SQ A380 emergency landing in Baku due to low cabin pressure

[mitrosft]

RBC news states that Singapor Airlines A380 LHR-SIN diverted to Baku, Azerbaijan due to cabin pressure loss. Oxygen masks were deployed. Landed approx 21:03 UTC.

Anyone knows details ?

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

Well, according to an article from Le Monde:

In a message broadcasted on FB, a passenger in the aircraft, Matthew G. Johnson said he had heard a "loud air noise from the door located five rows farther" shortly after takeoff from London. A crew member told the passenger that the door was suffering from a "light" leak, added Mr. Johnson. A few hours later, the oxygen masks drop was triggered and the emergency landing procedure began.

Un A380 de Singapore Airlines atterrit en urgence à Bakou (http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2014/01/06/un-a380-de-singapore-airlines-atterrit-en-urgence-a-bakou_4343258_3234.html)

[Will Hung]

Would a crew member really say that ?

[ulugbek-pilot]

Stupid crew member, or he follows the parents admonition to tell the truth always

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Better than shouting "We'll all be killed"..

[kenjaDROP]

Mmmmm? This and cabin pressure loss on another of SIA's A380s (9V-SKJ) end of November?

[atakacs]

Seems this is not the first time leaking doors are reported with a380 (although first time it escalated to decompression). Is there anything specific with this aircraft regarding doors ?

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

Yes, there are more of them...;)

[deptrai]

Excellent point - many doors on an a380. There's also many passengers, that might increase the probability that some pebble stuck under a shoe or any other contamination could slightly deform the bottom part of the door seal (blame changi airport and sillypore for not being clean enough? :} ). Could be a number of other reasons as well, pure speculation from my side, but i highly doubt there's anything special about a380 door seals. I think the most unpleasant part of this near-non-incident would be having to leave the aircraft and wait at the airport in Baku.

[Lord Bracken]

Alleged photo of the offending door. © Matthew G. Johnson 2014, a passenger.

Note the deformation of the window blind and the top surround.

https://scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1509239_10152189710412533_1025664494_n.jpg

If this is a 'non-incident' I take it this deformation is by design?

[bugged on the right]

A Flight Engineer would have bogged it up with wet paper towels. No need to divert.

[Captinbirdseye]

Pax were told of approx 18 hour delay! They have to stay within the airport due to not having visas! Sounds pretty miserable to be honest!!

[Jetjock330]

More from BBC here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25618122)

An Airbus A380 plane operated by Singapore Airlines was forced to make an emergency landing in Azerbaijan due to loss of cabin pressure.
The plane was flying from London to Singapore and had 467 passengers and 27 crew members on board.
The airline said that oxygen masks were deployed and the aircraft landed "uneventfully" at the Baku airport.
It said that none of the passengers or crew was injured and that it was investigating what caused the problem.
Nathan Phelps, an electrical supervisor from south Wales who was on the flight, told the BBC the plane was cruising at around 38,000 feet when it suddenly began to drop.
"I literally thought we were all going to die. There was no warning, the plane just went into a deep descent, the masks dropped and you automatically thought we were going to crash. There was no other rational thought really. You couldn't really look at it optimistically because you had never experienced anything like that before."
Singapore Airlines said a replacement airplane to take the stranded passengers on to Singapore had now departed and was due to arrive in Baku on 7 January.
It said it had also sent staff from both Istanbul and Moscow to provide assistance on the ground in Baku.
Complaints However, some customers writing on the airline's Facebook page complained about the wait for a replacement plane.
Passenger Terri Mann, said that she had to sleep on a "cold steel bench" with her 17-month old child, and that there were no "food places" at the airport.
"We are all a little hesitant about getting on our next legs of our journeys, just hope the worst is over," she wrote.
Another passenger Mark Franklin wrote that the handling of the incident was "terrible".
"It's not acceptable to not have even very basic refreshment or information for almost 500 people," he added.
In response to the complaints, Singapore Airlines issued a statement on Facebook apologising: "We sincerely apologise to affected customers for the inconvenience caused by the diversion and the lengthy delay encountered at the airport in Baku," it said.
However, other people writing on Singapore Airline's Facebook page praised its handling of the incident.
Iker Ibáñez wrote: "One can only congratulate the crew for bringing the aircraft down to a safe landing with all passengers and crew on board in one piece."
Similarly, Ronald Leung wrote: "Really have to appreciate Singapore Airlines making the immediate announcement rather than say nothing and try to censor the number of people who will know about the incident."


In response to passenger reports that the emergency landing was because of a faulty door, a Singapore Airlines spokesman said that "on the earlier flight into London there was a noise reported from one of the main deck doors".
But he added that "the door was inspected by engineers on the ground in London with no findings, and the aircraft was cleared for continued operation".
Airbus, which manufactures A380s, said in a statement that it was "following up on this issue and providing technical assistance to the airline".
Singapore Airlines is one of the biggest operators of the A380 planes, with 19 jets in its fleet.





Quote below the photo "No passengers or crew were injured"

I think it was a good job done by crew:ok:

[atakacs]

Quick question: in such case (loss of cabin pressure) is the descent pilot initiated (I would think and hope that there is no automation here) ? If so what about a PA announcement or even some sort of emergency message displayed on all in flight entertainment screens ? It would calm the paxs and insure that correct procedures are followed.
As for complaining about the Baku airport lack of amenities I guess there is very little that SQ could do about it...

[ulugbek-pilot]

It sure was a good job but they didn't guess with a landing field though there are not many options there

[CodyBlade]

Quote:"Loud noise after takeoff from door" on tkof.

Tricky situation..

[ulugbek-pilot]

Emergency descending is only done by crew and there's no time to make an announcement when you're losing air so quickly,the only thing is to switch seat belts sign

[plasticmerc]

OK well done to the crew following procedures getting down safely.
I feel sorry for the poor army of guys engineers who will have to repack all the o2 masks, change all the oxygen gens and generally clean up after the pax and CC who soiled themselves!

The unseen unsung heroes, the neglected and long suffering poor engineers.!!!!!!

No plane will take off without them.

[Eau de Boeing]

What is a descent pilot? Or did you mean decent....:8

Airbus procedures for a "decent" emergency descent are for the maximum automation possible in these events.

You leave the A/P and A/T engaged and use manual modes (Turn and Pull) and then check your FMA's to make sure what you want is what you have.

This is then refined when in the descent and both pilots are on oxygen applicable and appropriate to the scenario given.

This allows Pilot Flying (normally CM1) to monitor the flight path produced by the automatics and for PM to carry out other essential tasks like seatbelts, manual oxygen deployment if required and talk to ATC.

Works very well in the sim, crew did a good job here and I think the passengers are being a bit harsh about the choice of airport given the location. Given the tripe talked on the EK380 continuing from JFK to KWI can you imagine the armchair pilot frenzy if they found out that a 380 had continued in an area full of terrain just so they could get to somewhere with a McDonalds?:confused::confused:


P.S. PlasticMerc don't worry yourself too much there's not too many Oxygen gennies to change on one of these birds :ok:

[oxenos]

"A Flight Engineer would have bogged it up with wet paper towels. No need to divert."

My thought exactly. Good low tech solution. Even a pilot could have done it. I know, been there, done it.

[M.Mouse]

If so what about a PA announcement or even some sort of emergency message displayed on all in flight entertainment screens ?

The safety briefing before flight explains the use of the drop down oxygen masks. People do of course pay attention to that, don't they?

There is an expression in aviation for priorities - 'Aviate, Navigate, Communicate' in that order. Passengers not immediately being told what is happening is not going to kill them. A PA can wait until a suitable moment, carrying out an emergency descent is not a suitable moment.

One of things not much thought about with the A380, great aeroplane that it is, is the lack of airports able to handle it. A large aircraft diversion stretches any airport not accustomed to handling one so an A380 in BAKU is a headache for the airport, airline and passengers.

[glofish]

One of things not much thought about with the A380, great aeroplane that it is, is the lack of airports able to handle it. A large aircraft diversion stretches any airport not accustomed to handling one so an A380 in BAKU is a headache for the airport, airline and passengers.

Why not simply continue until reaching a more suitable airport, after all the A380 has 4 engines and is apparently designed to reach a such and not divert into any hole .... :}:}:}

(sorry, is only meant to make the super-jockeys jump ..... )

[Sober Lark]

" all the A380 has 4 engines "

Not quite. There are 119 of these aircraft in operation that makes 476 engines.

[Perrin]

On the ATP when the crew said there was whistling from rear door we packed it with towels and told them to worry when the whistling stopped.

:E

[ulugbek-pilot]

4 or 2 what's the big D they were all working,would be great to find some place more suitable but Baku is the only in the vicinity,Turkey few hours away as well as Emirates

[archae86]

An element of this incident that puzzles this non-pilot is the relationship between the probable scale of the door-seal leak and depressurization.

I have the impression that in normal conditions the air paks provide considerable excess flow which only fails to over-pressurize the aircraft by leaving through a large outflow valve.

Presumably a fault in a door seal alone would need to leak more than the normal discharge of the outflow valve in that state of flight even to cause a reduction in cabin pressure. Of course if there were other abnormal leaks, or the outflow valve or controls suffered a simultaneous fault which prevented it from closing sufficiently, then a door seal leak could push an already degraded operating point past the edge.

Too much speculation--so I'll switch to questions.

Do people here have actual experience of a door-seal leak alone (which I understand to be common) causing a cabin pressure departure from allowed limits in an otherwise fully healthy aircraft?

Approximately what is the normal outflow air flow through the valve at cruise altitude?

[ulugbek-pilot]

What do you mean, outflow valve only regulates cabin altitude by differential pressure in cruise within about 7-8psi at this altitude

[ulugbek-pilot]

Who knows what flow rate is out of that valve, it's operated by computer and varies according to flight phase

[NigelOnDraft]

As an Airbus (not 380) Capt, your:Presumably a fault in a door seal alone would need to leak more than the normal discharge of the outflow valve in that state of flight even to cause a reduction in cabin pressure. Of course if there were other abnormal leaks, or the outflow valve or controls suffered a simultaneous fault which prevented it from closing sufficiently, then a door seal leak could push an already degraded operating point past the edgeis about spot on :ok: A leaky door seal is hardly rare, and just makes an annoying noise. I think Packs / Pressurisation are designed to cope with 1 (or more?) windows blown out.

We'll see, seems to me pretty standard decompression, flown correctly, land. It is also pretty standard Pax are frightened / alarmed / think they were going to die *...

NoD

PS * and they are unlikely to be "reassured" by the Captain trying to make a PA whilst wearing an Oxygen mask :ooh:

[aguadalte]

I'm with you archae86 (http://www.pprune.org/members/118881-archae86) . I don't think a leak in a door would be, by itself, enough reason to depressurize an A380 to the point of deploying oxygen masks. There has to be something else, that was not disclosed yet.

When a "slow" depressurization occurs, pilots get an ECAM advisory indication and, if incapable of solving the problem, they may start the emergency descent in order to reach the cabin altitude before oxygen masks deploy.

There are, of course, other reasons to deploy the masks even when reaching cabin altitude "in time". Minimum obstacle or of route altitudes, come to mind.

As usual, lets wait and see...

[strake]

We'll see, seems to me pretty standard decompression...

If I may respectfully beg to differ...

An aircraft door is not designed to leak nor should (in these days) an aircraft be knowingly flown with a reported door leak problem. Never mind the quotes about 'noise being heard' and 'doors being checked' the photographic evidence alone shows there was a major problem with the door.

I'm sure the apparently craggy old long-timers will talk about stuffing wet rags in the holes and nicotine stains on the fuselage etc but that was then, this is now and it's unacceptable.

[lasernigel]

An aircraft door is not designed to leak nor should (in these days) an aircraft be knowingly flown with a reported door leak problem. Never mind the quotes about 'noise being heard' and 'doors being checked' the photographic evidence alone shows there was a major problem with the door.

I'm sure the apparently craggy old long-timers will talk about stuffing wet rags in the holes and nicotine stains on the fuselage etc but that was then, this is now and it's unacceptable.

Have you ever flown in an AA 757 from Man to ORD in the emergency exit row? I have many times and all their doors are leaky. To the extent they made up "hot" water bottles as the interior walls were that cold. Old BA 747's the same. Did I panic once and say impending doom was all around me? No thank goodness stiff upper lip and all that!!

Get a life for God's sake and stop whinging!! You make all us SLF's sound paranoid.

[NigelOnDraft]

Quote:
We'll see, seems to me pretty standard decompression...
If I may respectfully beg to differ...When I refer to "standard decompression" I mean the actions of the crew / perceptions of the Pax. Steep "terrifying" dive, shortly after it started masks came down (shows crew ahead of the game), dove ~20000'+, no PA, Pax all frightened.

That to me is "pretty standard". There is no "pretty standard" cause, and is not terrible relevant to the crew or their actions at the time - you deal with the symptoms.

nor should (in these days) an aircraft be knowingly flown with a reported door leak problemYou'll find a lot of cancelled flights then ;)

There is, to the best of my knowledge, no way a "rapid decompression" will happen solely due to a faulty door seal. It would take more fundamental door problem... Whilst not want you might want to hear, but we tend to "carry leaky" door seals until a convenient time to repair them - and often after the door is opened / closed, the problem goes away.

NoD

[evil]

When I refer to "standard decompression" I mean the actions of the crew / perceptions of the Pax. Steep "terrifying" dive, shortly after it started masks came down (shows crew ahead of the game), dove ~20000'+, no PA, Pax all frightened.

How long would "decent" ~20000' dive take pls Nigel?

[ulugbek-pilot]

That's right and the outflow valve will just shut trying to keep cabin altitude, bleed demand will increase and all that

[ulugbek-pilot]

Considering there was no exploding decompression they'd keep max speed and it'd take about 4min

[DX Wombat]

the photographic evidence alone shows there was a major problem with the door.
No it doesn't. What it shows is that a problem occurred en route.

[DaveReidUK]

Have you ever flown in an AA 757 from Man to ORD in the emergency exit row? I have many times and all their doors are leaky. To the extent they made up "hot" water bottles as the interior walls were that cold. Old BA 747's the same.Sounds to me as if you are agreeing with the previous poster's point:

An aircraft door is not designed to leak nor should (in these days) an aircraft be knowingly flown with a reported door leak problem.

I'm sure the apparently craggy old long-timers will talk about stuffing wet rags in the holes and nicotine stains on the fuselage etc but that was then, this is now and it's unacceptable. Granted, a leaking seal doesn't endanger the aircraft or mean the door is about to depart, but purely on the grounds of passenger discomfort (both noise and temperature), "unacceptable" strikes me as a pretty apt description.

[NigelOnDraft]

How long would "decent" ~20000' dive take pls Nigel? (descent) The Pax say was ~2mins - probably approx right. You can get significantly more than 10,000'/min, but it takes time to get that going, and also level off.

There are 2 descent profiles - 1 if you think there may be structural damage, the other if not. In the latter, it is idle, full speedbrake, as fast as you can go. In the former you are more restrained :ooh:

Crew and Passengers can survive for a long time on Oxy Masks at cruise altitude, albeit cold. However, the assumption is that some in the cabin will not have listened to the Safety Video, and will not be on oxygen. They have ~15s of consciousness and 3mins to possible brain damage. Very roughly, once below 20K' the brain damage issue has gone. So you can see the priority...

Usual aim is to level at 10K', but terrain may limit that and around Baku is a factor.

[uncle_maxwell]

If I remember correctly the magic sequence after oxy masks on and establish communications is:
TURN/PULL (ALT) - PULL/TURN (HDG) - PULL (SPD).

All kinds of auxiliary tasks by PM of course and second round for both PF and PM.

If I remember correctly then MAN OXY ON is a checklist item (the so-called 'lawyers switch' - you manually deploy oxy masks even if they have been deployed automatically already.

Emergency descent is never initiated by the aircraft. If nothing is done the crew (and pax) would fall unconscious eventually, A/P would maintain FL and everyone would perish while F16 (or MiG 29) pilots watch the aircraft run out of fuel and dive (remember Helios?).

After emergency descent initiation, communication with the Pax goes out of the window as pilots will be busy checking MSA, range at lower level, diversion airports etc.

Job well done by flight deck crew it seems!:D

A night at Baku airport without water is a survivable event (unlike slow or rapid decompression at FL380 without action being taken by the flight crew).

[Eau de Boeing]

Uncle Max

Correct, the 380 is no different to other airbus types in that respect.
You do 2 loops, as NoD said to start the thing going and then once established in the descent, refine it to what is applicable at the time, i.e. damage or no damage and also MSA considerations. This can include speedbrake and also manual deployment of the masks if the cabin altitude hasn't yet reached 14,000. It is not a mandatory item on the checklist, it is common sense if you suffer an explosive decompression, however if you can catch the cabin alt by expediting a descent then it is not required.

At a certain Middle East A380 operating airline, we also have guidelines for any areas of terrain that are likely to impact on Driftdown and Rapid Descent....

You're right Blowfish, if only they'd done it on 2 engines, mind you having just been a pax on an old version of the EK workhorse, with all the creaking, whining and loud hissing about the IFE not working, you probably wouldn't have heard the door go anyway and the temperature wouldn't have changed much:ok:

[Tourist]

Nigel.

I am unable to refrain from pointing out that your quote of 3 mins above 20k is total :mad: re brain damage.

http://cousin.pascal1.free.fr/AVMA%20etude%20decom.pdf


This rather unpleasant article would suggest that 3 mins at 60k is the threshold for total recovery.

[BOAC]

On behalf of Nigel, Tourist, I have to say read his post again and:

"I am unable to refrain from pointing out that your quote appears to be total :mad:"

Your paper actually quotes
"In animals breathing air, Lutz observed that a minimal survival time of 25 seconds was reached on decompression to 43,000 ft or above."

I can assure you that an explosive decomp at 60k empties your lungs pretty quickly and you will not 'recover' after 3 minutes - based on a chamber run from 20k to 56k. Remember also that pax are breathing 'air' supplemented with O2, not O2.

I would, however, take issue with Nigel on the prospects of "survive for a long time on Oxy Masks at cruise altitude" since the partial pressure of oxygen at that altitude is too low to support consciousness for very long on a pax mask and hence the need to get down PDQ.

[Fangio]

That brings back memories, the downside of the cabin staff stuffing wet paper towels in the leaking doors of the 'Budgie' during winter in the Shetlands was when after landing the door was frozen and difficult to open. happy days

[NigelOnDraft]

Hi BOACI would, however, take issue with Nigel on the prospects of "survive for a long time on Oxy Masks at cruise altitude" since the partial pressure of oxygen at that altitude is too low to support consciousness for very long on a pax mask and hence the need to get down PDQI did say "survive" ;) Not necessarily conscious :{ My point was not that anybody should or would stay @ Cruise Alt, but there is no massive urgency for those on Oxy.

Thanks for your reply to 'Tourist'... I would add that:I am unable to refrain from pointing out that your quote of 3 mins above 20k is total re brain damage.is not what I said... I said:...at cruise altitude, ... and 3mins to possible brain damage. Very roughly, once below 20K' the brain damage issue has gone. So you can see the priority...i.e. at a Cruise Alt (maybe >40K') and ~3mins, Brain Damage starts becoming a factor. I am not talking the young, fit or steely eyes fighter jock like BOAC, but the old / sick who might already be on supplementary oxygen at 8K' cabin alt. Thanks for the link anyway which I shall read...

[beamender99]

BBC News - Singapore Airline: 'The plane just fell from the sky' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25625591)
Interview with a pax.


BBC News - Singapore Airlines A380 plane in emergency landing (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25618122)

[bcgallacher]

Door seal leaks are usually noisy to a greater or lesser degree - not normally a cause of depressurisation.I am not familiar with A380 door seals - is the seal shown displaced on the photograph the pressure seal or a dust seal as per 747?

[Tourist]

BOAC
:=
It is rude to cherry pick a phrase to quote, when if you read the article that phrase obviously refers to teeny tiny critters, plus it says minimum. i.e. Even the most susceptible animals will survive that long.

There are many more valid references to monkeys/dogs which suggest much longer times of survival.

"In human beings, the potentially severe hypoxia encountered above 50,000 ft begins to become effective*ly reversed at the 50,000-ft level, improving rapidly with continued recompression to 40,000 ft or lower"

Oh, and yes I am very aware of crash decompression. I have dutifully farted my way through many Henlow post curry events.;)

[glofish]

@ Eau de Boeing

Fact is that if with 2 or 4 donkeys, with that kind of failure, you'd have ended up at the same place.
That's what my jab was intended for: With all that bragging of being able to continue with 3 out of 4 donkeys, these fans forget that 90% of failures that force diversions are not related to the 2 or 4 question. Therefore my open question about the intelligence of continuing for long stretches over regions with airports as displayed! Especially with a behemouth that has limitations about the s#!t holes it can approach and the capabilities to deal with such a number of souls stranded, not to mention the support capabilities.

Additionally, take the statistics of inflight returns, diversion due to tech issues of the biggest ME whale operator compared to the other fleet and you come up with some stunning statistics. And then take the amount of units parked at any time at the maint hangar of both fleets and you'll come up with almost 10% for the super and 4% of the main fleet. These numbers should calm down the enthusiasm of "super"ior capability of this product.
It only cooks with the same "Eau" as the other flying cousins and should be considered that way. If we'd consider any components failure to extended operation certification, at this very moment the A380 would maybe have a 120' ticket, with its inflight incidents. It's a typical QED.

[Capetonian]

Reader comment from the DM on this incident:

I remember one particular flight once where the pilot had taken off too quickly and climbed too steep. As a result, ALL engines had cut out and the plane droped 1000ft in virtually no time at all, until the engines had come back. The autopilot was correcting the pilot's mistake, according to the pilot, but we never knew that until he came on later explaining it. Imagine getting to thousands of feet in the air, still being able to see land quite clearly out the window, then everything going quiet and the plane starts dropping like a stone along with the G forces involved. One of the most frightening moments of my life, but I was greatful to be alive, and I didn't go to social media to pointlessly moan. Be greatful you are alive and you actually got to your destination.and perhaps more sensibly:
Whining about staying in an airport? You could have been scattered all over the desert in little pieces if the captain had not decided to land as a caution.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Passenger Terri Mann, said that she had to sleep on a "cold steel bench" with her 17-month old child, and that there were no "food places" at the airport. ............................ Another passenger Mark Franklin wrote that the handling of the incident was "terrible". "It's not acceptable to not have even very basic refreshment or information for almost 500 people," he added.My God ! what planet do pax come from these days ?

Singapore Airlines must immediately amend the Emergency Descent checklist - the first item being ....." Does the selected emergency landing airport have facilities to cope with the,different, personal requirements of 500 passengers ? If not do nothing and let fate take its course."

I wonder how many soft, warm benches did Terri Mann expect in Heaven - or the alternative - had they not safely landed at Baku ?

Does she and the quoted Mark Franklin expect every airline that they fly with, to have beds and meals for 500 pax.at every airport in World that they might pass en route, just in case they have to land there in an emergency ?

'bout time the Darwin Awards became more effective.

Instead of Security Checks, airports should present passengers with an affidavit to sign i.e. "In the event of an inflight emergency beyond our control, do you agree to a bit of discomfort whilst the problem is sorted out, or would you rather die ?"

One would weep, but it won't make any difference.

[awblain]

Monkeys and dogs don't have too much brain to damage, so their status isn't of much interest here.

I believe there are two key steps in altitude - one at about 25,000 feet above which oxygen saturation cannot be maintained high enough to ensure long-term survival - the mountaineer's death zone - and about 60,000 feet, when the ambient pressure reduces beneath the vapor pressure of water in the lungs, "ebullition" as the macabre link suggests.

Above 50,000 feet, a pressure suit is required. Below that, oxygen allows hours of survival… but what about the sickest oldest passengers out of the 500? What about the few percent of passengers who can't work their masks, due either to a lack of natural talent, or to low-oxygen-induced senselessness?

[crewmeal]

On the ATP when the crew said there was whistling from rear door we packed it with towels and told them to worry when the whistling stopped.


The BAC 1-11 used to have seal leaks and we as cabin crew were told to stuff wet towels around the suspected leak and hey bingo it always worked.

[SLF-Flyer]

Reminds me of two things. Traveling on G-OOOX with a leaking port side rear door, with a good covering of ice.

My science teacher, who was a Wing Co. in WWII. He would have probably said "Use the girls tights to fill the hole and cover with duck tape".

He crashed in the desert during WWII and told us how to survive with what is around you. Such were the delights of education in the UK, in the 50's and 60's.

Off topic I know, but was flying better when aircraft were more simple.

Full marks to the people up front.

[Una Due Tfc]

IIRC, the oxy generators are only good for 15 mins, right? So hanging about at high alt aint an option if you want the pax to survive.

A private jet Captain visited us recently and told us if his jet (think it was a G5) detects loss of pressure above FL400, the autopilot will deviate and descend after a few seconds, assuming the crew are unconscious (think he said to FL120), and bang out an ACARS/CPDLC message to ATC (if equipped). Not sure how that integrates with TCAS/GPWS etc....

[dash6]

Seems unlikely a faulty door seal would cause this.A relatively small leak in a large system. More detail required?

[poorjohn]

He would have probably said "Use the girls tights to fill the hole and cover with duck tape".... Off topic I know, but was flying better when aircraft were more simple.Getting tights off girls has become a lot more difficult, too. Just asking will probably earn a long remedial session (at best) with HR back at home. And volunteerism has taken a hit over the years, too.

Time to start looking for a nice farm.

[atakacs]

I am still not fully convinced about the difficulty posed by performing an automation assisted emergency descent with an A380. I certainly concur that the "aviate" part should most definitely come first but, at least in this case with no structural damage nor control issues (reported at least) would it be so busy upfront to exclude taking a few seconds for a PA announcement ?

On a similar train of thought what would be the technical / practical difficulty to link the o2 masks deployment with some on screen pre-recorded animation explaining what's going on ?

Last but not least in this case are we to understand that this was not a case of explosive decompression but "just" a door seal failing - in other words not a sudden event but probably a progressive loss of cabin pressure ?!

[admiral ackbar]

Yes because a muffled PA announcement by a pilot wearing an oxygen mask would comfort the paranoid nervous nellies in the back. When the sheeple gets going, no announcement will appease them.

I had an emergency descent many years ago on a Canadian Airlines 737 YUL-MCO. No announcement, plastic jungle deployed, steep dive. Everyone panicking, "I see smoke", "There is a hole in the back", etc ad nauseum. I figured if you are going down in a controlled manner, things are looking up! Some woman behind me yelling "I CANT BREATHE WITH THIS THING ON" as we were flying level at a lower altitude. I told her to take her mask off, that should fix it.

Found out the windshield cracked upon landing in Charlottesville. Dry county. I was not aware such thinks existed as I wanted to buy the Captain a drink for his good flying.

Seems like the crew handled this well. Lets wait to see the cause.

[givemewings]

I believe PreRecorded Announcement on mask deployment is customer option. On many carriers it'd probably be better NOT to have one as the pax would probably freak out even more...

A380 oxy is not chemically provided, it's a gaseous tank system a la 747 (at least on the largest 380 operator it is) Time available varies with several factors but it's enough to get the job done if you're over the Himalayas...

[ITman]

It would seem that the engineer at LHR should have sorted the faulty door seal there properly rather than signing the aircraft off for the next sector. Rings tales of SQ cutting corners to keep the planes flying, no doubt the crew will get gong's for their actions on return to Singapore.

And why on earth did they choose Baku it was bound to be a nightmare for the passengers....

[parabellum]

It would seem that the engineer at LHR should have sorted the faulty door seal there properly rather than signing the aircraft off for the next sector. Rings tales of SQ cutting corners to keep the planes flying, no doubt the crew will get gong's for their actions on return to Singapore.


Almost certainly the engineer that signed the aircraft off would not have been SIA, unless they now base engineers in London?


"Rings tales of SQ cutting corners to keep the planes flying"

Got any evidence of that happening ITman? Maybe you just don't like SIA?

[givemewings]

You are obviously neither an engineer or a pilot...

Door seal can be noisy, checked, unable to find anything wrong, few flights later may act up again. Many possible reasons. In this case it was obviously more going by the photo but no engo in his right mind would sign off an aircraft that he thought was not fit to operate within the scope of allowable limits. Personally through more than a few airlines I've seen and heard 'noisy doors' on all types yes inc 380. In all but one case it settled within a few minutes and was down to sand/pebble/water in the door. At all carriers was SOP to check prior to closing. Impossible to see sand/tiny pebbles. In one other case it was a slight dent in the metal door plate which was microscopic and easily given a temp fix by engineer until it could get to the hangar.

as for Baku, PIC obviously felt it was good enough, his arse was on the line too....

[Bravo Romeo Alpha]

As for all the pax complaints about Baku, this old saying applies - "its better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground"

[ExSp33db1rd]

And why on earth did they choose Baku it was bound to be a nightmare for the passengers....

Where did the problem start ? What alternative options did he have ? It's Tiger Country out there, and who are you to criticise ?

[Chu Chu]

Off topic, I guess, but why would a door leak make the cabin colder? It's not like cold air's leaking in from outside. :hmm:

[Una Due Tfc]

Lower air pressure = lower temps

[PEI_3721]

Colder cabin; on the contrary it may have been hotter due to the (presumed) increase in airflow from the packs attempting to maintain pressure, which may cause the cold air units to struggle.

[Fly3]

The MSA's in that part of the world are quite high and may have precluded continued flight at 10,000ft to anywhere else.

[deptrai]

More pictures of the door

http://s7.directupload.net/images/140107/69xvawtb.jpg

http://s1.directupload.net/images/140107/23cu5syz.jpg

[atakacs]

In interesting picture although not sure to understand exactly what has failed (you seem that the door structure has failed but seems quite extreme if only induced by pressure differential...) ?

[atakacs]

Haven't been there recently but wasn't Terminal 3 supposed to be opened this year ? It seems it would have provided fairly adequate facilities ?

As for alternates, except maybe for Teheran, I don't see what other choices they might had...

[Chris2303]

Whereas wasting time telling the SLF COULD kill them.....

[deptrai]

Door seal problems are notoriously hard to reproduce on the ground because the a/c needs to be pressurised...but in this case I'm confident someone will soon be able to figure out what caused this, not that I can tell anything from the picture, but the gremlins seem to have left clues

[superminiowl]

It is so irritating when passengers who are ungrateful start to make stupid comments. What's worse is that the press loves stupid comments which are baseless.

[Sober Lark]

Safety first, comfort second. The alternate airport worked for them.

I'm with you glofish, given only 119 flying, reports of incidents seem fairly common for such a small numbers in service. Did the 747 have as many incidents when it was introduced? Perhaps it did but we never heard about it. The A380 and 787 have been born in an era when if you fart in the pointy end we hear about it on the ground even before those around you notice the smell.

[Volume]

What is the A380 procedure if you receive an EICAS Message "Pax door unlocked" at cruising altitude? Manually switch of pressurization and land ASAP? Or does the bus depressurize automatically in that case, just to prevent an explosive event (which potentially is much worse) ?

[Bergerie1]

Sober Lark


Yes it did - the first 747s experienced many problems with the Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines. If that had happened today I hate to think what Pruners would have made of the number of engine shut downs. Glofish would have had a field day!!

[mitrosft]

"In the event of an inflight emergency beyond our control, do you agree to a bit of discomfort whilst the problem is sorted out, or would you rather die ?"

:D
Long standing applause ! Must have upon entry to a/c !

[rog747]

if the wx was out at Baku, what to do?

looks a bit sparse on the map---would an A380 at FL10-12 be able to go back to Istanbul from their decent/diversion point?

[TURIN]

Those photos appear to show the upper (gate?) seal partially detached and some structural failure of the upper assembly. Hats off to the crew for their swift action. red faces all round at Airbus/SIA (and dare I say whoever inspected it back at LHR, there for the grace of etc...) :ok:

[massiveheed]

Having just operated to Baku in the last couple of weeks a couple of points.

Prior to Baku travelling east MSA reaches up to 18400' so depending on where it happened choices of diversion are limited after a descent due to decompression.

Take a look at Tblisi Odesa Simferopol or Ganja. Where wold you rather go. Again depending on where it occurred there is a lot of terrain and distance between Baku and other airports outside this area.

As for making a pa? In an emergency descent on my little airbus there is a pre recorded announcement not sure what happens on a 380. I sound like a Dalek through the oxymask so it won't be reassuring to hear from me early on.

So it's an emergency descent due to probably slow decompression with hi terrain all round. We are trying to prevent the cabin pressure rising above 14000'. If all that comes out of the blue regardless of how good your situational awareness is at that point in the cruise it is I can assure you very very busy up front. The passengers can wait.

It's a good diversion airfield with relatively decent facilities. The new terminal according to ground staff opens in may but the old one is ok albeit without a huge amount of eateries and shops. There are a couple of hotels on the airport as well.

All safe , well done the crew .

[kenjaDROP]

Please could someone A380-wise explain the photos? What's the component part that appears to be torn off/distorted at the top of the door? [I guess part of the seal?].

[DX Wombat]

Just a thought, to date,on all the aircraft in which I have travelled the Captain has introduced him/herself and given a little pre-flight information - usually about him/herself, Bloggs the FO and the Cabin Crew. Might it not be an idea if a short announcement was included along the lines of "In the extremely unlikely event of a problem arising be assured that I & my FO will deal with that first then, when all is resolved, tell you what has happened and if necessary, what we intend to do next" (continue, diversion)?

[Capn Bloggs]

What is the A380 procedure if you receive an EICAS Message "Pax door unlocked" at cruising altitude? Manually switch of pressurization and land ASAP? Or does the bus depressurize automatically in that case, just to prevent an explosive event (which potentially is much worse) ?
Put the key back in and re-lock it! :cool:

[NigelOnDraft]

What is the A380 procedure if you receive an EICAS Message "Pax door unlocked" at cruising altitude? Manually switch of pressurization and land ASAP? Or does the bus depressurize automatically in that case, just to prevent an explosive event (which potentially is much worse) ?Almost certainly the same as any other airliner:

Do nothing if Pressn seems normal
If Pressn not normal, action as per Pressurisation e.g. descend as required to MSA/FL100
Doors are usually (now) "plug" type so pressurisation holds them closed.

[Hornbill88]

According to press report in Singapore there was a loud noise from the door and a sudden cooling in temperature 20minutes after take-off. If this is so, why didn't the pilot fly back to London?

[duffyp99]

There is lots of discussion on what pilot should/should not have done, but not much comment yet on how or why the door came apart in the first place (which it seems to have done from the pics). I am assuming thinking is that is an operational problem rather than a design one, or a fault, otherwise there would be cries of 'ground them all till we know' ?


Hope I am not being thick, just SLF myself !

[deptrai]

The question why the a/c did not return to london earlier has already been answered multiple times in this thread, but I'll try to repeat some points, in no particular order

1) Because a/c are meticulously maintained and inspected and the expertise of professional engineers carries more weight than "noises" heard by random people
2) Because door seals quite frequently have minor leaks which create noises, but in no way endanger passengers or the safe operation of the aircraft
3) Because pilots have better means available to verify door closure and monitor pressurisation than "noises"
4) Because it takes a lot more than noise to depressurise an aircraft

The a/c landed safely, no one was injured, and by now all pax have arrived safely in singapore. Whatever happened to the door will be scrutinized very, very carefully. :ok:

One of the more surprising things about this story is how critical Singapore Press suddenly seems to be towards the flag carrier. I can't say a free press is a bad thing, but lets hope they'll report not only freely, but also based on facts.

[VR-HFX]

If that photograph is the actual door, it is a frightening reminder of how little human protection we now have whenever we launch. That door would have closed and locked with the mechanics overcoming any abnormalities. It may be that pressure exacerbated the problem but the strange physical appearance now goes unnoticed. Cabin staff these days are on McDonalds wages and (with some exceptions) have little commonsense or training to look or think outside the box.:uhoh:

[givemewings]

Pfffft, DX, never! Half of them can't even be arsed to respond to "hello welcome onboard" or watch a safety video playing 2 inches from their faces.... you really think they will be listening to anything beyond how long they have ro watch telly and drink free booze? :P

[misd-agin]

Looks like the door failed at the edge. Completely different issue than a door seal leak.


Was the leak/noise because of the door starting to fail? From the cheap seats (ie, a long distance away, like thousands of miles) I'd guess yes.


Door failure on a new a/c is going to get a LOT more attention from the authorities than a simple seal failure.

[deptrai]

Misd-again, that's an interesting thought. Unusual thing... I initially wondered why a whole aircraft was dispatched instead of just an engineer with a door seal. Then I saw the pictures, and also heard the whole door is now being replaced. At some point I was also wondering if some exceptinally persistent seal issue (maybe a gremlin airframe) could have weakened some structure over time, as a door seal just seemed like a common and likely culprit for the described noises, but I cant possibly know, and of course it could be a totally different cause.

[PEI_3721]

Some (most) aircraft have an acoustic seal around the door in addition to a pressure seal; is this so for the A380.
Acoustic seals may appear more like structure, but they too can wear, be damaged, or come loose. Any of these aspects might consequentially affect the pressure seal.

[kenjaDROP]

Interesting fact you can deduce from the two pictures of the door is that it is the central (over-wing), port -side, lower door that has been affected.
This door would not normally be one used for embarkation/disembarkation, so FOD from regular ingress/egress this particular port would be less likely.

[lomapaseo]

Interesting fact you can deduce from the two pictures of the door is that it is the central (over-wing), port -side, lower door that has been affected.

Wouldn't the painted letter "R" be a clue :confused:

[Slats One]

I hate to sound smug, but nothing new here -you've heard the scuttlebutt on this have you not?

The alleged door problems on the 380 doors are a known. Emirates has had at least one diversion due reputed alleged door issues on 380. This SQ incident may be the first deprez and descent though.

My last flight as pax on a 380 was with SQ in 2009 - the upper deck door I sat next to squeaked in its frame all the way from SYN to SIN to LHR. Of note, the doors further forwards did not squeak in their frames.

As turbulence increased and rear fuselage upper lobe flexing increased the frame rubbing and plastic-to-plastic trim squeaking increased also increased. I put a blanket into the gap and went to sleep. I raised the issue with SQ and was told 'no problem'. After all that is what you expect is it not - 'no problem'...

I note the pax saying he told the crew soon after take off and met with denial/dismissal. That is a human factor worth noting for SQ. I venture to rashly suggest that a QF hostie in the same scenario would have agreed with the complainant and handed him a beer to keep quiet - before telling the CSD or FE.

As I say, Emirates allegedly had a 389 door issue last year I think.

Seems to me there a little issue a brewing here. But lets not panic. Wet towels, dry blankets - soon bunged into flexing aperture.

[Heathrow Harry]

I can recollect two incidents over the years flying in the back

One was Branff 727 out of Kansas City where a window started to make a loud whistling noise - after inspection by the FO we dropped to 5000 ft approx and slogged into Chicago in one piece

Another was the door on an Aeroflot Tu-154 which also gave out some very strange noises - but we all just fastened our seat belts and resorted to the power of prayer

[Hardbutt]

Explosive sound and decompression at night in pitch darkness over 15000ft peaks in Afghanistan with structural failure. And the passengers whine about lack of refreshments and the jounors report the lack of visas and hotel at Baku. I wonder who's Dumb and who's Dumber? :mad:

[llondel]

Off topic, I guess, but why would a door leak make the cabin colder? It's not like cold air's leaking in from outside.

That's physics for you, same principle as a refrigerator or air conditioner, look up adiabatic gas expansion. It basically states that a mass of gas rapidly expanding into a larger volume will cool down. If you've just removed half the gas in the fuselage through the leak, the other half will occupy the whole space and the temperature and pressure will drop.

[Fris B. Fairing]

This door?

http://www.adastron.com/aviation/vault/A380-doors.jpg

There are two Rs on each side.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Might it not be an idea if a short announcement was included along the lines of "In the extremely unlikely event of a problem arising be assured that I & my FO will deal with that first then, when all is resolved, tell you what has happened and if necessary, what we intend to do next" (continue, diversion)? No.

givemewings has given a good enough reason. Post # 97

At engine start I once used the P.A. to brief the passenger cabin on the wrong route to the wrong destination - can't remember why now, maybe just a Senior Moment ( and yes, Senior Captains do get Senior Moments - just like everyone else - tough ) and the co-pilot told me so as soon as I'd finished ! I chose not to correct it, that would only draw attention to my error, and I guessed that no one had noticed - correct, not even the Cabin Crew !

No one listens, so you might as well think OK, go ahead as DX suggested, but it would only worry anyone who might accidentally be paying attention.

If you've nothing to say, don't say it.

[DaveReidUK]

This door?

Yes, the central (over-wing), port-side, lower door, as identified in post #101.

M3L in Airbus-speak.

[atakacs]

Does anyone know which door(s) where involved in previous incidents ? It is indeed somewhat surprising that M3L would fail rather than some much more used exits. Also anyone with the number of cycles of this airframe - could not locate the info ?

[rog747]

quote
Having just operated to Baku in the last couple of weeks a couple of points.
Prior to Baku travelling east MSA reaches up to 18400' so depending on where it happened choices of diversion are limited after a descent due to decompression.
Take a look at Tblisi Odesa Simferopol or Ganja. Where wold you rather go. Again depending on where it occurred there is a lot of terrain and distance between Baku and other airports outside this area.


cheers for reply re my asking about where they could have gone elsewhere at low level/MSA if Baku was unavailable -could they have got back to Istanbul

[172driver]

cheers for reply re my asking about where they could have gone elsewhere at low level/MSA if Baku was unavailable -could they have got back to Istanbul

Just have a look at a map.

[rog747]

yes thanks i am good at maps and geog lol

my question was whether an A380 flying at low level/MSA at heavy weights if Baku was unavailable -could they have got back to Istanbul?

perfectly reasonable question - i have no idea what the fuel penalty for this a/c would be over such a time period at low level

[Sober Lark]

Thanks for your reply Bergerie1.

DaveReidUK would you happen to know who makes the M3L doors?

[deptrai]

Airbus helicopters (previously known as eurocopter, now rebranded airbus like all eads companies) makes all a380 doors, in Donauwörth, Germany. Subcontractors include Latécoère (France) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan).

Apart from composite materials, one of the touted novelties in a380 doors are the electromechanical actuators, a servo motor and a planetary gearhead, complete with electronic controls. Not sure if that also applies to emergency doors?

[DaveReidUK]

Not sure if that also applies to emergency doors?My understanding is that M2/M3/M4 are identical, other than the absence of a slide on M3 of course.

http://aviation-safety.net/photos/exits/750/990252-E-d-3-750.jpg

http://aviation-safety.net/photos/exits/750/990252-E-d-2-750.jpg

[skytrax]

All cabin door are identical, the only difference is the slide location. Main deck doors have a door mounted slide raft with the exception of MLR 3 doors. These 2 have it on belly, hence it is not visible on the door, see the first picture in the previous post. (That is ML3 door).

Upper deck doors are also the same but they have the slide raft fuselage mounted, under the door.

[Old-Engineer]

I've had the pleasure of sitting near these doors on flights to and from Singapore, and its worrying just how often they buzz. More so now than before, as the potential consequences are apparent. The buzzing merely used to ruin any chance of sleep during the flight. Now there's a good chance it'll pull the same trick the night before the flight.
Another engineer where I work reported vibration so extreme from a door it was shaking the deck and seats some three rows back. Someone from the flight deck was called. Blankets were stuffed in gaps, earplugs were offered and on it went. Loud, unnerving but uneventful. Looking at the photos begs the question is what is seemingly from experience a routine decision to just ignore it and carry on, allowing vibration and cyclic loading to chomp through the doors service life. When you're shaking the deck there's some energy going through the system.
I'm back on another A380 in a fortnight, pre-booked unfortunately. Will probably switch airlines for future trips now though, and watch for a while.

[givemewings]

All a380 doors in default operation will be opened using the handle then moved using the open/close button due size/weight of door.

do SIA cc perform opening completely (a la EK) or do the ground staff (as at QF?).

[DaveReidUK]

All cabin doors are identical, the only difference is the slide location.Or, more accurately, the operation of all the doors is identical. The profiles of M1 and M5 differ from the others, for obvious reasons.

[skytrax]

Its the same operation and the same door design for all of them. The differences are only when it comes to slide location, slide raft capacities, gust lock location.
There are a few more small diferences but I wont go into specifics.

[DaveReidUK]

Its the same operation and the same door design for all of them. The differences are only when it comes to slide location, slide raft capacities, gust lock location.
There are a few more small diferences but I wont go into specifics. I'd have thought that the fact the M1 and M5 doors won't physically fit in the M2/M3/M4 apertures (nor vice versa) due to the fuselage taper would qualify as more than just a "small difference".

Try interchanging them and you won't get as far as having to worry about pressurisation leaks :O

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2503/3771914768_bfb0ef00a0.jpg

[Volume]

All cabin door are identicalExcept for the loading. All doors see cabin pressure. Over wing doors additionally see the low pressure of the wing upper surface, hence they are higher and more dynamically loaded. On the other hand the overwing structure is much stiffer, so mainly the aft fuselage doors see the highest deformation of the surrounding structure and hence the highest realtive movement of the door stops and locks.
Therefore the doors may look identical, but might have small differences in wallthickness or dimension of internal structural items.

[skytrax]

There are small differences, of course, but it is the same door structure, same door components, aside from the ones mentioned.
We are talking here about type doors, this is how its categorised in Airbus. E.g. In A330/340, we have type A doors and type I doors (which are LR3).
In A380 is the same door type and Airbus doesn't differentiate between them.

I dont belive those small differences have anything to do with this incident, since this is what we are talking about. We have to wait and see what exactly failed there.

[DaveReidUK]

In A380 is the same door typeCorrect - all the doors on the A380 satisfy the criteria of a Type A exit. Though of course those criteria relate solely to the dimensions and not to the structure or design.

I dont belive those small differences have anything to do with this incidentAgreed.

[phiggsbroadband]

Around about post 66, it was mentioned that it was a LHR engineer that signed the door off as serviceable...


I wonder if he was a tall, or short, engineer.


Would he have needed to put a ladder on the wing to see on top of the door?

[kenjaDROP]

Would he have needed to put a ladder on the wing to see on top of the door?

Question is, would the M3L door have even been opened at LHR?

[bvcu]

How do you 'properly' INSPECT a suspect door in this position ? Only fully correct method is in a hangar with docking installed . How many destinations have that available ? This doesnt just apply to A380 for an overwing exit. So do you ferry somewhere unpressurised or employ very tall LAE's at all outstations. Only answer is for manufacturer to meet the design requirements where it should survive safely until the next scheduled inspection !

[no-hoper]

Most cherry picker and all deicing trucks are useful to perform this job...

http://photolibrary.heathrow.com/preview/CHE02675.jpg

[dmussen]

Spoke yesterday to a young English lady passenger. Apart from general terror and a swift descent she complimented the crew given mountainous terrain and a calm fix for the problem. It was explained that Azer. was the "way to go" given a potentially hostile reaction from the folk to the south. The runway in use was 800 m. short for a 380 and the time spent on the ground was OK except for the mum's with babes in arms who had a hard time.

[Volume]

I dont belive those small differences have anything to do with this incident Small is a relative term. A380 wing loading is 575t per 845m² or 6.67 kPa or 0.97 psi. This is the average pressure over the wing surface, peak pressure is well above twice this value. Max g is 2.5, so peak upper wing surface "suction" is around 5psi, more than 50% of the cabin pressure differential. 50% more loading at much higher frequency means quite something in fatigue ! 15-20% more constant pressure load every flight cycle means something as well.

[pianokeys]

I know a passenger who was on this flight and sitting close to this Door. On departure London and once airborne the air noise coming from the door was such that passengers could not hear the PA also they could not hear the video with headset on the crew gave them better headsets obviously from first or business class, over France the plastic cover broke and the Captain sent the first officer down to check the door he did not look at it just walked by.overhead Afghanistan the Aircraft made an emergency descent. The rest is HISTORY
Question. Why didn't the Aircraft return or divert over France.
Question. Why did the First Officer not physically check the door.
I suggest commercial pressures. Crew contact Singapore Operations and Maintenance, is there any indication of pressure loss NO keep going then it all happens over AFGHANISTAN.
This aircraft should never have left London.
On leaving London after the Passenger complaints and the plastic over broke the Aircraft should have diverted or returned to London.
I know that the Passengers where not given the correct information and this incident could have been handled a lot better by Singapore Airlines, right from start.

[NigelOnDraft]

pianokeys

Diverting an airliner, esp a large one, is not a trivial matter. Overweight landings have their own safety hazards. A380 multiplies these issues.

A "door failure" as seems to have happened here is pretty rare, and certainly not foreseen or trained for in my experience.

I think very few crews would have diverted pre-emptively. In retrospect, yes, there was an issue. But nobody on board in a position to know.

It seems safety wise a non issue - who knows whether there really was a significant "decompression"? Divert land, no further damage. I am afraid it is a fact of life that from time to time passengers will find themselves where they do not want to be for a day or 2 - that's air travel. LHR can organise that for you with a few snowflakes ;)

[barit1]

Many of us will recall Turkish Airlines Flight 981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981) (and American Airlines Flight 96 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_96) which preceded it). In each case a door failure produced a static pressure overload on the floor, deforming it to the point that control cables were compromised.

Now it appears the A380, with its two floors, faces a more complex design issue; if a lower-deck door fails, the upper floor sees a downward overload while the lower floor sees an upward overload. Not a pretty picture.

As a result of the DC-10 accidents, floor vents were retrofitted on all the widebodies of the time. I'm not sure what modern design practice is used to address the situation; anybody "in the know"?

[KBPsen]

...what modern design practice...
It's the usual dado panels.

[TURIN]

This aircraft should never have left London.

Isn't hindsight wonderful? :ugh:
The 380 has a long history of noisy doors due to a particular design feature. Would you expect, in these circumstances, to have a full NDT inspection after every noisy door report?


As a result of the DC-10 accidents, floor vents were retrofitted on all the widebodies of the time. I'm not sure what modern design practice is used to address the situation; anybody "in the know"?

Rest assured, all airliners now have blow out panels fitted at floor level to equalise cabin/hold pressure in the event of a failure.

[pianokeys]

I know that making a decision to divert a large airliner at a high weight is not a decision taken lightly.
However when a door makes so much noise that the Passengers cannot hear the PA even with head sets on and the the plastic cover distorts in flight there is some thing really wrong.
I have travelled many times on aircraft with leaking doors but at least I could hear the PA and listen to the music through the head set.
I have not travelled on the A380 but understand that in the cabin it has the lowest noise levels of any aircraft.
You can burn of or dump fuel to divert any aircraft.
This aircraft had a serious door problem which was identified early on in the flight which granted may not have blown out who knows.
As an airline who prides itself on customer comfort and safety I believe they let the customer down badly I also take on board that hindsight is a great thing.
Many passengers complained early on in the flight and where very frightend by n the noise then to have an emergency descent and once on the ground an 18 hour ordeal at an Airport not set up to handle the Aircraft.
The airline did get them a hotel but by the time all the Passengers where processed and had to return they had 2 hours at the hotel and many passengers did not even get to the hotel.
I stick by my comments today commercial pressures override safety and customer service in our industry.
Had the decission been been made when it should have to divert then the outcome would have cost the airline less. The big one safety and customer service.

[phiggsbroadband]

Does anyone know how the passengers flew out of that airport... Was it on another A380, or maybe a couple of smaller jets.?

[kenjaDROP]

Another A380 flew up from Changi to take passengers n spare crew back to Singapore. 9V-SKE was the damaged a/c; 9V-SKD the replacement.
It would be fair to assume that 9V-SKD flying up to Baku carried a contingent of SIA engineering!'

[deptrai]

Can we get over this second guessing thing now...if all noisy doors were a reason to turn around immediately, a lot of a/c should be grounded forever :hmm: and of course the a380 is pot ugly which explains why it shouldn't fly. It's also too big. Duh. Problem solved. Forgive me, but I'd much rather learn what happened to the door.

[Mimpe]

Baku Airport runway 18/36 is 3200 metres

[parabellum]

I stick by my comments today commercial pressures override safety and customer service in our industry.
Had the decission been been made when it should have to divert then the outcome would have cost the airline less. The big one safety and customer service.Not so pianokeys, the crew are just as concerned for their safety as they are for yours, any doubt and they would have dumped fuel and landed. The FO may well have, "just walked" by, he could hear for himself and any detailed inspection would have told him nothing useful that wasn't already evident on the flight deck.
From my personal experience, where safety is concerned, SIA company policy does not allow for any corner cutting or commercial pressure to be applied to crews, they are a very big and very solvent company with millions, if not billions in reserves. What Nigel said earlier about every so often one in several million flights will go wrong is very true, one tiny drawback to air travel and considering the alternatives an acceptable one.


awblaine - It isn't called the Dugong for nothing!


https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR-BmGCIc4noWAqwNtrZA1BaAJA-FickF_7Zl3_HLevUQZM5DK7IA

[Maverick16]

How much can you go on on the same topic? And the issues here are not between Boeing and Airbus. The topic led to the safety of the a380, so the discussions further led to the comparisons of safety standards between different aircrafts. Nothing wrong with that...

[glad rag]

Add in the global recession that struck in 2008 ish......

The doors primary structure is cast I believe. It's quite shocking that one should deform in such a way, having seen them on transport stands prior to fitment the term brick outhouse comes to mind..
If it's the door that has been id'd then this is a "good thing" as, has been stated, they apparently don't get used in normal operations [??] so wear and tear, for want of a better term can be discounted which throws it back at the manufacturer with less wriggle room.

If you go back to post #70 [assuming these are the subject aircraft] compare the top of the door frame in the two pictures :confused:

Whatever, this is a serious issue and it needs addressing pronto.

[SawMan]

The doors primary structure is cast I believe. It's quite shocking that one should deform in such a way....
Whatever, this is a serious issue and it needs addressing pronto.

It needs to be investigated- this could be an isolated incident and more than anything we need to be certain of what we're dealing with here. I must point out that a fairly rigid door may not behave well when coupled with a flexing airframe, but it still might be the best we've got, Nothing, even well-designed door seals, lasts forever-especially when humans are involved.

[skytrax]

A380 is still a new plane. Some more problems are likely to appear and Airbus will update and do the work to fix them. Its a normal and an ongoing process with a new plane. And if you add to the ecuation new plane, the biggest plane in the world its obvious that many challanges are to be overcome due to the amount of engineering put together to build this aircraft.
As the plane is exposed to more hours and fatigue we will learn new things about it.
Again, we have to wait and see what failed, if something failed with the door in this incident.

[Heathrow Harry]

exactly - Boeing are still making changes to the 737 for heavens sake

nothing is so good it can't be improved

[Maverick16]

"Some more problems are due to appear and Airbus will update and do the work to fix them."

Let's hope it doesn't lead to any loss of life each time that happens!

[Sober Lark]

To compare the introduction of the composite structure of the A380 to that of the risk analysis for an aging aircraft such as the 747 and draw a meaningful conclusion is futile.

In the subject of discussion we are indeed fortunate that whatever combination of multiple uncertainties caused such damage, we have been presented with the opportunity to learn and improve and I have confidence in that process.

[Tank2Engine]

Originally posted by dmussen: Spoke yesterday to a young English lady passenger. Apart from general terror and a swift descent she complimented the crew given mountainous terrain and a calm fix for the problem. It was explained that Azer. was the "way to go" given a potentially hostile reaction from the folk to the south. The runway in use was 800 m. short for a 380 and the time spent on the ground was OK except for the mum's with babes in arms who had a hard time.
Baku has 2 non-intersecting which are slightly offset. The longest runway is runway 16/34 and is 4000m long and is CAT III equipped, plenty of stopping distance for an A380 even above MLW me thinks.

We regularly land on the shorter 18/36 (3200m and 3065m resp.) and even at MLW this is no problem for a 744 or 748.

The infrastructure in UBBB is very good, ATC is quit capable, it's not a very busy airport and weather is rarely an issue even when strong winds persist, these are mostly straight down the runway. :ok:

[skytrax]

Indeed. Baku has 4000 and 3200m runways, which is more than enough for A380. As a referance LHR has 3900m and 3600m runways.

800m? Im surprised no one commented on that yet.

[atakacs]

Does anyone know if the original aircraft is still in Baku ?!

[llagonne66]

According to Flightradar24, 9V-SKE has flown from Baku to Singapore on 12 January as SIA8860 : 9V-SKE - Singapore Airlines - Flightradar24 (http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/9v-ske)