Second Qantas jet in engine scare

A Qantas airline jumbo jet has been forced to return to Singapore because of an engine problem.

The Boeing 747-400 turned back shortly after take-off from Changi Airport, airline officials said.

It comes a day after a Qantas Airbus A380 was forced to make an emergency landing at the same airport after one of its engines exploded.

www.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by digby888


Two aircraft from the same airline in two days with engine issues? Either a problem with the engines.

Do all 747's use the Trent 900 with the Royce Roll option?

Or an issue with the maintenance routine at Qantas?

It was a Boeing and an Airbus, not 2 Boeings.

Making it all the more strange actually, smells like sabotage..

i find it a bit strange

they are not the safest airline for nothing

i think they will have to check all there 747 engines

or maybe some one has been fiddling with them

in singapore

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Or an issue with the maintenance routine at Qantas?

Qantas has the safest record of all arlines, well, until the owners took to having all maintenance done in Singapore. Despite the many warnings from Unions and employees at the time, our then government blessed the move which inevitably would bring about safety issues.

reply to post by Tayesin


Did this one spit a turbine too? This is getting annoying, I know Qantas has the best safety record in the business but will they be able to catch the saboteur?

Just an FYI - there are three main jet-engine manufacturers - Rolls Royce, GE, and Pratt & Whitney. You can pretty much take any aircraft frame and fit it with any engine (i.e. Boeing airplanes could be using Rolls Royce engines if that's how Qantas specified their aircraft to be built).

The media is calling this flight by the name QF6 and said the maintenance was being done back in Avalon.
If there was damage to the engine at least I couldn't see it.

www.brisbanetimes.com.au...

reply to post by bowlbyville


Airbus offered two engine options to customers for the A380:

The A380 can be fitted with two types of engines: A380-841, A380-842 and A380-843F with Rolls-Royce Trent 900, and the A380-861 and A380-863F with Engine Alliance GP7000 turbofans. The Trent 900 is a derivative of the Trent 800, and the GP7000 has roots from the GE90 and PW4000.

en.wikipedia.org...

Qantas' A380s are equipped with the Rolls Royce engines.

Not surprisingly, they also opted for Rolls Royce on the B747 (common for an airline to choose ONE engine manufacturer, if available on the equipment they order, for cost reasons. Maintenance, training, some parts ocmmonality, etc).

Still, the B747 incident was a fire (so far as I've read) and not similar to the A380, where there was substantial internal damage, resulting in the engine failure, and external damage, as high-kinetic energy parts decide to leave the party......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edit, re-reading about the B747 engine, sounds a lot like a compressor stall incident. Those big turbofans will
shoot flames out in the exhaust flow when there is a stall condition internally....airflow disruption in the compressor or "hot" section (turbine section). Older, pre-turbofan days of the straight turbojet, we'd have the occasional compressor stall, but usually was no damage. "Bang, bang bang!" And flames, but the flames exited in back, and events were brief.

The much more finicky turbofans, especially the BIG ones are decidedly unhappy with compressor stalls..and it's rarer. so only happens when something is amiss internally, deep inside with compressor or turbine blades. Some of those stages, depending on design, are made to alter their angle of attack to the airflow. This is automatically done, using the airplane's own fuel as the "hydraulic" fluid to move them. If the syncronization is off for some reason, then the stalling can happen....and the "Bang, bang, bang!" and flames, and the shaking too.

Had it happen on a DC-10, years ago. GE engines. The one involved (#1 - left wing) had just been overhauled, only about 100 hours on it. Lost some turbine blades, but they didn't break containment laterally, went aft, and caused mayhem to turbines downstream, on the way out the exhaust.......

Funny thing, engine continued to run, only developed idle power though.

reply to post by Bordon81

The media is calling this flight by the name QF6 ...

Because "QF" is the IATA code for Qantas, and its flight number was "6". Sometimes, for ATC purposes, those single-digit flight numbers will have two leading zeroes added. So, you will hear ATC sometimes calling them "Qantas zero-zero-six", for example.