Qantas Delays/Cancellations

[Flyerqf]

SYD also under single runway ops. Runway 07.

 

[Flyerqf]

Looks like back to 32L/32R are back in operation now after about 3 hours of single runway ops.

 

[Flyerqf]

Yes they were, I have a few relatives on it. Still delayed until 8.30PM at the moment.

9.30PM now

 

[tomlee1986]

9.30PM now

Hope they can beat curfew!!

 

[tomlee1986]

9.30PM now

Final departure is 2228 and scheduled to arrive at 1621 - 4 hr delay

 

[larrymull]

Hope they can beat curfew!!

that's what i thought too, gotta love SYD

 

[sleepytime68]

From a passenger’s report, it seems QF63 lost one of the engines close to Antartica

Someone pls explain why they would not unconditionally aim for MEL. SYD makes sense logistically, but the potential legal exposure dwarfs this by several orders of magnitude. Perhaps just my litigious American mindset at work.

My knowledge of Quantas is primarily derived from "Rain Man". And this:

.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Someone pls explain why they would not unconditionally aim for MEL. SYD makes sense logistically, but the potential legal exposure dwarfs this by several orders of magnitude. Perhaps just my litigious American mindset at work.

My knowledge of Quantas is primarily derived from "Rain Man". And this:

.

Hi and welcome to AFF!

The pilots are well trained for these scenarios and would have first-hand knowledge of the reason for the engine outage. They will have assessed the situation and continued to an appropriate airport for landing.

The a380 can fly safely on three engines, provided there’s no ongoing or broader safety issue.

The pilots would only have returned to Sydney had it been 100% safe to do so. Safety would trump all commercial considerations.

 

[elanshin]

Someone pls explain why they would not unconditionally aim for MEL. SYD makes sense logistically, but the potential legal exposure dwarfs this by several orders of magnitude. Perhaps just my litigious American mindset at work.

My knowledge of Quantas is primarily derived from "Rain Man". And this:

.

So to put some things into perspective, on 3 engines the plane could legitimately continued flying. It's not necessarily in danger of falling out of the skies unless it loses all 3 other engines. Even on 1 it could limp back somewhere.

So if the immediate danger isn't present of the plane falling out the sky, then it becomes a choice of where does it go for the best option for all parties involved. Keeping im mind at cruise it would realistically only be an extra 30-40mins to go to SYD instead of MEL.

In this instance, I'd suspect it's because the main a380 hub right now is SYD (not MEL), replacement aircrafts would be much more easily facilitated there and easier to offload and reload the pax at SYD than MEL. They'd need to ferry an a380 down to MEL to meet the PAX. I'd suspect the potentials for repairs and parts are also more concentrated at SYD right now.

If it was an imminent threat to the plane or medical, they would've gone for MEL in that instance.

 

[markis10]

There is also the possibility the aircraft was above maximum landing weight of circa 395T should it had gone to Melbourne.

 

[tomlee1986]

Couple updates on ZNA that were stuck in LAX - it finally operated back to Melbourne as QF 94 on 27/12/2024, that flight took off almost 3 hrs late at 2321 instead of 2035, arrived back to Melbourne at 0914 on 29/12/2024 AEST.

Also today's QF93 on ZNE - That took off at 1444 - 2 .45 hrs late instead of midday departure out of Melbourne to LAX. Scheduled to arrive at 0918 instead of 0720 at LAX. (29/12/2024 departure)

 

[sleepytime68]

There is also the possibility the aircraft was above maximum landing weight of circa 395T should it had gone to Melbourne.

Since the flight was to Johannesburg, I'm fairly sure it would have been overweight no matter where it went. I figure they must have dumped some fuel, no?

 

[markis10]

Since the flight was to Johannesburg, I'm fairly sure it would have been overweight no matter where it went. I figure they must have dumped some fuel

9hrs 36 duration probably negated the need.

 

[sleepytime68]

So to put some things into perspective, on 3 engines the plane could legitimately continued flying. It's not necessarily in danger of falling out of the skies unless it loses all 3 other engines. Even on 1 it could limp back somewhere.

So if the immediate danger isn't present of the plane falling out the sky, then it becomes a choice of where does it go for the best option for all parties involved. Keeping im mind at cruise it would realistically only be an extra 30-40mins to go to SYD instead of MEL.

In this instance, I'd suspect it's because the main a380 hub right now is SYD (not MEL), replacement aircrafts would be much more easily facilitated there and easier to offload and reload the pax at SYD than MEL. They'd need to ferry an a380 down to MEL to meet the PAX. I'd suspect the potentials for repairs and parts are also more concentrated at SYD right now.

If it was an imminent threat to the plane or medical, they would've gone for MEL in that instance.

Yes, it could (and did ) fly, though presumably at a lower altitude and airspeed.

I totally get that Sydney is QF's main hub, but the risk calculus nevertheless escapes me.

A single engine failure per se is not the end of world (even on an A380), but it could have easily cascaded into a series of problems of assorted severity during some later phase of flight. The various failure modes of a design as complex as the A380 are often intractable to the designers and builders themselves, let alone to "civilians" (in the engineering sense of the word) such as pilots.

Obviously, I'm glad that everything worked out in the end. But not diverting to the closest available airport is just irresponsible, for both technical and economic (read: legal) reasons. I don't know if Quantas has ever found itself staring down the barrel of a multi-billion-dollar class action lawsuit. If it has - and then lived to tell the tale - Quantas operations would have directed the flight to MEL without as much as a conscious thought.

 

[scopedope]

As someone who is "in the know" about this flight in question, I can tell you categorically there was no cascading or elevated risk as a result of the failed engine - it was a wholly contained and isolated issue to that one engine. You may posit that 3 engines is less safe than 4, and you're probably correct mathematically, but from an ETOPS perspective the risk is still so tiny it made sense to return to Sydney where the majority of passengers could probably return home on Christmas rather than be stuck in Melbourne.

Sadly I'm not authorised to post the actual reason for the turnaround, it's probably on a plane spotters Facebook page somewhere! Ha!

 

[markis10]

@sleepytime68 You haven’t presented one valid argument as to why they should have gone to Melbourne. Calling pilots civilians and referring to Quantas rather than Qantas suggests your Aviation knowledge has some room for growth.

 

[RSD]

A single engine failure per se is not the end of world (even on an A380), but it could have easily cascaded into a series of problems of assorted severity during some later phase of flight. The various failure modes of a design as complex as the A380 are often intractable to the designers and builders themselves, let alone to "civilians" (in the engineering sense of the word) such as pilots.

Do you understand how the systems work on an A380? If I was on the flight then I would have been quite comfortable with the decision to go back to Sydney, and I am pretty sure that @jb747 would have been comfortable with the decision as well - if you don't know already, JB used to be a Qantas captain on the A380's until he retired, and I was on the team that designed the A380.

 

[RSD]

As someone who is "in the know" about this flight in question, I can tell you categorically there was no cascading or elevated risk as a result of the failed engine - it was a wholly contained and isolated issue to that one engine. You may posit that 3 engines is less safe than 4, and you're probably correct mathematically, but from an ETOPS perspective the risk is still so tiny it made sense to return to Sydney where the majority of passengers could probably return home on Christmas rather than be stuck in Melbourne.

Sadly I'm not authorised to post the actual reason for the turnaround, it's probably on a plane spotters Facebook page somewhere! Ha!

Would probably be on pprune by now. Engine failures on the worldwide fleet of commercial planes happen on a not infrequent rate - nature of the beast when the designers have to get the absolute maximum out of it as they reasonably safely can. Pilots train for an engine failure in the simulator, and they deal with it when it happens.

As has been mentioned, Sydney has a longer runway, and while reverse thrust doesn't make a massive difference to landing length, the A380 only has reverse thrust on the two inner engines, and it may have been one of those inner two that was shut down - which would probably suggest not using reverse thrust on the remaining engine that does have reverse thrust available in that situation. Weather could also have been a consideration - might have been better in Sydney than Melbourne.

 

[jb747]

Obviously, I'm glad that everything worked out in the end. But not diverting to the closest available airport is just irresponsible, for both technical and economic (read: legal) reasons. I don't know if Quantas has ever found itself staring down the barrel of a multi-billion-dollar class action lawsuit. If it has - and then lived to tell the tale - Quantas operations would have directed the flight to MEL without as much as a conscious thought.

Qantas operations doesn't get to direct the flight anywhere. This isn't the USA. That will be decided by the Captain.

And you don't understand the fuel jettison and management system of the 380. There is zero risk of flying further with an engine shut down (assuming it was a 'clean' shutdown, not provoked by mechanical failure or fire), but it actually reduces the risk involved in the landing by burning some of the 80 tonnes of undumpable fuel.

All that has happened is that it decided to convert itself into a DC-10.

 

[jb747]

As has been mentioned, Sydney has a longer runway, and while reverse thrust doesn't make a massive difference to landing length, the A380 only has reverse thrust on the two inner engines, and it may have been one of those inner two that was shut down - which would probably suggest not using reverse thrust on the remaining engine that does have reverse thrust available in that situation.

Actually you would use asymmetric reverse. There is very little yaw, and it's easily countered without any additional considerations. Reverse doesn't actually produce much 'reverse' thrust.