Front wing spar, wiring, fuel lines among damage sustained by QF32

page-5-600x422.jpgAustralian reporter Ben Sandilands has published an extraordinary visual and technical account of the damage sustained by VH-OQA when its number two Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine suffered an uncontained failure on November 4 six minutes after takeoff from Singapore’s Changi International Airport. Sandilands’ report originates from the preliminary Airbus assessment for the Australian Transportation Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigation into incident aboard Qantas Flight 32.

The document’s authenticity has been confirmed by Airbus.

The explosion, now traced to an excessive oil build up in the intermediate and high pressure turbines of the Trent 900 engine, caused engine debris to be violently expelled into the surrounding structure of the A380.

Airbus has grouped the damage to VH-OQA in several main areas,including to “perforations” to the aircraft’s wing, which entered in thebottom skin of the wing and exited the upper skin. Additionally, twoadditional perforations were sustained to the lower panel of the wing, as well as the belly fairing and inboard flap track fairings.

damage-5-596x450.jpgThe first, and larger, of two major punctures was suffered by the droop nose 2 on the wing’s leading edge structure. In the line of fire was the drive motor for the droop nose which was “badly damaged” and “seems ot [sic] have been on the direct path of trajectory through the wing.” The debris entered in front of wing rib 13 on the lower panel and exited at the topskin just in front of rib 12.
 
The second major puncture came as engine debris tore into the lower side of the droop nose panel, and continued its path through the front wing spar (CATIA rendering pictured above). As the debris transited the A380′s wing structure, a fuel pipe and wiring were severed near wing rib 9 where it exited.

Additionally, the lower skin on wing panel 1 was punctured in two locations, causing a leak in the A380′s left wing inner tank. The first, was at rib 7 at stringer 0 and the second at rib 10 and stringer 6.

The result of the punctured fuel tank was a steadily increasing imbalance in the aircraft’s center of gravity as the left wing tank emptied its contents over Batam Island.

Immediately following the explosion in the number two engine, the crew was presented with 53 electronic centralized aircraft monitor (ECAM) messages, including the confirmed failure of the A380′s green hydraulic system. The severed wiring also appears to have locked out control of engine number one to the crew.

Sandilands addresses the questions of the A380′s system redundancy directly, writing:

“The wing of the jet shows remarkable structural strength in sustaining damage that might have destroyed the airliners of earlier decades, but the questions as to whether control system revisions are necessary to deal with some of the consequences in terms of failed hydraulics and fuel imbalance are said to be very actively under consideration.”

The ATSB plans to release its preliminary factual report on December 3.

43 Responses to Front wing spar, wiring, fuel lines among damage sustained by QF32

  1. StarBlue November 18, 2010 at 9:15 am #

    I am thinking this was close to a major disaster with the possibility of a hull loss and a major loss of life. All it look is one of the severed wires with an electrical arc along with all of the fuel it was leaking. You would have had TWA flight 800 all over again.

    I am kind of surprised by something. I would have thought there would have been a little more beefed up protection of things in close proximity to any of the engines. I realize a uncontained failure of an engine is rare. I have wired and where a electrical line goes through a stud you have to have a nail plate to prevent someone driving a nail into the line. I imagine this is why Airbus is “actively” looking into the consequences of what happened.

    Jhan

  2. BD November 18, 2010 at 10:12 am #

    Dear Jon,

    I want to thank you for keeping us informed about the issue. And it seems that Ben has been on top of this story from the start!

    I’ve seen some discussions about whether or not the A380 has proper redundancy systems.

    One of the arguments is that the number 1 engine could not be shut down after landing. Probably because of severed electronics. But according to reports the pilots were able to control the thrust on the #1 engine.

    That makes me wonder, isn’t this argument blown a bit out of proportion? As the control of the engine was sufficient (=assumption) for flight?

    Kind Regards

  3. mark cassidy November 18, 2010 at 10:40 am #

    A few thoughts.. On the YouTube video of the landing taken from inside the cabin, it appears the plane landed fast and they only had one reverser. Hard to really judge from the video but check it out. You also have to wonder about the power of these engines and the amount of damage they can do. I think I saw where debris hit the exterior of the upper deck cabin. Beefing up design of internal wings structure might be in order as engines grow bigger. Lastly, how do you fix the wing if the spar is compromised? Do you replace it?? This sounds like Nancy Bird will be grounded for a long time.

  4. Andrew Doyle November 18, 2010 at 11:47 am #

    In reply to Mark Cassidy: the A380 is equipped with only two reversers, on the inboard engines (numbers 2 and 3). As the number 2 had failed, the crew therefore by definition had only a single reverser available to them (engine number 3).

  5. Dr J P Sullivan November 18, 2010 at 11:51 am #

    Some observations/info:
    The aircraft withstood an event that exceeded the certification frame: Certification standards call for taking into account the routing of one high-energy fragment. However, on Nov 4th, the A380 sustained no less than three different high energy fragments paths following release of the IPT disk. This, not surprisingly, resulted in some structural and systems damage (with associated ECAM warnings presented to pilots, and on the A380 these are ranked in order of severity, along with electronic checklists / diagnosis etc.etc. ).

    Despite the damage, I have learned that amongst the various available systems supporting the crew to operate the aircraft and return safely to Singapore were:-

    - Flaps remained available (slats were jammed retracted);

    - All flight control surfaces remained available on the pitch and yaw axis;

    - The roll control was ensured through: (a) on the left wing: inner aileron, spoilers 1, 3, 5 and 7; (b) on the right wing: mid and inner ailerons, spoilers 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7;

    - The flight control laws reverted to Alternate law due to the loss of the slats and of some roll control surfaces. Normal law was kept on longitudinal and lateral axes;

    - Flight envelope protections were still active;

    - The autopilot was kept engaged till about 700 feet Radio Altimeter, time at which the crew took over manually. Flight Directors were ON;
    (fully-functioning autopilot indicates that air-data/speed info WAS available — contrary to some web reports)

    - Manual control of engines nos. 1, 3 & 4 was maintained till aircraft stop;

    - Landing in SIN took place about 1 hour 40 minutes after the engine 2 failure with flaps in “configuration 3″;
    (I presume the pilots could have chosen to ‘emergency-land’ the aircraft much sooner, since the aircraft was very close to Changi when the engine failure occurred);

    - Normal braking was available on both body landing gears with antiskid, and alternate braking without antiskid on both wing landing gears. The crew modulated braking in order to stop close to emergency services;

    - After the aircraft came to a stop, the reason engine no. 1 could not be shut down has been determined: two segregated wiring routes were cut by two out of the three individual disk debris;

    I also note that contrary to some web reports, the emergency RAM-Air-Turbine (RAT) did not need to deploy (since power continued to be provided by the normal generators).

  6. diane November 18, 2010 at 1:58 pm #

    The incident occurred six minutes after takeoff. The A380 was forced to land, apparently earlier than the pilot would have liked, due to developing center-of-gravity problems due to fuel loss, and inability to transfer fuel in-flight to maintain balance.

    What this tells me is that if the same incident, with exactly the same damange, had occurred over mid-ocean, the aircraft and all passengers would have been lost.

  7. CM November 18, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

    @ StarBlue,

    It is certainly physically possible to design a barrier which will stop a liberated portion of a disk. However, it is impractical as it would result in an aircraft too heavy to fly. For reasons of practicality, large jets are certified under Part 25 provisions where the energy of a rotorburst is assumed to be infinite. Because of this, there is no level of “hardening” or other shielding of systems against rotor fragments.

    There is Part 25 guidance on containing rotorburst (FAR 25.1461). However, paragraph d of 25.1461 offers the practical (and legal) alternative to containing high energy rotors. It states “Equipment containing high energy rotors must be located where rotor failure will neither endanger the occupants nor adversely affect continued safe flight” This relates to placement of the engine. FAR 25.903 relates to placement of systems “Design precautions must be taken to minimize the hazards to the airplane in the event of an engine rotor failure”

    The only real answer to rotorburst is redundancies and adequate system separation. I’m quite certain these are the areas Airbus is taking a look at.

    @ Dr J P Sullivan,

    Great post!

    The part 25 requirements are pretty specific about the size of that one fragment (1/3rd of each rotor) and where it can go (Along any radii from rotor’s position on the shaft within an angular rotorburst zone – 5 degrees forward and 5 degrees aft, I think). Designing the necessary separation to meet those rules is a challenge, but achievable in most cases.

    Smaller fragments have in recent years been considered less of a threat; A recent study states “Preliminary analysis of structural damage suggests that small fragments may have much lower energies than has previously been assumed. Most small fragments do not have enough energy to make holes in airplane structure.” (see link below)

    It will be facinating to watch how this event changes the current thinking about small fragments.

    http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/aia_rotor_burst_small_fragment_committee_report_vol1.pdf

    Cheers!

    CM

  8. EA. November 18, 2010 at 2:37 pm #

    Airbus should stop dealing with Rolls Royce as they have tarnished the Airbus name. A single source engine supplier, Engine Alliance would be very adequate for the future needs of this aircraft.

    Just delve into the unreliability history of the Trent 900 engines and you will agree.

  9. Anon November 18, 2010 at 2:50 pm #

    Jon,
    I emailed you a report yesterday more interesting than this one…

  10. iamlucky13 November 18, 2010 at 2:50 pm #

    I’m confused by part of Ben Sandilands’ article. He references an airworthiness directive already in place related to the oil leaks.

    Is this the one from August that was first suspected to be related to the cause of failure?

    That one didn’t deal directly with oil leaks. It was about wear on ends of splines on a shaft for the IP turbine, which if it progressed far enough could allow the IP rotor to contact the downstream stators, causing lost thrust, potential oil leaks, and uncontained failure.

    I have yet to hear any reliable source state that this wear has been determined to be the cause, and the current AD for this failure doesn’t address the spline connection.

    Is Ben utterly misunderstanding things, making unjustified conclusions, or can anyone further explain his claims that Airbus hid information about a potentially serious defect from Qantas?

    That said, I viewed the pictures he posted with extreme interest. Some of these parts are quite heavy. I think the droop nose bracket by the slat drive motor that a part sliced through looks like it could easily be 1/2″ or thicker aluminum. I know spares, especially inboard of the engine near the wing root, are very sturdy structures. A part penetrating the droop nose, spar, and upper skin and leaving a hole that big is quite a surprise.

  11. Bryan November 18, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

    With all due respect, you’d think almost about 5 years since the A380′s first flight, people would have stopped with the “why doesn’t some engines have the thrust reverser deployed question”.

  12. iamlucky13 November 18, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

    Mark – If they decide it’s practical to fix the spar and other damaged areas that are effectively not removeable, it will likely involved trimming the perimeter of the holes to form a controlled surface free of existing deformations or sharp corners that could serve as stress concentrations, then bolting in plates and/or brackets (with lots of small bolts to spread the loads out effectively) that transfer the spar loads around the damaged areas.

    A couple of the challenges are distributing the loads over a sufficiently large enough area of the surviving spar, not making that section of spar inordinately stiff such that loads on other parts of the wing change in response, and finding space to fit the repair parts around the other pieces of structure and mechanical parts in the area. I don’t know what level of analysis and testing might be necessary to allow them to fly it after such repairs.

    Diane – the severity of the center-of-gravity issue isn’t clear to me. Beyond design limits does not necessarily mean the same as uncontrollable. I’d be hesitant to accept conclusions about your speculation from anyone other than an engineer personally familiar with the A380 balance or an A380 pilot. Certainly, however, landing would become increasingly tricky the further off the balance became.

  13. Nervous Nellie November 18, 2010 at 3:17 pm #

    Any speculation as to how a composite wing would have fared under a similiar scenario?

  14. Tom November 18, 2010 at 3:43 pm #

    The GP7200 series is a great engine on the A380.
    Emirates and Air France love them.

  15. Nicolas November 18, 2010 at 4:52 pm #

    It was the last flight of this aircraft…

  16. iamlucky13 November 18, 2010 at 5:25 pm #

    I posted this comment earlier, but for some reason it hasn’t shown up…

    I’m confused by part of Ben Sandilands’ article. He references an airworthiness directive already in place related to the oil leaks.

    Is this the one from August that was first suspected to be related to the cause of failure?

    That one didn’t deal directly with oil leaks. It was about wear on ends of splines on a shaft for the IP turbine, which if it progressed far enough could allow the IP rotor to contact the downstream stators, causing lost thrust, potential oil leaks, and uncontained failure. In that case the oil leaks are a symptom, not a cause.

    I have yet to hear any reliable source state that this wear has been determined to be the cause, and the AD resulting from this failure doesn’t address the spline connection.

    Is Ben misunderstanding things, making suppositions, or can anyone further explain his claims that Airbus hid information about a potentially serious defect from Qantas?

    That said, I viewed the pictures he posted with extreme interest. Some of these parts are quite hardy. The bracket by the slat drive motor that a part sliced through looks like it could easily be 1/2″ or thicker aluminum. I know spars, especially inboard of the engine near the wing root, are very sturdy structures. A part penetrating the droop nose, spar, and upper skin and leaving a hole that big is quite a surprise.

  17. rob November 18, 2010 at 5:28 pm #

    Nah, patch her up with some vegemite and she’s good to go. Extensive repairs, absolutely. But I don’t see this being a write-off.

  18. Terry. November 18, 2010 at 5:45 pm #

    Can Qantas replace their RR engines for EA engines?
    I think it would be a smart move if it is possible.

  19. William November 18, 2010 at 6:10 pm #

    From my understanding the engine wiring in the wing leading edge is compatible between the two engine types and Airbus have done a swap from RR to EA on one of their earlier A380 birds.

  20. mark cassidy November 18, 2010 at 6:15 pm #

    @Andrew – My point about having one thrust reverser was that they only had one thrust reverser. I guessing that having 1 reverser for such a large plane, limited flaps, weakend hydrolics made for a fun landing. Lot of weight running down the runway! Also the plane was flying for 100 minutes post event. I bet it could have made an alternate, though with all the issues it could it have rolled off a short runway? Does anyone know the plane’s stopping distance?

    Interesting stuff.

  21. Tony November 18, 2010 at 6:44 pm #

    Since the EA engine burns 1% less fuel than tne RR engine, it would be in QF’s financial interest to switch engine types on their A380s.

    After every eight trip from SYD to LHR a QFA380 powered by EA engines would be able to make another trip over for the same amount of fuel comsumed by a RR powered one.

  22. WingBender November 18, 2010 at 7:10 pm #

    Great news for BA Investor! Boeing shares were up $2.11 today, to $64.61.

  23. BAInvestor November 18, 2010 at 7:41 pm #

    Its evident that wingbender follows the price of the stock closely…..maybe he is a BAInvestor

  24. mark Cassidy November 18, 2010 at 8:04 pm #

    @iamlucky13, thanks for the insight. Remember the Southwest 737that crashed at MDW? It had a busted keel was rebuilt and flies today! that probably cost 15 to 20 million bucks but they did it – The plane is tooooo new to be a w/o.

  25. John Dodge November 18, 2010 at 8:53 pm #

    This supposedly is what the crew members reported. A lot of systems failed as they brought the plane down…I would verify this and post it on my blog (dodgeretort.com), but my daughter is in Australia and will be coming home in a month on Qantas….do not want to spook her. She flew from LA to Melbourne Sept. 1 on an A380….I highly doubt she will return on one.

    This is said to be information provided by Quantas crewmembers. Moral: beware of A-380′s

    Subject: A380 problems in detail – re: engine explosion
    re: uncontained #2 engine failure on Quantas last week

    Here are just SOME of the problems Richard had in Singapore last week aboard QF32…. I won’t bother mentioning the engine explosion!…. oops… mentioned the engine explosion, sorry…..

    * massive fuel leak in the left mid fuel tank (the beast has 11 tanks, including in the horizontal stabiliser on the tail)
    * massive fuel leak in the left inner fuel tank
    * a hole on the flap canoe/fairing that you could fit your upper body through
    * the aft gallery in the fuel system failed, preventing many fuel transfer functions
    * fuel jettison had problems due to the previous problem above
    * bloody great hole in the upper wing surface
    * partial failure of leading edge slats
    * partial failure of speed brakes/ground spoilers
    * shrapnel damage to the flaps
    * TOTAL loss of all hydraulic fluid in the Green System (beast has 2 x 5,000 PSI systems, Green and Yellow)
    * manual extension of landing gear
    * loss of 1 generator and associated systems
    * loss of brake anti-skid system
    * unable to shutdown adjacent #1 engine using normal method after landing due to major damage to systems
    * unable to shutdown adjacent #1 engine using using the fire switch!!!!!!!! Therefore, no fire protection was available for that engine after the explosion in #2
    * ECAM warnings about major fuel imbalance because of fuel leaks on left side, that were UNABLE to be fixed with cross-feeding
    * fuel trapped in Trim Tank (in the tail). Therefore, possible major CofG out-of-balance condition for landing. Yikes!
    * and much more to come……….

    Richard was in the left seat, FO in the right), SO in the 2nd obs seat (right rear, also with his own Radio Management Panel, so he probably did most of the coordination with the ground), Capt Dave Evans in the 1st obs seat (middle). He is a Check & Training Captain who was training Harry Wubbin to be one also. Harry was in the 3rd obs seat (left rear). All 5 guys were FLAT OUT busy, especially the FO who would have been processing complicated ‘ECAM’ messages and procedures that were seemingly never-ending!

  26. Jen November 18, 2010 at 9:24 pm #

    RR do not have the metallurgy expertise that GE or Pratt & Whitney Rockedyne have unless they steal the technology. Advanced metallurgy is an extremely important factor in modern turbofan engines.

  27. Kent November 18, 2010 at 9:26 pm #

    The longer that QFA380s remain grounded the worse it will be for RR finances!

  28. Ed. November 18, 2010 at 9:54 pm #

    John, tell your daughter that if she wants to fly on an A380, go via Dubai then link up with Emirates on an EA powered A380 of Emirates……far safer.

  29. Ralph November 19, 2010 at 2:34 am #

    Historically, Rolls has had to combat oil system issues with the RB211 / L1011; Trent 500 / A340-500/600’s; Trent 700 / A330; Trent 900 / A380.

    The Trent 900 series is not a mature design since it has had so many failures.

    SQ has already suffered two IFSDs with the Trent 900 and 12 engines removed from the wing for premature strip down due anomolies.

    This grounding of three A380s shows it is an endemic Trent 970/972 family issue and not a specific operator issue.

    The lack of maturity of the Trent 900 must be of great concern.

    1. Qantas A388 near Singapore on Nov 4th 2010, uncontained engine failure

    2. Lufthansa A388 near Frankfurt on Aug 6th 2010, engine shut down in flight

    3. Singapore A388 near Krakow on Sep 27th 2009, engine shut down in flight

    4. Singapore A388 near London on May 25th 2009, engine failure

  30. Engineer November 19, 2010 at 4:00 am #

    your statement is quite silly and shows a large ignorance in this field.

  31. Layman November 19, 2010 at 5:17 am #

    Jen, your statement is so silly, I assume that it was written tongue in cheek.

    All engine manufacturers have the very talented engineers available and do not put a product on the market without rigorous checking and testing. Endlessly speculating the cause of this incident is like looking for WMD. A waste of time and energy. Suggest you wait for the official report and recommendations.

  32. Steve November 19, 2010 at 8:37 am #

    “Moral: beware of A-380″ – rather ludicrous given the ejected debris. Perhaps fingers should be pointed elsewhere.

  33. Randolph Parkin November 19, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    Changing from RR engines to EA wouldn’t be the smartest move for Qantas, or any other RR customer for that matter.

    Besides the obvious contractual headaches, it would take their fleet of A380′s out of service for too long; and for what? Different engines that come with a whole new set of operating and maintenance procedures? And maybe a whole lot of unknown problems too.

    If EA engines really do offer 1% better SFC then Why do some many operators choose RR?
    For one thing, RR engines are lighter, better in the climb and RR are committed to close or beat any perceived ‘SFC gap’.

    Both RR and EA are always looking at ways to improve their engines. The last A380 customer will have a much, much better aircraft with much, much better engines than the launch customers. That’s what progress in engineering and technology is all about. That’s also why launch customers get such good deals for agreeing to be ‘First To Fly’.

    Will the EA Fanbois please go away now and let the rest of this thread discuss the matters at hand which are what will Airbus do to fix the broken wing.

  34. John Dodge November 19, 2010 at 11:37 am #

    I am absolutely livid at reports that Rolls Royce was making modifications to the Trent 900s before the 11/4 incident and possibly knew about the problems which afflicted QF32. And didn’t let Qantas or Airbus know!? If true, heads should roll….

    From today’s AP story:

    >>>Joyce (Alan Joyce, Qantas CEO) also said that Rolls-Royce had made modifications to the Trent 900 engine without telling the airline or Airbus well before the accident. Also, a Lufthansa spokesman revealed that Rolls-Royce was changing a problematic part on its engine before the Qantas drama.

    Those remarks were the strongest indication yet that Rolls-Royce was addressing a defect in the engine well before the Nov. 4 episode.<<<

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/11/19/qantas_crew_coped_with_flood_of_alarms_after_engine_exploded/

  35. Andreas November 19, 2010 at 12:13 pm #

    “Since the EA engine burns 1% less fuel than tne RR engine, it would be in QF’s financial interest to switch engine types on their A380s.

    After every eight trip from SYD to LHR a QFA380 powered by EA engines would be able to make another trip over for the same amount of fuel comsumed by a RR powered one.”

    Where did you learn this maths????

    1% less fuel burn means 1 extra trip with the saved fuel after the 99th flight, not after the 8th!
    That’s not really much, if you have to pay the costs for the conversion.

    Best regards from Germany
    Andreas

  36. Charles November 19, 2010 at 12:24 pm #

    What caused the broken wing Randolph?

    We all know that the root cause was a defective part in the RR engine.

    All emphasis with this blog titled “Front wing spar, wiring, fuel lines among damage sustained by QF32″
    has got nothing whatsoever to do with a serious engine problem! The emphasis is on the airframe and not the engine where it should be.

    I’m waiting patiently for Jon Ostrower to start a blog titled “Rolls Royce Trent Engine Oil Migration and Eventual Failure”, but I doubt that we will ever read one!

  37. Henry November 19, 2010 at 12:30 pm #

    EA engines are proving to be the most reliable of the two engine choices on the A380. EA are committed to staying on the leading edge of reliability and lowering fuel consumption through product improvement programs.

  38. Anitra Iturralde November 19, 2010 at 1:41 pm #

    is back in the saddle again. And by saddle, I mean prison…….. and by again, I mean for reckless irresponsibility, and alleged arson.

  39. The Man November 19, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    This whole blog is worthless. I’ve never read so many ignorant messages. Sad.

  40. mike gauvan November 21, 2010 at 8:58 pm #

    From “Inside”

    I send this on to those with the technical savvy to follow the implications.

    Another of my Qantas pilots tells me there is some talk of writing this A380 off, as the port wing main spar damage now discovered is so severe.

    1. Bus #2 is supposedly automatically powered by Bus #1, in the event of Engine #2 failure – didn’t happen.

    2. Buses #3 & #4 will supposedly power Bus #2 in the event that the auto transfer from Bus #1 fails – didn’t happen.

    3. After some time the RAT deployed for no apparent reason, locking out (as a load-shedding function) some still functioning services.

    4. One of the frequently recurring messages warned of the aircraft approaching the aft C of G limit, (the procedure calls for transferring fuel
    forward), the next message advised of fwd transfer pumps being u/s. This sequence occurred repeatedly.

    5. Apparently landing/approach speeds are obtained from the FMS, but there weren’t anywhere near sufficient fields to load all the defects for speed
    corrections – the crew loaded what they thought were the most critical ones.

    6. The crew commenced an approach NOT because they’d sorted out all the problems but because they were very worried about the ‘way-out-of-tolerance’, and steadily worsening, lateral imbalance.

    7. The aircraft stopped with just over 100 metres or runway left, brakes temps climbed to 900C and fuel pouring out of the ruptured tank. Unable to
    shutdown #1 engine (as previously mentioned) but elected not to evacuate as the fire services were attending in great numbers.

    8. The other comment from the source of the above, (who was on the flight deck), was that the aeroplane did many things they simply didn’t understand
    and/or failed to operate as expected.

  41. SDFlight November 22, 2010 at 5:52 am #

    Sorry but your comment is complete made out of dreams,
    nearby nothing of your “facts” ever happend or happend for your given reason. the FDR data show a completely different and inline with the specification behaviour of the airliner. Qantas will not write off that bird. All your qantas information have nothing to to with the A380, the things you are mentioning can not happen on an Airbus plane, some things are simply not installed, others are totally impossible by design. It just looks linke some guys want the A380 to disappear from the reality and the Jumbo be back in the queen of the skies position.
    As mentioned above, most this comments here, are worthless, as they have no real backround and intend to spread fear against airbus products. It quite simply to figure this out, when you know the airbus design and then read what “had” happend. the “Qantas check pilot” which gave those information, has never sitten in an A380 cockpit, if he had so he would know what of his “facts”, are impossible and what could have been true. (In between us: 80% are impossible.)

    Greetings from EDHI

  42. Alessandro November 22, 2010 at 2:00 pm #

    Well, they flew for 1,5 hours after the engine exploded so I think they had good chances to make it to an alternate airport if over ocean.
    Problem with landing at Azores could be run over the airstrip.

  43. Test Pilot November 25, 2010 at 5:59 pm #

    EDHI’s remarks

    “Sorry but your comment is complete made out of dreams”

    A sweeping statement – you must be employed by Airbus.

    The writer has been identified as on of the crew of the aircraft. So suggest you cease making false claims.

    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/11/17/the-anatomy-of-the-airbus-a380-qf32-near-disaster/