Someone said "if it aint a Boeing, I'm not going".



I agree, but sometimes you wind up on an Airbus inadvertantly.





Subject: Update on the Qantas A380





FYI ! Think I would rather fly on Boeing........



Update on the Qantas A380


it appears there was much more than just losing an engine after t/o...



Qantas raises A380 design flaw possibility


Qantas CEO Alan Joyce is reported to have raised the possibility of a design flaw in the A380 in relation to the engine that couldn’t be shut down after QF 32 returned to Singapore Airport yesterday.

The comments were made in an interview with Neil Mitchell on Radio 3AW in Melbourne , which Qantas media relations is seeking a transcript.

Whatever Joyce’s exact words were, it is manifestly a valid issue. On the passenger videos being aired this morning, the captain of the flight is heard clearly stating that the No1 engine could not be shut down after landing. It was in fact doused by fire engines and took some time to ‘drown’, as reported earlier in Plane Talking.

The pilot is also heard referring to damage done by the inboard (No 2) engine failure in relation to the other (No 1) outer engine on that that side of the giant airliner.

While there has been no comment by Airbus concerning the question over the design of the jet in terms of maintaining control of the outboard engines if critical wires are cut in such an incident, it seems fairly obvious that it needs to be addressed.



Joyce also clarified that the No 1 engine on the Qantas jet had performed normally until it failed to shut down after landing, which was only achieved by dousing it with water from the fire tenders that met the jet on its return to Singapore after the violent disintegration of the No 2 engine.

The wing of the Qantas A380 was pierced by debris from its disintegrating No 2 engine. Fuel leaked from the damaged wing as it returned to Changi Airport , but there was no fire and no disaster.

In fact, the Qantas crew, and operational support in Sydney , acquitted themselves brilliantly, dealing with a jet that was in a lot more trouble than just losing one engine.

Thanks to social media, we know how dire the situation was.

Parts of the No 2 engine ripped through the wing above, apparently causing either fuel lines, or the wing fuel tankage itself, to leak.

The largest piece of debris, probably a turbine blade, also managed to block or cut control messages to the outboard No 1 engine (edit, after the jet landed).

The debris also cut half of the hydraulic control capability of the A380, causing the jet to rely on gravity rather than power to lower all or part of its undercarriage into the landing position, and the photos imply that the jet with 466 people on board was landed without the wing slats being deployed, at least in part.

All of which made a passing reference to a possible design fault in the jet, never mind the engine, by Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce, on Radio 3AW this morning an exercise in understatement.

Qantas has a flagship jet vulnerable to wing damage from an engine failure that is supposed never to happen under design rules intended to avoid ‘uncontained’ disintegrations in which debris can puncture cabin walls, sever fuel lines or block control functions. (Sounds a bit like the DC10.)

Rolls-Royce, the maker of the particular A380 engine used by Qantas, and Airbus, have much to deal with in the ATSB lead inquiry now underway by a team supported by Singaporean and Indonesian accident investigators.

Captain Richard de Crespigny and crew had to deal with one shattered engine, one jammed engine (on landing), a fuel leak and compromised hydraulic and electrical controls.

In terms of managing the message, Qantas has done well. By underscoring its commitment to safety in grounding its six A380s it has managed to enhance its reputation while seriously (but necessarily) dislocating the travel plans of thousands of A380 customers, plus the knock-on effects for some other passengers of redirected flights using alternative jets.

Singapore Airlines, which operates 11 A380s, also grounded its giant Airbuses overnight, but is now bringing them back on line as each is given an exceptional inspection of the Rolls-Royce engines which are already under an airworthiness directive that warned of risks of an uncontained failure as long ago as January.

(It is unclear if the fault that caused the Qantas drama is the one anticipated in that directive, or something new.)

Qantas had complied with an airworthiness direction issued three months ago by the European Aviation Safety Agency. This related to possible problems with the turbines of the A380's engines.

But it doesn’t need to hurry. This is one case where it can suffer flight disruptions for all the right reasons.

I expect to hear a lot more about these nightmare airplanes as time goes on. Airbuses design philosophy is flawed in systems and structure.

But there's that feeling that only comes with flying on an Airbus:








But I've only ridden in coach...

Like a buddy of mine I used to fly with said, eventually someone will be building restaurants or small homes out of those 380 fuselages and Rolls will be selling some expensive boat anchors. Looks like they've both hit the point of diminishing returns...

Well all I know about the A-380 was from what I saw on Discovery Channel on how they were building them. And some of the strong Arm tactics used to sell the them. I know Boeing is working thru some issues with the 787, and if its anything like the pass, Boeing will deliver a good airplane that will have a long flying life.

I only had the privilege of flying one Boeing, the 747. I began in the right seat after flying the Hercules for nine years and got enough right seat experience to upgrade.

It is a phenomenal airplane. A fascinating airplane. Every time I climbed the ladder into the cockpit high above the ramp, I felt a renewed sense of wonder that the company would turn me loose with this wonderful airplane.

Passing captain upgrade was the hardest thing I think I've ever done in my entire life. Southern Air's training standards were the equal of any passenger carrier, and, I would guess, superior to some. No one cut us any slack from day one, and I was very proud to have concluded my aviation career from the left seat of the beloved Whale. I am a very lucky guy.

jetdrvr:
I am envious! It seems like a miracle that a single human being can direct that huge, fabulous machine and make it take off, fly and land safely.

In general I try to stay away from both the biggest and the smallest of most everything, as that's where most problems happen IMHO. And airplanes are no exception to that rule!

I see quantas have had trouble with 2 747 including an engine explosion.

either they are having a really bad run of luck or their are maintainence issues they need to work out with the Union!!!

In the A340 the captain said to me that the third crew member (flight engineer) like on the boeings was 'totally unnecessary'...unill something went wrong - then you desperately needed him....And for a Lufthansa captain to admit that....

I suspect he was right though looking at the Air France crash. When things went wrong captain and first officer couldn't watch everything and manage all systems that were failing and stalled it...Sadly they haven't found the Black box.

I flew with Flight Engineers for twelve years, on the 747-200 series and the L-382 civilian Herc. On many more than one occasion, those guys saved my butt. That third set of eyes in the cockpit is invaluable, particularly when you've been awake for thirty hours and can easily miss something. Their knowledge of the aircraft systems was invaluable. On at least one occasion in the Sudan, having a FE available to go back into the cabin on a Herc with the on-board mechanic saved an airplane and maybe the crew, as well.

The airlines replaced them with computers on the current generation of aircraft to avoid paying salaries. Computers are cheaper. Luckily, I retired before I had to fly without one.

A skilled FE on the Qantas airplane would have been a very big help.

quote:

The airlines replaced them with computers on the current generation of aircraft to avoid paying salaries. Computers are cheaper. Luckily, I retired before I had to fly without one.

A skilled FE on the Qantas airplane would have been a very big help.

Having flown both. I also miss a having a GOOD engineer, read an experienced PFE, a probational second officer usually is more trouble than help in a bad situation.

With a good FE all the pilots had to do was fly the airplane the FE took care of the systems and the emergency checklists. Without an FE the non flying pilot is busier that a one armed paper hanger and is more apt to miss something critical and the flying pilot has at least double the workload as well.

Now in the 777 with the ECL (Electronic Check List) it takes a huge load off the pilot in an emergency but the problem here happens when the check list logic isn't followed correctly.

I was an instructor and check airmen on the 777 for almost 7 years and I could operate the ECL with no issues because I did it almost every day. The average line crew coming back for a PC would invariably screw it up on the first try making their workload double or triple what it should be.

A good engineer is solid gold in an emergency situation. Fortunately on the 777 and the 400 there is usually at least one if not two additional crew members on the flight deck for take off and landing due to duty and flight time limitations on ultra long haul routes.