QF94 Turned Back - Burst Water Pipe

[Himeno]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

Rumour going around that Richard Dean Anderson was on the flight.

Surely MacGyver could have fixed that leak with a J amenities kit and a cafe style breakfast pack!!

There were a number of OzComicCon guests on board.
Oz Comic-Con - Guests

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

I am confused by this report from the SMH:

After contacting Sydney headquarters for advice from engineers, Fairfax Media understands the crew was told to turn the plane back.

Plus the use of the word 'decided' whenever referring crew actions to return.

Fairfax makes it sound like there was actually an issue to be considered... you would have thought there was nothing to decide... you head back and land when you have a large section of the plane wet, and with IFE turned off.

 

[mardy]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

How does one air out the A380 anyway?
You can't exactly open up all the windows!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

How does one air out the A380 anyway?
You can't exactly open up all the windows!

carpet cleaners to suck out the water... followed by open doors and and industrial fans possibly? (They often use largish fans to dry carpets after cleaning at a couple of the airports I use regularly in the USA)

 

[straitman]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

I am confused by this report from the SMH:



Plus the use of the word 'decided' whenever referring crew actions to return.

Fairfax makes it sound like there was actually an issue to be considered... you would have thought there was nothing to decide... you head back and land when you have a large section of the plane wet, and with IFE turned off.

I really struggle with the negative spin you manage to put on all things aviation.

Things that have a major significance are covered by the a/c MEL though I'm pretty sure that this type of issue would not be covered by the MEL.

That means that someone had to make a decision about what to do next. In this case the obvious decision was to divert but depending on where they were and the specific issue this can have a huge impact on type and place of the diversion.

For example a little further along track and it could have been a decision whether to divert to the nearest airfield or back to LAX with the better maintenance facilities.

Some things require land immediately, some require land as soon as possible whilst others may require land as soon as practicable. Obviously they all have quite different meanings and outcomes.

An example I had many years ago I was flying a Macchi and had a pressurisation problem. The best and most appropriate outcome was to abort the planned trip, descend to 10,000 FT and fly back to base rather than land at an airfield without facilities for the aircraft.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

I really struggle with the negative spin you manage to put on all things aviation.

Things that have a major significance are covered by the a/c MEL though I'm pretty sure that this type of issue would not be covered by the MEL.

That means that someone had to make a decision about what to do next. In this case the obvious decision was to divert but depending on where they were and the specific issue this can have a huge impact on type and place of the diversion.

For example a little further along track and it could have been a decision whether to divert to the nearest airfield or back to LAX with the better maintenance facilities.

Some things require land immediately, some require land as soon as possible whilst others may require land as soon as practicable. Obviously they all have quite different meanings and outcomes.

An example I had many years ago I was flying a Macchi and had a pressurisation problem. The best and most appropriate outcome was to abort the planned trip, descend to 10,000 FT and fly back to base rather than land at an airfield without facilities for the aircraft.

Agreed. What I was exploring however was the construction of the statement regarding regarding the return to LAX.

 

[jb747]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

There are many decisions to be made. It only seems simple if you ignore most of the things you need to consider. For starters....weight. Yes you can dump. But, you can't dump all of it. In fact you can only dump down to around 60 tonnes OVER max landing weight. And yes, you can do an overweight landing. But everything needs to be considered, and weighed off against whatever other avenues exist. Diversion choices are rarely black and white.

 

[Simo]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

There are many decisions to be made. It only seems simple if you ignore most of the things you need to consider. For starters....weight. Yes you can dump. But, you can't dump all of it. In fact you can only dump down to around 60 tonnes OVER max landing weight. And yes, you can do an overweight landing. But everything needs to be considered, and weighed off against whatever other avenues exist. Diversion choices are rarely black and white.

And that is why you have years of training.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

I am confused by this report from the SMH:



Plus the use of the word 'decided' whenever referring crew actions to return.

Fairfax makes it sound like there was actually an issue to be considered... you would have thought there was nothing to decide... you head back and land when you have a large section of the plane wet, and with IFE turned off.

Plenty to consider.

There are ways to turn off the water in other aircraft so I can only presume the 380 has ways as well.

 

[rainbowgirl]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

Rumour going around that Richard Dean Anderson was on the flight.

Surely MacGyver could have fixed that leak with a J amenities kit and a cafe style breakfast pack!!

Richard Dean Anderson was on TV Friday night confirming that he was on the plane and promoting OzComicon. Last time he was in Australia the convention venue was partly flooded out after extreme rain and hail in Melbourne the day before the convention. Excess water appears to be a feature of his Melbourne visits.

 

[jb747]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

Jokes about european plumbing aside, have any other A380 operators experieced a lot of problems with A380 fresh water and toilet systems? I don't think that it is a coincidence that the airline which fiddled the most with a refit to more seats and less toilets is having numerous problems with water systems now. I can see these being hangar queens in a few years time.

The failure had nothing to do with the reconfiguration, and was in a component that had not been touched since Airbus built it.

 

[BD1959]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

Excess water appears to be a feature of his Melbourne visits.

You can get tablets for that.

Regards,

BD

 

[sjd]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

Looks like the mop did it: No Cookies | Herald Sun

 

[get me outta here]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

It will take more than a mop to clean that up.

Looks like the mop did it: No Cookies | Herald Sun

 

[DC3]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

Not sure that I understand this. QF are blaming the cleaner's mop for this? And the mop did exactly what?

I'm on the i-phone so maybe have missed something.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

Not sure that I understand this. QF are blaming the cleaner's mop for this? And the mop did exactly what?

I'm on the i-phone so maybe have missed something.

a few strands of the mop must have wrapped themselves around the pipe and connection, and over time this has loosened the joint, eventually giving way.

sponge mops have been introduced, along with other matters, to rectify this going forward.

 

[samh004]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

Not sure that I understand this. QF are blaming the cleaner's mop for this? And the mop did exactly what?

I'm on the i-phone so maybe have missed something.

Over the course of many cleans under a galley bench the mop rubbed up against a coupling on a pipe in the same fashion, eventually causing it to come unscrewed and thus leak.

But the premise remains... let's imagine a total worst case scenario where the water leak was in a different area... which interfered or short circuited electrics and caused a catastrophic fire or other loss of control... something as simple as a cleaner's mop could have been responsible for downing an a380.

You don't even need a fire, just all the water rushing to one end of the plane causing a weight imbalance.

 

[Ansett]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

Its amazing that something as simple as a mop had the potential to down an aircraft of such complexity and technology.

Who amongst us would ever had thought that cleaning a plane could end up causing it to crash.

 

[mannej]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

Its amazing that something as simple as a mop had the potential to down an aircraft of such complexity and technology.

Who amongst us would ever had thought that cleaning a plane could end up causing it to crash.

In actual fact...
AirDisaster.Com: Accident Photo: Aeroperu 603

Not sure that I understand this. QF are blaming the cleaner's mop for this? And the mop did exactly what?

I'm on the i-phone so maybe have missed something.

It is the ATSB releasing the report, not QF.

 

[whatmeworry]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

Components must be flimsy for a pipe to break. Then again to bring the plane's weight they probably used light components.
The cleaners were probably cleaning in a hurry and hence the components suffering fatigue. Foam mops can still cause damage over time.

Cleaning mops cause 700 litre water leak on Qantas A380 flight