Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
QF A380 Rejected Takeoff LAX  
User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1963 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 34072 times:

Tonight at LAX, DEC 9 at 1045p, a QF A380 was going down 24L when it suddenly slammed on the brakes and stopped right around T3 or TBIT. It appeared to be going pretty fast when it stopped. It then sat on 24L for about 5 minutes before taxiing off the runway and back to the gate under its own power. Anyone know what happened? Or why it had to slam on the brakes so quickly with much more runway to go?


My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineseahawks7757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 33973 times:

The auto brakes are typically set for RTO, when those activate they don't know how much runway is left so they stop the plane as fast as possible.

User currently offlineTriple7X From Singapore, joined Dec 2012, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 33567 times:

Anyone know what happen or why was the QF380 takeoff rejected?

Regards



1x Airbus A300B4-600R, 2x Airbus A330-300, 2x Boeing B777-300/-300ER, 4x Boeing 777-200/-200ER, 7x Airbus A320-200
User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 873 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 32995 times:

Quoting Triple7X (Reply 2):
Anyone know what happen or why was the QF380 takeoff rejected?

No extra large first class pyjamas?


User currently offlineazncsa4qf744er From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 32735 times:

That would be QF012. It came back due to Hydraulic, finally left at 0130 enroute to SYDNEY now.

User currently offlinevaus77w From Australia, joined Aug 2011, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 31250 times:

Quoting azncsa4qf744er (Reply 5):
That would be QF012. It came back due to Hydraulic, finally left at 0130 enroute to SYDNEY now.

Got a source for that?


User currently offlinecapri From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 449 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 22488 times:

Why always QF with A380? is it the constant ultra long haul effect or something else that QF keep countering with A380 unlike other operators?

Before you start swinging at me, i know other operators had problems, but it seems QF takes most of the share, or at least what goes public.


User currently offlinejonnyclark From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2011, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21482 times:

It could have only been doing around 80kts if it rejected for Hydraulics, (using the 737-800 for that speed margin - just before anyone jumps on my figures) however, with that amount of momentum to stop, I bet it must have felt pretty intense. After 80-90kts, usually the rule is to continue with the roll, as Hydraulics aren't sensed as a major failure. It can actually be more detrimental to stop the aircraft as the braking can cause damage to the wheels. They probably stayed for 5 mins to let the brakes cool down before taxiing off.

I am surprised they didn't manual break though, as if it was around TBIT they still would have time and distance to slow the aircraft down without putting such strain on the break discs.



Jonny, commercial pilot & founder of Thedesignair
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 20246 times:

Quoting jonnyclark (Reply 12):
I am surprised they didn't manual break though, as if it was around TBIT they still would have time and distance to slow the aircraft down without putting such strain on the break discs.

Autobrakes. When you pull the thrust levers to idle they come on full power (and the spoilers come up). If they were only going 80 knots, they would have stopped in a big hurry with full braking so there may not have been much time to get onto manual brakes.

Tom.


User currently offlinejonnyclark From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2011, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 19619 times:

true... but even a small tap on the brakes with more pressure than the autobrakes (which you should be guarding on a take off) should in theory cancel the autobrakes (which should be a natural reaction). (Again, i've only got experience on the Boeing, not the scarebus)


Jonny, commercial pilot & founder of Thedesignair
User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 19110 times:

How are you going to cancel the autobrakes by applying "more pressure", when in RTO setting the brakes are already delivering maximum performance? Turning the autobrake selector to "off" is, to my knowledge, the only way of cancelling RTO. But I don't know what the QF SOP says about these situations, and it's been too long to remember what the book I flew to used to say.

As for not stopping for hydraulic failures above 80, while generally speaking true, very much depends. If the skipper finds a particular failure may compromise the ability to fly he can always call "stop". In really serious cases even after V1. Again, I don't know what the QF procedures are; perhaps they do stop for certain hydraulic failure scenarios on the A380 all the way up to V1. Then again, in this particular situation they could still have been below 80. Unless you were on the flight deck, spoke to the crew or has access to the FQMS there's no way of knowing.

But, above all, why is something as mundane (relatively speaking, I know it's rather stressful for the passengers and comes with some extra work for flight and ground crews) as an RTO even deemed to be newsworthy? Surely, with 4 years of airline operations under its' belt, the A380 no longer ought to command a thread every time it throws a minor operational wobbly. It's hardly as if it decided it was too fat and discharged spare parts down on terra firma, now is it?

[Edited 2012-12-10 12:50:44]


From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineFuling From Australia, joined Apr 2011, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 18269 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 15):
A380 no longer ought to command a thread every time it throws a minor operational wobbly

I think a lot of attention is still given to the A380 because it is a relatively new aircraft, and is quite different to anything ever built, that this is why we are still getting threads about minor operational wobblies.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 13416 times:

Quoting vaus77w (Reply 6):
Got a source for that?

I can offer one -- a friend of mine was on the flight... He said that the crew told everyone that it was an issue with the hydraulics and it ended up just being an indicator problem.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 11635 times:

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 27):
I am no A380 pilot but I remember learning in flight school ages ago when I thought I wanted to be a pilot that V1 is committing you're getting off the ground, no matter what happens.
Quoting jonnyclark (Reply 22):
I'm not sure if you are a commercial pilot, or your level of experience, so forgive my return on this, but that is taught from pretty much day 1 of groundschool to continue the roll at V1 regardless.

The guidance is continue after V1 *unless you believe the aircraft cannot fly*. A runway overrun may still be safer than taking an aircraft into the sky that isn't capable of staying there. Pilots are not blindly instructed to continue all takeoffs after V1, but it's a pretty tricky thing to assess the situation, determine the aircraft is safer on the ground, and reject all between V1 and rotation.

Tom.


User currently offlineseahawks7757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 11238 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 15):

I can also confirm this from a source of mine too.


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10879 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 11):
Turning the autobrake selector to "off" is, to my knowledge, the only way of cancelling RTO.

I guess it depends on the jet. We are taught to "arm" the A/B for T/O but if we reject it's max MANUAL brakes to a complete stop.


User currently offlineNorcal773 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1447 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10515 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 14):
The guidance is continue after V1 *unless you believe the aircraft cannot fly*. A runway overrun may still be safer than taking an aircraft into the sky that isn't capable of staying there. Pilots are not blindly instructed to continue all takeoffs after V1, but it's a pretty tricky thing to assess the situation, determine the aircraft is safer on the ground, and reject all between V1 and rotation.

Putting it that way, of course! Well-put Tom. Not to mention it'd be a decision made in a split-second.



If you're going through hell, keep going
User currently offlineMcoov From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 128 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10257 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 11):

How are you going to cancel the autobrakes by applying "more pressure", when in RTO setting the brakes are already delivering maximum performance?

I believe he meant applying a bit of pressure to the brake pedal. This should tell the computer that the pilot is now going to make the brake application instead of the automated systems. However, given the different philosophies of A and B about who is ultimately in control of the airplane, that may not work for an Airbus.


User currently offlinePassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 221 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9908 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 16):
I guess it depends on the jet. We are taught to "arm" the A/B for T/O but if we reject it's max MANUAL brakes to a complete stop

Right, but the autorakes were armed when the thrust levers were brught up to take-off power and the aircraft reached the requisite speed...they were then activated when the thrust levers were brought back to idle.

The crew probably did get the autobrakes off because if you let the airplane stop on auto-brakes, the last 80 knots or so feels very violent.

I'm sure the engineer types on here can give you a better explanation, but after a max braking effort situation (RTO or landing heavy for example) you cannot check the brake temps right away as your peak brake temps will occur a few minutes after the event is complete. Sounds like the A380 captain stopped the jet, waited the requisite time, saw that the temps were below limits and taxied the airplane to the gate. I have never got a good explanation if the temps are actually increasing (seems counter-intuitive to my simple pilot brain) or the energy is redistributing to where it is only later being picked up by the gauges as the energy is moving through the gear/brakes.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6664 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9875 times:

The OP has Qantas in his username so I guess that's why he posted (unless it's because the 747 in his username indicates a disdain for the A380  ).

Otherwise I've read here several times that Qantas was under scrutiny by the press for some reason.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1323 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9607 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting Aesma (Reply 20):
unless it's because the 747 in his username indicates a disdain for the A380 

According to his profile - he joined 11 years ago - so I'm thinking the 380 was not the driving factor in the name choice.

I would have loved to see this - high speed RTO can be quite a sight. I always get a kick of the 777 and 380 RTO testing videos.

The amount of energy that brakes must absorb then dissipate for a plane the size of a 380 in a RTO is astounding. If he was headed to Australia - he had to be pretty heavy.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 19):
or the energy is redistributing to where it is only later being picked up by the gauges as the energy is moving through the gear/brakes.

It is redistributing from the friction point (pad/disc interface) to the rest of the system. That is why, in those RTO's, the tire plugs blow minutes after the stop.

Once they have stopped - no more heat is being generated through friction.



rcair1
User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1963 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9413 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 20):

The OP has Qantas in his username so I guess that's why he posted

No... I posted it because I just happened to see it. Nothing to do with the airline or airplane type.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 20):
(unless it's because the 747 in his username indicates a disdain for the A380 ).

11 years ago, I didn't know what an A380 was, but yes, I do loathe the A380.



My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offlineGSPflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9144 times:

Anyone know the registration of the Aircraft in question?

User currently offlineazncsa4qf744er From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 7648 times:

Keep in mind that RWNY 24L start between T1 and T2. So stopping at TBIT is not that far from the roll-off point.

User currently offlineaudidudi From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 7380 times:

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 22):

I assume that it's VH-OQD as FlightAware shows that it's been at LAX since 06.55 on Dec 9th. However VH-OQL operated QF12 which departed at 01.32 on Dec 10th, so I don't know why VH-OQD has been at LAX for two days. I doubt whether it would have flown out after it had a rejected take off three hours earlier, but who knows? FlightAware shows VH-OQL's last two flights as QF12 from LAX-SYD anyway, so does anyone know whether these are the two aircraft involved?

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VHOQD
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/V...L/history/20121210/0620Z/KLAX/YSSY

[Edited 2012-12-11 02:30:09]

25 PSA727LAX : Serious braking! I can just hear the marketing dept for that company: "Look at what OUR brakes can do"!
26 spiritair97 : Every time I see a post about an 380 having problems it turns me off from then a little bit more. Honestly, if I had the chance of flying the 380, I p
27 seahawks7757 : Are you kidding me? All planes have issues, it is only focused on this aircraft cause it is new. 737's have RTO all the time, but it is never reporte
28 AusA380 : I have on several occasions on multiple airlines. It is a fantastic aircraft to fly in. Also given the QF32 incident, it also appears to be a very ro
29 777ord : anyone reference a Liveatc.net clip?? Just curious
30 spiritair97 : Those aren't the only reasons for my disliking the aircraft. That was just pertenant to the conversation, so I thought I would state it.
31 pusserchef : In Australia, anything aviation related is always QANTASs fault in the media, regardless of who, what, when, why and how. Im no pilot, but im sure tha
32 PassedV1 : The question to abort a take-off or continue is not a question of if they would have continued all the way to SYD or not. An RTO near V1 (high speed)
33 RickNRoll : Your feelings about the 380 are your own matter, this rejected takeoff provides logical evidence for disliking it any more or less.
34 spiritair97 : Thanks. Believe me, I do thnk it is a good-looking bird and probably a very well-built aircraft. I have just never been comfortable on planes that la
35 CosmicCruiser : so be it. We are taught, as I said, MAX manual brakes to a full stop. There is no option to lighten up if there's extra runway.
36 Post contains links and images BlueShamu330s : You'll be taking the B787 Dreamliner every time then, I guess. Oh...hold on... United B787 in emergency diversion Qatar Air Boeing 787 Grounded With
37 tim : Couldn't agree more. Nothing to see here.
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...
QF A380 Operationg To LAX On The 30th? posted Sun Jan 3 2010 21:16:45 by Braniff747SP
New Taxiway At LAX Inaugurated By QF A380 posted Mon May 24 2010 22:45:45 by DTWLAX
QF A380 LAX, Flt 6021 posted Mon Feb 16 2009 17:22:36 by QANTAS747-438
2 QF A380 At LAX On 29 Dec? posted Tue Dec 30 2008 19:27:37 by Avi8tir
LAX Spotters - 1st QF A380 Service Monday 20Oct posted Sat Oct 18 2008 09:35:28 by LAXintl
QF A380 And LAX posted Fri Jun 1 2007 07:03:55 by Qantasguy
QF A380 Overnight Parking Spot At LAX posted Sat Mar 10 2007 20:15:59 by JDFlyVC10
QF A380 To LAX posted Thu Mar 1 2007 06:23:07 by JDFlyVC10
QF'S A380 To LAX IN 2006! posted Tue May 25 2004 23:46:25 by MX777
QF A380 @ JFK posted Fri Aug 3 2012 13:54:57 by spiritair97