A380 engine failure (SQ)
 

First A380 in-flight failure?

Interesting that they went all the way back to Paris instead of Istanbul or Dubai. Maintenance I suppose.

If BA can make it (almost) across the pond and to LHR, on 3 donks, why can't an A380 continue across Asia on 3 .... even if it needed a fuel stop en route ? :confused:

I was the controller :) when the A380 J ... requested left turn 180 and .. re-routing to LFPG ...... the aircraft... was on 350 ..after failure ... down to 310....

the PIC ... took this decision in about 20 minutes...

If I understand you they asked for a 180 and a revised plan back to CDG decending from 350 to 310.

Hence my question still stands .. if they were prepared to fly for at least a couple of hours, albeit slower and at a lower altitude and only get back where they started why not push on ?

Dubai isn't a million miles out of the way and at about half distance would be a good place for a refueling stop, and if that wasn't going to work, with plenty of abilities to deal with an A380.

Argh, not the dreaded 'three engined' approach!

I'm sure there must have been a slightly nearer acceptable diversion if the beastie was 2.45 hours out!

Or perhaps the airports in the region of North east Mediterranean haven't been sufficiently upgraded to take the weight?

Don't think you'll find you can do a refuelling stop once your down to 3 eng!!

Once on the ground thats it unless the engineers can fix the problem!!

MEL:- 4 eng fitted.... 4 required for dispatch!!!!!!!:}

"Please return faulty or defective goods including original receipt to original point of purchase for full refund"

I humbly acknowledge the MEL point .. all 4 must be servicable at the commencement of the T/O roll. :O

DGG

Still wonder why, operationally they didn't use the same flying time and fuel and get half way home rather than have another plane fly all the way back to Paris to collect the stranded Pax.

I can think of lots of possible reasons .. I just wonder if anybody knows the real one

maybe they went back all the way to paris at FL310 to burn of some fuel in regards to landing weight. if you still have 3 of 4, why dump and land at some place where you don't have (your own/proper) maint?

Maybe so ... Do Singapore have maintenance at CDG ?? EK have it at DXB and might even have restored the bird to 4

Maybe they should have just landed in TOU and have Airbus solve the problem!!!:rolleyes:

Lets say go to Dubai, spend 1/2 day on the ground getting engine replaced. Then what? Crews out of duty time, a/c in the wrong place. So in effect the a/c would probably spend a day on the ground only to have to then have it ferried back to Paris as all the pax transfered to other flights.
So most certainly a commercial decision and probably the right one.

Indeed that may be so .. but I simply question whether it is better to have a broken aeroplane, an out of hours crew and 444 stranded pax 6 hours downroute from home in Singapore rather than 12 ?

What about the problems associated with customs/immigration?

Everyone that is onboard the plane (probably) had no troubles being in the country of origin. Why add to the situation and take people to a country they may not be allowed to enter?
Granted it would be going there because of a mechanical problem and it wasn't planned, but it would still be a bit of a nightmare for some.

But do they have enough hotels in TOU for all the pax???

Do you mean EK? Yes, they do have maintenance for the A380 at DXB but they operate a GP7200 powered fleet and this was specifically an engine problem so hardly going to be much help for a Trent-powered aircraft. The decision to return to CDG was undoubtedly the sensible one, with SQ A380 technicians and support available, and probably the closest airport offering Trent 900 support at the time of the incident. Also, 2 hours 45 minutes out of CDG enroute to SIN the aircraft would still be over eastern Europe so I doubt DXB would have been any nearer.

Safety permitting, it is not an uncommon incident for aircraft that need to divert enroute to divert back to their point of origin or at the very least the nearest airport where the airline has a commercial and engineering presence, rather than just land at the nearest airport that could take the aircraft.

Dave Gittins, what has happened the new runway in 'New Doha Intl. Qatar'? Hush hush

Serious threadcreep but we are in the process of constructing $13 Bn of new airport and 2 nice long runways (longest outside Denver) are key features.

Back on topic .. appreciate the corrections (yes I meant EK) and the logic as to why RR techs in Paris are a better bet than EK.

They could have, but they changed their minds when they realized their warranty cards weren't onboard.:)

SQ does have a maint manager in CDG and trained the engineering staff over there for their 380 ops, so better peace of mind to be diverted there. Saw AOG kit and a spare RRTrent 900 engine ready to be shipped over this afternoon at the freighter stands in SIN.

Wow, a load factor of 94%. A random sample nonetheless. What economic crisis ?

Hasn't any one of you heard of 'contact company via datalink'....???!?
It was in all probability,an executive decision made by the company and not the pilot(s).
Eitherways 3/4 powerplants for the fat girl isn't a mayday or a 'land asap' situation. Like someone rightfully said,burn the extra fuel,get back to point of departure,no customs and/or immigration hiccups AND you dont lose a client along the way. What better decision could one ask for huh...

Thanks guys .. the wonder of PPRuNe .... all my questions answered.

:ok:

Quite right.

Can you imagine the treatment of a Pax travelling on an Israeli passport would receive from any Arab immigration officer? :ugh:

A380 Engine Nacelle
 

Perhaps someone here could put me right - I am told that an engine change on the A380 would take around 12-15 hours but is then followed by 3 days or so for the nacelle fixing to 'cure' - can this be true?

A complete change would take 12-15 hours as you said. The nacelle or the inlet cowl is secured by multiple bolts at the head of the compressor and need no cure time. Unless if the nacelle itself is damaged, then there could be cure time as some of it is composite.

Am I being a bit naive here - why didn't the plane just carry on with 3 engines until it got to SG ?

May well not have had enough fuel to complete the journey at the lower levels, (3 engines now working harder than 4), then it would have been required to land and once on the ground it will, in all probability, stay there until the engine has been changed.

The crew would certainly have contacted Singapore and that will be where the decision came from. Send it back to Paris where there are other crew, possibility of other company A380 in the region etc. etc. also get the passengers off to London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt etc. to continue to Singapore on other SIA services, the list is endless.

Sounds about right. A diversion decision is not made only upon, as someone else said "Land ASAP". And one of the PIC's responsibilities is to save money for the company; how does he do that? Not diverting to an airport which is not served by the company, and the statements above made by others are dead on-spot, much more "comfort" possibilities for the pax, the engine change...

My nameisis nailed it right on the thread. It was probably an immigration issue. Dealt with a similar problem in the past.

Undoubtedly the right decision in my mind at least. Hadn't even considered the immigration issue but other logistics alone, getting beds for all those passengers at home base vs down the line, the maintenance/spares/replacement aircraft positioning, ugh.

OK, can I push the politics aside for a mo..... Maybe a bit more important to our community is what the actual problem was, ie did the engine fail, or was it shut down due to a small problem etc

Return to CDG
 

As a now retired Flight Engineer I am still amazed at some of the thoughts expressed on this forum. Sure, the loss of a single engine on a four engined heavy jet is not, of itself, the sole reason for a return rather than continuing on three. The first and most compelling thought of the Captain is, or should be, the safety of his aircraft and its occupants. Full Stop. If satisfied that there is not a safety issue then, and only then, will the Captain determine his alternatives. A myriad of reasons for returning to CDG probably existed. One thing you should all be sure of is that the Captain would not have returned to CDG unless he was sure it was the most appropriate course of action. To suggest otherwise shows a lack of respect for the Captain and his company.

Old Fella I concur entirely. My curiosity was aroused as to why nearly 3 hours out from Paris, that was decided to be the best place to divert to. The likely reasons have been disclosed and I appreciate the answers to my questions.

My only reservation (call it irritation / frustration / whatever) as a pax would be that if I was on my way to Singapore from Paris and provided it was safe, I would rather end up nearer there (any thus having a shorter overall journey time) than back where I started 6 hours after I set off and with the prospect of being a minimum of a day late at my destination.

I note (from an earlier post) that a new Trent is being shipped from Singapore and presumably the aircraft is still tech in CDG so it was clearly nothing trivial. Any ideas what exactly ?

There are only certain specified airfields that can accept an A380, CDG is one, and I imagine SQ have their engineers there.

Big Airways decision to fly back from LAX on 3 was not universally endorsed.

Who will be the first to say that this would never have happened in a Boeing, and that the 747 never had a first engine failure?

A dangerous mindset promulgated by today's bean-counting pilotless management. Where I work, the company end all ACARS transmissions with a disclaimer pointing out the message is for information only, and they take no responsibility for anything operational which happens after they make "suggestions."

Your company can advise all they like but the decision on diversion airport is up to the Captain of the aircraft and if you hand off that responsibility to someone on the ground, then perhaps you should re-assess your position.

I don't think anyone believes it is. The question was why did they fly 2:45 or more in the reverse direction instead of going onward to an SQ airport. I asked because I did not know. Now I have a better idea.

Thanks for the feedback, guys - seems the issue of the manufacturer of the engines is likely one of the reasons for the choice of diversion airport. I have no doubt there was a lot of consultation going on and that a perfectly safe decision was made - by the captain.

Cheers...

Tou = Tls
 

Just to put the records straight, there's no TOU in France, only TLS/LFBO.
TOU is southeast of oz and is farther than SIN

Leewan
Iv'e been on the the LHR/SIN 380 every month since they started flying it and have yet to see any empty seats in the economy. Not only that it's very difficult to change flights due to the demand so not much evidence of a recession on that route.

Engage Brains chaps
 

The a/c was reported as just south of Krakow when the engine was shut down. This suggests to me that the route was over the former Russian republics and then Afghanistan, not very near Dubai or anywhere else in the middle east. Some of you may have noticed there are some very high mountains on this route called the Himalayas. So here we are happily cruising along, half asleep when the co-pilot shouts out "Captain, captain, the oil pressure is falling on another engine now, what are we going to do, I can see some white snow covered lumps ahead and we can't cross them on 2 engines because because we can't maintain MSA". "Don't worry son, we can always land in Kabul". A suitable diversion for an A380 or any other civilian a/c? :ugh:

Old Fella,

Your whole post is spot on. Everybody else wind your neck in, it had nothing to do with you.

My immediate thoughts would be where do I go when the second engine fails, ( hautemaude :ok:) much rather be over 'friendly' territory, with more available airfield options, than certain territory en route to Dubai, even if Dubai could change the engine. Burning fuel down to landing weight whilst still continuing towards ones' eventual destination would be the best economical choice - but are you more interested in economics than your safety ?

Ones' immediate problem when an engine fails, is not what height and speed can I maintain on 3, but what can I do on 2 ? ( apply that philosophy to a Boeing 777 and see where it gets you. ) And don't tell me it can't happen just because the statistics say it is unlikely. Why did the first one fail ? Statistics would say that that is highly unlikely, too.

I know little of the BA 747 3-eng LAX-LHR affair, so will keep my mouth shut, but first impressions suggest that it was an ill conceived decision, if Boeing wanted a 3-eng 747 they'd have designed one.

No Captain is ever going to be satisfied until he can reply to the Flt. Eng, telling him that No. 8 has failed, with the response ' which side ? "

ExSp33db1rd. ( ExCapta1n, too )

I see now. I was under the impression only one engine had failed, not two. What do the twins do when they fly that route?

2 hadn't - yet. but can you guarantee that another one won't ? Highly unlikely, but what if ??

Technically there is nothing to guarantee that all four engines won't stop at exactly the same time - why not ? Only statistically is it unlikely. but just in case ......... let's maximise our options. I'm going back. Except when I had an engine failure out of Muscat, and continued to Bahrain, which is at sea level and not surrounded by mountainous terrain at night,and incidentally where the spare engine was.

It would have taken me nearly as long to dump down to landing weight as the continued flight towards my destination, with the added advantage that I was proceeding towards less hostile terrain in case of another failure, and with Dubai, Sharjah, Abu Dhabi and Doha en route, continuing was a better option in that case than returning, and I burned off fuel en route to my final destination as well instead of dumping it, better conditions first, passenger convenience second - have you ever been to Muscat ? and economical benefits came along for the ride.

QED.