PDA

View Full Version : A-380 explosion pictures



Buzzsaw-
11-22-2010, 08:32 PM
Salute

Some pics of the explosion, high tensile steel being thrown off a spinning turbine can generate some nasty holes:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2010/11/damage-02-591x450.jpg

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2010/11/damage-04-600x446.jpg

Article discussing it here:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pla...Google+International (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/11/17/the-anatomy-of-the-airbus-a380-qf32-near-disaster/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CrikeyBlogs+%28Crikey+Blogs%2 9&utm_content=Google+International)

Looks like fingers are being pointed at Rolls Royce.

Fortunately there was a larger than normal crew aboard, very experienced pilots. But if there had been any kind of turbulence, the wing could have failed:




“What was known immediately after the blowout was that the left inner engine suffered an “uncontained” failure, meaning it flung shrapnel through its casing. Photographs showed a hole in the left wing, but there were no official reports of further damage.

But the new information makes it clear that the shrapnel cut hydraulic lines and electric cables in the left wing, disabling equipment throughout the aircraft. It also punctured two of the 11 fuel tanks — meaning highly flammable fuel was streaming from the left wing — and damaged the wing’s spar, or backbone.

With the power lines severed, the crew could not move fuel from the rear tanks to the forward ones as they emptied, creating the potential that the plane would become so tail-heavy it would stall and crash. The crew also could not reposition the left wing’s slats, which are small panels that normally help maintain lift at the low speeds of takeoff and landing. The damage to the spar could have been catastrophic if the plane had hit turbulence.

The crew’s first challenge was simply to identify the cause of the alarms that suddenly flooded the cockpit’s computer screens.

The number and variety of them put the situation beyond the realm of anything the pilots, who are trained to follow a logical sequence for a single system failure, would have drilled for.

“When you have multiple, unrelated failures, you lose the logic,” said one veteran American investigator, Gregory Feith. “Which checklist do you run? Hydraulic? Electrical? The fuel checklist?”

Mr. Woodward, vice president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, said: “Any of those problems would be an emergency in its own right. To have them all together — there’s no doubt there could have been a different outcome in different circumstances.”

Safety aboard the huge craft — the largest airliner to date — has been an overriding concern since its inception. The very idea of a plane that can carry more than 500 people raised unique issues. How fast could such a plane be evacuated in an emergency? If one were to crash and cause numerous injuries, how could so many people be cared for?

The pilots’ specialized training included handling simple engine shutdowns and other known possibilities. Uncontained engine failures, however, are “outside the certification basis,” said Mr. Feith, a consultant who was formerly a crash investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board. The Qantas event turned the crew into “test pilots,” he said.

Several experts said that among the pieces of good luck for the flight was that the captain was undergoing a “check ride” — meaning a more senior captain was aboard to evaluate his performance — and that the checker was being observed by yet another senior captain. So two extra seasoned pilots were on hand to grapple with the crisis.

Among the complications of the A380’s multiple failures, the plane had to land at a higher than normal speed, according to investigators, because without the hydraulics, the crew could not move the slats.

The landing gear had to be lowered by using emergency bottles of pressurized nitrogen. The plane could not use its thrust reversers to slow down, since only the inner two engines had them. With the left engine destroyed, the right one would only have spun the plane out of control.

Even the cockpit voice recorder did not work right, according to a report by Australian investigators. It failed to halt when the plane landed, and because it operated in a two-hour loop, the critical periods were recorded over. “

Buzzsaw-
11-22-2010, 08:32 PM
Salute

Some pics of the explosion, high tensile steel being thrown off a spinning turbine can generate some nasty holes:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2010/11/damage-02-591x450.jpg

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2010/11/damage-04-600x446.jpg

Article discussing it here:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pla...Google+International (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/11/17/the-anatomy-of-the-airbus-a380-qf32-near-disaster/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CrikeyBlogs+%28Crikey+Blogs%2 9&utm_content=Google+International)

Looks like fingers are being pointed at Rolls Royce.

Fortunately there was a larger than normal crew aboard, very experienced pilots. But if there had been any kind of turbulence, the wing could have failed:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

“What was known immediately after the blowout was that the left inner engine suffered an “uncontained” failure, meaning it flung shrapnel through its casing. Photographs showed a hole in the left wing, but there were no official reports of further damage.

But the new information makes it clear that the shrapnel cut hydraulic lines and electric cables in the left wing, disabling equipment throughout the aircraft. It also punctured two of the 11 fuel tanks — meaning highly flammable fuel was streaming from the left wing — and damaged the wing’s spar, or backbone.

With the power lines severed, the crew could not move fuel from the rear tanks to the forward ones as they emptied, creating the potential that the plane would become so tail-heavy it would stall and crash. The crew also could not reposition the left wing’s slats, which are small panels that normally help maintain lift at the low speeds of takeoff and landing. The damage to the spar could have been catastrophic if the plane had hit turbulence.

The crew’s first challenge was simply to identify the cause of the alarms that suddenly flooded the cockpit’s computer screens.

The number and variety of them put the situation beyond the realm of anything the pilots, who are trained to follow a logical sequence for a single system failure, would have drilled for.

“When you have multiple, unrelated failures, you lose the logic,” said one veteran American investigator, Gregory Feith. “Which checklist do you run? Hydraulic? Electrical? The fuel checklist?”

Mr. Woodward, vice president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, said: “Any of those problems would be an emergency in its own right. To have them all together — there’s no doubt there could have been a different outcome in different circumstances.”

Safety aboard the huge craft — the largest airliner to date — has been an overriding concern since its inception. The very idea of a plane that can carry more than 500 people raised unique issues. How fast could such a plane be evacuated in an emergency? If one were to crash and cause numerous injuries, how could so many people be cared for?

The pilots’ specialized training included handling simple engine shutdowns and other known possibilities. Uncontained engine failures, however, are “outside the certification basis,” said Mr. Feith, a consultant who was formerly a crash investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board. The Qantas event turned the crew into “test pilots,” he said.

Several experts said that among the pieces of good luck for the flight was that the captain was undergoing a “check ride” — meaning a more senior captain was aboard to evaluate his performance — and that the checker was being observed by yet another senior captain. So two extra seasoned pilots were on hand to grapple with the crisis.

Among the complications of the A380’s multiple failures, the plane had to land at a higher than normal speed, according to investigators, because without the hydraulics, the crew could not move the slats.

The landing gear had to be lowered by using emergency bottles of pressurized nitrogen. The plane could not use its thrust reversers to slow down, since only the inner two engines had them. With the left engine destroyed, the right one would only have spun the plane out of control.

Even the cockpit voice recorder did not work right, according to a report by Australian investigators. It failed to halt when the plane landed, and because it operated in a two-hour loop, the critical periods were recorded over. “


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

danjama
11-22-2010, 09:00 PM
Glad I wasn't onboard.

WTE_Galway
11-22-2010, 09:04 PM
Of course the press focused on the relatively minor issue of the bypass cowling being blown off because it looked impressive on the 6 o'clock news and played down the hole in the wing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The incident has started another dose of airliner paranoia in Australia with minor accident reports from up to 2 years ago becoming headline news.

What doesn't help matters is the general public see "Airbus" as a term referring to a particular aircraft and assume the A321 A330 A380 etcetera are all the same aircraft. Hence I was told by one women recently that "it only came out in 2007" (true for the a380) "and 6 or 8 have crashed already with hundreds of people killed" (true for the entire airbus fleet of 5000 or so aircraft operating over a 40 year time span, in fact at least 20 of the A320 have been lost, but NOT true for the A380).

Apparently the 747 is "safer" despite the fact it has suffered 49 hull losses since 1970 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Zeus-cat
11-22-2010, 09:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What doesn't help matters is the general public see "Airbus" as a term referring to a particular aircraft and assume the A321 A330 A380 etcetera are all the same aircraft. Hence I was told by one women recently that "it only came out in 2007" (true for the a380) "and 6 or 8 have crashed already with hundreds of people killed" (true for the entire airbus fleet of 5000 or so aircraft operating over a 40 year time span, in fact at least 20 of the A320 have been lost, but NOT true for the A380). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I often remind myself of a phrase that explains a lot of human behavior - people are stupid.

The other thing to be considered is that the engine is what failed - which has nothing to do with the Airbus airframe. The airline buying the aircraft chooses from a number of different engine manufacturers which engines they want.

DrHerb
11-22-2010, 10:16 PM
According to my father it was oil fires that lead to bearing failures. Thats All I know. He used to work for Rolls Canada.

WTE_Galway
11-22-2010, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What doesn't help matters is the general public see "Airbus" as a term referring to a particular aircraft and assume the A321 A330 A380 etcetera are all the same aircraft. Hence I was told by one women recently that "it only came out in 2007" (true for the a380) "and 6 or 8 have crashed already with hundreds of people killed" (true for the entire airbus fleet of 5000 or so aircraft operating over a 40 year time span, in fact at least 20 of the A320 have been lost, but NOT true for the A380). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I often remind myself of a phrase that explains a lot of human behavior - people are stupid.

The other thing to be considered is that the engine is what failed - which has nothing to do with the Airbus airframe. The airline buying the aircraft chooses from a number of different engine manufacturers which engines they want. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah the A380's record has been pretty good.

Well one DID hit a building in Bangkok ...



... but it was not as scary as it sounds, it was on the ground at the time, moving very slowly, and only scraped a wing tip.

Romanator21
11-22-2010, 11:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The other thing to be considered is that the engine is what failed - which has nothing to do with the Airbus airframe. The airline buying the aircraft chooses from a number of different engine manufacturers which engines they want. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But maybe it does...

Does Airbus or Rolls Royce make the shrouds for the turbines? As I recall, these were specifically designed to prevent an explosion from damaging the rest of the airframe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Of course the press focused on the relatively minor issue of the bypass cowling being blown off because it looked impressive on the 6 o'clock news and played down the hole in the wing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems I was a dupe to this one too - The article I read didn't mention any damage to the wing at all. This is the first time I've heard about it.

K_Freddie
11-23-2010, 12:18 AM
Well I was missled by the title of this thread...
Airbus explosion conjures up images of a very big aircraft blowing up into smitherreens ???

Bremspropeller
11-23-2010, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But if there had been any kind of turbulence, the wing could have failed: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Not really, unless the crew chose to fly into some nasty stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Does Airbus or Rolls Royce make the shrouds for the turbines? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Make an educated guess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> As I recall, these were specifically designed to prevent an explosion from damaging the rest of the airframe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those discs weigh about 200lbs, rotating at 10000rpm and more.
There is NO WAY of containing a disc or fragments of it.
Containment of engine-parts is restricted to the fan, nothing else.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Seems I was a dupe to this one too - The article I read didn't mention any damage to the wing at all. This is the first time I've heard about it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fwd spar was punctured.
Unless the crew elected to do any serious air-show-maneuvering, the aircraft was safe (structure-wise).
The sh1t is buried elsewhere, as in "stuff not working anymore" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

koivis
11-27-2010, 05:29 PM
Indeed, the title could be a bit misleading.

I can't really stand the public reactions toward the plane type itself whenever one goes down somewhere. Good example, when the Polish president's Tu-154 crashed, one of the headlines on a major Finnish newspaper website was "The aircraft in guestion was an old Russian Tu-154". Oh my... It was just as "old" as are the two VC-25s of another president...

Ba5tard5word
11-27-2010, 07:46 PM
http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/boeing_logo.jpg

Wildnoob
11-27-2010, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/boeing_logo.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xfPu5lldyeg/TCxhCW_OGBI/AAAAAAAARKE/kHgcTzrPcU0/s1600/embraer_logo_padrao_azul.jpg

It does not produce big airliners at least for now but our E-Jets are the best. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Romanator21
11-27-2010, 10:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Those discs weigh about 200lbs, rotating at 10000rpm and more.
There is NO WAY of containing a disc or fragments of it.
Containment of engine-parts is restricted to the fan, nothing else. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this video, a blade is ejected, taking out several others. The shroud supposedly contains everything which can possibly damage the air frame

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...e=BF&list=QL&index=5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m7zRLJEIvw&feature=BF&list=QL&index=5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWzg8w-0TBI

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Make an educated guess </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I remember, Airbus and Rolls Royce have components made by countless sub-contractors; maybe they have some in common. It's not a stupid question, I think.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The fwd spar was punctured.
Unless the crew elected to do any serious air-show-maneuvering, the aircraft was safe (structure-wise). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, but it's still an important piece if info. If the spar was punctured by debris, I'm sure a similar piece could go right through the cabin, control systems, etc very easily. Because the plane landed safely, doesn't mean the damage to the spar is irrelevant.

Bremspropeller
11-28-2010, 05:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In this video, a blade is ejected, taking out several others. The shroud supposedly contains everything which can possibly damage the air frame
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but this is a FAN-blade.
The Engine is designed to contain the fan-blades and the fan-blades ONLY.
Otherwise, you'd have to carry 10t of armor around your 5t engine, which would be pretty uneficient.

The fan-case is either surrounded by aramid-fabric (kevlar) or steel.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As far as I remember, Airbus and Rolls Royce have components made by countless sub-contractors; maybe they have some in common. It's not a stupid question, I think.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but as RR makes the engine, RR is liable for failures, not Airbus.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Ok, but it's still an important piece if info. If the spar was punctured by debris, I'm sure a similar piece could go right through the cabin, control systems, etc very easily. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it could, as it has happened before - on ALL types of engines, no matter if RR, GE or PW.

A GE rotor-disc has broken on UA 232, which knoked out all thre hydraulic-cycles of th DC-10, with high-profile results...

A PW-disc ruptured during engine-runup on take-off on a Delta MD-80, killing two passengers that were hit by the debris...

There are pictures of an AA engine-run-up on the pad gone wrong (no passengers) on the net:
Parts of the disc went through the fuselage (not quite sure if the 762 has a center-tank) where the center-tank would be, and remained stuck inside the other engine's (accross the fuselage!) outer case.

Disc-failures are nothing to sneeze at - there is no way for preventing damage, except closely looking at the discs and checking fof faiures or other parts contributing to disc-failures.

-------------------

@ Buzzaw:

You're right on the incident having been serious and right on the threshhold for catastrophic results, yet not because of the hole in the fwd wing-spar, but because of stuff that didn't work anymore.

Here's an unofficial list, taken from another forum:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> An unattributed list of the damage to QF32:


* massive fuel leak in the left mid fuel tank (the beast has 11 tanks, including in the horizontal stabiliser on the tail)

* massive fuel leak in the left inner fuel tank

* a hole on the flap canoe/fairing that you could fit your upper body through

* the aft gallery in the fuel system failed, preventing many fuel transfer
functions

* fuel jettison had problems due to the previous problem above

* bloody great hole in the upper wing surface

* partial failure of leading edge slats

* partial failure of speed brakes/ground spoilers

* shrapnel damage to the flaps

* TOTAL loss of all hydraulic fluid in the Green System (beast has 2 x
5,000 PSI systems, Green and Yellow)

* manual extension of landing gear

* loss of 1 generator and associated systems

* loss of brake anti-skid system

* unable to shutdown adjacent #1 engine using normal method after landing

due to major damage to systems

* unable to shutdown adjacent #1 engine using using the fire switch!!!!!!!!

Therefore, no fire protection was available for that engine after the
explosion in #2

* ECAM warnings about major fuel imbalance because of fuel leaks on left side, that were UNABLE to be fixed with cross-feeding

* fuel trapped in Trim Tank (in the tail). Therefore, possible major CofG
out-of-balance condition for landing
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, the final report on the incident will shed some more light on the issues mentioned above.