Qantas A380 report

[jackpilot]

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=43309c6d/0007&opt=0

Check this fairly complete report on the event.
The section dealing with  the crew analysis and management of the Aircraft systems abnormal behaviour, following an engine failure, is a fairly educational reading.
Cool stuff.

[dharrison]

Jack,

Some great reading, really interesting how they spent so much time accessing the aircraft prior to landing. Just goes to show always fly the aircraft first. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate!

Don

[matta757]

IMMENSELY interesting, and frankly quite scary the situation they had to go through. I had no idea the problems faced on the A380 that day were so numerous or severe. Thanks for posting this, jack.

Matt

[choffmann]

While the reader may think: "what a cool crew" doing all the ECAM checks with an engine on fire for 50 plus minutes, I would like to raise the question, whether this happy-ending behaviour would not deviate from the general rule: when there is fire - land asap! I guess, I am thinking much too simple here, as opposed to the many factors obviously involved in the numerous decision processes. - Still, doing a vigorous analysis of the decisions taken by the crew under safety concerns by an expert on aviation errors, would seem interesting to me. This notwithstanding, the crews actions obviously worked excellently in this case, and as I would say "who lands right - IS right".

Chris

[jackpilot]

GW was an issue for an immediate landing.

[Maurice]

Just read this now & frankly I was stunned that they would use such a lengthy procedure while so close to the airport & while the aircraft was still controllable. Because the outcome turned out OK, it may look like they did all the right things but all I know is that if I was sitting by the window in that airplane & seeing the damage on the wing, I would have wanted them to land immediately and not spend all that time assessing the damage since again, the airplane was controllable.

In my uninformed and maybe simple minded opinion, all they really needed to do was figure out if they would be able to stop given their weight, runway length & brakes condition, all of which they were able to find out quickly.

But then again, maybe they are all still alive because they were so thorough. But as Chris said above a fire should result in immediate landing if possible because things can deteriorate very fast, especially since they had no indication the fire extinguishers worked at all.

Maurice

[Garys]

They also had no indication that there was a fire from the visual inspections they carried out. Landing overweight not only increases your landing speed,distance, etc etc  but it also significantly increases your chances of strut damage to the gear and other mechanical failures which can result in loss of control of aircraft on the ground. Given the circumstances and considering the experience of the combined crew onboard, its easy to see why Qantas remains its 0 loss of life record.

[NeoMorph]

Those "Center of Gravity" messages should have made them guess that they left part of their plane behind heh...

But god, what a nightmare error list. At the end I was thinking "# ... and a Partridge in a Pear Tree."

I wonder why the autothrottle stopped working... Would it be because the controls were in alternate mode or the engines were in degraded mode. Also how come the engines on the OTHER side of the plane were in degraded mode?

Have to say that with all that damage the crew deserve medals for landing that plane.

One scary thought though... I remember reading up on aircraft engines after reading Airframe by Michael Crichton. I'm sure that I read that engines were supposed to be designed so that they keep any debris INSIDE the engine casing in an event. Even throwing a blade should not have damaged the wing... yet we see wing damage like this...


http://www.abc.net.au/news/photos/2010/11/19/3070965.htm

For me, that's the scary bit.

[Maurice]

They also had no indication that there was a fire from the visual inspections they carried out. Landing overweight not only increases your landing speed,distance, etc etc  but it also significantly increases your chances of strut damage to the gear and other mechanical failures which can result in loss of control of aircraft on the ground. Given the circumstances and considering the experience of the combined crew onboard, its easy to see why Qantas remains its 0 loss of life record.

Perhaps no visible indication of fire but a visible indication of a leak and a fire warning in the cockpit. Also, they still landed with close to the same weight anyway since they could not dump fuel. If whatever liquid that was spilling from the wing (probably fuel) ignited, that would have been curtains for them. Anyway, I was not questioning their wisdom or experience. They obviously were successful but also very lucky that the leak did not ignite. I certainly would not have wanted to be in their place & making those life & death decisions.

Maurice

[NeoMorph]

What about the fact that the engine would not shut down, even when they landed and pulled the circuit breakers... in the end they had to drown it. If it was on fire it wouldn't keep on running like that I would have thought. In the the end they had to drown it in foam just to get the darn thing to shut down.

When you see what happened to the wiring looms you can see how they lost control of that engine... Hell, it was a wonder that they had ANY control of that wing at all. Imagine what it would have been like to have two engines running away, no control of flaps or slats, no aileron control and that would have been curtains for the plane because no way would you have been able to land it. I think that while the Quantas crew deserve medals there was still a huge bucket of luck too.

[fordgt40]

One scary thought though... I remember reading up on aircraft engines after reading Airframe by Michael Crichton. I'm sure that I read that engines were supposed to be designed so that they keep any debris INSIDE the engine casing in an event. Even throwing a blade should not have damaged the wing... yet we see wing damage like this...

Engines are designed and have to pass tests for containing blade separation. In this case it was the hefty turbine rotor that let go - a completely different issue and not one, I believe, covered by regulation requiring containment within the engine casing.

David

[NeoMorph]

David... after what this did to the wing of the plane and how it ruined the control wiring I think they should include that in the regulations as well.

Mind you, they should name that faulty engine "Duracell" now... even after blowing up it kept on running... and running... and running... heh.

[fordgt40]

Mind you, they should name that faulty engine "Duracell" now... even after blowing up it kept on running... and running... and running... heh.

Sorry Neomorph, but the engine that would not stop was No1 and the reason was that the control wiring was severed - in which case the engine is designed to continue with the last "order". Just as well as it was no 2 engine which blew up!

If you are interested there is a very long and informative thread on this incident at

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/432704-qantas-a380-uncontained-2-engine-failure.html

David

[NeoMorph]

DOH!

You will have to excuse me... doped up to the eyeballs on pain meds... what's the difference between 1 and 2 again? 

So is #3 the inboard right engine and #4 was the outboard right engine? #2 was the inboard left that blew and #1 was the outboard left that wouldn't shut down? I never knew the engine numbers you see.

I wonder why #4 was in degraded mode? But hey, these things are complicated beasts. Bit like that 2007 incident....

One of the passengers, Pretoria businesswoman Ronel Derman, told the South African Press Association that she had been in a seat directly over the wing and a passenger seated next to her was looking out of the window.

"I heard this huge bang, and he said, 'That's our engine that's just fallen off.' I couldn't believe it. He had to repeat it to me," she told SAPA.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21674981/ns/travel-news/

[CeeGee]

Well, with 5 qualified on type pilots in the sharp end [including checkers - examiners] I think that they did a good job getting the aircaft down. The scary bit for me as an ex aviator, is that Avtur and Hydraulic fluid were known to be dripping from #2 [an incredibly dangerous combination] and yet the ground evac took 50 odd minutes. The FAA and CAA demand about 3 mins for the emergency evac, but I do not know what it is for the 380. I am gobsmacked that the pax were not deplaned faster but then it all worked out OK in the end. Phew, no lives lost and tons of lessons learnt! The other interesting point is that with engine # 1 humming away to itself for over an hour on the ground, the CVR was completly overwritten so we will never know what was happening in the sharp end with regard examiners versus the pilot in command. However, they all get a good job well done award from me! Charlie.

[Aerosim Solutions]

BTW, Qantas has never had a 'U' in the word - it is an anagram for Queensland And Northern Territory Air Service

The schoolmaster!!!

[jackpilot]

Hey you slow body....how many days went by before you droped your salty bomb!!!
Ok OK we learned something today...

This being said, how can they afford A380s with a name like that??

Just jokin'     

Edit: do not know what you are talking about ...my original post heading is correct(ed)   

[Aerosim Solutions]

I do admit that that spelling bugged me for a while but I will breathe easier now it's fixed, cheers Jack.
BTW, "dropped" has two Ps hahaha

GP

[NeoMorph]

Well, with 5 qualified on type pilots in the sharp end [including checkers - examiners] I think that they did a good job getting the aircaft down. The scary bit for me as an ex aviator, is that Avtur and Hydraulic fluid were known to be dripping from #2 [an incredibly dangerous combination] and yet the ground evac took 50 odd minutes. The FAA and CAA demand about 3 mins for the emergency evac, but I do not know what it is for the 380. I am gobsmacked that the pax were not deplaned faster but then it all worked out OK in the end.

The passengers didn't want to miss the end of the in-flight movie... or should that be on-ground-waiting-for-plane-to-explode movie? 

[jackpilot]

I do admit that that spelling bugged me for a while but I will breathe easier now it's fixed, cheers Jack.
BTW, "dropped" has two Ps hahaha

GP

You bate her watch yur spailing fraum naoh own Gween!!!
Ay wil skreen yur pausts karful-hey.