March 28, 2011
There are only about 41 A380s in service yet one nearly had a total loss in Singapore, is that good enough?
Qantas A380 with Rolls Royce engine suffers engine blow up & many system losses. Luck played a large part in saving this flight from disaster.
Not a 3rd world airline
This is 2010
Extra pilots on board play significant role.
Fuel leaks, flaps not fully operational, close to runway overrun, hot brakes.
Delayed disembarkation due to stair van delay.
Engine can not be turned off.
Rolls may be sued by Qantas.
Related Product:
BRIQUETTE CHAR-ROK PUMISPumie, 100% Pure Natural Pumice Char Rock, Replacement Rock For Gas & Electric Grills, Covers 320 SQIN, Heats Faster, Saves Fuel, Gives Better Heat Distribution, Reduces Flare Up, Durable, Long Lasting.
Related Posts
Filed under Gas Conservation FAQ by on Mar 28th, 2011. Comment. 
Leave a Comment
Comments on There are only about 41 A380s in service yet one nearly had a total loss in Singapore, is that good enough?
Qantas has never had a fatal hull loss accident and it is the fourth oldest airline (third still surviving airline) in the world. Now she had an engine failure, so what. An airline has an engine failure somewhere in the world every week. What the world jumped on was that it is considered a new airplane and when the second engine problem happened on a whale, Rolls Royce came under pressure. Both engines were Rolls engines but only the 380 was a Trent. Therefore, in reality the two incidents are completely unrelated.
“We believe this is most likely some kind of material failure or a design issue,” said Qantas CEO Alan Joyce in a Guardian interview back in November. One City analyst said Rolls-Royce “must be praying” that the fault is limited to an individual engine and not the whole Trent 900 class.
While the media and others desire to make a big thing out of the problem I ask one simple question – CERTIFICATION. Why did the FAA and EUSA (the two main aircraft certification agencies in the world) allow for only the front fan casing to capture a blade failure? This was a negotiation with Rolls and Airbus and I feel it is a mistake. The seriousness of this engine failure was the fact that it was an UNCONTAINED failure.
Those types of failures tend to rip holes in things and airplanes are not made to have holes going where they are not designed to go. A failure in the engine core casing itself is not designed to contain a blade failure and that is where this one occurred. SO, it is not Qantas (even though they are getting the heat). It is not even Airbus because like a child asking for something dangerous, the parent should say no when asked a ridiculous request. It is the FAA and EUSA that should be under fire for allowing it.
Holes in the wrong place tends to cause accidents like this:
http://www.suite101.com/content/america-guilty-france-acquitted-in-crash-of-af-flight-af4590-a317694
Weasel – “EASA” please – not EUSA -
It’s great, until one is lost.
Qantas has actually had several fatal accidents..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qantas_fatal_accidents