Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can The A380 Land Fully Loaded Pax/fuel Emergency?  
User currently offlineJulianuk From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 105 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5322 times:

My 747-400 fully loaded topic bought me on to the question:

Does anyone know if the A380 must/will be able to land fully fuelled and full passengers after take off if there was a fire on board? I assume this must be part of its safety certification otherwise would it still be considered safe in all circumstances?

J

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5321 times:

Yes!

Any aircraft is certified to land up to Max TO weight.

However:
- This might be less safe than the alternative (dumping/burning off fuel) depending on circumstances. A heavy landing means high speeds, poor go around performance and consequent risks (blown tires, etc...) Of course, if you have an out of control fire you land no matter what (cue the Swissair MD-11 discussion).
- A heavy landing check will be required to see that nothing broke.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5313 times:

Just try NOT landing some time!

What Starlionblue said - true.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3477 posts, RR: 67
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5256 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Any aircraft is certified to land up to Max TO weight.

Not quite. The certification requirement is for the airplane to land after a 30 minute flight. Landing weight can be reduced by the 30 minute of flight fuel plus no more than 15 min. if fuel jettison.

Of course in a true emergency, landing weights can be higher as certification requirements can go out the window on the pilot's decision.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5196 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 3):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Any aircraft is certified to land up to Max TO weight.

Not quite. The certification requirement is for the airplane to land after a 30 minute flight. Landing weight can be reduced by the 30 minute of flight fuel plus no more than 15 min. if fuel jettison.

Aaah. Still, close  Wink



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineCoolGuy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 414 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4643 times:

It will certainly land. I wonder what would happen to the airframe, landing gear system, etc, though.

User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4639 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 3):
certification requirements can go out the window on the pilot's decision.

Got that right. Those numbers in the nicely bound books we carry work well if it appears there will be another flight by that particular airplane. If subsequent flights seem unlikely, there are no limits.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8874 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4624 times:

FWIW it has already landed well above the MTOW by a large margin during testing.


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineEx52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4608 times:

Quoting CoolGuy (Reply 5):
It will certainly land. I wonder what would happen to the airframe, landing gear system, etc, though.

That would depend on how the pilot brought it in.

But the inspections would be called out in the maintenance manual for a landing above Max landing weight.



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4545 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 6):
Those numbers in the nicely bound books we carry work well if it appears there will be another flight by that particular airplane. If subsequent flights seem unlikely, there are no limits.

Nicely put!


User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4524 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 3):
Of course in a true emergency, landing weights can be higher as certification requirements can go out the window on the pilot's decision.

i agree with that, but it woud be very bad if the captain decided to land and the airplane falls apart from under him.



"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offline3MilesToWRO From Poland, joined Mar 2006, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4509 times:

Quoting Cancidas (Reply 10):
i agree with that, but it woud be very bad if the captain decided to land and the airplane falls apart from under him.

But it would be even worse if he decided to keep flying and the airplane fell apart anyway.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4488 times:

Quoting 3MilesToWRO (Reply 11):

But it would be even worse if he decided to keep flying and the airplane fell apart anyway.

Better on the ground with the gear legs ground to stumps than in the air seeing the wings leave formation. Big grin



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineAnalog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4433 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 7):
FWIW it has already landed well above the MTOW by a large margin during testing.

Is that part of the certification process?

It would make sense if the aircraft had to be able to land at, or even above, MTOW w/o damage to the passenger compartment. Even better would be if it could land without gear collapse, wings falling off, fires starting, that sort of thing.

Of course an aircraft like the A380 or 747 would be damaged (or at least assumed to be damaged such that inspections were required) after such an event.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3477 posts, RR: 67
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4418 times:

Quoting Analog (Reply 13):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 7):
FWIW it has already landed well above the MTOW by a large margin during testing.


Is that part of the certification process?

No, it is not as the airplane is not certified for landing at those weights. The maximum weight for a landing that has to be analyzed (not necessarily demo'ed) during cert is as I described in Reply 3. Note that this weight is not certified either. It merely defines a airplane capability that would be needed very, very rarely during operational service.

However, as part of normal certification testing, it will be common for the airplane to takeoff and land at weights in excess of the certified MTOW. This is done to make testing efficient. Landing at these weights does not use the same touchdown sink rate that is required for a certified MLW.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4413 times:

I guess if you have to land IMMEDIATELY when taking off at MTOW, damaging the plane is the least of your worries. Landing with that little planning is probably inherently dangerous anyway.

Typically, you would want a little while to analyze things before trying to trap the three wire. Say, the 30 minutes allowed by the certification requirement.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineAnalog From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4408 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 15):
tI guess if you have to land IMMEDIATELY when taking off at MTOW, damaging the plane is the least of your worries. Landing with that little planning is probably inherently dangerous anyway.

Right. I'm thinking it should be possible to do that w/o collapsing the landing gear or catching fire... forget damage to the aircraft.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4402 times:

Quoting Analog (Reply 16):
Right. I'm thinking it should be possible to do that w/o collapsing the landing gear or catching fire... forget damage to the aircraft.

It imagine it's quite possible to do without collapsing the gear, as long as you hit the runway softly enough. That's "just" a question of flaring. But most runways aren't 10 miles long and the pilots would probably want as much braking distance as possible. A long soft float would waste runway.

Also, at those speeds your tires might file a complaint and decide to go KA-BOOM! Your brakes probably wouldn't like you too much either.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineBrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1612 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4129 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 17):
Also, at those speeds your tires might file a complaint and decide to go KA-BOOM! Your brakes probably wouldn't like you too much either.

Your passengers would like you even less if you didn't get them down before the aircraft decided to fall apart.



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17002 posts, RR: 67
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4047 times:

Quoting Brenintw (Reply 18):

Your passengers would like you even less if you didn't get them down before the aircraft decided to fall apart.

Indeed. And the thread is now circling like a plane dumping fuel. Big grin

Anyway these decisions are why there are fleshbags at the pointy end.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9979 posts, RR: 96
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 9 hours ago) and read 3901 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 17):
It imagine it's quite possible to do without collapsing the gear, as long as you hit the runway softly enough. That's "just" a question of flaring. But most runways aren't 10 miles long and the pilots would probably want as much braking distance as possible. A long soft float would waste runway.

Also, at those speeds your tires might file a complaint and decide to go KA-BOOM! Your brakes probably wouldn't like you too much either.

As Zeke pointed out, the 569t certified A388 has been landed at 597t (which, as far as I know, is a record), with very little drama, no runway overrun, no broken gear, and no frazzled brakes. It was just..........landed.

To be honest, that's all you need to know to answer the thread-starters question.

(FWIW I think you'll see an A380 comfortably beat this landing weight sometime in the future, too... )

Regards


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6389 posts, RR: 54
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months ago) and read 3837 times:

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 20):
As Zeke pointed out, the 569t certified A388 has been landed at 597t (which, as far as I know, is a record), with very little drama, no runway overrun, no broken gear, and no frazzled brakes. It was just..........landed.

Right Astuteman. And please notice, this is not just 28t overweight, it is more than 200t over the 386t MLW.

Also interesting is the recent 675t aborted take off test. The plane was accelerated to rotation speed just over 300 km/h, then engines were put at idle - no reversers! - and maximum wheel brake performance was engaged until a complete standstill. Then the plane was left alone with no external cooling from fire brigade and such.

What happened next was that the white glowing brakes transferred heat to the wheels, and after some 3 minutes (as predicted) the pressure fuses brew on the 20 main wheels leaving them all flat.

The test was done with 90% worn down brakes.

A few hours later they had changed the 20 wheels and flew back to Toulouse. There was no damage to the plane.

That was not a landing test. But properly piloted a landing at the same weight (close to double MLW) would not put much more strain on the plane.

On the other hand, in case of an overweight emergency landing you would hardly ever use maximum wheel brake, since a lot more runway would be available compared to an aborted takeoff. And you would of course use the two reversers if the #2 and #3 engines were spinning.

The 388 has shown in its tests to be a sturdy plane. That's also needed if the dreams about a future 389 shall ever come true.

Over the last couple of years there has been a lot of "noise" over 388 being a few percent over the empty weight target. It is good to see that during the weight saving process Airbus did not make shortcuts and make it into a flimsy thing which cracks and buckles under extreme load.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6346 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months ago) and read 3829 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 2):
Just try NOT landing some time!

What Starlionblue said - true.

Capt. Click!!! So happy to see you back...



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8874 posts, RR: 75
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months ago) and read 3813 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 21):
Also interesting is the recent 675t aborted take off test.

It was not that high, it was below 600t, it needs all 20 wheels braked to get over 600t.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3791 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 22):
So happy to see you back...

Not so fast - check the date of that post .  Smile /  Sad


25 Post contains links Prebennorholm : Sorry Zeke, my bad. It was 575t, not 675t. I googled it, you are right. Speed was 166 kts / 307 km/h. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-on-duri
26 Post contains images WingedMigrator : And only 16 tires went flat, not 20 I would have loved to see the rearmost tires on the body gear after that happened. They must have been quite stre
27 ThrottleHold : The A330/340 is certified for an autoland at up to MTOW.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Can The A380 Land Fully Loaded Pax/fuel Emergency?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Routes And A/c Fully Loaded With Fuel. posted Mon Nov 6 2006 06:17:47 by Mirrodie
Noise Levels Of The A380 posted Sat Oct 8 2005 11:53:29 by TheSonntag
What Is This In The Back Of The A380? posted Thu Jun 16 2005 22:40:13 by Alphafloor
The A380 "forehead". A Tech Explanation posted Tue Jun 14 2005 00:32:14 by Pihero
How Many T/R On The A380 posted Thu Apr 28 2005 14:06:38 by JAGflyer
Wingtips On The A380 posted Wed Feb 16 2005 00:04:16 by Yhz78
How Will Or How Did The A380 Handle Certification? posted Mon Jan 24 2005 20:34:23 by JumboJim747
Max Range Of A Fully Loaded 747-400 Combi? posted Sun Nov 21 2004 14:07:52 by Boeing nut
The A380 And Wake Turbulence posted Fri Oct 8 2004 07:37:02 by Jason McDowell
When All Engines Fail, Can We Still Land? posted Thu Aug 26 2004 01:16:36 by Kl911
Potable Water Hook Up On The A380 posted Sat Oct 30 2010 16:12:32 by contrails15
Is The 787 More Quiet Than The A380 Both RR And GE posted Sun Aug 1 2010 20:59:53 by Aeroflot001
Will The 787 And A350 Make The A380 Look Out Dated posted Mon Feb 22 2010 20:48:48 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format