Leaving aside the Australian medias' current Qantas bashing bias, the list of damage resulting from the Qantas A380's uncontained turbine failure a week or so ago is quite sobering. I wonder if this will give the 748I the push it needs?From the News.com website :A QANTAS superjumbo was a flying wreck after an engine exploded shooting chunks of metal through fuel tanks and flight control systems. Last week's mid-air emergency off Singapore also badly damaged a wing, which may have to be replaced.The Herald Sun can reveal the full list of damage as Airbus A380 was nursed back to Singapore on three engines.When it touched down the fuel systems were failing, the forward spar supporting the left wing had been holed and one of the jet's two hydraulic systems was knocked out and totally drained of fluid.Sources compared flight QF32 to the Memphis Belle, the World War II bomber that struggled back to England from Germany on its final mission and became the subject of an award-winning 1990s Hollywood movie by the same name.Richard Woodward, vice-president of the International Air Pilots' Federation, told the Herald Sun yesterday that the lesson from the near disaster was the value of an experienced flight crew."There was a wealth of experience in the cockpit, even the lowest ranked officer on board had thousands of hours of experience in his former role as a military flying instructor," said Capt Woodward, himself an A380 pilot on leave from Qantas.As another senior pilot said: "It is bad enough for an engine to explode in mid-air let alone lose so many secondary systems".Investigators found shrapnel damage to the flaps, a huge hole in the upper surface of the left wing and a generator that was not working.The crew could not shutdown the No. 1 engine using the fire switch.As a result the engine's fire extinguishers could not be deployed.Captain Richard de Crespigny, first officer Matt Hicks and Mark Johnson, the second officer, could not jettison the volume of fuel required for a safe emergency landing.With more than 80 tonnes of highly volatile jet kerosene still in the 11 tanks -- two of which were leaking - they made an overweight and high speed approach to Changi Airport.Without full hydraulics the spoilers - the hinged flaps on the front of the wings - could not be fully deployed to slow the jet.The crew also had to rely on gravity for the undercarriage to drop and lock into place.On landing they had no anti-skid brakes and could rely on only one engine for reverse thrust - needing all of the 4km runway at Changi to bring the jet to a stop.The three crew have been interviewed by Australian investigators and cleared to return to duties.Industry sources said the damage will almost certainly put the airline's flagship jet - the Nancy Bird-Walton - out of service for months.Investigators found that an oil fire may have caused the engine to explode.Details of the stricken jet's problems were revealed yesterday in an emergency directive by the European Aviation Safety Authority.The authority made it mandatory for airlines with the now suspect Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines to make checks for excess oil.If not detected, excess oil can cause a fire and ultimately result in "uncontained" engine failure, with potential damage to the aeroplane and to people or property on the ground.Qantas made it clear it will keep its six superjumbos grounded indefinitely and has rearranged flight schedules using substitute aircraft."The specific checks mandated by the directive were already being carried out by Qantas in conjunction with Rolls-Royce," it said."Qantas's A380 aircraft will not return to service until there is complete certainty that the fleet can operate safely."WHAT WENT WRONG ON QF321 Massive fuel leak in the left mid fuel tank (there are 11 tanks, including in the horizontal stabiliser on the tail)2 Massive fuel leak in the left inner fuel tank3 A hole on the flap fairing big enough to climb through4 The aft gallery in the fuel system failed, preventing many fuel transfer functions5 Problem jettisoning fuel6 Massive hole in the upper wing surface7 Partial failure of leading edge slats8 Partial failure of speed brakes/ground spoilers9 Shrapnel damage to the flaps10 Total loss of all hydraulic fluid in one of the jet's two systems11 Manual extension of landing gear12 Loss of one generator and associated systems13 Loss of brake anti-skid system14 No.1 engine could not be shut down in the usual way after landing because of major damage to systems15 No.1 engine could not be shut down using the fire switch, which meant fire extinguishers would not work on that engine16 ECAM (electronic centralised aircraft monitor) warnings about the major fuel imbalance (because of fuel leaks on left side) could not be fixed with cross-feeding17 Fuel was trapped in the trim tank (in the tail)creating a balance problem for landing18 Left wing forward spar penetrated by debrisCheers, SLuggy

Thanks for posting, pretty chilling to read through. Well done flight crew :(.

Good grief, that's one heck of a list of "failures"...

are any of the issues show a fault in the A380 airframe? ... looks like a 'laundry list' of what any airliner of any make with wing-mounted engines, again of any make, would experience after such a violent uncontained engine failure?

Sources compared flight QF32 to the Memphis Belle' date=' the World War II bomber that struggled back to England from Germany on its final mission and became the subject of an award-winning 1990s Hollywood movie by the same name.[/quote']a bit insulting to the crew of the Memphis Belle ... as people on the ground and in the air shooting at them. there were also a large number of aircrews, in the many battlefields on the planet during WWII, that experienced the same or worse damage as Memphis Belle and made it home.--

are any of the issues show a fault in the A380 airframe? ... looks like a 'laundry list' of what any airliner of any make with wing-mounted engines, again of any make, would experience after such a violent uncontained engine failure?--

If anything it speaks of the ability of the airframe to absorb alot of damage and make it to an alternate runway.I just wonder, had the plane been mid-point in a LA to Sydney run somewhere over the middle of the Pacific Ocean 1200 miles from the nearest suitable alternate runway and this happened, would we be having a much different conversation today?

If anything it speaks of the ability of the airframe to absorb alot of damage and make it to an alternate runway.

yes. AND, as already stated, the skill of the flight crew.

I just wonder, had the plane been mid-point in a LA to Sydney run somewhere over the middle of the Pacific Ocean 1200 miles from the nearest suitable alternate runway and this happened, would we be having a much different conversation today?

if the issue had happened on any aircraft. wonder what the pilot(s) will say about how the aircraft was doing in-air? could she have stayed airborne for 3-4 hours?another issue with a mid-pacific/atlantic flight -- if the engine failure had been on a long-range twin 757, 767, 777 or A330? (a bit like the old virgin atlantic ad about the A340s.)--

yes. AND, as already stated, the skill of the flight crew.if the issue had happened on any aircraft. wonder what the pilot(s) will say about how the aircraft was doing in-air? could she have stayed airborne for 3-4 hours?another issue with a mid-pacific/atlantic flight -- if the engine failure had been on a long-range twin 757, 767, 777 or A330? (a bit like the old virgin atlantic ad about the A340s.)--

Believe it or not they can fly on one engine. :(

Believe it or not they can fly on one engine. :(

yes! and thanks for saying this! (i knew the answer many decades ago). the issue that the press isn't telling the full story and trying to make out aircraft are unsafe. the 747, A340 and A380 have FOUR engines. all three can maintain altitude if one engine, or more, is lost.the same goes for the MD11 and DC10 ... loose one engine and they can still fly.--

My main concern is the flaw in testing by all parties concerned before certification. As for a chance for the 747-8i, they will be using "new" engines themselves. I do not believe it matters at this point which new engine is used , they are all "suspect", or should be, and with the "fire" in the Dreamliner two days ago, I think I want my beloved Tri-Star back :(.I wonder "thinking out loud" if the pressure of releasing to market has anything to do with this in any way?Perhaps ( I tread carefully here) testing prior to certification could have been done more thoroughly? I am not necessarily referring to RR, or any other specific company, but the fact that in this day and age, numbers are crunched in a way to "allow" for mishaps if the occur is frightening to me.If the fix is more expensive than the consequence, then let fate run free. Ah, I am just happy that it landed safely, and there were no fatalities. I hope it is something as simple as changing some rubber seal somewhere to prevent the leak in the future.

My main concern is the flaw in testing by all parties concerned before certification.

at this point NO ONE KNOWS if there is a flaw in the design, testing, maintenance, or 'other' with the engine. this may have been just a failure. failures happen ... and on airplanes failures happen a lot lot lot lot lot less than with any other transportion method.

they are all "suspect",

all things designed, built, maintained and used by humans are suspect.

"fire" in the Dreamliner two days ago

again, cause isn't known ... and the 787 is still in testing/certification.

I think I want my beloved Tri-Star back :(.

if it wasn't for RR's failure with the L1011 engines tri-star may have done better and outsold the DC10.

the fact that in this day and age, numbers are crunched in a way to "allow" for mishaps if the occur is frightening to me.

this has always been how the numbers are 'crunched'. you cannot build anything with a 0% failure rate.

then let fate run free.

this is our reality on this earth. tomorrow a mountain might blow (i can see mt. rainier from my house), the 'big quake' might hit (i live on a fault), the hillside might fail because of water saturation (i live at the bottom of a hill at it is the rain/wet season), or i could get hit by a meteor ... etc etc etc

Ah, I am just happy that it landed safely, and there were no fatalities.

this is the only thing that is known--

Sources compared flight QF32 to the Memphis Belle, the World War II bomber that struggled back to England from Germany on its final mission and became the subject of an award-winning 1990s Hollywood movie by the same name.

Wasn't the MB last mission actually without incident altogether? The movie is just a dramatization, not?!?

Scoob, how goes it? V2 is fantastic, and coincidentally has my favorite airline included, minus me begging for the repaints.:("all things designed, built, maintained and used by humans are suspect."So so true."this has always been how the numbers are 'crunched'. you cannot build anything with a 0% failure rate.""this is our reality on this earth. tomorrow a mountain might blow (i can see mt. rainier from my house), the 'big quake' might hit (i live on a fault), the hillside might fail because of water saturation (i live at the bottom of a hill at it is the rain/wet season), or i could get hit by a meteor ... etc etc etc"Scoob, agreed with what you said, but I was referring to the other bean counters. I saw a documentary around nine or ten(?) years ago about a certain suv, and how the fact that it should have been around xx inches wider to be "safe".The company that built it vehemently denied this fact, but coincidentally made the next version with the required changes in width. It was part of the newer design according to the manufacturer of course.The documentary touched on the fact that insurance claims and lawsuits would cost a lot less than a total recall of the suv, so roll the dice and take a chance."if it wasn't for RR's failure with the L1011 engines tri-star may have done better and outsold the DC10."Boy how I loved the Tri Star. I completely forgot about all that :(, but do miss the music they produced at full power for takeoff.

Wasn't the MB last mission actually without incident altogether? The movie is just a dramatization, not?!?

There's a documentary film about it's last mission: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMDSFAYDV-Y

the issue that the press isn't telling the full story and trying to make out aircraft are unsafe. --

Amen to that. There was apparently a discussion on British daytime TV last week along the lines that "Qantas has never had a fatal accident* . That means they are more likely to have one soon. So this was a really lucky escape."With media coverage of that low standard you despair tbh. (* or so the TV show claimed - this from way back when suggests otherwise.)

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/318047-aviation-week-news-rolls-outlines-trent-900-modification-plan/