Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

SYD-bound QANTAS A380 turns back to L.A. following burst water pipe

Wikiposts
Search
Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

SYD-bound QANTAS A380 turns back to L.A. following burst water pipe

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11th Jul 2014, 19:27
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Now this is a serious subject..



Actually Z18 was one of my teams areas, PGE!
glad rag is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2014, 12:04
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 880
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Qantas Airbus 380 water leak investigation...

Rope-Style Cleaning Mops Behind A380 Water Leaks...

Qantas has deployed an interim solution to problems with water leaks on its A380 fleet while Airbus develops a permanent fix, an Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) incident report reveals.

The issue first arose in July when a Qantas A380 (VH-OQD) that had just departed Los Angeles for Melbourne had to return to Los Angeles when the cabin crew discovered that 40% of the potable water on board—185 gallons—had leaked from a disconnected water pipe coupling just above the floor in the business class galley on the top deck. Although the crew was able to switch off the system, the spilled water moved rearward, drained through the upper deck floor and was “raining” on passengers seated near Row 65 of the main deck as it flowed toward bilges, according to ATSB’s final report on the incident.

The pilots, in contact with Qantas maintenance watch ground staff, decided there were no safety-of-flight issues, but elected to return to Los Angeles given that the water to the toilets and sinks was not available with the main switch off, making it “untenable to continue a 14-hr. flight.”

Source Discovered

The crew also switched off the in-flight entertainment system and power to the seats as a precaution when the leak was discovered.

“Leakage of that quantity of water had not occurred previously, and the eventual impact of the water on the aircraft was unknown,” the ATSB wrote. After dumping some fuel, the crew transitioned to a relatively nose-high, slow-speed descent after the initial descent profile had caused the spilled water to begin moving forward along the floor.

A mechanic testing the same coupling on another A380 that was scheduled for the flight from Los Angeles to Melbourne the next day observed the same problem, but with less water leaking.

“The engineers attempted to dry out the leaked water in the cabin, resulting in the aircraft arriving about one hour late at the departure gate,” the ATSB explained.

Despite the clean-up attempt, “some water came down from the overhead bins in the main deck” during the takeoff run, but it was “similar to that normally arising from condensation and not considered to be significant,” the ATSB added. The flight continued to Melbourne.

Rope-Style Mops

An initial inspection on the A380s revealed that the couplings were likely being unlatched by rope-style mops that cleaners had been using in the galley area.

“Fleet-wide inspection of the fittings found strands of cleaning mops tangled in the brackets,” said the ATSB, “with evidence of couplings rotated in opposing directions.”

Qantas, in consultation with Airbus, initially wrapped the couplings with aluminum tape to protect the joint, and changed cleaning procedures so that sponge-style mops would be used under galley bench areas.

The ATSB said Qantas also planned in mid-September to install lock-wire to “prevent the clamp from coming adrift” while Airbus developed a permanent fix.

The ATSB commended the Qantas crew that had aborted its flight to Melbourne for “excellent” crew resource management techniques during the “abnormal and unusual situation.”
Jet Jockey A4 is online now  
Old 29th Oct 2014, 14:10
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 898
Received 11 Likes on 7 Posts
185gal = 40%? 185/40 = 1% = 4.625gal * 100 = 462.5gal total * 5 = 2312.5 litres/2.3 tonnes H2O. not a bad Fermi-problem answer, ExFlyingPlumber.
steamchicken is offline  
Old 2nd Nov 2014, 12:45
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,091
Received 29 Likes on 23 Posts
ATSB report says "about" 700 liters leaked. The quoted press report must have converted to U.S. gallons (and added a degree of false precision).
Chu Chu is online now  
Old 28th Nov 2014, 03:02
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: australia
Age: 81
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That much water over the floor of the aircraft must have a major effect if there are any pitch or roll changes. It only takes an inch or two of water on a RORO ship to cause it to roll over.
harrryw is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2014, 03:16
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: S33E151
Posts: 1,086
Received 59 Likes on 29 Posts
A lot would have absorbed and 700kgs moving at most, whilst not desirable would almost certainly be manageable.


The important difference with modern aircraft, and in particular Qantas' modern aircraft is that as the CEO said they don't need maintenance so there isn't ever anything to worry about.
V-Jet is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2014, 03:50
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,556
Received 75 Likes on 43 Posts
It only takes an inch or two of water on a RORO ship to cause it to roll over.
Pitch perhaps, but not roll. Unlike a ship, the "gravity" is pointing down perpendicular to the wings regardless of bank/roll angle, unless the machine is unbalanced, which would of course never happen in a bus... That's why I never spill my coffee even when turning base at 60° AOB...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2014, 04:13
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: australia
Age: 81
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Of course not, coffee is not an essential flight activity below 10000 ft...unless you have to keep the person flying awake of course..
I see what you mean about your smooth flying , but what about turbulence, that could permit the water hammer effect although it of course would involve a lot more with pitch. I agree roll is not material.
harrryw is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.