[badidea]

Ouch...
Electrical fire forces emergency landing of 787 test plane

[Buckaroo]

Are the A380's still grounded? I assume it was only one airline that grounded their A380's.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Are the A380's still grounded? I assume it was only one airline that grounded their A380's.

As far as I know:
Qantas - All Grounded
Singapore - 3 Grounded
Lufthansa - All flying

SIA just grounded theirs yesterday after even more inspections found oil where it shouldn't be.

edit: Lufthansa has one out of service swapping an engine, but the next scheduled revenue flight isn't until tomorrow so I guess it doesn't count as grounded.

[imitchellg5]

Lufthansa say that all their A380s are flying, yet almost all LH A380 flights seem to be substituted by A346.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Ouch...
Electrical fire forces emergency landing of 787 test plane

My biggest concern with this:

"The Bus Failure triggered a Cascading Chain of Events" Also appears the aft AV Bay powers the front AV Bay? Loss of power to the front AV Bay caused the RAT deployment to get the primaries back up.

Then again it had Trents? ( Kidding )

[imitchellg5]

New statement regarding ZA002. BTW, I caught ZA002 here at COS a few months ago, such a quiet plane.

[OreoCookie]

Is the fire on board the 787 a serious setback for the program or just a small accidental problem that can easily be corrected?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Is the fire on board the 787 a serious setback for the program or just a small accidental problem that can easily be corrected?

If it was only caused by FTI (Flight Test Installation) equipment it shouldn't be a serious setback but it will still delay the test period. It did sound a bit more serious though...

[imitchellg5]

Read the statement, it's a fairly important part.

[mattyb]

Not getting any better.

[mduell]

FlightAware > Air agency issued engine warning then eased checks

Summary:
Prior known risk of oil leaks
EASA loosened AD reinspection requirements
There may or may not already be a fix on mid-2009 and later engines
Three prior issues with oil system or turbine disks

[iLikebeer]

Explosion tore through wing spar | The Australian
It looks a lot more serious than initial reports would lead you to believe. This very easily could have been a disaster. Supposedly there were 5 pilots on board at the time. That must've helped with the workload.

[badidea]

Well, since I didn't leak this information and since it's already on the net, I should be fine providing this link...

The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster
(it looks like a real Airbus powerpoint presentation and the presenter is really working for Airbus)

[ghporter]

The wing spar damage looks pretty severe-until you notice that it's through the web of ONE section of the spar. A view from a bit more distance would show that the spar in question is huge and really robust. This damage did not in any way risk the wing's ability to remain intact. It's not good; that wing is now toast and must be completely rebuilt, but it wasn't going to fold up in flight, either. On the other hand, the structures forward of that spar were more sensitive to damage-fly-by-wire and power, along with the actuators for the slats, were all impacted. Total dependence on fly-by-wire is something all aviation engineers are going to have to think hard about after this incident.

On the other hand, having a jet engine turbine shatter and throw shrapnel in all directions while in flight could have been a whole lot worse. I agree with the Airbus folks who say "the design of the aircraft prevented more serious damage."

[mattyb]

My understanding was that the RR gas turbines were 'wrapped' in Kevlar. I've seen the videos where they tested a low pressure compressor blade coming off and it was kept in the 'wrapping' of Kevlar. One has to ask, WTF? Why weren't the projectiles kept in the engine, why was anything able to go through the wing?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Well, since I didn't leak this information and since it's already on the net, I should be fine providing this link...

The Anatomy of the Airbus A380 QF32 near disaster
(it looks like a real Airbus powerpoint presentation and the presenter is really working for Airbus)

The blog author's comments are a bit inflammatory, but it's great to see the Airbus slides.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The wing spar damage looks pretty severe-until you notice that it's through the web of ONE section of the spar. A view from a bit more distance would show that the spar in question is huge and really robust. This damage did not in any way risk the wing's ability to remain intact. It's not good; that wing is now toast and must be completely rebuilt, but it wasn't going to fold up in flight, either. On the other hand, the structures forward of that spar were more sensitive to damage-fly-by-wire and power, along with the actuators for the slats, were all impacted. Total dependence on fly-by-wire is something all aviation engineers are going to have to think hard about after this incident.

The spar is quite large, but that's a big chunk of the web missing, nearly from top to bottom.

I don't see this as a FBW issue, mechanical linkages would have been severed too.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

My understanding was that the RR gas turbines were 'wrapped' in Kevlar. I've seen the videos where they tested a low pressure compressor blade coming off and it was kept in the 'wrapping' of Kevlar. One has to ask, WTF? Why weren't the projectiles kept in the engine, why was anything able to go through the wing?

Fan cases are generally kevlar wrapped (carbon on newer engines) due to the amount of energy in each blade, but the compressor and turbine cases are usually just metal (could be kevlar wrapped on some engines).

Either way the cases are only intended to contain blade failures; it's impractical to contain turbine disk failures so they are not required or designed to be contained.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The spar is quite large, but that's a big chunk of the web missing, nearly from top to bottom.
<snip>
I don't see this as a FBW issue, mechanical linkages would have been severed too.

It's really hard to see what the orientation of that photo really is, but after a lot of examination it looks like it's really just the center of the spar's web that's penetrated. The top and bottom of the spar remained intact, supporting the length of the wing in that area. I agree that mechanical linkages would also have been damaged in this sort of event, but it looks like they anchored a lot of stuff directly to the spar instead of to ribs or lesser spars farther aft. It's a design choice, and probably based on the strength of the spar, but having seen plenty of airplanes with bird-strike damage, I rather prefer burying essential parts inside the wing box.

Originally Posted by mduell 

Fan cases are generally kevlar wrapped (carbon on newer engines) due to the amount of energy in each blade, but the compressor and turbine cases are usually just metal (could be kevlar wrapped on some engines).

Either way the cases are only intended to contain blade failures; it's impractical to contain turbine disk failures so they are not required or designed to be contained.

Turbine cases have to deal with very high temperatures; the case itself could not be made of composites. On the other hand, the cowling could be composite without any major problems, as long as it was far enough away from the hot section to protect the composite material. I think another important issue here is that the underside of the wing-and almost certainly the fuselage-in the turbine section's "fragmentation zone" was NOT in any way protected from fragmentation of the turbine blades.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Turbine cases have to deal with very high temperatures; the case itself could not be made of composites. On the other hand, the cowling could be composite without any major problems, as long as it was far enough away from the hot section to protect the composite material.

When I said "some...may" I was thinking more of the compressor. For example F404 has some sort of wrap/case around the compressor case.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I think another important issue here is that the underside of the wing-and almost certainly the fuselage-in the turbine section's "fragmentation zone" was NOT in any way protected from fragmentation of the turbine blades.

Blade failures are contained and thus liberated downstream, not toward the fuselage. Could hit the underside of the wing I suppose.

[mduell]

Airbus plays the defensive, and clears up a few earlier reports:

- The roll control was ensured through: (a) on the left wing: inner aileron, spoilers 1, 3, 5 and 7; (b) on the right wing: mid and inner ailerons, spoilers 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7.

- Normal braking was available on both body landing gears with antiskid, and alternate braking without antiskid on both wing landing gears. The crew modulated braking in order to stop close to emergency services.

- After the aircraft came to a stop, the reason engine 1 could not be shut down has been determined: 2 segregated wiring routes were cut by 2 out of the 3 individual disk debris.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by mduell 

When I said "some...may" I was thinking more of the compressor. For example F404 has some sort of wrap/case around the compressor case.

As does the F 100 P&W 229 & F 110 GE 129. Might be a good idea for commercial applications after this event.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The wing spar damage looks pretty severe-until you notice that it's through the web of ONE section of the spar. A view from a bit more distance would show that the spar in question is huge and really robust. This damage did not in any way risk the wing's ability to remain intact. It's not good; that wing is now toast and must be completely rebuilt, but it wasn't going to fold up in flight, either. On the other hand, the structures forward of that spar were more sensitive to damage-fly-by-wire and power, along with the actuators for the slats, were all impacted. Total dependence on fly-by-wire is something all aviation engineers are going to have to think hard about after this incident.

On the other hand, having a jet engine turbine shatter and throw shrapnel in all directions while in flight could have been a whole lot worse. I agree with the Airbus folks who say "the design of the aircraft prevented more serious damage."

Could not agree more. The 380's Wing is highly overbuilt for the current 800 series. I however, would not go as far as to state "the design of the aircraft" as an entirety. There was some luck involved in this event, along with outstanding implementation of training by the flight deck. Many questions remaining IMO.

The current state of the T900 is most troubling to me. It saddens me deeply to see RR in this situation. Jet Manufacturing Engineers dream about working with RR. This will be difficult to recover from if the T1000 continues to underperform eventhough it does not have the same design issue as the T900. Very Sad.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Turbine cases have to deal with very high temperatures; the case itself could not be made of composites. On the other hand, the cowling could be composite without any major problems, as long as it was far enough away from the hot section to protect the composite material. I think another important issue here is that the underside of the wing-and almost certainly the fuselage-in the turbine section's "fragmentation zone" was NOT in any way protected from fragmentation of the turbine blades.

You can't design for everything. Weight is unfortunately the priority. Sometimes a catastrophic event will cause the loss of an airframe. Airbus or Boeing are not going to add weight for an event that "statistically speaking" should not occur with correct design and MX. However, we all now S*** Happens. It really was the fact that the wing on that 380 was designed for a larger/heavier airframe than was in the air.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

You can't design for everything. Weight is unfortunately the priority. Sometimes a catastrophic event will cause the loss of an airframe. Airbus or Boeing are not going to add weight for an event that "statistically speaking" should not occur with correct design and MX. However, we all now S*** Happens. It really was the fact that the wing on that 380 was designed for a larger/heavier airframe than was in the air.

You can do the "belt and suspenders" thing and reinforce the underside of the wing in the vicinity of the turbine frag zone-a couple layers of Kevlar inside the skin on the underside of the wing could have prevented penetration toward the fuselage. If Airbus thinks they're going to get harsh press for this "statistically highly unlikely" event, what'll they think if it happens again-even with just a small fragment-and it goes into the cabin and a passenger?

[Spheric Harlot]

Are there ANY aircraft on the market where this would have been less potentially disastrous?

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Are there ANY aircraft on the market where this would have been less potentially disastrous?

Any that didn't put out 54 alarm errors and have many systems fail to activate their backup modes. It was pure luck that there happened to an extra captain on board evaluating the captain of the flight crew. It was even luckier that there was another captain on board evaluating the evaluating captain. Between the 5 pilots, they had over 100 years of flying experience and still didn't get through all of the errors. They went ahead and landed because they were worried the aircraft would be too far out of weight and balance to keep flying if they waited much longer. Becoming a test pilot with several hundred people on board shows some serious desperation.

[Spheric Harlot]

I'm asking whether the potential consequences would have been any less dire on any other aircraft.

Are there ANY civil aircraft out there built to withstand this kind of failure/projectile?

[ghporter]

It's been (apocryphally) rumored that Boeing initially went with turbojets mounted on under-wing pylons because of the de Haviland Comet disasters in 1954. While the overwhelming evidence points to the Comets failing due to metal fatigue, they looked at an awful lot of factors, and mounting the engines IN the wings was one of them. In the Comet, the engines were RIGHT NEXT TO the fuselage-a turbine failure would have shredded the wing root and the passenger cabin. Yikes! Since then, it seems that just about all passenger jets have their engines mounted under the wings or in or on the very aft of the fuselage (727, MD80, etc.). I have always felt that this was at least somewhat related to "what if" analysis after the Comet disasters. However, the 707 prototype, the "Dash 80," was being built long before the Comet crashes, so perhaps Boeing simply looked at construction and maintenance efficiencies and "lucked out" in what might be considered a "safer" placement of its engines. On a side note, the military aircraft the 707 came from, the KC-135, has been revealing design shortcomings now and then through the aircraft's lifespan. They found out fairly early on that polishing aluminum makes it get thinner (duh!!!) and had some skin blow-outs because of that. They found out in 1982 that there was no safety interlock that prevented wing-tank fuel pumps from running in dry (but vapor filled) tanks; these pumps are cooled by the fuel in the tank.

I do not think ANY aircraft is designed to "withstand" a turbine failure like this. Some are built to survive such events with various levels of flightworthiness afterward. For example, the A-10's engines are completely isolated from each other, and their placement is far enough aft that the only structures around them are the empenage-and the A-10 is truly designed to take a buttload of abuse and still fly several hundred miles. But how would one build anything that's light enough to fly efficiently and at the same time "withstand" what is effectively a large bomb with a huge amount of built-in shrapnel? I don't think it's currently possible to do much more than "resist fatal damage" in any such event.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer 

Any that didn't put out 54 alarm errors and have many systems fail to activate their backup modes. It was pure luck that there happened to an extra captain on board evaluating the captain of the flight crew. It was even luckier that there was another captain on board evaluating the evaluating captain. Between the 5 pilots, they had over 100 years of flying experience and still didn't get through all of the errors. They went ahead and landed because they were worried the aircraft would be too far out of weight and balance to keep flying if they waited much longer. Becoming a test pilot with several hundred people on board shows some serious desperation.

Bingo.

Hence my earlier statement on "Luck". Luck plays a role in any event. Usually Good Luck being the chain of events is broken prior to a catastrophic event. I'd say 5 on the flight deck was Very Good Luck.

It will be interesting to see the results of your point on being out of weight balance. I'll wager it was fairly tight. Can't compliment the crew on the sticks enough.

[mduell]

ghporter: Another big problem with engine in wing root was maintenance. It was a huge hassle to get to.

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Could not agree more. The 380's Wing is highly overbuilt for the current 800 series.

The A380 wing is oversized, not overbuilt. The planform area is sized for the future heavier R/F/900, but the current structure is just for the current 625t MGTOW. The efficiency penalty for carrying the oversized wing is acceptable to the overall program, but you wouldn't want to carry an overly strong wing. Recall they even failed the ultimate load test the first time (at 147% vs the required 150%), which shows there's no excess margin in the current structure.

Think of a park bench that's sized wide enough for 4 people to sit on, but only built to support the weight of 3.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by mduell 

ghporter:Think of a park bench that's sized wide enough for 4 people to sit on, but only built to support the weight of 3.

That must have been the one the "Mother in Law" sat on.

Point taken on the wing. Actually did not mean to infer internal modification. Simply the "guts" that go with the "girth".

[mduell]

Per tomorrow's investor presentation, A380 will continue to produce a loss on every airframe delivered through 2014-2015. Then, post 2015, they begin to pay back the 10 or 15 billion Euros worth of development expenses.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Per tomorrow's investor presentation, A380 will continue to produce a loss on every airframe delivered through 2014-2015. Then, post 2015, they begin to pay back the 10 or 15 billion Euros worth of development expenses.

If the EU exists in it's current state of configuration. Or, quite frankly, exists at all.
The repayments are also at the discretion of Airbus as to the "How Much", and "When". It's not like they can default.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

If the EU exists in it's current state of configuration. Or, quite frankly, exists at all.
The repayments are also at the discretion of Airbus as to the "How Much", and "When". It's not like they can default.

The EU didn't loan the money, the individual countries did. And unlike some past RLI schemes, I believe the 4 billion Euros plus interest has to be paid back in full 17 years after program launch, or 2017. Although the outcome of the WTO spat may accelerate that; early (immediate) repayment is a possible remedy.

[imitchellg5]

Qantas are launching preliminary legal action against RR.

[OreoCookie]

… but yet they're sticking to RR engines for the A380 they have on order? Hmmm, strange.

[imitchellg5]

I would be surprised if they changed motors for upcoming orders, requires too much in the way of maintenance programme revisions.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

programme

Please stop pretending to be British.

[Andy8]

Incredible insights into the saving of QF32 revealed in the ATSB preliminary report

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Please stop pretending to be British.

Oops. My iMac's language is in English (UK) because I've been writing scholarship essays in countries that asked to use, if possible, UK English for ease of translation.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Andy8 

Incredible insights into the saving of QF32 revealed in the ATSB preliminary report

Wow. Luck favors the truly professional.

Hat's off.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Wow. Luck favors the truly professional.

Hat's off.

As in the past, simply can't say enough about that Flight Deck. Outstanding link. Really puts it into perspective. The event resolution could have been vastly different.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

… but yet they're sticking to RR engines for the A380 they have on order? Hmmm, strange.

...or 40 million off the price of the rest of their orders. The T900 are roughly 10 million each. Most likely going up after the event.

I'd take the GP 7270 any day.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The EU didn't loan the money, the individual countries did. And unlike some past RLI schemes, I believe the 4 billion Euros plus interest has to be paid back in full 17 years after program launch, or 2017. Although the outcome of the WTO spat may accelerate that; early (immediate) repayment is a possible remedy.

Your point is taken. However, "the countries" are as much the EU as fingers to a hand. Airbus is a finger of the hand (EADS). Which attaches to the EU.

The EU has been moving more toward collective rescue plans recently involving debt ridden countries. I'm in no way saying Airbus has financial problems.

IMO, an attempt to accelerate the repayment would be driven by the worsening EU/US debt situation not any WTO Tom Foolery.

[badidea]

Lufthansa rollout on a nice sunny day

[Spheric Harlot]

Awesome.

I can almost see my house from there.

[mduell]

The old girl is still making headlines: two ATBs today, one for an engine shutdown and one for a pressurization problem.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The old girl is still making headlines: two ATBs today, one for an engine shutdown and one for a pressurization problem.

Holy Cow!!! It's alive!! I remember this thread. Let's not forget the cracks in the wing skin fasteners (and those other cracks)

Wait the A350XWB video is out today. Nice update to the A346 video.

On a serious note. I prefer the LH livery to KE any day on the 380, or a 748.

[Buckaroo]

Airbus Says Wing Repairs Could Take Eight Weeks

Airbus Says Wing Repairs Could Take Eight Weeks - WSJ.com

This is the worst case scenario . I believe if they decide to work it in current planned maintenance, the impact will not be as bad.

[Phileas]

If you want to read that article without subscribing, google the headline, then follow the link.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Airbus Says Wing Repairs Could Take Eight Weeks

Airbus Says Wing Repairs Could Take Eight Weeks - WSJ.com

This is the worst case scenario . I believe if they decide to work it in current planned maintenance, the impact will not be as bad.

Only takes 4-6 weeks to do as part of manufacturing before delivery. Or you can extend every heavy check by a week.

FWIW Emirates is choosing to do theirs all at once, so I suspect there are tradeoffs other than just the time. Also the newer weight-reduced increased-twist wing has a lower life limit before the repair is required.