Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SQ A380 Returns To LHR 2345 20 May  
User currently onlinejumpjet From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 283 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 17125 times:

I watched yesterday (Friday 20 May) evening's SQ flight from London Heathrow to Singapore take off on-line. It progressed across the North Sea as normal then suddenly turned round over Amsterdam and started descending. It crossed back across the sea heading north-west before swinging South West over Norfolk and returning to Heathrow. It landed at about 2345 on runway 28 right. It appeared to leave the western end of the runway then stopped, I didn't see it go to its usual stand at terminal 3.

I presume there was some sort of emergency, does anyone know what happened please?

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 17124 times:

Quoting jumpjet (Thread starter):
I presume there was some sort of emergency

If it was an "emergency" they would have landed in AMS. Maybe we will find out later what happened but I would guess more likely a problem (medical) with a passenger.


User currently offlineB738FlyUIA From Kazakhstan, joined Dec 2009, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 17010 times:

Here's a link on FB from FR24:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...699.111607872211978&type=1&theater


User currently offlineFlyingfox27 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 16677 times:

Yikes glad it landed safely. I wonder what happens when a flight turns round long after the flight supervisors have gone home, are they dragged back into work to sort things out for the passengers or is there always a standby team waiting for things like this?

User currently offlinePEET7G From Hungary, joined Jan 2007, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 16282 times:

Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 1):

Quit the opposite, if it was a medical emergency, the plane would have been down in AMS or the closest possible airport it can land in (this applies for any tech emergency risking security of the flight)

I guess the problem was to an extent that the crew decided that it is better to return to LHR where SQ's own staff or contracted handler can handle the issue, technical, crew, etc.



Peet7G
User currently offlinePanman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Aug 1999, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 12470 times:

Failure of engine component - not severe enough to affect handling/control of said engine.
Unable to dump fuel
Overweight landing
7 (8? - hearing different numbers) wheels on main/body gear need replacing due to thermal fuses doing their jobs.

pAnmAn


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1846 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 11494 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Not being versed on the more technical aspects of the A380, why would an engine component failure prevent a fuel dump? Either there was an additional issue or issues which blocked a fuel dump or ?? I'd think an overweight landing creates more issues than burning off the excess fuel.

User currently offlineflyingbird From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10917 times:

The flight has just taken off again with a delay off about 22 hours.
http://www.flightradar24.com/?SIA321D


User currently offlinefca767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1781 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10623 times:

Thank god the media hasn't got hold of the A380 again...I do wonder though about the engines now...Are they Rolls Royce? A380 is my favorite aircraft (been on the 9V-SKA) so i'm not being negative

User currently offlineB738FlyUIA From Kazakhstan, joined Dec 2009, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 10330 times:

Quoting fca767 (Reply 8):
Thank god the media hasn't got hold of the A380 again...I do wonder though about the engines now...Are they Rolls Royce? A380 is my favorite aircraft (been on the 9V-SKA) so i'm not being negative

I do agree with you and there was nothing to read on BBC Homepage or at this time on other sites. Still would be intersting to know what the issue was that it had to return to LHR.

Yes, SQ has Rolls Royce on it's A380's (check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_fleet)


User currently offlineAirvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8864 times:

Quoting PEET7G (Reply 4):
Quit the opposite, if it was a medical emergency, the plane would have been down in AMS or the closest possible airport it can land in (this applies for any tech emergency risking security of the flight)

I guess the problem was to an extent that the crew decided that it is better to return to LHR where SQ's own staff or contracted handler can handle the issue, technical, crew, etc.

I probably have a colder attitude. In my book an "emergency" which in my definition could result the the death of all on board, requires landing at the nearest suitable airport. A "medical situation" which may be a tragedy for an individual, requires a bit of thought and consideration and a course of action that will least inconvenience the majority (and not damage the aircraft).


User currently offlineesdex From Australia, joined Jan 2011, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8439 times:

Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 10):
I probably have a colder attitude. In my book an "emergency" which in my definition could result the the death of all on board, requires landing at the nearest suitable airport. A "medical situation" which may be a tragedy for an individual, requires a bit of thought and consideration and a course of action that will least inconvenience the majority (and not damage the aircraft).

Thankfully, global aviation does not use 'your book' ...


User currently offlineAirvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8355 times:

Quoting esdex (Reply 11):

Thankfully, global aviation does not use 'your book' ...

I think it does, you only have to read the recent threads on here of aircraft continuing on to destination with someone on board with a medical situation. You choose to fly, same as you choose to take a sea voyage on a ship without a doctor or stay on an idyllic pacific island with no possibility of evacuation. There are risks in life.


User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3332 posts, RR: 45
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8028 times:

Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 12):

Wrong.

If there is a medical emergency on board, the aircraft will land at the nearest suitable airfield capable of handling the medical emergency. If the passenger dies en route, they may (often) decide to continue on, as there is nothing that can be done, and the family may be waiting at the destination. I implore you to find a single instance of a SERIOUS medical emergency where better care could be given on the ground that wasn't diverted. I don't think you will.

If there is a maintenance issue, the response varies depending on the severity of the issue. If it is truly a life and death thing (which it VERY rarely is, as you seem to insinuate), of course they will land as quickly as possible. If it isn't something that affects the airworthiness of the airplane (as appears to be the case here), the priority isn't always to get the plane on the ground as quickly as possible, but rather as safely.

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineAirvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7837 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 13):

Wrong.

Not wrong, just a different view. Just remember the view of the world from the usa with its litigious society is different to that of the rest of the world where different value often prevail.


User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3332 posts, RR: 45
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7479 times:

Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 14):
Not wrong, just a different view. Just remember the view of the world from the usa with its litigious society is different to that of the rest of the world where different value often prevail.

A fairly commonly held value worldwide is life.

I stand by my statement. Find me an ICAO airline with a record letting a passenger die on a flight by choosing to continue onward without any attempt to land and get the passenger medical attention, and I'll back down.

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3332 posts, RR: 45
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7383 times:

This Singapore incident last month is the only one I can find, but not all the details are known. SQ policy appears to be to divert if necessary, so I don't really feel like this proves your point.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/04/-flight_illness

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlineColAvionLover From Panama, joined Dec 2008, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7337 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

IMO, as the plane was still climbing when it reached AMS; I think is the same thing (takes the same time) descending above AMS to land there than descend while going back to LHR, where the SQ team was.

[Edited 2011-05-21 18:04:51]


JDM's
User currently offlineAirvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7272 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 15):
I stand by my statement. Find me an ICAO airline with a record letting a passenger die on a flight by choosing to continue onward without any attempt to land and get the passenger medical attention, and I'll back down.

It's a fine sunny Sunday morning here, and I have enjoyed chatting. I am not going to spend a beautiful day on the Internet doing research i'm off outside to enjoy it. I don't want anybody to back down. If you read back I didn't say that most airlines wouldn't do anything to help, but they wouldn't treat it as the same priority as an aircraft emergency as was implied in some of the posts on here.

cheers
Enjoy your day.
Peter


User currently offlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3332 posts, RR: 45
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7187 times:

Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 18):
If you read back I didn't say that most airlines wouldn't do anything to help, but they wouldn't treat it as the same priority as an aircraft emergency as was implied in some of the posts on here.

I'm not alleging you said anything of the sort. Of course just about every airline will try to help. This includes the use of MedAire, any on board doctors, flight attendants etc...however my opinion (and that seems to be supported in what data I can find), is that if the recommendation is to get the person on the ground as quickly as possible, the captain will divert as quickly as possible. To that end, the level of urgency seems to be on par with a serious aircraft emergency. The only difference as I see it is a captain might be willing to spend more time in the air to get the person to a location better equipped to handle the medical event, whereas in a truly serious aircraft emergency, the priority is to plant the rubber on the ground.

Enjoy your day in Sydney. Keep the good weather for me until I get there in early July!

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7096 times:

http://atwonline.com/aircraftengines...ts/article/diverted-attention-0309

A quick google run can be quite informative at times   People should try it!



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7264 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6399 times:

Quoting Flyingfox27 (Reply 3):
Yikes glad it landed safely. I wonder what happens when a flight turns round long after the flight supervisors have gone home, are they dragged back into work to sort things out for the passengers or is there always a standby team waiting for things like this?

Ground staff must wait until the aircraft is well enroute and far enough away that they would continue on to the next suitable diversion airport rather than turning back. In NZ that's about 2-3h after it has gone home.

In a home base scenario it is different. There are people on site 24/7


User currently offlinePanman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Aug 1999, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4540 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 21):
Ground staff must wait until the aircraft is well enroute and far enough away that they would continue on to the next suitable diversion airport rather than turning back. In NZ that's about 2-3h after it has gone home.

In theory only. We leave as soon as it's airborne. If it comes back we get a phonecall....
Hell once I saw it takeoff when I was on the A4 on the way home....

pAnmAn


User currently offlineLHR27C From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 1279 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4208 times:

Quoting Panman (Reply 5):
Failure of engine component - not severe enough to affect handling/control of said engine.
Unable to dump fuel
Overweight landing
7 (8? - hearing different numbers) wheels on main/body gear need replacing due to thermal fuses doing their jobs.

Panman, are you sure it was the engine that was the problem? Not doubting you - just had read elsewhere people suggesting an electrical failure. Seems to be all a bit hush hush!



Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned forever skyward
User currently offlinePanman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Aug 1999, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4190 times:

Quoting LHR27C (Reply 23):
Panman, are you sure it was the engine that was the problem? Not doubting you - just had read elsewhere people suggesting an electrical failure. Seems to be all a bit hush hush!

Cable snapped on VFG. VFG is an engine component. VFG is an electrical component.....

pAnmAn


25 Post contains links fca767 : http://www.fe-ltd.ca/downloads/vfg-new.pdf
26 Post contains images jumpjet : Thanks to those who've replied to this post! I watched this aircraft return to LHR on-line and assumed that as it descended so quickly and then crosse
27 LHR27C : Thanks! Makes sense now.
28 Tristarsteve : Aircraft are only landed at high weights in emergencies, like fire on board. It is not a cost saving to land with the fuel on board. In this case 7 w
29 flythere : So, is it more an issue with A380 design or just problem with SQ's SIA technic maintenance? It is still a pretty young bird I must say and no one wou
30 sankaps : Neither, as it seems to be related to a failure of an engine component. Neither Airbus nor SQ make the engines.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
SQ A380 Failed T/O At LHR 11Jan10 posted Tue Jan 12 2010 12:39:14 by Otnysaslhr
SQ A380 Back To CDG Today posted Wed Dec 16 2009 11:27:30 by Varig md-11
AF A380 Returns To JFK posted Mon Nov 30 2009 11:46:51 by Ryu2
A380 Flights To LHR posted Sat Dec 6 2008 21:21:31 by Legacytravel
Does The A380 Come To LHR On Saturday? posted Fri Dec 5 2008 12:07:57 by J41
EK To Start A380 Service To LHR posted Tue Nov 11 2008 05:34:15 by Aviationbuff
SQ 380 Schedule To LHR posted Sun Nov 25 2007 15:40:21 by Amciver
Why SQ A380 Choose To Fly SYD? posted Tue Oct 16 2007 07:31:00 by BRxxx
Any Idea About When Airbus A380 Comming To LHR? posted Wed Oct 10 2007 08:10:26 by Maxketan
A380 Back To LHR, BA Taking An Interest? posted Sun Mar 18 2007 01:18:57 by Pogo