
SINGAPORE EXPATS FORUM
Singapore Expat Forum and Message Board for Expats in Singapore & Expatriates Relocating to Singapore
Singapore Airlines A380 plane in emergency landing
- sundaymorningstaple
- Moderator
- Posts: 39773
- Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 1:26 pm
- Location: Retired on the Little Red Dot
considering the amount of fuel the A 380 uplifted it may have to circle for a couple of hours doing pattern before reaching its MLW, and with limited options to dump fuel over eco friendly Europe I suspect the crew knew more than you and me as to the best option ....ScoobyDoes wrote:
Considering the seal first blew after just 20min from Heathrow, the plane should never have got that far so yes, I think whining is genuine in this case.
remember the QF 380 that blew an engine while leaving sin? it landed over weight and was out of operation for a while ...
just saying .....
I agree crew would know best, even in 'Singapore la'. But QF380 was out of commission for a while due to an exploded engine and shrapnel show all throughout the wing. How much damage was actually caused by landing heavy? Im genuinely curious.ecureilx wrote:considering the amount of fuel the A 380 uplifted it may have to circle for a couple of hours doing pattern before reaching its MLW, and with limited options to dump fuel over eco friendly Europe I suspect the crew knew more than you and me as to the best option ....ScoobyDoes wrote:
Considering the seal first blew after just 20min from Heathrow, the plane should never have got that far so yes, I think whining is genuine in this case.
remember the QF 380 that blew an engine while leaving sin? it landed over weight and was out of operation for a while ...
just saying .....
other than over heated brakes . and popped plugs,. I can't recall the details ... and the fire crew cooling the wheels before disembarking pax. somewhere it was said it was 50 tonne over weight on landingzzm9980 wrote:
I agree crew would know best, even in 'Singapore la'. But QF380 was out of commission for a while due to an exploded engine and shrapnel show all throughout the wing. How much damage was actually caused by landing heavy? Im genuinely curious.
agreed in Singapore /QF case the engine missing took priority but a heavy landing immediately ex London would have grounded it for while ...that's a fair guess. A minimum of 3 weeks to certify the plane fit for operations ...
for example sometime ago a BA 747 crossed the Atlantic on three engines as one engine failed after take off .. and a lot of armchair experts demanded the pilots be beheaded ... BA ops knew better ...

Last edited by ecureilx on Sun, 12 Jan 2014 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Funny. Something like this happened to me on the way from Brussels to Rome with Al Italia (IIRC) but the effect was even more interesting - it was snowing inside and a part of the door frame was covered in frost. I did not alarm anybody because it was rather obvious and the same AlItalia transported us earlier from Amsterdam to Brussels by a coach claiming there was some fog in Schiphol (which we didn't notice). Going from Brussels to Rome by coach would be a bit too troublesome.Max Headroom wrote:Happened to me on a flight from Portugal. The door seal was apparently kaput and something inside the door was resonating loudly with the wind blowing by. When I told the cabin crew, she said, yeah, that door is wonky, don't worry about it![]()
I asked to be seated elsewhere so at least I'd have a second's notice before getting blown out of the plane upon violent decompression.
- ScoobyDoes
- Manager
- Posts: 1667
- Joined: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 6:42 pm
- Location: A More Lucky Spot
ecureilx wrote:considering the amount of fuel the A 380 uplifted it may have to circle for a couple of hours doing pattern before reaching its MLW, and with limited options to dump fuel over eco friendly Europe I suspect the crew knew more than you and me as to the best option ....ScoobyDoes wrote:
Considering the seal first blew after just 20min from Heathrow, the plane should never have got that far so yes, I think whining is genuine in this case.
Dumping fuel for flight safety and ecoism are unrelated. You wouldn't get any complaints from the EU's Health & Safety personnel (who are stronger than the Greens) so I'll respectfully disagree with you on this one.
'When Lewis Hamilton wins a race he has to thank Vodafone whereas in my day I used to chase the crumpet. I know which era I'd rather race in.'
SIR Stirling Moss OBE
SIR Stirling Moss OBE
I am not a flyer, again, in case you missed that partScoobyDoes wrote:Dumping fuel for flight safety and ecoism are unrelated. You wouldn't get any complaints from the EU's Health & Safety personnel (who are stronger than the Greens) so I'll respectfully disagree with you on this one.
From what I know, a PAN doesn't allow you to dump fuel
And, as I said, additionally, given the information the crew had, plus the prospect of landing over-weight would have outweighed the need to turn back to London ..
PS: I think the planes are still not allowed to dump fuel over Built up area, unless they are at a higher altitude allowing fuel to dissipate .. the last time a plane had to dump fuel to return to London, they had to do it over the sea .. that would have been mighty entertaining for passengers I guess, a plane flying low, dumping fuel, and circling ..
Partly related? I'm guessing it's more due to the crew feeling it was appropriate to continue. Again, just because one passenger felt there was a problem early doesn't mean there really was. I'm sure his 'memory' got better after it became an incident, and even better after the media started to ask him about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdyM7NYIBX8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdyM7NYIBX8
Airbus A380 dumping fuel after making decision to abandon flight path to London and return to Singapore on 26 April 2012. A loud crack was heard onboard SQ318 during a period of turbulance, and the Singapore Airlines pilot informed the passengers that the auto-pilot system was out of action and that he was unable to continue flying the plane manually to London. As the plane was to heavy to land, the majority of its fuel had to be jettisoned.
maybe, maybe .. and a 380 carries a lot of Fuel ..zzm9980 wrote:Partly related? I'm guessing it's more due to the crew feeling it was appropriate to continue. Again, just because one passenger felt there was a problem early doesn't mean there really was. I'm sure his 'memory' got better after it became an incident, and even better after the media started to ask him about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdyM7NYIBX8
Airbus A380 dumping fuel after making decision to abandon flight path to London and return to Singapore on 26 April 2012. A loud crack was heard onboard SQ318 during a period of turbulance, and the Singapore Airlines pilot informed the passengers that the auto-pilot system was out of action and that he was unable to continue flying the plane manually to London. As the plane was to heavy to land, the majority of its fuel had to be jettisoned.
on a related note, when the A345s started flying, part of the fuel econmics problem was they had to uplift so much fuel for the non-stop flight, that a fair portion of the fuel, like close to 20% - was burnt to carry the weight of the fuel .. it took a while for me to figure that out ..
-
- Chatter
- Posts: 368
- Joined: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 9:44 pm
The new 777 of BA are quality as well...ecureilx wrote:the 777-300ERs of SQ have a better cabin fit .. and in Business class it has better seats + more leg room ..PrimroseHill wrote:why the tongue in cheek comment, Eureilx?
Steve, hubby went but on Saturday night instead, yeap it was also on 777-14hours though. Strange
Hope they get rid of the old 747s as soon as they can unless they upgrade the in flight entertainment console, then OK they can stay.
Life is short, paddle harder!!
Hi Primrose Hill no problem I am sure we will meet on an Eagles night out at some point.ecureilx wrote:the 777-300ERs of SQ have a better cabin fit .. and in Business class it has better seats + more leg room ..PrimroseHill wrote:why the tongue in cheek comment, Eureilx?
Steve, hubby went but on Saturday night instead, yeap it was also on 777-14hours though. Strange
Eurelix yes Business Class is nice on the 777 unfortunately I will be giving my seat to my mother and travelling in her economy seat. These things we have to do of course!
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
Plane; A380 changed to B777 - compensation
by martincymru » Wed, 19 Feb 2020 1:42 pm » in Travel & Holidays - 1 Replies
- 1220 Views
-
Last post by MikeJones
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 2:30 pm
-
-
-
Pfizer vaccine is still "emergency use". Why"
by musical box » Sat, 30 Apr 2022 1:37 pm » in Latest News & Current Affairs - 0 Replies
- 1626 Views
-
Last post by musical box
Sat, 30 Apr 2022 1:37 pm
-
-
-
Eagles Landing at Muddy's - Oct 25th 2019 - by request of SMS
by PNGMK » Tue, 01 Oct 2019 11:38 am » in General Discussions - 29 Replies
- 44586 Views
-
Last post by singaporeflyer
Thu, 11 Jun 2020 4:08 pm
-
-
-
China Eastern plane deliberately downed?
by abbby » Wed, 18 May 2022 8:22 pm » in Latest News & Current Affairs - 12 Replies
- 2620 Views
-
Last post by Lisafuller
Wed, 25 May 2022 1:21 am
-
-
-
Singapore Airlines nonstop to New York and LA
by Shikakui » Sat, 28 Apr 2018 12:33 am » in Latest News & Current Affairs - 9 Replies
- 8574 Views
-
Last post by archcherub
Tue, 27 Aug 2019 10:03 am
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest