Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qantas A380 Engine Failure

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by MCM View Post
    Depends which media you read AJ.

    All I know about the incident has come from the news sources.

    We all just have to wait 30 days to know more now!
    Maybe within QF there are already a few information available which are not public yet. We had the same for the RUH crash of our MD11. We got some information which were not made public right away. Maybe the same with Qantas...

    Comment


    • #77
      I would be 150% sure of that

      AJ knows all, after all

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by MCM View Post
        I would be 150% sure of that

        AJ knows all, after all
        Yeah, AJ is the man

        Comment


        • #79
          AJ is man? Damn... always pictured a busty blonde would go by the name of AJ

          Comment


          • #80
            Alan Joyce from qantas says its a design flaw in the engines or the use of wrong materials

            dutch source:
            Luchtvaartnieuws brengt een uitgebreid overzicht van nieuws in de luchtvaartbranche


            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


            • #81
              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


              • #82
                Originally posted by larsv View Post
                maybey 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
                Making 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


                • #83
                  Originally posted by AJ View Post
                  .......symptoms!
                  Symptoms that the green hydraulic system was compromised? The green system is fed by the left side engines and powers the wing spoilers that are not deployed (yellow powers the ones that are), the slats and the wing gear doors.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by tsv View Post
                    Making 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.
                    Im not trying to say they are dangerous those accidents were 2 years ago but whenever something weird happens it happens to them(and they dont deserve it). It could have happend to SQ since they opperated RR A380's first

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      The engine had flown +800 cycles and +8000 hours when it exploded,
                      "The real CEO of the 787 project is named Potemkin"

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        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


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
                          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.
                          Apparently the engine model involved is unique to Qantas:

                          Originally posted by Aviation Herald
                          the Rolls Royce Trent 972 engine is currently used only by Qantas for their Airbus A380s.
                          Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
                          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?
                          I had this same question in my head. Previous uncontained engine failures have been attributed to metallurgical defects during manufacture. How do you inspect for this in the field? Moreover, until you have identified the cause of the engine failure, how do you know what you are looking for, and how do you declare an engine safe to return to service?

                          I wonder if these inspections aren't simply related to AD 2010-0008R1, issued back on August 4th.

                          Originally posted by Aviation Herald
                          The 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.
                          I also wonder if certain Airbus engineers aren't looking at the proximity of that rearmost wing puncture to the fuel tank and rechecking their math. Does anyone know what 'rotor disk burst area' refers to?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            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


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
                              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...


                              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.
                              You can't

                              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


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by ptwtanks View Post
                                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.

                                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

                                Working...
                                X