QF return to London 14.2.10

[mikk_13]

Any info on the outcome?

[mikk_13]

Incident: Qantas A388 over Poznan on Feb 14th 2010, smoke in cockpit

By Simon Hradecky, created Sunday, Feb 14th 2010 14:42Z, last updated Sunday, Feb 14th 2010 15:40Z
A Qantas Airbus A380-800, registration VH-OQE performing flight QF-32 from London Heathrow,EN (UK) to Singapore (Singapore), was enroute at FL350 overhead Poznan (Poland) about 95 minutes into the flight, when the crew reported smoke in the cockpit, stating a bit later that the smoke had cleared. They decided to return to London while dumping fuel at FL340. The airplane landed safely on Heathrow's runway 27L 90 minutes after turning around.

found something

[Capt_SNAFU]

First item in the smoke/fire checklist is LAND ASAP.

Interesting decision to return to LHR as opposed to somewhere in mainland Europe like Munich or Frankfurt?

Will be interesting to hear more.

[Exceptional]

Crew base and O/N A380 pilots may have something to do with the LHR decision

[p.j.m]

Luckily it turned out ok this time, but what if the aircraft had crashed due to the delay in landing?

Seems personal comfort and convenience took priority in the decision making over safety.

[packrat]

pjm...Qals?

You are not a commercial pilot are you?
"personal comfort and convenience over safety"...what a ridiculous statement

[Angle of Attack]

crew reported smoke in the cockpit, stating a bit later that the smoke had cleared

I think you will find the Land at Nearest Available Airport only applies to "Cabin or Cockpit fire/smoke that persists" quoted from QRH

Bit early to be making judgements, could have been a simple window heat arcing creating the smoke/crew dealt with it, no reason to land at nearest Airport. Not saying that was the cause, have no idea, but it's a bit rich to be making judgements with the tiny piece of information at hand.

[captaindejavu]

Simon Hradecky (The Aviation Herald), you are WRONG!!! There was NO smoke in the cockpit or anywhere else on the aircraft. Next time, check your facts and fire your informant, before you embarrass yourself further (if that's possible).

"...the crew reported smoke in the cockpit, stating a bit later that the smoke had cleared..." GARBAGE !!!!! UTTER GARBAGE !!!! Stop pretending to be a real journalist.

[RedTBar]

Stop pretending to be a real journalist.

That's the real question.What is a real journalist?
Is a journalist or their media outlet interested in the real truth or a story?

captaindejavu,you've told us that smoke was not the reason for the aircraft returning to London.

I'm not doubting you but what was the reason?

[blueloo]

apparently ECAM MSG came up:

"RETURN TO LONDON"

[Trent 972]

blueloo, was the ECAM RETURN TO LONDON or >RETURN TO LONDON ?????

Thanks Mud. Of course I noticed your little test to check if I knew that an 'advisory' would pulse green. However if the "RETURNING TO LONDON" was magenta, as you say, then it was a 'managed mode' and no doubt, the crew would have announced the FMA and proceeded accordingly.
Removing tongue from cheek now.
If posters like p.j.m. are in any doubt that a QF crew perfomed actions that would endanger any of the passengers or crew, then may I humbly suggest you catch a boat, train or bus when next you travel. "Luck" is not something we allow to define an operational outcome.

[Mud Skipper]

No Trent 972, the ECAM was an advisory RETURNING TO LONDON , just letting the crew know what the aircraft decided to do.

[mrdeux]

My understanding is that there was a failure of the smoke detection system (as opposed to a warning of smoke).

[Bumpfoh]

mrdeux has it

My understanding is that there was a failure of the smoke detection system (as opposed to a warning of smoke

My info as well mr d or at least that what is shown in airman!

[captaindejavu]

mrdeux...... you are spot on, sir!

And not just one area requiring smoke detection, but.... lots!