Qantas jet lands after part of engine falls off

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by EDfutura25

Send it back to Airbus and buy a 777, or 747.

Yeah, because they've had no problems with their 747s have they!

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by csv8

...after the engine "shut down"

lol. I shut down my PC last night, and parts of the tower case landed in my neighbours yard. No-ones noticed yet, but DVD burner is AWOL too.

[Kieron]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

next time you get a flight for $1 promotion in an e'mail , on any airline , or hear about airlines pleasing customers by bringing ticket prices down , have a think about that . is it fuel that has gotten cheaper , parts,taxes, airport rentals , or increases in time between services/and punjab rishki servicing your plane for 2 bucks an hour .
but they tell us that that does not compromise safety . just like my private health fund told me my knee is not part of my body , therefore i'm not covered for knee surgury .
hey but my premiums are down . yeah yeah .

Proof as they say is in the pudding though, LCC's have been flying for many, many years all over the world and i'd suggest they have no more issues than a legacy carrier.

I'm about to step on a $360 return flight to KL on MAS tonight, fingers crossed of course hehe

[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.

[scorpio39]

Mmmm, the ethnic guys at work always flew Qantas when going back home for a holiday.
I asked them "why don't you fly Alitalia, Olympic etc".
The reply was, when you fly Qantas " I can leave my rosary beads home"

[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!!!!

[Romulus]

That second image is scary. Take a look at the Concorde incident to see what a ruptured wing that is on fire does to an aircraft, it brings it down.

[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

[74_XB_Ute]

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.

That seems to be the suspect on many websites at the moment considering the recent EASA directive concerning the Intermediate Pressure Shaft on the Trent 900. But looking at the photos of the engine the turbine section looks to be intact. I cant see (from the photos) where there has been any breech of the casing by the turbine section blades.

[GlennBA]

The A380 is an incredible aircraft to fly on, I'm sure this is just a minor hiccup. They design these things to fail safely. And boeing aircraft have had technical failure too.. anyone remember the BA B772 that crashed at heathrow a couple of years ago?

[ltd]

Originally Posted by GlennBA

The A380 is an incredible aircraft to fly on, I'm sure this is just a minor hiccup. They design these things to fail safely. And boeing aircraft have had technical failure too.. anyone remember the BA B772 that crashed at heathrow a couple of years ago?

Yep, and that was trent engines at work (or idle) again. It was found that the filter screens on the booster pumps would ice over and starve the engines of fuel. This is equipment supplied by the engine manufacturer, not Boeing.

As for the lack of reverse on 1 and 4, FOD is what it says on the brochure, weight is what the industry is aware of.
They could have it as an option or for the company to decide its use but instead had to shed weight.
Let's ask the push back guys how hard these big suckers are to manouvre.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Kieron

Proof as they say is in the pudding though, LCC's have been flying for many, many years all over the world and i'd suggest they have no more issues than a legacy carrier.

I'm about to step on a $360 return flight to KL on MAS tonight, fingers crossed of course hehe

LCC's usually buy brand new aircraft then abuse maintenance over a relatively short lifespan , ( like a throw away dvd player ) after the 12 mth warrenty is over if they break buy a new one .
anyhow after a short lifespan they onsell the plane to 3rd world countries . in principle the worls is becoming plug and play , in every aspect . however in the sky this is risky risky .
they say this is going to cost quantas $1000 000 000 . i say suck bees balls QANTAS. i bet it would've been cheaper to keep world class employees and maintenance . this is the world we live in today . some people up the top made a lot of beuarocratic bonuses for himself and top executives . short term gain for the people at the top , long term risk for everyone else . what do we get besides a little debate and whinging on talk back ?? in japan the blokes who made these decisions would be lined up and SHOT .

I'LL ADD ; top engineers usually have 2 areas of expertise . like mechanical/ and electrical combined , guys like this usually master skills in all lateral areas over tradesmen . now i would love to see , accountant/engineer. being a boss , instead of business analysts. profits over safety and calculated risks are down right criminal offences in a moral point of view .
i do not blame manufacturers for this , its accountants having authority over engineers . hopefully one day the world will change and skills combined with common sense comes back rather than profit and calculated risk.

[Spudz27]

Originally Posted by Bobman

Yeah, because they've had no problems with their 747s have they!

I wasn't going to reply but had to. I was not saying that 747's have not had their issues, I was being subtle as to the fact I am a boeing fan, although in my defence I doubt a 747 run by Qanats has had as many issues in less than 3yrs of service as the A380's have.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

i do not blame manufacturers for this , its accountants having authority over engineers . hopefully one day the world will change and skills combined with common sense comes back rather than profit and calculated risk.

Im not so sure about the manufacturer here, Ill wait and see what comes out on that. Even so, the same blight you mention applies to all industries/services including manufacturing, short term profits/share price increases over long term measures including safety. But in sentiment Im with you, the chase for year on year increases has to come at a cost in some other area. Theres a need to be efficient and maximise profits, but there is a point where they tend to take far too much risk. It can end in tears, and once is too often. Unfortunately its far enough down the track everyones forgotten how, or the cause is too complex to explain to the average punter, or some poor schmuck becomes a scapegoat. While the CEO's move onto the next project.

Just as a heads up, accountants are a large group though. Some prefer longer term measures for calculating remuneration packages as incentive to take into consideration longer term effects of the choices management make while in control. There have been countless techniques used over the years attempting to ensure long term gains for the organisation including in its reputation or goodwill, the problem is there is always a way to game the system.

I would also suggest, using engineers as decision makers would result in remuneration packages that they would also game, more responsibility requires more pay. Engineers arent a different species of human, and greed is a human trait. Watching that Flight Investigations show, there was one recently where the guy inspecting the plane had requested the tail screw (Im no plane tech) assembly be replaced, the next supervisor simply crossed it off. 4 months before its next major inspection, it flies head down into the ground. Similar occurences are a common theme in the show. Stuff like that is horrifying. Another episode was about a tail scrape on take off, the damaged area patched some 20 yrs earlier, but insufficiently which resulted in a catastrophic failure. Thats why I like the unions in Aus, they would refuse to patch it like that, strikes would be called which helps act as a check and balance on management. Its easier to fix it right the first time, and continually manage the plane with its defect in mind. Im not so sure about off-shore maintenance, long term.

[MexicanBatman]

Originally Posted by ltd

Let's ask the push back guys how hard these big suckers are to manouvre.

I cbf but I don't think they are. They push back here with a towbarless tug that has about 200+ hp less and 20ton less weight and 1 less engine than the conventional pushout tugs. The seem to do it quite easy even up the hill. That said I haven't seen them use the normal tug to push it qantas or Menzies

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by ltd

Let's ask the push back guys how hard these big suckers are to manouvre.

Im sure they will be right.

Amazed that people are having a go at the plane and bringing up the Boeng/Airbus rubbish. Yes its big and heavy, it is the biggest passenger plane in the world. But it took an engine having an uncontained failure, holes through the wing, fuel or hydraulic fluid pouring out, circled comfortably while it dumped fuel to get to a safe landing weight, then landed on brakes alone with half the slats and spoilers not operating, passengers saying it was one of the smoothest landings they have experienced - and people are having a go at it?????????????

Well done to Qantas crew and Airbus. Rolls Royce have some investigation to do.

[ELGT4me]

Gidday ltd, what was the reason Qantas went to the "Trent" Rolls Royce Engine? I have read other Airlines who use the A380, have opted for another engine manufacturer, will continue to fly the A380, with no problems?

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by EDfutura25

I wasn't going to reply but had to. I was not saying that 747's have not had their issues, I was being subtle as to the fact I am a boeing fan, although in my defence I doubt a 747 run by Qanats has had as many issues in less than 3yrs of service as the A380's have.

Meah - they've all had their share of issues over the years - Boeing, Airbus, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed. The relevant stakeholders just have to learn from them and ensure they are not repeated.

Boeing 737 rudder problems causing 3 aircraft (on separate occasions) to spiral to the ground out of control at no notice in the US in the early 90's

DC-10 cargo door issues and propoensity for the No 2 tail engine to explode causing hydraulic issues (ie United flight that crash landed at Sioux City Iowa in which most survived)

Hawker Sidelley Trident - Stick Shaker issues causing the aircraft to stall midflight

Any Russian built aircraft you care to mention

I'd say this is a one off - the A380 will survive

[ELGT4me]

Originally Posted by tweeked

Im sure they will be right.

Amazed that people are having a go at the plane and bringing up the Boeng/Airbus rubbish. Yes its big and heavy, it is the biggest passenger plane in the world. But it took an engine having an uncontained failure, holes through the wing, fuel or hydraulic fluid pouring out, circled comfortably while it dumped fuel to get to a safe landing weight, then landed on brakes alone with half the slats and spoilers not operating, passengers saying it was one of the smoothest landings they have experienced - and people are having a go at it?????????????

Well done to Qantas crew and Airbus. Rolls Royce have some investigation to do.

Given the Qantas episode over Exmouth, Singapore Airlines reporting the same type of problems & the tragic loss of the Air France flight, people are wondering about the reliability of the electronics of the Airbus aircraft. This may have something to do with the "tainting" of the Airbus Industrie name. I knew a Qantas pilot who despised Airbus aircraft, for the simple reason he claimed, the Airbus aircraft electronic systems tried to tell the pilot how to fly the aircraft, whereas the Boeing Aircraft electronics systems gave the pilot, the final say in what the aircraft is actually doing. I am not a pilot (sadly) but for me, the guy up the front with the funny cap on his head, should have the final say on what the aircraft is doing. After all, he has been trained & tested & accredited to fly that aircraft, under the most extreme conditions. How do you put that sort of training, experience,& knowlege into some circuit boards & wires?

[ltd]

Originally Posted by ELGT4me

Gidday ltd, what was the reason Qantas went to the "Trent" Rolls Royce Engine? I have read other Airlines who use the A380, have opted for another engine manufacturer, will continue to fly the A380, with no problems?

All those years ago when Geoff D and the board at QF decided to get the 180 there was a thriving and successful engine workshop at yssy which specialised in RR engines. As the trent 900 is an evolution of the RB211, as well as the excellent working relationship with the people at RR, followed by a rumoured excellent deal from RR it became a no brainer. When considering the 787 however the fate of the engine shop was pretty much decided and GE had a better product to market.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by tweeked

Im sure they will be right.

Amazed that people are having a go at the plane and bringing up the Boeng/Airbus rubbish. Yes its big and heavy, it is the biggest passenger plane in the world. But it took an engine having an uncontained failure, holes through the wing, fuel or hydraulic fluid pouring out, circled comfortably while it dumped fuel to get to a safe landing weight, then landed on brakes alone with half the slats and spoilers not operating, passengers saying it was one of the smoothest landings they have experienced - and people are having a go at it?????????????

Well done to Qantas crew and Airbus. Rolls Royce have some investigation to do.

Tweeked, from what I found out this ac lost control of no.1 as well, due to engine controls in the wing being severed in the uncontained failure and the debris throught the wing. Further, around 50% hydro functionality was lost which is why there were no leading edge slats, half the spoilers and the landing gear doors not reclosing. This could have ended very badly. My guess is they'll need to reroute the engine controls out of the vicinity of the hot sections of inboard engines. This does relate directly to scarebus design.

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by tweeked

Amazed that people are having a go at the plane and bringing up the Boeng/Airbus rubbish. Yes its big and heavy, it is the biggest passenger plane in the world. But it took an engine having an uncontained failure, holes through the wing, fuel or hydraulic fluid pouring out, circled comfortably while it dumped fuel to get to a safe landing weight, then landed on brakes alone with half the slats and spoilers not operating, passengers saying it was one of the smoothest landings they have experienced - and people are having a go at it?????????????

Well done to Qantas crew and Airbus. Rolls Royce have some investigation to do.

Now here's a good post, to the point and 100% true, amongst all the nonsense in the media and even some in this thread.

Originally Posted by ltd

Tweeked, from what I found out this ac lost control of no.1 as well, due to engine controls in the wing being severed in the uncontained failure and the debris throught the wing. Further, around 50% hydro functionality was lost which is why there were no leading edge slats, half the spoilers and the landing gear doors not reclosing. This could have ended very badly. My guess is they'll need to reroute the engine controls out of the vicinity of the hot sections of inboard engines. This does relate directly to scarebus design.

I'm sure they will be looking at the whole picture in their investigations, however I do know that the B747 is not perfect either with hydraulic systems when it comes to even non-catastrophic engine failures.

[ELGT4me]

Originally Posted by nitro xr

Now here's a good post, to the point and 100% true, amongst all the nonsense in the media and even some in this thread.


I'm sure they will be looking at the whole picture in their investigations, however I do know that the B747 is not perfect either with hydraulic systems when it comes to even non-catastrophic engine failures.

Well, they are both man made machines, & sadly humans are not infallible. Sadly,we all learn from our mistakes, luckily no one was hurt on the ground or in the air during this incident, kudo's to the guys/girls on the flight deck as well.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by ltd

Tweeked, from what I found out this ac lost control of no.1 as well, due to engine controls in the wing being severed in the uncontained failure and the debris throught the wing. Further, around 50% hydro functionality was lost which is why there were no leading edge slats, half the spoilers and the landing gear doors not reclosing. This could have ended very badly. My guess is they'll need to reroute the engine controls out of the vicinity of the hot sections of inboard engines. This does relate directly to scarebus design.

Helpful posting as alaways ltd. I suspected the issue on the hydrualic problem when i noticed the NLG doors still open when parked. Its hardly a surprise it blew a few tyres given teh weight, lack of reverse (no one is going to risk asymetrical reverse) and the lack of slats. I'd say engine 1 wa sjust left in its set engine setting adn they flew around it and then cut the fuel at some point once on teh ground to shut it off....

Much like many incidents that happen in aviation despite the best efforts of designers you are only ever a few wierd combination of events away from beinga rock. The fuel leak, lack of spoillers and hydraulic issues are an attack on three main systems of the aircraft, and once you throw in the obvious engine failure *(and issues with no.1 also) then you realy are starting to reduce the crew's chances. It just makes things harder. As much as i agree with your reservatuiouns on the a380 (from early design specs right up to control systems/perf) i think the scenario you aluded to where a long long list of failures happen resulting in catastrophe is a tad unlikely. Even NASA had to leave off some safeguards ohn their designs due to the fact that multiple unconected events probably all won't happen at once (though that is hardly much consolation for the poor chap it does happen to).

The bigger issue is the engine drama. Bad luck or not with the recent 747 RB211 incident as well, uncontained engine failures are bad news. You are seriously pushing your luck if you keep on having them. Sooner or later somethihg important will get hit from a flying piece of shrapnell and its curtains. Its frankly unaceptable in the modern age for engine failures to be so graphical uncontained as in this fashion, espeically on a new engine. Back in the 60/70s they had alot this sort of thing, but from teh 80s onwards they said that uncontained engine failure were so rare that most airlines would 'never have one on a new aircraft' and that most pilots starting there careers woudlnt have any engine failure at all (as in catatrophic) for their working life. Seems they got that a bit premature.

Alot of engines have had theodd wobly, its well accepted. Early CF6s (which as you know are the engine i have on my simulator 763) went pop pretty often but there weren't too many uncontained ones from memory. My view is that modern fibre based nacelle's just arent' strong enough...that or they have skimped to much on their design RE weight saving. Designing engines to avoid failure is obviusly preferred, but i'd like to see proper containment of the failures when they happen. If people knew how fast those fans were spinning inside an aircraft jet engine they'd never fly again i suspect.....

[gtfpv]

I read in the paper today 30,000 rpm . is this correct?

[GK]

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

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.

Pardon my poor spelling of Port Hedland? LOL!

GK

[Riksta]

[Silver Ghia]

Here we go again.... really nothing to do with this incident, if you know anything about aircraft certification etc.