Qantas jet lands after part of engine falls off

[Xr6T_pilot]

Uncontained #2 engine failure, resulting in loss of both green and yellow hydraulics. Debris punctured leading edge and damaged wiring to #1 engine. Also debris punctured under wing surface resulting in fuel leak. On landing, blew 4 tyres. Stopped on runway. Unable to shutdown #1 engine due to damaged wiring. Attempted to drown #1 engine with water from fire truck, but did not work. 3 hrs after landing #1 engine still running.

[Silver Ghia]

Yeah, noticed the fireys squirting down #1 in one of the photos.

[Romulus]

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.

Sheez, that's bad. Reminds me of AA flight 191 back in 1979 when it lost it's left engine during rotation, severed the hydraulics and caused the flaps and slats to retract and stall the wing resulting in the aircraft crashing shortly after take-off.

As more information comes to light the more serious this incident is.

[Xr6T_pilot]

Scary when you think of the concorde incident.. all it would have taken is that compresser blade to rupture one of the fuel tanks and it would have been eerily identical to that crash


Or just as worse, a blade coming off in the cruise and rupturing the fuselage resulting in a explosive decompression.... very VERY lucky indeed!

[Rodp]

...and another one.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/a...rom=public_rss

[mik]

wow that looks really bad for qauntas, i don`t fly , but if i did, i think i would give flying a miss on big commercials for a while(re the law of averages).

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by mik

wow that looks really bad for qauntas, i don`t fly , but if i did, i think i would give flying a miss on big commercials for a while(re the law of averages).

There's been two plane crashes overnight (bout 70 odd people dead most burned to death). Guess what it wasn't a big commercial.

[mik]

ok so that now includes smaller air craft as well............

[ltd]

Originally Posted by nitro xr

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

And you do huh?
You do realise that some of the guys here actually work for qf from reservations, to maintenance to flight crew?
Also, I'm assuming from your wealth of knowledge that you're aware of the two fires experienced in flight early last year in two separate A380's owned by Emirates?
Lastly, in regards to the design differences when was the last time QF grounded the 747 fleet? Further, do you know just how seriously QF are taking this incident?
I'm not trying to be a smart **** here, but if you were in the industry you'd definately know some of the stories of various occurrences which the media doesn't know of and therefore aren't for public comment.

[Spudz27]

Originally Posted by GT0132

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

It isn't a matter of whether it survives or not, every aircraft has had it's issues, however whilst I admit the fact the A380 can even fly is an achievement in itself, how many "technical issues" does one aircraft need before it is deemed rubbish. All aircraft can experience technical issues, but I have not know one type that in just 3yrs of service with the latest and greatest technology has had so many little issues and a few bigger ones.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by ltd

And you do huh?
You do realise that some of the guys here actually work for qf from reservations, to maintenance to flight crew?
Also, I'm assuming from your wealth of knowledge that you're aware of the two fires experienced in flight early last year in two separate A380's owned by Emirates?
Lastly, in regards to the design differences when was the last time QF grounded the 747 fleet? Further, do you know just how seriously QF are taking this incident?
I'm not trying to be a smart **** here, but if you were in the industry you'd definately know some of the stories of various occurrences which the media doesn't know of and therefore aren't for public comment.

Sadly not all poeple on hwere are so well informed ltd....or interested in becoming informed niether. I have a few contacts in the industry and you certainly don't here of every incident....some of them serious, that goes down. The media chooses to focus on whatever they want based on what they thihnk will sell well to the uninformed....if qantas is the flavour of the month than so be it as far as they are concerned. Meanwhile two australians atcually died in an air crash in cuba but that gets a fractioh of the coverage.

On the a380 it certainly has been a problematic aircraft given its long gestation and short time in service. compared to other airbus types it has had a pretty poor record. while the airlines have kept alot of the small glitches quiet (it is their flagship aircraft) behind closed doors they are not so happy. this will only make things worse.

This atcual incident is a fair bit more serious thah alot of people may realise. the 747 engine problem is not at all related or as serious (though certainly pooor timing) but i think alot of people will be watching closely to see what RR and airbus do as a result of this near miss....

[flappist]

I fly QANTAS whenever possible and will continue to do so.

[Danny]

End of the month I'm flying a Jetstar A330, and a Qantas 767 Back, and I have no qualms about either.

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by ltd

And you do huh?
You do realise that some of the guys here actually work for qf from reservations, to maintenance to flight crew?
Also, I'm assuming from your wealth of knowledge that you're aware of the two fires experienced in flight early last year in two separate A380's owned by Emirates?
Lastly, in regards to the design differences when was the last time QF grounded the 747 fleet? Further, do you know just how seriously QF are taking this incident?
I'm not trying to be a smart **** here, but if you were in the industry you'd definately know some of the stories of various occurrences which the media doesn't know of and therefore aren't for public comment.

I thought the subject of this thread was the A380 engine incident that Qantas recently experienced. Therefore the Boeing saying as posted by Riksta (which btw has been around for at least 25 years and is so old and worn to me – but seems to still amuse some however) IMO was quite irrelevant to this incident thus this thread. The issues mentioned in the post quoted above, I found equally irrelevant.

Since when has Airbus designed and manufactured the RR Trent engines? You seem to imply that Airbus was responsible, when a deficient engine component design or manufacture appears to be the possible reason for the incident, when you again criticise Airbus when mentioning the other incidents that have occurred.

I suppose I should know something about design, certification and regulatory requirements, since I have had to apply and rigidly follow these requirements with all my work (and including managing teams) for the last 32 years in the design, stress analysis, repair, investigations and inspection programs of the many structural and some systems components, for the many different aircraft types including the Boeing and Airbus types that I have worked on. This has also included working with the regulatory authorities and the manufacturers on the various issues, so I know full well what happens when these incidents occur. And day to day things that happen in airline maintenance for all aircraft types, not just selected instances that are mentioned and distorted amongst certain groups within the airline.

One thing in aviation learned over the years, you don’t bag any particular product or airline, it tends to come back to bite - hard. For example, look at Qantas now.

[JG66ME]

Well this Platinum Frequent Flyer intends to stay loyal to his favorite airline. They have stood by me and I shall stand by them.

When I board a Qantas jet I feel like I have come home. I always let the crew know that and they respond with good service.

In the last 4 years almost every flight I take I get an upgrade to First Class.

My Favorite Airline.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by nitro xr

I thought the subject of this thread was the A380 engine incident that Qantas recently experienced. Therefore the Boeing saying as posted by Riksta (which btw has been around for at least 25 years and is so old and worn to me – but seems to still amuse some however) IMO was quite irrelevant to this incident thus this thread. The issues mentioned in the post quoted above, I found equally irrelevant.

Since when has Airbus designed and manufactured the RR Trent engines? You seem to imply that Airbus was responsible, when a deficient engine component design or manufacture appears to be the possible reason for the incident, when you again criticise Airbus when mentioning the other incidents that have occurred.

I suppose I should know something about design, certification and regulatory requirements, since I have had to apply and rigidly follow these requirements with all my work (and including managing teams) for the last 32 years in the design, stress analysis, repair, investigations and inspection programs of the many structural and some systems components, for the many different aircraft types including the Boeing and Airbus types that I have worked on. This has also included working with the regulatory authorities and the manufacturers on the various issues, so I know full well what happens when these incidents occur. And day to day things that happen in airline maintenance for all aircraft types, not just selected instances that are mentioned and distorted amongst certain groups within the airline.

One thing in aviation learned over the years, you don’t bag any particular product or airline, it tends to come back to bite - hard. For example, look at Qantas now.

So using your example you're saying the hydraulics and the controls were built by trent are you?
FYI, I have NEVER said that airbus build the engines. Reread my earlier posts as to what my issues with airbus are. One thing I can tell you from the dreadful experiences I've had, the margins for error are much, much smaller on this model airbus compared to the 747. I don't need a slide rule to figure out that this plane has all of the fruit of a Mercedes S-class with the build quality of a Kia Rio. Talk to anyone else whose flown this flying banner for morbid obesity; most of them came off the 438 and were advised to get into the 180 as the good old 747 was going to be systematically retired. Ask them which aircraft they are more confident in.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by JG66ME

In the last 4 years almost every flight I take I get an upgrade to First Class.

What's your secret? I almost never get an upgrade; domestic or international.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by cs123

What's your secret? I almost never get an upgrade; domestic or international.

I suspect "Platinum" has a lot to do with it.
When I was "Gold" I was upgraded maybe 2 out of 3 sector.

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by ltd

So using your example you're saying the hydraulics and the controls were built by trent are you?
FYI, I have NEVER said that airbus build the engines. Reread my earlier posts as to what my issues with airbus are. One thing I can tell you from the dreadful experiences I've had, the margins for error are much, much smaller on this model airbus compared to the 747. I don't need a slide rule to figure out that this plane has all of the fruit of a Mercedes S-class with the build quality of a Kia Rio. Talk to anyone else whose flown this flying banner for morbid obesity; most of them came off the 438 and were advised to get into the 180 as the good old 747 was going to be systematically retired. Ask them which aircraft they are more confident in.

Engines are supposed to keep the damage inside contained. This was obviously uncontained which caused that damage.

I could explain further the reasons for your perceptions, but I wont bother. The many pilots I have known over the years have always been very professional in their discussions on things. They were willing to learn and discuss, certainly would not try to be an expert on everything and bag their equipment on a public forum.

It was your employer that decided to purchase these early build aircraft. Any airline in their right mind would wait until they have been in service elsewhere for a few years. Obviously a good deal from Airbus was offered for these. Comparing to B747's, how long have they been in service - since the early '70's with the various developments from then. How do fuel efficiencies compare? Obviously Qantas would not have bought them if there were no advantages.

[Bud Bud]

Wow I can not understand why there is so much flack both Qantas and Airbus are copping over this particular incident and how little RR so far has been smacked, shouldn't the headlines have read,

"Rolls Royce jet engine explodes in flight nearly ruining Qantas great record"!

So in this case, what happened for Qantas and even Airbus to have faired so poorly in the public news papers this time?

Qantas- Only mistake made that I can see is Qantas choosing a Rolls over the US designed GE for their purchase of their A380's. This is easy after hindsight though. Rolls Royce would still have to be close to being the industry leaders in this field after a very long and successful association with commercial aviation jet designs dating back to the war so I would also think that Rolls Royce would also be taking this very seriously as well as everyone else. But getting back to Qantas, it is obvious to me and to most of the flying public around the world that the Qantas crew are amongst the most highly trained and rated pilots and crew members making them some of very best individuals in the world. This has always been the case in Australia in the past as well which included Ansett in its hey day along with TAA and probably even Virgin Blue now as well (When was the last TAA, Ansett, Virgin or Qantas crashed?). The fact that the Qantas trained captain in charge (Captain de Crespigny) and his Qantas trained fellow crew member manage to land this thing with one engine down and another at full revs and a damaged wing and only blow some tires is testimonial to how professional Qantas and its Qantas trained staff take their position within the commercial aviation industry. What may have happened if this was on a Chinese or Indonesian flight? Who would you rather fly with if you were on board and this happened? It is my understanding that these engines are serviced by Rolls Royce as well because Qantas could not afford to maintain them without the required investment in technology when you have so little examples in the air at this stage anyway.

Airbus- This aircraft with its very modern composites and systems managed to continue to fly and land without one operational engine and a another engines systems severed leaving that engine running somewhere near full power, and substantial wing damage that would also have changed the nature of the aerofoil dynamics which on an aircraft of this size would have also been another factor, but still managed to land safely and entirely in one piece. This Aircraft will fly again.


Rolls Royce- The reason this incident happened is because a Rolls Royce engine designed for this application failed in flight spreading ballistic debris and then the outer casing failing to contain that ballistic debris creating further damage. It is a double failure of the engine design. After that you are at the mercy of any number of uncertain and incalculable failures. The Concorde was not so lucky as it was not designed to withstand such a failure. That crashed even without the aircraft throwing the first stone as well.

So why is there so much scrutiny surrounding Airbus and Qantas? If anything they should be applauded for pulling off a miracle, not damned because of the nature of the aircraft and the carrier involved. Tall poppy syndrome at its best??? Hell even the Indonesians were rejoicing while holding bits of the Qantas Airbus parts that fell to earth after the Rolls Royce engine disintegrated (they even thought it crashed, imagine their disappointment when they found it landed safely), and they are not even Australian so they should not even understand the tall poppy syndrome mentality in this country!

If Qantas and Airbus dodged a bullet, then Rolls Royce dodged a missile!

Bud Bud

[cs123]

Originally Posted by flappist

I suspect "Platinum" has a lot to do with it.
When I was "Gold" I was upgraded maybe 2 out of 3 sector.

I'm platinum. Matter of fact I was about 1 flght off my partner have complimentary gold membership last year. I'd be lucky to get upgraded more than 15% of the time.

I'm currnently sitting on the Tarmac at brisbane airport while they fix the pos 767 I'm sitting in. The strike rate for these thing breaking is higher than me getting upgraded.

[EDManual]

I'm flying tiger airways in 2 hours for something different (not interested in qantas, surely one will fall out of the sky soon) Tiger is actually singapore airlines, so couldnt be too bad reliability wise. I usually take Virgin or Jetstar and not as often Qantas(have been avoiding lately though).

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by cs123

I'm platinum. Matter of fact I was about 1 flght off my partner have complimentary gold membership last year. I'd be lucky to get upgraded more than 15% of the time.

I'm currnently sitting on the Tarmac at brisbane airport while they fix the pos 767 I'm sitting in. The strike rate for these thing breaking is higher than me getting upgraded.

Good Luck! My mate was stranded in Adelaide when his 8.40am Sydney bound Jetstar Airbus was grounded pending an engine part from Sydney that was meant to arrive at noon! They eventually took off at 4.00 pm last I heard I think!

Bud Bud

[ltd]

Originally Posted by nitro xr

I could explain further the reasons for your perceptions, but I wont bother.

Arrogant much?

Rather than try to psychoanalyse someone who disagrees with me, I tend to put my opinion out there and allow others to comment.

[mac_man_luke]

Originally Posted by EDManual

I'm flying tiger airways in 2 hours for something different (not interested in qantas, surely one will fall out of the sky soon) Tiger is actually singapore airlines, so couldnt be too bad reliability wise. I usually take Virgin or Jetstar and not as often Qantas(have been avoiding lately though).

Not sure id rate Tiger better than Qantas

Singapore airlines just own a portion of tiger, they dont actually have anything to do with the way its run.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

Good Luck! My mate was stranded in Adelaide when his 8.40am Sydney bound Jetstar Airbus was grounded pending an engine part from Sydney that was meant to arrive at noon! They eventually took off at 4.00 pm last I heard I think!

Bud Bud

Sorry forgot to mention that this was yesterday. Seems that the part finally arrived at 3.00pm and they were aloud to board at 4.00pm. Some how they lost a passenger in the Adelaide terminal in the impeding seven hours and when they finally located them and were boarded they actually rolled down the runway at 4.40pm a full 8 hrs late!

They all have their good and bad days.

Bud Bud

[Spudz27]

Originally Posted by EDManual

I'm flying tiger airways in 2 hours for something different (not interested in qantas, surely one will fall out of the sky soon) Tiger is actually singapore airlines, so couldnt be too bad reliability wise. I usually take Virgin or Jetstar and not as often Qantas(have been avoiding lately though).

Arghh Tiger. I flew them Per - Melb return once and will never do it again. It was cramped, no frills means NO FRILLS, at least virgin let you pay for entertainment if you want, and for free you still at least get to view the aircrafts, speed height, etc (I did not own a laptop or ipod back then). They also let an intoxicated guy on the aircraft and he was sat right behind us, even my mrs wanted to punch him in the face as he continued to drink on the flight (I had 5 jacks and coke 30mins before and went to sleep after an hour lol). Considering they are not any cheaper than Virgin unless you get one of their ultra special seats, I would choose virgin and Qantas first. The worst part of this trip was that I was going to Sydney so had to get Virgin to Sydney, 3 weeks before we left I found it was cheaper to go Virgin direct to Sydney that use tigers ultra cheap flights and then virgin to connect. I almost spent the extra 600 and canceled my tickets, wish I had lol.

[arm79]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

Wow I can not understand why there is so much flack both Qantas and Airbus are copping over this particular incident and how little RR so far has been smacked

Because, simply, they are on the front line and they are who we get to blame.

Qantas, in its very simplistic form, its a taxi service.

Who do you blame when your yellow cab fails to show up at your door on time. The driver or more likely the taxi service.

What about when the driver tells you he had a flat or a water leak that made him run late. You blame the driver or more likely the taxi service for not maintaining there vehicles well enough to provide adequate service. When was the last time you said "effing Ford" or something similar when a taxi was late.

As for Airbus, they are the manufacturer. The manufacturer assembles something from various parts and suppliers and is responsible for the finished unit and its quality. Hence to me, Airbus are responsible for what happens to the finished product, including the engines.

When was the last time you blamed PBR for brake failures on your car? Or Bosch because the ABS/DSC didn't kick in as expected? Or Venture for ill fitting bumpers, plastics and your squeaky dash? Or Autoliv for an airbag that didn't deploy? Or whoever makes Territory balljoints for their failures? Or PPG for you're bubbling and peeling Shockwave paint job?

Never! You rip right into Ford because they are the manufacturer and the representitive of the finished product.

It is the job of every level in these saga's to rip into the one below it, as they are the ones responsible for choosing these outside companies to supply parts.

So, to me, its only fair we get to rip into Qantas. They have bought some planes that are not particularly upto their usual standards of quality and safety. They have paid for maintenance that potentially missed problems... Or found problems that they have decided to glance over as "OK", when maybe they shouldn't have been let back in the air. Thats my gripe with Qantas.

Qantas then get to rip into Airbus for supplying them with sub-par products. Being the owners of these planes, thats their right. Then Airbus get to rip into RR for supplying badly designed engines that potentially don't pass all the safety criteria. Once again, thats Airbus' right.

I don't get how the Airline industry continually gets to handball problems to pretend its not their own, when no other industry really gets that benefit.

Maybe its because its such a large and transparent industry and we all know so much about the major players.

[Polyal]

Yeah virgin is by far the best domestic, QANTAS is for business people who write it off, Jetstar is hugely over rated and tiger is good when you have just carry on....Ill always fly virgin unless Im saving >$50 with the others.

What I dont get with QANTAS is the service really isn't that much better, if any, for domestic. Its only a matter of time until one of these "incidents" becomes more, its the same for all of them but QANTAS have had far to many of late.

[ltd]

This is from an airworthiness directive;

Wear, beyond Engine Manual limits, has been identified on the abutment faces of the splines on the Trent 900 Intermediate Pressure (IP) shaft rigid coupling on several engines during strip. The shaft to coupling spline interface provides the means of controlling the turbine axial setting and wear through of the splines would permit the IP turbine to move rearwards.
Rearward movement of the IP turbine would enable contact with static turbine components and would result in loss of engine performance with potential for in-flight shut down, oil migration and oil fire below the LP turbine discs prior to sufficient indication resulting in loss of LP turbine disc
integrity. Some of these conditions present a potential unsafe condition to the aeroplane.

This is going to be a very, very costly fix for RR. In testing, the first A380 had all four engines replaced after less than 100 hours due to this problem, some of you may remember that famous photo that went over the net of the A380 on the ramp with four massive oil smoke plumes behind each engine, then Airbus had it removed from various websites.
Further, the trent 1000 which is an evolution of the 900 never made it to service without a serious failure, in testing their was an uncontained failure similar to last Thursdays event at their test cell in Derby UK which nearly burnt the place to the ground. Thank God QF are getting the Genx engines on the 787's.