This is an interesting incident:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/emirates-airbus-a380-lands-in-brisbane-with-large-hole-in-fuselage/ar-AAZ7l7E

Pictures here:

https://twitter.com/JacdecNew/status/1543146274505072640

Decent size hole to fly all the way from DXB to BNE , no?

The flight crew would not have been able to see any hole at that position so what do you think could have alerted them?

Per the pax report, one bang and that's it nothing else.

Would a hole like that not have caused some performance degradation?

Looks interesting, but as the fairing is outside the pressure vessel and not structural, a scarier title than reality. I would understand passengers near the hole needing a clothing change. But from an airworthiness perspective, I wonder if there if there is a standard process to secure cracks (drill them out) and fly back

lightsaber wrote:

Looks interesting, but as the fairing is outside the pressure vessel and not structural, a scarier title than reality. I would understand passengers near the hole needing a clothing change. But from an airworthiness perspective, I wonder if there if there is a standard process to secure cracks (drill them out) and fly back

Do you mean my title? I actually took it back a notch from the linked article which called it a "large hole." I mean, it's certainly eye-catching..but I do understand that it isn't significant enough to be a major threat.

So, how will a repair for something like that work? And how much will it cost?

Scary-looking, but it’s not part of the pressure vessel and should be a relatively straightforward fix. Very similar to damage suffered by the UAL 777 in the DEN-HNL cowl failure from last year, for which some observers initially declared the aircraft a w/o!!

lightsaber wrote:

Looks interesting, but as the fairing is outside the pressure vessel and not structural, a scarier title than reality. I would understand passengers near the hole needing a clothing change. But from an airworthiness perspective, I wonder if there if there is a standard process to secure cracks (drill them out) and fly back

Wouldn't the hole cause more drag? I would think EK would want to put some speed tape over it before flying back to DXB. Sounds like they are being more conservative than that by getting repairs done in Brisbane before returning to DXB

barefootchris wrote:

I mean, it's certainly eye-catching..but I do understand that it isn't significant enough to be a major threat.

On that note, the report say that the damage was caused by a bolt coming off the landing gear. I suspect that's a bigger potential issue than the hole?

I think the biggest risk is when the fairing came apart, it could have hit the horizontal stabilizer depending on the airflow.

It isn’t primary structure so not really a big problem from a safety of flight perspective unless it hit something more important

flyingclrs727 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Looks interesting, but as the fairing is outside the pressure vessel and not structural, a scarier title than reality. I would understand passengers near the hole needing a clothing change. But from an airworthiness perspective, I wonder if there if there is a standard process to secure cracks (drill them out) and fly back

Wouldn't the hole cause more drag? I would think EK would want to put some speed tape over it before flying back to DXB. Sounds like they are being more conservative than that by getting repairs done in Brisbane before returning to DXB

Since those fairings are extremely optimized to reduce aerodynamic drag, yes, a performance hit. It is one area of any aircraft extensively analyzed for one is adding weight to cut drag. The damaged part has no other purpose (other than creating a protected volume for plumbing and piping, for why waste the space?)

I would expect a .75% increase in fuel burn (aerodynamically, a really bad place to add a hole, in my opinion).

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

I think the biggest risk is when the fairing came apart, it could have hit the horizontal stabilizer depending on the airflow.

It isn’t primary structure so not really a big problem from a safety of flight perspective unless it hit something more important

Yes, the risk is now fatigue damage. Hence why I ask on standard repairs. Every single crack must be addressed and it could be too large a hole to fly with. Two options:
Fly without (It can fall off, so aircraft must be certified to fly without it, I doubt with passengers, but I do not know).
Some ugly patch repair where the quart cans of epoxy are inadequate.

Lightsaber

Reiterating the point that the bolt came off the nose gear, and looking at the pic and the hole's location, I'm wondering if that is an exit hole? If so this could have potentially been much worse.

I imagine the crew's decision to continue flying 13 hours also exasperated the size of the hole.

Would the crew even know of the puncture? Its a non-pressurized area, so I would be surprised if a warning light would alert them to a puncture, or even if there were sensors in that part of plane.

flyPIT wrote:

Reiterating the point that the bolt came off the nose gear, and looking at the pic and the hole's location, I'm wondering if that is an exit hole? If so this could have potentially been much worse.

If this was an exit hole, it would also have caused pressurisation loss.

Theseus wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

Reiterating the point that the bolt came off the nose gear, and looking at the pic and the hole's location, I'm wondering if that is an exit hole? If so this could have potentially been much worse.

If this was an exit hole, it would also have caused pressurisation loss.

As stated up thread, the hole is outside the pressure vessel. Therefore pressurization loss would depend on the location of the (hypothetical) entrance hole.

Also, I don’t think a small entrance hole would cause loss of pressurization. After all, outflow valves are holes in the pressure vessel.

It looks like the hole is in the BLG bay. I find it odd that it is there - the only thing I can think of is that the BLG went over it and threw it up and out.

As I wouldn't think there is a direct trajectory from the NLG to here?
And if it were an entry hole the bit would have come in an odd curveball.

flyPIT wrote:

Theseus wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

Reiterating the point that the bolt came off the nose gear, and looking at the pic and the hole's location, I'm wondering if that is an exit hole? If so this could have potentially been much worse.

If this was an exit hole, it would also have caused pressurisation loss.

As stated up thread, the hole is outside the pressure vessel. Therefore pressurization loss would depend on the location of the (hypothetical) entrance hole.

Also, I don’t think a small entrance hole would cause loss of pressurization. After all, outflow valves are holes in the pressure vessel.

The aircon would probably regulate a hole the size of a window out to keep the cabin pressurised enough.
The pax sitting near would still notice of course!

What exactly happened? Did a tyre "explode" or did they roll over something that got blown up to hit the fairing? Can tyres still cause damage like this? I thought these are near zero growth NZG tyres now?

I think the rear pair of wheels on each body gear have no brakes fitted, so presumably they spin for some time once retracted (or perhaps they have snubbers similar to how most nose gear wheels are braked?). Perhaps something was flung from one of those wheels - location looks about right.

ReverseFlow wrote:

It looks like the hole is in the BLG bay. I find it odd that it is there - the only thing I can think of is that the BLG went over it and threw it up and out.

As I wouldn't think there is a direct trajectory from the NLG to here?
And if it were an entry hole the bit would have come in an odd curveball.

flyPIT wrote:

Theseus wrote:

If this was an exit hole, it would also have caused pressurisation loss.

As stated up thread, the hole is outside the pressure vessel. Therefore pressurization loss would depend on the location of the (hypothetical) entrance hole.

Also, I don’t think a small entrance hole would cause loss of pressurization. After all, outflow valves are holes in the pressure vessel.

The aircon would probably regulate a hole the size of a window out to keep the cabin pressurised enough.
The pax sitting near would still notice of course!

If you could find the passenger to interview.

lightsaber wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

I think the biggest risk is when the fairing came apart, it could have hit the horizontal stabilizer depending on the airflow.

It isn’t primary structure so not really a big problem from a safety of flight perspective unless it hit something more important

Yes, the risk is now fatigue damage. Hence why I ask on standard repairs. Every single crack must be addressed and it could be too large a hole to fly with. Two options:
Fly without (It can fall off, so aircraft must be certified to fly without it, I doubt with passengers, but I do not know).
Some ugly patch repair where the quart cans of epoxy are inadequate.

Lightsaber

How did such a small part cause such a large hole in the fuselage? It doesn't make sense.

Noshow wrote:

What exactly happened? Did a tyre "explode" or did they roll over something that got blown up to hit the fairing? Can tyres still cause damage like this? I thought these are near zero growth NZG tyres now?

Tell us you didn't read the linked article without telling us.

edealinfo wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

I think the biggest risk is when the fairing came apart, it could have hit the horizontal stabilizer depending on the airflow.

It isn’t primary structure so not really a big problem from a safety of flight perspective unless it hit something more important

Yes, the risk is now fatigue damage. Hence why I ask on standard repairs. Every single crack must be addressed and it could be too large a hole to fly with. Two options:
Fly without (It can fall off, so aircraft must be certified to fly without it, I doubt with passengers, but I do not know).
Some ugly patch repair where the quart cans of epoxy are inadequate.

Lightsaber

How did such a small part cause such a large hole in the fuselage? It doesn't make sense.

It's not a hole "in the fuselage", it's just a hole in the rather flimsy fairing over the wing join. It's aerodynamic, not structural.

Interesting - I’m not quite sure I follow the timeline (may need more coffee)- the suggestion is a bolt from the landing gear caused the puncture. But pax report the bang was 30mins after take off, and EK report the damage occurred in cruise? Did the bolt puncture hole, which then expanded due to fatigue from ongoing drag to the damage? Presumably 30mins after take off unless for landing gear issues they are well and truly stowed away?

I assume the bolt came loose during takeoff, lucky it didn’t cause more debris on the runway that went unnoticed.

Interesting - I’m not quite sure I follow the timeline (may need more coffee)- the suggestion is a bolt from the landing gear caused the puncture. But pax report the bang was 30mins after take off, and EK report the damage occurred in cruise? Did the bolt puncture a hole, which then expanded due to fatigue from ongoing drag to the damage- causing a bang 30mins after the damage occurred? Presumably 30mins after take off (unless for landing gear issues) they are well and truly stowed away? Otherwise a bolt from stowed landing gear isn’t going to come loose and puncture anything, is it?

Assuming the bolt came loose during takeoff, lucky it didn’t cause more debris on the runway that went unnoticed.

For those interested, it's also on AvHerald.

https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4fb1cbea&opt=0

Tell us you didn't read the linked article without telling us.

Us? You are one aren't you?

You didn't even understand the question? The damage looks like some tyre blew up inside the left main gear compartment. Not like some loose part having hit it from the outside. I wonder why a tyre releasing pressure can cause a damage like this after the lessons learned from Concorde?

smi0006 wrote:

Interesting - I’m not quite sure I follow the timeline (may need more coffee)- the suggestion is a bolt from the landing gear caused the puncture. But pax report the bang was 30mins after take off, and EK report the damage occurred in cruise? Did the bolt puncture a hole, which then expanded due to fatigue from ongoing drag to the damage- causing a bang 30mins after the damage occurred? Presumably 30mins after take off (unless for landing gear issues) they are well and truly stowed away? Otherwise a bolt from stowed landing gear isn’t going to come loose and puncture anything, is it?

Assuming the bolt came loose during takeoff, lucky it didn’t cause more debris on the runway that went unnoticed.

Was there actually a puncture? Report is aircraft towed to terminal with PAX still onboard, wouldn't they have used stairs if there was a puncture.

flyPIT wrote:

Theseus wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

Reiterating the point that the bolt came off the nose gear, and looking at the pic and the hole's location, I'm wondering if that is an exit hole? If so this could have potentially been much worse.

If this was an exit hole, it would also have caused pressurisation loss.

As stated up thread, the hole is outside the pressure vessel. Therefore pressurization loss would depend on the location of the (hypothetical) entrance hole.

Also, I don’t think a small entrance hole would cause loss of pressurization. After all, outflow valves are holes in the pressure vessel.

The entry hole is not entirely hypothetical, report says 2 holes were found.

Dear all,

Here is my take on this occurrence, in the form of a hypothetical sequence of events:
- A bolt detaches from the nose landing gear during take off roll.
- The bolt rolls over the runway surface and hits the rearmost outer tire of the left body gear, wich receives damage in the process.
- The gear is retracted, the spinning damaged tire (no brakes on this axle) damages the fairing from the inside.

- 30 minutes into the flight, the initial damage is aggravated by the air flow, noticed by the passengers, the hole gets bigger.

Does this sound reasonable?
Hendric

Repair? Isn’t there a fleet of them being scrapped. Order a fairing from a boneyard. Throw some paint on it. If even needed and call it a day.

boacvc10 wrote:

The flight crew would not have been able to see any hole at that position so what do you think could have alerted them?

I guess they knew they had a tyre let go from the TPIS on ECAM. Probably had no idea about the hole in the fairing though.

barefootchris wrote:

On that note, the report say that the damage was caused by a bolt coming off the landing gear.

flyPIT wrote:

Reiterating the point that the bolt came off the nose gear, and looking at the pic and the hole's location,

Noshow wrote:

What exactly happened? Did a tyre "explode" or did they roll over something that got blown up to hit the fairing?

smi0006 wrote:

Interesting - I’m not quite sure I follow the timeline (may need more coffee)- the suggestion is a bolt from the landing gear caused the puncture.

hitower3 wrote:

- A bolt detaches from the nose landing gear during take off roll.

Apparently there was nothing wrong with the nose gear at all. A BLG tyre burst in cruise which resulted in the fairing puncture.

Regards, JetMech

Remove the fairing, make an inspection for further damages and repair them if there are any. Get a servicable fairing, install it, item closed.
That is it. The only issue is that it is a very huge fairing, so a big box of cargo.

The aircraft was repaired overnight. Couldn’t tell there was a hole if you were a normal, unsuspecting passenger.

According to a comment from passenger"Chris" in the Simple Flying article, the loud bang occurred 30-45 minutes into the flight. I'm curious therefore how anything exiting the gear could which would be elevated into its respective gear bays and effectively contained, could cause this ? I agree the hole looks like an exit hole, so could some piece of released debris travel through the aircraft internally, exiting at the fairing ?

jetmech wrote:

Apparently there was nothing wrong with the nose gear at all. A BLG tyre burst in cruise which resulted in the fairing puncture.

Regards, JetMech

Surely the MLG and tyre would be fully stowed and enclosed long before the aircraft reached cruise height, would it not?

Vicenza wrote:

Surely the MLG and tyre would be fully stowed and enclosed long before the aircraft reached cruise height, would it not?

Yep, that's apparently what happened.

Landing gear was retracted with the tyre bursting 30-40 minutes after TO according to passengers on board.

What the root cause of the tyre failing is the mystery.

Regards, JetMech

jetmech wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

Surely the MLG and tyre would be fully stowed and enclosed long before the aircraft reached cruise height, would it not?

Yep, that's apparently what happened.

Landing gear was retracted with the tyre bursting 30-40 minutes after TO according to passengers on board.

What the root cause of the tyre failing is the mystery.

Regards, JetMech

Yes, but I would have thought the real mystery would surely be how did the debris from the tyre bursting escape from the wheel well to cause the puncture. Am I incorrect in thinking the wheel well is enclosed?

I think the reason the hole looks like it came from inside, is just due to the air flow over the hole during flight. It's going to tug on the edges of the hole.

What I want to know is why the landing gear was retracted only 35 minutes into the flight? Do I understand the situation correctly if the crew thought a tire blew, and that's why they were late with the gear retraction? On approach to Brisbane they did advise they thought they had a tire blown.

There was a missing bolt from the landing gear as well, from the front I think.

JetBuddy wrote:

I think the reason the hole looks like it came from inside, is just due to the air flow over the hole during flight. It's going to tug on the edges of the hole.

What I want to know is why the landing gear was retracted only 35 minutes into the flight? Do I understand the situation correctly if the crew thought a tire blew, and that's why they were late with the gear retraction? On approach to Brisbane they did advise they thought they had a tire blown.

There was a missing bolt from the landing gear as well, from the front I think.

Where are you seeing landing gear retraction 35 minutes after takeoff?

It appears the gear was retracted normally, and the tire burst at altitude.

jetmech wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

Yes, but I would have thought the real mystery would surely be how did the debris from the tyre bursting escape from the wheel well to cause the puncture. Am I incorrect in thinking the wheel well is enclosed?

The punctured panel in question is the wall of the wheel well itself.

As far as I understand it, the landing gear was retracted as normal after TO. About 30 to 45 minutes after TO, a BLG tyre burst.

I suspect this BLG tyre was the outboard aft one, which is adjacent to the panel. As such, the debris from the bursting tyre punctured the panel.

Regards, JetMech

Tire is damaged due to FOD (nose gear bolt?) on takeoff roll.

As aircraft climbs the pressure differential between the inside of the tire and the unpressurized fairing increases.

This increased pressure differential causes the weakened tire to fail 35-40 mins into flight as they reach cruise altitude.

This failure punctures the fairing. Simple as that.

teachpdx wrote:

Tire is damaged due to FOD (nose gear bolt?) on takeoff roll.

Sounds plausible.

Apparently, if it was FOD, it was not from the nose gear.

A comment (now deleted??) in the Avherald article stated that the nose gear photo was actually taken in 2017 at Dusseldorf.

I also have it on good authority that there was no issues with the nose gear.

Regards, JetMech

teachpdx wrote:

Tire is damaged due to FOD (nose gear bolt?) on takeoff roll.

Sounds plausible.

Apparently, if it was FOD, it was not from the nose gear.

A comment in the Avherald article states that the nose gear photo was actually taken in April 2017 at Dusseldorf.

I also have it on good authority that there was no issues with the nose gear.

Regards, JetMech

JetBuddy wrote:

I think the reason the hole looks like it came from inside, is just due to the air flow over the hole during flight. It's going to tug on the edges of the hole.

What I want to know is why the landing gear was retracted only 35 minutes into the flight? Do I understand the situation correctly if the crew thought a tire blew, and that's why they were late with the gear retraction? On approach to Brisbane they did advise they thought they had a tire blown.

There was a missing bolt from the landing gear as well, from the front I think.

Wouldn't a blown tyre be fairly obvious to anyone inspecting the aircraft after it landed though ? Has a blown tyre been confirmed.