QANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1804 posts, RR: 2 Posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 31901 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.
seahawks7757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 145 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 31801 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.
azncsa4qf744er From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 671 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 30563 times:
That would be QF012. It came back due to Hydraulic, finally left at 0130 enroute to SYDNEY now.
jonnyclark From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2011, 98 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 19310 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.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 8, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 18075 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.
jonnyclark From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2011, 98 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 17448 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)
B777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1007 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16939 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
Fuling From Australia, joined Apr 2011, 187 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 16098 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.
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.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 13, posted (5 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9464 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.
Norcal773 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1280 posts, RR: 12 Reply 16, posted (5 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8344 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.
Mcoov From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 111 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (5 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8086 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.
PassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 143 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7737 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.
rcair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 927 posts, RR: 25 Reply 20, posted (5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7436 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.
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?
spiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 1 Reply 26, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4693 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.
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.
AusA380 From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 288 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4583 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.
pusserchef From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 14 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3638 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).
PassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 143 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3414 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.
RickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 480 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3352 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.
spiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 1 Reply 34, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3036 times:
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.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 35, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2611 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.
BlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2515 posts, RR: 25 Reply 36, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2562 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.
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... :-(
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1804 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Dec 2012, 26 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 767 posts, 
From Morocco, joined Sep 2003, 280 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2011, 98 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1007 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4790 posts, 
).
From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 480 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2515 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
