QF32 388 - emergency landing in SIN after Engine failure

[el_rooto]

Was it that much damage? Proportional to the size of the aircraft, perhaps the holes weren't that big. In any event, it would not be a great advertisement for the brand if a simple engine failure were able to write off such a large aircraft/investment.

As a motto for an aircraft maker, 'we can make them, but we can't fix them' probably isn't that good.

That seems to fit with airbus' motto of "you can fly em' but you can't understand em' ".

 

[Moody]

"It started with an oil fire caused by a manufacturing defect in an oil feed pipe."

Qantas A380 engine explosion | QF32 | How defect trigged explosion

Slow news day?

Certainly not a skerrick of new information and the only interest this subject has for me now is the number of zeros on the compensation cheque, and what are the new contractual arrangements between Qantas and their A380 engine maintenance provider.

 

[oz_mark]

Slow news day?

Certainly not a skerrick of new information and the only interest this subject has for me now is the number of zeros on the compensation cheque, and what are the new contractual arrangements between Qantas and their A380 engine maintenance provider.

ATSB preliminary report was released today.

 

[markj23]

"It started with an oil fire caused by a manufacturing defect in an oil feed pipe."

Qantas A380 engine explosion | QF32 | How defect trigged explosion

"

A defective pipe triggered a chain of events that resulted in a mid-air explosion over Indonesia on a Qantas superjumbo carrying hundreds of people.The explosion tore through the aircraft's second engine about 15 minutes after the Sydney-bound QF32 plane took off from Singapore's Changi Airport on November 4, 2010.The explosion rained debris on a populated area on the Indonesian island of Batam."

Seems like someone has "borrowed" the writing style of the intro to Air Crash Investigations​

 

[nlagalle]

Certainly not a skerrick of new information and the only interest this subject has for me now is the number of zeros on the compensation cheque, and what are the new contractual arrangements between Qantas and their A380 engine maintenance provider.

I believe it was already established there was no issue with the maintenance but that the fault was caused during manufacturing and couldn't have been detected during inspection.

 

[Must...Fly!]

I believe it was already established there was no issue with the maintenance but that the fault was caused during manufacturing and couldn't have been detected during inspection.

Indeed.

Reading between the lines, it would certainly seem as though Rolls Royce has accepted that the incident was of their making.

 

[Moody]

Indeed.

Reading between the lines, it would certainly seem as though Rolls Royce has accepted that the incident was of their making.

Certainly the root cause was a manufacturing defect, but the critical factor was that it was known.

Known by who? Rolls Royce manufacturing - definitely. Rolls Royce maintenance - probably. Qantas - nup. The first AJ knew about it was when his share price nose-dived. A tad late don't you think?

Hence my curiosity about the maintenance contract for the engines, and whether there is a "Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" clause now in blood-red ink.

You don't have to worry about conflicts of interest when you run your own maintenance team. Well ... not that sort of conflict anyway.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Certainly the root cause was a manufacturing defect, but the critical factor was that it was known.

Known by who? Rolls Royce manufacturing - definitely. Rolls Royce maintenance - probably. Qantas - nup. The first AJ knew about it was when his share price nose-dived. A tad late don't you think?

Hence my curiosity about the maintenance contract for the engines, and whether there is a "Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" clause now in blood-red ink.

You don't have to worry about conflicts of interest when you run your own maintenance team. Well ... not that sort of conflict anyway.

As far as I know, Rolls have maintained the engines for many years.

Not really QFs fault when as their partner of decades and one of the bigger clients keep them in the dark.

Won't happen again, fairly certain RR will make certain of that.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

As far as I know, Rolls have maintained the engines for many years.

Not really QFs fault when as their partner of decades and one of the bigger clients keep them in the dark.

Won't happen again, fairly certain RR will make certain of that.

The similarity of RR with a known fault (and withholding that information) and now Airbus with cracks in the wings on the A380's doesn't fill me with confidence to fly sometimes.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Fair enough. I remain confident in the ability of Airbus, the airlines and their engineering staff to work through the problem and manage risk effectively.

Evidently, the country's resident clown Steve Purvinas doesn't think so.

An Australian engineering union accused Airbus of playing down the problem. "They [Airbus] have described these as tiny cracks, but every crack starts off as a tiny crack and they can grow very quickly," said Stephen Purvinas, federal secretary of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association.

"I would be worried that Airbus aren't taking seriously the ever-increasing number of cracks being found in the wings of their A380 aircraft. Put it this way: I wouldn't put my family on an A380 at the moment," he said.

A380 superjumbos to undergo checks after regulator finds cracks in wings | Business | The Guardian

 

[mannej]

Evidently, the country's resident clown Steve Purvinas doesn't think so.

I believe Steve has a vested interest in this one considering maintenance is conducted in Germany and not here.

 

[spudseamus]

that's an awful lot of damage !! If I had been on that one Im sure I wouldn't pass wind for a long while!!:shock:





"if it aint Boeing I aint going"

 

[mannej]

that's an awful lot of damage !! If I had been on that one Im sure I wouldn't pass wind for a long while!!:shock:





"if it aint Boeing I aint going"

Funny you mention that- there are some interesting comments made by on this podcast regarding the QF30 and QF32 actual aircraft.

Episode 6: John Bartels & QF30 : Flight Podcast

 

[spudseamus]

just my perception at present !! thats all

 

[Mal]

Evidently, the country's resident clown Steve Purvinas doesn't think so.

He wouldn't fly Qantas either at one stage (and told others not to fly QF), and his clowns service the planes.

I rate him worse than Today Tonight presenters. No facts, too much spin, and his vested interest is quite obvious.

 

[nlagalle]

Certainly the root cause was a manufacturing defect, but the critical factor was that it was known.

Known by who? Rolls Royce manufacturing - definitely. Rolls Royce maintenance - probably. Qantas - nup. The first AJ knew about it was when his share price nose-dived. A tad late don't you think?

Hence my curiosity about the maintenance contract for the engines, and whether there is a "Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" clause now in blood-red ink.

You don't have to worry about conflicts of interest when you run your own maintenance team. Well ... not that sort of conflict anyway.

Actually I don't recall that at all. From reading the ATSB preliminary report said RR knew there was an issue, but didn't know what was causing it. I don't have the report handy to find it just yet.

I don't think it has been said that RR knew there was a manufacturing defect.

 

[FlyboyAl]

And what 'book' would that be

This is probably the book that Steve P would follow if he was fixing it.
http://manuals.hobbico.com/rvl/80-4270.pdf

 

[medhead]

He wouldn't fly Qantas either at one stage (and told others not to fly QF), and his clowns service the planes.

In reality he offered advice. It did not tell people not to fly. Continual misrepresentation of this is exactly the same as the behaviour that is being critisised. Rather ironic IMO. If clowns are servicing the aircraft why do you continue to fly on those aircraft?

 

[Moody]

Actually I don't recall that at all. From reading the ATSB preliminary report said RR knew there was an issue, but didn't know what was causing it. I don't have the report handy to find it just yet.

I don't think it has been said that RR knew there was a manufacturing defect.

Funny then that when the preliminary assesment identified the possible cause (correctly) and advised that all Trent900 engines needed inspecting, RR very qickly said "Only the A variants need checking". Why - because the misaligned stub had been picked up in their QA processes and fixed in the B & C variants. This is no doubt a reasonably routine event when you roll out a new engine, and is part of the reason that RR certified the A variant for 2000 cycles, the B variant for 14000(?) cycles, and the C variant for unlimited cycles. The real issue is what (if anything) they told their service engineers about it, and whether their "power by the hour" arrangement with Qantas included disclosure or notification clauses about known defects.

And let's be clear - the engine shat itself in a big way and caused significant damage and impairment to the aircraft. Lucky it happened to probably the best Qantas crew you could assemble. If it was an Air France plane it would have been in the drink faster than you could say "Mon Dieu!"

 

[nlagalle]

Funny then that when the preliminary assesment identified the possible cause (correctly) and advised that all Trent900 engines needed inspecting, RR very qickly said "Only the A variants need checking". Why - because the misaligned stub had been picked up in their QA processes and fixed in the B & C variants. This is no doubt a reasonably routine event when you roll out a new engine, and is part of the reason that RR certified the A variant for 2000 cycles, the B variant for 14000(?) cycles, and the C variant for unlimited cycles. The real issue is what (if anything) they told their service engineers about it, and whether their "power by the hour" arrangement with Qantas included disclosure or notification clauses about known defects.

And let's be clear - the engine shat itself in a big way and caused significant damage and impairment to the aircraft. Lucky it happened to probably the best Qantas crew you could assemble. If it was an Air France plane it would have been in the drink faster than you could say "Mon Dieu!"

You have that documented? I'm asking as that is not what i had read, rather that there were a number of reasons why it was only the A variant. As i pointed earlier there was a known oil issue which was part of an AD (which didn't point to the failed part) but the cause was not known. Are you saying that RR knew of the defect despite the AD being released?

Also QF are not the only ones paying for power by the hour either. I believe all the A380's with RR Engines are power by the hour.