Qantas A380 Engine Failure

[HalcyonDays]

Is there a lemon law in the aviation world? Because it seems that the A380 is a lemon tree with four ripe pieces of fruit. Anyway, it's too early to talk about compensation. We don't yet know if this has to do with failure to inspect. It will be interesting if the cause turns out to be related to the AD issued earlier and the engine is under 400 cycles, because then RR can claim to have warned the operators and Qantas can claim to have been in compliance with the AD, and the fault rests with the EASA for not mandating the inspections sooner. But maybe it is unrelated...

Try to maintain some perspective. When the 747 was introduced in the early 1970s, there were engine failures and shutdowns galore, with 747s sitting around the world empty and quiet for a year or two. Problems were solved, things moved on. Of course, there was no internet then.

What this thread is really missing, however, is contributions from Economy Class.

[Curtis Malone]

What this thread is really missing, however, is contributions from Economy Class.

Or some kind of a filter.

[Alessandro]

Try to maintain some perspective. When the 747 was introduced in the early 1970s, there were engine failures and shutdowns galore, with 747s sitting around the world empty and quiet for a year or two. Problems were solved, things moved on. Of course, there was no internet then.

What this thread is really missing, however, is contributions from Economy Class.

Like the first passenger flight with B741 had to be cancelled due to enginefire on the ground, Pan Am had to use a different B741 (clipper young america) if I recall right?

[Evan]

Really, the A380 been in traffic now for 3 years without any fatal accidents and no write-offs. Well see what RR comes up with, they are the ones in focus now both with this incident and the recent B787 incident.

Actually meant to imply that the Trent 900 seems to be a lemon, not the A380 itself...

But yes, shades of the early JT9D...

[Fear_of_Flying]

Try to maintain some perspective. When the 747 was introduced in the early 1970s, there were engine failures and shutdowns galore, with 747s sitting around the world empty and quiet for a year or two. Problems were solved, things moved on. Of course, there was no internet then.

What this thread is really missing, however, is contributions from Economy Class.

Part of my perspective is that that was 40 years ago...

[Curtis Malone]

Part of my perspective is that that was 40 years ago...

And what changed?

[Fear_of_Flying]

And what changed?

Engine reliability? We are comparing an era when engine failures were much more commonplace (1970's) to a state-of-the-art modern aircraft. What has not changed, I suppose, is that "the bugs" have to be worked out of any new product - if an engine exploding can be considered a bug.

[guamainiac]

They better be. We are now flying the oceans on two holes.

"Back in the day" (cliches ain't my cup of tea but whatever?), there was great ado about allowing three bangers to fly over water.

The nickname of the Lockheed Super Constellation was "Tri-Motor" because they went out on four and came home on three.

[phoneman]

Like the first passenger flight with B741 had to be cancelled due to enginefire on the ground, Pan Am had to use a different B741 (clipper young america) if I recall right?

There was no engine fire, the engine overheated due to strong winds blowing into the exhaust preventing hot gasses from escaping. The flight was cancelled as a precaution until the engine could be checked out.

[Evan]

And what changed?

Static thrust and reliability demands.

The original RB211, on which the Trent is based, output around 40,000 lbf of thrust. Aircraft manufacturers are now demanding in excess of 100,000 lbf from this same, complex, three-spool configuration. Yes, it has been extensively redesigned time and again and has proved extremely reliable in the recent past (getting ETOPS 180 in 1990).

I've read elsewhere that the only difference between the 970 Lufthansa and SIA are flying and the 972 unique to Qantas is a data plug in the EEC allowing an extra 2000 lbf of thrust.

[Curtis Malone]

Static thrust and reliability demands.

The original RB211, on which the Trent is based, output around 40,000 lbf of thrust. Aircraft manufacturers are now demanding in excess of 100,000 lbf from this same, complex, three-spool configuration. Yes, it has been extensively redesigned time and again and has proved extremely reliable in the recent past (getting ETOPS 180 in 1990).

I've read elsewhere that the only difference between the 970 Lufthansa and SIA are flying and the 972 unique to Qantas is a data plug in the EEC allowing an extra 2000 lbf of thrust.

As usual, Evan, you've completely missed my point. We still have large, heavy blades attached to spools going crazy inside cowlings. As long as that's the case, such arrangements will occasionally disassemble themselves. As you said yourself (in an amazingly rare moment of common sense), some vulnerabilities can't be designed out.

[Gabriel]

are you serious? if no external cause is discovered it has already been proven. engines, aircraft or otherwise, do not simply self-destruct by chance, at least not when they are as new as this one was. the fact that it failed catastrophically, and no external source of the failure has yet to be blamed, i tend to think the qantas executive was correct when he alleged that the cause was a design flaw.

my statement was conditional solely because the investigation is not complete.

The problem, without an evident external cause (like a bird strike), could be:
- Design.
- Materials
- Manufacturing/Assembly
- Installation
- Maintenance
- Operation

[TeeVee]

Why do you conclude the failure was the result of a design flaw? Could one of the parts not have had an inherent defect? In which case perhaps the detection of such a defect was at fault, or the quality control/testing of that part? Have you never purchased something that broke soon after you bought it, something which you nevertheless considered to be a superior product in general? While we might hope that in the case of an aircraft engine, the failure rate should be as close to 0 as possible, how can we ever guarantee such to be the case, given that the human factor is necessarily involved?

P.S. While I agree that the cause could very well turn out to be some sort of design flaw (which by the way is why this incident is receiving so much attention, moreso than other recent fatal accidents - not because of media hype, but because of possible implications to the airline industry should problems start cropping up with the new generation aircraft), I would not say it has already "been proven".

try not taking things out of context. i was responding to a post by Evan where he commented on design flaw. i also referred to the qantas exec's comment about design flaw. as of right now, since they have most likely ruled out foreign body ingestion, the flaw must be inherent in the engine, whether in its design or its components. either way, it's RR's baby and it will be their problem.

further, as THE manufacturer, even if the problem is later discovered to be a part that was supplied by some third party, RR is gonna pay. sure, they can go chase down the 3rd party for indemnification, but as far as qantas is concerned, RR is liable for payment.

see the similarity in the way the law functions re the defect in the airbus/honeywell adiru?

[TeeVee]

The problem, without an evident external cause (like a bird strike), could be:
- Design.
- Materials
- Manufacturing/Assembly
- Installation
- Maintenance
- Operation

true. at least 4 of your items though are the responsibility of RR. even maintenance, which i read somewhere they were doing. as for installation and operation, well, did RR install the engines or airbus? operation, seriously, can a pilot "cause" an event like this to occur by operating the aircraft? if so, there is an even bigger problem here...

[Curtis Malone]

try not taking things out of context.

Then what is there left to do around these parts?