PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   QF return to London 14.2.10 (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/405669-qf-return-london-14-2-10-a.html)

mikk_13 14th Feb 2010 17:07

QF return to London 14.2.10
 
Any info on the outcome?

mikk_13 14th Feb 2010 17:52


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 14th Feb 2010 21:34

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 14th Feb 2010 23:29

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

p.j.m 15th Feb 2010 00:12

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 15th Feb 2010 00:25

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

Angle of Attack 15th Feb 2010 01:38


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 15th Feb 2010 16:18

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. :ugh:

RedTBar 15th Feb 2010 22:21


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 15th Feb 2010 23:09

apparently ECAM MSG came up:

"RETURN TO LONDON"
:}

Trent 972 16th Feb 2010 00:23

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

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 16th Feb 2010 03:03

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

mrdeux 16th Feb 2010 04:18

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

Bumpfoh 16th Feb 2010 06:57

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!:suspect:

captaindejavu 16th Feb 2010 14:47

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

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:24.


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