Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[henryd]

very lucky that the debris that exited the wing didn't head into the cabin area

[aaronjb]

Well whatever the cause, it does seem that something ejected from the engine and existed through the wing.  The very thing that Rolls Royce try and avoid!!

This is an interesting piece of film on the RR A380 Arbus Trent engine test that demonstrates how the cowling shield should stop flying blades:

The testing starts from about 3.30 minutes

http://xo.typepad.com/blog/2009/02/a380-jet-engine-test.html
 

I'm no expert, but I think that shows a compressor blade failure (which would be more common in bird strikes and so on, I'd imagine) - while it looks like the engine in question suffered turbine-end failure.. I've no idea if the cowling at that end is designed with the same protection in mind..

[Entwood]

Lets get one thing very clear .. that has been missed by all the "headline" makers ....

ALL modern aircraft are DESIGNED to be able to suffer a failure of the "critical engine" at the "critical time" on takeoff and then continue flight. It is designed in and practiced by the crews many many times in simulators.

An aircrafts "critical engine" is "usually" the starboard outboard engine, due to its position and direction of rotation ( the spinning masses of compressors and turbines have a gyroscopic effect), although this is being designed out as far as possible.

The "critical time" is a speed known as V1 .. below that speed the takeoff can be abandoned and the aircraft bought to rest in the remaining length of runway. Above that speed here is insufficient stopping distance.....

So an engine failure AT V1 means the remaing engine(s) must be capable of getting the aircraft airborne, under control, and to a sufficient altitude that either a return to land in good weather, or a diversion to the "take off diversion"  in bad weather is accomplished.

Whilst it was alarming for the pasengers, and probably a little exciting on the flight deck, the aircraft and crew did no more than what the designers and the hours of training had equiped them to do.

The ideas of "miracle survival" (!!), "close call", "near accident" are all scaremongering and newspaper selling of the worst kind.

It was a "routine mishap" if you like american jargon ....

[aaronjb]

Newspapers do like to hype things up..

A 'miracle survival' would be the aircraft breaking up at 35,000ft and having someone survive unscathed (which, IIRC, has happened before)

I still bet it was a bit buttock clenching for the passengers, if not the staff

[Martin_1962]

This was on the news in the lunch room and a colleague looks concerned and says "Maybe I should cancel that ticket to Japan.." - he's flying on a Lufthansa A380

Although they use "Engine Alliance" engines - which if you ask me, sounds like the name of some dodgy engine refurb place you'd find on eBay

The GE engines are not as advanced as the Trents

[wingman]

[/quote]
I'm no expert, but I think that shows a compressor blade failure (which would be more common in bird strikes and so on, I'd imagine) - while it looks like the engine in question suffered turbine-end failure.. I've no idea if the cowling at that end is designed with the same protection in mind..[/quote]

No obviously not!!

[aaronjb]

I'm no expert, but I think that shows a compressor blade failure (which would be more common in bird strikes and so on, I'd imagine) - while it looks like the engine in question suffered turbine-end failure.. I've no idea if the cowling at that end is designed with the same protection in mind..

No obviously not!!

Well it could have been - but if it was, it didn't work very well

[Entwood]

If the compressor or turbine blades fail and depart outwith the engine ... it is described as an "uncontained" failure. Engines these days are "wrapped" with titanium/kevlar or something else to "contain" the bits and prevent collateral damage.... the "bits" are allowed to exit via the exhaust of course !!

Looking at the pictures, and with no expertise on these engines .. it would appear some collateral damage from either compressor/turbine blades has occurred to the wing structure ... that will be the subject of great examination .. as the idea of hot blades passing into fuels cells does not sit well in aviation minds .....

There is also damage to the rear of the engine which, to my mind, looks to be the area of the "clamshell doors" used to enable reverse thrust. These are situated in the exhaust duct after the turbine, and mostly use "bypass" air, but might well be damaged by a "semi-contained" failure.

These engines are "high ratio by-pass" engines ... sometimes (incorrectly) called "shrouded propellors" .. in which only a small percentage of the air passing through goes to the central core and is used for combustion. This does mean that the central core rotates at very high speed, at high temperatures, and under considerable pressure. Mechanical failure is therefore not unexpected, however the incidence is "planned for" even though it is comparitively rare.

[Nickbat]

Hi-res picture of that damaged wing surface:

http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitpic.com%2F33spxm%2Ffull&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F432704-qantas-emergency-landing-singapore-15.html

 

[BigAl]

Hi-res picture of that damaged wing surface:

http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitpic.com%2F33spxm%2Ffull&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F432704-qantas-emergency-landing-singapore-15.html

 

I expect that most surviving WWII pilots will look at that and laugh, while commenting "call that a hole!"

[Banjax]

I agree with Entwood, the pilot certainly didn't seem overly bothered and the plane was far from disaster 

[Chris_H]

Hi-res picture of that damaged wing surface:

http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitpic.com%2F33spxm%2Ffull&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F432704-qantas-emergency-landing-singapore-15.html

 

That wing damage is surprisingly forward of the engine that caused it.  Damage to the engine appeared to be at its rear. :-/

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Hi-res picture of that damaged wing surface:

http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitpic.com%2F33spxm%2Ffull&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F432704-qantas-emergency-landing-singapore-15.html

 

That wing damage is surprisingly forward of the engine that caused it.  Damage to the engine appeared to be at its rear. :-/

Yes indeed Chris, and I believe that is one of the factors that is deaply troubling those now investigating the incident, namely Rolls Royce.  Any blades being thrown should have been retained, but were not.

It has also been stated that there were already concerns, with a report being written, on these engines on the A380.

[Kevin Wood]

That wing damage is surprisingly forward of the engine that caused it.  Damage to the engine appeared to be at its rear. :-/

The front of the engine sits well forward of the leading edge of the wing, though. I'd say it's roughly consistent with the picture of the engine damage, TBH.

Kevin

[Chris_H]

That wing damage is surprisingly forward of the engine that caused it.  Damage to the engine appeared to be at its rear. :-/

The front of the engine sits well forward of the leading edge of the wing, though. I'd say it's roughly consistent with the picture of the engine damage, TBH.

Kevin

Studying the few pics available it now looks to me as if the engine with rear damage is not the offender - it has taken debris from its outboard brother.  So compressor failure or inhaled debris looks most likely.  On the other hand - I give up.