Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5593445/

Topic: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: Gonzalo
Posted 2012-10-22 15:42:15 and read 20161 times.

The only source I had for the moment is this, if someone has more detailed info will be very welcomed.Will be very nice to learn more about this incident, UEF are not so common and certainly are a dangerous situation for the aircraft's integrity.

Uncontained engine failure apparently.


http://www.avherald.com/h?article=457d2a82&opt=0

Rgds.
G.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2012-10-22 16:29:14 and read 19876 times.

First I've heard of this incident. Anyone know if there are pictures of the damage anywhere?

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: bthebest
Posted 2012-10-23 07:26:23 and read 15457 times.

http://www.theeksource.com/emirates-a330-200-a6-eap-returns-to-lusaka/

EK source reports the same.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: clydenairways
Posted 2012-10-23 07:35:44 and read 15275 times.

Emirates have the RR engine on the 330.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-10-23 07:37:19 and read 15233 times.

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):

Uncontained engine failure apparently.

Might be worth hanging back on that suggestion for a while, the Trent 772 engine design sees a lot of hours every day, a very reliable engine.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: qf002
Posted 2012-10-23 08:03:35 and read 14675 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 4):
Might be worth hanging back on that suggestion for a while, the Trent 772 engine design sees a lot of hours every day, a very reliable engine.

It's not the first time it's happened at EK though... Here's a pic from a similar incident that occurred in DXB in 2006 (not of this incident):



[Edited 2012-10-23 08:38:46]

[Edited 2012-10-23 08:39:39]

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-10-23 08:06:27 and read 14594 times.

Is that a pic from the event, qf002? A passenger on the flight noted that there were four large holes in the cowling - two outboard and two inboard.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: qf002
Posted 2012-10-23 08:09:40 and read 14551 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Is that a pic from the event, qf002? A passenger on the flight noted that there were four large holes in the cowling - two outboard and two inboard.

No, from another incident in DXB in 2006 -- sorry, should have made that clear...

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: clydenairways
Posted 2012-10-23 08:14:41 and read 14408 times.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 7):
No, from another incident in DXB in 2006 -- sorry, should have made that clear...

This pic is still going to confuse people..

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: bthebest
Posted 2012-10-23 09:34:52 and read 12998 times.

They seem to come in pairs with EK - two A340s in 2004 and 2009 which failed to climb quick enough, now 2 A330 with UEF.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-10-23 12:08:57 and read 9858 times.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 5):

It's not the first time it's happened at EK though... Here's a pic from a similar incident that occurred in DXB in 2006 (not of this incident):

This is another report of this current incident

"Emirates airline crash landed at Kenneth Kaunda International Airport in Lusaka at about mid night.

It is not clear what caused the accident but initial reports indicate that the plane had a tyre burst and slipped into the bush.

There are no reports of casualties so far but sources say the plane has been extensively damaged.

Kenneth Kaunda Airport international recently experienced unprecedented power black-outs that endangered airlines and travellers.

Emirates Airlines is one of the most credible airlines in the world.

President Micheal Sata recently used the same airline on his trip to the far East. "

Given the location of the incident, I think it will be some time until we know what has happened. It is almost like people have already taken the picture you have posted and think it is from this incident. This is what EK said

"Emirates flight EK714 bound for Dubai returned to Lusaka airport last night shortly after take off, due to a technical issue.

The aircraft landed normally, taxied to the stand and passengers disembarked in the usual way.

Passengers were accommodated in hotels and have now been re-booked on alternative flights with Emirates or other airlines.

The safety of our passengers and crew is of utmost importance and will not be compromised.”

Please send us your contact number or call me on the number below as soon as possible. Let us know if you need any more information.

We appreciate your co-operation.
Many thanks

Best wishes
Bryony Gammon
PR Manager (The Americas & Africa) | Corporate Communications"

Quoting delta88 (Reply 10):
Has anyone noticed that Rolls Royce seems to be having alot of engine problems lately?

No, nothing higher than other engine manufacturers that I am aware of. The particular Trent 772 engine is very reliable, it has a very high reliability level from what understand on the global installed fleet, it is a very popular engine on the A330.

Quoting delta88 (Reply 10):
Just a thought, correct me if im Wrong or you disagree!

I do not agree, most engine failures or shutdowns do not make the news at all.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: qf002
Posted 2012-10-23 12:29:14 and read 9383 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 11):

Here is a photo of the aircraft in question, sourced from this article.

http://avherald.com/img/emirates_a332_a6-aep_lusaka_121021_1.jpg

Every report (except the one you posted which has the plane crashing through the bush and geting "extensively damaged") is reporting uncontained engine failure. I'm not advocating that we trust everything that the media says, but all the evidence suggests that there was an uncontained failure of some sort.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: Aesma
Posted 2012-10-23 12:33:48 and read 9280 times.

What are the odds the same airline gets the same rare failure ?

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: goosebayguy
Posted 2012-10-23 13:06:32 and read 8509 times.

EK have their very own engine shop. Might be they are doing something wrong somewhere? As to the idea Rolls are having problems it was GE who recently had the problems.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: dynkrisolo
Posted 2012-10-23 13:38:23 and read 7751 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 4):
Might be worth hanging back on that suggestion for a while, the Trent 772 engine design sees a lot of hours every day, a very reliable engine

Failed to see your logic. Are you saying a reliable engine could not possibly have engine failures? The CF6 was a very reliable engine for its time, but we had the United Sioux City DC-10 crash in 1989. The JT8D was the workhorse of the industy, but we had the 1996 uncontained engine failure on a Delta MD-88 in Pensacola, Florida. The RB211-524 was also a very reliable engine, but Qantas had an uncontained engine failure on a 747-400 August of last year.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: kq747
Posted 2012-10-23 15:08:17 and read 6060 times.

I totally agree with delta88. The last few years have seen more incidents involving RR engines than I should think is acceptable. Not to say that other engines don't have problems, but the most noteworthy incidents (IMHO) have involved Rolls Royce.

[Edited 2012-10-23 15:09:43]

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-10-23 15:15:27 and read 5944 times.

AC also had some kind of engine failure on a R-R-powered A330-300 at YYC a couple of days ago. It was just starting the takeoff run to FRA. Excerpt from the Transport Canada daily occurrence reports.

ACA 844 was in position for departure on Runway 16 at Calgary and cleared for takeoff when the crew advised that the #2 engine failed and they would have to return to Apron 1; no ARFF or assistance was requested. Several minutes later the crew advised that they may have left some FOD on the runway from the engine failure. Two departures were delayed approximately 10 minutes pending a runway inspection which was negative for FOD. TSB report to follow.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: traindoc
Posted 2012-10-23 15:38:14 and read 5544 times.

You cannot comment on engine failures increasing or a problem with one manufacture using anecdotes. You have to look at how many engines of a particular type are being used, number of hours flown and then figure out an incident rate. If you do that you will find the result to be very low (fraction of a percent) indeed.

The other piece of data needed is the type of failure, i.e., where in the engine, core, compressor, fan blade, bearing etc. Then you must analyze the "why" of the incident, i.e., wear and tear, manufacturing defect, improper maintenance etc.

Once that is done then you can make educated statements about failure rates and manufacturers.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: Alnicocunife
Posted 2012-10-23 15:41:05 and read 5499 times.

From a cell phone picture it is very hard to tell if it is un-contained? Damaged fan blades at takeoff thrust may come forward out of the nacelle even peppering the fuselage with debris. It is still considered contained because it did not come out of the fan shroud. This can happen on all aircraft.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: U2380
Posted 2012-10-23 15:49:57 and read 5367 times.

Quoting delta88 (Reply 10):
Quoting kq747 (Reply 16):

It's funny how these sort of comments are never put forward when GEnx ('s) start spewing engine parts out of the back. Multiple times in fact. Or when four separate CF6-45 have uncontained engine failures.* And I don't recall seeing GE's credibility questioned when a GE90 decided to chuck debris upon the areas below.**

If the standards of RR engines were unacceptable in any way then they would not be certified at all. Let alone certified to ETOPS standards which, among other things, requires consistent reliability.

*http://aviationsafetynetwork.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/four-recent-uncontained-engine-failure-events-prompt-ntsb-to-issue-urgent-safety-recommendations-to-faa/

**http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/avd_06_01_2012_p05-01-463681.xml

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-10-23 16:04:44 and read 5224 times.

Quoting kq747 (Reply 16):
The last few years have seen more incidents involving RR engines than I should think is acceptable.

The last few years have seen more *publically reported* incidents involving RR engines. That's a very very different thing than more incidents. The actual rate of engine accidents vastly exceeds the public reporting frequency because the vast majority of engine incidents don't make the media.

Also, the "acceptable" rate of engine failures is well established by the regulators. Given that they haven't grounded RR, or even remotely talked about it, I would suggest your threshold of acceptable is out of alignment with industry.

Keep in mind that the global fleet is growing fairly quickly (retirements don't even come close to keeping pace with deliveries). As a result, a constant failure rate per flight hour results in an ever increasing failure rate with calendar time.

Tom.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: md80fanatic
Posted 2012-10-23 16:14:13 and read 5180 times.

Quoting U2380 (Reply 20):
It's funny how these sort of comments are never put forward when GEnx ('s) start spewing engine parts out of the back.


Not from me they don't. I am getting tired of all these newfangled, ultralight, ultra large, ultra expensive power plants shedding hot and high speed alloys everywhere. These are engineering failures from whatever manufacturer. There isn't enough margin for error being built into these beasts ... it's being whittled away to save additional weight. It's not like axial turbine engines are something new ... they've been around for 60 years now. Blasting parts everywhere should be something that -never- happens ever with our current level of materials, metallurgical, and manufacturing knowledge these days.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: RyanairGuru
Posted 2012-10-23 16:14:24 and read 5180 times.

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 14):
EK have their very own engine shop. Might be they are doing something wrong somewhere?

What? You say that from 1 incident? 2 if we include qf002's 2006 incident, and maybe a few others...

EK have an exemplary safety record, I think to question the integrity of their maintenance procedures is nonsensical

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-10-23 16:28:59 and read 5114 times.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 23):
EK have an exemplary safety record, I think to question the integrity of their maintenance procedures is nonsensical

There's very little to suggest their maintenance is anything other than good. However, given they've very nearly written off two fully loaded A340s, their overall safety record is not quite as "exemplary" as you're suggesting.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: kq747
Posted 2012-10-23 18:28:22 and read 4939 times.

Quoting traindoc (Reply 18):
You cannot comment on engine failures increasing or a problem with one manufacture using anecdotes. You have to look at how many engines of a particular type are being used, number of hours flown and then figure out an incident rate. If you do that you will find the result to be very low (fraction of a percent) indeed.

Of course we all know that flying is statistically the safest form of transport as percent. This does not mean that we should take such incidents lightly and more over RR shouldn't. (Not that I think they do). I'm saying that the totality of the circumstances including previous incidents does put a little worry in my mind, which honestly as a regular traveler, I've never experienced.

Quoting U2380 (Reply 20):
If the standards of RR engines were unacceptable in any way then they would not be certified at all. Let alone certified to ETOPS standards which, among other things, requires consistent reliability.

If that were true then all the RR powered A380's that had to undergo inspections would not have been flying in the first place. I'm not saying that they have to meet 100% perfection but the issue was very serious and speaking as an engineer, I can definitely understand some things cannot always be tested for.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 21):
The last few years have seen more *publically reported* incidents involving RR engines. That's a very very different thing than more incidents. The actual rate of engine accidents vastly exceeds the public reporting frequency because the vast majority of engine incidents don't make the media.

I do realise that most incidents dont make headlines unless the results are very dire, but on this forum we pretty much know about every incident since we as a.netters check sites like the aviation herald regularly. I'm definitely not referring to just the well publicised incidents.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-10-23 18:51:18 and read 5093 times.

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 22):
There isn't enough margin for error being built into these beasts ... it's being whittled away to save additional weight. It's not like axial turbine engines are something new ... they've been around for 60 years now.

Modern jet engines are the most highly engineered objects created by the human race. And the safety record of the latest ones makes the records of the old ones looks absolutely terrible in comparison...I think we're subject to a little availability bias here...the very jets were *terrible*. Even the early "modern" high bypass engines were absolute disasters compared to the engines we get now.

Quoting kq747 (Reply 25):
I do realise that most incidents dont make headlines unless the results are very dire, but on this forum we pretty much know about every incident

No, we don't. Not even close. As a guy who formerly had to report *all* the incidents on one particular type to the regulators, I'm well aware of exactly how many actually happen relative to how many make the news, how many make av herald, and how many make a.net.

Quoting kq747 (Reply 25):
since we as a.netters check sites like the aviation herald regularly

Av herald does their homework but they don't know everything...only three bodies know everything for a particular type: the engine OEM, the aircraft OEM, and the regulator(s) who issue the type certs to the engine and aircraft. None of them maintain publicly accessible incident databases and they don't share the data pubicly.

Tom.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: traindoc
Posted 2012-10-23 19:23:10 and read 4953 times.

I am not taking these incidents lightly. Nor am I minimizing the risks. However, one cannot say that we are seeing an increase in these incidents without having solid data. There are also more planes flying than ever before, which means that even if the rate of engine failure/shutdown is unchanged, the number of incidents will increase. Certainly the regulatory agencies need to be on top of this issue, especially to identify issues that need corrective action.

And yes, some of these incidents are downright scary and potentially life threatening. Go to YouTube and put in QF 32. There is a 4 part documentary put out by the Australian Broadcast Company. They interview both passengers and pilots and have video footage from both during the flight and also the landing. Imagine being on QF 32 and seeing the left wing with a large hole in it and the edges of aluminum fluttering in the breeze. Without the expertise and cool heads of the cockpit crew, QF 32 would have had a different outcome!

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-10-25 01:45:41 and read 4037 times.

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 14):

No I am not saying thy cannot have failures, just that the worldwide population of the Trent 772 engines are probably doing in excess of 10,000 hrs a day trouble free, probably in excess of 5 million hours a year. That number is increasing as deliveries increase and the airframes are flying more.

Engine related vents are very isolated and often involve complex failures which take a long time to investigate if they occur in somewhere like th US, let alone in Africa.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-10-30 14:36:38 and read 3185 times.

A Thomas Cook Airlines R-R-powered A330-200 en route from LGW to SFB (Orlando Sanford), had an engine problem requiring a shutdown and diversion to KEF on October 26. Following from Transport Canada occurrence reports.

TCX246, Airbus A330-200, enroute from London (EGKK) to Orlando (KSFB), routing NAT Track "B" at 37,000 feet, declared Mayday due to an engine surge and subsequent shutdown of the number two engine. The aircraft initially requested diversion to Shannon (EINN), but changed to Keflavik (BIKF). The aircraft departed Gander Oceanic airspace at 13:36Z without further incident.

Topic: RE: EK A332 Uncontained Engine Failure
Username: TWA772LR
Posted 2012-10-30 14:51:28 and read 3067 times.

It looks like it's just in the area of the fan itself. Judging off the picture of the 2006 incident, it looks like this is a Trent 700 problem, or were these just two bad engines that happen to have this incident?


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/