A380 has major engine failure

[CFIT]

Doesn't the 787 use basically the same engine?

 

[BrickTop]

CNN and Their JACKA$$ comments make me want to punch Rick Sanchez in the face. They play ii up to such dramatic levels and worst of all with ZERO knowledge of what their talking about.

 

[BrickTop]

Doesn't the 787 use basically the same engine?

The 787 will have it's share of problems once it enters service. BOTH planes were terrible ideas. Some things just need to be left ALONE.

 

[Traderd]

Doesn't the 787 use basically the same engine?

RR Trent 1000 vs. the 900 I think.

Here's a link to an August article concerning the RR Trent 1000 uncontained failure on the test stand in the UK.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/27/business/la-fi-boeing-20100827

At the time, I thought I had read that the failure managed to F up the building in a pretty bad way. This article indicates the building damage was minor.

Either way, the picture posted earlier of the 380's wing was interesting.

 

[Dornier 335]

If I am not mistaken, all A380s in service to date are equipped with the RR Trent 900 engine. I'm not sure who opted for the GP7000 engines ...

I can see fromthat picture that absolutely nothing fell off. It blew off, a big difference.

Here are a few more pictures:

engine, engine, and debris

Judge yourself...

 

[NEDude]

The 787 will have it's share of problems once it enters service. BOTH planes were terrible ideas. Some things just need to be left ALONE.

Which is what happens when accountants design airplanes.

 

[jonjuan]

http://www.minyanville.com/business...59?camp=syndication&medium=portals&from=yahoo

Reports: Outsourced Maintenance Compromising Airline Safety
By Justin Rohrlich Nov 04, 2010 3:30 pm
Qantas' near miss is inadvertently shining a spotlight on how unfriendly US skies are becoming.

The emergency landing in Singapore of a Qantas Airbus A380 after an “uncontained engine failure” has prompted the carrier to ground the rest of its A380 fleet until an investigation is completed.

Qantas jets have a 100% safety record -- but recent near-misses have raised questions about the airline’s increasing practice of outsourcing maintenance to foreign countries.

Just three days ago, in an interview with Aviation Week, the executive manager of Qantas engineering, Chris Nassenstein, said of the company’s maintenance structure, “…on the engine side, it is almost entirely outsourced. In the component business, it depends on the aircraft. We have more and more [outsourced] on newer aircraft types. At the moment, almost all of the components on the A380 are outsourced.”

Steve Purvinas of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association believes this is a contributing factor to a steepening decline in safety.

“The dramatic increase in the number of safety incidents involving Qantas jets coincides with an increase in the amount of work that is no longer carried out in-house. We have seen some pretty horrid results of maintenance from the overseas facilities - things that aren't reported in the press.”

Purvinas points to a Boeing (BA) 747 that, upon returning from a maintenance check in Hong Kong last year, flew for an entire month before anyone realized three of the aircraft’s engines were not bolted to the wings correctly.

“In the last 10 years, Qantas has shut down every in-house engine shop in Australia,” Purvinas added. “It is little wonder safety standards are dropping.”

But, lowered safety standards are not an exclusively Australian phenomenon. The major US carriers have been offshoring maintenance for years in an attempt to cut costs and increase profits in an increasingly difficult economic environment.

A 2008 audit by the Department of Transportation’s Office of the Inspector General identified nine carriers -- Continental Airlines (CAL), Delta Air Lines (DAL), JetBlue (JBLU), Southwest (LUV), United (UAUA), AirTran (AAI), Alaska Airlines (ALK), America West (LCC), and Northwest -- that outsourced 71% of their heavy airframe maintenance checks in 2007. About 27% of these heavy airframe repairs were outsourced overseas. Drilling down a bit deeper, approximately 20% of airplanes are being maintained in developing countries.

In January of last year, a US Airways flight between Omaha and Phoenix made an emergency landing in Denver after the pressure seal around the main cabin door failed.

An investigation by NPR found that the Aeroman repair facility in El Salvador, which had maintained the plane, had installed a component backwards, which was directly responsible for the potential catastrophe.

NPR also reported that “the mechanics were paid between $5,000 and $10,000 per year, and some did not speak English, making the reading of the aircraft repair manual impossible.”

An October 26 article in Flightglobal magazine, ST Aerospace president Chang Cheow Teck, said, “Aircraft operators will require a certain minimum maintenance volume to cover the cost before in-house maintenance is a viable option. We expect outsourcing to grow corresponding to the cost pressures felt by airlines as a result of intensifying competition.”

“The cost for us to do anything other than the work we perform today would be enormous," said JetBlue vice-president of technical operations Dave Ramage. “Engine maintenance is an enormous cost and quite frankly we couldn't make the business case and we don't have the critical mass.”

The outcome of Tuesday’s elections will likely lead to more outsourcing, not less.

Bloomberg reports that US carriers will work with Republican legislators to scrap Democratic proposals that would have limited maintenance outsourcing.

Louie Key, National Director of the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Organization, says, “The bottom line is the airlines ship jobs to repair stations because labor is cheaper. It’s cheaper because foreign shops are cutting corners with employees. That’s putting people at risk and keeping those jobs overseas.”

Case in point -- just this past March, United signed a five-year deal with Ameco Beijing to service its entire fleet of 747s and 777s.

Is this really a chance airlines should be taking when faulty aircraft maintenance is the number two cause of accidents?

Just something to ask yourself next time your flight hits turbulence.

 

[Dornier 335]

Qantas jets have a 100% safety record -- but recent near-misses have raised questions about the airline’s increasing practice of outsourcing maintenance to foreign countries.

Wasn't the Quantas A380 C-check done by Lufthansa Technik?

I do agree with the article though. You get what you pay for.

 

[J.Otto]

reporters lurking?

I was combing through pprune and came across this. Intersting that there are these reporters hidng out and asking questions.

New member:

Reports say the flight lasted 1h30 (other reports say 2h), burning fuel to allow a safe landing.
My ATP ground course reads "Air transport aircraft that have a Maximum Landing Mass (MLM) significantly lower than the Maximum Take Off Mass (MTOM) must have a fuel jettisoning system. The system must be capable of jettisoning enough fuel within 15 minutes to allow the aircraft to land at MLM following a take-off at MTOM. "
Why did they stay airborne such a long time?

established member:

Hmmm 1 post? Which newspaper do you work for?
I find that a bit difficult to believe given that the 744 has a MTOW (MTOM? huh?) of about 394t and a MLW of 300 - 285 t and they dump fuel at 2 t a minute. It can take up to an hour to dump to MLW in some cases.
Perhaps you'd better look somewhere else for your scoop.

new member.

Admission upfront - I'm a UK national transport journalist.

I haven't seen anything here about whether ingestion of foreign objects from the runway might be a possible cause - is that a possibility or would you expect that to cause a problem immediately rather than the 10-15mins after take-off that it seems to have taken?

Thanks

 

[Captzaahlie]

Some things just need to be left ALONE.

Yeah that Wright Flyer was a great design....