Some of the details now emerging from the Qanta A380 incident.
- Thread starter David Morton
- Start date
To chime in on the Airbus v Boeing.
Firstly if you think the USA is not massively subsidizing its aerospace industry then you've got rocks in your head. One way or another via NASA and military spending it gets done, Airbus and Europe are just a bit more obvious about it. Then there was Darleen Druyun
Next as a (very) junior designer I worked on the Airbus A321 wing. The English guy I was lucky enough to work for had been the lead designer on the double deck portion of the B747. There's a global market in these skills and people have been moving around the world doing this since way back when, just like in many other industries.
Airbus as a Co may not be that old but the people designing them did not just pop out of thin air, they're part of continuum that goes back to the beginning of the industry, for example I did my work at the now defunct Kingston site which had been Hawkers and its hard to get more venerable than that.
Having said that what David says about the electronic systems overloading the air crew is certainly valid stuff.
Firstly if you think the USA is not massively subsidizing its aerospace industry then you've got rocks in your head. One way or another via NASA and military spending it gets done, Airbus and Europe are just a bit more obvious about it. Then there was Darleen Druyun
Next as a (very) junior designer I worked on the Airbus A321 wing. The English guy I was lucky enough to work for had been the lead designer on the double deck portion of the B747. There's a global market in these skills and people have been moving around the world doing this since way back when, just like in many other industries.
Airbus as a Co may not be that old but the people designing them did not just pop out of thin air, they're part of continuum that goes back to the beginning of the industry, for example I did my work at the now defunct Kingston site which had been Hawkers and its hard to get more venerable than that.
Having said that what David says about the electronic systems overloading the air crew is certainly valid stuff.
Coincidently a fully restored FW190 made its first flight since 1943 on 1st December. It had been restored by the Flying Heritage Collection (FHC) in the US and was shot down near Leningrad in 1943. The flight went very well apparently. In WW2 they had a good reputation and were a match for the Allied planes of the time.
Chris
Doug, good points and I think everyone would agree with you.
Yet somehow the overall design of the Airbus is what causes me some concern. i would have expected engineering analysis to have been done in these conditions, and sufficient redundant systems put into place to allow for the two men cockpit scenario.
That's where the Airbus design comes unstuck for me.
From the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/world/asia/04qantas.html?_r=1
Yet somehow the overall design of the Airbus is what causes me some concern. i would have expected engineering analysis to have been done in these conditions, and sufficient redundant systems put into place to allow for the two men cockpit scenario.
That's where the Airbus design comes unstuck for me.
From the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/world/asia/04qantas.html?_r=1
Last edited:
Crikey! So the Cold War was a lot older than we thought :shocked:
Sorry, couldn't resist.... :lipsrsealed:
Yes, it would seem that more problems were created by the Systems rather than the fault itself. In that respect I do not understand why RR are getting all the flack here, after all, it is not the first time an unforeseen mechanical event caused tragedy, only in this case no-one was harmed.
Extract from Wikipedia:
Quote
However, a few short years after introduction into commercial service, the Comet suffered from catastrophic metal fatigue, which in combination with the pressurisation, caused two well-publicised accidents where the aircraft tore apart in mid-flight. The Comet had to be withdrawn and extensively tested to discover the cause; the first incident had being incorrectly identified as having been caused by an onboard fire. Several contributory factors, such as window installation methodology, were also identified as exacerbating the problem. The Comet was extensively redesigned to eliminate this design flaw. Rival manufacturers meanwhile developed their own aircraft and heeded the lessons learnt from the Comet.
Although sales never fully recovered, the redesigned Comet 4 series subsequently enjoyed a long and productive career of over 30 years. The Comet was adapted for a variety of military roles, such as surveillance, VIP, medical and passenger transport; the most extensive modification resulted in a specialised maritime patrol aircraft variant, the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod. Nimrods are still in service with the RAF and are expected to be retired in March 2011, over 60 years after the Comet's first flight.
Unquote.
I am particularly drawn to the sentence underlined in bold above, where 2 tragic failures led directly to the greatly enhanced safety record of jet air travel period. Accordingly, I would have thought that RR would only be responsible if there had been a failure of the human intervention variety at manufacturing stage. The fact there was an alleged 'defect' in a simple component is surely not enough on it's own, or is this the new era of 'blame culture' kicking in?
Keith,
Wholehearteldy agree with your sentiments here. However, I'm not so sure its just a case of blame culture, there is also a lot of wrapping in cotton wool...
Back in the day, we used to accept that risk follows life as surely as night follows day. Unfortunately we now seem to live in a world where risk and danger of any kind is being engineered out of fashion to such a degree that when a tragedy strikes, there HAS to be someone to point the finger at.
Acceptable odds, or losses if you will, are no longer acceptable. We seem to think that there should be a zero failure rate on anything, from a nail varnish to to a multi million dollar aeroplane. The awful events of the oil spill in the US recently show this to be the case.
I'm not a gambler, but I'll play the odds on most things. Everytime I get on a plane, I assume that it won't be my turn to take an early dirt nap. So far, I'm running true to form, hence my ability to write this rather boring post... :laugh:
That certainly makes sense Graham - I suppose you can liken it to our current 'war' situation where it seems casualties are just not acceptable any more. Mad or what?
The problem as I see it stems from a wider issue and a strong belief that technology, on it's own, can save us, where in actuality it has led to dumber operators and flawed or unproven science. ( Quantas Pilots notwithstanding)
I really hate this development in society. In years gone by I would always put my hand up and say "yes, it could have been done better - let's get on with improving." Now it seems, we have to have endless inquests and enquiries and the seeking of blame with the dreaded "compensation" issue hanging above us like the Sword of Damocles.
However, as in the fable, the benefit of the sword is not that it might fall, but that it hangs there... In other words, think before you act - easier said than done.
The problem as I see it stems from a wider issue and a strong belief that technology, on it's own, can save us, where in actuality it has led to dumber operators and flawed or unproven science. ( Quantas Pilots notwithstanding)
I really hate this development in society. In years gone by I would always put my hand up and say "yes, it could have been done better - let's get on with improving." Now it seems, we have to have endless inquests and enquiries and the seeking of blame with the dreaded "compensation" issue hanging above us like the Sword of Damocles.
However, as in the fable, the benefit of the sword is not that it might fall, but that it hangs there... In other words, think before you act - easier said than done.
hoppy
Lifetime Supporter
QANTAS is alleging in a multi-million-dollar damages claim against Rolls-Royce that it could now carry only 80 passengers across the Pacific in its Airbus 380s, under new operating rules for their troubled engines.
The airline states in Federal Court papers that it bought the Airbus superjumbos because they would carry 450 passengers and a payload of 60,900kg from Australia to Los Angeles.
Qantas: Passenger alerts crew after seeing fluid leak from wing
In pictures: QF32 damage
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related CoverageIn pictures: Qantas explosion
Inquiry: Qantas flight cam captures A380 drama
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
But the new rules imposed by Rolls-Royce since one of its Trent 900 engines exploded on a Qantas A380 near Singapore last month mean that the world's biggest passenger jet is not a commercial proposition on the airline's Australia-US route.
Qantas, which has suspended the route, has asked for damages and costs.
The national carrier is also seeking a declaration from the court ordering the UK engine maker to fund a $1 million credit note relating to a guarantee against "uncontained engine failure" - to stop engine parts perforating the outer shield of an engine.
Rolls-Royce is accused of negligence and breach of contract.
Qantas says in its statement of claim that Rolls-Royce continued to modify the Trent 900 engine, but left 23 engines on its big jets unmodified. At the time of the Singapore incident only one engine had been modified.
Meanwhile the nation's top air safety investigator has lauded pilots who landed the faulty Qantas Airbus in Singapore, saying they saved the lives of all the 469 people on board QF32 on November 4.
A preliminary report yesterday confirmed an oil leak as the most likely cause of last month's Qantas A380 engine failure over Indonesia's Batam Island.
The leak caused pieces of the Rolls-Royce engine to shear off, penetrating the aircraft's left wing and sections of the fuselage.
Capt Richard Champion de Crespigny and the four other officers safely landed the aircraft under the power of its remaining engines.
ATSB chief commissioner Martin Dolan said the cool-headed reaction of the pilots prevented a catastrophic accident.
"The aircraft would not have arrived safely in Singapore without the focused and effective action of the flight crew," he said.
The modification was an oil line to the turbine area that it was discovered had out of limit wall thickness and subsequently fractured,allowing oil to spray onto the turbine interstage area which ignited and was fed by the cooling air being internally pumped to the turbine area from the compressor.
RR have said that all "A" and some "B" mod engine are effected but no "C" mod engines.
I find it hard to believe that in this day of computer engineering that they are up to a "C" model already.
The airline states in Federal Court papers that it bought the Airbus superjumbos because they would carry 450 passengers and a payload of 60,900kg from Australia to Los Angeles.
Qantas: Passenger alerts crew after seeing fluid leak from wing
In pictures: QF32 damage
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related CoverageIn pictures: Qantas explosion
Inquiry: Qantas flight cam captures A380 drama
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
But the new rules imposed by Rolls-Royce since one of its Trent 900 engines exploded on a Qantas A380 near Singapore last month mean that the world's biggest passenger jet is not a commercial proposition on the airline's Australia-US route.
Qantas, which has suspended the route, has asked for damages and costs.
The national carrier is also seeking a declaration from the court ordering the UK engine maker to fund a $1 million credit note relating to a guarantee against "uncontained engine failure" - to stop engine parts perforating the outer shield of an engine.
Rolls-Royce is accused of negligence and breach of contract.
Qantas says in its statement of claim that Rolls-Royce continued to modify the Trent 900 engine, but left 23 engines on its big jets unmodified. At the time of the Singapore incident only one engine had been modified.
Meanwhile the nation's top air safety investigator has lauded pilots who landed the faulty Qantas Airbus in Singapore, saying they saved the lives of all the 469 people on board QF32 on November 4.
A preliminary report yesterday confirmed an oil leak as the most likely cause of last month's Qantas A380 engine failure over Indonesia's Batam Island.
The leak caused pieces of the Rolls-Royce engine to shear off, penetrating the aircraft's left wing and sections of the fuselage.
Capt Richard Champion de Crespigny and the four other officers safely landed the aircraft under the power of its remaining engines.
ATSB chief commissioner Martin Dolan said the cool-headed reaction of the pilots prevented a catastrophic accident.
"The aircraft would not have arrived safely in Singapore without the focused and effective action of the flight crew," he said.
The modification was an oil line to the turbine area that it was discovered had out of limit wall thickness and subsequently fractured,allowing oil to spray onto the turbine interstage area which ignited and was fed by the cooling air being internally pumped to the turbine area from the compressor.
RR have said that all "A" and some "B" mod engine are effected but no "C" mod engines.
I find it hard to believe that in this day of computer engineering that they are up to a "C" model already.
You'll have to enlarge on that statement Hoppy, (for me one of the great unwashed). From what you say, given the design technology available, that there should be no further improvements from an 'A' model?
I am no engineer but I am trying to understand what your message is. Are you saying that there should be no onward development and that such companies have to get everything right out of the box?
I am no engineer but I am trying to understand what your message is. Are you saying that there should be no onward development and that such companies have to get everything right out of the box?
hoppy
Lifetime Supporter
In the case of the Allison (RR) 250-B17 engine (small turboprop) they were first developed in the late 60's in the mid to late 70's the B17B engine was developed and in the mid 80's the B17C engine was released.Therefore we see an approx 20 years span to go from an "A" model to a "C" model.
The fact that the Trent 900 engines are at a "C" model in such a relatively short time would suggest some design flaws that had to be corrected.
The fact that the Trent 900 engines are at a "C" model in such a relatively short time would suggest some design flaws that had to be corrected.
OK got it. But surely you are not trying to compare '60's and 70's aircraft with the constantly evolving needs of the contemporary aircraft industry?
It's not the engine manufacturers that design aircraft, it's not even the aircraft manufacturers that design aircraft - it's the carriers demands that surely dictate the pace and scope of that development?.
Demands for bigger capacity aircraft nowadays when engines have to literally power a block of apartments in the sky and remain quiet enough not to disturb Mr & Mrs Smith at the end of runway 4 West, plus the uber rapid development process that cannot reasonably be compared with the relatively stable progress of developments during the '60's & 70's.
It is always said that in wartime we make the biggest technological steps forward (perhaps because no one notices the casualties arising out of the 'experiments') but seriously, the demands of commerce and the 'free market economy' drives technology way beyond 'proven tried and tested.' The Western economy will not wait for that idyllic scenario.
Hence: despite the fact that we can and should design and build perfect machines, and have the technology to do it, we lack the willpower to see it through mainly for fiscal reasons.
Personally, I see that as an acceptable risk, but in our risk averse society, regretfully someone has to fuck up and go to jail.
It's not the engine manufacturers that design aircraft, it's not even the aircraft manufacturers that design aircraft - it's the carriers demands that surely dictate the pace and scope of that development?.
Demands for bigger capacity aircraft nowadays when engines have to literally power a block of apartments in the sky and remain quiet enough not to disturb Mr & Mrs Smith at the end of runway 4 West, plus the uber rapid development process that cannot reasonably be compared with the relatively stable progress of developments during the '60's & 70's.
It is always said that in wartime we make the biggest technological steps forward (perhaps because no one notices the casualties arising out of the 'experiments') but seriously, the demands of commerce and the 'free market economy' drives technology way beyond 'proven tried and tested.' The Western economy will not wait for that idyllic scenario.
Hence: despite the fact that we can and should design and build perfect machines, and have the technology to do it, we lack the willpower to see it through mainly for fiscal reasons.
Personally, I see that as an acceptable risk, but in our risk averse society, regretfully someone has to fuck up and go to jail.
Keith,
Don't forget the airlines want the engines as fuel efficient as possible on top of all that.
Don't forget the airlines want the engines as fuel efficient as possible on top of all that.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
A bit more interesting reading:
Trent 900 failure caused extensive damage to Qantas A380
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) says the 4 November uncontained failure of a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine on a Qantas Airways Airbus A380 caused extensive damage to the wing, the aircraft's No 1 engine, and the fuselage.
"The failure of the No 2 engine ejected a number of engine components that struck the aircraft or were liberated overboard," says the ATSB. "Sections of the intermediate pressure (IP) turbine disc penetrated the leading edge of the left wing inboard of the No 2 engine, resulting in damage to the leading edge structure, the front wing spar and the upper surface of the wing."
A small section of the No 2 engine's "liberated turbine disc" penetrated the left wing-to-fuselage fairing, damaging numerous system components, the fuselage structure, and elements of the aircraft's electrical wiring. Debris also hit the left wing's lower surface, causing a fuel leak from the No 2 engine fuel feed tank and left wing inner fuel tank..
Debris also hit the No 2 engine support pylon, the No 1 engine, the left fuselage keel beam support splice, and the left wing false spar. A small impact region was also observed on the left side of the aircraft's fuselage.
The report goes onto add that a dark residue was observed inside the left wing inner fuel tank between ribs eight to 10. This will be further examined.
"Impact damage from the liberated engine debris affected a number of aircraft systems," says the ATSB. "Damage was observed to elements of the aircraft's electrical wiring that affected the operation of the hydraulic system, landing gear and flight controls; a number of fuel system components; and the leading edge slat system."
After the aircraft made an emergency landing in Singapore, the flight crew was unable to shut down engine No. 1 for over two hours.
"Ground engineers also attended the aircraft and attempted a number of methods to shut down the engine, each without success Finally, the decision was taken to drown the engine with fire-fighting foam from the emergency services fire vehicles. The No. 1 engine was reported to have finally been shut down at 0653, about two hours and seven minutes after the aircraft landed."
Trent 900 failure caused extensive damage to Qantas A380
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) says the 4 November uncontained failure of a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine on a Qantas Airways Airbus A380 caused extensive damage to the wing, the aircraft's No 1 engine, and the fuselage.
"The failure of the No 2 engine ejected a number of engine components that struck the aircraft or were liberated overboard," says the ATSB. "Sections of the intermediate pressure (IP) turbine disc penetrated the leading edge of the left wing inboard of the No 2 engine, resulting in damage to the leading edge structure, the front wing spar and the upper surface of the wing."
A small section of the No 2 engine's "liberated turbine disc" penetrated the left wing-to-fuselage fairing, damaging numerous system components, the fuselage structure, and elements of the aircraft's electrical wiring. Debris also hit the left wing's lower surface, causing a fuel leak from the No 2 engine fuel feed tank and left wing inner fuel tank..
Debris also hit the No 2 engine support pylon, the No 1 engine, the left fuselage keel beam support splice, and the left wing false spar. A small impact region was also observed on the left side of the aircraft's fuselage.
The report goes onto add that a dark residue was observed inside the left wing inner fuel tank between ribs eight to 10. This will be further examined.
"Impact damage from the liberated engine debris affected a number of aircraft systems," says the ATSB. "Damage was observed to elements of the aircraft's electrical wiring that affected the operation of the hydraulic system, landing gear and flight controls; a number of fuel system components; and the leading edge slat system."
After the aircraft made an emergency landing in Singapore, the flight crew was unable to shut down engine No. 1 for over two hours.
"Ground engineers also attended the aircraft and attempted a number of methods to shut down the engine, each without success Finally, the decision was taken to drown the engine with fire-fighting foam from the emergency services fire vehicles. The No. 1 engine was reported to have finally been shut down at 0653, about two hours and seven minutes after the aircraft landed."
Redundant anything in any aircraft means extra weight and whatever the aircraft type weight is fought with missionary zeal.
If you look at any aircraft they're designed to a max condition (load + g-load, etc) and then there's a factor of safety added onto that.
The factor of safety BTW is typically 1.x not the 10+ that you would find on car.
If you look at the history of human development of anything we over do it to start with then things get refined to the point we stuff it up hence we go from the Forth rail bridge (magnificent isn't it) to the Tacoma narrows then we learn our lessons and try again.
Today society expects technology and efficiency to advance but failures are unacceptable. The truth of the matter is we still make advances and we still get things wrong learn from it and push forward again its what humans do.
How are you going to feel on a Dreamliner? They're even more hi-tech than the A380. The last fire on the 787 was apparently cause by a tool left in a electrical cabinet and it spread in a way it was not supposed to. So there a couple of questions right there, as tool management is an absolute fundamental of running a flight operation that should just not happen period then there's the way the fire spread. You could ask why that had not been tested already?
You can't simulate everything, like a tool left in an electrical panel, but I agree that a turbine failure and it's structural implications is something that should be simulated eight ways from Sunday.
No doubt both Boeing and Airbus build a quality airframe, but the main reason I prefer to fly on Boeing airliners is the fact that they have had a very different approach to flight control systems. Boeing has historically taken a pilot-centric approach, while Airbus has taken a software-centric approach. If things go wrong in the cockpit, I'd rather have an experienced flight crew calling the shots rather than some software developed by guys on the ground. Like I said, you can't simulate everything but you can train and trust your flight crew to react to the unexpected and improvise as the situation warrants.
No doubt both Boeing and Airbus build a quality airframe, but the main reason I prefer to fly on Boeing airliners is the fact that they have had a very different approach to flight control systems. Boeing has historically taken a pilot-centric approach, while Airbus has taken a software-centric approach. If things go wrong in the cockpit, I'd rather have an experienced flight crew calling the shots rather than some software developed by guys on the ground. Like I said, you can't simulate everything but you can train and trust your flight crew to react to the unexpected and improvise as the situation warrants.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Dom,
I do take your point but there are just so many variables that can be designed for and sooner or later another variable crops up in real life which will then be incorporated x (times) 1.3 on what was BCAR now JAR and probably reduced to
x 1.25. This sort of accident/incident is almost impossible to legislate against
and it surely will take a while to inorporate preventative measures. Often almost everyone says yes - well do this and we'll do that. The Accountants used to call it Engineering Wet Dreams and the Engineers called the accountants Turd Burglers or Bean Counters. Invariably the Turd Burglars won the day any safety modifications were quietly brushed under the carpet and the money got spent on cramming more seats in the aeroplanes.
I do take your point but there are just so many variables that can be designed for and sooner or later another variable crops up in real life which will then be incorporated x (times) 1.3 on what was BCAR now JAR and probably reduced to
x 1.25. This sort of accident/incident is almost impossible to legislate against
and it surely will take a while to inorporate preventative measures. Often almost everyone says yes - well do this and we'll do that. The Accountants used to call it Engineering Wet Dreams and the Engineers called the accountants Turd Burglers or Bean Counters. Invariably the Turd Burglars won the day any safety modifications were quietly brushed under the carpet and the money got spent on cramming more seats in the aeroplanes.
That's it in a nutshell David, and what does the Team think of the French Court's decision against Continental?
"Guilty of Corporate Manslaughter"
It's similar in a way to the A380 scenario but with far more tragic consequences.
Somehow it doesn't seem very fair but a Continental mechanic DID go to jail for the "scrap of titanium" didn't he?
"Guilty of Corporate Manslaughter"
It's similar in a way to the A380 scenario but with far more tragic consequences.
Somehow it doesn't seem very fair but a Continental mechanic DID go to jail for the "scrap of titanium" didn't he?