V-Flyer

Just seen this on daybreak, apparently on it's way from singapore to sydney and origionally from heathrow. They've suspended all their 380 flights until they know everything's ok.
Sounds abit scary to me :0 especially for an aircraft still so new! Then again one of the emirates ones that came in to MAN a while ago had to do a manual landing because the computer wouldn't let them land, they don't seem very good to me.

I wouldn't draw the same conclusion Lizz. That said, reading some of the news this was a pretty serious incident and I am glad that all are safe.

I'm not a good flyer though, so things like this make me think 'hmm no, don't think I'll be too happy getting on one soon'

I've heard on the grapevine as well that they tend to go tech quite abit, which is where my conclusions from.

There's always bugs to be sorted on any new system so you would expect extra occasions when they go tech.

The uncontained failure is something else though.
Not good for the Trent 900.

It was during or just after take-off so possible its fod. Some debris seems to be caught in the wind slat. May well have been responsible for hydraulic failure. What appears to be a hole in the wing just behind that is more concerning - that's where the tank is.

There will be lots of work on this one till they know the likely cause - and a few grounded birds.

some fottage on the BBC of the debris that apparently fell on to an island - footage

Glad every one is safe though.

couple of other points

1 - what a great name the plane has 'Nancy-Bird Walton'

2 - ITV has found a 'daybreak' viewer ! ):

Interesting rumour elsewhere

Eng#2 on that A/C has been carrying a Cat A Turbine Overspeed MEL since Tuesday

Aircraft recently out of heavy maintenance check.

Is that the engine that failed?

eejp1007 wrote:Is that the engine that failed?

Yuup!
The MEL was for the overspeed sensor.

There have been problems with excessive wear on the Trent 1000 centre bearings - a bearing failure could result in shaft failure - that shaft drives the front fan from the hot end - a shaft failure means the rear overspeeds very rapidly and bang!

So did the sensor failure suggest something starting to go wrong?

Well, few pointers here.

The failure was in the engine not the plane - these things can be fitted with Rolls Royce engines (as per QANTAS, Singapore, Lufthansa), or EA (engine alliance - Pratt and Witney/General Electric) engines as per Emirates etc). So, in short, the problem is of Rools Royce in nature, not Airbus - at least, on the face of it.
So, let's not assume the A380 has a problem right now.

They will go "tech" a fair bit, as they are very new kit - consider the amount of patches microsoft put out trying to get their software right!

The reason QANTAS and others have grounded their A380s is simply they share that engine type - Emirates are still flying them.

On a more contravertial note, there have been many questions within the industry re QANTAS maintenance - and this might be a big focus in the coming days.

So, I'm sure it was pretty scary on board when that happened, but it doesn't mean the A380 is a poor or unsafe airplane or anything...

This was a Trent 900, the 1000 variant is on the 787.

nice mobile phone footage of a hole in the wing HERE

CHill710 wrote:nice mobile phone footage of a hole in the wing HERE

Very good footage ! I hope all the pax who took pics etc will make them available to the approriate authorities to help the investigation and not try to sell them to the media.

Concorde RIP wrote:Well, few pointers here.

The failure was in the engine not the plane - these things can be fitted with Rolls Royce engines (as per QANTAS, Singapore, Lufthansa), or EA (engine alliance - Pratt and Witney/General Electric) engines as per Emirates etc). So, in short, the problem is of Rools Royce in nature, not Airbus - at least, on the face of it.
So, let's not assume the A380 has a problem right now.

They will go "tech" a fair bit, as they are very new kit - consider the amount of patches microsoft put out trying to get their software right!

The reason QANTAS and others have grounded their A380s is simply they share that engine type - Emirates are still flying them.

On a more contravertial note, there have been many questions within the industry re QANTAS maintenance - and this might be a big focus in the coming days.

So, I'm sure it was pretty scary on board when that happened, but it doesn't mean the A380 is a poor or unsafe airplane or anything...

Those were my thoughts exactly. I expect Qantas maintenance to be coming under a lot of scrutiny as well, especially considering their 100% record of never having a fatal accident. I read on the BBC earlier on today that somebody had commented that Qantas only had about 1/4 of the maintenance people dotted worldwide that's normally required for an airline (or fleet?) the size of Qantas's.

I think it'll be one of those things that will become forgotten about eventually and won't necessarily deter people from flying on the A380 - providing it is proven to be a one-off incident that is. At the moment, it isn't the sort of thing that put airlines and passengers off like the Comet in the 1950s.

Does it matter who does the maintenance or who employes them as long as proper contracts are in place and the engineers have the proper training for the aircraft and its eqipment and keep the proper records?

When i arrived back at LHR yesterday morning we parked between the Qantas A380 in question, and the SIA A380.

Can i just say i didn't touch it, it wasn't me, i have an alibi !

On a serious note even with the blown engine i think it shows how good both the crew and plane are to be able to deal with the incident with what appears to be no real fuss and land it safely with no injuries etc.

Concorde RIP wrote: On a more contravertial note, there have been many questions within the industry re QANTAS maintenance - and this might be a big focus in the coming days.

All i've previously heard of with regards QANTAS maintenance was their staff being unhappy at heavy maintenance being subcontracted overseas.

VS075 wrote:Those were my thoughts exactly. I expect Qantas maintenance to be coming under a lot of scrutiny as well, especially considering their 100% record of never having a fatal accident. I read on the BBC earlier on today that somebody had commented that Qantas only had about 1/4 of the maintenance people dotted worldwide that's normally required for an airline (or fleet?) the size of Qantas's.

No fatal accidents, but the Bangkok over run is as close as you get & was there not also the failure of an oxygen cylinder on a B747 leaving a little hole at the R2 door?

As for maintenance manpower, many airports would have this contracted out, LHR is Qantas own staff though

Getting back to the T900, might be worth a search for any AD's for that engine (if your not a good detective try post #189 on that site that deals with pilots & rumours!!!).

Denzil wrote:
Getting back to the T900, might be worth a search for any AD's for that engine!!!!

Like this one?

Some more detail and photos can be found here http://www.avherald.com/h?article=43309c6d&opt=0

Best photo so far is here - I'd like to see a photo of the underside of that wing!

Finally found [url=http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/awx/2010/09/01/awx_09_01_2010_p0-251440.xml&headline=Oil%20Fire%20Suspected%20In%2%3Cbr%3E0Trent%201000%20Failure]that article[/url] about the uncontained failure of the Trent 1000 in August.

As mentioned the rear ends of both 900 & 1000 are similar.
It seems likely that the AD on the 900 was perhaps partially influenced by this UCF - and also by QF74.

Lizz wrote:Just seen this on daybreak, apparently on it's way from singapore to sydney and origionally from heathrow. They've suspended all their 380 flights until they know everything's ok.
Sounds abit scary to me :0 especially for an aircraft still so new! Then again one of the emirates ones that came in to MAN a while ago had to do a manual landing because the computer wouldn't let them land, they don't seem very good to me.

Would you feel insecure about getting into a Honda? BMW? Both these manufacturers have had high profile recalls due to safety defects. It's all about perspective and whilst this event looks shocking it's a very rare occurrence and air travel is very safe. Also as another poster pointed out the defect appears to be engine related and these can come from different suppliers at the purchasers request.

I would have no hesitation flying on an A380 tomorrow, in fact I'd rather be boarding it than the 777 I an scheduled on!

I'd feel embarassed about getting in a Honda that's for sure! But my fear comes from a lack of being in control so a car wouldn't bother me. My problem is I see so many things go wrong with planes at work and yes ok they get fixed but it makes you realise how common this stuff is.

Also, I'm not really a daybreak viewer, just the past week I've had such a messed up bodyclock that when I get up it's either daybreak, bbc news or teleshopping! Daybreak this week has given me the chance to win a car so there we go!

how calm did that pilot sound ? always good to be in the hands of a profesional

its definately credit to the air crew & the aeroplane design that they could calmly circle for 1.5 hours dumping fuel with a shut down engine & a hole in the wing. this where design redundancy & training really come into play, especially when you think how few hours relatively the flight crew will have on this aircraft

Lizz wrote:My problem is I see so many things go wrong with planes at work and yes ok they get fixed but it makes you realise how common this stuff is.

And it's a great testament to aircraft designers, airlines, and crews that despite the massive complexity of modern airliners, the weather they fly through, and other factors that things really do not go wrong more often than they do. Statistics or damn statistics, you're in greater danger if you win that car when driving to your local shops!

Nice comparison to a car.
Consider how a car body panel is made and how quickly.

Now watch this video of how the A380 wing panels are made. 8D

It gives an insight just how even such a catastrophic event as that engine "explosion" can occur and yet the aircraft can still fly & land safely.

That's also why I get so concerned when I see a hole.
The piece of crumpled metal stuck in the slats is just thin skin from around the engine - the concern is the wing surface. That's not thin!

I'm surprised we haven't got some photos of the undersurface. One of the distance shots clearly shows a firefighter underneath with his cellphone taking pics.