A380 engine failure (SQ)
As he lost the engine say 25% into his flight he would have landed at WSSS having eaten a small way into his diversion fuel. It is acceptable practice under Eu ops to throw away alt fuel if desination has more than 1 runway. (do not know about Singapore regs). I know the 747 from LAX divided the camp as to whether it was wise, I wonder how the camp would divide on this one?
The additional burn (to continue) from roughly 2:45 into the flight would have been in the order of 15 tonnes. As it most probably would have been planned to arrive in Singapore with approximately this figure, then any decision to continue would have been poor in the extreme.
Safety heights on the Afghan route that he was most likely using also exceed 18000 feet. The loss of another engine, which any pilot must consider, would put you into the unfortunate situation of not having enough performance to remain above the mountains.
Alternates for the 380 are pretty thin on the ground. Whilst places like Ashgabat are available as emergency fields, between Singapore and Europe, only Hyderbad and Dubai are full alternates (for us). Dubai was a long way further away than Paris, on a totally different route. Returning to Paris seems pretty much a 'no brainer'.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Here today, elsewhere tomorrow
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CDG was nearest suitable with company staff trained on Trent 900 (oil it is I hear). And all the other reasons.
Yes, finding beds for ~444 is not a joy, esp because suite flyers don't expect to be lodged at Ibis.
Yes, finding beds for ~444 is not a joy, esp because suite flyers don't expect to be lodged at Ibis.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends how far into russia you go.. couple of years ago AF had a 777 stuck in Irkutsk for a couple of days with an engine failure, don't believe they've had the best of luck finding accomodations
In this case the crew/ company took the correct option.
By turning back the crew had the option of gliding, in case of total engine failure however remote. A suitable airport either civil or military, from 30000 feet over europe there is nearly always an airport of more than 6000ft long within gliding distance.
If the flight had kept on track to sin it would have flown over high ground in Turkey Iran Afganistan/Pakistan. Areas with very few airports/support.
On the Ba flight which lost an engine after t/o it flew over north america with many airports available. Crossing the atlantic at least 1900 nm overwater it had very few airports /options available.
By turning back the crew had the option of gliding, in case of total engine failure however remote. A suitable airport either civil or military, from 30000 feet over europe there is nearly always an airport of more than 6000ft long within gliding distance.
If the flight had kept on track to sin it would have flown over high ground in Turkey Iran Afganistan/Pakistan. Areas with very few airports/support.
On the Ba flight which lost an engine after t/o it flew over north america with many airports available. Crossing the atlantic at least 1900 nm overwater it had very few airports /options available.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps they would have had to dump fuel to "land ASAP" anyway, so why not just turn around,fly back to CDG and land normally rather than dumping fuel all over Europe, and landing at some remote airport where the plane isn't going to get fixed in a hurry....
I'm sure they weren't even considering the possibility of gliding in...
I'm sure they weren't even considering the possibility of gliding in...
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CEO of the airline would benefit from a bit more knowledge of things 'aviation' if the quote from him is correct.
Speaking in Paris, Louis Gallois, chief executive of Airbus manufacturer EADS, called the incident "a complete non-event".
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK - I'll give you 'the CEO', but from Singapore Airlines A380's engine failure no drama: Airbus
"We are in the process of examining the problem," said Singapore Airlines spokesman Jerry Seah, adding that the Paris-Singapore route was being maintained by another Airbus A380.
Singapore Airlines said the A380 could have continued the flight on its three remaining engines.
Singapore Airlines said the A380 could have continued the flight on its three remaining engines.
Quote:
What a waste of time and bandwidth, 74 posts to discuss an engine shutdown
What a waste of time and bandwidth, 74 posts to discuss an engine shutdown
So grab a beer for yourself. If you are not interested by this topic, nobody forces you to read it...
We are just discussing about an engine failure in a largest airliner flying today. I do find the subject very interesting and I am eager to read other professionals opinion about this failure and the crew performance.
Events with ingredients like this number in the thousands in large transport aviation. Only now we get to read about them in blog style.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes.
Paris the best choice, it seems.
And in Toulouse they don't fix engines!
A 310 diverted there after a one engine out over switzerland because they thought they would have available all the maintenance they could ask for.
But no! They make airplanes, not power plants...
Paris the best choice, it seems.
And in Toulouse they don't fix engines!
A 310 diverted there after a one engine out over switzerland because they thought they would have available all the maintenance they could ask for.
But no! They make airplanes, not power plants...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: N 06/W 75
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe some people (too many) are actually considering continuing to SIN after merely 3 hours of flight; there's still a long way to go, and it's not like you're flying a C152! It's a friggin' A380 for god's sake! As some people have said earlier, there's not that many airports that can handle the biggest passenger jet in the skies today!
(Emphasis on that particular area of the world...)
Going back to CDG was not "what seems to be the best option" it WAS the best option.
I can't agree with you more!
Now, on to the technical issues of the shutdown of the "big round thing"
(Emphasis on that particular area of the world...) Going back to CDG was not "what seems to be the best option" it WAS the best option.
Its not a land asap situation.But take the right decision.With regard to safety,commercial angles and pax comfort.In that very order.And well,if endorsed by the company,then you dont have to spend the better part of your next few days off at the chief pilot's office explaining/justifying your call.HE was part of your call.And he endorsed it! Out here its called CRM.... Involve the company.
Now, on to the technical issues of the shutdown of the "big round thing"
747passion wrote:
Now you have managed to post 3 bull**** posts. N-2 situation?
"other professionals"???
I have no idea what if any kind of a professional you are, but you are obviously not a professional pilot. So now back to spotters corner...
I don't agree with that. Neither the Captain, nor his Management have the ability to say if any engine is likely to fail or not. If they had this ability they would have replaced number 1 engine before the first flight.
Flying almost 3 hours over Europe with 500 souls and an engine out is not a responsible decision. There were many airports suitable for a landing along the way. Why return to Paris?
Flying almost 3 hours over Europe with 500 souls and an engine out is not a responsible decision. There were many airports suitable for a landing along the way. Why return to Paris?
I am not familiar with the performance of the A380. How well can it fly in N-2 situation with full pax and fuel?
So grab a beer for yourself. If you are not interested by this topic, nobody forces you to read it...
We are just discussing about an engine failure in a largest airliner flying today. I do find the subject very interesting and I am eager to read other professionals opinion about this failure and the crew performance.
We are just discussing about an engine failure in a largest airliner flying today. I do find the subject very interesting and I am eager to read other professionals opinion about this failure and the crew performance.
"other professionals"???
I have no idea what if any kind of a professional you are, but you are obviously not a professional pilot. So now back to spotters corner...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still very little info on engine problem, anyone know ???
Oil has been mentioned, I will take a guess, oil loss due crack or joint fail due long term vibs/fitment tension, part is not easy to replace or windmill over time has caused another problem, or may be oil loss reason can't be found and RR will test to find out.
Will crawl back under my stone for now.
Oil has been mentioned, I will take a guess, oil loss due crack or joint fail due long term vibs/fitment tension, part is not easy to replace or windmill over time has caused another problem, or may be oil loss reason can't be found and RR will test to find out.
Will crawl back under my stone for now.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singapore Airlines said the A380 could have continued the flight on its three remaining engines.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oceancrosser thank you for the kind words. Keep crossing Oceans and log 10 minutes of actual flight time every month. Pay us a visit when you are bored 
If you keep visiting forums, you will even learn how to attack what the people say without attacking the people personally. It needs some practice, but believe me, you'll feel better in the long run.
Obviously, I am not a kind of pilots your appreciate. However, I always think in N-1 where N is not the number of installed engines, but the number of working engines.
Any pilot should be able to manage an engine failure in any situation INCLUDING the situation where there is already a first failure.
With a 4-engine aircraft flying and a first failure, pilots still must take in account a further engine failure. So safety-wise, may be it is not 100% a good idea to wander in the blue sky with 444 pax and 1 engine out for an unknown reason.
When you loose your first engine, it doesn't mean that the day is over. There are incidents of 3 engines out in a DC-10 or a 4 engines out in a 747. I hear that the hotels are good in Paris. I've spent years in Paris, so I agree with this statement. They definitely worth a visit but not in 3 engines.
If you keep visiting forums, you will even learn how to attack what the people say without attacking the people personally. It needs some practice, but believe me, you'll feel better in the long run.Obviously, I am not a kind of pilots your appreciate. However, I always think in N-1 where N is not the number of installed engines, but the number of working engines.
Any pilot should be able to manage an engine failure in any situation INCLUDING the situation where there is already a first failure.
With a 4-engine aircraft flying and a first failure, pilots still must take in account a further engine failure. So safety-wise, may be it is not 100% a good idea to wander in the blue sky with 444 pax and 1 engine out for an unknown reason.
When you loose your first engine, it doesn't mean that the day is over. There are incidents of 3 engines out in a DC-10 or a 4 engines out in a 747. I hear that the hotels are good in Paris. I've spent years in Paris, so I agree with this statement. They definitely worth a visit but not in 3 engines.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Above 30,000 ft
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747passion, there is a difference between an Emergency & a Non-normal situation. 3-engines is a "Non-normal" situation, not an "Emergency". What this means is, reduced redundancy exists and full operational capability is no longer available, so his options are now more restricted but it is not (yet) a Land As Soon As Possible situation. But, the airplane is not yet immediately under threat.
This is the difference between a Mayday and a Pan-Pan.
You may pontificate all you like, but the fact is that if in every airline that i have flown for, if you took her to an unsuitable airport/emergency airport & got the airplane stuck there for weeks on end for something that is not an emergency situation, you would be shown the door. If his engine was burning away with an uncontrolled fire etc, that would be another story. A straight flameout is a different matter.
In this case, are you actually suggesting that you would have him put the airplane down at an airport/runway that cannot take his airplane?
Please answer simply - a "yes" or "no" would suffice.
This is the difference between a Mayday and a Pan-Pan.
You may pontificate all you like, but the fact is that if in every airline that i have flown for, if you took her to an unsuitable airport/emergency airport & got the airplane stuck there for weeks on end for something that is not an emergency situation, you would be shown the door. If his engine was burning away with an uncontrolled fire etc, that would be another story. A straight flameout is a different matter.
In this case, are you actually suggesting that you would have him put the airplane down at an airport/runway that cannot take his airplane?
Please answer simply - a "yes" or "no" would suffice.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: True North strong and free!
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No judgement on the A380 pilots from my side. No judgement on the management either, which undoubtedly was involved in 90% of the decision to turn around.
A lot of you however seem to say that it's okay to continue flying on 3 engines. That in theory might be true, but the real question that any sensible pilot should be thinking at that point is, how well will this aircraft fly on 2 engines?
A lot of you however seem to say that it's okay to continue flying on 3 engines. That in theory might be true, but the real question that any sensible pilot should be thinking at that point is, how well will this aircraft fly on 2 engines?