Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qantas A380 Engine Failure

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Not that recently though. Would have done a good 30 sectors since then.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by B757300 View Post
      No one @ all, especially the wire services.

      Sounds like the flight had an uncontained engine failure on the #2 engine.

      Some reports say it landed, others say it is still in the air dumping fuel.
      Sounds like it was a contained failure NOT uncontained. An uncontained failure would mean that debris would have exploded out of the engine casing sideways and caused failure to the adjacent structures. The debris looks like it came out of the rear of the engine. Other damage at the rear looks to be caused by heat.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11691197

      Looks like a very big worry for Rolls-Royce though. There were no reports of bird strikes but it's very early.
      Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by VViscount View Post
        Rolls Royce has some explaining to do.
        Depends on what the cause was. It's too early to say that. If it were a bird strike, then they wouldn't have much explaining to do.

        As for the contained vs uncontained failure bit. Just because outer casing is missing at the rear of the engine does not mean the failure was uncontained. Uncountained is defined as "internal engine parts exiting the casing at very high speed" This would normally mean HP or LP compressor blade departure from the ether the forward area or the rear core area of the engine. This does not look to be the case in this accident. Shock waves caused by the explosion within the engine and heat damage are likely to be the primary cause of the missing casing at the rear.

        This is just my opinion and is based on the LIMITED facts available at this time.
        Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by yeti View Post
          Sounds like it was a contained failure NOT uncontained. An uncontained failure would mean that debris would have exploded out of the engine casing sideways and caused failure to the adjacent structures. The debris looks like it came out of the rear of the engine. Other damage at the rear looks to be caused by heat.

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11691197

          Looks like a very big worry for Rolls-Royce though. There were no reports of bird strikes but it's very early.
          I'm not so sure. Look at the photo a few posts above. Look at the 2nd and 3rd windows on the lower row at the left of the exist. It looks like there is something protuding from the upper surface of the wing.

          Also look at this picture (taken from a link from the fery article you've linked). Look above the damaged engine. Again it looks like something is protuding from the upper sureface of the wing.


          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by yeti View Post
            Depends on what the cause was. It's too early to say that. If it were a bird strike, then they wouldn't have much explaining to do.

            As for the contained vs uncontained failure bit. Just because outer casing is missing at the rear of the engine does not mean the failure was uncontained. Uncountained is defined as "internal engine parts exiting the casing at very high speed" This would normally mean HP or LP compressor blade departure from the ether the forward area or the rear core area of the engine. This does not look to be the case in this accident. Shock waves caused by the explosion within the engine and heat damage are likely to be the primary cause of the missing casing at the rear.

            This is just my opinion and is based on the LIMITED facts available at this time.
            Well then, some more facts, if you can call them facts at this stage. AV Herald is reporting turbine components on the ground in Indonesia, and wing damage, so perhaps "uncontained failure" is the correct term. http://www.avherald.com/h?article=43309c6d&opt=0

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by [B
              the carrier's chief executive Alan Joyce[/B]]
              "This issue ... an engine failure has been one that we haven't seen before ... so we're obviously taking this very seriously because it's a significant engine failure," he said.
              "It looks like it's an uncontained engine failure but it's too early to speculate and will involve us doing a detailed investigation with the manufacturer Airbus and the manufacturer of the engine Rolls Royce."
              http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/q...#ixzz14IhRhwN9

              Originally posted by Spectator
              AV Herald is reporting turbine components on the ground in Indonesia
              It looks like an uncontained damage, but turbine components on the ground is not a hint of that. Those components could have exited the engine thrught the exhaust pipe (not talking about this specific incident)

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #22
                Qf a380

                Well, I am glad everybody is ok first of all...!
                Lets wait and see what RR and QF have to say, after an investigation.

                An engine failure of that size, would normally be an internal issue. If it were a birdstrike, it would have been obvious from the engine intake already, feathers & blood usually visible, so would have been quickly reported as such I am sure.

                One good thing worth mentioning, it proves these whales can fly about on 3 engines ok, as the incident happened take off +15mins, but after dumping fuel, the landing was at +1H50mins I have read.

                As for the press, well, SKY.com had a picture of the engine and wing (as posted here already) and a headline saying "Engine falls off Qantas plane"

                scare mongering once again...!

                Comment


                • #23
                  You can always tell when a member of the press is telling lies.....

                  .....their lips move.
                  If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I have heard that where it happened was right over a volcano that is currently erupting. That would be my guess why it occured. If this is the case the problem is why are planes not being diverted around erupting volcano's?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      So as my MG slides sideways toward the fuel truck, I am asking myself, "Hmmmm, is it flammable or inflammable, no, no, it's non-flammable that I have to worry about right?"

                      According to the NTSB isn't the definition of a contained failure as anything that stays in the engine may exit the tailpipe and there is no immediate flight risk. Uncontained comes out the side and does or does not tear stuff up. Potential seems to be the key with no definition being perfect.
                      Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        One of the photos on this BBC page (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11691543 - currently photo 2) appears to shows the fire service jetting foam through a different engine. Same side of the plane, but obviously different engine as it isn't missing chunks of itself.

                        Is that normal precautionary behaviour? Does it imply there was an issue with a second engine? Is that not going to damage that engine unnecessarily?

                        Steve.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Holy molly this looks really bad! It looks that the damage is also to the wing. Good think it made it down safe and fast.

                          http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_singap...ntas_emergency

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Singapore airlines has confirmed that they will also ground their fleet after they were advised to do so by Airbus and Rolce Royce

                            source is in dutch
                            http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/news/?ID=36902

                            from singapore airlines themself:
                            http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/Util...up.jsp?msgId=1

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Another BBC article that has good quality video out of the window looking at the wing in flight as the plane turns back to Singapore: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11691197

                              Good, calm announcement from the captain too. I'd like to think it would have reassured me if I was onboard...

                              Steve.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by sjwk View Post
                                One of the photos on this BBC page (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11691543 - currently photo 2) appears to shows the fire service jetting foam through a different engine. Same side of the plane, but obviously different engine as it isn't missing chunks of itself.

                                Is that normal precautionary behaviour? Does it imply there was an issue with a second engine? Is that not going to damage that engine unnecessarily?

                                Steve.
                                Some reports elsewhere have been suggesting that the Number 1 engine could not be shut down by the pilots, hence the hosing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X