Qantas A380 Safely Lands After Engine Explodes Near Singapore
NYCAviation:
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]
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.
Qantas has now suspended all A380 ops until an investigation is completed.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem.
All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them under control.
I trust you are not in too much distress. —Captain Eric Moody, British Airways Flight 9
Wow, news updates at 230AM! Does the NYCAviation News team never sleep???
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.
Um it's only 2330 on the left side :P
http://brandonsaviationblog.blogspot.com/ My continuing updated Aviation Blog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/ My continuing updated photostream from BFI and sometimes SEA
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://brandonsaviationblog.blogspot.com/ My continuing updated Aviation Blog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/ My continuing updated photostream from BFI and sometimes SEA
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.
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/asiapc...ex.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
Last edited by m.marra; 2010-11-04 at 09:38 AM. Reason: forgot link ;)
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.Originally Posted by puckstopper55
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
The three most common expressions in aviation are, "Why is it doing that?", "Where are we?" and "Oh Crap".
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 anyIf 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
The three most common expressions in aviation are, "Why is it doing that?", "Where are we?" and "Oh Crap".
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.
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!
Good time right Mario?
Last edited by Derf; 2010-11-04 at 01:59 PM.
The three most common expressions in aviation are, "Why is it doing that?", "Where are we?" and "Oh Crap".
Not a nice comment to make, especially from someone that works in the industry.
Glad everyone was ok.
Email me anytime at [email protected].
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks