Live data from Hacker News

Qantas Airbus A380 engine failure in 2010 (2023)

admiralcloudberg.medium.com

21–30 of 122 posts

Re: Qantas Airbus A380 engine failure in 2010 (2023)

#21
post #14

Catastrophic failure? Check Plane landed without casualties? Check Plane design so good it helped avoid casualties? Check Hum... Ah! Not an american Boeing but a french Airbus. Of course. The article mentions this story should make everyone a little less afraid of flying. Sure, as long as its not on a Boeing plane.

Like Boeing, there was organizational dysfunction leading to a direct safety issue.

During the development of the A380, the German and French sides were using different versions of the CATIA PLM software (i.e. CAD), which prevented people from looking at a single unified model of the plane. One concrete problem it caused was major problems with the wiring harnesses, which led to a 2 year delay in the program, and 3 early A380's which couldn't be sold. (Airbus kept one for test, the other two got sent to museums)

That manifested in this accident because the wing wiring was routed through the engine disk burst axes (a hazard which is explicitly accounted for) with insufficient redundancy. That created the dangerous situation where they couldn't turn off the engine after landing.

Re: Qantas Airbus A380 engine failure in 2010 (2023)

#22
post #13
post #3

Turbine disk failure is one thing that can down a plane, and you can only reduce the probability so much. Fan blades and turbine blades can be contained by containment cases if they break off, but turbine disks can't. When a disk breaks, it's an uncontained engine failure. A 20 kg disk fragment flying at Mach 1 goes through everything. Airframes are have a 30-degree fragment spread cone around every disk stage. Airfr…

I admit that I glossed over the section on the machining of the oil pipe, but the facility appears to bear most of the blame. These were pulled and scrapped from the whole A380 fleet. "Investigators also criticized the culture within the Hucknall facility that manufactured the HP/IP bearing hubs, identifying signs of complacency and widespread procedural non-compliance. A paperwork review showed that the required sig…

That's an oversight failure as much as a failure of that plant.

Re: Qantas Airbus A380 engine failure in 2010 (2023)

#23
post #21
post #14

Catastrophic failure? Check Plane landed without casualties? Check Plane design so good it helped avoid casualties? Check Hum... Ah! Not an american Boeing but a french Airbus. Of course. The article mentions this story should make everyone a little less afraid of flying. Sure, as long as its not on a Boeing plane.

Like Boeing, there was organizational dysfunction leading to a direct safety issue. During the development of the A380, the German and French sides were using different versions of the CATIA PLM software (i.e. CAD), which prevented people from looking at a single unified model of the plane. One concrete problem it caused was major problems with the wiring harnesses, which led to a 2 year delay in the program, and 3 e…

> That created the dangerous situation where they couldn't turn off the engine after landing.

Which is vastly preferable compared to all of the dangerous situations just prior to that landing.

Re: Qantas Airbus A380 engine failure in 2010 (2023)

#25
post #14

Catastrophic failure? Check Plane landed without casualties? Check Plane design so good it helped avoid casualties? Check Hum... Ah! Not an american Boeing but a french Airbus. Of course. The article mentions this story should make everyone a little less afraid of flying. Sure, as long as its not on a Boeing plane.

I thought this was a strange insertion of geopolitics into the conversation so I checked out this account’s comment history. It’s good for others to see that some commenters here have a serious axe to grind and are not really “hackers” as their primary interest here. The most recent comments in order:

> [something about london taxi drivers, admittedly unrelated]

> I totally get you and in theory you are right. And yet, in the USA you have gerrymandering and apparently _wanted_ Trump. Twice. Something has to be very wrong somewhere.

> I would suggest "lobbying" is not the correct word to describe all the corruption going on in the current USA administration cesspool.

>I recently bought a BambuLab 3D printer. Designed and made in China. Right from the unpacking to first print the experience was top Apple-style quality. Indeed I was agreeably surprised.

> A global non USA success? Plenty. You might want to remove your pink USA glasses and look around. Spotify good enough for you?

> I am Canadian. Never, ever would i knowingly buy any dairy products from the USA , at any price. We have cows too, and farmers.

> Its not that it hates its customers , as much as it it a USA-based company that is run under the rules made by the administration. Not that much different from running Red Star OS from North Korea, actually.

> [Finally something unrelated]

Re: Qantas Airbus A380 engine failure in 2010 (2023)

#26
post #14

Catastrophic failure? Check Plane landed without casualties? Check Plane design so good it helped avoid casualties? Check Hum... Ah! Not an american Boeing but a french Airbus. Of course. The article mentions this story should make everyone a little less afraid of flying. Sure, as long as its not on a Boeing plane.

Read about the AF447 Rio-Paris crash. Input stick averaging?? That's a huge design mistake which contributed to the crash and AFAIK is still here..

Re: Qantas Airbus A380 engine failure in 2010 (2023)

#27
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like Boeing, there was organizational dysfunction leading to a direct safety issue. During the development of the A380, the German and French sides were using different versions of the CATIA PLM software (i.e. CAD), which prevented people from looking at a single unified model of the plane. One concrete problem it caused was major problems with the wiring harnesses, which led to a 2 year delay in the program, and 3 e…

> That created the dangerous situation where they couldn't turn off the engine after landing. Which is vastly preferable compared to all of the dangerous situations just prior to that landing.

The vastly preferable situation was to have redundant wiring that properly complied with regulations, which was retrofitted in an airworthiness directive (safety recall) after the accident.

They also required engine software that detected the sudden increase in speed associated with a shaft break and automatically cut fuel.

Re: Qantas Airbus A380 engine failure in 2010 (2023)

#28
post #14

Catastrophic failure? Check Plane landed without casualties? Check Plane design so good it helped avoid casualties? Check Hum... Ah! Not an american Boeing but a french Airbus. Of course. The article mentions this story should make everyone a little less afraid of flying. Sure, as long as its not on a Boeing plane.

An aviation thread with two utterly ignorant posts - [0]. Is that the aviation knowledge level of HN?

[0] - this one and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49541946

Re: Qantas Airbus A380 engine failure in 2010 (2023)

#29

  > The detailed software allowed them to enter various parameters including the weather, runway condition, and any systems failures, and then calculate whether it was possible to land. But when everything had been entered, the program spit out an unhelpful answer: “no result.”

 > When calculating the landing distance, the software applied a generic “operational coefficient” to account conservatively for variations in pilot techniques that could result in less efficient deceleration. The problem, as investigators would later discover, was that the software applied the coefficient again whenever another system failure was added. With so many system failures on the aircraft, the coefficient was applied a total of 9 times, resulting in a calculated landing distance considerably greater than the length of the available runway. However, Check Captain Evans was able to fix the problem by manually entering their actual landing weight, overriding the program’s assumption of a maximum landing weight. By specifying a landing weight in excess of the maximum, the system logic changed to apply the operational coefficient only once — for unrelated and obscure reasons — and lo and behold, when he ran the numbers this time, the computer said they could just barely land on any of the 4,000-meter runways at Singapore Changi Airport, with only 100 meters to spare.
This reeks so much of if-then-else programming as opposed to making a well-typed conceptual model computable.

Re: Qantas Airbus A380 engine failure in 2010 (2023)

#30
post #3

Turbine disk failure is one thing that can down a plane, and you can only reduce the probability so much. Fan blades and turbine blades can be contained by containment cases if they break off, but turbine disks can't. When a disk breaks, it's an uncontained engine failure. A 20 kg disk fragment flying at Mach 1 goes through everything. Airframes are have a 30-degree fragment spread cone around every disk stage. Airfr…

But it seems to me that the whole failure could have been prevented with a bunch of temperature sensors spread throughout the engine, and a good anomaly detection system.
Post reply on HN