Qantas A380 was heavily damaged

[EHM-1749 Hector]

 
The Qantas crew whose A380 suffered an uncontained engine failure earlier this month had their hands full in getting the super jumbo back to Singapore. Shrapnel from the engine disabled one of two main hydraulic systems, hampered the fuel transfer system, punched a hole in the forward wing spar and caused a major fuel leak. The cascading nature of such failures meant the pilots couldn't dump enough fuel to bring the aircraft down to its maximum landing weight and the fuel left in the airplane was unbalanced. Flaps, slats and spoilers couldn't be fully deployed and the gear had to be dropped manually. Once it was on the ground, the anti-lock brakes didn't work and, since the damaged engine was an inboard one, there was only one left for reverse thrust (the outboard engines of A380s don't have reversers because they often overhang the grass and might be FOD damaged). The heavy, significantly disabled aircraft needed virtually all of the 13,123 feet of available runway. The whole wing might have to be replaced and the aircraft is expected to be out of commission for months. Meanwhile, the cause of the engine problem has been determined and it's just adding to the PR problems facing manufacturer Rolls-Royce.

According to the Courier Mail, newer versions of the Trent 900 engine installed in aircraft built after the Qantas jet in question had redesigned bearing boxes to prevent the oil leaks that resulted in the engine explosion. Airbus sales chief John Leahy told the paper he wasn't sure if the three airlines that chose the Trent for their A380s, Qantas, Singapore and Lufthansa, knew about the changes and which engines had been upgraded. Other A380 buyers chose the Engine Alliance GP7000.

[EHM-1465 Dominic]

As ever, we really need to wait until a full investigation has been carried out but I must say that I am surprised that the loss of one engine, even an uncontained failure, could lead to the loss of an entire hydraulic system. The whole idea of redundancy is precisely to prevent scenarios like this and for years now airliners have worked on the principle that even if one system is knocked out, there is at least one other to perform its functions.

No doubt the incident report will clarify exactly why redundant back-ups didn't work...

[EHM-2097 Andrei]

Well I think that "uncontained" is the key word here. The momentum/energy of the various debris is so high in this case that it can do virtually any damage to the aircraft. And multiple damage, as it happened in this case. The result could have been better than what they had, but could also have been worse (remember the DC10 that lost ALL hydraulics to an uncontained engine failure, a long time ago?).

That's precisely why the constructor objective is to allow no uncontained failure... and that's what did not work.

Redundancy can be an issue but it seems they had just so much left of it to allow a safe landing. But of couse, thumbs up to the crew who managed to land safely with just so little systems still working properly.

Andrei

[EHM-0654 Murray]

The other thing to point out here is that the "uncontained" failure happened a long way back in the engine: RR have (publicly) shown that the Trent 900 can handle a blade off in a contained fashion (about the single most catastrophic failure a jet engine can suffer...), this was a failure that couldn't have been planned for.

[EHM-1749 Hector]

On top of that, I was surprised to know that the A380 doesn't have thrust reversers on the outboard engines because FOD. They should have it as a selectable option in case of an emergency like this. In an emergency, FOD is not relevant any more.
When you see the list of failures, you have to agree that the crew performed extremely well. Following is a list of the failures they had to deal with: (taken from PPruNe Forums: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/432704-qantas-a380-uncontained-2-engine-failure-37.html). You can follow this thread if you like.
Among my fears when flying one of the most feared is an uncontrolled CG situation. And the A380 seems to be prone to that. Read the last two ones.

An unattributed list of the damage to QF32:


* 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

[EHM-1465 Dominic]

Some further details were released today on Flight International's website which certainly help explain why so many systems went U/S after the engine failure. The more I find out the more I can see how well the pilots did in maintaining control for 1 hour and 40 minutes to a safe landing!