×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Qantas Airbus

Qantas Airbus

Qantas Airbus

(OP)
Air safety investigators in Australia say they have identified a serious manufacturing fault with engines fitted to Airbus A380 passenger jets.

A misaligned component of the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine used on a Qantas A380 which exploded last month thinned the wall of an oil pipe.

This caused "fatigue cracking", which prompted leakage and ultimately a fire.

RE: Qantas Airbus

The way I heard the report, the oil pipe itself was manufactured with the wall thinner on one side.  Something about the pipe being reamed, and the reamer was misaligned.  Does that sound like a normal manufacturing procedure?

RE: Qantas Airbus

Quote:

"The problem relates to the potential for misaligned oil pipe counter-boring, which could lead to fatigue cracking, oil leakage and potential engine failure from an oil fire within the HP/IP bearing buffer space," the ATSB report said.

Pretty vague description.

The whole store, such that it is, is here http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/exploding-qantas-a380-engine-had-a-potential-defect-air-sfety-bureau-reports/story-e6freuy9-1225964565775

Please remember that mostly everything reported by the press is wrong.

 

RE: Qantas Airbus

from Flight International site ...
"Further examination of the cracked area has identified the axial misalignment of an area of counter-boring within the inner diameter of the stub pipe; the misalignment having produced a localised thinning of the pipe wall on one side. The area of fatigue cracking was associated with the area of pipe wall thinning."

doesn't sound like a manufacturing error ?

also sounds odd (that a misalignment would cause localised thinning) ??

 

RE: Qantas Airbus

(OP)
I know little of aircraft, but the thinning may have been caused by misalignment during fabrication? Thought it was interesting that they had found a possible problem... and, yes, I have a healthy caution for articles in newspapers

Dik

RE: Qantas Airbus

The ATSB has a special gift for obfuscatory language.

Trying to put these little snips of disinformation together, it seems that there is a design requirement to bore out the ID of a tube or pipe for some length.

Why anyone would think this is a good idea is beyond me.

RE: Qantas Airbus

maybe it was an assembly/installation MRB ... that maybe somebody regrets now ?

RE: Qantas Airbus

So, it sounds like a 'counter bore' wasn't adequately aligned with the OD of some kind of 'pipe'.  Remember what the press is calling a pipe, may not be what some of us think of as a typical pipe - it may be some kind of custom fitting or something, not an off the shelf piece of 'pipe'.

This could be a design documentation problem - perhaps the coaxiality of the counterbore to the OD wasn't properly specified.  This requirement is often overlooked on drawings, people often assume that because diameters are shown coaxial in the drawing that's enough, however ASME standard explicitly says there is no implied alignment - you need to explicitly specify how coaxial they are.  I'm not sure how ISO may differ from ASME on this though.

Or it could be a manufacturing problem, the part wasn't to print (MBD whatever) and the QA process didn't catch/prevent it.

Or it could be design problem - the alignment required isn't feasible - though I doubt this.

Or we could be missing a whole bunch of info and it was something else entirely.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Qantas Airbus

Hmm, I'll be interested to see the outcome on this.

One suspects this component may well not have been a completely in house manufactured RR part.  Even if their drawing/MBD, its manufacture may well have been sub contracted.

I wonder if it will end up as one of the samples of 'why the drawing needs to comply to drawing standards' etc.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Qantas Airbus

The c-bore looks like what you get when somebody bumps the table of a milling machine holding a simple fixture, and nobody notices for a while.

 

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: Qantas Airbus

Some inspector some where bought off that part.  However, it may be that the inspection criteria did not look for that issue, which means the root cause would be farther back in the design and manufacturing interface.  In other words, there should have already been inspection criteria in place to catch this.  If it was in place, who ever signed off the part has a serious problem with retaining their inspection position.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources