SQ makes emergency landing in Azerbaijan

[Fruitcake]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

Yep. I would. I have found these photos originally posted on SQTalk (by the founder of SQTalk, no vested interests there), along with a few others purporting to be from this incident. The only language I can see in any of them is English. On the walls, baggage trolleys, info signs. In Azerbaijan? As they would say in Baku, "digər ayağı mate çəkmək."

From Facebook user Matthew G Johnson:
"SQ317 en route to Baku."


"SQ317"


"SQ317"


"SQ317"


Now the date these photos were taken is not noted. But SQ317 does not usually operate to or via Baku. Nor do the oxygen masks usually deploy. However, the photos were uploaded to Facebook only on 6 January. I think it is reasonable to assume that they were captured aboard SQ317 during its recent diversion to Baku.

Of course the photos taken within the airport terminal are not clearly labelled by the author as being in Baku. However, the photos are most likely presented chronologically. I argue that the departure hall shown in the final photo above seems highly likely to be taken from inside the recently opened new terminal:


Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that the photos uploaded between those definitely labelled as being enroute to Baku and the photo taken in a space that appears very likely to be within Baku airport are also taken within Baku airport.

The signage within the transit hall posted by the aforementioned facebook user is consistent in style with that seen in the sqtalk photos posted earlier - and all readable signs seem to be in English.

 

[Fruitcake]

What do you mean without water?
For the toilets?
To drink?
If there was no mention from the media how do you know about it?
Who is this 'someone' and what has the inbound flight got to do with having no water?

Both water and toilets.

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....r-program/qf1-long-flight-no-water-53998.html

 

[jb747]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

Is the new terminal actually open? Nothing in those pictures looks new.

There is more to this event. The door damage is extremely interesting. I wonder if we'll ever get to see any clear images of it. The opening isn't very big. Whilst very noisy, I'm surprised that the pressurisation wasn't able to handle it...which makes me wonder if something else wasn't at play. Even so, any climb within the cabin should have been reasonably slow. The masks don't drop until it's well over 10,000 feet (around 14,000 ft). Many emergency descents (in the sim) are over so quickly that the cabin never climbs high enough to set them off. They can be manually deployed, and that's part of the checklist too, but you won't set them off unless you actually need them.

The packs would still have been pumping hot air into the cabin, so the comments about 'cold' are also interesting. Cold air from outside doesn't come in when you have an opening...the flow is the other way. I wonder what the status of the packs was?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What do you mean without water?
For the toilets?
To drink?
If there was no mention from the media how do you know about it?
Who is this 'someone' and what has the inbound flight got to do with having no water?

if my memory serves me correctly it seemed the inbound flight was also having some problems with the water supply. the aircraft was supposedly fixed in Australia, but took off and had the same problem.

which was drawing similarities to the SQ issue where the door arrived with a potential problem, and was given an all clear, but turned out maybe not to be so. (if in fact the two are even related)

but the purpose of my response was in regards to the statement that if QF had done the same thing (take off with a problem which had been identified on an earlier flight) then it would have been all over the media. the fact is that the media did not pick up the QF water incident.

 

[Fruitcake]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

Is the new terminal actually open? Nothing in those pictures looks new.

I was a bit suspicious when I couldn't find much beyond architectural renders of the terminal. However I did find a news article saying the new terminal was opened in October - and the match-up with that Facebook pic was rather good so I figured it would run with it. Perhaps their inbound immigration facilities are in an older part of the airport.

 

[jb747]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

I'm a little bemused at how people in various threads (this and the water one) jump to the conclusion the the airlines knowingly send aircraft flying with faults. Many faults can't even be duplicated on the ground, and that's especially the case with air leaks. The water fault would have been signed off as fixed...and sometimes the work simply causes something else in the same system to fail.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

I'm a little bemused at how people in various threads (this and the water one) jump to the conclusion the the airlines knowingly send aircraft flying with faults. Many faults can't even be duplicated on the ground, and that's especially the case with air leaks. The water fault would have been signed off as fixed...and sometimes the work simply causes something else in the same system to fail.

Probably a question for 'Ask the Pilot', but since we are here ....

Before take-off do you get presented with a list of issues / faults that are apparent and which the maintenance people are suggesting are OK to leave with - ie to be fixed at next port? I wouldn't think any safety related issues would be on that list, but for instance say, one (or more) toilet u/s; or say a loose seat mounting (therefore seats unoccupied) or a galley is some-how u/s. I'm not suggesting you should necessarily care about them (as there are obviously others whose responsibility it is), but just wondering what level of fault detail you are exposed to by the time they close the doors. And would it ever be the case that although 'maintenance' might be OK with the situation, you might disagree and hold the flight until rectified?

 

[Cruiser Elite]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

I'm a little bemused at how people in various threads (this and the water one) jump to the conclusion the the airlines knowingly send aircraft flying with faults.

jb I hope you are not suggesting that there might be posters here on AFF who after a handful of rides down the back of the bus instantly seem to know more than those who built the bus, own the bus, operate the bus or indeed drive the bus? .................... nah ................. that wouldn't happen here!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

I'm a little bemused at how people in various threads (this and the water one) jump to the conclusion the the airlines knowingly send aircraft flying with faults. Many faults can't even be duplicated on the ground, and that's especially the case with air leaks. The water fault would have been signed off as fixed...and sometimes the work simply causes something else in the same system to fail.

that's human nature. Someone reports a flight without water, and someone else chips in to say they had a problem on the inbound flight. There are three possible scenarios... (a) the problem was fixed but recurred (b) the problem was not fixed satisfactorily and recurred, or (c) there was a separate and new problem.

Without a statement from the airline as to what actually occurred, if people are discussing the above then it is open for people to draw on the anecdotal evidence to determine how they wish to proceed. Someone may decide (a) or (b) and to take another airline.

It is no different to people reaching their own conclusions, rightly or wrongly, over the competence of some crew on certain airlines (Air France, Garuda, China Airlines or Asiana for example).

Appreciate there are back-ups, but doesn't the MEL cover potential known faults on a flying aircraft?

on cruiser elite's comment. Taking out the technical safety element, it is ultimately up to passengers - those flying down the back - who will make a determination on how an incident is handled and managed. If they don't like the response they can choose to fly another airline. It probably was indeed perfectly safe to fly QF 1 all the way to DXB without enough water... but was it comfortable or enjoyable for passengers? If they want, they are free to say they don't like the way something was handled.

 

[maninblack]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

I'm a little bemused at how people in various threads (this and the water one) jump to the conclusion the the airlines knowingly send aircraft flying with faults.

These threads are all about questions and answers as well as discussion and speculation, of which you seem to be doing a fair bit yourself :!:

Responding to a flood of posts on Facebook, Singapore Airlines noted that noise was reported from a door during an earlier flight of the same plane.

"The door was inspected by engineers on the ground in London with no findings, and the aircraft was cleared for continued operation," it said.
Passenger Matthew G. Johnson had said earlier that a "loud air noise was heard from the door five rows in front" shortly after take-off from Heathrow Airport in London.
Upon questioning, a crew member allegedly told him that the door had a "mild" leaking seal, Johnson said in a Facebook posting.
A few hours later oxygen masks were deployed and the aircraft began an emergency descent over Afghanistan after the cabin began losing pressure, he said.

 

[mannej]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

These threads are all about questions and answers as well as discussion and speculation, of which you seem to be doing a fair bit yourself :!:

Responding to a flood of posts on Facebook, Singapore Airlines noted that noise was reported from a door during an earlier flight of the same plane.

"The door was inspected by engineers on the ground in London with no findings, and the aircraft was cleared for continued operation," it said.
Passenger Matthew G. Johnson had said earlier that a "loud air noise was heard from the door five rows in front" shortly after take-off from Heathrow Airport in London.
Upon questioning, a crew member allegedly told him that the door had a "mild" leaking seal, Johnson said in a Facebook posting.
A few hours later oxygen masks were deployed and the aircraft began an emergency descent over Afghanistan after the cabin began losing pressure, he said.

With all due respect, JB is in a much better position to speculate compared to the majority here...

 

[maninblack]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

With all due respect, JB is in a much better position to speculate compared to the majority here...

Granted but he also does not know the complete answer to what caused the incident. The forum would be rather dull if we closed comment on this and any other thread where posters may lack sufficient expertise or qualifications. Why don't we just close the thread and wait for the findings of the official investigation? It's an open discussion and surely anyone who remains civil is free to discuss and even to 'speculate'.

 

[mannej]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

Why close it? It is an interesting event, and interesting to see how SQ has handled it speculation or not.

 

[serfty]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

This evening SWMBO watched the news on Ch7 while I busied myself elsewhere - over dinner she talked about the reporting the event this evening.

So very much third party but I was amused by one thing in particular ... "They had to keep the oxygen masks on for 3 hours!".

I contemplated this for a bit considering its credibility, then peered over my plate and said (to paraphrase) "well that'd keep the PAX in place for a while, considering there may be, at most, 20 minutes oxygen supply available."

I then went on to explain that getting down to a level of breathable air is a matter of urgency and of the rapid descents that occur. (Had to be gentle as she has been a white knuckle flyer.)

 

[burmans]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

jb I hope you are not suggesting that there might be posters here on AFF who after a handful of rides down the back of the bus instantly seem to know more than those who built the bus, own the bus, operate the bus or indeed drive the bus? .................... nah ................. that wouldn't happen here!

Ah yes, armchair critics, the are a few people on some forums who are are better than just about anyone at doing anything just about anywhere.

except for the minor problem most of those spend their life's as experienced critics rather than doers.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

Ah yes, armchair critics, the are a few people on some forums who are are better than just about anyone at doing anything just about anywhere.

except for the minor problem most of those spend their life's as experienced critics rather than doers.

but companies have to deal with armchair critics. They are the customers. They provide the revenue. Ignore them at your own peril

 

[jb747]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

Probably a question for 'Ask the Pilot', but since we are here ....

Before take-off do you get presented with a list of issues / faults that are apparent and which the maintenance people are suggesting are OK to leave with - ie to be fixed at next port? I wouldn't think any safety related issues would be on that list, but for instance say, one (or more) toilet u/s; or say a loose seat mounting (therefore seats unoccupied) or a galley is some-how u/s. I'm not suggesting you should necessarily care about them (as there are obviously others whose responsibility it is), but just wondering what level of fault detail you are exposed to by the time they close the doors. And would it ever be the case that although 'maintenance' might be OK with the situation, you might disagree and hold the flight until rectified?

They are quite constrained as to just what they can defer. There is a book called the 'minimum equipment list', which is generated by the manufacturers. For a fault to be written off, it has to be fixed, or transferred to the hold items. To go to hold, there must be a reference in the MEL that allows it. That will almost certainly come with restrictions.

 

[jb747]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

Had a good look at a door last night. The section that is bent out of shape on the SQ aircraft is a non structural item...basically a large rubber/ plastic panel. It's quite flexible, and looks to simply be part of the weather sealing for when the aircraft is on the ground. It could certainly make a lot of noise if it came adrift and started flapping in the breeze, but it couldn't affect pressurisation.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

They are quite constrained as to just what they can defer. There is a book called the 'minimum equipment list', which is generated by the manufacturers. For a fault to be written off, it has to be fixed, or transferred to the hold items. To go to hold, there must be a reference in the MEL that allows it. That will almost certainly come with restrictions.

Thanks again. So that sounds to me like you might get a 'statement' from maintenance immediately pre departure that all known faulted items "comply / fixed / per manufacturer's standards" and you are entitled to rely on that?

 

[ermen]

Re: SQ's GYD A380 incident

What happens if you are flying in an area with 20,000 miles height restriction and you lose pressure?