Qantas A380 and 747-400 emergency landings at Changi

[flyguy]

actually any tech news on Qantas aircraft gets reported altho the 747s and 767 incidents are completely diff from the A380 engine failure.

[scooby5]

It might be quicker to pop out the entire engine, replace it with a new one then take a bit of time to investigate and change the necessary components before possibly supplying back the original unit to the carrier, either as a spare or on a coming delivery.

[globetrekker84]

Do not think is the whole engine need to replace.
Base on R/R alert, they advice airline not to fly until these part has been replaced. So not sure if this is referring to whole engine or just a spart part in the engine.

If it's just a part, then why fly an entire engine? I do think you're mixing up the A380 and 747 issues anyways.

[cscs1956]

I'm wondering why RR doesn't have on-site service facilities for these engines, seeing that they're still used everywhere around the world, that would require a ferrying of an engine. I mean SIN should have one for sure. Unless they were fresh out? I did see some 744 GE cores sitting on the tarmac at AMS a few months ago, it would only make sense that they would.

Now if it was the case of the AF 77W that made an emergency landing in IKT, then I can see the need for it.

Do not think is the whole engine need to replace.
Base on R/R alert, they advice airline not to fly until these part has been replaced. So not sure if this is referring to whole engine or just a spart part in the engine.

[globetrekker84]

I'm wondering why RR doesn't have on-site service facilities for these engines, seeing that they're still used everywhere around the world, that would require a ferrying of an engine. I mean SIN should have one for sure. Unless they were fresh out? I did see some 744 GE cores sitting on the tarmac at AMS a few months ago, it would only make sense that they would.

Now if it was the case of the AF 77W that made an emergency landing in IKT, then I can see the need for it.

[Aulia Harun]

That's a rare picture to catch!

That's an awesome picture. I didn't know they could do that.

Here is one taken from behind the wing. She's on her way to SIN for the recent 747-400 engine failure:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6980010

This one is rare though. A pax took this photo from his seat. Please Note: The following photo was taken back in 2002... not related to the recent incident, but interesting photo nonetheless
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qanta...438/0289429/L/

It's beginning to look like QF are somewhat cursed at the moment.

I created a new thread on this particular topic last night. Was I supposed to post it on this thread? If so, merging them together would be great. Thanks!

[cscs1956]

Guess they are going to take sometime to correct their coporate image.

[feb01mel]

So up to now, there are 4 incidents already, 2 out of Singapore, 1 out of Perth, & now 1 out of Sydney.

Qantas is a jinx airline now, they are damn unlucky!

[MAN Flyer]

It's beginning to look like QF are somewhat cursed at the moment. Another drama:

A QANTAS plane en route to Argentina has been forced to return to Sydney after smoke started coming from an instrument panel in the cockpit, in the the latest in a string of incidents for the airline.

QF17, which departed Sydney International Airport at 11.11am (AEDT) today with 199 passengers and 21 crew on board, turned around about one hour into the flight to Buenos Aires.

The Boeing 747 landed safely at Sydney Airport at 1.22pm. Engineers were inspecting the aircraft to determine the cause of the problem with the aircraft's electrical system.

Pilots donned oxygen masks and turned the plane around, dumping fuel over the Pacific Ocean before making a "priority landing" in Sydney.

"This is absolutely in line with procedure to ensure that they can safely arrive, which they did," Qantas spokeswoman Olivia Wirth told reporters.

Fabiana Sanhueza, 29, was on board the flight and said that half an hour into the trip they hit some turbulence but "thought it was normal".

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/q...#ixzz15Lr7mfqQ

[dj_jay_smith]

That's an awesome picture. I didn't know they could do that.

Why don't they just carry it in the cargo?

It's too big to fit in the cargo hold on any commerical airliner, so when Boeing developed the 747 they designed this as an alternative way to ferry a spare engine.

[Megatop]

That's a rare picture to catch!

That's an awesome picture. I didn't know they could do that.

Why don't they just carry it in the cargo?

[cscs1956]

Wouldn't all of these failures be sufficiently addressed if the engine can contain all debris during its self-disintegration? From what I've read, only a section of the cowling is reinforced for a fan blade loss. The remainder is not, as seen from the pictures. Adding more redundancies would just make the aircraft that much heavier.

The question that I still have is: did the pilots apply the thrust reverser on the damaged engine? From the burn marks in the picture and the smoke coming out during the video of the landing, it looks like it did. But then again, that would not make sense to apply that on a damaged engine. Or did they only apply the TR on the Number 3 engine and use the brakes?

Anyway, problem has been identify by R/R and it has been announced today that SQ may have to replace up to 20 engines. Same for QF but less in quantity.

Guess this is going to hit A380 production badly.

[globetrekker84]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6979701

Just thought I would share with you guys what it looks like for a 747-400 to carry a spare engine. Photograph was taken on Nov. 6, so it must have been carrying it for its sister ship over in SIN, the second QF engine failure.

That's a rare picture to catch!

[Aulia Harun]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6979701

Just thought I would share with you guys what it looks like for a 747-400 to carry a spare engine. Photograph was taken on Nov. 6, so it must have been carrying it for its sister ship over in SIN, the second QF engine failure.

[globetrekker84]

Nice summary of the report. Looks like A380 need more design change after this event.

Wouldn't all of these failures be sufficiently addressed if the engine can contain all debris during its self-disintegration? From what I've read, only a section of the cowling is reinforced for a fan blade loss. The remainder is not, as seen from the pictures. Adding more redundancies would just make the aircraft that much heavier.

The question that I still have is: did the pilots apply the thrust reverser on the damaged engine? From the burn marks in the picture and the smoke coming out during the video of the landing, it looks like it did. But then again, that would not make sense to apply that on a damaged engine. Or did they only apply the TR on the Number 3 engine and use the brakes?