Pilots of a crippled Qantas Airbus A380 superjumbo struggled with more than a dozen system errors after an engine blew apart on November 4 and landed the plane in Singapore with barely any runway to spare, an Australian investigation showed.
In fact, the plane may have been so badly damaged that the five pilots, with a combined 72,000 hours of flying experience, may have saved the day.
“The aircraft would not have arrived safely in Singapore without the focused and effective action of the flight crew,” Martin Dolan, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s Chief Commissioner, said on Friday.
As the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine blew apart over Batam Island, Indonesia, minutes after take-off, fragments ripped though parts of the wing, puncturing fuel, hydraulic and electronic systems and leaving the plane with limited flight controls, the ATSB said in a report.
But the magnitude of the damage became clear only when the co-pilot walked through the cabin and a passenger, another pilot, showed him a picture from a camera mounted on the plane’s tail and fed into the onboard entertainment system.
The picture showed the Airbus was leaving a trail of fluid behind — most likely fuel and perhaps hydraulic fluid — from a puncture through the wing.
As the plane lost fuel quickly, its centre of gravity also started to shift, presenting another problem. But the crew could not move fuel as required as it was not clear how badly the fuel system was damaged, the report said.
There were so many warnings, it took pilots 50 minutes just to complete the required responses before they could prepare the plane for landing.
The number of errors was such that computers calculating landing data could not handle them all. Pilots removed some options, hoping that would still be enough to make an accurate call.
With the plane coming in at 440 tons, about 50 tons heavier than its maximum landing weight, the computer eventually concluded it would stop with just 100 metres of runway to spare at Singapore’s Changi Airport, the report said.
But 100 metres was enough for the crew and they opted to land instead of dumping fuel, which would further upset the plane’s balance.
The A380 “remained controllable” as its prepared to land, but it lost many of its systems which controlled pitch, speed and braking, so pilots asked the cabin crew to prepare for an emergency evacuation as they risked a runway overrun, it said.
The Airbus stopped with just 150 metres of concrete left, brakes heated to 900 degrees Celsius and four blown tyres.
In addition, it was gushing fuel and one of its engines refused to shut down for over two hours, until fire crews drowned it with foam.
Pilots eventually decided against evacuation and kept passengers on the plane for another hour as fire crews secured the A380.
Source : Reuters
By: Bmused55 - 6th December 2010 at 20:14
Beggers can’t be choosers. Capt. Burkhill did bloody well getting essentialy an aerodynamic brick onto the airfield and not going into the housing estate, which many pilots did in the simulator afterward as they failed to raise the flaps as Burkhill did.
Not many crew or passengers have survived an emergency like that at such a low altitude. It almost always ends in tears.
By: Grey Area - 6th December 2010 at 18:27
Landing gear doesn’t count, it’s designed to come off 😉
True, but not usually vertically through the wings! 🙂
By: PeeDee - 6th December 2010 at 12:43
Having seen the Airbus report AND the photographs taken in the hangar, the damage is far far worse than the Airbus report. There is a hole in the Front Spar big enough to crawl through. The underside debris field extends to the belly of the A/c, under the centre box. There is a 4 inch diameter fuel pipe ripped apart like a cartoonist would draw it. The slat motors at Rib 9 and all the suporting structure is as damaged as you would expect to find it in a crash site. It’s a real mess.
Quantas are thinking of scrapping it, or selling it to Fedex.
So yes, getting that monster down, gently and safely was indeed a feat worthy of some praise.
By: Bmused55 - 6th December 2010 at 11:05
Landing gear doesn’t count, it’s designed to come off 😉
By: Homer09001 - 6th December 2010 at 10:35
He got the aircraft on the ground in one piece and didn’t plant it into the housing estate below. I’d say he did more than “almost made it”.
Well 2 peices maybe more to be exact 😀
By: Lindermyer - 4th December 2010 at 15:33
He got the aircraft on the ground in one piece and didn’t plant it into the housing estate below. I’d say he did more than “almost made it”.
Personally I think the title of Hero is getting overused as of late. It will soon be cheapened to such a level it’ll mean nothing. Much like the titles of Manager and Engineer which used to mean anyone who was either of these was high flying and affluent.
These days the titles mean squat. For example: A Hydro ceramic engineer is,… wait for it,… a dish washer. Yes, I have seen those positions advertised as such!
pretty much where im coming from
By: nJayM - 4th December 2010 at 15:23
The crew certainly need all the praise
The flight crew need all the praise the world can give them along with the remaining functioning systems FBW and conventional.
It’s also worth remembering that the other 3 RR engines functioned as without them the flight crew would not have succeeded.
Let’s see if it’s legal wars or the concentrated technical resources of quality assurance, R&D and flight crews involved that will put faith back in RR powered A380s.
The legal ‘broadside’ Qantas have fired is just an attempt to keep their accounting records in perspective and it certainly will not put the world airlines off RR.
By: Bmused55 - 4th December 2010 at 13:22
much kudos to the 777 captain at heathrow? the other year – almost made it
He got the aircraft on the ground in one piece and didn’t plant it into the housing estate below. I’d say he did more than “almost made it”.
Personally I think the title of Hero is getting overused as of late. It will soon be cheapened to such a level it’ll mean nothing. Much like the titles of Manager and Engineer which used to mean anyone who was either of these was high flying and affluent.
These days the titles mean squat. For example: A Hydro ceramic engineer is,… wait for it,… a dish washer. Yes, I have seen those positions advertised as such!
By: Lindermyer - 4th December 2010 at 12:06
Twas not my intent to level any criticism at the crew or pilots in general,
both barrells are aimed levelly at the media, whos amplification of every minor thing does nothing for aviation in the eyes of the general public – this i feel leads to scared and over reacting passengers.
Incedently how about praise for the FBW system (particuarly after the 320 in the Hudson) these systems are much maligned.
much kudos to the 777 captain at heathrow? the other year – almost made it
By: Arabella-Cox - 4th December 2010 at 11:55
Good job guys! They deserve the fanfare that Sully had.
Of course the press will embellish their report.
By: Arabella-Cox - 4th December 2010 at 10:18
Perhaps this puts everything into better perspective:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/43279276/A380-QFA-MSN014-Damage-Overview-1
By: Lindermyer - 4th December 2010 at 10:02
Ive no doubt they were very skilled and -perhaps a safe landing was down to pilot skill above all else. fbw is a big help to
however I have trouble reconcilling the terms bandied around such as wildly uncontrollable or seconds from disaster with the aircraft remained airborne for another 50 mins.
Sign In
December 3, 2010 at 9:39 pm