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!.

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").

I don't think the OP actually said no fuel dump (defiant or otherwise :O), 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.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....65d2995e21.jpg

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

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.

DaveReidUK

Thx for clarification.

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😬

Video showing the a/c and the offending wheel on arrival at BNE:

^^^^^^^Exonerated.

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.

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?

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.

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?

The rear axle of the body landing gear has no brakes. The rims of these wheels are different as well.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e13aabbdf2.png
I worked Maintenance for 41 years and never saw a tire damaged like this.

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?

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 ?

Fuel dump - what about A340s?
 

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?

A340-300:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a87e2b248a.jpg

FDP A340 - Fuel dumping - Wikipedia

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.