hotplane From UK - England, joined Jul 2006, 1057 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 17937 times:
VH-OQB is currently sitting at LHR having turned back on the luchtime QF32 departure due to a technical issue. It originally departed around 1230L, with the pilot declaring a problem shortly after. The aircraft then circled for 3.5 hours to burn fuel before returning to land on 27R at 1600L. It was due to leave again at 1645L as QF32D but as of 2350 is still here.
fcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 802 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 12608 times:
A comment on the aforementioned AV Herald site states...
'It was caused by the panel that covers the area that is used to connect the toilet service unit to the aircraft. It wasnt closed properly and then started to flap about eventully detaching. I guess the flaping noise hitting the aircraft was heard.
The upside was that it was the first time I had seen three A380s parked next to each other at LHR, different airlines as well!
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3762 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 12041 times:
Quoting bohica (Reply 6): I'll bet it turns out to be one of the aircraft systems operating normally.
Better the flight attendants reporting a strange noise that turns out to be nothing than the other way around.
I have heard the odd story of cabin crew not reporting hearing a loud bang in the back during takeoff as the aircraft had a tailstrike which the pilots did not hear or notice, and the aircraft proceeded to destination with a bad case of diaper rash...
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
aogdesk From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 935 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10604 times:
Quoting fcogafa (Reply 8): 'It was caused by the panel that covers the area that is used to connect the toilet service unit to the aircraft. It wasnt closed properly and then started to flap about eventully detaching. I guess the flaping noise hitting the aircraft was heard.
So, in essence, a 24 hour delay because the lav dump guy couldn't take two seconds to properly close the access panel?
qqflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2282 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9725 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 9): Better the flight attendants reporting a strange noise that turns out to be nothing than the other way around.
Lets not forget the loud "bang" flight attendants heard a couple of years ago just after takeoff from DFW to CDG on an AA 767-300. The pilots decided it was a cargo shift and continued the flight. After landing in Paris, they were notified by ATC that a large panel was missing from the bottom of their a/c. It turned out to be an access panel for the a/c system, near the landing gear and not structurally significant, but still, a return was most certainly warranted had they known the full extent of what occurred.
Or another time I was on an aircraft and there was a loud grinding sound and vibration under the floor between the aft galley and rear lavs -- it could be heard and felt ten rows into the cabin. When reported to the pilots (we were still on the ground, at the gate) the FO came back to check it out. He quickly deemed the noise was "normal" and went back to the cockpit. The crew protested, questioning how intimate his knowledge was with the aft cabin of the a/c. The captain heeded our protests and called maintenance, which subsequently found the motor for the lav blower had nearly disintegrated and was grinding metal on metal. It easily could have started a fire had the motor run enough or long enough. The short term fix was simple: pull the circuit breaker and write it up in the logbook. The lavs were still functional above 10,000' as they use pressure to create the suction. Below 10,000' feet they use their own blower to create suction, so the lavs simply weren't usable below 10,000'.
It is always prudent to err on the side of caution, than otherwise. Especially in aviation, where second chances are rarely afforded.
The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.
MadDogJT8D From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8649 times:
Actually, turning back due to an unusual noise caught by FA's isn't uncommon at all. A few years back, I was flying AAL667 JFK-SXM on a 757 and we got on the runway, began running up the engines, when we throttled down and exited the runway. When we returned to the gate, I spoke with the captain and he informed me that the FA in the rear galley had heard a loud clanking sound underneath the galley on run-up. When mx came onboard, they found that a potable water tank had come loose from its bracket and was clanking around - definitely something you want fixed.
I concur, FA's are some of the best judges as to normal and abnormal noises onboard the aircraft - in most instances.
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8015 times:
Back in 2000 I was flying home from college on an AA 767-200 BOS-DFW. We were taxiing out to the runway and I noticed liquid spewing from the #2 engine. The pilots throttled up and it would spew more. Luckily, the F/A's were still running about while we were taxiing and I pulled one of them to the side and told her. We stopped short of the runway and returned to the gate, with said engine shut down. The flight eventually went tech and we were divided up into a 757 flight to DFW and an MD-80 flight to DFW.
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7702 times:
Quoting B6A322 (Reply 20): On a fully loaded A380, My guess is that it takes quite awhile to dump fuel.
I'm seriously doubting that it took 3.5 hours or even 2 hours to dump fuel. It simply doesn't take that long to get down to landing weight, and it shouldn't take that long with those things on full blast.
They were over Krakow when they decided to turn back and were approximately 2 hours into the flight, so it's probably safe to say that whoever reported this didn't take into account that they flew back to LHR from Krakow. 110 min was NOT spent dumping fuel.