Jump to content

Qantas says plane an Airbus A380


internet

Recommended Posts

Clearly something up, but details are conflicting....

http://www.smh.com.au/world/qantas-jet-engine-fails-20101104-17f49.html

A Qantas A380 has been forced to return to Singapore's Changi Airport after pilots were forced to shut down one of its four engines.

QF32 was bound for Sydney when the engine failed.

A Qantas spokesman said the problems were with engine number two. She did not know why the engine had to be shut down.

Advertisement: Story continues below

The incident sparked widespread rumours over the internet through Twitter, that the plane had crashed, which Qantas said were wildly inaccurate.

Kompas, a leading Indonesia newspaper, had reported on its website that it was "suspected that a Qantas plane exploded in the air near Batam".

The website report provided no source for the story.

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

Meanwhile, Elfhinta radio quoted a police officer in Batam, Eryana, saying some of the plane had been found.

"We are still collecting debris," he said.

"It looked like a big plane. Like a Boeing 737 – 400. It looks like Qantas because of the red and white colour."

Reuters reported: Qantas told CNBC television that a plane that crashed near Singapore was an Airbus A380. No other details were immediately available.

The plane can carry more than 500 passengers. Witnesses said they had heard an explosion over the Indonesian island of Batam.

- with Tom Allard

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509004575593290914416432.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Associated Press

JAKARTA, Indonesia—Police and witnesses say they heard an explosion as a commercial airliner was flying over western Indonesia and found debris from the plane scattered near a shopping mall.

Police Col. Eka Yudha told TVOne the plane was a Qantas Airbus, which was flying from Singapore to Australia when it had to dump fuel.

He was quoted as telling the station it had made an emergency landing, but later told the Associated Press the jetliner was apparently still circling the sky.

The report could not be independently confirmed.

Large pieces of debris including panels painted white and red were found on the Indonesian island of Batam, where witnesses reported hearing the loud bang early Thursday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNSGE6A305A20101104?rpc=44

Nov 4 (Reuters) - Qantas told CNBC television that a plane that crashed near Singapore was an Airbus (EAD.PA) A380. No other details were immediately available.

The plane can carry more than 500 passengers. Witnesses said they had heard an explosion over the Indonesian island of Batam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very early and there's likely to be some misinformation for a while. On another forum, they're saying that there was some kind of explosion on board the aircraft that caused some pieces to fall off, but that they'd made an emergency landing in Singapore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the size of the engines on a 380, or 777, a catastrophic failure would make a tremendous bang and spread a lot of debris.

So I can see how words like "explosion" and "debris" are accepted by the media because it's actually close to what appears to have happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the entire A380 fleet has been grounded. If you look at picture # 4 at Kip's link to CNN, there's a hole on the left side of the picture to the left of that black line. Another photo of the same area on Reuters shows fuel coming out of that hole while the aircraft was in flight. An uncontained engine failure with fuel tank penetration is about as good a reason to ground a fleet as one can get.

Reuters pics

Also just noticed that the first Reuters picture shows the fire truck pouring water / chemical into engine # 1, even though it was # 2 that failed. Is that what you call collateral damage? TGFI (Thank God for insurance)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SQ has also grounded its fleet. EK uses different engines, LH and AF have not grounded theirs, not sure whose engines they have.

Looks like the turbine let go!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the turbine let go!!!

I have a silly question for all you drivers out there

When a engine lets go like this and there is a lot of damage

is there a procedure to let you guys know that the aircraft has been damaged,

say by a flight attandant

I assume that one of the pilots would not be coming down to have a look

I also assume that #2 engine would be hard to see from up front

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a silly question for all you drivers out there

When a engine lets go like this and there is a lot of damage

is there a procedure to let you guys know that the aircraft has been damaged,

say by a flight attandant

I assume that one of the pilots would not be coming down to have a look

I also assume that #2 engine would be hard to see from up front

After the initial stuff was out of the way, I would ask the Service Director to have a look out at the engine area and make sure there is no fire, anything leaking or obvious damage. When they came back up with the report of damage through the wing, I'm thinking I would go back and have a look myself whilst trying to avoid this worried facial expression... :unsure: There is the "overriding safety of flight" thing that would kick in in this case to "allow" the captain to leave the flight deck and mingle with the passengers.

Nothing really written down as far as procedures go, but Crew Resource Management would encourage the captain to use all available resources to gather information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also just noticed that the first Reuters picture shows the fire truck pouring water / chemical into engine # 1, even though it was # 2 that failed. Is that what you call collateral damage? TGFI (Thank God for insurance)!

The shrapnel going through the wing severed some wire bundles that carried control signals for Engine 1, and thus the crew were unable to command a shutdown of Engine 1. The Fire Brigade used the water to shut it down.

This incident has some very serious implications. Pictures show the nose landing gear doors open, indicating that the crew had to "free-fall" the nose-gear. Question is, why?

That turbine disc never should have burst.... I think that Rolls-Royce has some very serious problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shrapnel going through the wing severed some wire bundles that carried control signals for Engine 1, and thus the crew were unable to command a shutdown of Engine 1. The Fire Brigade used the water to shut it down.

conehead, do you have the source for this info?...thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Joyce confirms that in yesterday's incident the crew were unable to shut down the A380's number one engine after making their emergency landing back at Singapore, but he says that up until that point the engine had responded to control inputs normally."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/05/349370/qantas-may-resume-a380-operations-within-48h.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When FADEC lost the command signal, it simply maintains engine power at the last known command, until the engine runs out of fuel. When the guys in Touluse wrecked the brand new A340 against the blast wall, there was a similar situation, and the fire department shut down the engine by dousing it with water.

Question is, why didn't the Qantas crew simply pull the fire handle for #1, closing the spar valve and shutting off the fuel....

I'm just an armchair quarterback here, but there are some interesting questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When FADEC lost the command signal, it simply maintains engine power at the last known command, until the engine runs out of fuel. When the guys in Touluse wrecked the brand new A340 against the blast wall, there was a similar situation, and the fire department shut down the engine by dousing it with water.

Question is, why didn't the Qantas crew simply pull the fire handle for #1, closing the spar valve and shutting off the fuel....

I'm just an armchair quarterback here, but there are some interesting questions.

conehead;

Thanks, makes sense. We're all "armchair QB's" for now!

I think this is far more serious than the visible damage may convey. I suspect there is substantial damage within the wing structure in both locations, (leading edge and spar area). It isn't the first time that collateral damage to the outboard engine has resulted from such configurations. The El-Al B747 at Amsterdam comes to mind. But the article broaches what many considered right away - a design and/or manufacturing issue. Also, I suspect the level of systems degradation would be a surprise.

Drawing a line between the center of the engine and the location of the aft hole in the top surface of the wing intersects the forward wing spar at some point, likely lower on the spar than higher. I haven't seen any photographs yet of the wing's lower surface.

From the upper deck:

1078699674_jD8dh-L.jpg

Possible trajectories:

1078702946_Xmd34-M.jpg

and,

1078706511_2TwT8-M.jpg

Engine damage, (reverser, bifurcated ducting missing),

1078714910_qwJpi-M.jpg

Turbine disc,

1078690334_6AVoS-M.jpg

Loss of (control of) a second engine through collateral causes, loss of the (Green?) hydraulic system likely through secondary damage to hydraulic lines at the engine, (although this could have resulted from the leading edge damage) and loss of the ability to extend slats, (either through loss of the hydraulic system or a cockpit decision to leave the slats retracted due leading-edge damage - I understand they may also be extended electrically but need to confirm that).

Some very interesting information on structural failure, including this kind of failure, can be found here. This is really interesting stuff for those who want to know why such failures occur. Covers the early problems such as the Comet and deals with recent incidents such as the American Airlines B767-300 engine explosion during ground testing at Los Angeles.

The following is from the China Post this morning. It speaks to the issue you raised:

Qantas says A380 engine failure may be 'design issue'

Friday, November 5, 2010

By Michael Perry and Victoria Thieberger, Reuters

SYDNEY/MELBOURNE -- "A faulty part or a design issue may have caused the engine failure on a giant Airbus A380, forcing the Qantas Airways flight to make an emergency landing in Singapore, Qantas chief Alan Joyce said on Friday.

The engine failure on Thursday marked the biggest incident to date for the world's largest passenger plane, which has been in service only since 2007. It forced Qantas to ground its fleet and other airlines to recheck their own A380s.

" 'We believe this is probably most likely a material failure or some sort of design issue,' Joyce told a news conference in Sydney.

"Qantas has grounded its fleet of six A380s pending safety checks which will take 24 to 48 hours to complete.

" 'If we don't find any adverse findings in those checks the aircraft will resume operations,' said Joyce.

"The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said on Friday there was no indication foul play had contributed to the incident on the Sydney-bound flight.

"Singapore Airlines resumed flying its A380s on Friday, lifting a grounding order imposed after the Qantas incident. German airline Lufthansa said it would conduct checks without interrupting flights.

"Singapore's clearance of its 11 A380s -- the second largest fleet in the world after Emirates -- will be a relief for Airbus and engine maker Rolls-Royce, which lost over $1.5 billion in combined market value on Thursday. EADS shares fell 4 percent, while Rolls-Royce shares shed 5 percent.

"British A380 engine maker Rolls-Royce issued a statement urging operators of the aircraft to perform safety checks on its Trent 900 engines.

"One passenger aboard flight QF32 reported hearing a "massive bang" while photographs of the engine showed its outer, rear casing had been torn apart.

" 'The fact that it survived the damage is a credit to the design. Twenty years ago that would probably have taken the aircraft out of the sky,' said John Page, senior lecturer in Aerospace Engineering at the University of New South Wales.

"Passengers also reported that a second engine on the stricken Qantas aircraft failed to shut down once on the tarmac, sparking fears it could ignite spilling fuel from the failed engine.

Second Engine Problem

"Qantas chief Joyce confirmed the other engine had failed to shut down after landing but said it could have been affected in some way by the first engine mishap, which caused parts to fly off. "We are still investigating the causes of that," he said.

"Passengers said after landing they had been warned of the dangers of using any electronic device, as fire fighters sprayed the aircraft which was leaking fuel from a hole in the wing.

" 'Obviously in the back of your mind you're concerned about a very hot engine next to leaking fuel,' passenger Christopher Lee said. 'Obviously you're in a state of anxiety.'

"Qantas said its engineers, along with those from Airbus and Rolls-Royce, were working non-stop to determine what went wrong.

" 'Rolls-Royce have identified a number of potential areas," said Joyce. 'This issue does not relate to maintenance.'

"Rolls-Royce had maintained the engines since they were installed on the aircraft, he added.

Shares Softer

Qantas's shares ended down 1 percent at A$2.86, underperforming the broader market which advanced 1.2 percent to a six-month high.

Commonwealth Bank aviation analyst Matt Crowe said there was unlikely to be any longer-term reputational damage, as investors had tended to "move on" from previous safety incidents, which have never resulted in a fatal crash for Qantas.

Qantas's Joyce said it was too early to assess the financial impact of grounding its six A380s, but Commonwealth's Crowe estimated the grounding could cost up to A$20 million (US$20.3 million) in revenues if the planes remained on the ground for a week.

By comparison, the volcanic ash cloud that disrupted European air travel in April this year lasted about two weeks and cost Qantas A$46 million in costs and lost revenue."

Copyright © 1999 2010 The China Post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

malcolm;

I've seen this image but not at the resolution you've posted - thanks. The other image is taken from the upper deck and gives a better sense of the position of the holes in the leading edge and behind the forward spar.

I see in your image that the outboard aileron is (what I would say is) in the full-up position. Although this may be a momentary position as the result of leveling a turn or otherwise countering a right-roll, on the A330/A340 at least one kind of hydraulic failure would cause ailerons to float up on one side. Of course, this remains to be determined in the investigation, which few seem sufficiently patient enough to wait for.

While there are a few nuggets from intelligent people who know stuff, or know that they don't know their stuff and ask intelligent questions, the crap and kapok on the PPRuNe that passes for questions, information or knowledge is astonishing, including posts from those who clearly haven't given previous posters the respect and courtesy of reading those posts first before bleeding all over the thread with their own writing about stuff they know nothing about and that has been said previously a few dozen times.

In short, I think the thread is not worth wading through to get much insight into this incident.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet a coffee that it's parts and scrap now.

... unless those things are really, really precious... 'cause I don't think they can repair that damaged center section of wing skin. I think that would have to be reskinned... and I think that would have to be done in a jig, and I think that means it has to be off the airplane, and I don't think I know many airplanes that are worth that much work...?

but hey, I could be full of imagination filling in holes in my memory? ...so that's why I'll keep the bet to a coffee. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...