PDA

View Full Version : QF A330 Emergency @ YSSY


TSIO540
18th Feb 2010, 03:48
I saw a brief news flash about a QF A330 having declared an emergency over Sydney because of an undercarriage fault. Apparently they had to hold overhead while dumping fuel before landing successfully. Does anyone know more about what happened or is this just 'much ado about nothing'?

Sunfish
18th Feb 2010, 04:14
"The journalist is of course misinformed". "Silly Passengers are scared out of their wits, but of course it's all in a days work for us skygods", someone will post.

rockarpee
18th Feb 2010, 04:45
Give it a break Sunfish:ugh:

NSEU
18th Feb 2010, 05:08
The upper union of a small, flexible hydraulic line in the left hand main gear wheel well fractured. It was one of the lines going to the downlock actuator for the drag brace (not sure of the correct terminology on Airbuses). (Outboard one)

It basically emptied one of the hydraulic systems (green). The gear doors were open on landing, so the alternate extension system (gravity) may have been selected.

The skipper landed the aircraft quite softly at just under max landing weight (no damage to the drooping gear doors) and allowed the aircraft to stop slowly (manual brakes, antiskid operative, but no autobrakes). The aircraft was towed to the gate.

The line is easily replaceable, but the pumps will have to be changed and the hydraulic system bled.

Pure speculation, but it looks like a manufacturing fault.

Rgds.
NSEU

SeldomFixit
18th Feb 2010, 05:20
NSEU - begone, truth and accuracy have NO place here !!!:p

waren9
18th Feb 2010, 05:33
And in only the 5th post of a thread. Must be a Dunnunda record. Normally have to wade thru pages of gobshite to get to an intelligent post.

Howard Hughes
18th Feb 2010, 05:39
I didn't even get a chance to post 'who left the locking pin(s) in'?:E

lk978
18th Feb 2010, 05:59
stupid media... funny news break from pete overton in sydney he broke the news like it was a A380 crashing into centre point tower then half way through he changd tunes realising it was no big deal then they didn't even finish the story and went back to the snowboard half pipe thank god.

if any journo's read this... it is no big deal but i am sure you will think of some stupid stuff to fill the pages

HH... does that count as a sector?

blueloo
18th Feb 2010, 07:13
ABC news has a video of a very uneventful landing (which is good) with the gear doors open.

Qantas plane with gear problems lands safely - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/18/2823515.htm)

StallBoy
18th Feb 2010, 08:05
Just another QANTAS moment:{ Was this the A330 I saw at Bob Janes's last night:=:=

Qantas 787
18th Feb 2010, 08:09
Biggest non event ever.......and it lead all the news bulletins, gee there has to be something else more important happening.

The 9 "Breaking News" was laughable - Overton looked like he had been thrown on air with 30 seconds notice. Serious case of newsrooms see the word "Qantas", get into a frenzy and after a while realise it isn't actually anything exciting.

WynSock
18th Feb 2010, 08:28
Video: Qantas plane lands (ABC News) (http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201002/r516801_2835442.asx)

Oh the irony.

ozineurope
18th Feb 2010, 09:19
Is this another case of "thousands cheat death when aircraft fails to crash into nuclear reactor setting off a major chain reaction"?

Maybe the journo is just an excitable boy?

another superlame
18th Feb 2010, 09:23
Fractured union? Surely it wasn't a busted rotator splint or a leaking radiator cap.

SeldomFixit
18th Feb 2010, 09:28
At Least P.Overton has a rellie in the business to check facts with :ok:

hadagutful
18th Feb 2010, 11:35
Just a technical question for A330 drivers or those in the know, media report was that it had to circle for 2 hours to burn off the fuel, cannot that scarebus "dump" fuel?
Or was that just the usual misreporting again!

Been a few incidents around the place with the A330, (not just Qantas) and booked on this type to H.K. later in the year.....you'd think all the bugs would be ironed out by now??

Ultergra
18th Feb 2010, 12:19
The 330 is a great machine and no, it can not dump fuel, only burn it off as required to achieve MLW.

swh
18th Feb 2010, 18:05
The 330 is a great machine and no, it can not dump fuel, only burn it off as required to achieve MLW.

Normally the A330-200 can dump fuel, and the A330-300 cannot. Seems QF did not want to pay for this option.

EK has fuel dump capability on their A330-200s.

Howard Hughes
18th Feb 2010, 19:36
HH... does that count as a sector?
Three and a half hours airborne, I reckon it might!:ok:

Transition Layer
19th Feb 2010, 02:24
Could this be the most factually correct and least dramatic aviation-related newspaper article ever?

Qantas forced to abort flight

* Jodie Minus
* From: The Australian
* February 19, 2010 12:00AM

QANTAS said passengers and crew were not in any danger when an Airbus 330 jet bound for China had to return to Sydney yesterday because of a problem with the plane's landing gear.

Flight QF129 left Sydney bound for Shanghai at 11.30am, but the pilot was unable to fully retract the landing gear and had to burn fuel before landing in Sydney again four hours later.

Qantas Group executive government and corporate affairs David Epstein said the service was unable to continue to Shanghai because the drag on the landing gear would have resulted in fuel being burned in excess of the volume required to complete a non-stop flight.

"Following procedure, the captain circled the aircraft over the Tasman Sea for approximately two hours in order to burn fuel and ensure that it was below its maximum landing weight," Mr Epstein said.

"This was not an emergency situation or landing - at no stage was there any safety issue.

"Passengers were kept informed by the captain and a meal service provided."

A Qantas spokeswoman said engineers were inspecting the aircraft to determine the cause of the problem, which was a hydraulic issue and nothing to do with the navigation system, which has caused problems for the Airbus in the past.

The nearly 200 passengers on board were transferred to a replacement aircraft, which left at 4.30pm.

"The passengers and crew weren't in any danger, the spokeswoman said.

In November 2008, the same flight was forced to return to Sydney an hour into its journey after its radar systems had malfunctioned.

BRAVO! :ok:

position & hold
19th Feb 2010, 04:08
No QF A330's can dump fuel.

Its an option on the -200 (the ones with centre tanks) but the most I ever saw in one was about 5 tonnes flow LAX to AKL. May be useful for EK if they're doing ultra long haul in them, but once you start loading that much fuel in the 330 your available payload quickly shrinks. Its been a couple of years but i'm pretty sure main tanks held 69 or 79 tonnes, enough to go to beijing easily, and provided the overweight landing is fairly smooth the engineers inspection is a quick one.

Capt Kremin
19th Feb 2010, 04:28
I am thinking that they probably did do an overweight landing. Two hours with gear extended wouldn't burn off nearly enough fuel to get down below MLW; not with a full pax load and 65-70 tonnes of fuel for PVG.

I guess if they lost the green system that would qualify as an emergency. As mentioned, an overweight landing, done properly is no big deal in an A330.

Ivasrus
19th Feb 2010, 05:50
Two hours with gear extended wouldn't burn off nearly enough fuel to get down below MLW
It was closer to 4 hours, all at 5 or 6 thousand feet ... perhaps it was enough?

GodDamSlacker
19th Feb 2010, 06:21
either way it was a dual hydraulic pump change - green system on both engines plus all the filters, case and main, as the hydraulic fire shutoff valve closed making the pumps go low pressure. a nice warranty job off Airbus!
The statement by Qf it wasnt an emergency is crap, is it normal to have the e gear extended, undercarriage doors down and no green hydraulics so no normal braking system? I think not....Isnt it time QF management actual got managers that know what they are taking about instead off some crap speal told to then 5 mins before they make a statement....

Jetsbest
19th Feb 2010, 06:26
I heard that gear down, Flap1, speed brake & holding at approx 200-220kts (ie above Vls) meant time for a meal and a movie for the punters, plus approx 6500kg/hr fuel flow until landing just under MLW. :ok:

C441
19th Feb 2010, 06:30
In November 2008, the same flight was forced to return to Sydney an hour into its journey after its radar systems had malfunctioned.

..and it only just landed yesterday.

I want some of that overtime.:ok:

breakfastburrito
19th Feb 2010, 07:10
The statement by Qf it wasnt an emergency is crap, is it normal to have the e gear extended, undercarriage doors down and no green hydraulics so no normal braking system?
GodDamSlacker, it wasn't an "emergency" in the legal sense. Given that an emergency is NOT defined in the Legislation, Regulations or AIP, it is up to the Pilot In Commad (PIC) to define an emergency.

Once the PIC has determined an emergency exists, the legislation allows them to do anything deemed appropriate for the safe conduct of the flight, ie break rules as necessary.
Until an emergency is declared, MLW must be respected, even with a loss of a single hydraulic system.

Nothing I have seen thus far leads me to conclude that an emergency was declared.

So, what you consider an emergency may differ from the PIC's view on the day. The PIC may also have to justify the declaration of an emergency in a court of law if rules are broken.

old rope
19th Feb 2010, 12:33
Vol 3 Limitations

"In exceptional conditions (in flight turnback or diversion), an immediate landing at weight above maximum landing weight is permitted, provided the pilot follows the overweight landing proceedure"

breakfastburrito
19th Feb 2010, 18:30
Old Rope, I stand corrected regarding MLW in the exceptional circumstances vs an emergency as per Airbus limitations.

Capt_SNAFU
19th Feb 2010, 19:58
Old rope it is permitted by the FCOM yet an overweight landing is not permitted by the regulations unless you declare an emergency. Long discussion on this with regards to the the 380 as after dumping it would normally be 40+ tonnes over MLW and stated by company after checking with the regulator that unless you have declared an emergency then you should not land above MLW.

Agony
19th Feb 2010, 20:06
Loss of Green system does not even give a "LAND ASAP" in amber on Ecam. Is not considered an emerg in Airbus eyes.
However it is a crtical system for ETOPS, (sorry EDTO).

Bula
20th Feb 2010, 02:54
Funny.. 320 has, well did have the same problem until the pinch point was fixed...

old rope
20th Feb 2010, 10:59
Capt SNAFU, thanks for that, not familiar with the oz interpretation of the Regs anymore.

I've no doubt that the PIC would have been receiving info from many sources that led to his conduct of the air turn back, reading FCOM would have been one of the more simple tasks. But as in all things aviation, the simple tasks are never thus.

Cheers

Capt_SNAFU
20th Feb 2010, 20:28
No prob Old rope. It is what you when the regulators fail to keep up with the times. Company has been lobbying to get it changed.