View Full Version : Qantas A380 Safely Lands After Engine Explodes Near Singapore
NYCA News
2010-11-04, 01:04 AM
NYCAviation:
Qantas A380 Safely Lands After Engine Explodes Near Singapore (http://nycaviation.com/2010/11/qantas-a380-safely-lands-after-engine-explodes-near-singapore/)
Reports that a Qantas Airbus A380 superjumbo jet had crashed in Indonesia were quickly put to rest Wednesday night when the plane made a safe emergency landing in Singapore. Debris from Qantas Flight 32, carrying 443 people enroute to Sydney, was found on an island south of Singapore shortly after the plane took off. Rumors [...]
[Click to Read Full Article (http://nycaviation.com/2010/11/qantas-a380-safely-lands-after-engine-explodes-near-singapore/)]
jerslice
2010-11-04, 01:06 AM
While en route from Singapore to Sydney a Qantas Airbus A380 operating as QF32 suffered an uncontained engine failure on the number two engine, manufactured by Rolls Royce. Locals on Batam Island, Indonesia reported a large explosion followed by significant chunks of debris falling around town. The aircraft was spotted trailing what appeared to be smoke at a low altitude. While initial reports came in that the aircraft had gone down, the flight crew safely returned the aircraft to Changi Airport in Singapore without further incident.
The aircraft had 433 passengers and 26 crew aboard at the time of the incident. Qantas currently operates a fleet of six A380' to a handful of points worldwide. Qantas has never suffered a fatal accident, though this is the second uncontained engine failure in the past year, with the last incident involving a Qantas 747 operating San Francisco to Sydney.
Matt Molnar
2010-11-04, 02:29 AM
Qantas has now suspended all A380 ops until an investigation is completed.
USAF Pilot 07
2010-11-04, 03:06 AM
Wow, news updates at 230AM! Does the NYCAviation News team never sleep???
NLovis
2010-11-04, 03:17 AM
You know me and some of the other ops guys I work with are all waiting for this eye sore to plummet from the sky. That plane is just asking for trouble.
seahawks7757
2010-11-04, 04:13 AM
Um it's only 2330 on the left side :P
seahawks7757
2010-11-04, 05:36 AM
I honestly find this very intresting, it brings me to wonder about what is going on over at RR. I mean a few months back first they have the uncontained failure at a test bed for the 787 with the trent 1000's. And then a few other hiccups with it during the test flight program.
And now an uncontained engine failure with the trent 900. I am thinking something is wrong within RR's engine package right now. http://www.projectopensky.com/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif
puckstopper55
2010-11-04, 09:04 AM
Couldnt the A380 fly with just 2 of the 4 engines? I know its not ideal, but in an emergency, it would be enough to get them to an airport safely.
m.marra
2010-11-04, 09:37 AM
According to CNN, Qantas grounded their entire fleet of A380's. Here's the link with some more photos, http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/indonesia.plane.emergency/index.html?hpt=T1
"Qantas, Australia's national airline, grounded its Airbus A380 fleet indefinitely after part of a plane's engine cover fell off in mid-flight Thursday.
The airline said flights of the twin-deck planes -- the world's largest airliners -- will remain suspended until an investigation into Thursday's incident is complete"
Mike
Couldnt the A380 fly with just 2 of the 4 engines? I know its not ideal, but in an emergency, it would be enough to get them to an airport safely.
Any Commercial Jet has to be certified with one of it powerplants going down at he worst Possible time, ie at V1 or the point where a takoff is no longer aborted for any reason. It will not be able to take off fully loaded and loose 2 engines, it needs three. Is it Possible to fly on 2? Yes mabe even 1 if it is empty and has almost no fuel. But if it is fully fueled and has pax, it will need 4 to take off and 3 once v1 is reached.
This is not the issue here, an engine has to be contained if it has blade loss...the question really should be not if it was contained or un-contained but rather if it was blade loss or what else happened. If you have a failure of the fan disc it is not possible to EVER contain it. It will always be un-contained due to the sheer forces that can not be stopped. If it is just blades, it should be contained, if it is fan disc, RR has a REAL issue and it is nothing to do with containment.
If they grounded the fleet, I want more info on this
puckstopper55
2010-11-04, 11:24 AM
Any Commercial Jet has to be certified with one of it powerplants going down at he worst Possible time, ie at V1 or the point where a takoff is no longer aborted for any reason. It will not be able to take off fully loaded and loose 2 engines, it needs three. Is it Possible to fly on 2? Yes mabe even 1 if it is empty and has almost no fuel. But if it is fully fueled and has pax, it will need 4 to take off and 3 once v1 is reached.
This is not the issue here, an engine has to be contained if it has blade loss...the question really should be not if it was contained or un-contained but rather if it was blade loss or what else happened. If you have a failure of the fan disc it is not possible to EVER contain it. It will always be un-contained due to the sheer forces that can not be stopped. If it is just blades, it should be contained, if it is fan disc, RR has a REAL issue and it is nothing to do with containment.
If they grounded the fleet, I want more info on this
I understand. My question was more of an "in flight" type question. After reading the article it seemed to me like the plane was well on its way, and was approaching (if not already) at cruise altitude. I would think that 2 functioning engines would be sufficient to get to the nearest airport.
That is probably a true statement....but then again, Gimly Glider did not need any :wink: If there was an uncontained failure I think most pilots would just get it down at the nearest suitable airport and not tempt the demons they can not see. That would scare the hell out of me if I were on the aircraft because some of the damage may not show its face immediately... like punctured fuel leaks, electrical issue from severed or metal chafing thru lines, and it could go on and on for days. Contained failure is not so serious, uncontained is a possible nightmare scenario that could start as a good dream with a simple single out checklist being run and another coffee ordered by "the lady on the plane!!!" .
RIP George Carlin
kc2aqg
2010-11-04, 01:48 PM
The issue here is also not so much whether the A380 can fly on 3 or even 2 engines, which I think it probably could continue flight on 2 but not take off as Fred mentioned. The bigger issue is what did the debris from the uncontained failure hit/damage and what is the criticality of those? My understanding is that the debris punctured the wing and exposed some components/wires. It seems lucky that that something more critical wasn't damaged, but I think back to AA191 with the loss of hydraulics that eventually caused the left-roll and eventual crash, or the EL AL 747 at AMS who lost both right-hand engines and rolled to the right at low speed due to lack of slats and hydraulics. In my opinion, the bigger issue is what else gets damaged as a result of the uncontained failure and can the airplane maintain stable flight.
You know me and some of the other ops guys I work with are all waiting for this eye sore to plummet from the sky. That plane is just asking for trouble.
Seriously? What kind of a comment is that?!? This could easily have happened to any aircraft engine depending on the nature of the failure (though I'll admit it isn't looking good for RR right now with their recent history). Can we grow up a little please?
You know me and some of the other ops guys I work with are all waiting for this eye sore to plummet from the sky. That plane is just asking for trouble.
Seriously? What kind of a comment is that?!? This could easily have happened to any aircraft engine depending on the nature of the failure (though I'll admit it isn't looking good for RR right now with their recent history). Can we grow up a little please?
I concur... This was also an engine failure and had nothing to do with the A-380. But the eurotrash is ugly yet I would never wait for any plane to plummet from the sky. I know it may have been tongue and cheek but that is harsh. I also think that you should speak more like someone who is a professional in the industry. I am not so I can talk like a kid!
Speaking of Disc Failures, here is an unrelated old picture
I dug up of me and a very cool man I got to meet!
http://www.longislandwallpapers.com/photos/1077526185_TrXg7-S.jpg
Good time right Mario?
PhilDernerJr
2010-11-04, 02:49 PM
You know me and some of the other ops guys I work with are all waiting for this eye sore to plummet from the sky. That plane is just asking for trouble.
Not a nice comment to make, especially from someone that works in the industry.
Glad everyone was ok.
mirrodie
2010-11-04, 02:58 PM
Wow, I can't beleive it. That last new plane was the 777 and it had a clean record for years. How old is the A380 and an uncontained failure? That is wild.
Fred, that was a great time. And thankful that wifey came for it, on her BDAY of all days.
Funny I was just near there last night at the Dave Matthews band concert and thought of that night nearby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK5SzV4OBF0
A video from a passenger just after the incident occurred....nothing much but a piece of metal sticking up from the wing.....Thats nothing much unless you were shooting the video that is! lol
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01753/qantas2_1753557c.jpg
Gerard
2010-11-04, 06:08 PM
[QUOTE=Phil D.;432062]Not a nice comment to make, especially from someone that works in the industry. [QUOTE]
Seriously now. And from someone who has flown on the A380 its nice to know people in the industry think like this. :frown:
Gerard
2010-11-04, 06:10 PM
Speaking of Disc Failures, here is an unrelated old picture
I dug up of me and a very cool man I got to meet!
http://www.longislandwallpapers.com/photos/1077526185_TrXg7-S.jpg
Good time right Mario?
OK I give up. Who's the old guy on the right? :biggrin::smile:
lijk604
2010-11-04, 06:53 PM
I believe that is Capt. Al Haynes. Brought the crippled UA DC10 into Iowa back in the late 80's.
He was asking about the dorkey looking guy to the right....Looks like Tom Cruise shaved and beaten with an ugly stick!.... OH WAIT.... I'm sorry... thats me!
Gerard
2010-11-04, 08:53 PM
He was asking about the dorkey looking guy to the right....Looks like Tom Cruise shaved and beaten with an ugly stick!.... OH WAIT.... I'm sorry... thats me!
Oh was that you? :biggrin::smile:
Curious as how QF will cope with the grounding of the 380. Their LHR/LAX flights will be significantly affected. I suppose they will pull 744 from some other routes to fill in the gap. I am sure they will push a lot of passengers to BA, NZ, UA, SQ. It must be a scheduling nightmare.
Is this the first grounding of an entire fleet by a major airline after the DC-10 grounding?
NLovis
2010-11-04, 11:12 PM
Not a nice comment to make, especially from someone that works in the industry.
Glad everyone was ok.
Falling is bad very bad. I would not like to see it but were expecting something. The track record of this plane type is not as good as it should be for a new aircraft. I would rather see this eye sore fly then fall. I may not like Airbus but I rather see it fly then fall and injure people.
Why were you expecting something? The 707 727 and DC-10 had growing pains. 707 was blow in doors of the engine needed lots and LOTS of WD-40, the 727 had crosswind issues with the #2 engine surging and the DC-10 had cargo door issues..... What has the A-380 have wrong with it besides being Ugly and not a Boeing? This is an engine problem and can not be classified as an issue with the A-380 at this time. They have not grounded the entire fleet because other airlines have different engines. I am wondering what made this aircraft track record so bad? They have growing pains with all new radicly different types of airframes, like the Pan Am (moment of silence please) when the pilot landed short and took out the entire undercarriage with the lead in lights because he was 3 stories over the ground when he flared and was not used to it. What happed with the A-380 that was such an issue that I missed?
I will bash Airbus because it is the politically correct,
Damb them tea drinking Euro's with their Lamenent planes....
Oh, wait... 787...
Ok, Flybywire crap...
OOOoohhh 777 and 787
I mean airplane that is just to big for airlines to handle the workload of one plane....
(saying the a-380 only holds a few dozen more than a 747?)....
umm......IT UGLY
Got Nothin, BECAUSE IT's UGLY!
NLovis
2010-11-05, 12:34 AM
I will bash Airbus because it is the politically correct,
Damb them tea drinking Euro's with their Lament planes....
Oh, wait... 787...
Ok, Flybywire crap...
OOOoohhh 777 and 787
I mean airplane that is just to big for airlines to handle the workload of one plane....
(saying the a-380 only holds a few dozen more than a 747?)....
umm......IT UGLY
Got Nothin, BECAUSE IT's UGLY!
Dont forget to bash em for the subsidaries they got illegally. In all honesty That A380 should have never made off the ground if Airbus wasnt subsidised for it. they would be belly up right now.
Ok, Lets talk the 707....that would have not gotten of the ground if they did not talk the government into starting with tankers. It was not in the face like the A-380 was but I do not think that Airbus was wrong for doing everything it could to make their product happen. I just do not like them because they are ugly.... except the A-319....their kinda cute.... in a plastic Fisher Price kind of way. If Boeing was going down right now I believe that Obama would give his left thingie to keep them alive. Euro's would be crying foul, The Chinese would by the plans and make cheap knock off's fir 30% off, The Peruskiiis would steal the Chinese plans and put the gear on backwards, The Germans would make is smaller with uglier windows and put the engines on upsidown, and the Saudis would hope they are not composites so they burn more fuel.
Wow, sorry about that.... I have no idea where that came from.
kc2aqg
2010-11-05, 12:20 PM
Wow, sorry about that.... I have no idea where that came from.
Whoa Fred, easy there tiger...that was a pretty awesome rant though, not going to lie.
Dont forget to bash em for the subsidaries they got illegally. In all honesty That A380 should have never made off the ground if Airbus wasnt subsidised for it. they would be belly up right now.
First of all, the word you are looking for is subsidies. Subsidiaries are something completely different. Secondly, you would be crazy to think the US Government wouldn't help Boeing out if they were in the same dire straits that EADS was a few years ago. Thirdly, Fred is absolutely right, this is a Rolls Royce engine issue, NOT an A380 issue.
Back on topic, did anyone read that today's QF6 also had an air return to SIN on the 744 because of an engine issue? I don't know if the bird was an RR powered bird or not, but Rolls is not having a good week! Also, I wonder if QF is regretting the decision to not buy 777s, as they could really use some supplemental widebody capacity right now...
seahawks7757
2010-11-05, 02:42 PM
Is this the first grounding of an entire fleet by a major airline after the DC-10 grounding?
SAS and QX have both grounded there 400's at one point or aother for inspections. Mainly back in 07 I think.
cancidas
2010-11-05, 02:46 PM
it gets deeper, this is from the US Airways Exployee Newsletter:Qantas Airlines Non-Rev Embargo Advisement
As reported yesterday, Qantas Airlines experienced a mid-air engine problem on a Singapore to Sydney flight operated on an A380 aircraft. Qantas has announced it is suspending all flights operated by its fleet of six A380 aircraft. As a result Qantas has applied an embargo on all staff travel on all flights to/from Australia and Europe, Asia and the Americas effective Nov. 5. At this stage the embargo will be in effect until further notice. Qantas will not accept any non-rev passengers holding ZEDs or on company business travel authorizations.
MarkLawrence
2010-11-05, 02:49 PM
And now a Rolls Royce powered 747-400 of Quantas lands at the same airport with an engine problem as well - not to sure if this is a RR or Quantas problem now...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40019190/ns/travel-news/
ahhh, that's no biggie. Engine Failures are a daily thing. It just sounds like bad timing. An uncontained failure is a VERY BIG DEAL! The 747 issue is a non issue...just good media after the first incident. sorry, LAME story
Speedbird1
2010-11-06, 07:07 AM
I concur. Everybody on this forum should wish every flight a safe departure, flight and landing even if we don't like a particular design. I call some some small aircraft "flying bathtubs" but I wish them all a safe trip. There are actual human beings aboard every single flight! Making light of a near-disaster is no laughing matter. I find the design of the A388 not as attractive as the B744, but it is quieter, roomier and uses less fuel. I still haven't gotten-over the Concorde crash from July 2000 as a matter of fact.
On the today show they just said that Quantus said they found oil leaks in 3 other A-380 engines and will be grounded another 3 days. I do not trust the Today show but that was said.
moose135
2010-11-08, 10:33 AM
That's being widely reported this morning, Fred...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/world/asia/09qantas.html
New Oil Leaks Keep Qantas Airbus Jets Grounded
by MERAIAH FOLEY
Published: November 8, 2010
SYDNEY, Australia — Qantas Airways will keep its fleet of six Airbus A380s grounded for at least another 72 hours after oil leaks were discovered in the engines of three separate aircraft, the company’s chief executive said on Monday.The move comes as investigators worked to pinpoint the cause of a dramatic mid-air explosion that forced a Qantas jetliner to make an emergency landing last week. The grounding of the A380s has delayed dozens of flights and forced Qantas, Australia’s largest carrier, to charter aircraft from British Airways to meet the backlog.
Alan Joyce, the airline’s chief executive officer, said that engineers working over the weekend had spotted oil leaks in the turbine area of engines on three planes.
gonzalu
2010-11-09, 08:40 PM
A friend of mine who is a pilot mentioned something about "they did a full power run-up and disable the squat switches" ??? not sure what that means...
NLovis
2010-11-10, 02:48 AM
Oh man thats not good for Quntas or RR. RR supposed to have very good engines and something like this can hurt them in the future. Quntas is already not doing so well with the economy as is.
A friend of mine who is a pilot mentioned something about "they did a full power run-up and disable the squat switches" ??? not sure what that means...
Full power runup is when they bring the engine up to full power, run up means that the aircraft was not flying, usually one engine with breaks on.
Squat Switches are Switches that only activate if there is weight on the wheels...Like AutoSpoilers, aircraft hits the ground..the gear squat switches allow the spoilers to deploy or the gear NOT to retract when ordered to by the gear lever.
I have no idea what the squat switches would do with a full power run up, or why that would affect anything later at altitude....but there is allot in life I do not understand so I will not sweat it! ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.