Qantas A380 engine failure.
 

Curious if the pilots and engineers have an opinion as to the cause of the failure. To the untrained eye, it doesn't look like shrapnel from a disintegrating part has pierced the engine housing. What could cause an explosion like that? Why would it happen 5 minutes after take off, as opposed to when the engines were WTFO on take off?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1288895052.jpg

I ain't going if it ain't a Boeing!

Great photos here:

Notgelandeter Airbus: Trümmer auf Batam - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten - Reise

From an AOG guy's perspective, that hole in the top of the fuel cell (the duller gray area aft of the black line) is going to be tough to fix. It's in a continuous, structural skin that very well may (depending on their design) span the entire wing. At a minimum, it spans half the wing, depending on where it might taper out on the outboard side. The hole forward of the black line is all just fiberglass or other composite leading edge panel, which is easy to replace.

There are typically 3-4 of these span-wise panels comprising the upper side of the wing center box, the main structural member of the wing that doubles as a fuel tank. The rest of the center box is made up of the lower wing panels and the front, main, and rear spars, plus any intermediate or partial spars. The piece that penetrated this upper panel had to go through either the front spar or the equivilent panel on the lower wing. In other words, at a bare minimum, it looks like possibly two major structural members of the wing have been compromised. Parts that we don't patch - we replace them. It ain't cheap to do that...

Good thing the shrapnel didn't decide to enter the cabin...

that just begs the question: does shrapnel have free will?

Who makes the engines?

Looks to me that the fan part of the turbofan let loose from ingestion of a bird or piece of cowling which causes other blades to fail and on and on till they shut it down. Not sure if you CAN shut a engine down on climb out like the C-5, shutting down an engine that has a fire or is malfunctioning will make the aircraft unstable leading to uncontrolled rolling. In other words, better to land and let the ground crews handle the fire than crash in a big hole and loose everything. Yeah, that wing is going to take some time to fix!!

The Qantas A380s use RR Trent 900 engines...so do SIA...

Emirates use Engine Alliance units and Air France use GE...

So I guess that patssle will limit flying to Boeing airframes powered by PW and GE engines....

or maybe he/ she should see what happens when a American Airlines 767 had its CF6 suffer an uncontained disc failure (just out of the maintenance centre)....they have now scrapped that airframe in situ as the fire damage was too great to repair economically.

Regardless of the engine/ airframe this type of failure (it appears to be the disc not blade, the disc holds all the blades in place and a large piece was found on the ground some distance away....) is unlikely to be contained by a reasonable cowl design (it would need to be armour plating)...

RR will be burning the midnight oil on this one.. as will all the large turbofan makers...

From it's perspective, yes.

Too bad about that AIRBUS failure. AIRBUS has had some problems lately. It's just a shame. I'm very sad.

Boeing on the other hand, is still doing what it always does. Making safe, reliable, quality aircraft. I wonder if they could make reliable tankers. In the United States of America. And I just....Hmmmmm....I just wonder if in today's economic and political environment, I wonder if it might make sense to build those military tankers right here in the United States of America.

This is a engine failure not an airframe failure. But yes I say "It's Boeing or I'm not going!"

Previous Qantas problem - air bottle explodes and rips out side of 747
Current Qantas problem - engine failure rips hole in wing

Both land safely with zero loss of life.

I don't care if it's Boeing or Airbus - both airframes did their job when put under stress from external unexpected sources.

Now let's all reflect on the wisdom of a 4-engine design (A380) vs. a 2-engine one (777).

Too funny, "boeing verses airbus". Yeah and my American made cars alternator is made is mexico.

That's like Saying Harbor Freight Tools are just as good as Craftsman or other off-loaded goods.

Both are subcontracted out to the hilt to overseas and just rebadged.

Any guesses why the 787 is 2-3 years late being delivered and flight tested?, cheap un-trained labor making inferior quality parts behind schedule. Everything is offloaded. All to save a buck up front. Like spending $1 to save a dime. Just doesn't make sense with all the rework and poor quality. Shim to fit, that is Boeings motto.

I did 20 years at Boeing, Jeff has 30.

No offense to Higgins. He fixes the ones that breaks, but it's just a machine, and everyone once in a while things break.

Twin engines are no problem with the thrust they have these days, yes you can limp one home on a single engine.

Appears to be a bit far forward to be a fan, more like a disk.

The damage to the wing and possibly fuel tank is MUCH more bothersome. Had that caught fire there is a very good chance that the wing would have gone and the plane gone down with it.

You can shut any engine off on any modern airplane these days. It cuts the fuel, hyd, air and electrical to the engine. Yes it will stay windmilling around if possible.

Joe A

I'd rather limp home on three engines than on one!!!

It's called a rotor-burst, when something (usually ingestion) causes the compressor and/or tubine rotors to seperate from the hub. They would otherwise turn into shrapnel, so engine makers have to undergo expensive and complicated testing to prove that the engine casing will contain the blades. It would be interesting to know how this engine so completely came apart.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j973645y5AA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j973645y5AA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

So, apparently, the test wasn't representative of real life?

James, the C-5 I believe you are talking about had a TR malfunction (it deployed) on #1 during the departure that the crew was unaware of. If they had known, they could have reduced power on that motor and probably have been fine. Any uncontained engine fragging is serious shyte, but look at how many folks were on this jet. Damn.

I only know of this (uncontrolled roll) because a buddy of mine got our crew (we were flying Navy P-3C's) into the C-5 simulator at Travis AFB. Every time they failed an engine on us, we shut it down, like the P-3 and we could not keep the aircraft flying. Those AF guys got a kick out of us trying to fly that big thing 3 engine. Finally, they told us never to shut anything down til on the runway or in a descent to landing. Piece of cake. That was eons ago. Modern aircraft today can fly on one engine just fine.

Unless you need all three engines to stay aloft . If you do, you are no better off with three, than with one really big engine.

You reckon an A380 will fly on one engine "just fine"???? (or am I missing something?)

Yeah right, and Boeing make their own engines as well. :rolleyes:

No, you are not missing anything - there is no way in hell an A380, or any four engined commercial airliner for that matter, will fly on only one engine. He was refering to modern twin engine aircraft.

I remember back in the '80's it was a very big deal when the 767 earned ETOPS certification. While I can't remember what the blasted acronym means (I'm sure our pilots will chime in), it's something like extended twin engine engine out operation. The gist of it is an extension of the allowed operational range from a suitable airport for twin engine aircraft. The idea is that it can only be so far from a landing strip in case it loses one engine. ETOPS for the 767 meant it was the first twin that was allowed to fly trans-Atlantic routes, a service it then dominated for years (it actually still might). So, essentially what that says is that the 767 had proven it could lose an engine out in the middle of the Atlantic and still fly safely to an airport. Asymetrical thrust and all.

Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim

Yes I know that Airbus does not make their own engines. And I also know that Boeing has made HUGE mistakes lately outsourcing critical components. That being said, Boeing is still making the world's finest commercial airliners, hands down. It is incredulous to me that there is any controversy over who should supply my country with its next generation of military tankers. Hard to believe that discussion can be taking place by people with straight faces.

No to hijack, but there was some "interesting" background on how things transpired:

More Documents Show Darleen Druyun's Inappropriate Role in Boeing Leasing Deal

The whole case is now studied exhaustively.

Interesting, Paul. Hard to believe that humans might behave selfishly when contract values have eleven digits.

Not to hijack, but I just see three very basic considerations.

1) Nobody seems to dispute that Boeing makes the world's finest airplanes. Pilots seem to rarely (if ever) take the position that Airbus planes are superior, or even equivalent. Certainly, I think beyond question, Boeing airplanes are at least as good as Airbus'.

2) What if international relations (for military or even economic reasons) were to become strained? What about supply? Boeing and Pratt and Whitney can thumb their nose at the rest of the planet, of necessary.

3) Jobs. Capital. Hello......?

I prefer Boeing...

However price and schedule decide what airplane I'm going to fly in.

ETOPS = Extended Twin Engine Operations

With more than 2 engines, LROPS = Long Range Operations

Joe is correct about the wing damage. This is much more troublesome in my view. We do extensive research during product development on rotor burst. Many systems are routed specifically to avoid the possible damage due to an uncontained rotor burst. Looks like Airbus passed the ultimate test by making it home safely.

See where a Quantas 747 had an engine failure this am (Rolls Royce supplied , like the Airbus)

Those planes cost $300 million each??? Bet they aren't grounded long.

That is so interesting...in the Navy aircraft I flew (helos, jets and even some turbo props) there was less consideration about rotor burst than aircraft performance.

So many stories. I trained in single jet engine helos...

Well done on the engineering.

Jet engines are so reliable, so ubiquitous we take them for granted.

Thank you for your perspective.

Supe, I'll send you what I know...a trail of tears.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qmF1Lh4f3OM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qmF1Lh4f3OM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Had a few close calls but still true today - never had a crash. Their A380's are still grounded by management - Singapore Airlines ones are back n the air already (same engines)

Logic/statistics would tend to say that either they are very safety focused at Qantas OR they are way overdue for a big one! I worked for a services company as the Qantas account manager for 3 years - my experience with them is that they are VERY safety focused and protective of their record.

Yeah, so what about this? That is a different model engine in the 747, right?

Thank you. I needed a laugh today.

+1

Rolls Royce makes very, very reliable and efficient engines. The entire AA 757 fleet is equipped with them.

Everyone makes good engines. They all run a tremendous amount of air miles before failure. Modern aircraft are the closest thing to a perpetual running machine as you can get today. (just add jet A). They can run at 30,000 rpm for YEARS before rebuilding.