Aviation > Aviation Accidents/Incidents

Qantas grounds all A380's after engine comes apart

(1/5) > >>

kyle172:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/indonesia.plane.emergency/index.html?hpt=T1

mhawke:
Looks like a bit more then just just the cowling fell off.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40000040/ns/travel-news/

joeyb747:

--- Quote from: mhawke on November 04, 2010, 10:18:20 AM ---Looks like a bit more then just just the cowling fell off.

--- End quote ---

I would totally agree!  :-o

Here is the AvHerald article on the incident. It includes some pics, including a close-up of the Rolls Royce Trent 972 powerplant that failed, which hung in the # 2 position. Also, a pic taken from inside the aircraft shows damage to the leading edge of the wing, indicating debris punctured the wing. This could have been a lot worse, as fuel and hydraulic lines run through the leading edge of the wing.

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=43309c6d&opt=0

The aircraft involved, Airbus A380-842 VH-OQA (MSN 14), was new in Sept 2008, and had accumulated 8,165 flight hours in 831 cycles. The engine in question had accumulated 676 flight cycles since new.

See also:

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4330b054&opt=0

joeyb747:
"SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
Wear, beyond Engine Manual limits, has been identified on the abutment faces of the splines on the Trent 900 Intermediate Pressure (IP) shaft rigid coupling on several engines during strip. The shaft to coupling spline interface provides the means of controlling the turbine axial setting and wear through of the splines would permit the IP turbine to move rearwards.

Rearward movement of the IP turbine would enable contact with static turbine components and would result in loss of engine performance with potential for in-flight shut down, oil migration and oil fire below the LP turbine discs prior to sufficient indication resulting in loss of LP turbine disc integrity.

We are issuing this AD to detect rearward movement of the IP turbine, which could result in loss of disc integrity, an uncontained failure of the engine, and damage to the airplane."

From the AD issued by U.S. FAA that became effective on 09/17/10.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/bd36c747996b02d78625777e00523051/$FILE/2010-16-07.pdf

Also, an AD regarding the Trent 900 Series HP Turbine Nozzle Guide Vane (NGV) Convex Surfaces cracking resulting in a risk of fracture to the HP Turbine Blade, which may also be related to this incident. The AD was effective 10/14/2009, and is linked to below.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/D7BC60865A03C3778625762C004C4412?OpenDocument&Highlight=trent%20972

tyketto:

The AD makes you wonder who would be at fault for this: QFA, or Rolls-Royce?

If the AD is valid, that would mean that the FAA (and every other aviation governing body) would have received the same directive. Wouldn't that disseminated to the airlines, wouldn't it be the airline's responsibility to comply with the directive? If so, wouldn't QFA be negligent in this?

This totally puts Airbus in the clear, since the AD is for the engines, not the aircraft; Rationale being that UAE and AFR are still flying theirs (albeit with GE/PW engines). But the question remains: who gets the blame: RR for the issue altogether with the Trent 900, or QFA for not responding to the AD?

BL.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version