Air France A380 woes

cml387

An Air France A380 made an emergency landing in Goose Bay after what looks like a fan blade failure yesterday.

Fattes

Good thing that under FAR/JAR requirements it still has another 2 spare engines to loose before anyone has to worry or panic!

Here was me thinking only the daily mail would make a fuss out of this

Wanderer78

Fattes wrote: »

Good thing that under FAR/JAR requirements it still has another 2 spare engines to loose before anyone has to worry or panic!

Here was me thinking only the daily mail would make a fuss out of this

engine failure would still be fairly scary during flight though

faoiarvok

Fattes wrote: »

Good thing that under FAR/JAR requirements it still has another 2 spare engines to loose before anyone has to worry or panic!

Here was me thinking only the daily mail would make a fuss out of this

To be fair, the fact that the cowling didn’t contain the failure is a legitimate worry, as it means there’s a chance of debris being thrown into the fuselage, potentially puncturing/penetrating it.

The Rape of Lucretia

faoiarvok wrote: »

To be fair, the fact that the cowling didn’t contain the failure is a legitimate worry, as it means there’s a chance of debris being thrown into the fuselage, potentially puncturing/penetrating it.

Indeed. I thought a critical design criteria was that the cowling is supposed to contain a complete failure of a fan.

jjbrien

Didnt something similar happen to Qantas a few years ago with a A380?

Comhrá

jjbrien wrote: »

Didnt something similar happen to Qantas a few years ago with a A380?

The Qantas incident was more serious as it was an inner engine that partially exploded, causing various ruptures to the aircraft fuselage.

https://wiki2.org/en/Qantas_Flight_32

"a turbine disc in the aircraft's No. 2 Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine (on the port side nearest the fuselage) had disintegrated. In addition to destruction of the engine, this caused damage to the nacelle, wing, fuel system, landing gear, flight controls, the controls for engine No. 1 and a fire in the left inner wing fuel tank that self-extinguished."

john boye

jjbrien wrote: »

Didnt something similar happen to Qantas a few years ago with a A380?

The Qantas one had rr engines

murphaph

Fattes wrote: »

Good thing that under FAR/JAR requirements it still has another 2 spare engines to loose before anyone has to worry or panic!

Here was me thinking only the daily mail would make a fuss out of this

An uncontrolled engine failure is a very serious incident.

lintdrummer

Fattes wrote: »

Good thing that under FAR/JAR requirements it still has another 2 spare engines to loose before anyone has to worry or panic!

Here was me thinking only the daily mail would make a fuss out of this

The failure of the engine in and of itself is not critical. The fact that it blew itself asunder and debris could potentially have punctured the wing tanks or fuselage or indeed damaged the neighboring engine is a great cause for concern.

rustynutz

I often wonder about the test they do on an engine in a lab to see if it is contained within the engine housing during turbine failure (I saw it on a documentary about the making of the A380, they had to sacrifice a multimillion euro engine for the test). Surely when an engine fails with a 600mph wind passing over and through it it is going to fail differently than one failing in a lab, with no relative wind

L1011

rustynutz wrote: »

I often wonder about the test they do on an engine in a lab to see if it is contained within the engine housing during turbine failure (I saw it on a documentary about the making of the A380, they had to sacrifice a multimillion euro engine for the test). Surely when an engine fails with a 600mph wind passing over and through it it is going to fail differently than one failing in a lab, with no relative wind

The lab tests will have equivalent airflow generated.

kona

It looks like the actual fan disc let go. There aint gunna be any stopping that.

PukkaStukka

kona wrote: »

It looks like the actual fan disc let go. There aint gunna be any stopping that.

Indeed, I agree. The forces at play inside a running engine are just phenomenal.

To illustrate the point, If we cast our mind back 12 months ago to the uncontained failure and fire with AA383, part of the shattered fan disk that pierced the casing and wing was found embedded in the wall of a UPS building approx 0.5km away from the engine from which it was ejected! It was a miracle that it wasn't fired into the cabin where the consequences would've been far more serious.

We all know that these engines are designed as best as possible to retain a failure within the casing. However, my own laymans opinion is that these latest generation of "big engines" by virtue of the sheer power they nowadays produce may be more disposed to any failure occurring being an uncontained event.

The "laboratory" tests mentioned above usually consists of a small explosive charge being detonated on a fan blade whilst the engine is running under power on a rig. The failed blade goes through the core of the engine resulting in its destruction. As we saw with the AF event, whatever happened ripped the front third of the engine clean off, which isn't in the script...

Pat Dunne

Fattes wrote: »

Good thing that under FAR/JAR requirements it still has another 2 spare engines to loose before anyone has to worry or panic!

Here was me thinking only the daily mail would make a fuss out of this

I'd say your reaction would be a "wee" bit different, if you had been on board!

Fattes

Pat Dunne wrote: »

I'd say your reaction would be a "wee" bit different, if you had been on board!

Have been on board a 747 with a serious engine issue over greenland.

Put my headphones back in after the announcement and slept untill we landed at Gander!

mickdw

Fattes wrote: »

Good thing that under FAR/JAR requirements it still has another 2 spare engines to loose before anyone has to worry or panic!

Here was me thinking only the daily mail would make a fuss out of this

The qantas one a few years back was lucky to survive the incident. I believe following that event, there were groundings or at least thorough checking of all RR engined A380 to ensure safety.

murphaph

Fattes wrote: »

Have been on board a 747 with a serious engine issue over greenland.

Put my headphones back in after the announcement and slept untill we landed at Gander!

What flight was that?

I personally would be very concerned looking out the window, not knowing what other systems the uncontained engine parts may have struck and possibly damaged. You may be able to cruise straight and level after a fan blade has torn through the landing gear or flight control actuators but getting on the ground safely or even turning may be a problem!

murphaph

mickdw wrote: »

The qantas one a few years back was lucky to survive the incident. I believe following that event, there were groundings or at least thorough checking of all RR engined A380 to ensure safety.

I'll be amazed if this incident doesn't prompt something similar. This could have been terrible loss of life rather than a bit of inconvenience.

Dardania

lintdrummer wrote: »

Fattes wrote: »

Good thing that under FAR/JAR requirements it still has another 2 spare engines to loose before anyone has to worry or panic!

Here was me thinking only the daily mail would make a fuss out of this

The failure of the engine in and of itself is not critical. The fact that it blew itself asunder and debris could potentially have punctured the wing tanks or fuselage or indeed damaged the neighboring engine is a great cause for concern.

I'm wondering if there was a two step failure here:
1. Fan fails, and the casing absorbs it
2. Casing is unbalanced and the airflow works it loose (resulting in it falling down)

murphaph wrote: »

Fattes wrote: »

Have been on board a 747 with a serious engine issue over greenland.

Put my headphones back in after the announcement and slept untill we landed at Gander!

What flight was that?

I personally would be very concerned looking out the window, not knowing what other systems the uncontained engine parts may have struck and possibly damaged. You may be able to cruise straight and level after a fan blade has torn through the landing gear or flight control actuators but getting on the ground safely or even turning may be a problem!

I wondered this too, on the AF flight - I noticed the slats deployed - I think these are hydraulic. Would have been squeaky bum time to deploy them - maybe a faster landing may have been better rather than deploying slats?

duskyjoe

Dardania wrote: »

I wondered this too, on the AF flight - I noticed the slats deployed - I think these are hydraulic. Would have been squeaky bum time to deploy them - maybe a faster landing may have been better rather than deploying slats?

Not to deploy slats or attempt same would have meant a flapless landing. Not recommended. Yes the slats got a wallop but it also shows what a tough old girl the A380 is. The implosion of the fan in flight is very concerning. It’s been a long time since a fan imploded in the cruise and the last time I recall was United DC10 into Sioux City.

cml387

duskyjoe wrote: »

Not to deploy slats or attempt same would have meant a flapless landing. Not recommended. Yes the slats got a wallop but it also shows what a tough old girl the A380 is. The implosion of the fan in flight is very concerning. It’s been a long time since a fan imploded in the cruise and the last time I recall was United DC10 into Sioux City.

The Sioux city crash was in the engine, first stage compressor fan. This is an outer main fan failure I'd guess.

irishrover99

Fattes wrote: »

Have been on board a 747 with a serious engine issue over greenland.

Put my headphones back in after the announcement and slept untill we landed at Gander!

Ger up out of that will ya Cool hand Luke .

Fattes

murphaph wrote: »

What flight was that?

I personally would be very concerned looking out the window, not knowing what other systems the uncontained engine parts may have struck and possibly damaged. You may be able to cruise straight and level after a fan blade has torn through the landing gear or flight control actuators but getting on the ground safely or even turning may be a problem!

Late 90's flight from London to USA, One of only two incidents I have every had with flying. What would my panic or concern change about the situation, this aint father ted I can't climb down with sticky tape and fix it, and nothing I can do will change the situation.

I can however think logically, there are 3 remaining engines, yes there could be other issues depending on the type of engine failure and debris etc, but than again it could be just the engine.

As in this case with the A380 the aircraft could land safely at an alternate destination. Every incident is different, if there was ancillary damage and the aircraft had a landing that lead to injury or casualties than yes it is a more serious incident.
In this case and with many others looks are deceiving the incident although not desirable was not serious enough to warrant panic nor did it cause a fatality or injury.

murphaph

Fattes wrote: »

Late 90's flight from London to USA, One of only two incidents I have every had with flying. What would my panic or concern change about the situation, this aint father ted I can't climb down with sticky tape and fix it, and nothing I can do will change the situation.

I can however think logically, there are 3 remaining engines, yes there could be other issues depending on the type of engine failure and debris etc, but than again it could be just the engine.

As in this case with the A380 the aircraft could land safely at an alternate destination. Every incident is different, if there was ancillary damage and the aircraft had a landing that lead to injury or casualties than yes it is a more serious incident.
In this case and with many others looks are deceiving the incident although not desirable was not serious enough to warrant panic nor did it cause a fatality or injury.

I suspect your 747's engine damage didn't look anywhere near as bad as this incident tbh. The entire fan disc is gone and the cowling that should have contained it. Maybe you could be more specific about your flight. Airline, departure and destination airports might help identify the incident exactly.

The fact you can't do anything about a situation does not mean it isn't serious!

Gamebred

Fattes wrote: »

Have been on board a 747 with a serious engine issue over greenland.

Put my headphones back in after the announcement and slept untill we landed at Gander!

Nearly spat my tea out reading this you're some comedian 100% didnt happen,



Anyone know what stage the damage happened at in this case? were they flying for long over the pond?

Fattes

murphaph wrote: »

I suspect your 747's engine damage didn't look anywhere near as bad as this incident tbh. The entire fan disc is gone and the cowling that should have contained it. Maybe you could be more specific about your flight. Airline, departure and destination airports might help identify the incident exactly.

The fact you can't do anything about a situation does not mean it isn't serious!

No the fact that the aircraft made a controlled landing on 3 other engines and the full incident report is not available yet, is why I am not making a personal classification of this incident or creating drama untill all facts are know.

kona

murphaph wrote: »

I suspect your 747's engine damage didn't look anywhere near as bad as this incident tbh. The entire fan disc is gone and the cowling that should have contained it.s!

That cowling is basically a aerodynamic funnel, its not designed to contain anything other than air for the engine.
I doubt theres a material on the planet that could contain a fan disc coming off.

cml387

Fattes wrote: »

No the fact that the aircraft made a controlled landing on 3 other engines and the full incident report is not available yet, is why I am not making a personal classification of this incident or creating drama untill all facts are know.

Was this a BA 747 by any chance?

murphaph

Fattes wrote: »

No the fact that the aircraft made a controlled landing on 3 other engines and the full incident report is not available yet, is why I am not making a personal classification of this incident or creating drama untill all facts are know.

Your late 90s flight I'm talking about. Surely you've no problem divulging the details about that?

Irish Steve

Can we stick to the AF flight please, an issue with a 747 that happened close on 20 years ago is not what this thread is about

ednwireland

rustynutz wrote: »

I often wonder about the test they do on an engine in a lab to see if it is contained within the engine housing during turbine failure (I saw it on a documentary about the making of the A380, they had to sacrifice a multimillion euro engine for the test). Surely when an engine fails with a 600mph wind passing over and through it it is going to fail differently than one failing in a lab, with no relative wind

the housing basically has to contain a fan blade its always a biggie in the certification process. Trent 900 below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHU7PBIezB0

the casing isn't supposed to disappear though damage is supposed to be contained

If you get a disc failure all bets are off that one huge lump of metal to be flying around.

Souix city the disc went through the plane and cut the hydraulics. The pilot nearly landed it just balancing the throttles, gust caught it if I remember right.

Not good for ge and pratt

Captain_Crash

cml387 wrote: »

The Sioux city crash was in the engine, first stage compressor fan. This is an outer main fan failure I'd guess.

I don't think it was a fan failure, the cowling is designed to contain several blades sheering off like that. Look at the QF failure, the engine stayed intact apart from one small piece breaking trough, granted, that one small piece nearly crashing the aircraft but the point is, the engine contained most of the damage (and kept running). The N1 fan actually spins slower and has less energy than the compressors deeper inside, so its reasonable to assume a blade separating, while still a catastrophic failure, is no problem for the aircraft.

There is one close up of the drive shaft and it looks like that failed, resulting is the whole N1 fan disc separating. I'm not a metallurgist, but the visual difference between a piece of metal being torn away, and just sheering off is very distinct, think of over torquing a bolt and what the break looks like after.

Lucky it wasn't no3 engine or we could have had LY1862 all over again, just this time not a cargo aircraft.

murphaph

Would the fan disc move forward relative to the aircraft if it sheered off while spinning at its usual speed? Assuming a clean sheer....which is probably very unlikely.

cml387

Captain_Crash wrote: »

I don't think it was a fan failure, the cowling is designed to contain several blades sheering off like that. Look at the QF failure, the engine stayed intact apart from one small piece breaking trough, granted, that one small piece nearly crashing the aircraft but the point is, the engine contained most of the damage (and kept running). The N1 fan actually spins slower and has less energy than the compressors deeper inside, so its reasonable to assume a blade separating, while still a catastrophic failure, is no problem for the aircraft.

There is one close up of the drive shaft and it looks like that failed, resulting is the whole N1 fan disc separating. I'm not a metallurgist, but the visual difference between a piece of metal being torn away, and just sheering off is very distinct, think of over torquing a bolt and what the break looks like after.

Lucky it wasn't no3 engine or we could have had LY1862 all over again, just this time not a cargo aircraft.

One thing to bear in mind with those big engines is the huge force exerted when the aircraft rotates on take off as the plane changes in pitch, as the rotating fan creates it's own gyroscopic effect.

Could it be that this is causing fatigue cracks on the shaft. You are correct, it looks like the whole fan flew off.

mickdw

Just something I was wondering, with these very large engines, is it getting proportionally harder to design them to contain an engine breakup?
That's 2 major engine issues that I'm aware of on the A380, one from each manufacturer I think and both of them have been questionable in terms of being contained.

Comhrá

Interesting development:

http://www.airlive.net/breaking-missing-parts-of-air-france-a380-engine-have-been-spotted-by-a-danish-helicopter-in-greenland/

ED E

From an investigators perspective they got very lucky that it happened over Greenland, most routes only skim the southernmost tip.

Comhrá

http://www.airlive.net/breaking-missing-parts-of-air-france-a380-engine-have-been-spotted-by-a-danish-helicopter-in-greenland/

"Missing parts of Air France A380 (reg. F-HPJE) engine have been spotted on the ice sheet by helicopter.

According to the BEA, they were located on a desert area covered with ice, located about 150 km southeast of the town of Paamiut, located on the west coast of Greenland.

The missing parts were located by using data from one of the aircraft’s two black boxes, the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), which “determined the location where the damage occurred to engine #4.

The crew of the helicopter of the Danish airline Air Greenland sent on the site was able to recover some parts of the engine. These parts have been sent to the Danish Accident Investigation Office and are being forwarded to the BEA in Paris.

A next mission to recover other parts and to try to locate missing pieces will be organized as soon as the weather conditions allow. Snow that gradually covers debris may make detection and recovery more difficult.

The Engine Alliance GP7000 is a turbofan jet engine manufactured by Engine Alliance. It is one of the powerplant options available for the Airbus A380, along with the Rolls-Royce Trent 900."

jonnybegood

https://twitter.com/DaveWallsworth/status/917887041278566400
Seems they are flying it back on three engines

circular flexing

According the avherald.com, the engine is being removed from the plane and shipped back to GE, they are still figuring out how to get the place back into service.

On Oct 11th 2017 the BEA announced that engine #4 is to be deposited in Goose bay before decisions about the further investigation are to be taken. Teams of Air France and Airbus are going to remove the engine from the aircraft and put into storage. The engine is subsequently expected to be shipped to Cardiff,WL (UK) into a General Electrics facility where the BEA investigators are going to travel to to continue analysis. It is being studied as to how the aircraft can be ferried to Europe for repairs and return into service with Air France. Due to the complex logistics of these operations the schedule may spread over several weeks. In the meantime the search and recovery of the parts that detached in flight over Greenland continues in Greenland.

Must be painful for AF having an A380 out of service for so long.

circular flexing

Apparently the plane is still in Goose Bay. Can anyone confirm/deny this?

marno21

circular flexing wrote: »

Apparently the plane is still in Goose Bay. Can anyone confirm/deny this?

F-HPJE is still in YYR / Goose Bay

drdeadlift

Victorville is the next stop for this bird(wouldnt suprise me)

Dardania

drdeadlift wrote: »

Victorville is the next stop for this bird(wouldnt suprise me)

Qantas brought theirs back (although I think that was considered "pride" or refusing to taint their reputation)

knucklehead6

drdeadlift wrote: »

Victorville is the next stop for this bird(wouldnt suprise me)

Why? Surely there's a lot more life in the airframe

Cookiemunster

Replacement engine to be brought in on an AN124 on Nov 24th, with the damaged engine returned to Cardiff on Nov 25th.

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/930860404523356165

knucklehead6

en route

https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/934003930949914624

knucklehead6

Back at base.

https://blog.flightradar24.com/blog/air-france-flight-af66-suffers-engine-failure-over-greenland/