The Austrailian accident investigation branch have said this:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/news-items/qantas-airbus-a380-singapore.aspx

Rgds Cking

Hi Cking
Ofcourse what you have posted is as expected (given that the aircraft got down intact [with data recorders intact] apart from the damage resulting directly from the uncontained engine failure) yet where my thoughts were going when I posted was something I already have advocated as desirable following the AF447 tragedy.

My post was on 06 July 2009 19:03 at URL
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=91302&highlight=NJayM&page=15
It was in positive response to RenFrew on the topic of ACARS messages, where I advocated in my post “……Actually no reason why at the cost of current data storage, data compression techniques and communications technology advances, all useful data from all aircraft in the sky shouldn’t be getting transmitted to central storage in real time and archived for an agreed period even after safe completion of flights………”

I believe that my question in this thread, was why if real time data (error messages) in the case of AF447 on a A330 were transmitting until it crashed; where was the real time data received and was it being monitored in the case of the QF A380 ?

Surely if error messages were received automatically were they early enough to have forewarned the flight crew of the QF A380 to take possible damage limitation measures with the engine that was getting into trouble?

There is mileage in this area of error message auto transmission being explored and made robust without damaging/insulting Rolls Royce, Airbus or any airline.

It calls for what I posted on 06 July 2009 19:03 (URL given above) and Bombardier have introduced the following, see URL-

http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/2010/09/black-boxes-to-start-tweeting/

I am not sure if the description/word ‘Tweeting’ could be misleading but it gets the idea across.

To quote the article “…..However, the idea now has been given a big boost – with a major airframe manufacturer endorsing the idea. Last week, Canada’s Bombardier said that its CSeries airliner will be the first commercial aircraft in the world to be equipped with live telemetry ‘black box’ downlinks.

This, says Bombardier, not only has benefits for safety in the rare case of an AF447-style accident, but also in proactive maintenance and trend monitoring, allowing airlines to save money by optimising flights and scheduling repairs. Real-time flight data monitoring may also allow ground controllers to warn pilots of a problem and advise them to land, before it turns critical…..”

I think that this is definitely an area of safety enhancement that the aviation world should give serious thought to.

As a trainee ‘bean counter’ I have to acknowledge that keeping the costs of manufacturers’ indemnity insurance and airline operational insurance down would be a great financial advantage.

Has anyone any news – its been quiet for a long time ?

Has anyone any news – its been quiet for a long time ?

I found these today –

In French at URL– http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1/pdf/f-cp090601e1.pdf
Quite useful tables, charts and info at the back for those who aren’t fluent in French.

In English at URLs –
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e2.en/pdf/f-cp090601e2.en.pdf
http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/flight.af.447.php

Anything mechanical can develop snags …

home grown? You do know that GE only has 64% of the Genx don’t you, and that GE has a history of risk sharing with international partners, whether it be 50/50 on the CFM or somewhat less than that on the GE90.

Your comment also seems to assume that the “american” engines will have snags……it almost sounds like wishful thinking on your part.

Hardly, anything mechanical (e.g. aero engines) can develop snags – that’s why they test, test and test ….. and hopefully continue testing and furthering R&D even after production deliveries are made.

There is room for all three big players in the civil aero engine market to sustain themselves and hope that there never is a monopoly.

We are in to Racehorse O’Leary manure again here

When you are dealing with a dung heap – as in Racehorse Manure O’Leary shennanigans it’s all a big RIP OFF.

It’s easier to simply boycott flying on the wretched airline.

Update from RR …..

Sadly the naive press including some of the more responsible newspapers are making a complete mad mix of all the ‘partial’ facts they are gleaning on the mix of aero engine problems that have occured recently.

I repeat that RR will weather this one and the engines will be much safer – and any rogue suppliers just wait until you get caught by the forensics.

An update from RR dated 12 November 2010.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/investors/news/2010/121110_interim_mgt_statement.jsp

“Trent 900 update
Friday, 12 November 2010

Rolls-Royce is now in a position to provide an update on its statement of 8 November concerning the engine failure on the Trent 900 powered A380 Qantas flight QF32 on 4 November 2010.

Immediately following this incident a regime of engine checks was introduced on the Trent 900s to understand the cause and to ensure safe operation. These have been conducted in parallel with a rigorous examination of all available evidence, including data from the damaged engine and its monitoring system, analysis of recovered material and interrogation of the fleet history.

These investigations have led Rolls-Royce to draw two key conclusions. First, as previously announced, the issue is specific to the Trent 900. Second, the failure was confined to a specific component in the turbine area of the engine. This caused an oil fire, which led to the release of the intermediate pressure turbine disc.

Rolls-Royce continues to work closely with the investigating authorities.

Our process of inspection will continue and will be supplemented by the replacement of the relevant module according to an agreed programme.

These measures, undertaken in collaboration with Airbus, our Trent 900 customers and the regulators have regrettably led to some reduction in aircraft availability. This programme will enable our customers progressively to bring the whole fleet back into service.

Safety continues to be Rolls-Royce’s highest priority. “

In continuing defence of Rolls Royce’s great reputation

In quoting from http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/news/2010/101108_trent_900_statement.jsp

“The Trent 900 incident is the first of its kind to occur on a large civil Rolls-Royce engine since 1994. Since then Rolls-Royce has accumulated 142 million hours of flight on Trent and RB211 engines.”

RR is the badge bearing most of the ‘flak’ at present but they are GOOD

Rolls Royce is bearing most of the ‘flak’ at present but they have an excellent R&D track record, and are an extremely reputable engine manufacturer.

They are heavily now into services (which includes repair, maintenance, etc of both civil and military engines) in remote (non manufacturing) locations.

During a long heavy economic recession (current) no company not even RR is immune to third party suppliers ‘cutting corners’. This starts from raw materials used for production of actual components that make up an engine right down to the committment/training of staff employed in remote locations.

RR will come through this one and the Trent series of engines has a long R&D history and every in-flight/take off/landing engine failure though high risk is a R&D learning curve for a primary engine manufacturer.

While continued ground testing and supercomputer models can nearly simulate, real failures and incidents are sometimes a ‘Godsend’ to the furtherance of good R&D.

There are more RR engines flying in all vintages of aircraft all over the world and they are good and safe IF maintained with spares that are free from ‘economic recession’ penny pinching by some irresponsible ‘cheapskates’ AND if the repair and maintenence work is carried out by well trained safety concious staff.