QF32 388 - emergency landing in SIN after Engine failure

[NM]

Re: QF 32 A380 out of action - who is inconvenienced? [Merged Thread]

Just a big what if here, but if RR couldn’t fix the issue without manufacturing new engines or something along those lines, how hard would it be to switch engine providers? Presuming of course they have enough spares.

Is it even possible?

I would suggest its most unlikely to come to that. They may need to replace some components, but unlikely need to design and build entire new engines. But we will need to sit back in the comfort of our arm chairs and pontificate a little longer

 

[NM]

Re: QF 32 A380 out of action - who is inconvenienced? [Merged Thread]

Out of curiosity, and probably because I've watched too much american TV recently, and all the legal adverts that go with it, would Qantas have any inclination to sue RR for the costs involved in this whole sorry affair?
And if QF sued, then would SQ sue?
I'm sure I can find a law firm here in the US who would take it on - they all have 1-800 numbers, so Mr Joyce could give them a call

Qantas and RR have come to "commercial agreement" in the past for things like the original 747-400 engines not meeting the fuel burn specs promised by RR. It is my understanding that in that agreement RR was paying/crediting QF for every flight until they eventually achieved the specs by upgrading the early delivery engines from the original RB211-524G/H to the later RB211-524G/H-T.

I would be surprised if it comes to a law suit. But I expect there will be some interesting discussions in the boardrooms of the two organisations in the coming weeks/months.

 

[NM]

[Moderator Hat]
Please stick to the topic being discussed here. Its a long enough thread already. We let many threads wander, but usually after the meaty discussion has dwindled. I have removed a few off-topic posts from this thread.
[/Moderator hat]

 

[ethernet]

Informed comment blog here
Trent 900 IP turbine in the spotlight as QF32 investigation unfolds - FlightBlogger - Aviation News, Commentary and Analysis
Seems no-one has got hold of the special directives yet. NMSB72-G589, whose contents is currently unknown. I suspect a 2nd directive how to wield a boroscope has gone out, and some chatter about resonance and sour spots, lead to extra groundings. May be as simple as adding a few 90 degree bends to compensate for thermal expansion on the oil lines.

If I was Emirates, I would dump/tap into the vibration sensors attached/integrated
into the FADEC setup, and based on takeoff, and sell it to a hedge fund, because they need to know if it is a design issue, or something pretty fixable. Or the other engine company should flog off this info - putting the boots into RR's 200 customers who are on the sidelines.

RR has not come out and said the cause, so just gotta watch for someone to act on what the design resonances at the top end were measured at. But it would be a PR nightmare to say they are safe to fly again, by lowering allowable TOW and limiting thrust, and a little re-jig of oil couplings.

If someone has the resonance graphs of RB211 Trent 972-84's I think I know where a buyer is.

 

[mannej]

Re: QF 32 A380 out of action - who is inconvenienced? [Merged Thread]

If QF needed extra 747 capacity, could OJR be sent back from the graveyard?

 

[markis10]

Re: QF 32 A380 out of action - who is inconvenienced? [Merged Thread]

If QF needed extra 747 capacity, could OJR be sent back from the graveyard?

I suspect OJR was stripped of all the good stuff before the ferry, better to wet lease the odd 777 or accelerate/hold off the 744 conversions.

 

[mannej]

Re: QF 32 A380 out of action - who is inconvenienced? [Merged Thread]

I suspect OJR was stripped of all the good stuff before the ferry, better to wet lease the odd 777 or accelerate/hold off the 744 conversions.

Is EBU still sitting outside AVV

 

[oz_mark]

Re: QF 32 A380 out of action - who is inconvenienced? [Merged Thread]

I suspect, that given the timing of its departure, they would have stopped it going if it was useful. Hence, I would also expect that it has been stripped of anything useful.

 

[markis10]

Re: QF 32 A380 out of action - who is inconvenienced? [Merged Thread]

We need to think about staffing as well, until the A380 cabin crew cross qualify on 747s things will be tight, I suspect QF are discovering having dedicated A380 crew was not the best idea with hindsight.

 

[FlyboyAl]

Not happy Jan

Just spoke to QF and despite my wife and my bookings (QF94 Nov 14) being linked, they have now seated us 9 rows apart! Was told that there is nothing they can do for now and there is a remote chance that something might come up on the day of departure.
Funny thing is that our seating allocation has changed in the last 24 hours, and we are now even further apart than we were originally.

I know its not a happy time for QF, but you would think a computer can figure out how to join seats together.

 

[Nigelinoz]

This is the latest media statement from QF.
Plane Talking

Qantas has confirmed an updated schedule for its international network to ensure minimum disruption to passengers following the grounding of its Airbus A380 fleet.
The new forward schedule enables Qantas to accommodate customers on services across its entire international network over the coming weeks, regardless of when A380 aircraft re-enter service.
While Qantas is committed to bringing its A380s back into service as soon as possible, this contingency schedule has been designed to provide certainty for customers planning to travel in the near future.
The Qantas Group has a fleet of over 250 aircraft across domestic and international operations and all Qantas aircraft are being utilised to minimise schedule disruptions.
Boeing 747s have been replaced by A330s on the Sydney to Narita route and A330s have been replaced by B767s on Perth to Singapore services.
B747s have also been replaced by A330s on the Sydney to Hong Kong route.
These changes will enable Qantas to operate 747s on long-haul international services previously operated by the A380.
For the period of 5 to 11 November, Qantas operated 505 of the 512 scheduled services across its international network.
Minor changes have been made to aircraft operating certain domestic services in order to provide alternate capacity on the Qantas international network.
Qantas is continuing an intensive inspection programme on all Rolls-Royce engines in its A380 fleet and Qantas engineers have removed three engines to undertake further examination.
Engineers have been investigating the engines in detail and how their components and design perform under operational conditions, as opposed to the original out-of-factory expectations.
The European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) today issued an Airworthiness Directive for all Rolls- Royce Trent 900 engines. Qantas' ongoing inspection program is fully compliant with this directive. The specific checks mandated by the directive were already being carried out by Qantas in conjunction with Rolls-Royce. Qantas' A380 aircraft will not return to service until there is complete certainty that the fleet can operate safely. Regular updates will continue to be available on qantas.com

 

[Flying Fox]

Re: QF 32 A380 out of action - who is inconvenienced? [Merged Thread]

RR have been here before (perhaps without the dramtic explosion, but certainly with IFSD's) (think the CX A330's, think Embraer's 10 years back.....)

I read somewhere that RR last uncontained IFSD was 1994.

Also looks like RR will need to provide additional spare engines to SQ. So I count 6 spare engines being swapped in around the world.

Singapore Airlines grounds A380s | The Australian

 

[markis10]

Re: QF 32 A380 out of action - who is inconvenienced? [Merged Thread]

I read somewhere that RR last uncontained IFSD was 1994.

Also looks like RR will need to provide additional spare engines to SQ. So I count 6 spare engines being swapped in around the world.

Singapore Airlines grounds A380s | The Australian

Try 8 if you included the damaged one on QF32 and LHs one this morning. As for uncontained IFSD for RR, certainly a lot more recent than 1994, if we overlook the recent SFO incident in Sept, there have been ongoing ADs trying to address the issue:

Rules: Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Series Turbofan Engines, » Federal Register [FR Doc E8-22521] [14 CFR Part 39]

govpulse | Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Series Turbofan Engines

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-03-16/pdf/00-6388.pdf

The more recent one this year was a result of a 2004 incident:

[FONT=&quot]Airworthiness directives, Rolls–Royce plc RB211–Trent 800 series turbofan engines: Final rule, published March 29, 2010, effective May 3, 2010[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][TEXT] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PURPOSE: This airworthiness directive (AD) requires actions intended to correct the unsafe condition described in the summary, below.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration adopts a new AD for Rolls–Royce plc RB211–Trent 800 series turbofan engines. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] During 2004, an incident was reported involving uncontained multiple intermediate-pressure (IP) turbine blade release on a Trent 700 engine. The blade release was the result of an overspeed of the IP turbine rotor that was initiated by an internal fire in the high-pressure/intermediate-pressure (HP/IP) bearing chamber. Post-incident analysis and investigation has established that blockage of the HP/IP turbine bearing oil vent tube due to carbon deposits was a significant factor in the failure sequence. The Trent 800 has a similar type design standard to that of the Trent 700 and has also been found in service to be susceptible to carbon deposits in the oil vent tube.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This AD is issued to prevent internal oil fires due to coking and carbon buildup in the HP/IP turbine bearing oil vent tube that could cause uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.[/FONT]

 

[oz_mark]

The EASA AD seems as close as we have got to an explanation of some events so far

An uncontained engine failure has recently occurred on a Rolls-Royce
Trent 900 involving release of high energy debris and leading to damage
to the aeroplane.

Analysis of the preliminary elements from the incident investigation shows
that an oil fire in the HP/IP structure cavity may have caused the failure of
the Intermediate Pressure Turbine (IPT) Disc.

This condition, if not detected, could ultimately result in uncontained
engine failure potentially leading to damage to the aeroplane and hazards
to persons or property on the ground.

​

​

​

​

EASA Airworthiness Directives Publishing Tool

(Although one wonders why SQ ferried, when the AD says

If any discrepancy is found during the inspections required by
paragraph (1) of this AD, any further engine operation is prohibited.
Within one day after the accomplishment of the inspection, report the
findings to Rolls-Royce.

)

 

[Flying Fox]

Qantas to keep A380s grounded indefinitely as report reveals details on suspected fault | The Australian

In response to the note, Qantas made it clear that it intends to keep its six superjumbos grounded indefinitely.

Sorry to those of you who were intending to fly a QF A380 in the not too distant future...

 

[docjames]

(Although one wonders why SQ ferried, when the AD says

If any discrepancy is found during the inspections required by
paragraph (1) of this AD, any further engine operation is prohibited.
Within one day after the accomplishment of the inspection, report the
findings to Rolls-Royce.


)

If empty (relatively speaking ie. no pax/cargo aboard) would the 380 be able to take off with 3 engines (from standstill, I dont mean failure after V1)? I have no doubt that isnt what they did, but wondering if achievable on a standard length runway (say, MEL).

 

[straitman]

If empty (relatively speaking ie. no pax/cargo aboard) would the 380 be able to take off with 3 engines (from standstill, I dont mean failure after V1)? I have no doubt that isnt what they did, but wondering if achievable on a standard length runway (say, MEL).

Without knowing the real numbers I am quite confident that the answer is yes.

 

[codash1099]

From Flight Global:

SIA's three A380s to return to service in 48h

Once again, SIA appear to be doing things a lot faster. I dislike the lack of caution.

 

[oz_mark]

This is the latest media statement from QF.
Plane Talking

TheQantasSource also says that some of the SYD-HKG flights will be operated by CX regional config A330's.

 

[jb747]

If empty (relatively speaking ie. no pax/cargo aboard) would the 380 be able to take off with 3 engines (from standstill, I dont mean failure after V1)? I have no doubt that isnt what they did, but wondering if achievable on a standard length runway (say, MEL).

Yes, you can do a 3 engined take off. For fun, we even played with single engined from the start in the 767.

Basically, you push the symmetrical engines to TOGA, and then bring the other in balancing the rudder at about half usage. Most stupid idea in aviation. Fun to play with in the sim, but then I've looped most things I've flown there too.