Qantas Airbus A380 Engine failure

Z

za1

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
3,017
Reaction score
295
Location
za
Dude major airline disaster averted?

You realize that is just bollocks :D. Just a popped engine, there was never any possible crash on the cards.
 
I wonder what Bluno would say about this after she hissed at 1Time for their minor incident in comparison...

blunomore said:
Neither would I trust an airline who tries to minimize the damage to their financial bottom-line by releasing a press statement downplaying the incident .
Click to expand...

blunomore said:
You are seriously deluded if you think it is a good idea to keep on flying on a particular airline if you know of repeated incidents of technical and other problems.
Click to expand...

blunomore said:
You keep on flying 1Time. Bon voyage ;)
Click to expand...

:erm:
 
killadoob said:
Dude major airline disaster averted?

You realize that is just bollocks :D. Just a popped engine, there was never any possible crash on the cards.
Click to expand...

A little more than a popped engine, a turbine blade came loose and ripped the cowling of the engine.
 
Chris said:
Thanks for the link.

Wow that picture with the plane on the runway and the ripped engine suggests something quite serious! :eek: Glad no-one was injured/killed.
Click to expand...

Ya way worse than when i read it on bbc this morning, i read it as blown engine no big deal. The pictures though tell a different story :eek:.
 
Well, it does have 3 other engines...so it would have been crippled, but planes are designed to fly with 1 or two engines not working, depending on how many engines they have. The problem comes in when like here, a piece of the engine detaches. It can then damage the wing and that is bad...very very bad!

Does anyone know what engines Quantas uses on their A380's? Rolls Royce or GE?

I really dont think this is a reflection in anyway on the A380 or Airbus....more on the engine manufacturer.
 
ocleroux said:
Well, it does have 3 other engines...so it would have been crippled, but planes are designed to fly with 1 or two engines not working, depending on how many engines they have. The problem comes in when like here, a piece of the engine detaches. It can then damage the wing and that is bad...very very bad!

Does anyone know what engines Quantas uses on their A380's? Rolls Royce or GE?

I really dont think this is a reflection in anyway on the A380 or Airbus....more on the engine manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Rolls Royce apparently
 
ocleroux said:
Well, it does have 3 other engines...so it would have been crippled, but planes are designed to fly with 1 or two engines not working, depending on how many engines they have. The problem comes in when like here, a piece of the engine detaches. It can then damage the wing and that is bad...very very bad!

Does anyone know what engines Quantas uses on their A380's? Rolls Royce or GE?

I really dont think this is a reflection in anyway on the A380 or Airbus....more on the engine manufacturer.
Click to expand...

+1

The engine failed, not the airframe. Blame RR not Airbus...
 
alloytoo said:
Rolls Royce apparently
Click to expand...

Sweet mother....SAA's A340's all use RR! Run for your lives....we all going to die people!!! lol

I am sure the engine will either be sent to RR for testing and to see what happened...or they will send a team down under to investigate it there. This is not good news for RR and other A380 operators who opted for the RR Trent option. I hope it is a confined fault to this particular engine only.
 
BBSA said:
Could volcanic ash from Mount Merapi caused the problem?
Click to expand...

I suppose it is possible...but not likely I think. I think they are paranoid now after the Icelandic erruption so they would have kept a close eye on it I am sure. Besides, it should not cause the engine to blow parts off....it would just flame out I think
 
Engine failures on passenger airliners are not major events these days, but an uncontained failure like this is a pretty serious event.

SAA actually wrote off a 747SP back in '98/99 in Mozambique after an uncontained engine failure.(was flying for LAM though)
 
killadoob said:
You realize that is just bollocks :D. Just a popped engine, there was never any possible crash on the cards.
Click to expand...

Um, the engine didn't just fail, it literally EXPLODED with a huge kaboom - at that point, anything could happen, no flight engineer is going to realistically claim 'oh yeah safe, nothing to worry about' under such a failure condition.

And worse, nobody knows why. Even if it wasn't an explosion it would be difficult to claim 'safe' if you don't even know why something happened.

And trust me, an airliner doesn't ground a whole fleet of A380's unless there is a real potential safety issue. This is going to hurt their bottom line big-time.

This could be pretty serious, since if there is a problem with the A380, all of them might have to be grounded as they fix/address the issue --- that's huge. Airbus (and Rolls Royce, who make the engines) is going to have some sleepless nights these coming weeks as they try figure out what went wrong. Best case scenario is it's 'just' from the volcano ash.

These are the sorts of teething problems that happen with major new aircraft though. The engineers will try figure it out, probably find the answer, and implement a fix on all existing and future aircraft. If it was the ash, airlines will probably get stricter about flying near volcanoes.
 
Before the Boeing fans come spamming the thread with anti-Airbus comments, it's a problem with the engine, therefore a Rolls-Royce issue, not Airbus ;)
 
Rosaudio said:
Before the Boeing fans come spamming the thread with anti-Airbus comments, it's a problem with the engine, therefore a Rolls-Royce issue, not Airbus ;)
Click to expand...

+ Gazillion times!

This is a Rolls Royce issue, not a Airbus issue. The reason why they grounded the A380 for Quantas is because all or most of their A380's are most likely powered by RR.

And regarding the Boeing fans.....Boeing sucks! Slap on a few centimetres onto a 1960 design and call it the 747I.....bah! LAME!!! *runs away*
 
Well as far as i am concerned if xbox brings out a console that has a major graphics issue then they are too blame not ati/amd.

If there is an issue it is very much airbus's fault and problem. I am not sure how an engine problem on the airbus aircraft is considered anything but an airbus problem.

The logic seems a bit off to me.
 
killadoob said:
Well as far as i am concerned if xbox brings out a console that has a major graphics issue then they are too blame not ati/amd.

If there is an issue it is very much airbus's fault and problem. I am not sure how an engine problem on the airbus aircraft is considered anything but an airbus problem.

The logic seems a bit off to me.
Click to expand...

You comparing your Xbox to a A380? hehe

Not exactly the same thing now is it. In my eyes the engines are completely seperate from the Airbus airframe and installed systems. If it was a design flaw and the wing detached because the engine had a hissy fit, then yes....Airbus would be responsible because the wing aint supposed to come off....but this was clearly a engine failure only and should be treated as such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X