QF32 388 - emergency landing in SIN after Engine failure

[Nigelinoz]

Yes, of course the media would go feral. Again.

Not much info out there on this shutdown. Curious that EK say it was a fuel pump issue...you would have to lose two pumps for that to happen, and even then the engine should operate at lower levels with gravity feed. Three engined flight will use about 15% more fuel than normal...wonder what the arrival fuel figure was?

Firstly, pprune is a very suspect source of information. Whilst there are some gems on there, they are surrounded by a sea of gibberish.

Having read the thread, I see no mention of hydraulic systems. Oil yes, but not hydraulic oil.

The A380 hydraulic system is quite different in concept to, for instance, the 747. In the case of the 747, there are four systems (but note that not all are involved in any particular operation). Each has an engine driven pump, and a demand pump. The demand pumps of 1 & 4 are electric, and those of 2 & 3 are air driven. You need either both pumps to fail, or to lose the hydraulic fluid to lose a system entirely. Loss of either pump has little effect. Flaps and slats have backup drive (one air driven, one electric). Landing gear will of course gravity extend, and only involves 1 & 4. Flight control surfaces are handled by all of the systems. The smaller jets, i.e. 767, have three systems.

The A380 on the other hand has only two systems, running at 5000 psi. These are driven by two mechanical pumps on each engine. So, if you lose an engine, you lose both of the pumps from that engine, but the system will still be pressurised by the two pumps on the other engine. Lose two engines on the same side, and you will also lose that hydraulic system. The use of these two systems is spread across the aircraft, with, for instance, individual control panels sometimes powered by one or the other, and sometimes both systems. Landing gear is split, with the nose and wing done by the G system (left), and the body gear by the Y system. So, on first glance, the A380 doesn't have the redundancy of the 747. But...there is another system. Basically, some of the actuators are electro/hydraulic systems (there are a couple of types, but the theory is the same). These are self contained systems that contain hydraulic fluid and pump, and will operate as long as they have electricity. I don't know the total number on the aircraft, but they are numerous. They are mostly involved in the flight controls, and the upshot is that even will the loss of both of the hydraulic systems, the pilot still has control of the aircraft. Flaps/slats will actuate electrically, and the landing gear will be extended by gravity.

Thanks jb747 for an informative,interesting post.

 

[MatF]

Absolutely, very interesting. Much appreciated.

 

[milehighclub]

Airbus has released an official statement to clarify what systems were available after the incident

Plane Talking

From Airbus

Despite the situation, amongst the various available systems supporting the crew to operate the aircraft and return safely to Singapore were:

- Flaps remained available (slats were jammed retracted).

- All flight control surfaces remained available on the pitch and yaw axis.

- The roll control was ensured through: (a) on the left wing: inner aileron, spoilers 1, 3, 5 and 7; (b) on the right wing: mid and inner ailerons, spoilers 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7.

- The flight control laws reverted to Alternate law due to the loss of the slats and of some roll control surfaces. Normal law was kept on longitudinal and lateral axes.

- Flight envelope protections were still active.

- The autopilot was kept engaged till about 700 feet Radio Altimeter, time at which the crew took over manually. Flight Directors were ON.

- Manual control of engines 1, 3 & 4 was maintained till aircraft stop.

- Landing in SIN took place about 1 hour 40 minutes after the engine 2 failure with flaps in
configuration 3.

- Normal braking was available on both body landing gears with antiskid, and alternate braking without antiskid on both wing landing gears. The crew modulated braking in order to stop close to emergency services.

- After the aircraft came to a stop, the reason engine 1 could not be shut down has been determined: 2 segregated wiring routes were cut by 2 out of the 3 individual disk debris.

 

[oz_mark]

QANTAS believes the Airbus A380 damaged by a disintegrating engine near Singapore two weeks ago can be fixed.

But warns it will be a lengthy process and has no estimate at this stage of how much it will cost.

Airbus A380 can be fixed says Qantas | The Australian

 

[Sprucegoose]

Doubt Qantas PR department is happy this is floating around. . .

View attachment 1400

Well that's what happens when you drop stuff on Indo!

I bet they haven't recovered all the evidence as yet.

Any inside knowledge on this?

 

[Nigelinoz]

QF PR would probably be happy to read this comment as well.

It would have been useful if Airbus had gone into more detail about any problems that were occurring in the capacity of the damaged airliner to transfer fuel between tanks, or in fact, the need to do so during what was a very cool headed and methodical handling of the stricken flight by its pilots.

Just about a perfect summary I reckon."Cool headed and methodical" would be exactly what was needed in the situation I think.

 

[FlyboyAl]

QF does not use AVGAS, it's for pistons.

AVJUICE:mrgreen:

 

[Sprucegoose]

AVJUICE:mrgreen:

Jet A1 possibly??

 

[oz_mark]

Interesting article, that in parts seems to try to bring some balance back to the story

The Airbus A380 represents the pinnacle of global aviation. It is especially the jewel in the crown in Singapore, where the government-owned Singapore Airlines was the launch customer.

<---snip--->

This was not a problem of Qantas's making. It was a new jet, with new engines, all tests made and all systems checked. This problem was created in the Rolls-Royce factory in Derby where the Trent 900 engine was manufactured. Vested interests have conflated this incident into a wider industrial argument about the standards of Qantas maintenance. The two issues have nothing to do with each other.

Qantas keeps its head above water despite Titanic near-miss

 

[cove]

Yes oz-mark it is time for balance.
Skill and luck saved that big plane from a different result.

 

[Flying Fox]

Good article and it puts into perspective the great work by the flight crew and the separation of the issues vs. the politics of who is to blame.

 

[Moody]

If I could be devil's advocate for a minute - I would say that we still have only part of the truth and the issue of aircraft maintenance is still alive. I replace our car every 3 or so years (when the warranty expires on most things) but I still rely upon my mechanics to service the vehicle and discover/rectify faults. I use the official dealers because rightly or wrongly I assume they will be most aware of problems with that model. So the questions I would like to ask of RR/Airbus/Qantas/??? are :-

• When did each party become aware of the faulty design/manufacture that was the underlying cause of the engine explosion?
• What did each party do when they were given this information?
• Could standard engine maintenance be expected to discover this fault?
• Could best-practice engine maintenance be expected to discover this fault?

The ??? refers to whoever is charged with maintaining the QF A380 RR engines, and the unions may be drawing a very long bow to say that Australian engineers might have picked the problem up .... but it can't be completely dismissed as bunkem (sic).

That said - my current feeling is that RR stuffed up the engineering and then compounded the issue by not immediately making their customers aware of the full impact of the problem and what should be done to monitor and fix it. Recalls are bad PR but a hull loss is far far worse, so they should have sucked it up and issued a mea culpa right from the start.

Hopefully the whole truth will come out one day/year/decade.

 

[docjames]

If I could be devil's advocate for a minute - I would say that we still have only part of the truth and the issue of aircraft maintenance is still alive. I replace our car every 3 or so years (when the warranty expires on most things) but I still rely upon my mechanics to service the vehicle and discover/rectify faults. I use the official dealers because rightly or wrongly I assume they will be most aware of problems with that model. So the questions I would like to ask of RR/Airbus/Qantas/??? are :-

• When did each party become aware of the faulty design/manufacture that was the underlying cause of the engine explosion?
• What did each party do when they were given this information?
• Could standard engine maintenance be expected to discover this fault?
• Could best-practice engine maintenance be expected to discover this fault?

The ??? refers to whoever is charged with maintaining the QF A380 RR engines, and the unions may be drawing a very long bow to say that Australian engineers might have picked the problem up .... but it can't be completely dismissed as bunkem (sic).

That said - my current feeling is that RR stuffed up the engineering and then compounded the issue by not immediately making their customers aware of the full impact of the problem and what should be done to monitor and fix it. Recalls are bad PR but a hull loss is far far worse, so they should have sucked it up and issued a mea culpa right from the start.

Hopefully the whole truth will come out one day/year/decade.

Agree completely with this post.

I also hope we see an answer to the questions you pose (perhaps it will come out once the ATSB has completed it's investigation).

 

[maninblack]

Agree completely with this post.

I also hope we see an answer to the questions you pose (perhaps it will come out once the ATSB has completed it's investigation).

I actually think that this one may end up in court. (or a pre-court settlement) The damage to the Qantas brand, the undoubted costs as well as the damage to the Airbus brand etc are huge. No doubt there is damage to the RR brand too and perhaps I am assuming they are the guilty party here. I may be wrong. For all those and many more reasons I see a court case looming.

 

[cove]

Page 23 of AFR Due Diligence has an article about 72,000 pounds of thrust that QF needs for profitable LAX run.
If any of this is correct then this is a problem for Mission Control.

 

[oz_mark]

I actually think that this one may end up in court. (or a pre-court settlement) The damage to the Qantas brand, the undoubted costs as well as the damage to the Airbus brand etc are huge. No doubt there is damage to the RR brand too and perhaps I am assuming they are the guilty party here. I may be wrong. For all those and many more reasons I see a court case looming.

I am more inclined to think that there will be a commercial agreement between the parties, and I would be a little surprised if it got to court.

I don't doubt, however, that Rolls Royce have some explaining to do

 

[NM]

Engines just latest trouble for A380s

Yet another media report. This time it seems reasonably balanced and mostly accurate.

From news.com.au

MANY wondered whether the world's largest passenger plane would ever be born.

Sceptics called the 7-story-tall Airbus A380 too big and ambitious when it was just a blueprint. There were wiring problems and debilitating management disputes.

 

[oz_mark]

Page 23 of AFR Due Diligence has an article about 72,000 pounds of thrust that QF needs for profitable LAX run.
If any of this is correct then this is a problem for Mission Control.

Well, they are restarting operations on the other routes, so one thinks there may be something in the extra thrust required there. Qantas have been down a similar path with RR.

 

[oz_mark]

Safety agency narrows A380 engine safety checks

Safety agency narrows A380 engine safety checks | Reuters

Nov 23 (Reuters) - Europe's air safety regulator said it had lightened a series of compulsory safety inspections on Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines after investigations into a Qantas A380 engine blowout "progressed".

The European Aviation Safety Agency said airlines would no longer be required to carry out checks on turbine blades inside the engines as investigators check for clues that might explain why one of the superjumbo's engines disintegrated mid-flight earlier this month.

http://www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au/community/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=26306

 

[serfty]

A poster on FT indicates it's gunna be a real headache replacing the wing in SIN. They have only a few posts but seem credible:

• QF32 - how bad was it? (Full damage report) - FlyerTalk Forums

Having been closely involved in the construction the the wings of the A380, I have been following this story with great interest.

The worst of the damage appears to be confined to the leading edge, and I wonder if the puncture in the fuel tank was actually on the inside of the LE.

The thought that the actual Lower skin (outside the LE) was punctured is pretty shocking, there is 40-50mm of aluminium there as well as the titanium engine pylons!.... but from the reports of structural damage transferred to the fuselage then maybe I was not surprised.

I strongly doubt that there any other aircraft that could have survived an event of this magnitude.

Er...no, I don't see them FedEx'ing a new wing, without the jigs that are in Toulouse there is just no way they could mount it. Then you have to bear in in mind that all the mounting holes that attach the wing to the wing box/fuselage are drilled in situe, so if they were to try and mount a new wing they would have trouble matching the holes.... They would of course have to up size all the the holes, but still this is a major task.
...