A380 divert fields
 

Professionals,

Please excuse me if this is not the correct forum for this inquiry but i'm very curious to know how A380 flight crews and dispatch go about settling on a suitable divert for the super jumbo?. Specifically in the case of AF66, Paris to LAX, 30Sept2017, the crew elected to divert to Goosebay, NL when they lost control of the #4 engine. Are the goosebay runways and taxiways rated to accommodate the weight of the a380 seeing that it's a military airfield? Could continuing down to Toronto have been an option? I thought initially when the a380 first arrived in commercial aviation, one of the challenges was strengthening and widening runways and taxiways to accommodate it's size and weight at airports it would primarily operate from?. Thanks in advance to those who can help me understand this element of commercial aviation.

It's a matter of PCN and ACN.

PCN = pavement classification number
ACN = aircraft classification number

If PCN > ACN you are good to go.

I am positive that AF have satellite phones on board or could contact OPS right away via ACARS and get an immediate alternate, by OPS consulting their database.

For my company, the airfields are already surveyed and for the 380 ACN isn't always an issue as we have more wheels so it's less than a 777 I believe.

We have airfields categorised into suitability for different events, these run alongside the Airbus philosophy of LAND ASAP and LAND ANSA and medical issues.

The biggest issue is pax handling once on the ground, which requires a bit of prior planning and organisation. Airfields have had bigger stands and more airbridges put in but not necessarily had to strengthen runways etc.

The crew obviously believed that there were further issues than just a basic inflight shutdown and so therefore elected to divert to the nearest suitable piece of concrete.

Outcome was that aircraft landed safely, no passenger injuries and the crew did well in a very stressful situation.

Where runways and most taxiways are upgraded to handle the A388, they are only widened.
This is to protect the outboard engines from FOD and ingesting the turf.

Given the amount of damage to the engine, who knows where all of those pieces ended up, so probably best to get on the ground as soon as possible.

It's a good question because of the weight and width of the aircraft and for the sheer number of passengers involved.

My airline (and I'm sure other operators of the A380 have similar) has a list of suitable airports that consider not only the ability to land on the runway but also to vacate it, to park somewhere, to be able to refuel, to be able to disembark passengers, to be able to take off again. These airports are then classified in terms of suitability for diversion in different levels of urgency - problem at planned destination, medical emergency, serious technical problem, LAND ASAP. So Goose Bay for example is somewhere you would be unlikely to go if someone was ill, but if you have an engine that has discarded its entire front fan assembly and you cannot be sure whether there is secondary damage that could affect your ability to continue the flight then its a safe landing place.

Looking at the pavement design parameters, with wheel config, tire size. spacing and loading.

A388 is the same pavement load as the 777 300ER and less than the 744-ER, the 748 is far higher. A bit surprising that with the much larger size and capacity of the 748, they did not add additional wheels.....

https://i.imgur.com/dHQhJen.jpg

Slim75,
Some of the issues here are, as you say, runway/taxiway suitability. However, that is only part of the issue with Fire rescue cover, weather/runway condition, approach aids and terrain/performance issues with a damaged aircraft and airfield opening times all contributing their own complications. Basic International protocols would see any airfield accepting any aircraft in distress (Mayday). However, the skill of a good flightdeck crew is them being able to decide if landing at a certain airfield with certain issues, is the best course of action in the circumstances. Also, a good ATC/airfield staff will advise an aircraft in distress if they see issues with their stated emergency divert.
BTW, you should find that competent crews have a comprehensive knowledge of this sort of thing! :ok:

When the A380 entered service, airports all over the world were evaluated for suitability for diversion. For example, SeaTac (SEA) was determined to be suitable for an emergency diversion. However it's not approved for regular service - upgrades would be required before an operator could use Seattle as a planned destination.
I suspect the list of approved diversion airports is available on the A380 flight deck.

A380 has rgular service to 140 airports in the world. There are 400 additional airports that can handle the A380 as a diversion.

A380 have been diverted from LAX to ONT...

Many thanks to all for your insights on thisinquiry. I didn't know that the aircrewshave airfields already identified for possible diversion readily available onthe flight deck. And to the point of theQantas diversion to Ontario, Ca in 2015 due to fog, I'm just curious why such amodern aircraft would need to divert for fog when I believe the plane isequipped with an autoland function? Doesanyone have experience with diverting due to fog electing not to autoland?

Slim,

In the airline I flew for we had folders containing all the charts for our destination and alternate airfields - many of the alternates were also destinations, eg. Boston for New York.

We also had another manual containing emergency airfields with information on which could be used by which aircraft types.

All of the above had information on the facilities available.

Then there was also a section containing what I would call 'Oh My God' airfields (the categorisation was more formal than that). These were airfields where it would be possible to land in a grave emergency but probably impossible to fly the aircraft out again.

All of this information was provided on a worldwide basis, subdivided into main regions.

In order to perform LVO (low visibility operations) a series of requirements have to be met, basically:

1. Airline has to be LVO approved in their AOC.
2. Aircraft has to be qualified and maintenance up to date to maintain airworthiness of equipment.
3. Crew have to be qualified for LVO and current.
4. Airport has to be approved and able to host LVO, and LVO needs to be in force at the time of approach.

If any of these requirements are not met (maybe the CAT II/III ILS on destination was out of service due to a failure, or any other thing) you cannot perform LVO. So as you can see the fact of the aircraft being capable is only a small portion of the whole thing.