According to the link, it had to dump fuel. Given that it was nearly half way into the total scheduled distance, is it still necessary to dump fuel? Would enough fuel not have been used up so as to be able to land normally? Just curious....
gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5219 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 11906 times:
Quoting PNQIAD (Reply 3): Given that it was nearly half way into the total scheduled distance, is it still necessary to dump fuel? Would enough fuel not have been used up so as to be able to land normally? Just curious....
Good question. Another is why was it so far south? SIN-LHR traffic normally routes much further north over Russia and the Baltic, not the Middle East.
Presuming the crew knew that they be taking the longer route, maybe they took extra fuel which meant they were still slightly over max landing weight? Even at 6200 nm (SIN-DXB-LHR) the A380 would not be near max range so there are plenty of variable that could be in play.
Airvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 711 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11723 times:
Quoting gemuser (Reply 4): Presuming the crew knew that they be taking the longer route, maybe they took extra fuel which meant they were still slightly over max landing weight? Even at 6200 nm (SIN-DXB-LHR) the A380 would not be near max range so there are plenty of variable that could be in play.
Gemuser
I'm guessing, but they could have still been over India, on the normal route for this time of year, when the medical problem occured and DXB whould have been the place to go if you were flying an A380.
allrite From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 1409 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 11000 times:
Quoting gemuser (Reply 4): SIN-LHR traffic normally routes much further north over Russia and the Baltic, not the Middle East.
Last year I was flying midyear on a QF 747 SIN-LHR and our route took us over Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran to the south of the great circle route. DXB is obviously ready to handle A380's a I'm guessing probably has good medical facilities for the region. Certainly easier on any transiting westerners than the three aforementioned countries!
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 10 Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 10663 times:
Quoting gemuser (Reply 4):
Good question. Another is why was it so far south? SIN-LHR traffic normally routes much further north over Russia and the Baltic, not the Middle East.
There are basically no suitable airports enroute for the A380 except for serious emergencies. A medical emergency does not effect the aircraft or the safety of the other passengers etc so a divert is usually to an airport that is suitable for handling that aircraft and with suitable medical facilities. It is unlikely the aircraft would have been flying that route, it would have more likely diverted enroute with quite a large diversion.
FlyHigh@Tom From India, joined Sep 2001, 342 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 9568 times:
Was amazed to see an Emitares A380 and a Qantas A380 together yesterday at DXB. am kicking myself for not taking a snap! aghhhhhh The EK 380 was taxying and was holding for a while and right next to it was the surprise visitor from down under.....hope someone else has got the shot!
vhtje From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 5899 times:
What happens to the passengers when you land in an airport where you have no facilities?
I mean, specifically, you're on the ground for however many hours - presumably the passengers are allowed to disembark?
What happens to the premium passengers? Do they have to slum it with the Economites at the gate or do you quickly make arrangements with another airline to allow access to their facilities? (I am not sure if there is a oneworld lounge in DXB but thinking about it, BA must have some facility).
Or are the poor passengers just left on the plane?
uaeflyer From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 903 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2896 times:
Now that A380 left DXB.
I was thinking, with a limited number of A380s QF have. How was the next flight affected by the absences of this A380 ?
I think SYD-LHR route takes at least 2 A380s.
AirIndia From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1546 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2745 times:
Quoting vhtje (Reply 16): What happens to the premium passengers? Do they have to slum it with the Economites at the gate or do you quickly make arrangements with another airline to allow access to their facilities? (I am not sure if there is a oneworld lounge in DXB but thinking about it, BA must have some facility).
Or are the poor passengers just left on the plane?
Say if the delay is a long one, hos do airlines arrange to get their pax to hotels? Who would arrange for entry visas etc.
On an interesting note, last year there were a lot on incidents that were reported in the media here inthe UAE about expats who abandoned and fled the country as they were laid off and could not repay debts on loans etc. So i was wondering, what if one of those absconders (who the local police has a warrant to arrest) is on a flight and due to an emergency it lands in the UAE. And all pax are provided visas to go to hotels and this particular person's name beeps on the immigration system..... what happens to him/her.... gets arrested or do they have the right to refuse a hotel stay and remain at the airport transit area............
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 10 Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2362 times:
Quoting vhtje (Reply 16): What happens to the passengers when you land in an airport where you have no facilities?
I mean, specifically, you're on the ground for however many hours - presumably the passengers are allowed to disembark?
What happens to the premium passengers? Do they have to slum it with the Economites at the gate or do you quickly make arrangements with another airline to allow access to their facilities? (I am not sure if there is a oneworld lounge in DXB but thinking about it, BA must have some facility).
Or are the poor passengers just left on the plane?
Really depends how long the stopover is and what for.... if it is just to get a medical case off the aircraft, gas and maybe some more food then should take less than 2 hours and pax to stay onboard.... if its a technical problem then the aircon might not be working properly so in a place like Dubai where its hot you would probably get the pax off the aircraft...
Depending on the length of the stopover it is most likely that the pax would just stay in the gate lounge (saves security screening etc etc).
I'm not sure if BA has a lounge there but would assume they would... if it was decided to use a lounge for the FF and premium pax then the BA lounge would be the obvious choice.
Quoting uaeflyer (Reply 17): Now that A380 left DXB.
I was thinking, with a limited number of A380s QF have. How was the next flight affected by the absences of this A380 ?
I think SYD-LHR route takes at least 2 A380s.
If only a couple of hours delay plus diversion time, it would just result in a further delay in LHR. Some pax might be put on other flights possibly. It wouldn't normally affect the rest of the fleet as the aircraft has time once it makes it back to SYD to make up that lost schedule (they sit there for a while getting mx etc). Right now however it might cause a few delays as one of the QF A380s is back in France having work done on it by Airbus.
Airvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 711 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1772 times:
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 19): Right now however it might cause a few delays as one of the QF A380s is back in France having work done on it by Airbus.
Are you sure? A and B are currently in SYD one of which will do this afternoons 31 flight. C just departed from SYD to LAX as QF11. D is currentally flying LHR to SYD as QF32 and both E and F are on the ground in LAX about to do 12 and 94. They only have 6, as as far as I can see they are in in service.
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 10 Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1750 times:
Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 21): Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 19):
Right now however it might cause a few delays as one of the QF A380s is back in France having work done on it by Airbus.
Are you sure? A and B are currently in SYD one of which will do this afternoons 31 flight. C just departed from SYD to LAX as QF11. D is currentally flying LHR to SYD as QF32 and both E and F are on the ground in LAX about to do 12 and 94. They only have 6, as as far as I can see they are in in service.
It could be back by now... it was last weekend that I heard about it.
Airvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 711 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1720 times:
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 22): It could be back by now... it was last weekend that I heard about it.
2 return flights each week in May have been substituted by B744 aircraft for maintenance in SYD of the A380 fleet. C was done in the first week. D in the second, and B in the third. As far as I can tell no QF A380's have visited TLS this month. (Apart from the 3 being built there). I think someone has come up with a story to explain the cancelled LAX and LHR flights and the rumour has spread.
N14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2314 posts, RR: 25 Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1651 times:
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 22): It could be back by now... it was last weekend that I heard about it.
They have a pretty active planespotter community in TLS. I really would be suprised if no one noticed that a fully painted QF A 380 returned to TLS, especially as there was no QF-delivery since January 2010.
Currently, there are two QF A 380s in TLS, which had been put into storage after their FFs: MSN 047 and 050.
MSN 047 is back on the flightline after storage and it should have been ferried from TLS to XFW already some weeks ago. It seems as if they have some problems, either technical problems with the airframe itself or resources problems.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Arab Emirates, joined Nov 2006, 903 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 24929 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Jul 2006, 783 posts, 
From India, joined May 2006, 579 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5219 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4491 posts, 
From Qatar, joined May 2006, 1602 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 306 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2314 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
