Anyone realize this massive piece of crap only has two hydraulic systems aboard? Incredible!

Stricken Qantas A380 jet was full of holes

* Geoff Easdown
* From: Herald Sun
* November 12, 2010 1:00AM


Error! Filename not specified.
Damage to Qantas plane. Source: HWT Image Library
A QANTAS A380 was a flying wreck after an engine exploded last week, shooting metal through fuel tanks.
Last week's mid-air emergency off Singapore also badly damaged a wing, which may have to be replaced.
The Herald Sun can reveal the full list of damage as the big jet was nursed back to Singapore on three engines.
When it touched down the fuel systems were failing, the forward spar supporting the left wing had been holed and one of the jet's two hydraulic systems was knocked out and totally drained of fluid.
Sources compared the A380 to the Memphis Belle, the World War II bomber that struggled back to England from Germany on its final mission and became the subject of an award-winning 1990s Hollywood movie by the same name.
Richard Woodward, vice-president of the International Air Pilots' Federation, told the Herald Sun yesterday that the lesson from the near disaster was the value of an experienced flight crew.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
"There was a wealth of experience in the cockpit, even the lowest ranked officer on board had thousands of hours of experience in his former role as a military flying instructor," said Capt Woodward, himself an A380 pilot on leave from Qantas.
As another senior pilot said: "It is bad enough for an engine to explode in mid-air let alone lose so many secondary systems".
Investigators found shrapnel damage to the flaps, a huge hole in the upper surface of the left wing and a generator that was not working.
The crew could not shutdown the No. 1 engine using the fire switch.
As a result the engine's fire extinguishers could not be deployed.
Captain Richard de Crespigny, first officer Matt Hicks and Mark Johnson, the second officer, could not jettison the volume of fuel required for a safe emergency landing.
With more than 80 tonnes of highly volatile jet kerosene still in the 11 tanks -- two of which were leaking -- they made an overweight and high speed approach to Changi Airport.
Without full hydraulics the spoilers -- the hinged flaps on the front of the wings -- could not be fully deployed to slow the jet.
The crew also had to rely on gravity for the undercarriage to drop and lock into place.
On landing they had no anti-skid brakes and could rely on only one engine for reverse thrust -- needing all of the 4km runway at Changi to bring the jet to a stop.
The three crew have been interviewed by Australian investigators and cleared to return to duties.
Industry sources said the damage will almost certainly put the airline's flagship jet -- the Nancy Bird-Walton -- out of service for months.
Investigators found that an oil fire may have caused the engine to explode.
Details of the stricken jet's problems were revealed yesterday in an emergency directive by the European Aviation Safety Authority.
The authority made it mandatory for airlines with the now suspect Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines to make checks for excess oil.
If not detected, excess oil can cause a fire and ultimately result in "uncontained" engine failure, with potential damage to the aeroplane and to people or property on the ground.
Qantas made it clear it will keep its six superjumbos grounded indefinitely and has rearranged flight schedules using substitute aircraft.
"The specific checks mandated by the directive were already being carried out by Qantas in conjunction with Rolls-Royce," it said.
"Qantas's A380 aircraft will not return to service until there is complete certainty that the fleet can operate safely."
easdowng@heraldsun.com.au

heraldsun.com.au

WHAT WENT WRONG ON QF32
Damage to the A380
1 Massive fuel leak in the left mid fuel tank (there are 11 tanks, including in the horizontal stabiliser on the tail)
2 Massive fuel leak in the left inner fuel tank
3 A hole on the flap fairing big enough to climb through
4 The aft gallery in the fuel system failed, preventing many fuel transfer functions
5 Problem jettisoning fuel
6 Massive hole in the upper wing surface
7 Partial failure of leading edge slats
8 Partial failure of speed brakes/ground spoilers
9 Shrapnel damage to the flaps
10 Total loss of all hydraulic fluid in one of the jet's two systems
11 Manual extension of landing gear
12 Loss of one generator and associated systems
13 Loss of brake anti-skid system
14 No.1 engine could not be shut down in the usual way after landing because of major damage to systems
15 No.1 engine could not be shut down using the fire switch, which meant fire extinguishers would not work on that engine
16 ECAM (electronic centralized aircraft monitor) warnings about the major fuel imbalance (because of fuel leaks on left side) could not be fixed with cross-feeding
17 Fuel was trapped in the trim tank (in the tail)creating a balance problem for landing
18 Left wing forward spar penetrated by debris

quote:

Sources compared the A380 to the Memphis Belle, the World War II bomber that struggled back to England from Germany on its final mission and became the subject of an award-winning 1990s Hollywood movie by the same name.

Whoops this should be a clue as to the idiocy of the reporter.
The Memphis Belle never suffered any battle damage on her 25 missions.
She only suffered damage in the Hollywood crapola version.

So with that in mind...Even the little A-320 series has three independent hydraulic systems. Labeled blue, green and yellow. I can't possibly imagine that the A-380 has fewer than the A-320?

I talked to a Quantas guy yesterday and he confirmed that they were unable the shut down the #1 engine. And that in fact it was locked at 80% power. They shut it down by spraying massive quantities of foam into it form a fire truck. Effing Airbuses......

Yeah, the whale has four hydraulic systems. I've seen them come in handy once after a body gear tire blew and took out two of them. One would think the 380 would have more than two. Just doesn't make sense, unless they're trying to save weight at the expense of safety.

Thanks for that. Lot of cherries lining up for Qantas on that one.

Came up from Sydney on SIA A380 last Tuesday, next day the flight was cancelled and the aircraft grounded.

Lots nothing out there to be having problems like this. Lucky they weren't far from Changi.

The were Lucky, nobody gotten hurt. As for the Airplane well its an Airbus!

Looks like somebody [?] may be out something like $400 - these engines are $10 mil US per each! Wow!

"Qantas: 40 engines on A380s need to be replaced"
Whole story:
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation...xtype=rss_news_81963

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:

quote:

Sources compared the A380 to the Memphis Belle, the World War II bomber that struggled back to England from Germany on its final mission and became the subject of an award-winning 1990s Hollywood movie by the same name.

Whoops this should be a clue as to the idiocy of the reporter.
The Memphis Belle never suffered any battle damage on her 25 missions.
She only suffered damage in the Hollywood crapola version.

So with that in mind...Even the little A-320 series has three independent hydraulic systems. Labeled blue, green and yellow. I can't possibly imagine that the A-380 has fewer than the A-320?

I talked to a Quantas guy yesterday and he confirmed that they were unable the shut down the #1 engine. And that in fact it was locked at 80% power. They shut it down by spraying massive quantities of foam into it form a fire truck. Effing Airbuses......

Actually you aren't correct either, Memphis Bell was dammaged in combat during a mission
on February 16th, 1943

and amusingly Memphis bell was NOT the first B-17 to complete 25missions, another B-17 named Hell's Angels managed it 8days eariler.

but you are correct in that the movie is only accurate as far as there was a B17 named "Memphis Belle" finished 25missions and was being followed by a film crew at the time to document the event.

But most of the "members" of that crew did NOT complete their 25missions exclusively in that one aircraft. even in 1943 the story was changed for dramatic effect.

Not that it wasn't a good story (Which story? either one!), it's just not a historically accurate one.

AD

quote:

Not that it wasn't a good story (Which story? either one!), it's just not a historically accurate one.

Much like the reporters story about the incident in question.