On the 4th of November 2010, a Qantas Airbus A380 was rocked by a catastrophic engine failure minutes after takeoff from Singapore, hurling fragments of a turbine disk through its wings and fuselage in multiple locations. The explosion damaged almost every major system on the airplane, from the flight controls and fuel tanks to hydraulics and pneumatics. Faced with a barrage of diverse failure warnings and an airplane of uncertain integrity, the flight crew worked together to make a series of critical decisions that would get their enormous airplane back on the ground. And in the end, despite one curveball after another — including landing gear problems, loss of braking power, and an engine that refused to shut down — they not only landed the plane, but did so without putting a scratch on any of the 469 passengers and crew.
The cause of the incident would ultimately be traced deep inside the number two engine to a single oil pipe that had been manufactured with a wall that was slightly too thin. How this seemingly tiny defect came about, and how it nearly brought down the world's largest passenger plane, represent a story equally as fascinating as that of the flight itself, tracing back years to encompass questionable drawing board decisions, hidden flaws in the machining logic, and faulty assumptions about engine behavior. Time and time again, the problem slipped through the gaps in the system, tumbling down the long slope toward disaster — only to be stopped at the last moment, not only by the pilots themselves, but by a number of explicit protections built into the design of the A380, each of which played a crucial role in containing the fallout from a failure that exceeded the manufacturer's worst expectations. The story of Qantas flight 32, as told herein, is therefore not only the tale of a dramatic emergency, but a testament to the safety of aviation today — a story that should make every reader feel a little less fearful of flight.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday September 02, @08:31PM
When talking about the wall thickness of hydraulic tubing, 1mm less thickness can make a huge difference in performance, from robust to prone to rupture. Add to this the usage regime where transient pressure spikes are a rare test of the system's integrity and failure can happen at very inconvenient times - detectability is an important part of risk analysis.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AnonTechie on Wednesday September 02, @08:42PM (1 child)
I remember seeing this video about the flight, and the ensuing investigation:
Air Crash Investigation Qantas Flight 32: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHIgsSwE6Mc [youtube.com]
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Thursday September 03, @01:12AM
And I remember United flight 232 in 1989, which was mentioned in the article as one of the most infamous incidents of turbofan failure. It's amazing that they were able to crash land gently enough that only 1/3 of the passengers died, rather than everyone. I saw the nightly news about United 232 the day it happened. They showed an interview with a hysterical father rushing to see his son, babbling that his son had actually wanted to be in a crash.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Snort on Wednesday September 02, @08:54PM
In my Soylent news?
Interesting turn of events. He does quality deep dives but I wouldn't exactly call it news.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02, @09:12PM (2 children)
The lady who designed the undercarriage of the A380 made me a bacon sandwich.
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Thursday September 03, @12:02AM
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03, @01:13AM
Was her name Sudo?