Qantas jet lands after part of engine falls off

[csv8]

Plane explodes near Singapore: report
Tom Allard
November 4, 2010 - 1:23PM
A plane has exploded over Batam, Indonesia, en route to Singapore, according to Indonesian media reports and there are fears it may have been a Qantas jet.

The reports of the explosion, which occurred at 9.15am local time (1.15pm Australian time), are sketchy and the type of plane unconfirmed.

But local media are speculating that some of the debris was from a Qantas jet.

Advertisement: Story continues below
Kompas reported on its website that it "was suspected that a Qantas plane exploded in the air near Batam".

"The big explosion happened near Hang Nadim airport," the report continued, adding the plane was heading to Singapore.

It provided no sourcing for the report.

An eyewitness, Hana, told Metro TV, that she saw a plane that was on fire overhead before hearing a loud explosion.

Parts of the plane have reportedly landed in heavily populated areas in Batam and near the airport, including near a shopping centre.

Batam, in the Riau Islands, is just south of Singapore.

Comment was being sought from local transport authorities and Qantas.

More to come

[XRFutura]

Some reports are saying it was a qantas A380.

Plane crash near singapore

edit: Update, the qantas A380 has landed safely.

[GavL]

Engine failure, no plane crash...
http://www.theage.com.au/world/qanta...104-17f49.html

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...-1225947838707

[blueoval]

Crash denied

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSDY4ME63T20101104

Qantas plane with engine trouble flies to Singapore


SYDNEY | Wed Nov 3, 2010 11:38pm EDT

SYDNEY Nov 3 (Reuters) - Qantas Airways (QAN.AX) denied reports that one of its planes had crashed on Thursday, saying a passenger flight had experienced engine trouble and was returning to Singapore airport.

"There has not been a crash," a spokeswoman said, adding that flight QF32 had been forced to shut down one engine and was expected to land in Singapore around 0400 GMT. The flight is an Airbus A380, according to Web sites tracking commercial flights.

"We are still waiting on more information," she said

[XlR8TED]

Geez, you assh0le!

I had my heart in my mouth there for a minute...

[TC200six]

Originally Posted by XlR8TED

Geez, you assh0le!

I had my heart in my mouth there for a minute...

Yeah me too...

I thought that was it. I was thinking there was a massive plane crash and first for a Qantas plane, thank goodness it wasn't!

[Raptor]

Thread retiltled!

Did read: Possible QANTAS Jet Explodes Mid-Flight??

This didn't happen!

[ltd]

Should be re-labelled:
Qantas A380 Trent Engine has EPIC FAIL shortly after take off.

A Sydney bound A380 departed Singapore earlier today, where 6 minutes into the flight the HP turbine on Number 2 engine failed causing several items of debris to fall off the aircraft.
Now, cue the media Qantas bashing and saying it's the fault of offshore maintenance.

[ELGT4me]

Originally Posted by ltd

Should be re-labelled:
Qantas A380 Trent Engine has EPIC FAIL shortly after take off.

A Sydney bound A380 departed Singapore earlier today, where 6 minutes into the flight the HP turbine on Number 2 engine failed causing several items of debris to fall off the aircraft.
Now, cue the media Qantas bashing and saying it's the fault of offshore maintenance.

Oh ain't that the truth,I've been watching Skynews continously playing the endless loop of Indonesians smiling & posing with bits of the engine cowling.Ashley Gillon asking the same dumb questions over & over again From the media frenzy it is apparent it is a new engine, so maintenance can't be the problem .Well done to guys/girls on the flight deck for getting the "big bird" safely to the ground.

[csv8]

Originally Posted by ELGT4me

Oh ain't that the truth,I've been watching Skynews continously playing the endless loop of Indonesians smiling & posing with bits of the engine cowling.Ashley Gillon asking the same dumb questions over & over again From the media frenzy it is apparent it is a new engine, so maintenance can't be the problem .Well done to guys/girls on the flight deck for getting the "big bird" safely to the ground.

Photo's of engine damage

[DJR-351]

We sailed from Batam 2 weeks ago, I am sure some of the locals will appreciate the extra sheet metal for their roofs with the onset of the monsoon season....

[ELGT4me]

Originally Posted by csv8

Photo's of engine damage

Where are all the smiling Indonesians? Oh & apologies to Ms Gillon, it is another Kiwi girl with a similar sounding ixcent, but still asking the same questions.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by ltd

Should be re-labelled:
Qantas A380 Trent Engine has EPIC FAIL shortly after take off.

A Sydney bound A380 departed Singapore earlier today, where 6 minutes into the flight the HP turbine on Number 2 engine failed causing several items of debris to fall off the aircraft.
Now, cue the media Qantas bashing and saying it's the fault of offshore maintenance.

You would obviously have a much better info then others, but why does it seem that QANTAS is having more and more issues with their planes then previously of late.

Mind you most of their planes fly with no issues.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by vztrt

You would obviously have a much better info then others, but why does it seem that QANTAS is having more and more issues with their planes then previously of late.

Mind you most of their planes fly with no issues.

Considering the number of fleet the airline has, the number of flights carried out and the high quality staff Qantas employ like ltd it is by no accident there isn't a hull loss.

It's purely media beat-up on Qantas that gets the headlines. Where's the media scrutiny of Emirates of the near catastrophic loss of aircraft and life last year or the year before of the A340-(500-600) that dragged it's **** past the end of the runway before it took off at Melbourne?

[GK]

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

Where's the media scrutiny of Emirates of the near catastrophic loss of aircraft and life last year or the year before of the A340-(500-600) that dragged it's **** past the end of the runway before it took off at Melbourne?

Maybe there wasn't much going on in Port headland, but there was plenty in Melbourne.

GK

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by GK

Maybe there wasn't much going on in Port headland, but there was plenty in Melbourne.

GK

I wasn't in Port Hedland back then, I was in Perth. There certainly wasn't much exposure over here in the west. What you do hear over here is every miss, near miss, incident, drama, drunk passenger, delayed arrivals and departures that occur within Qantas over the entire worldwide network.

Pathetic.

[MexicanBatman]

Was this on the new one, I haven't read the media relase The company emailed me yet, they have several 380s and pretty much all have had some dramas, good work by the crew to bring it down safely, and yeah let's wait for the media bashing..... Good old Aussie tall poppy syndrome..

[Jim Goose]

Typical media reporting though....

Why dont they confirm these things before making a stupid report like this which just panics everyone??

Oh yea, why let the truth come between a good story??

[Romulus]

Damn.

Some of the comment from the media is bloody hillarious, such as, the engine has a much power as a F1 car.....ummm BS, these engines make tens of thousands of HP.

Nevertheless a fan destruction and fan breach of the skin is seriously dangerous. Let's see what the cause of the problem is.

ltd, I guess this aircraft truly lives up to it's "Scarebus A180" rep.

[csv8]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIOWjhjC1jM
You Tube video of Rolls Royce Trent engine failing in test..

[flappist]

It's a scarebus, can't they just press reset like they do on all the other playstations?

[MexicanBatman]

And to add to the above, the recent qantas issues and the above one were not pilot error like the emirates problem, I saw that plane shortly after and lol sure they are just human, but I do loads and you check recheck and confirm, then check again a couple of more times just to check, I forget the exact reason but wasn't 11000kg not accounted for... The Arab airlines are also pretty decently loaded, I mean full capacity and always near max take off weight, from what I see...

[DJM83]

Ok nothing untowards anyone that may work for QANTAS, but their safety in the recent past is nothing short of horrid. Ive flown numerous times over the last 3years and everytime i book a flight i look at QANTAS they are almost always more expensive. Ive always flown with Virgin and their service is fantastic and price is right. So with QANTAS, where does your money go/what does it get you?

[FGII-XR6]

is that fact or guesswork? the media seem to be on a qantas witch hunt ATM but they still have never lost a passenger due to mechanical failure the media are reporting every mechanical fault they can that makes things sound worse than they are
To be honest this qantas bashing by the media is getting beyond a joke all mechanical equiment will have failures the media are making sound like negligence when ever something fails but in reality the aircraft always make it to the ground without crashing , thats some record when you think about it

Originally Posted by DJM83

Ok nothing untowards anyone that may work for QANTAS, but their safety in the recent past is nothing short of horrid. Ive flown numerous times over the last 3years and everytime i book a flight i look at QANTAS they are almost always more expensive. Ive always flown with Virgin and their service is fantastic and price is right. So with QANTAS, where does your money go/what does it get you?

[74_XB_Ute]

Looking at the photo of the engine I might have a punt at what happened. Possibly the engine suffered a severe compressor surge which damaged the inlet fan section. Damaged blades from the inlet fan section look like they have travelled through the bypass section and ripped the outer engine casing/cowling. The fan casing retained the damage but sent it backwards to the less strengthen casing towards the rear where it seems to have ripped it apart. An explosion was heard which is common during a compressor surge/stall. Thats my theory from just looking at the photo of the damaged engine. Will be interesting to find out the result of what actually happened after the investigation.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by 74_XB_Ute

Looking at the photo of the engine I might have a punt at what happened. Possibly the engine suffered a severe compressor surge which damaged the inlet fan section. Damaged blades from the inlet fan section look like they have travelled through the bypass section and ripped the outer engine casing/cowling. The fan casing retained the damage but sent it backwards to the less strengthen casing towards the rear where it seems to have ripped it apart. An explosion was heard which is common during a compressor surge/stall. Thats my theory from just looking at the photo of the damaged engine. Will be interesting to find out the result of what actually happened after the investigation.

Not really sure on that theory, the engine in question was fairly new and would not at this age be susceptible to compressor stall. The compressor section runs on its own shafts and is powered by the intermediate pressure and high pressure turbines (they're separate - new design); the fan runs on it's own shaft and is powered by the low pressure turbines. An IP or HP anomoly would not affect the fan until one of the core components failed and damaged the engine to the point of imbalance. If a broken blade was passed out in the bypass air it being carbon fibre would not damage the outer casing of titanium.

What looks to have happened is an intermediate pressure turbine disc failed with explosive force, the uncontained failure coming through the casing with such force as to allow turbine blades to pierce the front of the wing, disable the leading edge slats as well as puncture the fuel tank.
As much as this was a rolls royce problem and has happened before, scarebus still are crap for the fact that there's only thrust reverse on engines 2 & 3 (to save weight). Without leading edge slats and reverse thrust, this could have ended badly.

[ELGT4me]

Originally Posted by ltd

Not really sure on that theory, the engine in question was fairly new and would not at this age be susceptible to compressor stall. The compressor section runs on its own shafts and is powered by the intermediate pressure and high pressure turbines (they're separate - new design); the fan runs on it's own shaft and is powered by the low pressure turbines. An IP or HP anomoly would not affect the fan until one of the core components failed and damaged the engine to the point of imbalance. If a broken blade was passed out in the bypass air it being carbon fibre would not damage the outer casing of titanium.

What looks to have happened is an intermediate pressure turbine disc failed with explosive force, the uncontained failure coming through the casing with such force as to allow turbine blades to pierce the front of the wing, disable the leading edge slats as well as puncture the fuel tank.
As much as this was a rolls royce problem and has happened before, scarebus still are crap for the fact that there's only thrust reverse on engines 2 & 3 (to save weight). Without leading edge slats and reverse thrust, this could have ended badly.

Many thanks ltd, your knowledge & explanations are very informative!!!!

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by ltd

As much as this was a rolls royce problem and has happened before, scarebus still are crap for the fact that there's only thrust reverse on engines 2 & 3 (to save weight). Without leading edge slats and reverse thrust, this could have ended badly.

I read that they didnt require reverse thrust at all, due to the brakes being more than powerful enough to handle all braking requirements including emergency takeoff rejection, but the Americans wouldn't certify without it (as if they would do that to Boeing if Boeing came up with it first )

Yes it does save weight too, whay would you add unnecessary weight?

[ltd]

Originally Posted by tweeked

I read that they didnt require reverse thrust at all, due to the brakes being more than powerful enough to handle all braking requirements including emergency takeoff rejection, but the Americans wouldn't certify without it (as if they would do that to Boeing if Boeing came up with it first )

Yes it does save weight too, whay would you add unnecessary weight?

Not only does the A380 look overweight, it's about as light as Whoopi Goldberg doing the truffle shuffle. (have you seen her lately? - she's literally 3 M&M's away from holy-****)

What airbus provide as design weight and then later production weight, are two vastly different numbers. For certification the brakes have to be strong enough to perform rejected take offs; but this test always destroys a set of brakes, wheels and tyres. Further, it also means that the aircraft uses up most of the runway. What do you think will happen when you're on a wet runway, or with crosswinds? Further, what would you be able to do if you lost hydraulics like QF32, had no leading edge slats, minimal flaps and a busted engine? Rely on brakes? Don't think so.
Just imagine if you will; situation the same as QF32 but with a fire where the wingtank was pierced so you had to get down immediately; no slats, maximum fuel and no chance to dump. Disaster. Now add, wet runway or loss of hydro's; you'll make OJH the golfcart look pale in comparison.

Nope, there's a reason EVERY other aircraft has reverse thrust on ALL their engines; you can't always rely on adhesion of tyres to stop you, and if you're in an emergency where you're forced to land before you can safely shed weight by dumping fuel, you'll certainly sheer the landing gear off trying to stop 400 plus tonnes. Airbus simply fiddled with the margins trying to shave weight of an airframe which at the time the decision was taken was 14 tonnes overweight.

[aye you]

LTD, i always thought the 380 didn't have reverse thrust on 1 and 4 to avoid blowing FOD into the intake on those slightly narrower runways it visits?

I am surprised they didn't blow any tyres