SIA A380 forced to turn back - Paris

[feb01mel]

SIA A380 forced to turn back

Dec 17,2009


PARIS - AN AIRBUS A380 superjumbo had to turn around mid-flight and land back in Paris due to an electrical fault, a spokesman for its operator Singapore Airlines said on Wednesday.

'We had an electrical current fault in the kitchen areas' and the captain turned the plane round two hours into the flight to return to Charles de Gaulles airport so it could be fixed, the spokesman told AFP in Paris.

It was a 'minor fault which does not at all compromise the safety of passengers or the crew,' he said. 'But if it wasn't repaired they could not have served hot food and drinks.' It was at least the fourth time an A380 flight had been disrupted by a technical fault.

A glitch grounded an A380 operated by Air France in New York on Monday.

Last month an Air France A380 was forced to turn around and land in New York after a fault with its navigation system, days after the airline started flying the superjumbo. Air France cited 'a minor computer problem' in that incident.

An A380 flown by Singapore Airlines also had to return to Paris on Sept 27 after one of its four engines failed during a flight to Singapore. -- AFP


http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ry_467574.html

[kelvgoh]

Looks like it's 9V-SKF - the A380 which follows me around the world. It had a water draining issue in one of the lavatories when I flew NRT-SIN last Saturday.

[SQKevin]

Looks like it's 9V-SKF - the A380 which follows me around the world. It had a water draining issue in one of the lavatories when I flew NRT-SIN last Saturday.

I was on 9V-SKF when I flew NRT-SIN on 14 Dec. The only problem I had was Krisworld hanging and rebooting itself. On the topic of SQ's A380, I had the experience of the cup holder at my seat in Y snapping at the hinge when I was flying in 9V-SKG last week.

[QPPS flyer 2]

Hi all,
I was on the flight that turned back to Paris 2hours into the flight..was a marathon flight. After 4 hours, we relanded in Paris and engeneers came to have a look. After 1.5 hour or so, it was repaired but crew could not fly again due to working hours restrictions. They put us in a hotel, and we were due to take off at 1pm next day.(that is 2 hours after normal scheduled flight). Instead we took off at 4:45 pm. we landed in singapore just before 12am local time today..
Captain apologized on board re lapses or mistakes made.
It raises the question as to why did he decided to return if security was not impacted? Only comfort would have been reduced..that is a big decision to take..furthermore, why could they not schedule an earlier departure flight?
In the end, we arrived more than 27 hours late..Any idea what kind of compensation will sq put in place on top of the free pen given at paris airport? thanks for your comments.

[N_Architect]

It raises the question as to why did he decided to return if security was not impacted?

Out of curiosity, in a case like this, does the Captain consult SIA's operations hub in SIN before making the final decision to turn back or continue? (assuming it is not a really critical safety issue and that also there is enough time to think and talk things through)

[jhm]

Any idea what kind of compensation will sq put in place on top of the free pen given at paris airport?

If you wait for SQ, I doubt they will offer you anything more at all.

If you claim from SQ (and follow up), I think you may be entitled to EU compensation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_261/2004

I could be wrong but it's EUR 600 in your case.

[kelvgoh]

don't underestimate the power of understatement. The spokesperson could very well be understating the potential severity of the situation, even if it is factually truthful. A fault with the electrical current in the kitchen areas could possibly escalate into something more serious and that is not something any pilot would want to grapple with, especially when the flight path of that particular flight will bring them over an extended stretch of water.

[9V-JKL]

It raises the question as to why did he decided to return if security was not impacted? Only comfort would have been reduced..that is a big decision to take..furthermore, why could they not schedule an earlier departure flight?

Security? Wasn't the turn back to fix the electrical unit so that hot food & drinks could be served? Surely SQ would not want to starve the passengers on a 12+hour flight?

[9V-JKL]

Out of curiosity, in a case like this, does the Captain consult SIA's operations hub in SIN before making the final decision to turn back or continue? (assuming it is not a really critical safety issue and that also there is enough time to think and talk things through)

Yes, they do.

[N_Architect]

I thought so. Thank you for the reply, 9V-JKL.

[Braniff]

I was on this flight along with a colleague as well - in J.

From the very beginning, the service on this flight was very off. The cabin crew hurried back and forth, making no eye contact with passengers. I kept thinking what's going on ??? After take-off drinks were served much later than usual. Then KrisWorld went out, then in-seat power supply went out. The satay was served nearly 1 1/2 hours into the flight. No refills as the crew hurried back and forth.

Next, the captain comes on and says that due to electrical problems in the kitchens, they are not able to serve hot meals during the flight. And I remember his exact words --- "this is a no go for Singapore Airlines" --- and announced we were returning to Paris.

The funny thing is that J crew was then beginning to serve starters... A crew member explained to me that 3 out of 4 kitchens were out and the 1 kitchen was being used for F and J.

Uneventful flight back to Paris but we notice that on our arrival we are greeted by numerous fire trucks that follow the plane to to the gate and stay there for an extended period.

The crew had started returning jackets and bags stored in cupboards when an announcement came on for everyone to remain on-board.

No more news. Then a PA announcement is made if any passenger wants his "next kin" informed about the incident. Not the best choice of words !!!

About 45 minutes into this they announce for everyone to go to their seats as the power will be totally cut to the airplane. We sat in darkness for another 30 minutes.

When the lights came back on, we all assumed it had been fixed. No announcements were however made. New catering started to be loaded on the plane and the crew told every passenger that they did not know but since catering was being loaded "we must be leaving soon."

A few minutes later it's announced that the flight crew has timed out and the flight is cancelled.

It was the blank leading the blind. And the blind included most on-board crew.

Then the plane was disembarked by classes.

This is however where my story diverges from all others on the plane. I demanded to see SQ ground staff as soon as I disembarked. A leading stewardess (?), dressed in red, escorted me to one. Kudos to the stewardess. I had to be in Manila for meetings starting today, Friday. I told the SQ staff at the gate that I needed to be re-routed to Manila. All the other passengers disembarked as me and my colleague were having this conversation. One after another they said no, not possible. All seats on all flights booked --- I didn't believe it for a second and made that clear. These were all SQ contract staff at CDG, I believe. Then the SQ's station manager came to talk to us 2 "disgruntled" passengers. He could not have been nicer, nor more helpful. Just wonderful.

He booked us on an Asiana flight to Seoul that was leaving from the same satellite. He had guaranteed us on the Friday morning flight from Seoul to Manila but asked us to contact Asiana ground staff as soon as we arrived. We did. And Singapore/Asiana had confirmed us on yesterday's evening flight. So, all the meetings were saved. But we were mighty tired. (The Asiana flight from Paris went out half-empty even though every other SQ agent had told us "every flight to Asia" is not only full, but overbooked.)

My three thoughts:

1) SQ needs to communicate better on-board. Hardly any announcements were made throughout this episode. The crew seemed clueless as to what was going on throughout as they had not been informed either.

2) Had I and my colleague not refused to take no for an answer, SQ would not have done anything for us in terms of rebooking. The SQ contract staff were as horrible as their station manager there was wonderful.

3) I also happen to believe there was more to this than simply galleys being out.

For the record, I am PPS but I don't think that played any role in this. It was simply perseverance and rfusing to take no for an answer.

[a340-313x]

1) SQ needs to communicate better on-board. Hardly any announcements were made throughout this episode. The crew seemed clueless as to what was going on throughout as they had not been informed either.

I had a similar experience before on SQ231 (SIN-SYD) when we had to return to SIN two hours into the flight. Another passenger further up front and I realised something was not right when the IFE showed the plane pointing in the wrong direction. Being a night flight (and not having the sun's position as a reference to determine whether the IFE was stuffing up), it was fairly quiet, everybody was already asleep. We went to look up the cabin crew in the galley, who were just as puzzled as we were and only about an hour out of Singapore did we get an announcement from the captain explaining what was going on.

I suspect the flight crew, in these instances, are busy with communications back and forth with the control centre in Singapore and would probably not have too much time to talk to the cabin crew... that may explain your observation that they seemed clueless.

[MAN Flyer]

Interesting trip there, Braniff!. Glad it all somewhat worked out in the end, or at least better than it might have done if you hadn't stood your ground and got them to do something.

Then a PA announcement is made if any passenger wants his "next kin" informed about the incident. Not the best choice of words !!!

Indeed!.

A leading stewardess (?), dressed in red,

That's a Chief Stewardess. Leading Stewardess is in Green kebaya.

Then the SQ's station manager came to talk to us 2 "disgruntled" passengers. He could not have been nicer, nor more helpful. Just wonderful.

I liked the 'disgruntled' comment. From the non-SQ ground staff by any chance ?.

Kudos to the station manager for sorting it out.

[Moviela]

I am of the belief that if there is a problem on the plane that is not fully understood, you get back on the ground. I would not want the operator to worry about the amount of compensation due passengers if a problem turned up in flight. The amount for an overnight stay for a loaded A380 has to be more than my wallet holds. In the case of this flight from what is reported on the news and the kind reports of forum members, it appears that the delay was caused be an incident in flight, and adherence to the working hours restriction. How is SIA responsible for that?

Perhaps they are for not managing the flight crew rest time properly. A flight this duration needs a second crew on board. The second crew should have replaced the first crew upon landing, and sent them for rest. After completion of repairs and resupply of the airplane the second crew could have manned the controls to the end of their work period, and then the first crew could assume the helm and finish the flight.

I would like to know the cause of the electrical malfunction in such a new bird. Is there any liability from Airbus for poor workmanship or defective materials?

[hsf]

The 380 seems to be making headlines a bit too often these days!