Qantas Flight 32
Airbus A380-842 · Uncontained engine failure
From London Heathrow Airport (LHR) to Sydney Kingsford Smith International Airport (SYD)
Event
- Event typeAccident: someone killed or seriously injured, or the aircraft substantially damaged (NTSB definition). Incident: an occurrence that affected or could have affected safety, short of that. Glossary
- Accident
- Event fatalities
- 0 · all aircraft and ground
- Ground fatalities
- Unknown
- Occupants
- 469
- Survivors
- 469
- InjuriesFatal: death within 30 days. Serious: over 48 hours in hospital within a week, most broken bones, severe bleeding, nerve or organ damage, or serious burns. Minor: anything less. Glossary
- Unknown
- OperationWhat kind of flying it was, grouped by the rules it flew under: airline (US Part 121), air taxi and commuter (Part 135), general aviation (Part 91 and similar), military or government. Glossary
- Airline
Airbus A380-842
- Flight
- QF32
- Aircraft type
- Airbus A380
- Category
- Airplane · from aircraft type
- RegistrationThe aircraft's tail number, such as N12345 or G-ABCD. Registrations are reissued, so the same one years apart can be a different aircraft. Glossary
- VH-OQA
- Operator
- Qantas
- Onboard fatalities
- 0
- Route
- From London Heathrow Airport (LHR)To Sydney Kingsford Smith International Airport (SYD)
Cause areas
- Aircraft › Aircraft power plant
From the investigation findings the Wikipedia article reports, sorted into the NTSB's cause areas with AI assistance.
Approximate · Coordinates from the Wikipedia article; not checked against an investigation report.
From the Wikipedia article
Qantas Flight 32 was a regularly scheduled passenger flight from London to Sydney via Singapore. On 4 November 2010, the Airbus A380 operating the route suffered an uncontained failure in one of its four Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines. The failure occurred over the Riau Islands, Indonesia, four minutes after takeoff from Singapore Changi Airport. After holding for almost two hours to assess the situation, the aircraft made a successful emergency landing at Changi. No injuries occurred to the passengers, crew, or people on the ground, despite debris from the aircraft falling onto houses in Batam.
On inspection, it was found that a turbine disc in the aircraft's number-two engine (on the port side nearer the fuselage) had disintegrated, causing extensive damage to the nacelle, wing, fuel system, landing gear, flight controls, and engine controls, and a fire in a fuel tank that self-extinguished. The subsequent investigation concluded that the failure had been caused by the breaking of a stub oil pipe, which had been manufactured improperly.
The failure was the first of its kind for the A380, the world's largest passenger aircraft. At the time of the accident, 39 A380s were operating with five airlines: Qantas, Air France, Emirates, Lufthansa, and Singapore Airlines. The accident led to the temporary grounding of the rest of the six-plane Qantas A380 fleet. It also led to groundings, inspections, and engine replacements on some other Rolls-Royce-powered A380s in service with Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines, but not in the A380 fleets of Air France or Emirates, which were powered by Engine Alliance engines.
Accident
The accident, at 10:01 am Singapore Standard Time (02:01 UTC), was caused by an uncontained failure of the port inboard (number-two) engine, while en route over Batam Island, Indonesia.
Shrapnel from the engine punctured part of the wing and damaged the fuel system, causing leaks and a fuel-tank fire, disabled one hydraulic system and the anti-lock braking system, caused the number-one and number-four engines to go into a "degraded" mode, and damaged landing flaps and the controls for the outer left number-one engine.
The crew, after finding the plane controllable, decided to fly a holding pattern close to Singapore Changi Airport, while assessing the status of the aircraft. Completing this initial assessment took 50 minutes. The first officer and supervising check captain (SCC) then put the plane's status into the landing distance performance application (LDPA) for a landing 50 tonnes over maximum landing weight at Changi. Based on these inputs, the LDPA could not calculate a landing distance. After discussion, the crew elected to remove inputs related to a wet runway, in the knowledge that the runway was dry. The LDPA then returned the information that the landing was feasible with 100 m of runway remaining. The flight then returned to Changi Airport, landing safely after the crew extended the landing gear by a gravity drop emergency extension system, at 11:45 am Singapore time. As a result of the aircraft landing 35 kn faster than normal, four tyres were blown.
Upon landing, the crew was unable to shut down the number-one engine, which had to be doused by emergency crews until flameout was achieved. The pilots considered whether to evacuate the plane immediately after landing, as fuel was leaking from the left wing near to the brakes, which were assumed to be extremely hot from maximum braking. The SCC pilot, David Evans, noted in an interview, The plane was on battery power and had to contend with only one VHF radio to coordinate emergency procedure with the local fire crew.
No injuries were reported among the 440 passengers and 29 crew on board the plane. On Batam Island, some debris fell on a school, some houses, and a car.
Flight crew
The pilot in command of the aircraft, Captain Richard Champion de Crespigny, has been credited in the media as "having guided a heavily damaged double-decker jet to the safety of Singapore Changi Airport and averting what could have been a catastrophe". At the time of the accident, he had 35 years of flying experience. He was commended for debriefing the passengers in the passenger terminal after the flight, disclosing details of the flight and offering care for his passengers. In 2016, Champion de Crespigny was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for significant service to the aviation industry, both nationally and internationally, particularly to flight safety, and to the community.
In 2010, Richard Woodward, a vice president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, reported that five pilots were in the cockpit of this flight. In addition to the normal crew of pilot-in-command and co-pilot, there was an experienced relief pilot and two additional check captains; one was being trained as a check captain (CC) and the supervising CC, who was training the CC. Captain Champion de Crespigny concentrated on flying and managing the aircraft while the co-pilot focused on monitoring and sifting through the 100 electronic centralised aircraft monitor (ECAM) checklists. The supernumerary pilots monitored all actions and assisted where necessary.
Investigation and cause
Investigation
The investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) indicated that "fatigue cracking" in a stub pipe within the engine resulted in oil leakage, followed by an oil fire in the engine. The fire led to the release of the intermediate-pressure turbine (IPT) disc. It also said the issue is specific to the Trent 900.
Rolls-Royce determined that the direct cause of the oil fire and resulting engine failure was a misaligned counter bore within a stub oil pipe, leading to a fatigue fracture. The ATSB's preliminary investigation report confirmed Rolls-Royce's findings.
Airbus determined that the IPT disc released three different high-energy fragments, resulting in structural and systems damage. It also concluded that segregated wiring routes were cut by two of the three individual pieces of disc debris and as a result, engine number one could not be shut down after landing.
On 10 November 2010, the European Aviation Safety Agency issued an emergency airworthiness directive, ordering airlines using the Trent 900 engine to conduct frequent and stringent tests – extended ground idle runs, low-pressure turbine (LPT) stage-one blade and case drain inspections, and high-pressure/intermediate-pressure (HP/IP) structure air-buffer cavity and oil-service tube inspections. However, on 22 November, the EASA eased its inspection guidelines, citing progress in the investigation. It dropped requirements for extended ground idle runs and requirements for repetitive inspections of the LPT stage-one blades and case drain.
On 2 December 2010, the ATSB recommended a one-off inspection of the "relevant" Trent 900 engines within two flight cycles.
On 3 December 2010, the ATSB issued a preliminary report that contained a key finding of a manufacturing flaw: An area of fatigue cracking was found within a stub pipe that feeds oil to the engine HP/IP bearing structure. Bearing lubricating oil leaked from the crack, causing the subsequent engine fire and failure of the IPT disc. The fatigue fracture was a result of the misalignment of the stub pipe during the counter-boring process. That inaccurate alignment resulted in one side of the same stub pipe becoming too thin to resist fatigue fracturing. This "could lead to an elevated risk of fatigue crack initiation and growth, oil leakage, and potential catastrophic engine failure from a resulting oil fire," according to the agency.
The findings were determined to be a "critical safety issue", and the ATSB recommended immediate inspections of in-service Trent 900 engines. On 8 December, the ATSB reported that 45 Trent 900 engines had been inspected, and three of these engines had failed inspection and had been removed from service. On 18 May 2011, the ATSB released an interim factual report, which states that 53 Trent 900 engines were removed from service — 11 due to out-of-tolerance oil-feed stub pipes and 42 due to lack of measurement records relating to the oil-feed stub pipe.
The event highlighted the limitations of current alerting systems. The failure generated more than 80 ECAM alerts, whose treatment took over an hour to complete.
Text from the Wikipedia article “Qantas Flight 32” (revision 1374701359, retrieved 2026-09-18) by its authors, under CC BY-SA 4.0. Extracted as plain text: references, tables, images and some sections are left out. Read the article
Sources
Wikipedia article: Qantas Flight 32
- Article
- Qantas Flight 32
- Revision
- 1374701359 · 2026-09-13 · retrieved 2026-09-18
- Wikidata
- Q1135895
- Licence
- Text CC BY-SA 4.0, by the article's authors; Wikidata CC0; town positions GeoNames (CC BY 4.0)
Where each value comes from
- Record
- Wikipedia article "Qantas Flight 32" (page 29468460, revision 1374701359)
- Date
- Wikipedia infobox: date
- Place and country
- Wikipedia infobox: site
- Map position
- Wikipedia article coordinates
- Aircraft, operator and route
- Wikipedia infobox: aircraft type, registration, operator, origin and destination; route airports from the linked airport articles' Wikidata codes (OurAirports)
- Operation
- airline flight number in the infobox
- Fatalities
- Wikipedia infobox: aircraft fatalities
- Ground fatalities
- not stated in the Wikipedia infobox
- Summary
- Wikipedia infobox: summary
Source notes (1)
- Wikipedia · Facts from the Wikipedia article's infobox and coordinates, not checked against an investigation report. Independent review pending.