PDA

View Full Version : SQ A380 Returns To LHR


unmanned transport
21st May 2011, 21:15
2345 20 May/'11

Flightradar24.com's Photos - Wall Photos | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=205507846155313&set=a.116008071771958.7699.111607872211978&type=1&theater)

Engine failure
Unable to dump fuel
Overweight landing
8 wheels on main/body gear replaced.

Capn Bloggs
22nd May 2011, 07:25
Why'd it land in the water?

Green-dot
22nd May 2011, 07:46
Why was it unable to dump fuel? Engine failure should not prevent dumping fuel, or was it more than an engine failure?

Emil Almestad
22nd May 2011, 08:34
Just wondering why the only source I've found about this is Flightradar. No info on Avherald and in the mainstream media. Should be a quite big deal reporting about it considering the past.

unmanned transport
22nd May 2011, 18:13
This one is very hush hush for some weird reason. Media ban implemented !
22 hrs delay.
The engine was changed.

parabellum
22nd May 2011, 23:09
Talking to SQ crew yesterday the A380 has had more than it's fair share of turn backs after take off, for various reasons and this has earned it the nick name of "The 180".

A contained engine failure on a four engine aircraft is usually no 'big deal', being unable to dump fuel is.

Exactly who had the authority to issue a 'media ban'?

golfyankeesierra
23rd May 2011, 06:57
"The 180" LOL:)

BTW Very curious about the fueldump issue.

I know an urban legend of an early 'bus starting to dump fuel by itself when the pilots were fiddling the FMS with a simulated diversion. Since the aircraft was above MLW it decided to get rid of some weight....

Wonder if any of both stories is true...

Fargoo
23rd May 2011, 07:10
This one is very hush hush for some weird reason. Media ban implemented !
22 hrs delay.
The engine was changed.

Where did they change the engine, it certainly wasn't done at Heathrow.

aterpster
23rd May 2011, 08:20
The airplane is not building a lot of confidence.

Is it a 180 or an A180? :rolleyes: :D

scanhorse
23rd May 2011, 13:07
Hi
whats all that about engine and coverup ???
Here is some facts :

Singapore A388 near Amsterdam on May 20th 2011, electrical problems
Incident: Singapore A388 near Amsterdam on May 20th 2011, electrical problems (http://avherald.com/h?article=43d0149b)

http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/452202-sia321-a380-return-lhr.html

Best Regards

KBPsen
23rd May 2011, 14:04
As it appears to be unmanned transport's mission in life to prove RR's triple spool engines, and apparently also the A380, an inferior product I would bring somewhat more than a pinch of salt when digesting any of his posts.

Anyhow, as the MLW and MZFW delta across all the weight variants of the A380 is between 20 and 25 tonnes and it is not possible to dump fuel from the engine feed tanks (which have a combined capacity of around 91 tonnes) it does not take a slide rule to figure out that the purpose of the jettison system is not to bring the weight down to MLW or below.

unmanned transport
23rd May 2011, 16:26
The A380 is a good product, just has a few teething problems like the others that went before it.

Fargoo
23rd May 2011, 19:35
Any news on that hush hush extremely rapid engine change?

oldchina
23rd May 2011, 19:42
You and I must be the only ones here to know what is a slide rule.

It went the way of carbon paper. But it taught me so much.

atakacs
23rd May 2011, 20:20
Be it engine or electrical related seems rather serious, especially in view on the overweight landing.

DozyWannabe
23rd May 2011, 21:00
Not really... If the FCOM says you can do it, there's no reason why you shouldn't. As I've always understood it, electrical glitches are fairly common in the first couple of years of service...

aterpster
24th May 2011, 01:20
oldchina:


You and I must be the only ones here to know what is a slide rule.

It went the way of carbon paper. But it taught me so much.

The slide rule was great but carbon paper sucked.

ventus2cxt
24th May 2011, 01:32
For your info carbon paper is still widely used in India

vapilot2004
24th May 2011, 02:55
As I've always understood it, electrical glitches are fairly common in the first couple of years of service...

In my experience, electrical glitches are more common in the last couple of years of service.

deSitter
24th May 2011, 05:50
vapilot2204 said "In my experience, electrical glitches are more common in the last couple of years of service."

A sure sign of a rushed production line.

This incident does seem weirdly covered up. "The passengers were in no danger." Nonsense, they blew 8 tires on landing! That's danger!

-drl

Volume
24th May 2011, 07:09
electrical glitches are fairly common in the first couple of years of service
electrical glitches are more common in the last couple of years of serviceYou are both correct, this is what is called the bathtub curve of reliability over age. Early teathing problems are sorted out after some time and the failure probability falls steeply to a bottom line. (Typically this is related to design and production flaws) Much later some aging problems start and the failure probability rises again, this time due to the fact that nothing lasts forever...

...like slide rules, carbon paper and vinyl records...

HotDog
24th May 2011, 08:22
This incident does seem weirdly covered up. "The passengers were in no danger." Nonsense, they blew 8 tires on landing! That's danger!

Nonsense, the A380 has 22 wheels. 4 on each wing gear and 6 on each body gear in addition to 2 on the nose gear. By all accounts, 6 wheels deflated, most likely due to fuseable plugs melting and that is certainly no danger to the passengers.

aterpster
24th May 2011, 08:29
ventus2cxt:

For your info carbon paper is still widely used in India.

They have my sympathy.

As soon as the Xerox machine appeared in the U.S. in the early 1960s, carbon paper was discontinued at offices of any size; i.e., the typewriter outlasted carbon paper by several decades here.

Beeline
24th May 2011, 10:54
It blew 6 fuse plugs, someone tell where the energy from the brake packs is supposed to go when you land at a weight of approx. 400000kgs!

Airbus must have designed the A380 with the penalty in mind of melting a few wheels of an overweight landing, Hence leaving a couple of boogies without brake packs.

Maybe the extra packs would have adsorbed more of the energy, who knows?

rudderrudderrat
24th May 2011, 11:19
Hi Beeline,

The fuse plugs probably blew after the aircraft had stopped. It takes time for the heat energy to be absorbed into the tyres as this video of 747 RTO demonstration shows:
New jumbo jet performs ultimate aborted takeoff | Technically Incorrect - CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20060716-71.html?tag=rtcol;pop)

Beeline
24th May 2011, 11:32
When I say blew, thats me dramatising, deflating is the more mundane operative word lol!

If the aircraft had more brake packs then the energy would have distributed across the ship, thus less heat into the wheels that deflated maybe saving a few.

I know the guys chasing around looking for wheels for it the other day! Certainly the whole LHR stock is diminished!

TheChitterneFlyer
24th May 2011, 11:38
For your info carbon paper is still widely used in India

Which is no doubt testament to the number of fake licences!

RATpin
24th May 2011, 11:45
Hats off Sir,