[Binman62]

Age-of-reason…. If Qantas are right, then it is surely inconceivable that the 24 Trent 900 engines they have attached to 6 A380 have a fault that does not exist elsewhere. If those engines are identical and all operators follow the same engineering processes, it follows that all Trent 900 powered aircraft should be grounded until the fault is identified and fixed.

If the anomalies Qantas have referred to have already been found and fixed by LH and SQ then why is it taking QF so long?

LH and SQ are still flying and if we are to believe Qantas, potentially putting more than 1300 lives at risk every day so it is important for clarity and the reassurance of the travelling public that the manufacturer, engine maker and operators make some form of public statement. Safety is not a unique selling point in my view and there is no commercial mileage for anyone in allowing this corrosive situation to continue.

For me the silence of Rolls Royce and Airbus has been deafening. Moreover two of the worlds leading carriers, both with exemplary safety records, continue to fly the aircraft and to date have had no issues. This suggests to me to me that Qantas have dug a whole from which they are having a great deal of difficulty getting out, and, having done so may now be prepared to say almost anything to placate passengers who have been seriously disrupted and perhaps need not have been. It also conveniently gets them out of a whole with the trades unions, particularly if there is any truth in their view that this is a maintenance issue caused by outsourcing and costs reduction.

BT in this context is a respected aviation publication and they may be able to obtain information or comment that has not been generally available.

[Age_of_Reason]

Hmmm…. I remain neither convinced nor impressed.

We are writing in Business Traveller.com, and hearing about some other BT, clearly not BritishTelecom. Google reveals that http://www.blowntireaviation.com is the URL of a consultancy BTAvCon in the aviation safety business, with a strategy of (quote) “Our goal is to create value to clients by reducing maintenance and safety programs development and revision cost. Our services are available for a set fee with none of the overhead that technical service departments create”. (unquote)

It would appear that there some ‘vested interests’ involving themselves in this thread.

[Binman62]

I should have been clearer. I was referring to Business Traveller as being a respected aviation publication, not any other site. I have no vested interested beyond being a passenger.
I apologise if this was not clear.

[MartynSinclair]

BT = Business Traveller in my thread too!

[Age_of_Reason]

Good to clear that up – I did regard BT as this webpage, but it didn’t make 100% sense to read that BT could become pro-active – this thread is unmoderated and BT has no editorial policy (beyond compliance with libel law)? It is we , the contributors, who make BT what it is – a forum.

It doesn’t take a joiner to recognise a badly made table, so the Peer Review which would be applied to any posting would be valuable, but I don’t think we can expect BT itself to make or take a position.

It would be good if someone could prise a contribution out of the vested interests.

[MartynSinclair]

This is an open forum. i think we can expect Business Traveller and British Telecom and Blown Tire Aviation to contribute. I thought that is what an open forum is all about.

AND RR AND AIRBUS!!!

[JohnPhelanAustralia]

OK, to answer the question about the Trent 900s and how come no other airlines have the same problem with the leaking of oil in the engine: QF’s aircraft are NOT fitted with the standard Trent 900. RR developed a higher-thrust variant of the engine, especially for QF. It is the Trent 972/B.

So the simple answer to the question is that no other airline has exactly the same model of engine. The QF variant produces greater thrust. Speculation here in Australia is rife, but the suggestion is that an oil leak into parts of the chamber could have ignited and somehow caused the failure. We shall see what the full investigation turns up.

If the oil leak is the problem, and it is unique to this particular Trent 900 variant in QF aircraft, then there would be several possibilities for rectification, including – as an immediate step – a directive that the engine not be used at its full thrust capability, I’m not an engineer, so can’t comment on that.

Something else intriguing I’ve picked up from another website – so I can’t endorse its veracity – is that the structural damage to the aircraft involved in the SIN incident has turned out to be greater than was expected. We shall see whether that turns out to be the case.

[Inquisitive]

Normally Airbus or RR will not make any statement unless they find something from the investigation. There is no point speculating by the non-expert. However from PR point they could have said something. As SQ and LH still flying the aircraft, it is surely a Qantas issue – either they overreacted or trying blame game. If there is a common serious issue, the regulatory authority will instruct airlines to stop the flight within their zone of authority. I am sure they are not sleeping. Like we are still awaiting a public report why a BA flight had both engine failure, this incident investigation will take its own time and a public report may be one year away. Meanwhile Qantas will start flying A380 again – just wait for max 1 week.

[Binman62]

The full statement issued by Rolls Royce re the trent 900 engine type can be found by following this link.
http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/news/2010/101108_trent_900_statement.jsp

It is interesting that it makes no mention of variants and talks about working closely with operators of trent 900 powered airbus.

Their share price rallied on this news also.

[JohnPhelanAustralia]

Interesting article in The Australian newspaper.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/engine-design-hits-turbulence/story-e6frg6z6-1225949641009

[pomerol]

JohnPhelanAustralia

Very good article, very informative and makes very sober reading.

[Binman62]

The article refrerred to is supported by the comments of the Qantas CEO when asked at a press conference yesterday, why the issue appeared to be unique to QF and not SQ or LHR he replied that

The only difference between the engines are actually the power rating which is not a physical difference in the engines. It’s what the engine manufacturer has sold to the airlines to allow them to actually operate to higher levels of power. Qantas is a slightly higher level of power than Singapore and Lufthansa. ( due the SYD LAX run)

Whether this will, in the end, prove to be the problem only time can tell but it is finally a explanation why SQ and LH have been able to continue to fly…..

[JohnPhelanAustralia]

SQ has now grounded three A380s (LHR, SYD, MEL) after oil leaks were found in the engines. The aircraft apparently are to be flown back to SIN without pax onboard.

See new thread – SQ grounds three A380s

[JohnPhelanAustralia]

INVESTIGATORS probing the A380 engine saga have found that an oil fire may have led to the mid-air engine explosion last week that seriously damaged a Qantas jet.

Details of what is believed to have occurred were revealed today in an emergency directive by the European Aviation Safety Authority to all airlines which bought superjumbos fitted with the now suspect Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine.

In today’s directive, the European safety regulator said that a preliminary study indicated an oil fire may have caused the engine’s intermediate pressure turbine disc to fail.

“This condition, if not detected, could ultimately result in uncontained engine failure, potentially leading to damage to the aeroplane and hazards to persons or property on the ground,” the regulator warned.

Yesterday’s directive makes it mandatory for the three carriers to carry out regular and repetitive engine inspections to check for oil leaks.

Should excess oil be found, then the engines must be shut down to prevent the likelihood of damage and drained of any excess oil.

In response to the note, Qantas made it clear that it intends to keep its six superjumbos grounded indefinitely.

The national carrier said A380s would not return to service until there was “complete certainty” they could operate safely.

The disclosures by the European regulator confirmed reports earlier this week that an oil spotting problem was to blame for last week’s mid-air engine drama involving the airline’s A380 flagship, the Nancy Bird-Walton.

Until now, neither the airline nor engine maker Rolls-Royce has been able to give a detailed explanation of why the number two engine on the big jet blew itself apart and rained debris over Bantam Island in in Indonesia.

Qantas said the specific checks ordered by the regulator were being carried out by Qantas engineers and Rolls-Royce.

Meanwhile, the airline has shuffled its fleet and replaced the troubled A380s with other aircraft.

The carrier said that a new schedule had been drafted to provide certainty for customers and their travel arrangements.

[pomerol]

The report to the post by JohnPhelanAustralia can be found on the link below.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/11/349583/oil-fire-likely-cause-behind-qantas-trent-900-failure-says.html

[Author]

Posts