Originally posted by MCM
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Qantas A380 Engine Failure
Collapse
X
-
Alan Joyce from qantas says its a design flaw in the engines or the use of wrong materials
dutch source:
it also says that that SQ has resumed A380 flight after doing some checks on the engine and that LH had to cancel one flight because there was to litle time to check the engines and that qantas willl resume A380 flights within 48 hours
Comment
-
Number 1 engine
If it is true that they used FF foam to shutdown number 1 it brings up a whole host of questions.
Did they have any control of number 1 at all or did it remain at the power level it was set at when number 2 blew?
What power level would number 1 be at at the time of the event and no longer controllable and how would this affect the approach and landing?
In a single engine out landing what is the minimum power used during approach and landing on the remaining engine on that side?
If I remember correctly numbers 1 and 4 do not have thrust reversers so since number 2 was out did they use thrust reverse on number 3 on landing?
What is the runway length and how much did they use?
Once on the ground couldn’t they just fuel starve number 1 by switching fuel system breakers off?
Was number 1 damaged from debris from number 2 and actually burning?
How involved will the NTSB be in this investigation?
Ok I will stop now.
Comment
-
Originally posted by larsv View Postmaybey it has something to do with qantas i mean Qantas Flight 30 in 2008 and Qantas Flight 72. Not that those had anything to do with engines but it shows that weird incidents are not uncommon with them
Given that QF has the world's safest aviation safety record in history to date I'm prepared to cut them some slack because engine failures (contained or not) have been happening for decades. Until we have perfect Humans I suspect we will not have perfect Engines or perfect Maintenance practices.
What Qantas have managed to do to date, albeit with some considerable luck combined with a crapload of crew skill, is to safely manage everything thrown at them and get the people down safely.
Media is also such a big factor in Public opinion. There have been 2 much more serious Aviation Castrophies today but neither will get the level of publicity (or the number of posts on this forum) as this incident. Because ATR's are not as newsworthy as A380's and dramas with Air Carribean will not sell the number of newspapers that dramas with Qantas/Rolls Royce/Airbus will.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by tsv View PostMaking a link between operators and incidents is pretty dangerous because such incidents are so rare (when mesaured against annual number of flights) that statistics are pretty much meaningless.
Given that QF has the world's safest aviation safety record in history to date I'm prepared to cut them some slack because engine failures (contained or not) have been happening for decades. Until we have perfect Humans I suspect we will not have perfect Engines or perfect Maintenance practices.
What Qantas have managed to do to date, albeit with some considerable luck combined with a crapload of crew skill, is to safely manage everything thrown at them and get the people down safely.
Media is also such a big factor in Public opinion. There have been 2 much more serious Aviation Castrophies today but neither will get the level of publicity (or the number of posts on this forum) as this incident. Because ATR's are not as newsworthy as A380's and dramas with Air Carribean will not sell the number of newspapers that dramas with Qantas/Rolls Royce/Airbus will.
Comment
-
SIA's A380's
One thing that's been bugging me is that SIA is already back flying their A380's after grounding them for what 11 hours? They claim that all have been inspected and all are OK.
Two things bother me about that call...
1. Their A380's were among the very first to be delivered, so you'd think they have some aircraft with more hours and cycles than Qantas.
2. How do you inspect metalic components burried deep within the hot section of the engine when your fleet is scattered no doubt in many different airports across the world and you have 44 engines to inspect? What sort of testing was done? Are components x- rayed? Or are we talking some bloke with a torch sticking his head in and counting the blades? An uncle of mine was involved in industrial xray technology to inspect welds and metalurgical structures - often times that basic technology would pick up flaws in the substructure invisible to the naked eye.
So, how would these engines have been inspected? Is it realistic to expect a total inspection in that time?
Comment
-
Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View PostOne thing that's been bugging me is that SIA is already back flying their A380's after grounding them for what 11 hours? They claim that all have been inspected and all are OK.
Originally posted by Aviation Heraldthe Rolls Royce Trent 972 engine is currently used only by Qantas for their Airbus A380s.Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View PostHow do you inspect metalic components burried deep within the hot section of the engine when your fleet is scattered no doubt in many different airports across the world and you have 44 engines to inspect? What sort of testing was done? Are components x- rayed? Or are we talking some bloke with a torch sticking his head in and counting the blades? An uncle of mine was involved in industrial xray technology to inspect welds and metalurgical structures - often times that basic technology would pick up flaws in the substructure invisible to the naked eye.
So, how would these engines have been inspected? Is it realistic to expect a total inspection in that time?
I wonder if these inspections aren't simply related to AD 2010-0008R1, issued back on August 4th.
Originally posted by Aviation HeraldThe Trent 900 engine has been subject to an Airworthiness Directive by EASA requiring the intermediate pressure shaft coupling splines to be inspected for excessive wear, which was found beyond material limits on a few engines. Engineers are looking whether these problems have resurfaced again, but do not believe this engine failure is related.
Comment
-
Evan, since you like a long read, I tried, I honestly did, try to find the CFR definition for burst area if indeed one exists. I did get a nice read/scan of a few hundred pages of accent data from incidents like AA 232 and another in Florida. "Back in the day" it seemed to be just a term for where any pieces or associated debris would go. Just hit the Google for something like .. CFR rotor disk burst area .. So much data; so little time.
They did make reference to where the disk fragments hit the banjo and left traces so it sounds like an open ended definition where the engineers are required to "predict" the path of any fragments related to the failure.
Deep on the engine, the metal components are only inspected during a tear down. I will forward a guess and say that there is probably a lot of interim things being looked at like fluid analysis for metals while the engine is in service. They used to do stuff like fluro dye penetrant and such but now they also use EDAX. The usual walk around looked for stuff like visible cracks. If the mechs saw anything they just took the engine off and took another "out of the can" and very little work was done on station.
Take a look at how far the "tail pipe" extends past the wing on the 380. My point is that it doesn't. When you get into definitions regarding contained versus uncontained did this factor in the decision making process?Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View PostOne thing that's been bugging me is that SIA is already back flying their A380's after grounding them for what 11 hours? They claim that all have been inspected and all are OK.
Two things bother me about that call...
2. How do you inspect metalic components burried deep within the hot section of the engine when your fleet is scattered no doubt in many different airports across the world and you have 44 engines to inspect? What sort of testing was done? Are components x- rayed? Or are we talking some bloke with a torch sticking his head in and counting the blades? An uncle of mine was involved in industrial xray technology to inspect welds and metalurgical structures - often times that basic technology would pick up flaws in the substructure invisible to the naked eye.
If it is possible that the wrong material was used then you would go through the records and pull all the blades that were made from the same master heat as those from the engine that blew up.
All the airfoils in the engine have their own unique serial number. The first digits of the serial number will match up with the master heat used. The blades are pored as a "tree" each tree will have anywhere from 7 to 15 blades attached to it. You can pour up to about 10 trees worth of blades from a master heat so I am guessing they will have to pull about 100 or more blades from working engines, Minus any manufacturing scrap that never made it to an engine, about 15%Signatures are overrated
Comment
-
Originally posted by ptwtanks View PostIf it is true that they used FF foam to shutdown number 1 it brings up a whole host of questions.
Did they have any control of number 1 at all or did it remain at the power level it was set at when number 2 blew?
What power level would number 1 be at at the time of the event and no longer controllable and how would this affect the approach and landing?
In a single engine out landing what is the minimum power used during approach and landing on the remaining engine on that side?
If I remember correctly numbers 1 and 4 do not have thrust reversers so since number 2 was out did they use thrust reverse on number 3 on landing?
What is the runway length and how much did they use?
Once on the ground couldn’t they just fuel starve number 1 by switching fuel system breakers off?
Was number 1 damaged from debris from number 2 and actually burning?
How involved will the NTSB be in this investigation?
Ok I will stop now.
Unlikely since all the pilot would have to do is shut off the fuel to kill the engine. Also I doubt you could shut down a Trent 900 with just a fire hose. Those things can take a lot of water and most of it would get sent out the bypass due to the centrifugal force from the spinning blades.Signatures are overrated
Comment
Comment