Breaking news - Qantas A380 in trouble near Singapore

[PSi]

Some reports say crash, some say just engine trouble.
Google news for latest.

Qantas says QF32 did not crash. Emergency landing 45 mins out of Changi Airport.

[sheerluck]

Latest I've heard is definitely not a crash, but a (single) major engine failure, with a return to Singapore "as a precaution".

Heard reports of engine parts falling on Indonesia somewhere.

[VladTepes]

A Qantas jet carrying 459 people has made a dramatic emergency landing in Singapore after one of its engines exploded over Indonesia.
The explosion occurred over the Indonesian island of Batam shortly after the Sydney-bound QF32 flight took off from Singapore's Changi Airport on Thursday morning.
Qantas said the Airbus A380 plane's second engine had "shut down".
"In line with procedure, the pilot sought priority clearance for its return to Singapore," Qantas said in a statement.
"The aircraft landed safely at 11.45am local time (1445 AEDT).
"Some media reports suggested the aircraft had crashed.
"These reports are incorrect.
"No Qantas aircraft has crashed."
The plane was carrying 433 passengers and 26 crew, Qantas said.
An Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokeswoman said no passengers or crew were injured.
"Australian High Commission staff are on their way to Changi airport to assist passengers if required," she said.
Six fire engines swarmed the aircraft as soon is it landed on the tarmac, according to an AFP reporter at the airport.
"I can see smoke coming out of it," the reporter said.
"One of the engines on the left wing looks blown off. It is black and has jagged edges."
The explosion rained metal debris on a downtown area of Batam but there were no reports of injuries.
Pictures on local television showed the red and white Qantas logo on some of the debris.
The explosion sparked widespread online rumours the plane had crashed but they were soon disproved.
Witnesses said the explosion had been very loud and they had seen flames coming from the plane.
"Before the parts started falling I heard a very loud explosion," one witness, Devi, told the local Antara news agency.
"It sounded like a bomb."
It is believed to be the first time one of the giant, double-decker Airbus planes has experienced a mid-air emergency since its first commercial flight in October 2007.
Since then, fuel and computer glitches have grounded several A380s and at least one Air France flight was forced to turn around and land in New York after problems with its navigation system in November 2009.
Qantas has never suffered a fatal crash.



that last buit is bull**** for a start !


A Qantas A380 passenger jet has landed safely in Singapore after a "mechanical issue" caused part of the engine to fall to the ground.

Pilots on flight QF32, en-route to Sydney, were forced to turn off one of the Airbus A380's four engines but a spokeswoman for Qantas could not say why.

NEWSWATCH: Do you have photos? Do you know anyone on the plane? Contact us online or call the Nine newsroom on 02 9965 2170.

The double-decker plane, carrying 433 passengers and 26 crew, landed safely at Changi Airport at 11.45am local time. All passengers and crew are safe.


"There's definitely been no crash," a Qantas spokeswoman said.

"We're just waiting on a report."

A photograph of the plane on the tarmac at Changi Airport shows the back half engine number two blown off.

Witnesses reported hearing an explosion as the jet flew overhead.

Debris has fallen on the island of Batam, about 20km off Singapore's south coast, where parts of the plane have been found in an industrial area of the island.

Witnesses reported seeing "metal shards coming from the sky" while photographs obtained by Indonesian news agencies show debris with the Qantas logo lying on the ground.


"I didn't see a plane crash but I heard a loud explosion in the air. There were metal shards coming down from the sky into an industrial area in Batam," witness Noor Kanwa told AFP.

Other locals said they weren't sure whether the debris was from the wing or engine, but said some parts were up to 1m long.

"Before the parts started falling I heard a very loud explosion," witness Devi told the local Antara news agency.

"It sounded like a bomb."


Another witness described hearing a screeching sound before the explosion, and said Batam residents came out of their homes to observe the high-tech superjumbo circling as it used up its fuel before attempting to land.

"I was driving near a residential estate when suddenly I heard a thunderous braking sound," 35-year-old driver Ricky, 35, said.

"I thought it was an explosion but when I looked up I saw a plane going round and round and there was smoke coming out of its tail.

"Then three or four pieces of metal fell from the sky ... they fell into a field," he added.

"Dozens of residents rushed out of their homes to see what was going on. They looked excited. In Batam it's common to see planes taking off from Singapore and flying over us. But we didn't expect to see something like this."

Batam police officer Bobby Baharudin said debris was "scattered over Batam".

"Most of it fell in residential areas. There's a part that looks like a door and shards of aluminum," he said.

Six fire engines immediately surrounded the aircraft as soon as it landed on the tarmac, spraying it with brown liquid.

"I can see smoke coming out of it," an AFP reporter said.

"One of the engines on the left wing looks blown off. It is black and has jagged edges."

Police Col Eka Yudha was quoted on Indonesia's TVOne as saying the plane, capable of carrying up to 500 passengers, began dumping fuel before attempting an emergency landing.

The incident is the first mid-air emergency involving the giant, double-decker Airbus plane which made it's first commercial flight operated by Singapore Airlines on the same Singapore-Sydney route in October 2007.

Since then, fuel and computer glitches have grounded several A380s and at least one Air France flight was forced to turn around and land in New York after problems with its navigation system in November 2009.

Anyone concerned for the welfare of family or friends on board Qantas flight 32 from Singapore to Sydney are advised to try to contact them directly.

DFAT has also set up a hotline on 1300 555 135

Some of that can obviously be taken with a pacific ocean full of salt !

DFAT will set up a hotline for anything now, apparently.

[sheerluck]

There's pics now on the Courier Mail (http://www.couriermail.com.au/)website. The plane looks a little sorry for itself with most of the back half of an engine cowling in bits, a small amount of damage to the wing skin itself, and what to the untrained eye looks like engine parts scattered over part of Batam.

And I think the article should have made the statement "Qantas have never suffered a fatal jet airliner crash", being as the last one was a de Havilland in 1951.

[85 county]

picture 11 & 12 are tubine , hot end. there is a video floating around on how RR make these, single crystal molding.

[flagg]

"Safety will not be compromised in any way" - Qantas maintenance chief David Cox

[rockyroad]

A brand new airbus 380, mmmmm gonna be interesting.

[101RRS]

A brand new airbus 380, mmmmm gonna be interesting.

Well not quite - that aircraft has been flying commercially since 2007.

[THE BOOGER]

Seems the media in singapore is about the same as ours to get some of those photos they would have to have collected all the outer panels and put them in one place to make a good photo as they would have floated down all over batam. On a plane that age turbine failure is a bit premature so airbus or RR might have some explaining to do wonder how many hrs up on that engine;)

[sheerluck]

Well not quite - that aircraft has been flying commercially since 2007.

The particular bird that's broken (VH-OQA - Nancy-Bird Walton) was completed on August 19th 2008 and operated it's first flight for Qantas on 24th October 2008.

So compared to some of the old knackers that Qantas have, this one is just about brand new.

(Just hope that Qantas took out the extended warranty :D)

[PSi]

Just two years old ... I have Made-in-China power tools older than that which still work :D

[Blknight.aus]

shall we take bets and guesses as to what caused it?

my money says it was a combustion chamber failure.

[sheerluck]

shall we take bets and guesses as to what caused it?

my money says it was a combustion chamber failure.

Not timing belt snapped then:p

[Blknight.aus]

no, too late in the production run, they were back to chains by then...

might have been a loose oil pump bolt.

[85 county]

shall we take bets and guesses as to what caused it?

my money says it was a combustion chamber failure.


turbine ring or tubine blade and then ring failure. some one was running to high EGTs

cold starts and not hours are the issues with jets. hours are for piston motors

[Blknight.aus]

Id have expected the damage to be much more catastrophic to the engine engine casing if it had had a wheel failure....

although I could see it being a final stage wheel... hmmm anyone got a link to the layout of the 380 donk?

heres the vid of a blade off....

YouTube - A380 Blade Off Test!

[Blknight.aus]

just caught some new pics from the 10 late news.

looks like theres damage to the upper surface of the wing not great footage but it almost looks like something came up through the skins..

according to the Quantas spokes person, I missed his name and job (but I'll be he was someone in charge of something somwhere that has to do with the money saved on servicing... "I think we'll find that it was a defect in a blade and thats a manufacturing problem not a maintenance issue"

[LOVEMYRANGIE]

shall we take bets and guesses as to what caused it?

my money says it was a combustion chamber failure.

Its a MAF issue.......

overboost possibly from faulty modulator......

Ooh oooh, what about fuel in the oil causing it to race out of control......

But my money is on that something broke......

:angel:

[JDNSW]

Could be either a manufacturing fault or a software/sensor fault that allowed the turbine to get too hot - it was climbing, presumably at or close to MTOW in temperatures way above standard conditions, and would have been operating right at the limit for continuous power. This will be software controlled according to the conditions, and the engine could be run above safe limits either by a software error or by a faulty temperature or pressure sensor. (or the engine is just run too close to the margin to provide the necessary power!)

John

[Tusker]

Singapore airport is chaos after Singapore Airlines grounded its A380 fleet as well.

My wife's caught up in the mess trying to get home today. Nothing else seats as many as an A380, so Carol is now on an ancient 777... half their luggage ended up on another plane... 2 hrs sitting on the tarmac sorting it out...

Fortunately it doesn't happen often.

Regards
Max P

[Hay Ewe]

Morning all, well the media will be having a filed day with this one ;)

With an aircraft that young, I doubt that the engine has been removed since it was installed at build.
Even it had been removed, I very much doubt it would have been stripped down to any extent for work done at a deep level inside the engine. Because of that, I would agree that maintenance is not an issue and more likly a manufacturing fault or ingestion of some kind. I dont know how long it had been airbourne birds don't usually fly higher than 5000feet (though in the mid 80's a vultre flew in to a 767 at about 15,000feet)

On aircraft of this nature, the failure rate is measured at a rater per 1000 hrs of operation, across the fleet and then across whole world wide fleet - of that same example.
So, whilst there may be 50 A380 in service, there are 200 engines. if each engine does 16 hrs a day that is 3200hrs a day. The fleet is getting on for having been in commercial operations now for two years, lets call that 18months thats 18months times 30days equals 540 days, 540 times 3200hrs equalls 1,728,000 hrs. so the engines in service have accumulate tht many hours so far.

so inconclusion, we have (that I am aware of) 1 decent failure in 1.72 million hrs of commercial flying. rate per 1000hrs = 1*1000/ 1,728,000 = 0.000578
This figure will get smaller as the fleet increases and matures.

Compare this only 30 years ago, and I think you will find that it has improved hugly.

We must also consider the mode of failure. and engine shut down because of a blade separation, lost oil pressure, indication. Three causes to shut down an engine, the first is the most critical, the secound, not so and the third least critical, but all good reasons to shut down an engine.

this similar thinking can be applied to many other things, if some one says, those laughing shafts are always breaking, think, are they? how many of those vehicles do I see, how old are they, how many Km's / Hrs have they done? REALLY how many are broken? whats the rate per 1000 hrs / km's / miles etc

Hay Ewe

[DeanoH]

I would have thought the inability to shut down one engine after landing is a bigger problem ?

Deano:)

[VladTepes]

The enine, designed specifically for the A380 is the Rolls Royce trent 900.

Some info here:
Rolls-Royce Trent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent)

some other problems wih the engine (allegedly) here:

Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine linked to three mid-air emergencies | Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/rolls-royce-trent-900-engine-linked-to-three-mid-air-emergencies/story-e6frf7jo-1225948178631)

and a picture:

http://rustanez.com/Images/RR/Trent%20900.jpg

[wozzlegummich]

There was an FAA directive issued in September this year to inspect a shaft in the compressor section of all RR Trent 900 series engines for premature wear. If the shaft failed it would allow rearward movement of a turbine rotor allowing it to come in contact with a stator. At the speeds and loads these engines run at on take off I would think that could cause an "uncontained" failure.

[PhilipA]

At the speeds and loads these engines run at on take off I would think that could cause an "uncontained" failure.

And I would imaging therein lies the problem for RR and why all the other airlines have grounded their fleets.
Everyone remembers Concorde.( ie debris puncturing other bits)
Regard sPhilip A

[VladTepes]

And I would imaging therein lies the problem for RR and why all the other airlines have grounded their fleets.
Everyone remembers Concorde.( ie debris puncturing other bits)
Regard sPhilip A

"All the other airlines" haven't grounded their fleets. SingAir has.

Not all A380s are powered by the Trent 900 - some have an engine manyufactured by a joint GE/P&W consortium.

[Hay Ewe]

funny, I am in the industry albeit different aircraft types, and have only jsut learnt that there were problems affecting #1 eng and wind damage

busy working our fleet to worry about some one elses

Hay Ewe

[VladTepes]

I would have thought the inability to shut down one engine after landing is a bigger problem ?

Deano:)

It wa reported that the number one engine could not be turned off, and a hose from a fire truck poured water into the engine supposedly putting out the fire.

This is almost certainly mostly not true. A pilot acquantance writes:

"From what I've heard, the attempts to drown the engine were just that....attempts. The engine probably decided it was heavy rain, turned on the ignition, and bumped up the idle speed. I don't know how it was shut down in the end."

If more fuel is pumped in, to ensure that the temperature doesn't drop (and it's over 1000°C in those things), then the effect is an increase in the mass flow, and so more power.

[VladTepes]

There was an FAA directive issued in September this year to inspect a shaft in the compressor section of all RR Trent 900 series engines for premature wear. If the shaft failed it would allow rearward movement of a turbine rotor allowing it to come in contact with a stator. At the speeds and loads these engines run at on take off I would think that could cause an "uncontained" failure.

as you say...

Various FAA Airworthiness Directives re the Trent 900.
Rolls-Royce plc. (RR) RB211 Trent 900 Series Turbofan (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/0/D7BC60865A03C3778625762C004C4412?OpenDocument)
most recently
Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 900 Series Turbofan (http://www1.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/bd36c747996b02d78625777e00523051!OpenDocument&ExpandSection=-4)
for the "potted version" of the above with some explanation have a read of this instead
Qantas A380: A History of Problems With the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 Engines | BNET (http://www.bnet.com/blog/airline-business/qantas-a380-a-history-of-problems-with-the-rolls-royce-trent-900-engines/2789)
(just keep in mind the guy may or may not know what he's talking about).
and then he startsg etting caried away in an effort to fill column inches..
Qantas Grounds A380s After Engine Failure: There’s More to This Story | BNET (http://www.bnet.com/blog/airline-business/qantas-grounds-a380s-after-engine-failure-there-8217s-more-to-this-story/2781)

[DeanoH]

It wa reported that the number one engine could not be turned off, and a hose from a fire truck poured water into the engine supposedly putting out the fire.

This is almost certainly mostly not true. A pilot acquantance writes:

"From what I've heard, the attempts to drown the engine were just that....attempts. The engine probably decided it was heavy rain, turned on the ignition, and bumped up the idle speed. I don't know how it was shut down in the end."

If more fuel is pumped in, to ensure that the temperature doesn't drop (and it's over 1000°C in those things), then the effect is an increase in the mass flow, and so more power.


On this mornings ABC News the pilot is shown telling passengers that he couldn't shut down down an engine.

I don't understand why this is so, inability to shut down engine, maybe the engine control system decided that it was too hot to shut down and went to plan B all by itself for safety reasons or is it that engine management had failed, scary. Either way pouring copious amounts of water into the engine, presumably the one that wouldn't shut down, I would have thought is not likely to do it much good.

Deano:)

[d2dave]

Quote from post three. "Qantas has never suffered a fatal crash."

I have never heard this before. What I have heard is "Qantas have never lost a plane"

This is why Qantas repaired the plane that had a mid air explosion a few years ago. This plane was a (repairable) write off but they fixed it to maintain their reputation of never losing a plane.

Dave.

[B92 8NW]

Quote from post three. "Qantas has never suffered a fatal crash."

I have never heard this before. What I have heard is "Qantas have never lost a plane"

This is why Qantas repaired the plane that had a mid air explosion a few years ago. This plane was a (repairable) write off but they fixed it to maintain their reputation of never losing a plane.

Dave.


Qantas have had a number of fatal crashes and have lost aircraft as well. The claim that no fatal crashes have occured and no aircraft have been lost refer specifically to jet airliners. That is, Qantas has not had a fatal jet airliner crash or incurred a jet airliner hull loss.

You're probably thinking of QF1 which overran a runway in Bangkok in 1999. That aircraft was repaired and returned to service.

[Bushie]

On this mornings ABC News the pilot is shown telling passengers that he couldn't shut down down an engine.

I don't understand why this is so, inability to shut down engine, maybe the engine control system decided that it was too hot to shut down and went to plan B all by itself for safety reasons or is it that engine management had failed, scary. Either way pouring copious amounts of water into the engine, presumably the one that wouldn't shut down, I would have thought is not likely to do it much good.

Deano:)

Wouldn't do it much good at all, but then IF it caught fire it wouldn't do the aircraft ANY good at all. Mind you I doubt the engine is much good anyway.


Martyn

[Blknight.aus]

dont forget that a jet engine is like a diesel, once you get it going so long as you feed fuel and air into it it will keep running.

so lets hypothesize that whatever caused the problem also caused a return line from the "fuel injector" to lock open a check vavle or whatever and that was allowing fuel back into the combustion chamber outside of the control of the electronics or in a worse case scenario that the damage that you can see in the wing was also through a fuel tank and the fuel was leaking down into the intake of the engine.

I do wonder what would have happened had the firey's decided to spray AFFF into the intake. But I suspect that they were more trying to keep the burning engine from flaming up any further.

[Chucaro]

And TODAY (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/06/3058911.htm'section=justin) , 6/11 a 747 with an engine failure :(

I think that I would be changing my fly to Tasmania from Qantas to a crop duster :D

[Yorkie]

And TODAY (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/06/3058911.htm'section=justin) , 6/11 a 747 with an engine failure :(

I think that I would be changing my fly to Tasmania from Qantas to a crop duster :D

:o i was on that flight qf6 last friday.... happy to be sat at home now. :)

[VladTepes]

It's funny. Passengers get totally freaked out when they see fire coming from an engine, but never give any thought to that fire at over 1000 degrees Celcius when it's INSIDE the engine just METRES from a wing LOADED with HIGHLY VOLATILE jet fuel. Someone ought to put a stop to it https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2011/05/284.jpg

[PSi]

It's funny. Passengers get totally freaked out when they see fire coming from an engine, but never give any thought to that fire at over 1000 degrees Celcius when it's INSIDE the engine just METRES from a wing LOADED with HIGHLY VOLATILE jet fuel. Someone ought to put a stop to it


It's a fengshui thing ... fire inside metal is good for engines, fire outside metal is bad.
For cooking, it's the other way around.

[VladTepes]

It's a fengshui thing
:D :lol: :lol2:

[DeanoH]

It's a fengshui thing ... fire inside metal is good for engines, fire outside metal is bad.
For cooking, it's the other way around.

Unless of course it's a Stirling engine.......................

Saw one of these at RMIT in the 70's. It was a Philips portable generator. Fascinating.

Deano:)

[wozzlegummich]

From AVWEB: These airline pilots sure earn their keep. The crew had their hands full in getting the A380 back to Singapore.

Shrapnel from the engine disabled one of two main hydraulic systems, hampered the fuel transfer system, punched a hole in the forward wing spar and caused a major fuel leak.

The cascading nature of such failures meant the pilots couldn't dump enough fuel to bring the aircraft down to its maximum landing weight and the fuel left in the airplane was unbalanced. Flaps, slats and spoilers couldn't be fully deployed and the gear had to be dropped manually.

Once it was on the ground, the anti-lock brakes didn't work and, since the damaged engine was an inboard one, there was only one left for reverse thrust (the outboard engines of A380s don't have reversers because they often overhang the grass and might be FOD damaged). The heavy, significantly disabled aircraft needed virtually all of the 13,123 feet of available runway.

The whole wing will have to be replaced and the aircraft is expected to be out of commission for months.

Meanwhile, the cause of the engine problem has been determined. Newer versions of the Trent 900 engine installed in aircraft built after the Qantas jet in question had redesigned bearing boxes to prevent the oil leaks that resulted in the engine explosion.

[jb747]

This is why Qantas repaired the plane that had a mid air explosion a few years ago. This plane was a (repairable) write off but they fixed it to maintain their reputation of never losing a plane.
This is a myth that is regurgitated every now and then. Of course the story is normally applied to OJH, which was the 747 that suffered a landing overrun in Bangkok. That aircraft was repaired for substantially less than the the cost of replacement, either by a new aircraft or a second hand one. The aircraft is still in service.

OJK was the one involved in the mid-air explosion. The repair was around $10 million...so whilst a bit more than the cost of fixing a Landy, it was not great in the aviation scheme of things. It was returned to service, but was retired to the desert about a year later, a victim of the GFC.

[JDNSW]

And a myth it is anyway. While Qantas may not have ever lost a jet, they certainly have lost planes before the jet era, although they managed to avoid any passenger fatalities from inception to 1942, and you would have to say that their aircraft losses over the years have been quite low compared to may of their competitors. To some extent this is a function of the generally benign weather and fairly long legs in Australia and their operation outside Australia only on long haul routes (most aircraft losses are in takeoff and landing - having long haul routes gives you a leg up on statistics!).

John

[jb747]

To some extent this is a function of the generally benign weather .....

I don't agree with you there. Weather in Oz is anything but benign. It is the only place that I've encountered severe windshear, and the thunderstorms in this part of the world are nasty. What you don't see in Oz is lots of ice and snow, but the long haul ops encounter that as well.

[JDNSW]

I don't agree with you there. Weather in Oz is anything but benign. It is the only place that I've encountered severe windshear, and the thunderstorms in this part of the world are nasty. What you don't see in Oz is lots of ice and snow, but the long haul ops encounter that as well.

Compared to many other places the weather is benign, and not just the lack of ice and snow. Even though thunderstorms are nasty here, which I totally agree with, and you get severe wind shear, thunderstorms are nowhere near as bad on average as they can be, for example in the mid-continent of North America - sure, we get tornadoes here, but far less frequently than here. And a large proportion of RPT weather related incidents, I would think, are associated with ice and snow. And not many places in Australia can be described as hot and high.

Certainly long haul ops encounter snow and ice, but as I pointed out, the advantage for them is the relatively infrequent landings and takeoffs compared to short haul operations. And just about anywhere is shorthaul compared to either typical domestic routes in Australia or flights from Australia to anywhere.

John

[VladTepes]

just about anywhere is shorthaul compared to either typical domestic routes in Australia or flights from Australia to anywhere.
John

I certainly agree with your statistical point re number of landings/take offs but I'm not so sure that the long haul argument applies to the Australian domestic runs any more than other places..

They do some long haul fights in the USA (NYC to LAX for example), in China and in the fomer USSR.

In the latter two exampes though there are probably other reasons for the number of "incidents".

[JDNSW]

I certainly agree with your statistical point re number of landings/take offs but I'm not so sure that the long haul argument applies to the Australian domestic runs any more than other places..

They do some long haul fights in the USA (NYC to LAX for example), in China and in the fomer USSR.

In the latter two exampes though there are probably other reasons for the number of "incidents".

While there are plenty of long haul routes elsewhere in the world, there are almost no real shorthaul routes (served by first rank airlines) in Australia. There is nothing comparable, even in proportion, to routes such as London - Paris, Houston-Dallas/Fort Worth, Boston-New York, for example. All the heavy traffic routes in Australia are at least about 50% further. (I suspect that Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane still represents about 75% of all Australian traffic!)

My point is that the long haul flights in the US, for example, represent a lot smaller proportion of the traffic. And I agree with your comments about China and the former USSR - I used to work for a major company that had a well resourced aviation safety department - and boy, did they have problems when we were exploring opportunities in those countries!

John

[Lionel]

Meanwhile, the cause of the engine problem has been determined. Newer versions of the Trent 900 engine installed in aircraft built after the Qantas jet in question had redesigned bearing boxes to prevent the oil leaks that resulted in the engine explosion.

Subsequent investigation has shown that it was not actually this problem which caused the explosion. It was cracking in a poorly manufactured oil feed pipe which caused the leak in the case of QF32.

Investigation: AO-2010-089 - Inflight engine failure - Qantas, Airbus A380, VH-OQA, overhead Batam Island, Indonesia, 4 November 2010 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-089.aspx)

An interesting read.

Cheers,

Lionel