A Qantas spokesperson said 'there was no engine fire' but 'it will require replacement'.
In the aftermath of the engine explosion in one of its Boeing 747-400s on Monday night (US time) Qantas has made an admission that goes to the heart of claims that it’s safety standards are declining.
It says it was’ fully compliant’ with a very recent airworthiness directive requiring inspections of the Rolls-Royce RB211 engines because of the risk of the type of explosion that occurred to QF74 less than an hour after it had departed San Francisco on a scheduled flight of more than 13 hours to Sydney.
But was Qantas ‘fully compliant’ with public expectations of exceptional safety standards, a claim that Qantas trades on repeatedly in its insistence that it is better at safety than other carriers?
No, it wasn’t. If Qantas was an airline with an exceptional safety culture it would never have dispatched a 747 with 212 passengers on board on a very long trans Pacific flight with engines that two weeks ago became the subject of an air worthiness directive warning of the dangers of a serious failure in some of its components.
The Qantas position is that it didn’t immediately inspect its RB211 engines because it wasn’t required to by the new directive. It was prepared to wait until their next scheduled maintenance fell due, as the directive does require.
On a non-stop trans Pacific flight this is obviously unacceptable, except to bean counters. The jet that set off as QF74 was going to be a long, long way from anywhere for many hours on its intended route. Qantas is the ‘lucky’ airline. The engine ruptured its containing structure while still close to an airport equipped with full emergency services.
The Qantas statements made in the SMH report amount to ‘we’ve ticked the boxes and are fully compliant with the airworthiness directive’. This is accountant speak for ‘we’ll fly the jet until we are compelled to make the inspection, even across the remote South Pacific.’
In this regard, Qantas is just like many other carriers. It will not go beyond the requirements, just satisfy them. If it was ‘proactive’ about safety it would have prevented any RB211 engined 747 from departing on a trans Pacific non-stop flight until the engines were inspected in advance of the requirements in the AD to carry out the additional inspections when their next scheduled maintenance fell due.
The process of air worthiness directives or ADs needs to be considered here. They are usually issued after ‘consultation’ between the US or European safety regulators and the airframe or engine manufacturers and sometimes, carriers themselves. There is an emphasis in the framing of ADs on commercial co-operation, and it can be argued that this process doesn’t set the highest possible standards, but the lowest minimum standards that will balance the risk to the public against the cost to the airlines.
It is disappointing to see Qantas eagerly embrace this approach, as if it validates its safety culture, when it fact it diminishes it.
If Qantas is serious about rectifying the situation it will immediately inspect all RB211 engines on its 747s before they depart on any long haul remote flights, including the most vulnerable routes, to South America and South Africa.
Or will it huff and puff, and take its chances this sort of incident isn’t repeated seven hours into a flight that puts its 747s over the icebergs of the far southern ocean?
Will Qantas put more RB211 powered 747s into harm’s way today? Or will it act, now?
Will CASA show any leadership? Or will it just sit there and go along with this nonsense, as a sort of rubber stamp for directives made by the FAA?
11 Comments
No of course there was no fire; that’s just how engines are supposed to act.
Perhaps molten metal and burning fuel pouring out of the side of an engine does not fall into the technical definition of engine fire, as the fire is outside the engine?
I’d be interested to know if this sort of failure has the potential to cause wing damage, puncture fuel tanks or even cause cabin damage.
Will Qantas be remembered as the only airline to have blown up an RB211-524, versions of which have claimed reliability records for Rolls Royce for “time on wing”?
Issues of danger to customers aside, what amazes me is just how bad this is as corporate strategy. They’re trashing their own brand.
Qantas has always had only two competitive advantages that let it survive:
(1) restrictive agreements on routes that hand it some automatic market share. Slowly but surely these are disappearing anyway, but the more Qantas outsources things overseas the weaker the pressure it can put on Australian governments for them.
(2) the “world’s safest airline” brand. You can only keep this by exceeding what your competitors are required by regulation to do. If you make the same cost-safety tradeoffs as them then sooner or later you are going to have the same accident rate as them. And while you’re specifically selling on safety any accident will cost you far more than it would them.
Didn’t HIH Insurance tick the boxes for compliance? Look what happened to them.
QANTAS – It’s only a matter of time.
QANTAS think they are immune to major incidents and have sailed too close to the wind. Its only a matter of time before several incidents take place
“We always have safety as our number one priority,” he said.
“The fact is, very occasionally engines do fail on aircraft and in fact it’s a testament to the skill of our engineers and our flight crew that they would bring this aircraft home quite safely.”
David Epstein
So these statements are just not correct. Safety is one of several competing priorities which include cost, reputation, effect on share price. Seeing as the engineers didn’t touch the engine after the AD, and the engine wasn’t last serviced by ‘our engineers’ they had no role.
Even if the safety regulator can’t see a role for itself what about our commercial regulators. Given this comment does not reflect Qantas actions or commercial decisions why does the ASX allow this kind of deliberate and demonstrable falsehood?
joey and lindsayb, that video is not necessarily that of an engine on fire.
What is believed to have happened is a turbine blade sheared off and damaged other blades. Some went through the side of the engine casing (an uncontained failure) while others went through the remaining parts of the engine. The crew shut down the engine but the engine continues to spin because of the airflow through the engine.
This causes the damaged blades to continue rubbing against the engine casing causing bits to rub and break off, these are still very hot both from the friction and the recent combustion so as they appear out of the rear of the engine you will get the effect shown in the video.