Qantas grounds A380s after Singapore emergency landing

[Sirius]

The Australian airline Qantas has grounded its six-strong fleet of Airbus A380 airliners after one of the superjumbos made an emergency landing.

Qantas flight QF32 experienced engine trouble shortly after taking off from Singapore on its way to Sydney.

One of the engines "exploded with a loud bang" and the plane started shaking, a passenger told the BBC.

I see one of these super jumbo's landing at Manchester Airport each day . Glad they landed safely

[Kymmy]

It'll be interesting as to what happened with the trent 900 (I presume Quantas is using them)

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

It'll be interesting as to what happened with the trent 1000 (I presume Quantas is using them)

That is one quiet engine. We hear the jumbo's landing all the time but the Airbus 380 is very much the quieter plane of the two.

[Kymmy]

Used to live at Heathrow in the early 2000s, Now concord was the one to make the house shake..

---------- Post added at 11:50 ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 ----------

Just to confirm that only not all A380 aircraft use Rolls-Royce engines. These have been chosen by Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines, as well as by Qantas.

A380s flown by Emirates and Air France are instead kitted out by the Engine Alliance, a 50/50 joint venture between GE Aircraft Engines and Pratt & Whitney.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Im supposed to be flying on a 380 (Emirates) a week on Saturday. I'm ok about the whole thing but my wife, who is a nervous flyer, has already started to panick.

As Kymmy says, different engine.

[MovedGoalPosts]

I saw a programme, probably on Discovery, not that long ago that showed the development, testing and manufacture process of the Trent engines. Not only do they consider the reliability and efficiency, but considerable effort is taken over the safety of them should the worst happen. That the plane flew on fewer engines with no apparent significant issues, despite the visible damage is a testament to the safety standards of that design process.

Even so I suspect there will be many in the industry anxiously awaiting the findings of what went wrong.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Rob

I saw a programme, probably on Discovery, not that long ago that showed the development, testing and manufacture process of the Trent engines. Not only do they consider the reliability and efficiency, but considerable effort is taken over the safety of them should the worst happen. That the plane flew on fewer engines with no apparent significant issues, despite the visible damage is a testament to the safety standards of that design process.

Even so I suspect there will be many in the industry anxiously awaiting the findings of what went wrong.

Oh, there will. I have friends who advise and work with customers on safety in various situations. Customers including airliner manufacturers and airlines. I have been told on many occasions (and been shown video as proof) that airline safety is taken *very* seriously.

After all, if a plane goes down, with the loss of hundreds of lives, and there is any question whether the airline was negligent or even responsible, then the airline can (and probably will) be bankrupted by the accident.

Look at Pan Am.

Re: Concorde. Rather interestingly, from what I was told, the writing for Concorde was effectively on the wall before the disaster that was blamed for it's retirement. Apparently the problem was that it's safety systems, while legal in the 60s and quite effective in the event of disaster, were below legal minimum requirements after 2000.

The Airlines did discuss upgrading them, but it would have cost a lot of money to upgrade each plane, and with airlines like Ryan Air, EasyJet and BMI doing their utmost to drive ticket prices down, it was felt that BA and Air France would not be able to recoup the money invested in upgrading the safety systems.

[Hom3r]

Well in 90 years of flying Quantas have never had jet fatalities.

In 1951 7 where killed in a prop crash (59 years ago)

[Kymmy]

Looking at the damage I'd suggest a turbine blade failure (either an internal component has worked/blown loose and impacted the turbine blades or there's been a blade failure due to a manufacturing problem.. This is supported by where the damage occured on the wing and also the rear casings that have been blown off

The turbine blades are at the rear of the engine which the thrust from the compressed air/fuel mixture igniting acts upon to turn the more forward compressor and fan blades..

[Lord Nikon]

Apparently there was an inspection directive on the Intermediate Pressure Turbine shaft which was showing excessive wear, whether this had something to do with it or not...

Second failure of a Trent 900 though, (not counting the runaway condition engine one had after landing where they had to use a water jet to force it to blow on this landing.)

Seems to be the same problem they are having with the Trent 1000 which is intended for the 787 Dreamliner. The test engine failed on the bed after a problem with the IPT Shaft...

This totals 6 problems I can find with the A380s in the past 2 years, 1 fuelling fault, 2 engine failures (All with Trent 900s) 2 incidences of Nose gear steering failure (on the same aircraft that just had to emergency land) and a heavy landing blowing out tyres.

Of 80 Trent 900s in service, 3 have failed, not the best record is it?

[Cobbydaler]

Some good pictures and discussion here...

[G UK]

And also a lot of uninformed dross by armchair "experts" by reading a couple of pages.

[DocDutch]

well its not just the Airbus A380 thats having problems with Quantas this time.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11702365 boeing 737-400 similar issues.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by DocDutch

well its not just the Airbus A380 thats having problems with Quantas this time.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11702365 boeing 737-400 similar issues.

You mean a 747-400 ??