panel that rescuers could access to shut down the fuel flow.
I agree with the pylon failure yes. That should be easy enough to do. This A380 was designed as a load carrier and as such made some compromises.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would ETOPS Have Made A Difference?
avgenie
I am not sure. If the 900's were on a two engine aircraft, they probably would not have ETOPS approval beyond the lowest level at this point in time. But, they would still be flying.
ETOPS certification involves assessment of aircraft and engine reliability and enhanced training requirements of the aircraft operator's flight crews, mantenence personnel for both aircraft and engines and even the personnel that do the route planning.
The current approval standard for 180-minute ETOPS is 0.02 shutdowns per 1,000 hours of engine operation. That’s amounts to an in-flight shutdown rate of one every 50,000 hours. Many of the world’s 92 ETOPS operators are achieving 0.01 shutdowns per 1,000 hours or, for twinjets on eight-hour ETOPS flights (accumulating 16 hours of total engine time per flight), an average IFSD of one every 6,200 flights. This level of demonstrated safety has prompted many operators and authorites to opt for longer planned diversion times, from 240 minutes to virtually "unrestricted" ETOPS. Statistically, twin engine planes have a lower likelyhood of a diversion compared to 3 or four engine planes.
ETOPS REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
a. All two-engine airplanes and three- and four-engine passenger-carrying airplanes operated under part 121 are required to comply with 14 CFR 121.161. This regulation imposes special requirements for ETOPS for these airplanes. These operations are defined as:
(1) Two-Engine Airplanes. These are flights whose planned routing contains a point farther than 60 minutes flying time from an adequate airport at an approved one-engine inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in still air.
(2) Passenger-Carrying Airplanes with More Than Two Engines. These are flights whose planned routing contains a point farther than 180 minutes flying time from an adequate airport at an approved one-engine inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in still air.
If you would like detailed information to the requirements and how they must be satisfied, copy and paste the address into your browser for the the FAA site below:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/2e0f31985abd83ef8625746b0057fd06/$FILE/AC%20120-42B.pdf
I am not sure. If the 900's were on a two engine aircraft, they probably would not have ETOPS approval beyond the lowest level at this point in time. But, they would still be flying.
ETOPS certification involves assessment of aircraft and engine reliability and enhanced training requirements of the aircraft operator's flight crews, mantenence personnel for both aircraft and engines and even the personnel that do the route planning.
The current approval standard for 180-minute ETOPS is 0.02 shutdowns per 1,000 hours of engine operation. That’s amounts to an in-flight shutdown rate of one every 50,000 hours. Many of the world’s 92 ETOPS operators are achieving 0.01 shutdowns per 1,000 hours or, for twinjets on eight-hour ETOPS flights (accumulating 16 hours of total engine time per flight), an average IFSD of one every 6,200 flights. This level of demonstrated safety has prompted many operators and authorites to opt for longer planned diversion times, from 240 minutes to virtually "unrestricted" ETOPS. Statistically, twin engine planes have a lower likelyhood of a diversion compared to 3 or four engine planes.
ETOPS REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
a. All two-engine airplanes and three- and four-engine passenger-carrying airplanes operated under part 121 are required to comply with 14 CFR 121.161. This regulation imposes special requirements for ETOPS for these airplanes. These operations are defined as:
(1) Two-Engine Airplanes. These are flights whose planned routing contains a point farther than 60 minutes flying time from an adequate airport at an approved one-engine inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in still air.
(2) Passenger-Carrying Airplanes with More Than Two Engines. These are flights whose planned routing contains a point farther than 180 minutes flying time from an adequate airport at an approved one-engine inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in still air.
If you would like detailed information to the requirements and how they must be satisfied, copy and paste the address into your browser for the the FAA site below:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/2e0f31985abd83ef8625746b0057fd06/$FILE/AC%20120-42B.pdf
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The TRENT 700 has two documented cases of dual engine failure in ETOPS service.
Wouldn't that cause a problem?
Guest
Posts: n/a
fuel starvation requiring an emergency (ENGINE) AD qualifies as a failure to me. One a/c was lost due lack of thrust, another came within 13k feet of impacting remote Mountains. Our give and take could get arcane and adversarial; I'll stipulate that we have an impasse.
With this caveat. The FOHE in these incidents/accidents is also under suspicion in the QF32 Burst, along with the EEC's inability to shut down the QF32's #1 and #2. The FOHE is the only oil cooler on board both iterations of these variants. The OIL in 972 is a known issue, as to temps, and service life at poured specs.
The fact that some believe the 972 has no FADEC fire point is not relevant, the panel showed FIRE (via EEC) on the ECAM, interposed between two alerts for "OVERHEAT", yet the Engine (S) both were allowed to run on. And ON. The Architecture in TRENT installs is borderline AD worthy at any given moment. Emirates over the wall Hull Loss, BA038's Crash, and QF32's Serious Incident.
edit. To others. Isn't it a matter of concern that the loss of #2 and the runon of #1 are indicative of a common fault?? To me it is obvious; am I alone in noting the original lack of shut down of #2 and the run on of #1 ?? The EEC technically caused the Burst AND the Loss of #1 via mud ingestion?? The High Oil Temp may not have been the result of Bearing overheat, but the lack of Cooling at the FOHE, which then allowed the bearings to O/H, and Fail?? There is a great deal more to this than meets the eye. EG "OIL Aeration, Misting, OverTemping," etc.
With this caveat. The FOHE in these incidents/accidents is also under suspicion in the QF32 Burst, along with the EEC's inability to shut down the QF32's #1 and #2. The FOHE is the only oil cooler on board both iterations of these variants. The OIL in 972 is a known issue, as to temps, and service life at poured specs.
The fact that some believe the 972 has no FADEC fire point is not relevant, the panel showed FIRE (via EEC) on the ECAM, interposed between two alerts for "OVERHEAT", yet the Engine (S) both were allowed to run on. And ON. The Architecture in TRENT installs is borderline AD worthy at any given moment. Emirates over the wall Hull Loss, BA038's Crash, and QF32's Serious Incident.
edit. To others. Isn't it a matter of concern that the loss of #2 and the runon of #1 are indicative of a common fault?? To me it is obvious; am I alone in noting the original lack of shut down of #2 and the run on of #1 ?? The EEC technically caused the Burst AND the Loss of #1 via mud ingestion?? The High Oil Temp may not have been the result of Bearing overheat, but the lack of Cooling at the FOHE, which then allowed the bearings to O/H, and Fail?? There is a great deal more to this than meets the eye. EG "OIL Aeration, Misting, OverTemping," etc.
Last edited by bearfoil; 10th Feb 2011 at 16:42.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trent-700 ETOPS Failure
Forget
Bearfoil didn't mention this one.
DCA04IA002
It was eerily similar in results to the Qantas QF32 except for the fact the IPT disc didn't burst because it moved back into the stator behind it with the rotor blades contacting the nozzle vanes slowing the disc rotational speed below the burst point. The problem on this engine was coking that clogged the oil venting system and with surrounding heat, caught on fire. The aircraft was on an ETOPS route after departing Miami, Florida.
Fuel starvation, if the cause of starvation can be corrected; Compressor stall, if there is enough time and altitude to preform an air start. Just two examples, there are probably more.
Here is an example of a successful fuel starvation re-light, Boeing 767 with GE-CF6-80 engines:
On June 30, 1987, shortly after a Delta 767 took off from Los Angeles with 205 passengers on board, Capt. John Gilfoil mistakenly moved the fuel-control knobs to the "cut off" position while intending to move other switches on a nearby engine-control panel.
With both engines shut down, the 767 dropped from 2,000 feet to 500 feet above the Pacific Ocean, before Gilfoil restarted the engines and flew on to Cincinnati.
Bearfoil didn't mention this one.
DCA04IA002
It was eerily similar in results to the Qantas QF32 except for the fact the IPT disc didn't burst because it moved back into the stator behind it with the rotor blades contacting the nozzle vanes slowing the disc rotational speed below the burst point. The problem on this engine was coking that clogged the oil venting system and with surrounding heat, caught on fire. The aircraft was on an ETOPS route after departing Miami, Florida.
What sort of engine failure allows a successful re-light?
Here is an example of a successful fuel starvation re-light, Boeing 767 with GE-CF6-80 engines:
On June 30, 1987, shortly after a Delta 767 took off from Los Angeles with 205 passengers on board, Capt. John Gilfoil mistakenly moved the fuel-control knobs to the "cut off" position while intending to move other switches on a nearby engine-control panel.
With both engines shut down, the 767 dropped from 2,000 feet to 500 feet above the Pacific Ocean, before Gilfoil restarted the engines and flew on to Cincinnati.
Last edited by Jetdriver; 11th Feb 2011 at 01:40.