QF94 - A380 Double fuel pump failure - turnback

[sierra5913]

Qantas Airbus A380-800, registration VH-OQK performing flight QF-94 (scheduled dep Apr 17th, actual dep Apr 18th) from Los Angeles,CA (USA) to Melbourne,VI (Australia), was enroute at FL340 about 150nm north of Honolulu,HI (USA) when a second fuel pump failed prompting the crew to abort the Pacific crossing and return to Los Angeles for a safe landing about 9:20 hours after departure.

The flight is currently expected to reach Melbourne with a delay of 36 hours.

Passengers reported the crew announced two fuel pumps in one fuel tank had failed.

Qantas (QF) #94 ? 17-Apr-2014 ? KLAX - YMML / MEL ? FlightAware

Just interested on the opinion of those who fly for a living. Is flying back 2000nm to LA over open ocean, with this tech problem, an issue with this aircraft? Given it was your decision, would you have set it down in HNL, turned back to LAX or kept going, at least to SYD?

[pull-up-terrain]

In LAX they have all the a380 LAME's over there who would be able to troubleshoot the problem at least, and get the plane back in the air in a shorter amount of time. In Honolulu you would have to wait for a suitably qualified LAME to get over there and wait for spare parts if required. Keep in mind, the a380 has 21 fuel pumps. Depending on which fuel tanks the pumps failed in, having 2 go in separate fuel tanks isn't a major problem, but you would want to divert to an airport with all the suitable technical support which Honolulu doesn't have for an a380.

[sierra5913]

In LAX they have all the a380 LAME's over there who would be able to troubleshoot the problem at least, and get the plane back in the air in a shorter amount of time. In Honolulu you would have to wait for a suitably qualified LAME to get over there and wait for spare parts if required. Keep in mind, the a380 has 21 fuel pumps. Depending on which fuel tanks the pumps failed in, having 2 go in separate fuel tanks isn't a major problem, but you would want to divert to an airport with all the suitable technical support which Honolulu doesn't have for an a380.

Cheers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I assume 2 pumps inop on one tank would not allow a fuel transfer out of that tank, reducing range (maybe imbalance later on), hence requiring divert?

9.5 hrs only to head back to origin would leave a fair few pax pissed off.

[Capt Kremin]

Dual failure in engine feed tank = Gravity feed? Altitude and hence range restriction? Any A380 guys to clarify?

[500N]

4 hours back.

I think the initial report mixed up total time and return time.

[Capt Fathom]

only to head back to origin would leave a fair few pax pissed off

Passengers are never happy!

They complain when you kill them, they complain when you don't!

[004wercras]

I thought Alan said these things 'fix themselves'?

[Eau de Boeing]

Depending on specific pump failures I seem to remember that
you have to descend below FL280 in order to assure gravity feeding of the
engine, however this is based on both feed tank and standby pumps failing in the same tank.

Therefore descending to 280 decreases range and there's not too many options beyond Honolulu.

Besides would have given the crew some more shopping time in OC!

[Capt_SNAFU]

You have to descend to FL300.

[charlie44]

QF94 turn back

As posted in another part of PPrune

We diverted back to KLAX about 4 1/2 hours into the flight when a normal main tank fuel transfer resulted in both the main and standby fuel pumps in the right mid tank failing which trapped 26,800kg fuel, meaning we could not make Australia. Overweight landing into LAX at approx 433,000kg requiring a stabilised approach at 148kt, instead of the normal decelerating approach, hence the heads up to ATC. Fire trucks requested in case of hot brakes.

Quite different fuel systems and procedures compared to the Boeing 744. Fuel pump and pressure switches replaced and arrived safely into MEL Sunday 20 April 2014, just after 7:00pm.

[Sailvi767]

Since there are no diverts between HNL and LAX you have to plan that segment assuming a decompression at the ETP. 1100 miles at 10,000 burns a bit of fuel also.

[Trent 972]

More precisely, 3 hours at 14,000 feet and any remainder at 10,000 feet.

[Bootstrap1]

This aircraft is back in the air but no one has mentioned the aircraft that is grounded in HKG after 2 return to blox.

[skkm]

This aircraft is back in the air but no one has mentioned the aircraft that is grounded in HKG after 2 return to bloc.

I flew up to HKG on OQD on Friday –*we were late out of Sydney due to 'a problem with the interphone system' and the PA on the main deck was intermittently cutting out throughout the flight. Looking out my window in HK, as of this morning it's been moved to a remote stand over to the west near the Haeco hangars.

[500N]

As per usual, the media decide to blow it up into a big drama.

But one passenger - who was on the flight with his son - said a disturbing announcement was made on the plane’s public address system.


The passenger, who asked not to be named, said: “The Captain addressed us all … (He said) we have a serious fuel problem … we have troubleshooted (sic) with our engineers for the past 30 minutes and no solutions. We do not have enough petrol to reach Australia or Hawaii.”


Qantas denies the claim."



No Cookies | Herald Sun

[onetrack]

I thought Alan said these things 'fix themselves'?

No, no .. you've heard a misquote. Alan actually said, "these things virtually fly themselves" .. thereby indicating he won't need any pilots, very shortly.

If he wants the ones that "fix themselves", he'll have to upgrade to the new models. These will be available within a short time, as soon as the bugs are fixed .. and Alan can then fire all those pesky, costly LAME's and other tech staff, that are such a burden on the company.

[Pearly White]

But one passenger - who was on the flight with his son - said a disturbing announcement was made on the plane’s public address system.

The passenger, who asked not to be named, said: “The Captain addressed us all … (He said) we have a serious fuel problem … we have troubleshooted (sic) with our engineers for the past 30 minutes and no solutions. We do not have enough petrol to reach Australia or Hawaii.”

Hope they had no "petrol" at all... Fuel tank contamination at KLAX?

[AEROMEDIC]

[QUOTE][The passenger, who asked not to be named, said: “The Captain addressed us all … (He said) we have a serious fuel problem … we have troubleshooted (sic) with our engineers for the past 30 minutes and no solutions. We do not have enough petrol to reach Australia or Hawaii.”


Qantas denies the claim."



No Cookies | Herald Sun/QUOTE]

.....and so they should, seeing as they don't use petrol.

[charlie44]

Herald Sun newspaper claim is quite inaccurate. Read some of the replies below the article by other passengers on the flight. The PA has been misquoted by the passenger. Post #11 above refers.

[QUOTE] We diverted back to KLAX about 4 1/2 hours into the flight when a normal main tank fuel transfer resulted in both the main and standby fuel pumps in the right mid tank failing which trapped 26,800kg fuel, meaning we could not make Australia. Overweight landing into LAX at approx 433,000kg requiring a stabilised approach at 148kt, instead of the normal decelerating approach, hence the heads up to ATC. Fire trucks requested in case of hot brakes.
Quite different fuel systems and procedures compared to the Boeing 744. Fuel pump and pressure switches replaced and arrived safely into MEL Sunday 20 April 2014, just after 7:00pm./[QUOTE]

[p.j.m]

[The passenger, who asked not to be named, said: “The Captain addressed us all … (He said) we have a serious fuel problem … we have troubleshooted (sic) with our engineers for the past 30 minutes and no solutions. We do not have enough petrol to reach Australia or Hawaii.”

I have to wonder about all these recent problems?
Didn't Joycie proclaim these aircraft required less maintenance?

Interval servicing, and "fix on fail", rather than preventative maintenance?

Need to stop listening to the beancounters, and start listening to the engineers!