Aurbus 380 Trend engine

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I was checking out some of the images of the exploded engine and suddenly it dawned to me that this whole thing was far more dangerous then I first thought it would be. As far as I know the engine enclosure is designed to contain any explosion and flying parts. But this failed here. When parts flown right through the engine covers AND the wing they could have taken out any amount of fuel, hydraulic, electric or pneumatic lines. Or it could have taken out the other engine, or penetrated the main fuselage.

Does anybody have any idea why this explosion was not contained? I read a lot of nonsense so far, but little that seems to make sense.

[EZY319 18]

Explosion to intense for engine casing? the engine affected the wing however...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZLq5II9AGk&feature=related ---1 minute in

[iPetroSS 542]

Did he use reverse thrust after touchdown?

[Calmundo 14]

RR had several problems with their Trents ( ) in the last time, not even with the Trent900, also with the for the B787 built Trent1000. One of these engines, which should be delivered with the first ANA-B787, exploded at the test stand and made severe damage to the whole test stand! In this case a problem with the low pressure turbine (don't know the exact name for it in english, hope you understand) occured followed of an oil fire, which let the turbine explode. (Read in the last issue of the "Aero international"-magazine)

I also have no answer why parts could get to where they should not, I'm no engineer or sth., but I think it is not possible (or economic?) to build a protection for every eventuality, so they take the risk of damage outside of the engine in several very implausible cases.

[wheats 0]

Well for starters we havnt heard anything from the AAIB about the Qantas servicing of the aircraft. Its all very good for Qantas to point the finger at Rolls from the outset but it could just as easily have been a problem with their engineering too. Now, yes ok, Singapore have also found problems and slight traces of oil in the rear of their A380 engines so it does sound like a design problem but one that can be fixed im sure. Tripple spool engines like the Trent 900 are notorious for early snags as the majority only come into sight after the engine has been put into service. I know for a fact that Cathay had to add an item in their non normal checklist for the A330 fitted with RR Trent 772 engines as when they first came into service they had a problem with the reverser clam shells sticking so the checklist categorised what to do to land with only one engine in reverse or what to do to land with no reverse and just autobrake (which is actually the most efficient way to slow an airliner, unless its wet then Reverse thrust aids the aircraft in slowing more than on a dry runway) As to why the containment failed, well all I can suggest is that when manufacturers do their containment tests they detach a blade from the main N1 fan at the front, this will then be ingested through the engine as is shown in the video above. The oil leaks are being detected in the rear of the engine, close to the N3 spool and as this is under the greatest pressure maybe that is why it wasnt contained? Thats all I can think of right now, i'll have a look through some of my ATPL folders and see if i can find anything else out

Richard

[trisager 16]

The kinetic energy of a spinning turbine disk is so great that guaranteed containment in the event of a failure would require very heavy armoring. As an example, an American Airlines 767 (with GE engines) suffered a failure of the high-pressure turbine stage 1 disk a few years ago. One disk fragment passed right through the fuselage and embedded itself in the opposite engine, while other fragments made holes in fuel tanks in both left and right wing! Fortunately this occurred during a ground test, so the ensuing fire could be put out - in the air this incident would have been catastrophic.

Engine design, manufacturing, and maintenance all work on the premise that this type of failure cannot be allowed to happen. Airplanes are designed with redundant systems to increase the chance of survival when the unlikely happens, but there are limits. The Qantas incident was serious, no doubt about that.

[petermcleland 96]

I was checking out some of the images of the exploded engine and suddenly it dawned to me that this whole thing was far more dangerous then I first thought it would be. As far as I know the engine enclosure is designed to contain any explosion and flying parts. But this failed here. When parts flown right through the engine covers AND the wing they could have taken out any amount of fuel, hydraulic, electric or pneumatic lines. Or it could have taken out the other engine, or penetrated the main fuselage.

Does anybody have any idea why this explosion was not contained? I read a lot of nonsense so far, but little that seems to make sense.

Mathijs,

This thread contains a lot of detailed discussion on it:-

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