Analysis of Airbus A380 Engine Failure Above Bantam Island - Research Paper Example

INTRODUCTION It was reported that Airbus A380 that departed Changi International Airport for Sidney, Australia on November 4th, 2010 at 1:56 hours UTC experienced Uncontained Engine Turbine Failure and other system failures (ATSB 2010). This event presents a situation where the integration of the various aircraft systems led to the successful landing of the crippled plane. It also presents a situation where the failure of one system may lead to failure of other systems in the aircraft, and consequently lead to the crippling of the plane. EVALUATION OF ALL THE AVAILABLE RELEVANT INFORMATION All the relevant and available information regarding the aircraft’s system failures, system integration, Crew Resource Management, and tech recorders among others were evaluated, and the following information regarding the situation was summarized. Flight history The aircraft (Airbus A380) departed Changi International Airport for Sidney, Australia on November 4th, 2013 at 01:57 hours UTC. This aircraft (Airbus A380 whose registration number is VH-OQA) carried a total of 469 passengers (that is, 440 passengers and 29 members of the crew) (ATSB 2010). During that day of the flight, the weather was favorable and was described by the metrological department of Changi International Airport as a clear and sunny Singapore day. After an approximate of 6 minutes after the takeoff of the plane (that is, at 02:02 hours UTC), and as the aircraft was climbing 7000 feet over Bantam Island in Indonesia, it was reported that the crew members hard several loud banging sounds (ATSB, 2010). These banging sounds were followed by ECAM (Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor) messages. These alerts were more than 50 in number and indicated that the aircraft’s Number 2 engine experienced a catastrophic failure. Immediately, the crew members initiated a holding pattern then started to diagnose the problem. After approximately 50 minutes (that is at 14:52 UTC) the crew members decided to return to Changi International Airport in Singapore and attempt to land (ATSB 2010). At 16:32 hours UTC, the crew members managed to land the aircraft successfully with only one engine operating fully, with a maximum landing weight (MLW) of more than 50000 pounds, and in absence of the aircraft’s anti-lock brakes. Also, the aircraft was stopped at a distance of approximately 450 feet from the runway end (ATSB 2010). Reported Injuries No passenger nor crew member was injured during the incident. However, two people sustained minor injuries in the Island (Batam Island). Basic Information of the ill-feted aircraft Table 1: Basic Information of the ill-feted aircraft (ATSB 2010) Manufacturer Airbus Aircraft Type A380-842 Total flight hours 8,533.02 hours Aircraft’s serial number MSN 0014 Manufacturing date 2008 Registration certification date September 4th, 2008 Airworthiness certification date September 18th, 2008 Aircraft’s total cycle 1,843 Engine Type Rolls-Royce Trend 900 Aircraft Structure damage The disintegration of engine number 2, as indicated by investigations, produced some debris that struck (hit) the aircraft’s fuselage. Pieces of IP (Intermediate Pressure) turbine disc penetrated the aircraft’s left-wing leading edge inboard of the number 2 engine (ATSB 2010). This resulted in the damage of the structure of the wing’s leading edge. The wing’s upper surfaces, as well as wing spar on the front part, were also damaged by the penetration of the turbine disk. Also, sections of the failed turbine disc found their ways into the aircraft’s fairing left wing-to-fuselage. This resulted in the damage of a number of the aircraft system components and wiring systems. This penetration also damaged the aircraft’s fuselage structure. The lower surface of the aircraft’s left wing was not spared from the damage. The damaging of the lower surface of the left-wing resulted in the leaking of fuel from the fuel feed tank for the Number 2 engine. Also, the inner fuel tank of the left-wing was damaged (Daily Mail 2012). Aircraft’s engine failure and failure of other systems From the evaluation and analysis of the available information, it was found out that engine number 2 of the aircraft (A380) suffered a catastrophic failure, and it was difficult to contain the engine by its fairing, and as a result the debris from the damaged engine severed the aircraft and caused some damage to the aircraft’s fuselage (Daily Mail 2012). Figure 1: External configuration of the damaged engine (engine No. 2) (ATSB 2010) The failure of the engine as a result of several events that led to the failure of the various critical systems of the aircraft. According to investigations and close analysis of tech records such as non-mandatory recorder, flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder the failure of the aircraft's engine was a result of the failure of the engine oil system (Gordon 2010). As a result of the failure of the engine oil system, oil fire was initiated, and this led to the disintegration of the engine’s intermediate pressure disc (also known as IP turbine disc), the debris from the failed engine found their way into the aircraft’s left-wing and penetrated it, they also cut aircraft’s fuel system which resulted into leaking of the fuel (Qantas 2010). This debris also damaged the aircraft’s hydraulic systems. The damaging of the aircraft’s hydraulic system led to the failure of the aircraft’s antilock braking system. This, in turn, forced engine number 1 and number to 4 in a model known as the degraded mode. It also led to the damage of aircraft’s flaps as well as engine 1 reverser. Also, four tires of the aircraft were blown out as a result of overweight experienced during emergency landing (ATSB 2010). It is also important to note that the aircraft was using Trent 9000 series engines from Rolls Royce. Figure 2: Trent 900 engine and position of IP system (ATSB 2010) The cause of the aircraft’s oil system failure From the analysis of the available information, it is found out that the failure of the aircraft’s oil system was a result of fatigue that occurred in a stub pipe of the engine’s oil system (Australian Transportation Safety Bureau 2011). According to investigations, the fatigue that developed in the stub pipe was as a result of misalignment of the counterbore in the stub oil pipe. Fatigue of the stub pipe resulted in fatigue failure of the pipe which resulted in the development of cracks along the stub pipe. The cracks in the stub pipe led to the leaking of engine oil, and because the engine is extremely hot, the ignition point (temperature) of the oil was and oil fire was caused in the engine (Stewart 2011). Oil fire led to the (release) failure of the Intermediate Pressure Turbine disc (also known as, IPT). Figure 3: Misalignment of the stub pipe (ATSB, 2010) Crew Resource Management (also known as CRM) and Crew response The Crew Resource Management (abbreviated as CRM) played a critical role in ensuring that the plane landed safety even though only one engine was fully operational (Maurino & Salas 2010 ). Crew Resource Management is described as effective employment of all resources available such as humans and systems related aviation among others in trying to solve an emergency (Maurino & Salas 2010 ). In general, CRM involves the following: a) Problem solving, b) Adaptability, c) Team work, d) Situational Awareness, e) and Communication among others. (Maurino & Salas 2010 ) The crew of the ill-fated Airbus A380 utilized the CRM effectively, and this ensured the safe landing of the plane. Otherwise, according to investigations that were carried out, the situation could have been very dire (Stewart 2011). First, the crew members showed a high level of adaptability to the ever-changing conditions that existed onboard. Besides, the crew members were able to use other resources in making informed decisions and improving their situational awareness. In addition to the factors (adaptability, communication, teamwork, and problem-solving among others), the aircraft’s (the ill-fated A380) CRM included: i. Standard crew (that is, Second Officer, First Officer, and the Captain), ii. Route Check Captain iii. Supervisory Check Captain, and iv. A passenger pilot. (Qantas 2010) How Crew Resource Management enhanced pilots’ responses A standard procedure was initiated immediately as a way of responding to the situation, and this case the Captain’s responsibility was to fly the damaged aircraft, and the two officers (First and Second Officers) took the responsibility of troubleshooting and decoding the error or failure messages that relayed by the ECAM system (Qantas, 2010). These alerts assisted in evaluating the condition of the damaged aircraft. It is also required that during such emergencies specific duties must be assigned to the two specific captains as their duties will be solely consultations (that is, they will be acting as consultants). As consultants, they are responsible for providing expertise information regarding way forward about ECAM messages and/or alerts. As of this aircraft, the two officers were not designated specific roles but acted as consultants as required by aviation legislations. The ill-fated aircraft also had two additional crew members who provided information regarding decisions that were to be made concerning the landing of the plane. This is how the crew members integrated the various factors of CRM in ensuring that the aircraft landed safely regardless of the fact it was damaged severely. Communication – According to Sullivan (2010), it was through effective communication between controllers of the air traffic (ATC) in Singapore and crew members that the aircraft was able to maintain a distance of approximately 35 miles from the Chang International Airport such that in case there is sudden need of landing, the aircraft would be able to land safely. Also, effective communication between the crew members and passengers ensured that all the procedures were followed and calmness was maintained in the aircraft. Problem solving – According to Maurino & Salas (2010), it was because of the high problem-solving skills of the crew members that their decisions were not paralleled. The crew members had a wealth of knowledge of the situation they were facing and the condition of the aircraft. This was attributed to the wealth experience of crew members as some of them had flight experiences of more 71000 hours. This experience enabled crew members to improve their decision-making skills and throughout the flight, appropriate actions were undertaken by the crew members. Situational awareness – The crew members were able to effectively assess the situation in which the aircraft was in; otherwise, the problem could result into one of the worst aircraft disasters in history since the crew could have not taken all the necessary steps that resulted into the safe landing of the aircraft (Maurino & Salas 2010 ). Complexity and aircraft technological advancement has led to the development of computerized monitoring systems in aircraft. These helped in enhancing the understanding of situations in which aircrafts are. As of this case, the ill-fated aircraft was equipped with the ECAM system (also known as an Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitoring system). This system contributed significantly to informing the crew members of the condition of the aircraft damaged engine as well as the condition of other damaged systems. It is through the integration of crew members’ knowledge and experience with the ECAM system that the crew members were able to effectively decode more than 50 alerts (ECAM system alerts) and act appropriately (ATSB 2010). Also, as a way of enhancing the CRM Second offer took some visual inspections of the damaged aircraft and the pilot who boarded the plane as a passenger took some visual inspection, and observed that fuel was leaking (ATSB 2010). Effective integration of Crew Resource management with the aircraft’s computerized monitoring system ensured that the crippled aircraft landed safely regardless of the fact out of four engines only one was operating to its full potential. TIMELINE OF EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE FROM ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE AND INTEGRATION PERSPECTIVE Events that took place from engineering perspective From an engineering perspective, the events that took place in this incident that are engineering in nature other than human factors are stated below, and in this order: i. Development of Fatigue in stub pipe of the aircraft’s oil system. ii. Development of fractures along the stub pipe. iii. Leaking of oil into the Intermediate pressure chamber. iv. Starting of fire in engine. (starting of ECAM alerts) v. Disintegration of the engine. vi. Debris from the engine destroying the aircraft’s fuselage and other systems such as electrical systems, and hydraulic system. vii. Failure of the aircraft’s hydraulic system. viii. Damage and failure of the aircraft’s antilock braking system. (ATSB 2010) Timeline of events as recorded Table 2: Timeline of events as recorded (ATSB 2010) Time UTC Event Comment 0156:47 Aircraft took-off from Changi Airport Thrust of the engine was 72% 0200:22 Pressure and temperature of Number 2 engine began to deviate from normal values Pressure of engine oil decreasing Temperature of engine increasing 0200:59 Engine 2 Vibration increases 0201:08 Activation of engine Number 2 turbine overheat parameter 0201:11 Indication of turbine failure Turbine disc fails 0336.38 Cockpit voice recorder begins to record 0346:47 The plane lands in Chang Airport 0349:05 Engine number 3 is shutdown 0349:08 Engine number 4 is shutdown 0349:15 An attempt shut down of Engine number 1 How the events took place The failure of the engine of the aircraft (A380) as a result of number events that led to the failure of the various critical systems of the aircraft. According to investigations and close analysis of tech records such as non-mandatory recorder, flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder the failure of the aircraft's engine was a result of the failure of the engine oil system (ATSB 2010). As a result of the failure of the engine oil system, oil fire was initiated, and this led to the disintegration of the engine’s intermediate pressure disc (also known as IP turbine disc), the debris from the failed engine found their way into the aircraft’s left-wing and penetrated it, they also cut aircraft’s fuel system which resulted into leaking of the fuel (ATSB 2010). This debris also damaged the aircraft’s hydraulic systems. The damaging of the aircraft’s hydraulic system led to the failure of the aircraft’s antilock braking system. This, in turn, forced engine number 1 and number to 4 in a model known as the degraded mode. It also led to the damage of aircraft’s flaps as well as engine 1 reverser. Besides, four tires of the aircraft were blown out as a result of overweight experienced during the emergency landing. Events that took place from integration perspective For an aircraft to operate effectively many systems must work together (integrated), these systems include electrical systems, hydraulic systems, computer systems, braking systems, and the Crew Resource Management system among other systems (ATSB 2010). It is because of the integration of several systems that the successful landing of the aircraft was achieved even though it was crippled (it only had one engine fully operational) (Qantas 2010). This how the systems interpreted together to ensure that all the emergency actions that were undertaken were a success. The failure of the oil system triggered the aircraft’s ECAM system (ATSB 2010). The ECAM system responded by sending alerts to the pilots thereby triggering the aircraft’s CRM system. The Crew Resource Management system then initiated procedures that led to the recurring of the plane. Also, the failure of the electrical system as a result of being severed by engine debris the aircraft’s ECAM system responded by sending alerts to the pilots thereby was triggering the aircraft’s CRM system. The cause of the starting of engine fire also triggered the aircraft’s ECAM system that led to the launching of the aircraft's fire extinguishing system. Also, the failure of the hydraulic system triggered the ECAM system. The alerts from the ECAM system enabled the pilots to respond accordingly to the problems the aircraft was facing (ATSB 2010). The effective employment was due to the efficient experience and skills of the crew members. WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THE INCIDENT WOULD HAVE BEEN ETOPS AT ITS MAXIMUM RANGE If this case could have been the case ETOPS, and that the aircraft was operating at maximum range with normal crew complement, the aircraft could have still landed safely. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (abbreviated and also known as FAA), ETOPS means extended operations (Qantas 2010). This rule allows multi-engine aircraft to fly travel routes that are certain travel times from the nearest airports (Qantas 2010). For example, if an aircraft has an ETOPS of 180 minutes, it means that the aircraft is allowed to fly any route provided that the aircraft is within 180 minutes of travel time from the nearest airport. It is important to note that ETPS directives do not take into consideration travel over waters, and applies to flights involving single engines airfields diversions. As a safety measure, Federal Aviation Administration requires that during any diversion flight, the diverted aircraft would fly to the nearest airport safely with the chances of the engine that is remaining to fail are very low, and that the crew members would be able to operate the aircraft without them being overburdened due to increased workload as a result of the lost engines (Qantas 2010). Therefore, provided that the aircraft is within the maximum ETOPS range the aircraft would land safely with normal crew complement (without necessarily overburdening the crew members). THE INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE EVENT Industry and Financial Implications of the accident As a result of the incident (failure of the A380 engine) led to many financial implications were inevitable. Examples of the financial implications of the accident are discussed in the paragraphs below. Reduction in the shares of Rolls-Royce Public Limited Company After the incident, the prices of shares of Rolls-Royce Plc. fell tremendously. It was estimated that share prices fell by 5.5 percent in the London Stock Exchange; this worst fall of the company’s shares in 18 months (Milmo & Webb 2010). The prices of the Company further slumped by 10 percent a week after the accident. Temporary grounding of A380 and engine replacement The incident led to the grounding A380 aircraft particularly those that used Rolls-Royce 900 series engines (Drew & Clark 2010). Grounding means that the Company (Qantas) was losing a lot of money as a result of missing flights as well as canceling and rescheduling of flights. Also a lot of money spent on the replacement as well as repairing the damaged sections of the aircraft. Payment of Compensations Because of damages caused to Qantas by the failure of the Rolls-Royce T900 series engine, Rolls-Royce had to compensate Qantas. Qantas also had to pay compensation to passengers for their delayed and/or canceled flights. In addition to compensation, repairs cost the company (Rolls-Royce Plc.) a lot of money; this cost was estimated to be $145 million (Millward 2010). All the four aircrafts engines were replaced and it's left-wing repaired. Besides, an approximate of 6 kilometers of wiring was replaced. On-ground testing activities were also carried out extensively. Issuing of airworthiness-directive As repairs of the ill-fated aircraft were underway, some cracks were observed on the aircraft’s wings. This led to the issuing of Airworthiness-directive that other A380s and these aircraft were inspected. This directive affected A380 aircraft that had accumulated more than 1300 flight hours as well those that have accumulated more than 1800 flight hours (Millward, 2010). During the directive these aircraft did not operate, therefore, Qantas was losing lots of money. Besides, other costs were incurred while the aircrafts were being inspected of airworthiness (Millward 2010). The effect of incident on Rolls-Royces T900 engines as the engines for a380 aircrafts A380 aircraft can operate successfully by either GP7200 engines or Trend 900 engines. The Trend 900 engines are built by Rolls-Royce Plc. while GP7200 engines are manufactured by a venture between Pratt & Whitney and General Electric Co. (Drew & Clark 2010). If the problem continues, Qantas and other companies that prefer the Rolls-Royce T900 engine as the engine of choice would lose confidence in the engine. As a result, these Companies may divert their attention to GP7200 engines which are built by a venture between Pratt & Whitney and General Electric Co (Drew & Clark 2010). The consequence of this is that Rolls-Royce would lose its market share as well as sales to its rivals. This would lead to slumping of prices shares price Rolls-Royce share prices. Therefore, so that Rolls-Royce maintains it's market share as well as gains more market share, it should deal with the problem effectively and make sure that such a problem, as well as other engine failures, does not occur in the future. References ATSB., 2010. In-flight uncontained engine failure overhead Batam Island, Indonesia 4 November 2010 VH-OQA Airbus A380-842. Canberra: Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Australian Transportation Safety Bureau., 2011. Inflight engine failure - Qantas, Airbus A380, VH-OQA, overhead Batam Island, Indonesia, 4 November 2010. [online] Available at: Australian Transportation Safety Bureau: [Accessed March 2, 2013] Daily Mail., 2012. Airbus A380 superjumbo under fire AGAIN as engine failure forces Singapore Airlines to turn back three hours into flight. [online] Available at: Mail Online: [Accessed March 2, 2013] Drew, K., & Clark, N., 2010. 3 Airlines Halt A380 Flights Over Engine Explosion. [online] Available at: New York Times: [Accessed March 2, 2013] Gordon, S., 2010. Engine failure on Qantas A380 spotted by off-duty pilot using in-flight entertainment. [online] Available at: Daily Mail: [Accessed March 2, 2013] Maurino, D., & Salas, E., 2010 . Human Factors in Aviation. Burlington: Elsevier. Millward, D., 2010. Qantas Engine Failure is Latest Blow for A380. [online] Available at: Telegraph: [Accessed March 2, 2013] Milmo, D., & Webb, T., 2010. Rolls-Royce Faces Backlash in US over Qantas A380 Engine. [online] Available at: The Guardian: [Accessed March 2, 2013] Qantas., 2010. Statement on QF32 Air Return to Singapore - Aircraft has Landed Safely. [online] Available at: Qantas: [Accessed March 2, 2013] Stewart, J., 2011. ATSB Report Praises QF32 Pilots. Sidney: ATSB . Read More