Kitchen fault forces A380 superjumbo to turn back [SQ]

[2muchplastic]

Article from News Ltd website

AN Airbus A380 superjumbo had to turn around mid-flight and land back in Paris due to an electrical fault, a spokesman for its operator Singapore Airlines said.
"We had an electrical current fault in the kitchen areas and the captain turned the plane round two hours into the flight to return to Charles de Gaulles airport so it could be fixed," the spokesman said.

2 hours into the flight?

 

[docjames]

2 hours into the flight?

That's what i was thinking - 2hrs in, turn around, 2hrs back, wait for fix, get going again. Total delay likely to be >6hrs.

I think i'd almost rahter have warm drinks and cold food and arrive on time.

 

[2muchplastic]

That's what i was thinking - 2hrs in, turn around, 2hrs back, wait for fix, get going again. Total delay likely to be >6hrs.

I think i'd almost rahter have warm drinks and cold food and arrive on time.

I'm sure that if they put it to the vote on the flight that would have been the majority verdict too!

I'm guessing that there is more to the fault than NoNews have the ability to report. For SQ to waste 6 hours like that, I'm sure it would have been a rock solid reason, rather than just because Joe Blow in F couldn't stand to have his champers warm :mrgreen:

 

[Flying Fox]

There would also be the massive expense of a fuel dump to get the bird down to max landing weight.

 

[straitman]

I'm sure that if they put it to the vote on the flight that would have been the majority verdict too!

I'm sure that the Captain would have considered the affect on everyone as part of his decision making process but obviously decided that getting the aircraft to a suitable landing was a high enough priority to facilitate the diversion.

Had he continued and the situation become worse then he would be howled down by all and sundry for not diverting :!:

 

[Nigelinoz]

The thing I find 'strange" about this report is that it is described as having been "mid flight" after two hours flying from CDG,I couldn't find any indication of the planes destination in the report but (I'm happy to read others views on this) I don't really know what "mid flight" means in this report ,were they mid flight as in half way? or just "mid flight' as in "in the cruise" I would think that it meant the latter as I don't know any SQ flight that uses the A380 of 4 hours duration of CDG and if it was only a 4 hour flight why not continue to the destination and fix the problem there rather than back track to Paris and cause potentially 6 hours delay to passengers?

 

[2muchplastic]

The thing I find 'strange" about this report is that it is described as having been "mid flight" after two hours flying from CDG,I couldn't find any indication of the planes destination in the report but (I'm happy to read others views on this) I don't really know what "mid flight" means in this report ,were they mid flight as in half way? or just "mid flight' as in "in the cruise" I would think that it meant the latter as I don't know any SQ flight that uses the A380 of 4 hours duration of CDG and if it was only a 4 hour flight why not continue to the destination and fix the problem there rather than back track to Paris and cause potentially 6 hours delay to passengers?

I made the presumption that because it was an SQ plane, that it was heading CDG-SIN. So it was 2 hours into a 12 hour flight. Not exactly "mid" flight!

 

[Nigelinoz]

I made the presumption that because it was an SQ plane, that it was heading CDG-SIN. So it was 2 hours into a 12 hour flight. Not exactly "mid" flight!

That was my thinking too,I reckon they meant "in the cruise"rather than "mid flight" which to my mind would have been about 6 hours into a CDG-SIN flight.

 

[Flashback]

I agree with the pilot's decision, as there may have been a wider fault causing the issue in the first place so always best to turn around, or land at a closer airport where suitable to have it checked out. Safety first:!:

 

[Keith009]

There's a rather interesting first hand account of this incident on SQTalk:
SQTalk - View Single Post - SIA A380 forced to turn back - Paris

 

[sadlier]

I agree with the pilot's decision, as there may have been a wider fault causing the issue in the first place so always best to turn around, or land at a closer airport where suitable to have it checked out. Safety first:!:

I suspect that this would be the line put forward by the SQ word tinklers.

But it seems to me that there would be isolating switches so that power to a galley area could be shut down to eliminate the safety issue.

But this would never happen because SQ staff are completely brainwashed by the company's advertising of its in-flight service.

This shows up most effectively in their overnight services from SIN to OZ - 7 hour flight minus 3 hours to serve dinner minus 2 hours for breakfast - did you actually want to get some sleep?