tip off
85

The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster

redo titleThe Airbus presentation to accident investigators of the damage done to QF32 on November 4 gives new technical insights into this near disaster involving a Qantas A380 with 466 persons on board.

The examination of the damage is far from complete, as the presentation makes clear. It doesn’t deal with the other dimensions of this serious incident, which are the loss or impairment of various systems on the giant airliner, and the emerging difficulties the crew faced from fuel load imbalance caused by some of those failures.

The diagrams need to be compared to the photos shown later in this report

The diagrams need to be compared to the photos shown later in this report

page 4page 5

One thing needs to be kept firmly in mind. Rolls-Royce the maker of the Trent 900 engine which disintegrated knew about the faults that the current airworthiness directive concerning these engines says are likely to have caused an intense oil fire in a structural cavity in the intermediate pressure turbine area of the engine.

Rolls-Royce had designed and was introducing a fix for the oil leak issues for this into the engines at its own speed. Qantas was left in the dark. It is fair to suggest that Qantas needs to review relationships with engine manufacturers in which it pays for power by-the-hour and leaves much of the maintenance and oversight of those engines to the designer and manufacturer.

To emphasise the obvious. The interests of the engine maker and holder of the service agreements are not the same as those of the airline. A carrier might want to correct and replace inadequate design features to a different, more urgent timetable that the party that benefits from the support contract, and has its own brand image to protect.

damage 5page 6page 8

Some impact damage was done to underbelly and side of the A380

Some impact damage was done to underbelly and side of the A380

page 10The set of graphics shown above were accompanied by a brief written and photographic overview of the damage as currently assessed. damage 01

damage 02damage 03damage 04damage 06damage 07Reviewing these images makes it clear why Qantas was quick, and correct, in grounding its A380 fleet.

The wing  of the jet shows remarkable structural strength in sustaining damage that might have destroyed the airliners of earlier decades, but the questions as to whether control system revisions are necessary to deal with some of the consequences in terms of failed hydraulics and fuel imbalance are said to be very actively under consideration.

And the questions concerning the timeliness of the Rolls-Royce responses to a known problem, and its capacity and willingness to share them with the airlines concerned will not go away. If the engine maker doesn’t address them its customers will.

46

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



  • 1
    TomTom
    Posted November 17, 2010 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    Wow, Ben, that’s incredible. You must be the premier investigative reporter in aviation anywhere in the world. Anybody who has any information of interest should want to provide it to you first – for factual presentation and analysis before the usual media screws it up with sensationalized misinformation and quotes from the same old alleged “experts” and financial analysts (“Round up the usual suspects”) who really do not know much about the topic upon which they are opining.

    Congratulations on yet another “scoop”. I hope that the reputation of Plane Talking is spreading throughout the industry.

  • 2
    TomM
    Posted November 17, 2010 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    Any word on what happened to the engine on the 747 out of San Fran a couple of months ago and the reason for the difference in response to the two incidents?

  • 3
    BH65
    Posted November 17, 2010 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    I note the COMPLETE lack of ABSENCE of CASA in making ANY comment whatsoever!!
    This aircraft was nearly lost, and the damage as shown here, proves that. CASA did not send ANYONE to Singapore!!

    Not ONE media release, a big fat nothing!!

    Has CASA no obligation under CAA 9 (2) (b) promoting full and effective consultation and communication with all interested parties on aviation safety issues.

    Oh yeah, sorry, I guess the aviation travelling public are not interested parties, we are all just stupid LEMMINGS!!!!!

    But its what CASA is really good at, ignoring the law!!

  • 4
    Ben Sandilands
    Posted November 17, 2010 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

    TomM,

    There was an interim factual report by the ATSB and it referred to a final report in the New Year. That makes at least four Qantas reports we can expect in that quarter, the others being the Bangkok electrical emergency, the 767 unstable wheels up approach to Sydney, the SFO turnback and QF32. I’m guessing here, but later incidents like QF17 will probably have to wait until the second quarter.

    At the time of the SFO uncontained RB 211 failure I was one of those critical of Qantas not stepping up inspections on the other such engines given the long and lonely routings on which they are used. OK, QF32 was a magnitude worse than SFO, but I have a hunch that another uncontained engine failure of any type on any Qantas jet is going to get the same treatment as the A380, however operationally painful. This airline cannot afford another serious incident, and it cannot afford to get ‘unlucky’.

  • 5
    flierab
    Posted November 17, 2010 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

    Great detailed report. It was obvious to many on Day1 that the damage to the A380 was significant. Your report will no doubt create sensionalist headlines. To prevent this from happenning again I guess we have to allocate “responsibilities”. In time, the ATSB et al will provide the full facts and provide recommendations (aren’t the ATSB aiming for an interim factual report by December 4?).

    Reading between the lines you allocate the largest chunk of responsibilty here to Rolls-Royce. And the next largest to Qantas for not talking to them. We can only wait and see if your predictions are correct.

  • 6
    Uwe
    Posted November 17, 2010 at 11:11 pm | Permalink

    Is the Airbus presentation by Mr. Montagne anywhere available in electronic form?

    G! & TIA
    Uwe

  • 7
    Uwe
    Posted November 17, 2010 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

    “It is fair to suggest that Qantas needs to review relationships with engine manufacturers in which it pays for power by-the-hour and leaves much of the maintenance and oversight of those engines to the designer and manufacturer.”

    So LHs (grok deeply) operating modus is preferable?

  • 8
    Ben Sandilands
    Posted November 17, 2010 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    Uwe,

    There are two documents, a slide presentation, and a brief technical description which deals with damaged areas in words and actual photos. They appear to have been written for the investigators, Rolls-Royce and the airlines most likely directly affected by the failure, the ADs and the replacement of faulty engines. I wouldn’t be surprised if they get attached to the interim factual report, due by December 3, as appendices, although perhaps in an updated form, as each document refers to areas of the airframe and engine that had not been inspected by November 10.

  • 9
    christine negroni
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 3:51 am | Permalink

    Well done Ben! Great scoop.
    http://christinenegroni.blogspot.com/2010/11/balls-of-steel-required-for.html

  • 10
    FF
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 5:36 am | Permalink

    Ben, interesting analysis. You make a very bold statement:

    “Rolls-Royce … knew about the faults that the current airworthiness directive concerning these engines says are likely to have caused an intense oil fire in a structural cavity in the intermediate pressure turbine area of the engine.

    Rolls-Royce had designed and was introducing a fix for the oil leak issues for this into the engines at its own speed. Qantas was left in the dark.”

    This implies, I think, that Rolls Royce knew that the current component was liable to leak oil with potentiallly catastrophic effects but failed to inform the regulatory bodies of the risk, as they are obliged to do, and as they actually do on a regular basis.

    If this is indeed your implication, how do you know this? RR might have upgraded the component as part of a general improvement process – ie without them knowing of oil getting into the wrong places.. As far as I know, no inspection of a Trent 900 engine has ever detected the anolomous presence of oil. Very possibly it should have done, but that’s a different issue.

  • 11
    FF
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    Edit: no inspection of a Trent 900 engine prior to the QF32 accident has ever detected the anomalous presence of oil.

  • 12
    Ben Sandilands
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    FF,

    There is nothing bold about reporting that the COO of Airbus, John Leahy, told the media that the fault had been removed by RR in the latest builds of the engine, in a briefing held on November 12. We have to ask, did they do it to improve the aesthetics, or for some other reason. We do need some definitive statements from RR, clarifying whether they didn’t actually know anything about the design fault that was migrating oil into wrong places, which means they are in conflict with Airbus position that the fault had been corrected by later builds, or that they had embarked on work to fix it.

    The engine maker has a clear choice. To defend their ignorance of a design fault until it caused a gravely serious incident, or to defend the steps they were taking to rectify it. Two weeks have passed since the incident, and they still aren’t saying.

  • 13
    Uwe
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 7:19 am | Permalink

    Ben,
    The EASA issued AD was about unexpectedly high wear on certain surfaces
    and resultant excess play ( and earlier requirement for servicing) .

    Would fixing this be seen as just cosmetic?

    Could fixing this tide over into the excess oil issue?

  • 14
    FF
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    Ben, I agree that Rolls Royce have some serious questions to answer, but I’m not convinced that as a corporation they deliberately covered up a dangerous fault in their product.

    Most likely the change was introduced as part of the remedial work for the earlier airworthiness directive about excessive wear on the drive shaft (EASA 2010-0008R1). This directive mentioned oil contamination as a hypothetical consequence of not following the procedures of that directive.

    Given concerns had already been raised about that part of the engine, it makes it all the more surprising that no oil leakage was detected prior the QF35 accident – yet it was present in several engines afterwards. I suspect the inspection and maintenance regime is going to play a large part in this business.

    I wouldn’t be hugely confident of Airbus Sales Director’s grasp of the technical issues. EASA’s airworthiness directive issued on 10th November appeared to be unsure of the exact cause of the accident, yet two days later John Leahy claimed it had all been fixed long ago.

  • 15
    Ben Sandilands
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 8:06 am | Permalink

    Uwe and FF,

    All very pertinent points to consider. I think we need to consider RR statement number 2 in the post below entitled “Rolls-Royce ‘solution’ under Airbus and Qantas scrutiny” very carefully. Leahy said the latest builds solved the problem. I agree it is possible that RR has stumbled on a course of action that solves the oil leak issue. However I’m not sure that interpretation reflects favourably on RR. I think that RR’s detailed silence on these matters could reflect the realisation that no matter what they say, they are in serious trouble, and that claiming they didn’t know anything would be just as damaging a line of defence as any other.

  • 16
    FF
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    Ben, I hadn’t picked up on that point in Rolls Royce’s press release. So they claimed to have identified by the 12th the single cause of the problem?

    Interesting, because while Qantas, and to an extent Airbus, shift the blame (probably deservedly) onto RR, all three share an interest in quickly alighting on a simple cause of the problem. The problem was caused by component X, which has now been replaced by component Y. The problem has gone away so we can fly/sell planes/sell engines again. Above all avoid any ambiguity, complication or interpretation.

  • 17
    Glen Fergus
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    Why are engines mounted just-so on most modern jets (Fig 5)? Cantilever pillar positions underslung engine forward of leading edge of wing. I guess it’s to separate the aerodynamics of these two components – the engine operates in clear air ahead of wing disturbance, and also produces minimum interference with wing performance. But I’ve always assumed there’s a second reason. Engines fail; bits fly off, radially. Best they don’t hit sensitive things, like wings, control cables, hydraulics, horiz/vertical control surfaces (especially rear-mounted engines) and, of course, passengers. Put them somewhere as far out of the way as possible.

    I wonder whether the A380 engine configuration compromised in any way on that second reason. The cantilever looks kinda short.

  • 18
    David Klein
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    In my years of the regulatory oversight of Qantas I would have to say they had an extremely dedicated professional engineering team responsible for Rolls Royce engines and the frustration of their protracted technical dealings with the manufacturer over
    RB 211 engine issues was almost evident on a weekly basis. I can only imagine their anguish now with the Trent 900 debacle and their inability to become more directly involved due to the power by hour agreement with Rolls Royce.

  • 19
    icarus
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    What a superb effort, thanks.

  • 20
    Cracked_Canoe
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    Ben, Your post focuses on the damage. But an email is making the rounds of the engineering community that discusses the failures and includes feedback from one of the flight engineers on QF32. This is scary stuff.

    Some of the details:

    1 Bus #2 is supposedly automatically powered by Bus #1 in the event of Engine #2 failure – didn’t happen.

    2 Buses #3 & #4 will supposedly power Bus #2 in the event that the auto transfer from Bus #1 fails – didn’t happen.

    3 After some time the RAT deployed for no apparent reason, locking out (as a load-shedding function) some still functioning services.

    4 One of the frequently recurring messages warned of the aircraft approaching the aft CoG limit (the procedure calls for transferring fuel forward), the next message advised of fwd transfer pumps being u/s. This sequence occurred repeatedly.

    5 Apparently landing/approach speeds are obtained from the FMS, but there weren’t anywhere near sufficient fields to load all the defects for speed corrections – the crew loaded what they thought were the most critical ones.

    6 The crew commenced an approach NOT because they’d sorted out all the problems but because they were very worried about the way-out-of-tolerance and steadily worsening lateral imbalance.

    7 The aircraft stopped with just over 100 metres or runway left, brakes temps climbed to 900C and fuel pouring out of the ruptured tank. Unable to shutdown #1 engine (as previously mentioned) but elected not to evacuate as the fire services were attending in great numbers.

    8 The other comment from the source of the above (who was on the flight deck) was that the aeroplane did many things they simply didn’t understand and/or failed to operate as expected.

  • 21
    Ben Sandilands
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    Cracked Canoe,

    Yes I found that email very interesting, but I have not been able to confirm all of it the way I could confirm the matters addressed in the Airbus documents. So I’ve gone for what is totally verifiable. Given that earlier reports of physical damage to the jet were to a degree incorrect I’m glad I hung out for real documentation or could take passenger images to experienced pilots and engineers for guidance which was the first thing I did when they appeared on the public domain.

    While I think that much of the email is correct there was an error in it which means I can’t be sure about some other sections of it in the way I can be certain about the contents of the damage documentation. At the outset of the post I did refer to fuel transfer, balance and other control issues, and at the end, referred to the question mark over potential design changes to address them.

    In short, we have the essential physical damage defined, and we have have the consequences for control systems less defined, but clearly very serious.

    I’m happy about being second to publish on these matters, but to get them as completely correct as possible.

  • 22
    DeltaSierraKilo
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    Days not weeks …
    Is there any word on how long it will be before they expect to get some of the A380 fleet flying again? I heard a rumour from the airfreight industry that it could be January before we see them in the air. From a freight point of view that could be a problem because QF is a major freight carrier out of the US. Europe is not such an issue due to the multiple number of freight carriers. Also, given the number of system failures that occurred within the aircraft, are there any whispers of a review of some A380 systems that could hold things up?
    Finally .. I am not sure if this has been noted elsewhere but I find it ironic that British Cars were famous for their oil leaks .. RR must have the same Engineers :-)

  • 23
    Ben Sandilands
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Qantas is taking delivery of two new A380s with new build RR engines before Christmas, so we can expect both of them to be in service in December. These engines remain subject to the special inspection regimen outlined in the emergency airworthiness directive, meaning every 20 flights.

    There is also a third brand new A380 delivery due in the New Year. What remains unclear is when the six grounded A380s will return to service, but we can be certain that the original Qantas A380 Nancy-Bird Walton, which was severely damaged in the QF32 incident will be the last of the A380s to return to service.

  • 24
    retiredpilot
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    This reminds me of the problem we had with the then new A330′s in Cathay Pacific in 1995. After a series of engine failures caused by failure of the gearbox drive lubrication in the RR Trents, the fleet was grounded for around a month. The fault was known to RR and had been rectified in later production engines, but CX was in the dark until the problem emerged.

  • 25
    Malcolm Street
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    Glen Fergus – the underslung design was developed by Boeing in the 1940s with the B-47 bomber. It’s to allow thinner wings (and hence lower drag) wings to be used – the engines are placed to act like mass balancers on control surfaces and hence stabilise the structure.

    Ben – more frightening stuff. Am I right in thinking that “droop nose” on a wing is a leading edge slat, and that as a result approach and landing would have been hairy due to a major high-lift system (slats) only deploying on one side. This would not only have reduced the lift on one side, but presumably resulted in a nose-down torque on the affected wing due to the flaps being deployed without the slats which would have further thrown out trim in pitch and maybe roll.

    Cracked_Canoe – holy sheeeiiittt!!! So we have redundant systems that aren’t and a Flight Management System that can’t cope with this type of multiple failure. As for the c of g moving to the aft limit and no way of correcting it because the fuel transfer pumps were u/s, I assume this could have sent the aircraft out of control had it stayed in the air much longer. Looks like Airbus has some critical fixes to do as well.

  • 26
    Zortiander
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    Hi all,

    interesting discussions; however, there is something that many people here forget, and that is how an airliner is designed. Some of you may be aware that the design for an UERF (uncontained engine rotor failure) is covered under EASA rules, and is not an invention of the manufacturer. Such analysis clearly states two things: 1) under certain circumstances (namely 20 % of the geometrical impact volume probability) an UERF may be fatal; 2) it only looks at a single impact (as opposed to multiple ones)

    What this means is that what we’ve seen here (clearly multiple impacts) is not covered by any EASA / FAA regulation. If the airplane is still flying afterwards, it is because the design is quite robus. So it is not abou claiming that the design needs to be checked whether its sufficiently robust, it is rather about being happy (maybe lucky) that the design was so good, that it did survive (and allow landing of) a case which it was neither designed for nor (required to be) certified against.

    A few other points:
    Malcom – You (normally) cannot have unbalanced slat / flat deployment on an Airbus (that would be a catastrophic failure case): there are sensors that prohibit any movement, if the other side does not move, too. In case of hydraulic losses (though it depends a bit on which systems etc.) automated power-off breaks immediately clamp down on slats / flaps. Breakage of a slat / flap track is actual a clear design case. In case of any signal loss of any sensor, the system shuts down slats / flaps. Better land with a clean wing than with assymetric wings.

    Cracked – Hot breaks would be normally, seeing as they stopped an a/c against a running engine, with only half spoilers and probably quite overspeed, due to the wing configuration. Lateral imbalance – why? Because of fuel loss – open up the cross-feed valve and pump fuel the other side out. It is possible, though, I agree, it depends on the loss rates. However, I agree, it looks as if a lot of functions went haywire – the dangers of fully integrated systems and dependent errors that no-one understands anymore, perhaps?

    Glen – you’re point, with all due respect, clearly stems from insufficient knowledge: an exploding engine can be considered to have unlimited energy; this means, it can hit the airplane and transperce any systems on its way, indifferently from where it is. Look up an engine failure on a Boeing where the disk hit the ground (ground run), ricochet off through the fuselage into the opposite wing, ricochet again and went into the opposite engine. No matter where you put your engine, your always going to have issues. That is why “a few death” is allowed with a 10^-7 probability (hazardous) under EASA law and one seat row is widely accepted as being “a few” – you cannot stop an exploding engine. And putting them aft, where you can loose your rudder, is far worse.

  • 27
    bearfoil
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 1:23 am | Permalink

    ben

    I think things are unfolding as they always do. Thus far, any “real” conclusions are prevented in the public eye because there is a lack of “Corporate Statements”. This is patent, of course, and supported by the well meaning but misguided “Let’s wait for the final Report” crowd, whose protests serve only the principals’ lack of disclosure. That the IPT became an ad lib “Hot Section” is pretty clear, so enough of conclusions can be had in concert with the publicly available data (ADs).

    I’d like to see this foot dragging change, so thank you for your efforts in pursuit of an informed public.

    bear

  • 28
    DWS10
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    FWIW re . . .Malcolm Street
    Posted November 18, 2010 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    Glen Fergus – the underslung design was developed by Boeing in the 1940s with the B-47 bomber. . .

    +++

    Actually it was the ME262 german jet fighter-bomber ( depending on when Hitler changed his mind ) that used underslung jets on the wing

    And several years AFTER the first 737 were produced, a review of the location revealed that the initial 737 jet engines mounting locations was slightly in error as regards aero efficiency- drag. Changes were made about the same time as the larger engines were installed with the obvious flattened bottom. There was an article in the Boeing news about it at that time, giving credit to the initial german design. . .

  • 29
    Uwe
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    Boeing seems to have studied material from operation paperclip rather carefully.
    The documented implications of area rule and swept wings were incorporated
    into the post war bombers and from there into the dash-80 / 707 / 137.
    Someone at Boeing really _understood_ the implications in those “gifts”.

    But going by the Dreamliner it looks like standing on the shoulders of giants only
    only gives you so much reach and for a limited time only.

  • 30
    Astro
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    Excellent analysis, scary

  • 31
    Zortiander
    Posted November 19, 2010 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    You might want to see this report:

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/18/349926/three-disk-fragments-damaged-qantas-a380-systems.html

    It has more information on the flight control system and availability. Thus there was indeed degradation of roll control; however, being able to fly 1h40 after 3 disk fragments hit the aircraft is quite a testimony to how well it behaved (remember: design case is a single fragment). And, admittedly, to the luck of all people involved that nothing more serious happened.

  • 32
    DWS10
    Posted November 20, 2010 at 2:32 am | Permalink

    groooan… UWE ….The documented implications of area rule and swept wings were incorporated
    into the post war bombers and from there into the dash-80 / 707 / 137…

    +++ Please get your facts- time frame in order

    Area rule came about in mid to late 50′s and was first incorporated in convair fighter F-102 as I recall- allowing later versions AFTER prototype to go supersonic.

    Most do not realize that a subtle area rule effect of the upper cabin ” bulge ” on the 747 is one of the reasons that it has the highest mach cruise speed of any commercial jet- and is partially due to the area rule or ‘ coke bottle ‘ effect.

  • 33
    bearfoil
    Posted November 20, 2010 at 5:28 am | Permalink

    The F-102 was a dog because it LACKED area ruling. Convair did the coke bottle thingy and rebadged the F-102 the F-106. Sorry, what has the area rule to do with scarebus?

  • 34
    DWS10
    Posted November 20, 2010 at 7:12 am | Permalink

    . . . The F-102 was a dog because it LACKED area ruling. Convair did the coke bottle thingy and rebadged the F-102 the F-106. Sorry, what has the area rule to do with scarebus? . .

    ++
    Not much really- but ask UWE why he brought it up in the first place- by claiming that Boeing used it on 707, etc

    The initial thing had to do with pylon location of the Airbus question- comment and the aerodynamic effects and /or protection regarding engine failure.

  • 35
    MKE
    Posted November 20, 2010 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Back in January, the EASA issued AD 2010-008 which describes a problem with the Trent 900 IP turbine section that results in oil loss, oil fire, loss of LP turbine disk integrity, and present unsafe conditions to the areoplane. Sound familiar? On the basis of this AD, and a subsequent one from the FAA it’s hard to believe that Qantas did not know about this problem.

39 Trackbacks

  1. ...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jason B, Kieran Morrissey, Ben Sandilands, Ben Sandilands, Ben Sandilands and others. Ben Sandilands said: Airbus QF32 briefing shows small impacts on belly and side of A380 @http://tiny.cc/8fdem [...

  2. ...] more pictures here: The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster – Plane Talking Sandilands gets stuck into Rolls Royce too: One thing needs to be kept firmly in mind. [...

  3. ...] a link to an Australian Journo who seems to know what he is talking about: Comments on: How to avoid a problem loading these pages Scary [...

  4. By Incidente A380 Qantas - P on November 19, 2010 at 7:34 am

    ...] [...

  5. ...] interesting write up with 3D models and good pics: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk…near-disaster/ Downright scary – but now that they have this figured out these are probably among the more safe [...

  6. ...] reporter Ben Sandilands has published an extraordinary visual and technical account of the damage sustained by VH-OQA when its number two Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine suffered an [...

  7. ...] narrowly missed the wing’s fuel tank, according to official preliminary reports.” MORE: The anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster (Plane Talking) MORE: Front wing spar, wiring, fuel lines among damage sustained by QF32 [...

  8. ...] at Rolls.  Indeed, some are now even speculating that Rolls knew about the problem beforehand, but failed to alert Qantas.  Now, if true, that really would be damaging to [...

  9. ...] narrowly missed the wing’s fuel tank, according to official preliminary reports.” MORE: The anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster (Plane Talking) MORE: Front wing spar, wiring, fuel lines among damage sustained by QF32 [...

  10. ...] Originally Posted by Sink r8 Another situation not foreseen by the software engineers, and not covered in any "system CD", solved by "pilots". What happens when we run out of real pilots that were actually trained by real people, actually understand aircraft systems, and actually can make decisions? The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster – Plane Talking [...

  11. By links for 2010-11-19 « Boskabout on November 20, 2010 at 5:22 am

    ...] The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster – Plane Talking Feitelijk ferm veel schade. En Rolls Royce wist al van de mogelijke problemen! (tags: aviation qantas rollsroyce airplane airbus a380 engine failure) [...

  12. ...] load. (The aircraft had just left Singapore for Sydney, so had a lot of fuel on board.) More here: The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster – Plane Talking "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything." — Viscount [...

  13. ...] lines and damaging the beam that holds the wing onto the body of the plane. Here’s a more detailed report that includes photos of the problem, for those [...

  14. ...] Here is a very informative (and worrying) set of slides and pictures more closely describing the damage and raising the very real possibility that this could have been much much worse. Rolls Royce comes out looking rather bad. The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster [...

  15. ...] An Airbus slide show on the damage was published on Wednesday by an Australian journalist and blogger, Ben Sandilands. An official of the Australian pilots union, Richard Woodward, has described the cockpit scene to reporters. Some information has been posted by the Australian Transportation Safety Bureau. [...

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...