Airbus A380 Mid-air Engine Failure

G

Grall

Invisible Member
Legend
Guess you guys heard the news by now, huh? Not gonna provide any links or anything, it's all over the web anyway. You guys heard any good infos on this? All I know is pretty much summed up by "it happened".

Bird strike? I don't know how high up they were, if it happened at flight altitude that one's out - birdies can't fly that high up of course, but if it was within a few thousand meters from the surface I guess that Trent could have sucked down a couple geese or something.

Saw some video on the evening news that was shot through a window, looked like shrapnel had penetrated straight through the wing, with wrecked alu panels sticking up at odd angles... Pretty badass stuff if that's the case.
 
I heard an engineering 'expert' interviewed on BBC Radio earlier and he said that, looking at the photos, it seemed that most of the engine was intact so they ought to be able to discover the cause of the failure without any problems.

He also mentioned that it looked like a pretty typical failure for a jet engine. In other words, the fact that the relatively new A380 engine failed might not be indication of a specific problem with the design simply because it is new. Apparently the design of all jet engines has been tweaked as they are used and new data becomes available, something which is a little worrying! ;)
 
On a Dutch site I read that it might be a ''common'' problem with the Rolls Royce engine as apperantly RR has a history with jet engines failing like this. Don't know if any of it is true though. But the A380 uses different engines so don't worry about getting on a KLM/Air France A380 because they have Pratt and Whitney engines.
 
Grall, I think you should google how high ducks/geese can fly. Seriously.
 
GE90 FTW. Rolls Royce still does pack carburizing of parts...that's like blacksmith technology.
 
Grall said:
Guess you guys heard the news by now, huh? Not gonna provide any links or anything, it's all over the web anyway. You guys heard any good infos on this? All I know is pretty much summed up by "it happened".
Click to expand...

First I've seen of it, and if they mentioned on the news here I missed it. When the plane lands safely, its not really news. :)
 
If it's got sensational value, then it's per definition news these days. Regardless of if it's actually newsworthy or not (I'd say it actually is, in this particular case.)

Arwin said:
Grall, I think you should google how high ducks/geese can fly. Seriously.
Click to expand...
Bah. I'm not a birds expert and never claimed I was. Nor do I have any plans or desire to become one. I just pulled a figure sufficiently large figure to definitely cover the flight envelope of geese out of thin air and ran with it. Y umad? :LOL:
 
Grall said:
Bah. I'm not a birds expert and never claimed I was. Nor do I have any plans or desire to become one. I just pulled a figure sufficiently large figure to definitely cover the flight envelope of geese out of thin air and ran with it. Y umad? :LOL:
Click to expand...

Considering where they were when the accident happened it is unlikely that were at 30k feet. The plane took off from Singapore and the island above which the accident happened is just off the coast. OTOH, so far there has been no indication of an foreign object causing the blowout. And AFAIK, there was a FOD issue with either of the other RR un-contained failures that have happened this year either. One was a QF 747 shortly (30 min) after takeoff from SFO and the other was during a test flight of the 787. I know the FAA posted a maintenance notice after the 787 engine failure for both the Trent 900 (A380) and Trent 1000 (787). Both the 900 and 1000 share a lot of the same architecture/design work. Don't know either the age nor the type of the engine on the QF 747 that had the failure.

The more scary issue is that this is 3 un-contained failures from RR engine in roughly 3 months, two of which we know to be fairly new engines. The fact that the engines failed isn't that big of an issue, the planes are designed with engine failures in mind. The issue is that all 3 were un-contained which is quite worrisome given the scenarios that are possible. In the case of the 380, the failure managed to do a number on the wing. Un-contained failures can lead to some pretty catastrophic scenarios.
 
aaronspink said:
Considering where they were when the accident happened it is unlikely that were at 30k feet.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I thought so too, but I just didn't have any solid information on pretty much anything (including basic stuff like how far into the flight the accident occurred) when I wrote my post - still don't, really, as that Airplanes site linked previously wants me to buy a subscription first annnndd...no thanks. :D

Some ground witnesses were interviewed on the evening news, and one guy claimed the airplane wavered from side to side, which kind of implies that it wasn't too far up when it happened. On the other hand, it's not unheard of for people to exaggerate to cameras when they know they're going to end up on TV, so I didn't want to put too much faith into that statement... ;)

The more scary issue is that this is 3 un-contained failures from RR engine in roughly 3 months
Click to expand...
It could simply be a statistical anomaly. RR jet engines have been flying the world over for over half a century by now, if there was a pattern of neglect or disregard during design or manufacture of these things I think it would have shown up by now. :)

The issue is that all 3 were un-contained which is quite worrisome given the scenarios that are possible. In the case of the 380, the failure managed to do a number on the wing.
Click to expand...
Yeah. You don't want fan debris twirling into the pressurized main fuselage and causing structural failure and minced passengers... That'd be BAD. Also, fuel tanks, mid-air explosions etc... That would be BAD also, ugh.


Un-contained failures can lead to some pretty catastrophic scenarios.
 
I've been to the GE facility where they hurl objects into running turbine engines to test rotorburst containment. Why isn't RR's cowling containing these failures when its a standard test in the industry?
 
because its unlikely the outside FAN that failed but the internal ones that are insainly strong and spinning at 10000+ RPM. regardless of manufacture when these go they cause massive damage. these only need the smallest of fractures and are aparrently extremely hard to detect pre failing.

from the photos i saw it looks like the front fan is fine and the damage is in the middle of the engine, consistant with something internal (in the combustion chamber) letting go.
 
aaronspink said:
www.airliners.net
Click to expand...

I like this one:
iadca said:
Engine: BANG!
Passengers: *Crap pants*
Pilots: We had four engines. Now we have three, and one of those three appears to be misbehaving. It's on the same wing as the one that seems to have decided that today was a good day for a prank. Time to turn this thing around.
People on ground: There's metal falling from the sky, and a very large metal object up there that's an obvious source. Time to call the media.
Media: OMGTHERE'SACRAAAAAAAAAAAASH! The Boeing 747-380 Dreamliner was carrying 855 people, some of whom must have had some connection to the locality where this media was published.
Other media: Sometimes, things happen to airplanes and they don't crash.
Media #1: Shutupshutupshutup, we need stories now that the American people have fully articulated themselves via the voting booth ("I want government to pay my medical bills, educate my children, keep me safe, and if necessary, employ me; I also despite government employees, programs, and all taxes. Durrrrrrrr."). We'll report now, and ask questions later.
A.net calm poster subgroup: The plane actually is fine.
Qantas: Well, not exactly fine, but it's on the ground.
Well-connected a.net poster: Here's a picture.
Uninformed speculating a.net posters: It looks like an oxenschwanz failure resulting in a FADEC ramp-up, uncontained vernal equinox, possible disc failure, and was possibly caused by birds, contaminated fuel, Ryanair, or antitrust law.
Media #1: OMG IT MUST HAVE CRASHED.
First a.net posters who actually read the previous posts before posting: Wow, they landed the plane with a freakin' hole in the wing. That sure beats the alternative.
A.net know-it-alls: It's not a wing; it's a horizontal lifting apparatus, and uncontained engine failures are no big deal. You're an idiot for thinking a 3-year-old plane randomly blasting metal parts with no warning is a news event. You're idiots and "should of" read my mind before posting. By the way, I use big words and am smarter than you. I actually don't know anything, but I think I'm really smart.
Media #1: Time to copy and paste news stories from somewhere else. All is well. It was an A380, it landed. Here's a picture.
Stockbrokers: Crash? Crash? We're a bunch of highly-caffeinated 22-year-old Harvard know-it-alls! You bet we're gonna crash!
200 more a.net posters: We post without reading the thread. Was this an A380?
A.net poster posting blatantly wrong information: Posts 10 times.
A.net media poopers: I HATE THE MEDIA. THEIR SUCH IDIOTS. By the way, I know everything about everything. And I voted yesterday, so I'm better than you.
Qantas: What could make people panic and make this a bigger incident than needed? Oh, yes, ground the entire fleet.
Rolls-Royce spokesman: Hey, look over there!
More a.net morons: I'm never flying on an Airbus, a plane with Rolls Engines, anything with four engines, or anything with red paint on it again.
Rational a.net skeptic: I'm slightly worried by the thought of a 3-year-old engine raining debris and tearing a fairly large hole in the wing. It's good everything worked out.
Pilot worshippers: OMGTHEPILOTS. Now I need to go back to writing news stories.
Airbus bashers: The A380 is the worst plane ever.
Boeing bashers: Look, a BA 777 actually fell out of the sky a couple years ago. This is very relevant.
200 more a.netters: I don't actually have much to do but argue about nothing, so I will quote someone, misunderstand, get angry, rant, and then hit post.
A.net trivia mavens: Let's try to list every uncontained engine failure since 1946.
Moderators: Yeesh.
Passengers: Can we have new pants now? Or at least sell our stories to the media?
A.net angry know-it-alls: THERE'S NO U IN 'QANTAS!' THE MEDIA THERE SUCH IDIOTS!

Seriously, folks, it's a news story. It's neither a tragedy nor something to get worked up about. This is why planes are engineered to withstand issues. They do happen, they are scary for those involved, and we have professional crews who train extensively to deal with things like this. Basically, everything went great on QF32...except, you know, the whole bit about the uncontained engine failure.
Click to expand...

Cheers
 
itsmydamnation said:
because its unlikely the outside FAN that failed but the internal ones that are insainly strong and spinning at 10000+ RPM. regardless of manufacture when these go they cause massive damage. these only need the smallest of fractures and are aparrently extremely hard to detect pre failing.

from the photos i saw it looks like the front fan is fine and the damage is in the middle of the engine, consistant with something internal (in the combustion chamber) letting go.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting fan breakage.

I am suggesting turbine failure and the combination of turbine housing and cowling is supposed to contain broken turbine blades. Based on the breaching of the cowling near the midpoint (see dark line not visible on the other engine) the turbine failure was in the forward section of the turbine. It then cascaded, likely breaking many other blades.

But the key thing is that the fragments made it out of the turbine housing and the cowling instead of being ejected out the turbine nozzle where they would have been harmless.

This is a serious failure of the engine design.
 
Mize said:
But the key thing is that the fragments made it out of the turbine housing and the cowling instead of being ejected out the turbine nozzle where they would have been harmless.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the kinetic energy of these blades is just too great to be possible to contain without adding so much weight to the engine that it becomes prohibitively heavy? What if the turbine wheel itself cracks and fragments into pieces rather than just the blades at the circumference breaking off? That would be even harder to contain...

These are quite rare events after all, perhaps it's a known - if very low - calculated risk that these things can in fact occur.
 
Incidentally, the A380 is a beautiful airplane to be a passenger in. I took one this summer from NY to Paris, and it flies like a dream. Very smooth takeof and landing, lots of leg space and all sorts of cool amenities
 
Fred said:
Incidentally, the A380 is a beautiful airplane to be a passenger in. I took one this summer from NY to Paris, and it flies like a dream. Very smooth takeof and landing, lots of leg space and all sorts of cool amenities
Click to expand...

Leg space is not related to the a380 :). In other words a 737 could have plenty of leg space too. I don't really care about the airplane wars though. Unless they make engines so efficient that they can fly it economically while letting me sleep (i.e. a bed), or get a supersonic one then I don't really care.
 
Unless they make engines so efficient that they can fly it economically while letting me sleep (i.e. a bed)
Click to expand...
heads up, on boeing 747's Ive sleep in a bed, normally theres a couple at the back of the plane in a room up some stairs.
Check the doors out, they are usually locked but you might get lucky. You'll get told off by the flight attendant if they catch you but I managed a ~8hr sleep on one flight (certainly better than trying to doze on your seat).
I think they have this room for a sick passenger or if they (attendants) want a kip.
 
Grall said:
Perhaps the kinetic energy of these blades is just too great to be possible to contain without adding so much weight to the engine that it becomes prohibitively heavy? What if the turbine wheel itself cracks and fragments into pieces rather than just the blades at the circumference breaking off? That would be even harder to contain...

These are quite rare events after all, perhaps it's a known - if very low - calculated risk that these things can in fact occur.
Click to expand...

Uh...no.

Yes, they have a ton of kinetic energy, but containing them is a big part of engine design because this does happen.

What is a "turbine wheel"? You mean the rotor on which the fan blades are mounted? It should be contained (as in damage goes back and down) in the event of failure also, but if that puppy fails you've got some serious liability for bad materials and heat treating.

FWIW as temperatures rise the primary failure mode of these things is grain-boundary creep in the turbine blades. For this reason many engines are using so called "single crystal" turbine blades where they try to make the blade on big grain of the alloy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top