Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

EMIRATES A380 BNE

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

EMIRATES A380 BNE

Old 3rd Jul 2022, 12:41
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 1,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The prefix “Super “ is added to the ATC callsign to alert them to the wake turbulence etc for separation. ie as in “Heavy” for smaller Widebodies.
The A380 defiantly has fuel dump, at least the BA hulls do. A relative has used it!.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2022, 12:41
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,407
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by gearlever View Post
What is a A380 "Super" ?
The A380 is classed as a Wake Turbulence Category J by ICAO, with the recommendation that on initial contact with ATC the callsign be suffixed with "Super" (cf "Heavy").

No fuel dump on A380 ?

Don't believe.
I don't think the OP actually said no fuel dump (defiant or otherwise ), but rather that you can't necessarily dump enough fuel to get below MLW and so may still have to burn some off if that's the aim.

DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2022, 13:03
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: aaa
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is it just me... or is the panel blown outwards?

How would a tyre blowing on Takeoff and subsequent debris cause the panel to deform outwards, given that area is unpressurised?

Or is that where the gear bay is & a weakened tyre exploded after retraction

Or is it just an optical illusion and its not blown outwards at all 😅

As for electing to continue the flight, I can imagine exactly how they reached that conclusion.
Received low tyre pressure warning, probably info from the crew about a bang/loud noise.
No other abnormal indications or vibrations etc.
Noise put down to blown tyre, everything operating normally, why not continue...
Tell ATC and ask if any debris found on rwy, tell company and ask if they're happy for you to continue with regards to maint & operational considerations on landing
SpamCanDriver is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2022, 13:14
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Weston Super Mare/UAE
Age: 59
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is fuel dump on the 380 and you can often be left still overweight following fuel jettison, as you can jettison everything except what is in the feed tanks (which could be a combined 80t or so. Thus, depending on the ZFW, you can easily be over MLW following a dump). Average dump rate about 2.5t per minute. Can land overweight in a non-normal situation though.
captainsmiffy is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2022, 13:17
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DaveReidUK

Thx for clarification.
gearlever is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2022, 13:36
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 53
Posts: 2,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes, you can dump fuel from the A380; except from the Feed Tanks as another poster alluded to!

You can also land at up to 60 tonnes over MLW and as long as the landing is within certain parameters such as touchdown wings level and at less than 320 fpm the overweight landing inspection can be deferred. 60 tonnes over MLW by the way is 455 tonnes for the ULR aircraft in the fleet.

If really necessary you can land at up to MTOW of 575 tonnes; but you won’t be going anywhere until the engineers have given it a good going over!

If you took off with 200 tonnes of good old Jet A1 for DXB to BNE it’ll take about 50 minutes to dump all the fuel not in the Feed Tanks so the 8 hours mentioned by PoppaJo is really a very wild number! I’ll not comment about the 737 procedures; I promise😬
White Knight is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2022, 17:59
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,407
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Video showing the a/c and the offending wheel on arrival at BNE:


DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2022, 21:49
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Spain and Gibraltar
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
^^^^^^^Exonerated.
Nil by mouth is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2022, 23:46
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by White Knight View Post

If you took off with 200 tonnes of good old Jet A1 for DXB to BNE it’ll take about 50 minutes to dump all the fuel not in the Feed Tanks so the 8 hours mentioned by PoppaJo is really a very wild number! I’ll not comment about the 737 procedures; I promise😬
Sorry I was alluding to, if the decision was made to be landing at the minimum weight, ie 60-80T below MLW whatever the number is, due to tyre issues/expected landing roll risks, you need to burn this beyond what the dump is capable of doing, ie your holding for 7-8 hours to burn that away.

However I would expect many to consult engineering whilst in a hold and conduct a overweight landing which as above is still safe, vs holding for such a timeframe. Well, as safe as the docs say, outcomes are always a different story.
PoppaJo is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2022, 02:21
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: London
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Aviation Herald is great at reporting facts, but its efforts at analysis are frequently less successful, often concluding that 2 + 2 = 5.
To be fair, it's very rare for AVHerald to do analysis. In this article he just reports facts and photos, with no analysis whatsoever. One confusion people often have is due to his habit of reporting quotes without quote marks, so when quotes contradict each other people think it's AVH's fault rather than just different people reporting different things.

There is plenty of amateur "analysis" in the comment section, of course.

About the NLG bolt, the tow after landing was quite long, could it have been damaged then?
bobbytables is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2022, 08:45
  #31 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 44
Posts: 4,027
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On the topic of fuel dump
you can't necessarily dump enough fuel to get below MLW and so
to avoid future confusion based on correct but partial explanation.

Dumping capacity is a necessary evil from engineering and design perspective. As such is preferably not installed unless required by performance considerations, namely
- approach climb gradient for G/A following an immediate turn back at MTOW.

There is no regulatory requirement to reduce down to MLW, a nice Boeing Aero article (T7) explains: overweight is always possible up to MTOW from the LDR / loading point of view. The only concern is the crew needs to find a legal reason to do so. Basically, anything except ops normal is OK.

Neither of the above opposes the prudent decision to reduce and increase margins before attempting to land with a compromised gear.
FlightDetent is online now  
Old 4th Jul 2022, 20:16
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wilds of Warwickshire
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interestingly the Wheel nearest the hole is all bright and shiny (compared to the others) as if it had just been replaced/fitted? Or is that just a result of being air-blasted for many hours?
KiloB is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2022, 20:28
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Norden
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The rear axle of the body landing gear has no brakes. The rims of these wheels are different as well.
no-hoper is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2022, 01:36
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hawaii
Age: 75
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

I worked Maintenance for 41 years and never saw a tire damaged like this.
hunbet is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2022, 03:36
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: europe
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So, the gear retracted, the mlg tyre blew in the bay, causing the hole in the fairing panel? Not such an unusual incident really.
gear lever is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2022, 04:11
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cab of a Freight Train
Age: 39
Posts: 993
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by gear lever View Post
So, the gear retracted, the mlg tyre blew in the bay, causing the hole in the fairing panel? Not such an unusual incident really.
IF it was to have been caused by the 'missing bolt' from the NLG, I'd have expected to see damage to the tread surface rather than the sidewall, and for the tyre to let go prior to retraction, in a similar vein to Concorde. I dunno, maybe there's some interrelation I'm not seeing...

Has anyone confirmed the claim from the AvHerald comments section that the "missing bolt photo" was indeed from 2017 and is unrelated to the tyre blowout?
KRviator is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2022, 05:47
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by hunbet View Post

I worked Maintenance for 41 years and never saw a tire damaged like this.
IF the tire didn't let go on or just after leaving the ground, the next opportunity for its highest stress would be, when the aircraft does reach altitude, when the pressure difference between inside and outside gets to the max, combined with the low temperature to give the lowest plasticity / the highest brittleness of the rubber and carcass.

The picture also seems to show more sidewall damage, though, of course, you can't see from the picture, whether that's collateral damage from the landing or additional damage, originally there, just like the pre-blowout damage.

Could it be, this signals more towards damage caused during storage/mounting of the tire and less towards an operational damaging ?
WideScreen is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2022, 06:54
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Usually firmly on the ground
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fuel dump - what about A340s?

Originally Posted by FlightDetent View Post
On the topic of fuel dump to avoid future confusion based on correct but partial explanation.

Dumping capacity is a necessary evil from engineering and design perspective. As such is preferably not installed unless required by performance considerations, namely
- approach climb gradient for G/A following an immediate turn back at MTOW.

There is no regulatory requirement to reduce down to MLW, a nice Boeing Aero article (T7) explains: overweight is always possible up to MTOW from the LDR / loading point of view. The only concern is the crew needs to find a legal reason to do so. Basically, anything except ops normal is OK.

Neither of the above opposes the prudent decision to reduce and increase margins before attempting to land with a compromised gear.
One of the reasons this SLF is here is to help overcome the after-effects of experiencing an emergency landing in July 2000 at Lyon St Exupéry by an AF A340 flying Charles de Gaulle-Johannesburg , i.e. about one hour into the flight, so still lots of fuel onboard, due to a smoke alarm in the cargo hold. It was the fastest descent from cruise altitude I've ever experienced! After landing during the long wait to be processed the pilot reported that fuel could not be dumped because we were over an urban area and that the aircraft wouldn't be going anywhere any time soon due to damage to the brakes/undercarriage.

Does his explanation make sense? Did A340s of that vintage have fuel dumping capacity and would the presence of an urban area make any difference to whether fuel was dumped in this scenario, or was it more a case of wanting to be on the ground in a big hurry and being too busy to bother?
Eutychus is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2022, 07:24
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,407
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Eutychus View Post
Did A340s of that vintage have fuel dumping capacity
A340-300:



FDP A340 - Fuel dumping - Wikipedia
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2022, 07:41
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: McHales Island
Age: 67
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
KiloB,
"Interestingly the Wheel nearest the hole is all bright and shiny (compared to the others) as if it had just been replaced/fitted? Or is that just a result of being air-blasted for many hours?"

Looking at the all the reflections on the ramp in the photos/video it would suggest it was raining in BNE.

McHale.

Capt Quentin McHale is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.