Qantas A-380 lands safely in Singapore after debris found in Indonesia

[News_Editor]

Qantas A-380 lands safely in Singapore after debris found in Indonesia

2010-11-04 11:07:16 GMT+7 (ICT)

JAKARTA (BNO NEWS) -- A Qantas passenger plane landed safely in Singapore on Thursday after an incident over Indonesia's Batam Island, the airline said, but few details were immediately available.

Debris from Qantas flight 32 was found on Batam Island, near Singapore, after residents reported hearing a loud explosion. Reports that the aircraft had crashed proved to be false.

Qantas said the plane had problems with one of its four engines when the incident happened, but provided no further details in what appeared to be one of the first major technical problems to affect the super jumbo. Debris from an engine were found on the island, but it was not immediately clear if the engine had fallen off the aircraft.

There were no reports of casualties on either the ground or aboard the aircraft, which landed safely at around 11.45 a.m. SGT at Changi Airport in Singapore. It was on its way to Kingsford Smith Airport in Sydney when the accident happened.

A total of 430 passengers were believed to be on board.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2010-11-04

[Mosha]

Several media sources including the BBC have reported that their A380 fleet has been grounded.

[supaprik]

amazing

[fishhooks]

Yes, Qantas have grounded their entire "380" fleet.

Edited November 4, 2010 by fishhooks

[soidog52]

I have despised this aircraft and the idea behind it since it's inception. I am not a big fan of Airbus and always grit my teeth when I have to fly on one. All the pops and bangs whenever the flaps are being deployed or retracted bothers me. Plus the fact that Airbus have had multiple fatal accidents due to flight controls coming off in flight may have something to do with it. The slow cruising speed, fly by wire composite flight controls and their government subsidized operation all rubs me the wrong way. Give me some good old Boeing iron any day of the week.

Granted that this was a powerplant problem not an airframe problem, any criticism in regards to Airbus and this incident I will reserve. This issue lies with Rolls Royce and the problems with this engine have been widely publicized.

[ThiagoBras]

.

Edited November 4, 2010 by ThiagoBras

[Stuart8]

I have despised this aircraft and the idea behind it since it's inception. I am not a big fan of Airbus and always grit my teeth when I have to fly on one. All the pops and bangs whenever the flaps are being deployed or retracted bothers me. Plus the fact that Airbus have had multiple fatal accidents due to flight controls coming off in flight may have something to do with it. The slow cruising speed, fly by wire composite flight controls and their government subsidized operation all rubs me the wrong way. Give me some good old Boeing iron any day of the week.

Granted that this was a powerplant problem not an airframe problem, any criticism in regards to Airbus and this incident I will reserve. This issue lies with Rolls Royce and the problems with this engine have been widely publicized.

You despise this aircraft and the idea behind it? What a strange and aggressive comment. Airbus have had multiple fatal accidents due to flight controls coming off in flight? What a factually incorrect statement that is!

The Airbus has probably the safest flight control system flying today. I have several thousand hours flying the A320, A330 and the Boeing 737-200 and Boeing 737-300. Out of those it is the Boeing 737 that has the weakest flight control system when it comes to flight safety. The rudder servo fault is well known. The flight controls have hydraulic actuators which are controlled by wires that move between the cockpit controls and the actuators. These wires move around pulleys which have been known to seize and for the control wires to be frayed almost to the point of breaking by the seized pulley. Airbus (and Boeing with the 777) use fly-by-wire which sends a signal down a well shielded electrical wire to the actuator. The multiple flight control computers ensure the safest of operation. If the flaps move out of allignment at all the wing tip brake comes on to hold the flaps in position.

The only fatal accidents on the Airbus have largely been due to pilot error where the aircraft computer control system was actually trying to rescue the pilot from his error. For example the Alpha Floor system which does not allow the pilot to stall the aircraft. The Basel Mulhouse accident in 1998 was a classic case of this where the flight control computers were trying to keep the aircraft flying at maximum angle of attack for the power the engines were giving. Unfortunately the engines had not spooled up fully by the time the aircraft hit the trees. You can't defy the laws of physics. Even military aircraft now use this on the F16 and the Typhoon where these aircraft can perform manoeuvres way beyond the pilot's capabilities.

All the pops and bangs you refer to are on taxying out or in and are the wheel brakes in operation and is perfectly normal.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Stuart8

[stevehaigh]

'Debris from an engine were found on the island, but it was not immediately clear if the engine had fallen off the aircraft. '

seems like the kind of thing you would notice!

[VictorOne]

amazing

amazing "why" ?

[sexy man]

I have despised this aircraft and the idea behind it since it's inception. I am not a big fan of Airbus and always grit my teeth when I have to fly on one. All the pops and bangs whenever the flaps are being deployed or retracted bothers me. Plus the fact that Airbus have had multiple fatal accidents due to flight controls coming off in flight may have something to do with it. The slow cruising speed, fly by wire composite flight controls and their government subsidized operation all rubs me the wrong way. Give me some good old Boeing iron any day of the week.

Granted that this was a powerplant problem not an airframe problem, any criticism in regards to Airbus and this incident I will reserve. This issue lies with Rolls Royce and the problems with this engine have been widely publicized.

have you got shares in boeing. you are biased

[KeyserSoze01]

Airbus have had multiple fatal accidents due to flight controls coming off in flight? What a factually incorrect statement that is!

Hmm, I can name 2 incidents right off the top of my head where this happened and all on-board lost their lives. FACT! How inaccurate is that?

I too prefer to fly Boeing over Airbus for the same reason.

The only fatal accidents on the Airbus have largely been due to pilot error where the aircraft computer control system was actually trying to rescue the pilot from his error.

It is a FLAW in the design of the airframe. A pilot should never be able to induce airframe failure due to exercising the control surfaces to max deflection.

I am a commercially rated pilot. How about you?

Edited November 4, 2010 by KeyserSoze01

[ozzieovaseas]

Does anyone know where the flight was coming from?

Strange, after having read about this on three different online news sources.. none actually state where the flight originated??

[metisdead]

Does anyone know where the flight was coming from?

Strange, after having read about this on three different online news sources.. none actually state where the flight originated??

From one of the other threads running on this topic:

The Qantas A380 aircraft operating QF32 from Singapore to Sydney

[soidog52]

I have despised this aircraft and the idea behind it since it's inception. I am not a big fan of Airbus and always grit my teeth when I have to fly on one. All the pops and bangs whenever the flaps are being deployed or retracted bothers me. Plus the fact that Airbus have had multiple fatal accidents due to flight controls coming off in flight may have something to do with it. The slow cruising speed, fly by wire composite flight controls and their government subsidized operation all rubs me the wrong way. Give me some good old Boeing iron any day of the week.

Granted that this was a powerplant problem not an airframe problem, any criticism in regards to Airbus and this incident I will reserve. This issue lies with Rolls Royce and the problems with this engine have been widely publicized.

You despise this aircraft and the idea behind it? What a strange and aggressive comment. Airbus have had multiple fatal accidents due to flight controls coming off in flight? What a factually incorrect statement that is!

The Airbus has probably the safest flight control system flying today. I have several thousand hours flying the A320, A330 and the Boeing 737-200 and Boeing 737-300. Out of those it is the Boeing 737 that has the weakest flight control system when it comes to flight safety. The rudder servo fault is well known. The flight controls have hydraulic actuators which are controlled by wires that move between the cockpit controls and the actuators. These wires move around pulleys which have been known to seize and for the control wires to be frayed almost to the point of breaking by the seized pulley. Airbus (and Boeing with the 777) use fly-by-wire which sends a signal down a well shielded electrical wire to the actuator. The multiple flight control computers ensure the safest of operation. If the flaps move out of allignment at all the wing tip brake comes on to hold the flaps in position.

The only fatal accidents on the Airbus have largely been due to pilot error where the aircraft computer control system was actually trying to rescue the pilot from his error. For example the Alpha Floor system which does not allow the pilot to stall the aircraft. The Basel Mulhouse accident in 1998 was a classic case of this where the flight control computers were trying to keep the aircraft flying at maximum angle of attack for the power the engines were giving. Unfortunately the engines had not spooled up fully by the time the aircraft hit the trees. You can't defy the laws of physics. Even military aircraft now use this on the F16 and the Typhoon where these aircraft can perform manoeuvres way beyond the pilot's capabilities.

All the pops and bangs you refer to are on taxying out or in and are the wheel brakes in operation and is perfectly normal.

I stand corrected. Multiple is not correct. However I do believe that the the Air France 447 crash involved the vertical stab separating from the aircraft. Some others also believe it, however it is merely speculation as we will never know what really happened on that flight. See Airbus Tail Breaks Off Again at http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-air-france-447-crash-theory-now-focused-on-tail-snapping-off-again-2009-6

Here is the link to Wiki on the American 587 crash where the tail came off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

I am impressed with your thousands of hours flying other than heavy aircraft. You are one of many doing the same job day in and day out. I have a little experience myself but won't go into numbers. Would guess that I started flying heavy aircraft when you were in grade school, just a guess as I am an old salty dog and still at it. Would be fun to sit down and compare type ratings, A & P licenses, engineering degrees and log books. You might even be impressed. I also appreciate your education on airframe systems and how cables and pulleys work. Still a few 737's flying around in case you missed them. Your lessons on fly by wire were informative and I have no issue with the eventuality that all aircraft will have these systems in place in the future. The pops and bangs of the brakes during taxi don't bother me nearly as much as the whining and other noises when the flaps and/or leading edge devices are moving. My main issue in regards to flight controls is the composite aspect. Don't think there has ever been a case of a vertical coming off on a metal airplane.

This is all stated in good fun and have had incredible luck to be involved with so many aspects of aviation my entire life. Opinions are like as#holes: everybody has one and nobody wants to hear yours. You just heard mine.

Plastic airplanes are not my favorite. Maybe they are yours. The A380 is an example of another aviation mistake. It has had a less than stellar record and will not be a huge success. Promise. Look at the number of cancelled orders. Hope you graduate to the big aircraft someday and have the pleasure to monitor the systems on an A380.

Good luck with your career and may your take offs equal your landings.

[ozzieovaseas]

Does anyone know where the flight was coming from?

Strange, after having read about this on three different online news sources.. none actually state where the flight originated??

From one of the other threads running on this topic:

The Qantas A380 aircraft operating QF32 from Singapore to Sydney

Ahh thanks met...

With all the many different scenarios been lobbed about so far i was wondering how long it would be until all the conspiracy/terrorism theory plots were hatched.

err...first its turbulence, then computer error..engines falling off, and now some news report even says a passengers laptop may have caused it

one of the most expensive airlines you can fly and yet they seem to have more dramas than the budget carriers

[metisdead]

Does anyone know where the flight was coming from?

Strange, after having read about this on three different online news sources.. none actually state where the flight originated??

From one of the other threads running on this topic:

The Qantas A380 aircraft operating QF32 from Singapore to Sydney

Ahh thanks met...

With all the many different scenarios been lobbed about so far i was wondering how long it would be until all the conspiracy/terrorism theory plots were hatched.

err...first its turbulence, then computer error..engines falling off, and now some news report even says a passengers laptop may have caused it

one of the most expensive airlines you can fly and yet they seem to have more dramas than the budget carriers

Have you seen this thread:

Crossy linked to a good discussion group with additional photos.

[bino]

Does anyone know where the flight was coming from?

Strange, after having read about this on three different online news sources.. none actually state where the flight originated??

From one of the other threads running on this topic:

The Qantas A380 aircraft operating QF32 from Singapore to Sydney

I read in another news site that the flight actually originated in London, stopover in Singapore, then on to Sydney.

[soidog52]

Airbus have had multiple fatal accidents due to flight controls coming off in flight? What a factually incorrect statement that is!

Hmm, I can name 2 incidents right off the top of my head where this happened and all on-board lost their lives. FACT! How inaccurate is that?

I too prefer to fly Boeing over Airbus for the same reason.

The only fatal accidents on the Airbus have largely been due to pilot error where the aircraft computer control system was actually trying to rescue the pilot from his error.

It is a FLAW in the design of the airframe. A pilot should never be able to induce airframe failure due to exercising the control surfaces to max deflection.

I am a commercially rated pilot. How about you?

Well stated and right in line with my opinion. Tell me the last time a metal airplane lost it's tail in turbulence, wake turbulence, wind shear etc...

I think my term "multiple" was incorrect and appreciate the input from the Airbus guy. 2 is not really multiple but it is more than 1. On the superior flight control computers, hog wash. Remember the A300 that went in at the Paris airshow? Will be interesting to see how the 787 works out. Biased toward Boeing? Somewhat. Hard to believe the guy is going to bash 737's.

The 737 has been continuously manufactured by Boeing since 1967 with 6,348 aircraft delivered and 2,061 orders yet to be fulfilled as of March 2010. The 737 series is the best selling jet airliner in history.There are on average 1,250 737s airborne at any given time, with one departing or landing somewhere every five seconds.

This is fun. I love to get Scarebus guys wound up. This is an especially fun hobby while on layovers in Narita, Souel, Anchorage, LA, NYC etc... Have been more than a few fist fights in my career.

Boeing aircraft are controlled by pilots. Airbus aircraft are controlled by engineers sitting at their desks in France. If something goes wrong, the pilot dies, so he is strongly motivated to do whatever is necessary to survive. If something goes wrong, engineers sitting at desks are strongly motivated to cover their backsides and claim that it's all the pilot's fault.

[sydneyjed]

Saw a video from one of the passengers just now and it is actually a lot worse than Qantas are saying..the reason being there was damage to the wing as well!!These incidently are Rolls Royce engines maintained(supposedly)by Rolls Royce maintenance staff world wide.This particular 380 and its engine was serviced in Frankfurt Germany recently and has a flying life span of 20,000 hours according to Barry Jackson,head of Qantas and Int' Pilots Authority.)All Qantas 380's are grounded until further notice worldwide..the worrying concern being why this has happened and why the outside casing did not protect the rest of the plane from potential damage...Lucky!!

[sydneyjed]

Well the flight had taken off from Singapore..on its way to Australia and the engine blew soon after take off.This is normally the flight from London (QF32)..Reports also that part of the engine fell through a school roof injuring a teacher and pupil..this is unconfirmed by the way..the other stuff I sourced off iview ABC(Australia) Lateline.

Edited November 4, 2010 by sydneyjed

[asiawatcher]

I flew two weeks ago to HK from BKK on an A380 with Emirates. The plane taxied for 15 minutes then was held up "due to overheated brakes" according to the Aussie pilot. Then 50 minutes later, we took off.

On landing this was the hardest I have ever felt - and certainly was jarring. Can't be good for the plane!!!

[mstribling]

I'm flying a 380 tomorrow night. Could do without all the horror stories from seasoned pilots it is funny to read these old guys go at it though.

[mstribling]

I'm waiting for someone to blame the Thais for this.

[soidog52]

I flew two weeks ago to HK from BKK on an A380 with Emirates. The plane taxied for 15 minutes then was held up "due to overheated brakes" according to the Aussie pilot. Then 50 minutes later, we took off.

On landing this was the hardest I have ever felt - and certainly was jarring. Can't be good for the plane!!!

Brakes overheated on during taxi? Never experienced that before, also never have flown the 380. Hard landing: it wasn't the pilots fault, it wasn't the co-pilots fault, it was asphalt. Check out this hard A380 landing at Oshkosh last year by an experienced test pilot. Have a feeling it might be a real bit#h to land if Quantas guys and test pilots are slamming it in. You tube is full of A380 hard landing videos. Check out the link. http://www.google.co.th/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=a380+hard+landings

How was the weather on your hard landing?

[scotinsiam]

Actually the aircraft flew over Thailand and was infected by a ghost which caused the engine to explode - FACT

[skippybangkok]

I love to get Scarebus guys wound up. This is an especially fun hobby while on layovers in Narita, Souel, Anchorage, LA, NYC etc... Have been more than a few fist fights in my career.

An we Engineers are designing the new cockpits that will have one pilot and one Rotweiler. When the fly boy tries to touch something, the dog will bite him. Just sit back and let the Autopilot do the work, its better and you know it.

Edited November 4, 2010 by skippybangkok

[Stuart8]

The Airbus accidents refered to on this thread are for the A300. That is not a fly-by-wire aircraft that, apparently, is such an anathema to one or two on this thread.

I am not an 'Airbus person'. As I said I have several thousand hours on A320, A330 and Boeing 737 aircraft. They are all good machines. The attacks on Airbus aircraft on this thread are inaccurate, unjustified and just plain wrong. They only result in possibly frightening prospective passengers. By the way the A320 comes very close to the 737 in aircraft flying around the world. In fact some statistics put it ahead of the 737 in stattstical numbers.

Attacks on Airbus aircraft are usually from people who have little or no experience with the modern Airbus. Furthermore this incident was engine related and had nothing to do with the flight controls. References to flight controls on this thread is a red herring and just scaremongering. As opposed to Scarebusing - oh how amusing!

Edited November 4, 2010 by Stuart8

[sydneyjed]

Singapore Airlines have now announced that they have grounded all 380's till further notice...There be a few edgey exec's at Rolls Royce I would imagine!!

[cdnvic]

Plus the fact that Airbus have had multiple fatal accidents due to flight controls coming off in flight

Please provide something to back this "fact" up.

[andiron]

I agree with this. This airplane is not as strong as it should be. Pilots I know who fly them call them "Airbags". The computer system can make make it difficult for a pilot to properly control the aircraft. I personally do not like the :fly by wire" control system. I avoid flying on them whenever possible.

I am a pilot and I am not a Boeing stockholder.

I have despised this aircraft and the idea behind it since it's inception. I am not a big fan of Airbus and always grit my teeth when I have to fly on one. All the pops and bangs whenever the flaps are being deployed or retracted bothers me. Plus the fact that Airbus have had multiple fatal accidents due to flight controls coming off in flight may have something to do with it. The slow cruising speed, fly by wire composite flight controls and their government subsidized operation all rubs me the wrong way. Give me some good old Boeing iron any day of the week.

Granted that this was a powerplant problem not an airframe problem, any criticism in regards to Airbus and this incident I will reserve. This issue lies with Rolls Royce and the problems with this engine have been widely publicized.