Qantas jet lands after part of engine falls off

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by ltd

This is from an airworthiness directive;



This is going to be a very, very costly fix for RR. In testing, the first A380 had all four engines replaced after less than 100 hours due to this problem, some of you may remember that famous photo that went over the net of the A380 on the ramp with four massive oil smoke plumes behind each engine, then Airbus had it removed from various websites.
Further, the trent 1000 which is an evolution of the 900 never made it to service without a serious failure, in testing their was an uncontained failure similar to last Thursdays event at their test cell in Derby UK which nearly burnt the place to the ground. Thank God QF are getting the Genx engines on the 787's.

All the more reason I'm a GE90 fan!

I like the wording though, such as loss of engine performance with potential for in-flight shut down, and Some of these conditions present a potential unsafe condition to the aeroplane. Translation, if the engine lets go it will be catastrophic and the end result would likely be aircraft crash. This really is going to cost RR plenty.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/travel/ne...-1225949241041

I wonder what the tab will be to RR from Qantas?

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by cs123

I'm platinum. Matter of fact I was about 1 flght off my partner have complimentary gold membership last year. I'd be lucky to get upgraded more than 15% of the time.

I'm currnently sitting on the Tarmac at brisbane airport while they fix the pos 767 I'm sitting in. The strike rate for these thing breaking is higher than me getting upgraded.

Hey, be nice to the poor old 767. At least she can use age as her excuse (and ALOT of cycles) not sure the a380 can use a similar justification.

This thread has taken an interesting turn (not for the better). Valid points made by both sides, and while i don't agree with some of the airbus bashing that goes on in the industry (mosty by boeing guys many with no hours on airbi at all anyway) i don't think there is much doubt that the (esp early build) a380 has got design issues in several areas. The engien problems only make this situation worse and despite perfect correct explanations that it is a different manufacturer making those engines.....that really isn not good enough given its airbus who is the company that signs it all off and put's their name on the plane. Its an Airbus a380, not a RR A380....

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Hey, be nice to the poor old 767. At least she can use age as her excuse (and ALOT of cycles) not sure the a380 can use a similar justification.

This thread has taken an interesting turn (not for the better). Valid points made by both sides, and while i don't agree with some of the airbus bashing that goes on in the industry (mosty by boeing guys many with no hours on airbi at all anyway) i don't think there is much doubt that the (esp early build) a380 has got design issues in several areas. The engien problems only make this situation worse and despite perfect correct explanations that it is a different manufacturer making those engines.....that really isn not good enough given its airbus who is the company that signs it all off and put's their name on the plane. Its an Airbus a380, not a RR A380....

Im with you, I know next to bugger all about planes but I do know about responsibility. If Ford ran Kia engines, they cant claim they have no responsibility as its all down to Kia's engine. Ford chose to fit it. By the same token, you the owner chose to buy it.

Who built what will only matter in a court room/board room.

[sandmanls1]

at least the majority of it was contained have you seen the A380 documentary on the discovery channel where RR deliberately damage a fan blade then run the engine until it comes off to make sure it is contained within the engine.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Yeah virgin is by far the best domestic, QANTAS is for business people who write it off, Jetstar is hugely over rated and tiger is good when you have just carry on....Ill always fly virgin unless Im saving >$50 with the others.

What I dont get with QANTAS is the service really isn't that much better, if any, for domestic. Its only a matter of time until one of these "incidents" becomes more, its the same for all of them but QANTAS have had far to many of late.

I think you've made way too many generalisation there my friend. Each to their own when it comes to picking how they travel, and that is fine. I've flown virgin only once (business uses qantas and its always cheaper for me to fly jetstar when i'm checking online) and they did a pretty good job all round. BUT, i've seen enough of their flying practices and habits to steer clear in terms of my first preference. I'm not saying they are unsafe but they aren't what i call smooth. This is of course in reference to the guys/gals up the pointy end...i''m not as interested in the colour of the hostie uniforms....

This i feel is though a fair bit off topic. I'm pretty sure qantas won't come out of this totally blameless in terms of their rol in in overseesing the whole things but i think most people in the industry are already pointing the finger at other places.... The offshort maintenence things is not really an issue here....centralise maintenance of small fleets of aircraft type is standard practice in the industry. Moreover, lufthansa is hardly a dodgy operations (and they aren't very cheep niether). Besides, if the RR engines were being maintained by RR themselves, and givne the hours on the engine were within its useful life than i find it hard to believe there is not some design issue here. The failures iwth other trents during development and even issues in service raises further questions....

As is always teh case i'm sure it will all become clearer in the final report. for now lets be thankful we avoided a major catatrophe and focus on making sure ther are no ticking time bombs in other engines...

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by sandmanls1

at least the majority of it was contained have you seen the A380 documentary on the discovery channel where RR deliberately damage a fan blade then run the engine until it comes off to make sure it is contained within the engine.

I don't know about 'most of it' being contained. In the world of uncontained engine failure this was a pretty bad one at that. Especially due to the size and weight of the parts ejected. It wasn't like the 'engine fell off' (yes that has happened) but I don't know if i would like this sort f thing to happen on an aircraft i was onboard. if those parts had been thrown toward the fueselage you have yourself a depresurisation which if it happens at cruising height can take quite a time to get back down again (all the while trying to deal with the damage to the craft). The venting fuel from the wing tank would be an issue esp if it was then ignited due to flames from teh exploded engine. IF the parts hit enough hydraulic lines then you could lose extensive control authority (not sure on teh a380 system i doubt you'd lose total authority but somone more knowledgeable might be able to answer that). You have engine control problems (as experience here) plus untold damage to control surfaces (stuffed slats or jammed flaps) and even a damage wing spar that with further stress (harsh weather) could possibly even result in terminal failure of th wing. Fact is that if you have comparitively heavy (comared to the aluminium skin of plane) parts flying around you are playing russian roulette. There was one case where and engine failed during testing (767 AA i think) and after swiss cheesing the side of the fuselage they found a part had entered the gear bay and severed control wiring to the MLG. NOw if that was in flight and it hit teh wrong part and rendered your gear unable to lower than you would be into fun times i'd say!

Of course you;'d be an unlucky bugger to have all this happen and some scenarious are pretty remote but worse things have happened before. Now i've sufficiently scared the bejeesus out of alot of peope i can see my job here is done.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by nitro xr

Engines are supposed to keep the damage inside contained. This was obviously uncontained which caused that damage.

I could explain further the reasons for your perceptions, but I wont bother. The many pilots I have known over the years have always been very professional in their discussions on things. They were willing to learn and discuss, certainly would not try to be an expert on everything and bag their equipment on a public forum.

It was your employer that decided to purchase these early build aircraft. Any airline in their right mind would wait until they have been in service elsewhere for a few years. Obviously a good deal from Airbus was offered for these. Comparing to B747's, how long have they been in service - since the early '70's with the various developments from then. How do fuel efficiencies compare? Obviously Qantas would not have bought them if there were no advantages.

Your obviously a very well qualified , and technical person with a lot to say , you seem to be protective of the airliners , heres a couple of questions for you . #1 it's no secret that qantas has outsourced maintenence tasks , to overseas. other than cost cutting , whats the advantage in this ?
#2 when disaster , and malfunctions happen , and billions are lost , are the airliners happy about this , and openly admit thier mistakes , and take back the massive bonuses and dividends paid out to the decision makers ?
#3 do they really think that cost cutting doesnt increase risks?
#4 if these experts know so much , then how come the airline is having safety problems like never before ?
i think arrogance has no place here , on this subject .
i will still fly on planes if i need to,because i dont have feathers, i dont have much choice, and still feel partly safe, however , i wont feel as safe as i used to , AND FOR GOOD REASON , even your arrogance cant correct that . pompas defense is pretty dumb when we are seeing evidence in real life now , aside from whats being kept behind closed doors ..

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

Wow I can not understand why there is so much flack both Qantas and Airbus are copping over this particular incident and how little RR so far has been smacked

RR's share price has taken a hit.

[74_XB_Ute]

I'm not sure about Commercial but in Defence these days you dont just buy an aircraft and parts...you buy an aircraft package thats part of of a wider network. For example if a particular part fails it is supplied by the network and the u/s part is fed back into the network for repair and supply to perhaps a different operator. The days of self-sufficent maintenance and parts is fast becoming a thing of the past.

[Spudz27]

Can I ask a simple question in regards to the oil leaks, or should I say oil in an area it is not meant to be. Why is this only being found after the planes are grounded and thoroughly inspected? To those who know, how often is someone required to go over the aircraft?

[CAMS290]

What is it going to cost to fix this plane ?
Have they got facilities in Singapore to fix it ? Or will the patch it up and take it to France ?

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by arm79

Because, simply, they are on the front line and they are who we get to blame.

Qantas, in its very simplistic form, its a taxi service.

Who do you blame when your yellow cab fails to show up at your door on time. The driver or more likely the taxi service.

What about when the driver tells you he had a flat or a water leak that made him run late. You blame the driver or more likely the taxi service for not maintaining there vehicles well enough to provide adequate service. When was the last time you said "effing Ford" or something similar when a taxi was late.

As for Airbus, they are the manufacturer. The manufacturer assembles something from various parts and suppliers and is responsible for the finished unit and its quality. Hence to me, Airbus are responsible for what happens to the finished product, including the engines.

When was the last time you blamed PBR for brake failures on your car? Or Bosch because the ABS/DSC didn't kick in as expected? Or Venture for ill fitting bumpers, plastics and your squeaky dash? Or Autoliv for an airbag that didn't deploy? Or whoever makes Territory balljoints for their failures? Or PPG for you're bubbling and peeling Shockwave paint job?

Never! You rip right into Ford because they are the manufacturer and the representitive of the finished product.

It is the job of every level in these saga's to rip into the one below it, as they are the ones responsible for choosing these outside companies to supply parts.

So, to me, its only fair we get to rip into Qantas. They have bought some planes that are not particularly upto their usual standards of quality and safety. They have paid for maintenance that potentially missed problems... Or found problems that they have decided to glance over as "OK", when maybe they shouldn't have been let back in the air. Thats my gripe with Qantas.

Qantas then get to rip into Airbus for supplying them with sub-par products. Being the owners of these planes, thats their right. Then Airbus get to rip into RR for supplying badly designed engines that potentially don't pass all the safety criteria. Once again, thats Airbus' right.

I don't get how the Airline industry continually gets to handball problems to pretend its not their own, when no other industry really gets that benefit.

Maybe its because its such a large and transparent industry and we all know so much about the major players.

I do not for one moment disagree with you that Qantas and Airbus have to put their hand up as well. They will both need a very big PR machine in place along with Rolls Royce to get over this one that is for sure. It is just that Rolls Royce seem to figure somewhat less significant in this over all ordeal, especially in the beginning. I see that the heat is starting to be turned up now though. But if you step back and look at this incident, and do not prejudice it with all the other reported happenings and problems surrounding Qantas and Airbus then I can only see where both Qantas and Airbus at the very least, performed outstandingly in the face of an impending disaster. As LTD has already said, this could have ended very differently. I am only talking about this particular incident, and no other.

Again
Qantas- set a very high standard amongst its crew members and they expect nothing but a very high professional operation in return. Yes there are other airlines that meet similar standards but Qantas is one of them. Qantas probably have made a mistake outsourcing aircraft maintenance and this just may come back and get them in the end, but this is not the case on this particular incident. This detail should not be allowed to prejudice this incident by the reporting media whatsoever. So for me, and in the very face of adversity, I applaud the whole Qantas operations with their Qantas trained crew members for not only landing this wounded bird but actually flying it around long enough for them to assess the damage, dump enough fuel to get back to an acceptable MLW and assess their options including what landing configuration was now available to them but also what was still required for the best out come. You just can't say that Qantas as an organisation did not play a part in the outcome.
Rating-Pass

Airbus- believes that the future of air travel belongs to the hoards of holiday makers flying cheaply from hub to hub. That is the design logic behind the A380. Boeing at this stage believe that the future will no longer operate quite like that so non stop door to door final destination type flying is behind the design of the smaller but equally advanced Dreamliner. The A380 is a marvel of aviation no doubt, but its foibles are that it is restricted to huge airports with long runways and huge terminals to cope with the instant hit of so many arrivals and departures at the same time. Weight shedding in the guise of leaving out the ground steering systems and restricting the aircraft to two reverse thrusters means it will always only ever be used from major hub to major hub destinations. This is within its design limits. This aircraft suffered a big wound in its newer composite materials and disabled along with the dead engine, the control of another and also the leading edge slats with minimal flap use. This needed to come in light and hot. It did not have the benefit of the reverse thrusters due the asymmetrics involved so it relied on the design of its brakes. All this while the wing needed to hold itself together through a range of changed load factors. Yes shrapnel could have wounded the other engine or punctured the fuselage or with many other multiple could haves, but the fact is it did not. It continued to fly giving the crew enough to work with and enough time so that the outcome had a better chance of finishing on the positive side. It did its job well as the crew did theirs and it actually passed its first real test of a potential catastrophic disaster in real world testing (Airbus did not ask for this either remember), while the Concorde with a similar problem did not. Nobody asks for such a failure, they just happen, but it is the final out come that these things are judged by. Imagine if the wing snapped and all on board perished, what would the outcry be like for Airbus then?
Rating-Pass

OK this is only about the Rolls Royce Trent 900. These engines are purpose made especially for this job. Rolls Royce is also going to great lengths to advise the travelling public that the now new found oil leaks are only related to this engine. They also point out that they have not had one of their engines catastrophically fail in flight since 1994. This is an incredible record set by a very capable company. They are company that is built on perfection and actually thrive on that very high standard that they have set around themselves. They are very well run organisation not some two bit company, so how can a company with one of the best reputations in their field in the world let something like this happen? It has been made worse by the fact that the Americans have a better solution in this case so the problems are not insurmountable. It is also coming to light that these engines do suffer from intermittent problems so how on earth did they get through? Somebody at Rolls Royce must have been asleep at the wheel, after all, these engines are serviced by Rolls Royce themselves and if they can not find oil leaks in something that they have designed and are trained to maintain then what hope do others have at doing a better job? Engines do fail but if the debris was contained within the casing, (like it was designed to) causing no other further damage to the aircrafts systems then this may have been a pass but to fail again well there can only be one out come.
Rating-Fail

As Jamie Hyneman (from Mythbuster fame) would say, "well there's your problem"!

Sorry for the long post.
Bud Bud

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

Your obviously a very well qualified , and technical person with a lot to say , you seem to be protective of the airliners , heres a couple of questions for you . #1 it's no secret that qantas has outsourced maintenence tasks , to overseas. other than cost cutting , whats the advantage in this ?
#2 when disaster , and malfunctions happen , and billions are lost , are the airliners happy about this , and openly admit thier mistakes , and take back the massive bonuses and dividends paid out to the decision makers ?
#3 do they really think that cost cutting doesnt increase risks?
#4 if these experts know so much , then how come the airline is having safety problems like never before ?
i think arrogance has no place here , on this subject .
i will still fly on planes if i need to,because i dont have feathers, i dont have much choice, and still feel partly safe, however , i wont feel as safe as i used to , AND FOR GOOD REASON , even your arrogance cant correct that . pompas defense is pretty dumb when we are seeing evidence in real life now , aside from whats being kept behind closed doors ..

Thanks for asking gtfpv, I am only protective of manufacturers whoever they are, when they are not responsible for incidents but are still being criticized. Engine manufacturers are generally responsible for their engines, aircraft manufacturers like Airbus or Boeing with their airframes. When an airline purchases a new aircraft type, usually a big announcement, sometime later the airline then selects the engine after dealing with the engine manufacturers, very unlike how you buy cars.

#1: No advantage that I can think of, apart from cost cutting, driven by the current very competitive climate due to cheap airfares basically. Also to increase the profits to the shareholders which is all those people think of.
Years ago, each major airline here in Aus used to maintain their own aircraft, they could keep a very good control over quality, records keeping, methods of performing work, and improving upon methods in work performed. There were many inspections and general maintenance over and above what was required, in fact with inspections, Australian airlines were world leaders with many inspection techniques developed in-house that found problems much earlier. Several times I was present when manufacturers specialists were left gobsmacked with what we were doing, and went back to introduce these inspections themselves in their manuals. When outsourcing started, most of the additional work that was being done (which actually saved the airline heaps of money as well as improving safety) were deleted by management requests, as it caused complications to the maintenance provider.
When outsourced, quality is supposed to be maintained, but it is only per the book, and there’s not that extra effort put in that considerably improved upon the standard quality, which Australian aviation was spoilt with in the past. Inspectors and integrators stationed at the outsourcing facility only have some control over quality, I know first hand it was very difficult to get things done properly, the way we used to do it.
My personal opinion is that outsourcing is not good, but it may be a necessary evil to survive. But equally the airline can sink if the outsourcing is not managed properly. Hey, I could write a book on this subject.

#2 The airline top management is certainly not happy in those situations when disaster , and malfunctions happen , and billions are lost. Simply because the aircraft are not earning money when they are grounded. They keep asking how long until when the aircraft can fly again. They certainly don’t admit to their mistakes. In the worst cases the top management, CEO etc would get a golden handshake and a replacement is hired on megabucks. More money lost.

#3 Probably answered to a certain extent in #1. It could very well do, especially when the guys in the head office are accountants who can only see $ signs, do not understand aircraft, and do not realize the implications of their decisions. That’s when a good Engineering Director or manager will hopefully advise these bean counters clearly, and ensure they take notice. Years ago, these accountants and senior executives were airline people, born and bred and knew the industry well.

#4 I cannot answer for Qantas, but in my experience in the airline I was with, the real experts in upper management disappeared years ago. Even the responsible management can have their hands tied as mentioned before, due to the cheap airfares and cut throat competition that we have these days.

Certainly, arrogance has no place in aircraft maintenance and therefore safety. Management definitely needs to work in a professional, factual and orderly manner, keeping safety the #1 priority. There is no room to cut corners when it comes to safety. The A380 engine incident appears to be an engine design problem, not sure yet whether maintenance outsourcing or something else contributed to the incident, with regard to the mandatory AD inspections. We will eventually find out. I only hear from the media, like you do which is most unreliable to say the least.

Hopefully this answers your questions gtfpv.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by nitro xr

Thanks for asking gtfpv, I am only protective of manufacturers whoever they are, when they are not responsible for incidents but are still being criticized. Engine manufacturers are generally responsible for their engines, aircraft manufacturers like Airbus or Boeing with their airframes. When an airline purchases a new aircraft type, usually a big announcement, sometime later the airline then selects the engine after dealing with the engine manufacturers, very unlike how you buy cars.

#1: No advantage that I can think of, apart from cost cutting, driven by the current very competitive climate due to cheap airfares basically. Also to increase the profits to the shareholders which is all those people think of.
Years ago, each major airline here in Aus used to maintain their own aircraft, they could keep a very good control over quality, records keeping, methods of performing work, and improving upon methods in work performed. There were many inspections and general maintenance over and above what was required, in fact with inspections, Australian airlines were world leaders with many inspection techniques developed in-house that found problems much earlier. Several times I was present when manufacturers specialists were left gobsmacked with what we were doing, and went back to introduce these inspections themselves in their manuals. When outsourcing started, most of the additional work that was being done (which actually saved the airline heaps of money as well as improving safety) were deleted by management requests, as it caused complications to the maintenance provider.
When outsourced, quality is supposed to be maintained, but it is only per the book, and there’s not that extra effort put in that considerably improved upon the standard quality, which Australian aviation was spoilt with in the past. Inspectors and integrators stationed at the outsourcing facility only have some control over quality, I know first hand it was very difficult to get things done properly, the way we used to do it.
My personal opinion is that outsourcing is not good, but it may be a necessary evil to survive. But equally the airline can sink if the outsourcing is not managed properly. Hey, I could write a book on this subject.

#2 The airline top management is certainly not happy in those situations when disaster , and malfunctions happen , and billions are lost. Simply because the aircraft are not earning money when they are grounded. They keep asking how long until when the aircraft can fly again. They certainly don’t admit to their mistakes. In the worst cases the top management, CEO etc would get a golden handshake and a replacement is hired on megabucks. More money lost.

#3 Probably answered to a certain extent in #1. It could very well do, especially when the guys in the head office are accountants who can only see $ signs, do not understand aircraft, and do not realize the implications of their decisions. That’s when a good Engineering Director or manager will hopefully advise these bean counters clearly, and ensure they take notice. Years ago, these accountants and senior executives were airline people, born and bred and knew the industry well.

#4 I cannot answer for Qantas, but in my experience in the airline I was with, the real experts in upper management disappeared years ago. Even the responsible management can have their hands tied as mentioned before, due to the cheap airfares and cut throat competition that we have these days.

Certainly, arrogance has no place in aircraft maintenance and therefore safety. Management definitely needs to work in a professional, factual and orderly manner, keeping safety the #1 priority. There is no room to cut corners when it comes to safety. The A380 engine incident appears to be an engine design problem, not sure yet whether maintenance outsourcing or something else contributed to the incident, with regard to the mandatory AD inspections. We will eventually find out. I only hear from the media, like you do which is most unreliable to say the least.

Hopefully this answers your questions gtfpv.

THIS answers all of my questions nitro xr. its as i suspected. technology is relying on superior design , in order to reduce maintenance- ( plug and play) . the concept of engineering , whilst being more advanced in design , now suffers from a false conception, we simply aren't there yet with perfection , we are not clever enough to produce 100% failsafe equipment , in some cases we have increased the risk with complexity of technology where simplicity was superior , and maintenence is going by the way side with checks , and plug n play .
just like manufacturing , however $$$ counters searching for maximum efficiency , will find disaster , whats worst is it's even factored in to profits .
and that is ashame . ultimately this leads to the complete dumbing down of general society .
thanks for answering the questions . VERY WELL STATED cheers .

[ltd]

SIA has grounded 3 of their A380's as well, this is going to be a very, very expensive fix. As I wrote earlier, this is related to the intermediate pressure shaft, and the abutment of the missing disc to the splines where they were wearing beyond normal limits and allowing the turbine disc to move rearwards and run into stationary vanes.
The fix will be replacement of a redesigned IP shaft and possible IP turbine disc to stop movement and friction against stationary parts. What's further indicative of this problem, is the fact that a SIA crew refused to fly one of the A380's from London to Singapore. Very expensive indeed.
"RR Trent - put a little excitement into your next holiday with RR Trent; Kaabbooooom!"

[ELGT4me]

Originally Posted by ltd

SIA has grounded 3 of their A380's as well, this is going to be a very, very expensive fix. As I wrote earlier, this is related to the intermediate pressure shaft, and the abutment of the missing disc to the splines where they were wearing beyond normal limits and allowing the turbine disc to move rearwards and run into stationary vanes.
The fix will be replacement of a redesigned IP shaft and possible IP turbine disc to stop movement and friction against stationary parts. What's further indicative of this problem, is the fact that a SIA crew refused to fly one of the A380's from London to Singapore. Very expensive indeed.
"RR Trent - put a little excitement into your next holiday with RR Trent; Kaabbooooom!"

Thanks for that ltd!!! Just curious, how much testing/ proving was done on these engines, before they were deemed successful/safe?

[Danny]

LTD how are the Engine Allice equipped A380's holding up, any issues, I understand the GP9000 (correct if wrong) Engine alliance Jets are a distant relative to the GE90 of 777-300 fame.

[mik]

Originally Posted by CAMS290

What is it going to cost to fix this plane ?
Have they got facilities in Singapore to fix it ? Or will they patch it up and take it to France ?

they might find a cheap way

[motomk]

Originally Posted by ltd

SIA has grounded 3 of their A380's as well, this is going to be a very, very expensive fix. As I wrote earlier, this is related to the intermediate pressure shaft, and the abutment of the missing disc to the splines where they were wearing beyond normal limits and allowing the turbine disc to move rearwards and run into stationary vanes.
The fix will be replacement of a redesigned IP shaft and possible IP turbine disc to stop movement and friction against stationary parts. What's further indicative of this problem, is the fact that a SIA crew refused to fly one of the A380's from London to Singapore. Very expensive indeed.
"RR Trent - put a little excitement into your next holiday with RR Trent; Kaabbooooom!"

Is the whole spinning engine part supposed to stay in the cowling or is it just the main fan blades? I was under the impression this was part of the back of the engine which is not subject to the same testing, procedures or rules?

On a related matter.
There is an interesting BBC TV program from a few months ago called "How to build a Jumbo Jet engine" , looks like it is on the UHU.
It is all about Rolls Royce and how they put together an engine for a B787, simlar to an A380 engine. They have an office which watches engine parameters in real time all over the world.

[ltd]

ELGT4me, they do hundreds of hours of testing and subject the engine to extremes such as water ingestion, ice ingestion; I know GE do the triple redline test where they run the engine at around 110% for several hours and get redlines in EGT, N1 and N2 speeds. GE also do a sand ingestion test as part of one of their main customers being based in the middle east (emirates).

Danny, the engine alliance engines GP7200's are doing fine, the fan and casing is P&W and it uses hollow titanium blades as opposed to GE90's carbon fibre. The core is GE, the HP Turbine is GE and all the LP stuff is P&W. To date they have something like 99.99% on time departure record and no failures. They also have a little more grunt than the trents too.
For some obscure reason American engines just seem to cope with abuse and adverse conditions better than the RR engines do, but they've always tended to be a little more thirsty. Take the P&W4000 for example fitted to various 747's over the years, it's the most powerful in the class but also a little more thirsty. It is one hell of a tough engine that will happily cop the rigours of full thrust for several minutes without showing any signs of decay; any warnings or high temps or pressures. It just does it. It's the quintessential ford or chevy big block.
The EA GP7200 takes this toughness and adds fuel economy to it to compete, as well as quietness to meet stage 3 noise levels.

Motomk, the fan blades are surrounded by kevlar as they are susceptible to breakage moreso than the core, given that once something is ingested it has to go through the fan first. The booster is also surrounded by the same kevlar, as it too is susceptible to fod. The core tends to have the air directed around it and inlets small enough to sustain itself while allowing fod to pass around it. The casing for the core and hot section is a titanium alloy which is like a honeycomb structure to allow rapid cooling, minimal expansion and excellent insulation.

[MexicanBatman]

Ltd you seem to know a fair bit about engineering all the airbus pilots I talk to every day at work don't seem to have your knowledge. Neither do some of the engineers LOL

[ltd]

Originally Posted by MexicanBatman

Ltd you seem to know a fair bit about engineering all the airbus pilots I talk to every day at work don't seem to have your knowledge. Neither do some of the engineers LOL

That's because a lot of pilots aren't really interested. They know the systems on board as a pre-requisite to endorsement but not the where and why. That's why I make a point of listening to engineers, doing the walk arounds, reading up on design etc which helps me to fault find. It's also why a number of pilots chose the A380 because it was newer than the 747.
I take your point on some of the engineers though, I've met a few who just don't seem to care because all they'll do is overhaul the same part, day in and day out. They do this for years. They pay them peanuts. I can understand their point of view on things.

[FGII-XR6]

is that fact or guesswork? the media seem to be on a qantas witch hunt ATM but they still have never lost a passenger due to mechanical failure the media are reporting every mechanical fault they can that makes things sound worse than they are
To be honest this qantas bashing by the media is getting beyond a joke all mechanical equiment will have failures the media are making sound like negligence when ever something fails but in reality the aircraft always make it to the ground without crashing , thats some record when you think about it

Originally Posted by DJM83

Ok nothing untowards anyone that may work for QANTAS, but their safety in the recent past is nothing short of horrid. Ive flown numerous times over the last 3years and everytime i book a flight i look at QANTAS they are almost always more expensive. Ive always flown with Virgin and their service is fantastic and price is right. So with QANTAS, where does your money go/what does it get you?

[MexicanBatman]

Yeah everyones forgot about wheels falling of Virgin Blue planes...

Tall poppy syndrome, that's all..

They the media will only be satisfied when there is a tragedy 600 dead and 35000 out of work, then the headlines will read ford going broke......

[fmc351]

I have no idea if this applies to all airlines, but I did hear that Virgin planes to the Sunshine Coast cant land in crosswinds. Which was worrying to think that if Brisbane had the same problem, what do they do? Im sure Im missing something.

I also noted at the Airport a Jetstar planes parked alongside a Virgin one. It was like a new Merc parked next to a severly faded EA next to it. The paint on the virgin plane looked powdery.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by fmc351

I have no idea if this applies to all airlines, but I did hear that Virgin planes to the Sunshine Coast cant land in crosswinds. Which was worrying to think that if Brisbane had the same problem, what do they do? Im sure Im missing something.

I also noted at the Airport a Jetstar planes parked alongside a Virgin one. It was like a new Merc parked next to a severly faded EA next to it. The paint on the virgin plane looked powdery.

VB 737s are limited to about 27kt xw at MC due to the width of the runway (same as many other airports). I flew out of there for years and the worst I ever saw was about 23 (the day Shirley Strachan died) although it does happen.
It is actually a bit more complex as there are -700 and -800 in the fleet and the limits are different for wet and dry. The primary problem getting into MC is cloud as the minima is quite high.

VB have lots of shiny new toys coming from both Boeing and scarebus.

* source: mate who flies 737s into MC for VB

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by flappist

VB 737s are limited to about 27kt xw at MC due to the width of the runway (same as many other airports). I flew out of there for years and the worst I ever saw was about 23 (the day Shirley Strachan died) although it does happen.
It is actually a bit more complex as there are -700 and -800 in the fleet and the limits are different for wet and dry. The primary problem getting into MC is cloud as the minima is quite high.

VB have lots of shiny new toys coming from both Boeing and scarebus.

* source: mate who flies 737s into MC for VB

I knew I had to be missing something. Was just funny in an alarming way when I was told about crosswinds.

Then to add to the remark the planes looked like rust buckets compared to the nice new Jetstar one, I had to chuckle to myself because the wing tips on the VB planes had a spoiler on the ends so it looked like they had been touch parking them and bent the wing tips too.

I believe the spoiler (whatever its called) is to correct turbulence and improve fuel efficiency by altering the vortex that forms at the wing tip. I saw a doco on another plane and that came up, so adding 2 + 2, I think I got 4 on why the wings have vertical bits at the end.

[sandmanls1]

this is scary looks like a close call the pilots were heroes

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/q...-1225952363505

[ELGT4me]

Originally Posted by sandmanls1

this is scary looks like a close call the pilots were heroes

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/q...-1225952363505

Quite true,well done to the guys on the flight deck.

[FGII-XR6]

here is the problem , not caused by any lack in the maintenance peformed by QANTAS
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/8311...sue-for-a380s/