Singapore Expats Forum

Singapore Airlines A380 plane in emergency landing

Discuss about any latest news or current affairs in Singapore or globally. Please DO NOT copy and paste news articles from other sources without written permission.
User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 34258
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Sun, 12 Jan 2014 1:37 pm

Sounds like a good time to take a bag of Brazil Nuts, Steve, Don't waste the clench! :lol:

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9253
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Postby ecureilx » Sun, 12 Jan 2014 1:57 pm

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.


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 ....

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 .....

User avatar
zzm9980
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6837
Joined: Wed, 06 Jul 2011
Location: Once more unto the breach

Postby zzm9980 » Sun, 12 Jan 2014 2:06 pm

ecureilx wrote:
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.


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 ....

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.

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9253
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Postby ecureilx » Sun, 12 Jan 2014 3:05 pm

zzm9980 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.


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 landing

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 ... :P
Last edited by ecureilx on Sun, 12 Jan 2014 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9160
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Sun, 12 Jan 2014 3:12 pm

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 :shock:

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.


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.

User avatar
ScoobyDoes
Manager
Manager
Posts: 1649
Joined: Wed, 29 Nov 2006
Location: A More Lucky Spot

Postby ScoobyDoes » Mon, 13 Jan 2014 9:49 am

ecureilx wrote:
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.


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 ....



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

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9253
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Postby ecureilx » Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:13 am

ScoobyDoes 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.


I am not a flyer, again, in case you missed that part

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 ..

User avatar
zzm9980
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6837
Joined: Wed, 06 Jul 2011
Location: Once more unto the breach

Postby zzm9980 » Mon, 13 Jan 2014 2:02 pm

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.

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9253
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Postby ecureilx » Mon, 13 Jan 2014 2:16 pm

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.


maybe, maybe .. and a 380 carries a lot of Fuel ..

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 ..

Steve1960
Editor
Editor
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon, 13 Aug 2012
Location: Singapore

Postby Steve1960 » Tue, 14 Jan 2014 5:01 pm

Well I made it to Heathrow without incident :-)

The return trip is a 777 not a 380 :D

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9253
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Postby ecureilx » Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:28 am

Steve1960 wrote:Well I made it to Heathrow without incident :-)

The return trip is a 777 not a 380 :D


oh .. you are returning on a 777 ? hope you get the new cabin planes ..

Are you on Biz Class ? Have fun in that case .. :)

PrimroseHill
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue, 13 Dec 2011

Postby PrimroseHill » Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:31 am

why the tongue in cheek comment, Eureilx?
Steve, hubby went but on Saturday night instead, yeap it was also on 777-14hours though. Strange

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9253
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010

Postby ecureilx » Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:53 am

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


the 777-300ERs of SQ have a better cabin fit .. and in Business class it has better seats + more leg room ..

User avatar
Barnsley
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2063
Joined: Tue, 10 Jun 2008
Location: Pasir Ris
Contact:

Postby Barnsley » Wed, 15 Jan 2014 3:34 pm

ecureilx wrote:
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


the 777-300ERs of SQ have a better cabin fit .. and in Business class it has better seats + more leg room ..


The new 777 of BA are quality as well...

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!!

Steve1960
Editor
Editor
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon, 13 Aug 2012
Location: Singapore

Postby Steve1960 » Wed, 15 Jan 2014 4:39 pm

ecureilx wrote:
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


the 777-300ERs of SQ have a better cabin fit .. and in Business class it has better seats + more leg room ..


Hi Primrose Hill no problem I am sure we will meet on an Eagles night out at some point.

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

Return to “Latest News & Current Affairs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests