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, 1972 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 34117 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 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 34018 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, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 33612 times:

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

Regards



Just a 16 year old who loves aviation :)
User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 877 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 33040 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 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 32780 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 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 31295 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, 450 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 22533 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, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 21527 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: 80
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 20291 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, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 19664 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, 1387 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 19155 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 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 18314 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 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 13461 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: 80
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 11680 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 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 11283 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 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10924 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, 1448 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10560 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, 131 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 10302 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 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9953 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, 6724 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9920 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, 1327 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9652 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, 1972 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9458 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 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9189 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 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7693 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, 461 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7425 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]

User currently offlinePSA727LAX From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6993 times:

Serious braking! I can just hear the marketing dept for that company: "Look at what OUR brakes can do"!

User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6913 times:

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 probably wouldn't if there was another reasonable alternative.

User currently offlineseahawks7757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6889 times:

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 26):

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 reported cause guess what, its an old plane, no one thinks anything of it.


User currently offlineAusA380 From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6806 times:

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 26):
if I had the chance of flying the 380, I probably wouldn't if there was another reasonable alternative.

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 robust aircraft.


User currently offline777ord From United States of America, joined May 2010, 516 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6563 times:

anyone reference a Liveatc.net clip?? Just curious

User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6489 times:

Quoting seahawks7757 (Reply 27):
Are you kidding me? All planes have issues, it is only focused on this aircraft cause it is new.

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.


User currently offlinepusserchef From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5860 times:

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 that RTO in caution would be better than flying from LAX to SYD to find out no hydraulics and then.................?
Im guessing that many people always like to put the scare factor in stories/reviews etc, but with the A380 being the largest passenger aircraft to fly and with the potential for so many passengers to be onboard (depending on airline specified layout), if one was crash (sorry) their would be a massive fatality rate over other airliners. Yes I know flying is safe when compared to all other travels, but once again having a story that says 500+ dead in plane crash is alot more attention grabbing than a smaller plane of say any pax (not saying that death of any amount of people is acceptable, i used this as an example).


User currently offlinePassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 221 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5634 times:

Quoting pusserchef (Reply 31):
Im no pilot, but im sure that RTO in caution would be better than flying from LAX to SYD to find out no hydraulics and then.................?

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) is a dangerous maneuver that often ends badly. Even if it ends standing up on a paved surface a brake fire on a "heavy-heavy" is very likely. It is one thing for a certification crew to sit on the runway and let the fire get extinguished, but you are talking about lay-people, looking out the windows, hoping none of them pop an exit and start their own evacuation. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened. You are also very likely to cause the replacement of all the main-gear. I'm guessing close to 1 Million dollars worth of tires on an A380.
If you are "high speed" (where that cutoff is is a matter of opinion but 80 KIAS is a common definition) if it's not an engine failure/fire you are pretty much going unless the jets ability to fly is in doubt. Once the airplane is in the air, it is much safer to reset, maybe dump some fuel, come back in for a landing.

If you are low speed, you are pretty much stopping for anything that turns a light on.

In this case, it sounds like they were at a fairly low speed when they started the abort.

[Edited 2012-12-12 15:23:58]

User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 853 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5575 times:

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 30):
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.

Your feelings about the 380 are your own matter, this rejected takeoff provides logical evidence for disliking it any more or less.


User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5258 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 33):

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 large. There's just something about something that large being up in the sky doesn't fit. I know it's stupid, especially because other WB aircraft are very large, but I just feel more comfortable on a 767/a330.


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4833 times:

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 18):
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.

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.


User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4785 times:

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 26):
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 probably wouldn't if there was another reasonable alternative.

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 Same Fault as United Jet

I'm not flamebaiting. My point is that EVERY single airliner out there has its own specific issues. As an aviator and an aviation enthusiast, I genuinely love every occasion I reach for the skies, irrespective of what aircraft it is and who built it; you should do the same!   



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinetim From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 705 posts, RR: 3
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4550 times:

Quoting Fuling (Reply 11):

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