Another 380 AOG in NRT

[glofish]

Incident: Emirates A388 at Tokyo on Oct 21st 2012, asymmetric flaps (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=457d81b7&opt=0)

Bad days for the busses at EK.
guess the profit share goes Airbus(t) this year

[vfenext]

Are the childish ones at EK going to start a thread every time an aircraft goes AOG. Grow up FFS.

[Dropp the Pilot]

I don't know, I think that childish guy over at Aviation Herald does a pretty good job.

Anyway, the new rumour from the bouncy castle is that all the A380s will be parked and become the World's Largest MacDonalds. Opening day will see a fireworks display which is a little too long and a concert featuring earnest lip-synching by Lionel Ritchie. The much-vaunted number of seats will provide good cash flow as all the clients munch on their Happy Meals. It will operate at a loss but not as large a loss as the quixotic mission of trying to keep the device airborne.

French fries will be served with mayonnaise.

The Happy Meal toy will be a miniature A380 but the wheels will fall off before the kids can get it home.

[glofish]

@vfenext

So it's childish.

OK, please state when your honor deems it worthy enough, or when do the peasants of aviation dare publishing a incident?
I hope an emergency declared due to flight control problems, 11 tires deflated upon a high speed landing might trigger your consent.

If a new aircraft stirs up such an interest with all the bells and whistles around its performance, might and so forth, it has to bear a little more publicity.
It's the same fate shared with stars: Paparazzis waiting, the public loving any news. No goodies without the downside.

I bet a thousand dirtyhams that any same incident with a 787 would get similar attention, and for that matter, here it would even happen concerning a T7 ......

[helen-damnation]

Poo happens.

Well handled, good decision to go around. Safe landing.

Incident - Yes.
Accident - No.

Life goes on.... :rolleyes:

[nolimitholdem]

The hubris of EK and some of the (ex?)A380 pilots regarding the whole A380 program is probably why the (multiple, fairly serious, closely-spaced, never-ending) AOG incidents get the attention they do. Perhaps if the A380 wasn't trumpeted about quite so much, it would be easier to resist the temptation to point out its many issues. Human nature and all...

Kudos to the crew for handling it so well. (NRT)

[vfenext]

Like I said Glofish, childish to the extreme! You didn't publish anything, just posted a link which was expressly designed to have a poke at the 380 and stir up more stupid comments about it's reliability. The actions of a peasant as you said!

[heavy.airbourne]

Ok, flaps locked at pos 1, return for a landing GW
500+ tons, do not use BTV to leave via the 1st
hispeed. This will cost you 14 tyres. Come to think,
this was an Englishman...

[glofish]

OK, I see.

Link was for general interest, fresh from the messenger, and my comment was meant as a joke, in this morbid environment.

I realise though, that we should (or shall, as per EK vocabulary) not make jokes about the mighty A380.
Why does such a reaction like yours over a joke or cynical comment ring a bell in this region?

Get a life, you 'super'.:ugh:

[cnsnz]

Is the 380 still classed as a new aircraft? thought it had been in commercial ops for over 4 years now.

[donpizmeov]

Glofish,

If you didn't bring this to our attention we would never find out about it. Not a lot of info from company. You done good.

The Don

[captainsmiffy]

...crew removed from roster. Hope they are going to be ok. You know that this is done but always a worry in this outfit....

[Rich8a10]

I think they did a good job. :D

It is easy to criticize while reading it on te computer with a cup of coffee.

[Jetjock330]

The Don,
Remember, if you say too much, you end up like little brother down the road being banned from this PP brotherhood in the Capital city, No name airline!

We all can learn a lot from this Pp, and I hope these guys are back on the roster soon from their flap problem.

UAE419 went back into the bay E2 ( new bay) last night in BKK! Not sure, transponder problem???

[FIRESYSOK]

Fire services not in attendance? Looks like they rolled up on the stand with glowing white-hot brakes. Lovely.

[Whinging Tinny]

Taken from the A380 AMM:

WARNING: LET THE BRAKES AND THE WHEELS BECOME COOL BEFORE YOU GO NEAR THE LANDING
GEAR. DO NOT APPLY A LIQUID OR GAS FIRE EXTINGUISHER DIRECTLY ON A HOT WHEEL
OR BRAKE UNIT. IF YOU DO NOT OBEY THESE PRECAUTIONS, THERE IS A RISK OF EXPLOSION.

A. Safety Precautions
(1) Instructions after a brake overheat
(a) If a tire is inflated, do not go near the area around the wheel for approximately one hour. When you go near, go from the front or from the rear and not from the side of the wheel.
(b) Unless there is a fire, do not apply the extinguishing agent (liquid, water, mist, foam, etc.) with a spray gun on a hot tire if it is inflated.
Extinguishing agent on hot wheels can:
- Increase the time necessary for the fusible plug(s) to melt
- Prevent operation of the fusible plug(s).
You must let the brake become cool for a minimum of one hour or use the brake cooling fans (if installed).

[Capt Groper]

It's a [I]Catch 22[I] situation, you have hot brakes and require some cooling air to be applied ASAP to avoid tire deflation. But if nobody can go near the tires for an hour then they will possibly deflate. It's something the Airbus needs to address. Why cannot airconditioning tubes be extended by a long handles so ground personnel can remain well clear?

[Payscale]

Why did they get to hot on the first place?
Long runway. No emergency so I assume landing at max LW.

[Plore]

It's a [I]Catch 22[I] situation, you have hot brakes and require some cooling air to be applied ASAP to avoid tire deflation. But if nobody can go near the tires for an hour then they will possibly deflate. It's something the Airbus needs to address. Why cannot airconditioning tubes be extended by a long handles so ground personnel can remain well clear?

It will have to be VERY long handles. If a tire inflated to approximately 200psi pops I wouldn't want to be on the same parking stand, never mind 3 or 4 meters away. The damage that tire can do... lets not go there, it's nasty! :eek:

[bvcu]

why is this an airbus issue , no different on any type. seem to recall a few years ago in DXB a 747-200f abort at high speed max weight. all tyres deflated and as park brake set all brakes welded together ! very expensive and a very long AOG as all axles scrap ! at the end of the day all on ground safe , also how many airports have brake cooling facilities available ? Very few , and in a hot brakes situation you would need to cool all at once to avoid deflation. Only reliable method would be brake fans ........

[HamFan]

Unless there is a fire, do not apply the extinguishing agent (liquid, water, mist, foam, etc.) with a spray gun on a hot tire if it is inflated.

Brilliant. Is that actually how they word it or is it all lost in the transalation?? :ugh: I guess they expect the capt to send the FO out with a bucket instead??

No wonder the thing took hours to land when the Quantas A180 shat itself out of SINGA. It took those four guys all day to figure out what the frogs were trying to say in the manuals. They deserved the kudos for outstanding performance under the stress of wading through airbus "checklists"... :rolleyes:

[Pitch Up Authority]

These kind of failures are rare, hence it is always useful to discuss them.

One of the mayor issues here is the availability of performance related information to the crew. Now, Narita is not high and hot so you do not expect any tire speed limit or Vmbe limitation.

Flight control problems combine adversely with overweight so dumping is a must if the situation is not time critical.

However, even at MLW it remains a high energy approach with a serious chance of floating during flare.

The main goal is not to cause more damage than there already is. Use of longest runway with headwind component and full runway length for deceleration is a must.

Time again I see pilots selecting max auto brake when performing an overweight or high energy approach.

I simply do not understand why you have to blow your tires in a situation like this.

As with the A340 incident in JNB it occurs to me that EK has still not learned their lesson.

Is there any info on what caused the flap problem?

[glofish]

Some questions arise

- Why can't a heavy colossus like that not dump down to MLW in an emergency? Seeing that they are very RWL limited with a little tailwind, such a feature would seem nothing but logical.

- Why not fly around the landscape and burn the extra fuel, as the QF whale did, and land with MLW as to avoid tire damage?

- Why proceed to the gate and have the tires deflate (or worse, explode) there, instead of going to a remote place to wait until they cool down, as apparently on the whale you're not allowed to cool down brakes ..... ?

[glofish]

Hi ex

I just love to make you jump!!

As to the weights, well ,we can all read, thanks anyway, but the questions persist:.

I still wonder why 90t can't be dumped .....

The "explode" thing is exaggerated, sure, but another thing astounds me:

During disembarkation tyres started to deflate

My question again as to why they would not have the whole thing cool down and deflate somewhere else?
Sure enough a disembarkation with tires deflating is a safety hazard!! The whale will move, as will the bridge!

[glofish]

OK, I bow before so much more wisdom and experience on heavies ....

I realise that on a A380 you desperately need 90 tons in emergencies so that the 4 donkeys don't flame out!

Again, I do not have the experience of fuel flows of that magnitude, please accept my apologies for even asking questions about higher spheres.

[Pitch Up Authority]

HI Ex 380,

I repeat, it is not because it is an Airbus that the general principles of high energy approaches is any different then on a Boeing.

The use of MAX autobrake is a big nono unless you select a lower mode during the landing run in order to use the full runway length. This technique is clearly mentioned in the training manual of any Boeing type. Now if Airbus obeys different laws of physics I do not see why this would not apply to an A380.

Flap assym is not a big deal, not even on a WB. No need to blow any tires if you have reverses and dumping available.

But it looks like the design of the A380 fuel dumping system is falling short. It looks like the A380 is unable to land at hot and high airports with that kind of design. If this is the case then once more the B747-400 is much better since you can dump all the way down to 13 tons from all 8 fuel tanks.

Tyre fuse plugs are there to prevent any damage caused by exploding tyres, except for an aborted TO you should never get into a situation like this.

The handling of the situation by the crew was poor and will cost EK a handful of money. If I was the GMFO I would fire them immediately.

[givemewings]

Hmm, so the QF crew got criticised for leaving the pax onboard too long with a potential hazard to the pax outside (fuel leak, running engine etc)

Then the EK crew get criticised for NOT keeping them onboard with a potential hazard to the pax outside (hot brakes etc)

Case of can't win no matter what????

The pictures I saw of the pax deplaning, were doing so after the tyres had deflated... IMHO better to get them off in a relatively controlled manner than to keep them onboard in a state of panic and risk things going pear shaped (we all know that 'some' EK pax are not that great at following instructions on basic things like seatbelts) so why would they do what they're told if they think something is wrong outside?

[Dropp the Pilot]

WAG forum required

[tbaylx]

That's Great Pitch up..fire em and the issue is solved. You'd be a perfect fit in EK management. :rolleyes:

[Dropp the Pilot]

Well that goes a long way to explaining the unhinged stream-of-consciousness rants then - I remember being entertained by one of those in person back in the day.

Who knew I was witnessing future internet greatness.

[givemewings]

Oh I'm sorry Dropp, didn't realise the forum was restricted to skygods only.

Good luck evacuating your plane by yourself since, apparantly, CC are just WAGS with no valid opinion...

Please explain why it's justified for people who weren't there to lambast the crew for doing what they felt was the best at the time with the information they had?

[donpizmeov]

Wings get over yaself.

Brokenenglish,

Good pick up. Looks like the poor fella is still suffering from anxiety from his "harsh" treatment when in the sandpit.

The Don

[givemewings]

Sorry Don, but this continual attitude from 'some' that only pilots are worthy of commenting on middle east AVIATION forums gets little tiring. I had a comment on an incident that involved a team of people yet remarks like 'WAG' regularly come out. (And we wonder why some people have an 'us vs them' mentality' onboard) I could understand if, in fact, I was a wife or gf but I happen to work for the company (unlike some who post here) yet no one seems to comment on their input?

FYI, I do hold aviation qualifications other than being a CC. The skygod comment was aimed at Dropp specifially, not pilots in general, sorry if you found it offensive, wasn wn't meant to be.

I do find it annoying that people get so up on the crew for what they did/didn't do, yet weren't there? I personally know more than one of the crew who was on that flight and by all accounts it was not an easy situation.

[Pitch Up Authority]

brokenenglish

First of all, it is correct that I was with EK a couple of years ago.

Secondly, I was not fired but resigned, huge difference!

I was part of a group of pilots that revealed basic shortcomings and illegal practices within EK training department. These were forwarded to the audit team installed by HH. All the findings were confirmed by an ICAO audit!

If you want a copy you can get it!

So the only reason why I am no longer there, is because of the British maffia within the training department could not loose face and tried to cover up their mistakes. By the way it is they that got fired, not me.

Unfortunately this was only discovered by the DGCA months after I was gone, I had 3 meetings with them and they acknowledged and recognized that what happened was unfair to say the least. The DGCA was manipulated by the EK GMFO. You will be able to read all this in my book when it comes out.

Now back to the topic of the A380:

Brakes are brakes, doesn't matter if it is an Airbus or a Boeing. If you use the whole runway your brakes will not be as hot. Anyone who disagrees with this will confirm that nothing has changed since the incident with the A340 in JNB. They even managed to land on the shortest runway using autobrakes with a failed anti-skid.

And yes, if I was GMFT at EK things like this would not happen. Pilots that are unfamiliar with the basics would simply not be there.

It is not a difficult job at all, some good flying skills and common sense is all you need.

I am sure you will agree with me that anyone who exposes the safety record or standards of EK will get eliminated. It doesn't matter if they were right or wrong. In this context it is only normal the A380 chaps get fired, that is the way thing work in the Middle East.

But the bottom line is that anyone with a good knowledge of aviation will realize that in Narita there is no reason to blow your tires unless you mishandle the situation.

[Head chopper]

Anyone who disagrees with this will confirm that nothing has changed since the incident with the A340 in JNB. They even managed to land on the shortest runway using autobrakes with a failed anti-skid.

Interesting comment!

From recollection there was no information available on the A343 wrt tpis at the time, so please do advise how would you have known until after landing that your anti skid did not work? And from a weary memory I recall this was identified during roll out and corrective action taken... Hmmm sounds like a one sided opinion with a lot of bias!?

Shall we re visit why you left again? Witch hunt? Or hadn't the balls to stand your ground? I remember which one!

[scandistralian]

So... The 380 had a technical issue, made an air return, landed safely, a few tyres melted and now the armchair heroes turn it into a 2 page cat fight?! Where has the big picture thinking gone?

It was a tremendous job by the crew who managed to handle the incident without any major damage to the aircraft or injury to passengers and crew. Landing a 500t jet at over 350 kph is no simple task.

In a manner similar to our QF bretheren would herald; "lucky it was Emirates pilots at the controls, otherwise nobody knows what could've happened" :}

[Pontius]

I am not familiar with any Airbii, so ask genuinely; is it possible in the A380 to dump more fuel than this crew did and, thereby, further reduce the landing weight?

I'm certainly not casting any aspersions, nor suggesting any wrongdoing but I'm intrigued to know why the crew decided to land at the weight they did. I expect they had good reason but I don't suppose we'll ever find out the truth and, therefore, we can't learn what they did well and maybe didn't do so well.

[Payscale]

No with the fuel they had onboard they could not jettison further, due to the fuel system architecture

[Marcellus Wallace]

Apparently they landed with Max Reverse Thrust no Autobrakes(BTV) and used Reversers down to 60 knots or so....would probably have done the same..using the whole runway length.

Tire Limit speed on the "classic" Airbus is around 195knots...they were not far from that.

[Capt Groper]

Landing at 485T or jettisoning to 440T would have resulted in deflated tires either way!

Ke = M * V squared.

The approach speeds for a flapless landing and the high mass of the A380 = brake temperatures > fuse plug limits.

The bonus was that the PAX were deplaned at the gate and easily transported to the terminal.

Arm chair lawyers can argue as much as the like, but the situation would be the same either way.

[White Knight]

Tire Limit speed on the "classic" Airbus is around 195knots...they were not far from that.

I seem to recall tyre limit speed on EK 330/340 as 204 knots; exactly the same as for the EK 380! It used to be around 195 knots on the 'classic' fleet but with Sana'a and Addis I guess Ek went for suped up rubber:ok: Many years ago too:cool:

[Fratemate]

Apparently they landed with Max Reverse Thrust no Autobrakes(BTV) and used Reversers down to 60 knots or so....would probably have done the same..using the whole runway length.

Not quite true, Marcellus. Look at the video around the 4:00 mark. As they cross A9 they have slowed significantly. At A10 they are down to a speed where, I believe, they could have exited the runway if they wished. They exit the runway at A11, with approximately 850m remaining of a 4000m long runway.

I haven't got a horse in this race and am not criticising the decision making but in a non time-critical situation, such as this, I would be interested to know why they didn't reduce their landing weight further by burning off more fuel, as we've established they could not dump any more and why they did not choose an autobrake level that would have used more of the available runway, keeping the brakes cooler in the process.

A few melted tyre plugs is no big deal, especially as that's what they're designed for, but would it have been possible to avoid even that by landing at a lighter weight and using more of the runway?



(Being a driver of Boeings, I'm taking a punt here that this sort of flap snag is not a time-critcal situation on the Airbus and would welcome advice to the contrary).

[EK380]

Fratemate,

Thanks for the sensible post... Without knowing all details I agree and came to the same conclusion with regards to the taxiways exiting etc...

Again wasn't there on the day, but I personally would have considered A/B OFF.

[bvcu]

just a small observation , BTV and autobrake are not the same, BTV is one autobrake function. Expect all airliners will have it in a few years .....

[glofish]

Now that some calm has set in, may I reiterate my questions?
(all though I love to make the dugong drivers jump and do not particularly like the plane, consider this a genuine interest question!)

- Is there any particular reason as to why such a heavy aircraft can't dump to its MLW? Seeing the consequences of heavy landings and considering that competing models are capable, this seems quite limiting to me.

- Is there not any mention in the FCOM about eventually letting the outfit cool down and the rubbers blow off before going close to gate and other equipment or personel? Without wanting to blame anybody, it seems that having the passengers disembark with all the necessary equipment and people around and basically knowing (through calcs) that some brakes will overheat and some tires might deflate (sounds alarming!) is not the safest option. Again, is there no mention of this in the manuals?

- What use is a BTV if you end up with hot brakes and deflated tires?

[donpizmeov]

Glofish,

Some good questions.
BTV is only usable when all the stuff needed for stopping is working properly, that is, both REVs, all the brakes in normal braking, and a normal flap setting. If any of that ain't working your back to normal autobrake settings (as they did here) which works just like the Boeing one. Think B777 landing BKK some years back.
Overweight landing is thought of in a different light on the bus. And this took some time to get the head around when swapping from the Boeing. As long as the ROD descent is less than 360 feet per minute your basically good to go, with minor inspections. On the 380 if within 60T of MLW all you have to do is look at some software and burn the results to DVD, no engineer required. If over 60T the same software shows if and what inspections are required, its not as big a deal as the ACARS after landing on the Boeing.
Because of this Airbooooose decided to keep the fuel system simple, so each engine has 20ishT feeder tanks that can't be dumped. Even at max ZFW if you dump everything you should get close to the 60T about MLW. When fueling, some computer pumps the Fuel around the different tanks to get the Cof G to 39.5%, so if you haven't got full fuel, you mightn't have full feed tanks for takeoff. As a general rule of thumb, if you don't need to reduce weight due to performance, you don't need to dump.
Precautions due to hot brakes are pretty much the same for all aircraft. As tyres are tyres.

This crew made their best decision with the information, and experience they had at the time. Its very easy to say that you would have done something different when already knowing the outcome.

The Don

[glofish]

Thanks don, explanation makes some sense.

I didn't pretend I would have done something different though, I actually only raised questions as to why.

And finally sorry Mr.Ex-Super for my blasphemy to pretend the dugong had anything close to a competitor ....

[Fratemate]

Is there not any mention in the FCOM about eventually letting the outfit cool down and the rubbers blow off before going close to gate and other equipment or personel? Without wanting to blame anybody, it seems that having the passengers disembark with all the necessary equipment and people around and basically knowing (through calcs) that some brakes will overheat and some tires might deflate (sounds alarming!) is not the safest option. Again, is there no mention of this in the manuals?

Glofish,

You're making way, way too much of the fuse plugs melting. They do so with a fart and a Texan whisper. There's no huge explosion. There's no whirlwind of air whipping fire appliances off their wheels. There's no huge settling of the aircraft on its axles. As with all hot brakes, you stand in front or behind them and you don't spray liquids onto them. You let nature takes its course and see if they cool quicker than the plugs melt. If the plugs win, then the tyres deflate. No big deal and alarming only if you're a big girl. I would much rather have the passengers de-planing as EK did in this instance, than parking out in the middle of NRT's taxyways, with the attendant flashing lights and nonsense that only the Japanese know how to excel at.....now that, for the pax, is alarming.

How do you stand on the 757 having no fuel dumping facilities at all? That can take off way above its MLW and, shock, horror, it can land (in emergency) above its MLW. You'll be amazed to know this is the case for all modern airliners, so stop trying to have a dig at the Airbus. I stand by my question regarding the crew's decision to reduce their weight by burning off fuel but this is a genuine query, rather than an uniformed dig at an aircraft manufacturer.

[donpizmeov]

This JAARule fella sounds like a well balanced individual. A true enthusiast.

The Don

[glofish]

@Fratemate

How do you stand on the 757 having no fuel dumping facilities at all? That can take off way above its MLW and, shock, horror, it can land (in emergency) above its MLW. You'll be amazed to know this is the case for all modern airliners, so stop trying to have a dig at the Airbus

I’m amazed about your knowledge, thanks for sharing it. But I will always have a dig at Airbus, as I will at Man City and Schumi (might there be a pattern??).

Joke aside:

(My take:I would always prefer the aircraft that allowes me to land with lower weights in abnormal situations. It’s simply added safety and that’s something I like!)

When QF32 flew around for 2 3/4h, completing 52 ECAMs, but mainly to get down to a decent weight because it could not dump (technical), I asked why on earth would a crew fly around so long, with one donkey exploded, two others not reacting, the cg slowly moving out of green and to top it, a hole in the wing, the award giving Airbus communitiy told me that this was the best and safest option. No danger in staying up with that injured animal, it was way better to get the weight down in view of the abnormal conf landing in spe.

(My take: I would always prefer to get a wounded animal on ground asap, especially if the extent is not completely known and deteriorating.)

Now I learn that even without technical, the 380 can’t dump to MLW. Taking the above argument now, I then asked, if such a missing feature makes sense! But now suddenly there seems to be no problem with the heaviest airliner landing overweight with abnormal conf and hot brakes and melting fuses, all allowing a normal taxi to the gate and disembarkation.

I know, it’s Monday morning quarterbacking. But don’t we learn by doing this? Can’t we oppose a different strategy to what another crew chose, on a rumor forum? Can’t we question design without getting the groupies all upbeat?
Even if it concerns the wholy 380 and Airbus.

And finally, if we can’t keep up the teasing and getting the girls throw their handbags, where’s the fun on this site?