Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Emirates Airbus A380 Lands In Brisbane With Large Hole In Fuselage
Emirates IATA/ICAO Code EK/UAE Airline Type Full Service Carrier Hub(s) Dubai International Airport Year Founded 1985 CEO Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum Country United Arab Emirates An Emirates Airbus A380 landed at Brisbane International Airport on July 1st with a huge hole in its fuselage. The superjumbo remains on the ground in Australia following this unusual incident. Soon after departure Flight EK430 took off from Dubai International Airport at 03:11 GST before a loud bang was allegedly heard… (www.msn.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
It's a blown tire, whose pressure release caused a portion of the wing fairing to blow out. Gear is retracted within 20-30 seconds after rotation - as soon as the indication of "positive climb" is achieved. So a bolt did not puncture the wing fairing as the gear was stowed at the 35 minute mark after takeoff.
At 35 minutes, it was at cruising altitude and the low exterior pressure combined with the 200 psi main gear tire blowing, caused the wing fairing breach.
How did they know it was a blown tire? Because all modern planes have tire pressure monitors on the tires and brakes screen!
Why did they continue the flight? Because they identified the likely cause of the bang by noting the deflated main gear tire, and cabin pressure was normal. And no unusual handling was likely observed. As another pointed out, no one is going to dump tens of tonnes of fuel, and turn around and land overweight for a loud noise if all systems and attributes are nominal.
At 35 minutes, it was at cruising altitude and the low exterior pressure combined with the 200 psi main gear tire blowing, caused the wing fairing breach.
How did they know it was a blown tire? Because all modern planes have tire pressure monitors on the tires and brakes screen!
Why did they continue the flight? Because they identified the likely cause of the bang by noting the deflated main gear tire, and cabin pressure was normal. And no unusual handling was likely observed. As another pointed out, no one is going to dump tens of tonnes of fuel, and turn around and land overweight for a loud noise if all systems and attributes are nominal.
I always find it worth checking the ACARS messages in cases like this (rather than speculate).
Our system picked up the events pretty clearly.
Read my reply to this Tweet on the incident. (Public Twitter, so no account needed).
https://twitter.com/space_osint/status/1543329048314712064?s=20&t=74Diza4asrkz03yTg6nJPw
Our system picked up the events pretty clearly.
Read my reply to this Tweet on the incident. (Public Twitter, so no account needed).
https://twitter.com/space_osint/status/1543329048314712064?s=20&t=74Diza4asrkz03yTg6nJPw
Since this was a "modification" to the aerodynamic 'configuration' of the aircraft, the only major change could have been an increased fuel burn due to extra drag. It would appear that there may not have been a significantly higher fuel burn; there are other suitable airports short of Brisbane.
At a minimum, they picked a great picture for this story. When the page popped up and I saw the special livery that looked like a GIANT hole, it took me a moment to realize that was not what they were talking about!
This is not "hole." The structure of the aircraft was not breached. It is superficial damage, easily repaired assuming the actual carbon fiber component is intact.
if you can stand outside, stick your arm inside and wave your arm around - then it is a hole. Doesn't matter if it is the passenger cabin, cargo stowage, main gear pod, an open window on a car, or my ex wife. A hole is a hole - regardless where it is located.
It matters a lot! No pax could be sucked out of that hole. If the whole damned fairing came off the plane would still fly plenty well enough to come back and land.
The criteria for something being a hole or not is not defined by the possibility of a passenger being sucked out.
First of all the Max fuel load on an A380 is 287.419 tons according to several sources I found. That being the case a situation requiring a fuel dump shortly after take off would likely entail dumping a hell of a lot more than just 100 tons. Oh, and by the way I do believe there are restrictions on just where you can perform a fuel dump. You're certainly not going to do it over any inhabited areas such as cities or towns.
Second - the reason for dumping fuel in flight is to PREVENT an landing overweight. That is the main reason aircraft have a dump system.