|
|
Post by guest on Nov 4, 2010 15:43:37 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by yak2 on Nov 4, 2010 16:37:20 GMT 12
Over the top thread heading worthy of a sensationalist tabloid sub editor. Apparent RR Trent turbine blade failure that shredded a cowling. Precautionary landing back in Singapore.
Will be interesting to hear the union response as A380 maintenance work is not outsourced.
|
|
|
|
Post by guest on Nov 4, 2010 16:52:43 GMT 12
I disagree yak2. The link to NZH site originally said that a QANTAS A380 had crashed in Bataam, quoting Indonesion sources. But even NZH has updated its story, much as I had done in my initial post. So, if you use that link now, you get a completely different story to the initial "Breaking News" report. As it was breaking news, I added a question mark to the thread header because of the nature of the report.
Good reporting on SKY NEWS
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Nov 4, 2010 17:31:34 GMT 12
Over the top thread heading worthy of a sensationalist tabloid sub editor. Apparent RR Trent turbine blade failure that shredded a cowling. Precautionary landing back in Singapore. Will be interesting to hear the union response as A380 maintenance work is not outsourced. Note quite as sensationalist as normal, considering large chunks of said cowling are on the ground in Indonesia, and there is noticeable damage to the wing. From a passenger: twitter.com/#!/ulfw/statuses/29637787592 |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Nov 4, 2010 17:39:05 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 4, 2010 17:40:03 GMT 12
I have amended the title now that the initial reports have proven innaccurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 4, 2010 18:02:06 GMT 12
A live media conference is coming up any minute on TV3 during Campbell Live so Qantas can explain that their plane didn't crash.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 4, 2010 18:19:24 GMT 12
All Qantas A380's have been grounded.
|
|
|
|
Post by stu on Nov 4, 2010 20:53:02 GMT 12
A live media conference is coming up any minute on TV3 during Campbell Live so Qantas can explain that their plane didn't crash. Ye Gods, a viewer!!! ;D As luck would have it, the press conference started just as we rolled the first story so hence the edited highlights. I have to admit that it was interesting, and eventually somewhat amusing, sitting here in my bunker at work listening to the high drama of a major air crash coming out of the news room slowly subside as the facts replaced the fevered excitement of "reputable" news sources such as twitter.  Just glad that it wasn't as bad as was first reported. |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Nov 4, 2010 21:15:37 GMT 12
I have to admit that it was interesting, and eventually somewhat amusing, sitting here in my bunker at work listening to the high drama of a major air crash coming out of the news room slowly subside as the facts replaced the fevered excitement of "reputable" news sources such as twitter. Just glad that it wasn't as bad as was first reported. While my twitter feed had such things as so twitter will get the rap from the h8rz when the "unconfirmed reports" came from Reuters and Sky News among others. and great video of an A380 Blade Off Test bit.ly/bXSuTe and photos from passengers showing actual damage to the wing. Another picture/perspective of the wing of #Qantas flight #QF32: twitpic.com/33qxlp (via @colvinius) People that I bother following give their sources. Don't blame the medium - but do understand it's limitations. |
|
|
|
Post by stu on Nov 4, 2010 21:36:13 GMT 12
Sorry Errol, in hindsight that probably didn't come across as I intended.
Not blaming Twitter or its ilk and I do understand their limitations - just a cynical dig at the industry I've worked in for a long time and a lack of effort and standards that seem to be gradually taking over.
Tired and should have probably worded it better.
Cheers,
Stu.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 4, 2010 21:47:19 GMT 12
TV One's news just perpetuated the typical media myth that Qantas has never had a fatal accident which is utter bollocks. 132 people have lost their lives in crashes aboard Qantas aircraft in 11 different accidents.
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Nov 4, 2010 22:03:46 GMT 12
Sorry Errol, in hindsight that probably didn't come across as I intended. Not blaming Twitter or its ilk and I do understand their limitations - just a cynical dig at the industry I've worked in for a long time and a lack of effort and standards that seem to be gradually taking over. Tired and should have probably worded it better. No prob. Regardless of source, 'inital reports are probably wrong'. The first announcements from Qantas went too far in the other direction. I understand that those engines (RR Trent 900) are only in service on QF and SingAir A380s (maybe Lufthansa too?). If that's correct, then there aren't all that many in use, and the precautionary grounding isn't that extreme. It's got to be a concern for the engine testing program too. |
|
|
|
Post by yak2 on Nov 4, 2010 23:07:34 GMT 12
TV One's news just perpetuated the typical media myth that Qantas has never had a fatal accident which is utter bollocks. 132 people have lost their lives in crashes aboard Qantas aircraft in 11 different accidents. All Qantas claim as distinct from Hollywood, is they have never had a fatal jet aircraft accident. Of the 11 fatal accidents generally attributed to Qantas (none in the last 60 years) : One was shot down by the Japs (wartime) One was lost on its delivery flight from the UK One was a USAAF aircraft operated by a Qantas crew (wartime) One was a BOAC aircraft operated by a Qantas crew. They did however inherit thru a government forced merger TAA, which from memory lost a couple of Viscounts. |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Nov 5, 2010 8:12:18 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Nov 5, 2010 9:06:06 GMT 12
www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/04/airbus-a380-qantas-singapore-engineQantas A380 landing: Airlines were warned in August over engine safety (excerpt) The incident – by far the most serious safety scare involving the world's biggest airliner in its three years of service – is a particular worry for Rolls Royce, which makes the Trent 900 engines fitted to most A380s at its Derby factory. The company, which lost more than 5% of its share price today, said it was working with airlines to see what went wrong.
It refused to discuss the airworthiness directive issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency in August which warned that scrutiny of stripped Trent 900s had found that unusual wear on splines used to secure the turbines could lead to engine failure coupled with "oil migration and oil fire".
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Nov 5, 2010 9:07:43 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by oggie2620 on Nov 5, 2010 9:24:01 GMT 12
I gather two other airlines that have RR engines in their A380s are grounding them as "they have also had problems with the RR engines...". Rolls Royce shares have dipped badly but will have to wait and see what the investigations say.
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Nov 5, 2010 10:05:27 GMT 12
I gather two other airlines that have RR engines in their A380s are grounding them as "they have also had problems with the RR engines...". Rolls Royce shares have dipped badly but will have to wait and see what the investigations say. Media like to say 'grounded'. There is more detail in the Guardian article: "We do take our safety reputation unbelievably seriously and we're not going to take risks with passenger safety," Joyce said. "As a precaution, we're suspending flights of the A380." Later, Singapore Airlines said it was delaying" services while Lufthansa was conducting checks without interrupting flights. Two other airlines that fly the A380 use other engines. The LH approach (looks like shortening the check cycle) seems more logical than SingAir's to me. If they don't know what they are looking for, the increased safety from doing an immediate generic check is probably minimal. Possibly useful from a PR standpoint. Any more informed comment on the airlines' response? |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Nov 5, 2010 11:23:48 GMT 12
Talking to my engine offsider today he said the biggest issue is that the failure was uncontained (i.e. the parts weren’t spat out the back of the engine but rather came out the side). This means it was either a bad failure or a poor design.
I believe the debris severed some Hydraulic lines in the wings and they couldn’t shut down the No 1 engine after landing.
EDIT: just read the crikey.com blog. Very good.
|
|
