Has anyone seen how close one of the punctures to the wing was to the fuel tank? Less than a foot I'd say. If that were to have been punctured, then it would have been a disaster similar to Concorde, except with much much greater fatalities.A miracle is a bit of a stretch, but the Pax and crew were extremely extremely lucky yesterday and I feel some of the other posters on here don't realise that.John

It will be interesting to see if there is any link between the A380 and B747 engine problems for Qantas. Two in as many days makes me think it's either an engine problem (if they are both RR engines) or dodgy maintenance. Although it's quite possible that the second incident was a bird strike. Anyone know more details?Edit/update: Just saw pictures on the news of the QF B747 that made an emergency landing at Singapore. It does have RR engines!!!

Edited November 5, 201015 yr by mcbellette

QF32 now if that blade had gone another foot backwards on that wing it would been a mid air explosion as it would have punched a hole directly in to the Fuel tank and fuel Lines.So it had the potential to kill many people in the air and possibly on the ground . Make matters worse they could not even switch number one engine down they had to fill it with foam/water until it stalled outTo say they being to extreme and they are Totally over blowing it. Lets just hope none of us are on one when the engine decides to fail or underneath it when it decides to fall from the skyWhitey015

Mid-air explosion? Are you sure? The Concorde fire was caused by sparks from damaged wiring on the landing gear, not the puncture in the fuel tank alone. I am just glad that there was not fire and the A380 has such a large wing.

With regard to the flooding of engine 1, it was rather appropriate that they were spraying brown liquid onto the fan :(

When I saw the picture of the QF A380 engine #2,gee talk about inflight fracture for a premature landing.......:(

QF32 now if that blade had gone another foot backwards on that wing it would been a mid air explosion as it would have punched a hole directly in to the Fuel tank and fuel Lines.So it had the potential to kill many people in the air and possibly on the ground.

What you basing that on? Leaking fuel doesn't automatically mean a fire (what, for example, are you proposing would have been the ignition source?), and it certainly wouldn't cause an explosion.

Well i wouldn't want to be on an aircraft with a ruptured tank a few feet away from an engine which just exploded and probably has a sweet trail of sparks and flames... quite as good as ignition source as you may want it... Luckily it just didn't happen. Really a bad moment for RR (and Qantas).