Qantas A380 Fuel Fungus?

[David M]

Channel Ten New last night in Adelaide ran a story about Qantas grounding all their A380's due to fuel fungus giving faulty fuel readings.

Any further news??

[Brad Myer]

Hahah! Typical media!

Its just 1 A380 stuck in LHR.

[Malcolm Parker]

Thats explains why at the QF Jet base I saw 2 x 380's at the Jetbase last night 1 in the hanger and one in the open.

[Dan Hammond]

Also explains why yesterdays QF93 MEL-LAX that was scheduled as an A380, was operated by 744 VH-OEF and went via SYD as QF11 was cancelled

[Brad Myer]

One of the A380s is currently on its way back from LHR operating QF10 which is due into MEL this evening. (Delayed)

A second A380 will operate the scheduled QF31 Dep from SYD-LHR this afternoon.

And the 3rd A380 is due back in service tomorrow.

[Michael Morrison]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/03/323287/technical-troubles-ground-qantas-a380-fleet.html


Australia's Qantas Airways is working to get its Airbus A380 fleet back in full service after all three of its aircraft were grounded over the past 24hr as a result of technical issues.


&


The Oneworld alliance carrier confirms in a statement to ATI that all three of its A380s were grounded, two for the same reason and one for a different reason. One is already back in service, another is due back in service later today and the third should go back in service tomorrow.

[Brenden S]

Interesting. Its a Microbiological contamination of the fuel. You shock treat the fuel tanks to try and get rid of the organism that lives in the water.

[Robert Zweck]

I remember when this was an issue for Ansett-ANA and its Electras.

[Bill S]

It's an ongoing problem for pretty much all kerosene-fueled aeroplanes.
There's a fungus that grows in the boundary between the fuel and any water in the tanks. On smaller aeroplanes you can use stuff called Prist to help kill it, but it's really nasty stuff.
I suspect that for at least the last decade or so, the fuel companies have been adding something to they fuel to help inhibit the growth of the fungus as I haven't seen Prist used for quite a long time.
I personally refused to go near Prist as it's so dangerous to humans.

[Raymond Rowe]

It is a problem for all aircraft.As stated you place a powder in the fuel tanks this should then treat the problem.It was first noticed on the DC9 Aircraft wheich had to have it removed.The BAE146 were scrapped because some of them were so bad.

[Mick F]

Bill,
I reguarly used to add prist to the fuel when I was flying the PC-12 full time. Not so much these days as the fuel truck in my location automatically add's it and we don't put it in the B200 (except when refuelling from a tanker with it already in it). However every time you added the stuff, it was gloves on without fail (large chemical gloves), and while holding the can, make sure the thing was facing AWAY from you, in case the hose thing came off the can outlet.

Quite glad I don't have to deal with the stuff much these days.

Mick

[NickN]

Seems like a pretty basic issue to affect the worlds most advanced airliner. Especially seeing most of you comment the fuel companies add solutions to the fuel to avoid the issue.

[Bill S]

The BAE146 were scrapped because some of them were so bad.

They were, but what about the fuel? :D

[Rich W]

Is this issue related to the problems Singapore Airlines had last year with fuel pumps?

[Kutay Ceyhan]

One of the A380s is currently on its way back from LHR operating QF10 which is due into MEL this evening. (Delayed)

A second A380 will operate the scheduled QF31 Dep from SYD-LHR this afternoon.

And the 3rd A380 is due back in service tomorrow.


And the 3rd A380 is due back in service tomorrow

brad, we(operating crew) have been told that one of the 380 suppose to go back into service tomorrow has been delayed and our LAX pattern cancelled.

[Nick W.]

it's fine by me seeing as I did the airside tarmac tour today! plenty of A380's to geek around

[Andrew McLaughlin]

And the 3rd A380 is due back in service tomorrow

brad, we(operating crew) have been told that one of the 380 suppose to go back into service tomorrow has been delayed and our LAX pattern cancelled.

One of the 380s is tucked away for the night in Hangar 96. Another left this arvo at around 1815. I guess the third is on its way home from LHR?

[Grahame Hutchison]

Looks like OQA is on its way back from LHR, OQB and OQC have been off the ACARS airwaves for a few days.

ACARS mode: 1 Aircraft reg: VH-OQA [Airbus A380]
Message label: ** Block id: @ Msg no: 894e
Flight id: QF0010 [LHR-SIN-MEL] [Qantas]
Message content:-
SBS-1 Callsign: QFA10
----------------------------------------------------------[ 03/03/2009 01:14 ]-

ACARS mode: 1 Aircraft reg: VH-OQB [ ]
Message label: ** Block id: @ Msg no: 16e3
Flight id: QF0032 [LHR-SIN-SYD] [Qantas]
Message content:-
SBS-1 Callsign: QFA32
----------------------------------------------------------[ 28/02/2009 13:04 ]-


ACARS mode: 2 Aircraft reg: VH-OQC [ ]
Message label: HF Block id: 0 Msg no: 0000
Flight id: QFA032 [LHR-SIN] [Qantas]
Message content:-
QFA32 ,.NO-REG,7C4922,144236,N48159E035231;
----------------------------------------------------------[ 25/02/2009 15:42 ]-

[Stuart Trevena]

Hi All,

Did I read this correctly - QF10 (delayed arrival was due at 0630 this morning 3/3) is being ops by A380 OQA??

If so, there has been another twist with this aircraft.

I posted this on jetspotter.com:

Hi All,

I was out at the airport tonight heard on the scanner at about 21.45 QF10 (Running very late - 15 hours late) request a mist approach on rwy 27 6 miles out due to a Fault.
They requested Rwy 34 / 16 as they didn't have Anti Skid Working and needed a long dry rwy.

After being directed up to Lancfield area and doing some checks, which also involved finding out Rwy conditions, which were considered Wet, they then Declared Pan at 22.05 and further requested divertion to Sydney.

This was then granted and they also requested rwy conditions in Sydney.
Onroute to Sydney they also asked if they wanted a Full or Local Turn out, to which they requested a Local and also a Tug on standby incase they can't move off the rwy.

The onroute controllers advised them Sydney was aware of their situation and wanted to know Passengers Numbers and Cargo, to which they replied .... Passengers and lots of Hazardous Cargo.

When they were transferred to another frequency, I lost them.

Can someone please advise Rego when known.

Stuart


As stated, can smeone please confirm if it was the A380 or not.

Thank you

Stuart

[Michael Wright]

Hi All,

Did I read this correctly - QF10 (delayed arrival was due at 0630 this morning 3/3) is being ops by A380 OQA??

If so, there has been another twist with this aircraft.

I posted this on jetspotter.com:



As stated, can smeone please confirm if it was the A380 or not.

Thank you

Stuart
ACARS for Sydney shows QF10 as VH-OJM, routed as LHR-SIN-SYD-MLB

[Stuart Trevena]

Hi All,

Thanks for the info.

I was actually watching it arrive in the all the Darkness and Rain, to which I only saw the landing lights and a white body.

When will the A380 arrive into Melb then? Tomorrow morning on QF10?

Stuart

[NickN]

Passengers and lots of Hazardous Cargo.

What types of Hazardous Cargo are pax aircraft allowed to carry in bulk?

[Nigel C]

Probably not pax cargo, but rather commercial freight that's along for the ride (read "revenue").

[NickN]

Sorry I didn't mean pax cargo, I was talking about the freight, but what types of hazardous freight are they allowed to carry in bulk? I thought all hazardous/flammable freight had to go by sea?

[Marty H]

Sorry I didn't mean pax cargo, I was talking about the freight, but what types of hazardous freight are they allowed to carry in bulk? I thought all hazardous/flammable freight had to go by sea?

Nope dangerous goods such as dry ice, flammable, radioactive, biological are carried by airlines, all ground handlers are trained in according to IATA standards in the handling and loading of dangerous good on aircraft.

[NickN]

Todays QF93 is being operated by VH-OQB.

[Stephen Brown]

God I hate those Mist approaches, all foggy and stuff.

[David M]

Boom tish! :D (and at ferst I thort you hadn't used the speeling chooker)

Nope dangerous goods such as dry ice, flammable, radioactive, biological are carried by airlines, all ground handlers are trained in according to IATA standards in the handling and loading of dangerous good on aircraft.

Not only ground crew Marty, but flight/cabin crew too.

David.M.

[Stephen Brown]

Does the board have a spelling checker???

[Grahame Hutchison]

Me, but I don't have enough free time.

[David M]

I only found out that the board had a "search" function during this last spotting weekend! :D

sorry Amsy... couldn't resist

David.M.

[Stephen Brown]

all ground handlers are trained in according to IATA standards in the handling and loading of dangerous good on aircraft.

I was trained in Piano Accordion...Watch me whip out a mean Polka!!!!

[Marty H]

Boom tish! :D (and at ferst I thort you hadn't used the speeling chooker)



Not only ground crew Marty, but flight/cabin crew too.

David.M.


Correct, should have mentioned that, every two years www.dgsafety.com is our freind:(

[NickN]

So on any given flight pax could be sitting above tonnes of highly flammable or radioactive material without knowing about it?

[Nigel C]

Well, you're already surrounded by tonnes of highly flammable (and toxic) stuff anyway. It's called fuel!

[NickN]

The difference being the pilot can dump fuel before making an emergency landing, they can't eject freight.

[Andrew McLaughlin]

The difference being the pilot can dump fuel before making an emergency landing...

Nick - not all of it! Plus, it's not so much the fuel that is explosive, it's the fumes that are left once the fuel is gone!

[NickN]

Yes true not all of it.

But say for instance the Turkish airlines crash in Amsterdam, could have been worse if the plane was full of flammable goods. The fuel may not have ignited but the freight may have.

[Nathan Long]

So on any given flight pax could be sitting above tonnes of highly flammable or radioactive material without knowing about it?

You're more at risk from the Dangerous Goods transported on the road.

[Owen H]

NickN,

If you've been on many aircraft, then you've been on top of "Dangerous Goods" by definition many times.

We carry all sorts of stuff... but it is all packed and labelled according to very strict criteria, and all airline staff that are involved in operations are trained in Dangerous Goods management.

These are always goods that when packed correctly in proper quantities pose no risk to aviation, so you don't have anything to worry too much about. :D

Yes, we do sometimes carry radioactive materials, but they are small quantities, and are packed so they don't leak. If they were in a crash, sure, they might radiate a little, but not at levels that are dangerous for short term exposure. They are small amounts.

There is more likely to be a crash of the truck carrying the goods from the aircraft to final destination than of the aircraft itself.

[NickN]

Thats cool was just curious thats all. I wasn't thinking they were transporting spent nuclear rods or anything.

Was just alarmed/curious about the effects those materials may have in a crash situation but plenty of planes have crashed before and nobody ever seems to mention flammable freight as an issue.

At least I now have correct info re: DG's on aircraft, I always was of the impression that was a sea freight type of job.

[Marty H]

Thats cool was just curious thats all. I wasn't thinking they were transporting spent nuclear rods or anything.

Was just alarmed/curious about the effects those materials may have in a crash situation but plenty of planes have crashed before and nobody ever seems to mention flammable freight as an issue.

At least I now have correct info re: DG's on aircraft, I always was of the impression that was a sea freight type of job.

All DG's being transported by air have to meet IATA guidelines for transportation,packaging, labelling etc have a look at www.dgsafety.com.au and that should provide some info on it for you.

DG's are all catagorised and classed so some cant go with others etc and their are limits on how much can be put in each compartment example is dry ice cant exceed 100kgs per compartment it was 50kgs up until recently but it has been increased, other example is if you have any DG they ideally need to be placed at the furtherest compartment from the cockpit, also what is known as a NOTOC is filled out so the captain knows what DG's he has onboard and what compartments they are loaded into.