View Full Version : SQ A380 Emergency Landing in Baku.
Montague S
6th January 2014, 01:52 PM
https://www.facebook.com/singaporeair/posts/10152165611728679
A/C lost pressure and diverted to Baku. Passengers awaiting new a/c for continuation of journey.
Grahame Hutchison
7th January 2014, 11:05 AM
Passenger account (http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/sq-317-we-limped-back-azerbaijan-trying-avoid-the-nearby-mountains-201) ...
Ryan N
7th January 2014, 11:06 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/singapore-airlines-a380-superjumbo-makes-emergency-landing-in-azerbaijan-20140107-30efl.html
Lukas M
7th January 2014, 12:47 PM
""We limped back to Azerbaijan at 10,000 feet trying to avoid the nearby mountains."
Typical Hero passenger comment. :cool:
Scott L.
7th January 2014, 10:16 PM
We really have become quite intolerant of inconvenience and more demanding of being compensated,according to those stories by some passengers. Very few pleased?
Philip Argy
8th January 2014, 11:14 AM
If it's true that the compromised door seal was apparent as the aircraft climbed, and that this was drawn to the crew's attention, then that does reflect poorly on their training - if it was apparent to a passenger it should have been apparent to the crew, and should have been escalated to the flight deck.
The decreased pressurisation rate should also have been apparent from the instruments, so it's surprising that the a/c continued to climb if the passenger's story that the sound of the inadequate door seal was plain is accurate. :confused:
Max C
8th January 2014, 12:57 PM
I doubt the crew would know about a decreased pressurisation rate. I don't know about Airbus, but in the Turboprop I fly, if one of the doors is leaking, the outflow valve in the rear auto closes to ensure that the cabin rate remains the same for the phase of flight.
Unless the leak was greater than the pressurisation system could 'pump up' the cabin, there would be no indication of any fault.
David Knudsen
8th January 2014, 03:09 PM
I like the headline that Brisbane Times (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/i-am-about-to-die-passengers-tell-of-fears-during-singapore-airlines-a380-emergency-20140108-30g8n.html) has decided to run with on the front page of their site;
'I am about to die': A380 fears
Aussie passengers tell of terror after Singapore Airlines jumbo lost cabin pressure.
:rolleyes:
Hugh Jarse
8th January 2014, 04:37 PM
Exactly right, Max.
Pressurisation systems are designed to provide plenty of excess airflow to compensate for cabin leaks - whether it is leaking seals or just an old aeroplane. All aircraft have a cabin leak rate, even new ones, as it's virtually impossible to have a perfectly sealed cabin. As time goes by and the aircraft leak rate increases, the outflow valve closes more to compensate. The pilots have no direct indication of cabin leak rate or pressurisation system health.
Sure, the seal may have been leaking during the climb, but once the differential reached a certain point the compromised seal may have been unable to maintain the increased differential pressure and just let go, or just deflated (if it's an inflated seal).
All crew are trained to check the pressurisation during the climb, but not necessarily constantly. That's why the systems are automatic, and the cabin altitude warning system is fitted.
Philip Argy
8th January 2014, 07:15 PM
But if a passenger expressly draws the crew's attention to a noisy leaking seal, surely even the moist laid back crew would report that to the cockpit, or check it themselves more assiduously?
Max C
8th January 2014, 07:37 PM
G'day Phillip,
I've had crew notify me about a noisy door seal on occasion. All we can do is look at the pressurisation panel for abnormal indications. If there are none, then the decision to contact maintenance/divert/return rests with the Pilot In Command after completing any applicable checklists.
If it was a prior defect, then the crew may well have come to the conclusion that all was well, especially if the issue had been repaired prior
It's possible that the Cabin Crew decided not to pass on any passenger concerns to the flight deck, but all crew I fly with are briefed that they should always convey any concerns to the flightdeck, regardless of how pointless/silly/common they may seem.
Robert S
9th January 2014, 02:24 AM
If you look around online, there seem to be a number of examples of crews using blankets to try to reduce noise levels from noisy door seals.
This one's from 4 years ago of the U3R door on a Singapore A380:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ7CoGl9hTM
There's also an Emirates example floating around, which seems to have been largely ignored due to the fairly ridiculous reporting that went with it.
Hugh Jarse
9th January 2014, 07:39 AM
But if a passenger expressly draws the crew's attention to a noisy leaking seal, surely even the moist laid back crew would report that to the cockpit, or check it themselves more assiduously?
Absolutely, Philip.
When I was a captain in a previous life, i would always insist that cabin crew draw such matters to my attention. I always encouraged an open line of communication on my flights. However, the level of 'openness' depends to a certain extent on the company culture. Both airlines I've worked for are quite positive in this area.
We don't know what really happened in this instance. It is customary for the cabin crew leader to communicate with the flight deck. We don't know which cabin crew member was advised of the noise and the subsequent line of communication. I suspect the flight deck WAS contacted, where they checked the pressurisation (probably appeared normal) and asked for regular updates from the cabin crew leader. At some stage after this, the seal obviously failed completely.
As a side note, the level of noise coming from the door doesn't necessarily reflect the level of leakage. On the few occasions I've had door seal leaks, the noise of the airflow over the outside of the door has been louder than the leak itself.
Radi K
9th January 2014, 10:25 AM
I’m curious if the masks dropped because of a rapid decompression or because the MORA around the area was so high that they manually had to drop the masks?
I think the crew would have been keeping an eye on the pressurisation altitude after dep from LHR and it wouldn’t have gone up too quickly? Maybe someone with A380 knowledge might be able to elaborate.
Hugh Jarse
10th January 2014, 05:13 AM
Radi, I don't know about the Bus, but in the Boeing, as part of your recall actions you make a decision as to:
a) if the cabin altitude is not controllable, and;
b) exceeds, or is expected to exceed 14000' - you manually deploy the masks.
I didn't realise the oxygen generators on the bus could supply O2 for over 2 hours :D
Stuart Trevena
10th January 2014, 03:40 PM
Hi All,
Just out of interest, does anyone know the rego in question?
Was it an older A380 or a younger one?
Stuart
Paul F
10th January 2014, 04:58 PM
9V-SKE, go to the Aviation Herald there is photos of the damaged door.
Andrew M
14th January 2014, 01:17 AM
She's back in SIN now
Wonder how long she will stay there before resuming normal flights!
Julian L
15th January 2014, 12:59 AM
Caught on arrival to SIN. Note the blue patch above door L3.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3760/11948142414_733581df80_o.jpg
Andrew M
18th January 2014, 04:17 PM
She's back flying again SIN-LHR-SIN and SIN-BKK !
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.