Qantas safety boast

[Che Xindamail]

Just saw an ad in which Qantas boasts about an "unrivalled saftey record". It seems like Bangkok has faded in the collective Qantas memory. I wonder what other incidents have faded.

Qantas until recently flew mostly longhaul in warm climates. To boast of safety records is pathetic compared with northern European or North American shorthaul operators who enjoy truly challenging operational conditions during the winter season.

Seems to be a case of "Look at us, we can also fly airplanes! (we think)".

[blueloo]

I would say that 99% of QF pilots would never mention said safety record, and most are very aware of Bangkok golfing expedition. Having said that, it is only a minor blemish on a pretty fair record, and touch wood it stays that way.

I think your angst should be directed at QFs mis-marketing and PR department. Trust me, most QF folk responsible for its safety record would not be proud (and pissed off) of someone marketing the company on their hard work and goodwill.


Anyway, a similar thread was started a little while ago.

[Che Xindamail]

Probably true, but the "minor blemish" is rumoured to have been a write off, were it not for QF management choosing to spare no cost in repairing the aircraft to maintain the statistic of "no hull loss".

Using safety in PR campaigns leaves one open for closer scrutiny. You also shouldn't tempt fate my wife says.

[Warhawk]

Friend who was a B747 engineer at QF told me it (BKK 744)was a "write off" but QF would do anything to perpetuate this myth.

Also lost a Shorts Sandringham in Vila Harbour in the 60's after a water taxying accident (you can scuba dive on it if you like - even had a "glow in the dark" plastic skeleton in the cockpit at one stage - quite a hoot if unprepared!). That was an accident, but QF said it sank after drifting from the repair morrings during a storm (It was a write off - they had already salvaged the engines), so therefore wasn't a hull loss resulting from an accident. There was another story of a total loss / burn out in the early days of QF domestic flying (1920's or 30's) and the company did some name changing, thus - "what a great safety record "WE" have!"

The old "touch wood" scenario would be haunting me if I went around saying "aren't we so safe". Its only a matter of time...

They are only people and the machines are still mechanical and electrical. Corporate arrogance is one thing, (To me they seem to have plenty of it at times) statistical enevitability is another!

:ooh:

[blueloo]

Well nobody is perfect and it may well have been a near write off. luckily it wasnt, and more importantly, there were no injuries, and the aircraft is still flying today. I put it to you, if you had the choice of a repair at half the cost of a new jet, which also kept your hull loss record at nil or a new jet which damaged your record at double the cost, what would you choose? Seems fairly logical to me.

From your post i would suggest you would rather have had a twisted lump of metal with body parts hanging out just to ruin the name of a generaly speaking safe operator. And as i said before touch would there are no bent aircraft for QF or any carrier for that matter. I suspect QF like many other airlines has had its fair share of luck.

[qfcsm]

The FACT of the matter is that QF don't get to decide if the hull is a write-off or not - the insurance company does!

And the insurance company said fix it.

For those of us that work here, I can assure you that safety is the first, the second, the third and the last priority...

We deserve the 'unrivalled safety record'.

[Casper]

A recent incident in SYD and the circumstances leading to it suggest that QF hasn't progressed much since Bangkok.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/pdf/200302980.pdf

[blueloo]

Casper that is possibly the most pathetic generalisation I have ever heard. The report indicates the fault is the use of the incorrect brake grease....and pray tell, that has what to do with Bangkok?


Surely you cant expect every evacuation to be text book perfect? There are so many variables involved things are bound create difficulties.


Really, I suspect this thread is more about those who have an axe to grind with QF rather than its safety record. You guys need to build a bridge and get over it.

[willfly380]

i am in no way connected to qantas,ok flew as a pax once.i congratulate the airline on their envious record and wish them all the best for the future. as far as bangkok incident is concerned, we are all human, if they salvaged their machine, and it is still airworthy, good for them.

[Wizofoz]

I've flown for six airlines, all of which could make the "No hull loss" claim as or more justifiably as QF.

QF are a good, safe operator (though not as good OR safe as some might try and perpetuate) but they are hardly "Unrivaled".

[4Greens]

Qantas

1. Have never lost a passenger in the jet age.

2. Do in fact fly to lots of cold places.

[Zulu Yankee]

Never mind bangkok, does anyone else think this is tempting fate a bit???:oh: A brave move by Quantas I'd say!

[RevMan2]

bluloo, you're missing Casper's point.

The key parallel between the 2 incidents is the fact that the crews in both cases did not notice the absence of reverse thrust respectively full thrust.
Both reports also criticised evacuation procedures.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/pdf/200302980.pdf
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/acci/ojh/vh-ojh.pdf

[Taildragger67]

QF aren't the only operator to have had a 744 end up in 'interesting' circumstances, then repair it & put it back in service:

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/f-gita/photo.shtml

This one, however, was a bit too soggy (and the bent nose probably didn't help):

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/296829/M/

But yes, does seem to tempt fate a tad. When the film 'Rain Man' was released, QF showed it on IFE - but with Dustin Hoffman's piece about Qantas being the safest airline, quietly left on the cutting room floor...

[blueloo]

Revman, Sydney landings on 34L (some 4000m) prior to 6am, require idle reverse due curfew limits. As I am sure you are aware there is adequate distance for this and reverse should in this instance (unlike bangkok) should have had negligable effect. In fact this landing happens for almost every carrier every day prior to 6am. It is well within normal standard performance capability of jumbo. And it would have been a non event had the corrrect grease been used.

For your info another jumbo landed a few days later with a brake fire too- as a result of same grease problem, only this time nil evacuation as ground crew had been advised on how to provide better information to flight deck to prevent unnecessary evacuation.

[italianjon]

It just seems a little like Shipping safety figures to me.

"Draw a line under the Titanic and move on."

I know that I have para'd... Dave Gunson I think.

[Capt Fathom]

Both reports also criticised evacuation procedures
Fortunately, none of us do these very often, so I guess the crews could be a little rusty!
Easy to be critical in hindsight.

[RevMan2]

Bluloo

ATSB findings - SYD
3.2 Significant factors
Flight Crew Actions
1. The inadvertent de-selection of reverse thrust
2.The flight crew failed to detect the deselection

ATSB findings - BKK
6.1 Significant active failures
The flight crew did not select (or notice the absence of) idle reverse thrust
The flight crew did not select (or notice the absence of) full reverse thrust

Failure to detect = Did not notice =
common factors determined as having significantly contributed to both incidents.

[RaTa]

Is the QF's record a good one considering it is one of the oldest airline in the world.....yes.

Is it wise to bring up safety records in advertising...... I doubt it.

Do the vast majority of QF crews try and be as professional as they can like all good airline crews do......yes.

Do QF crews fly in CAVOK all the time.....no.

Can QF crews make the odd mistake like any other airline's crew.....I would say so.

Are some of you fellow pilots having a go at QF crews because you think it is clever and because you can........it would seem so.

Am I a QF pilot.... I guess you have already worked that out.

See you in the pub!

:D

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Nobody denies the Qantas achievement. But is Qantas really that big an airline ? How many departures a year does Qantas carry out, compared with American, United, Continental, Delta, Southwest, or even British, Lufthansa and Japan ? My point is that some of these airlines fly in a month or two what it takes Qantas a year to achieve in terms of flights flown.

[safetypee]

For some background on flight safety in Australia try this Latitude or Attitude? - Airline Safety in Australia (http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-arch/2000/Z2000-May-15/http://www.aviation.unsw.edu.au/readings/Canberra97.pdf) by G. R. Braithwaite, J. P. E. Faulkner, R. E. Caves; follow the archived link to 'Canberra97.pdf'. There is also a very good book of the same title ISBN 07546 17092.
--------------------
Airspeed and Upwardness

[frangatang]

Qantas is suposedly accident free....not for lack of trying though!

[Casper]

Blueloo,

* Downwind from 1000' to 200' approx 22 kts
- at touchdown 12 kts
* Not using full flap
* Idle reverse - not aware reverse disengaged
* Aerobridge connected with doors open at time of evacuation

I was aware of the incorrect grease.

QF has a most enviable safety record. I just thought that Bangkok would have made the drivers more aware of the above items.

[Sunfish]

I wish to draw your attention to the "dunnunda and Godzone" thread about LAME morale at QF.

It would appear that at the same time QF PR is going on about its safety record, its management appears bent on destroying the culture that made it so...

[Safeware]

Taildragger, re the Air France jet, I'm not surprised he ended up in the water, look how short the runway is (but very wide) :)

sw

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Golf Charlie Charlie airsafe.com list the rate of fatal events per million flights which is one way to gauge an airlines relative safety.

Speaking as a QF pilot, I do not like it when this gets brought up, particularly by our PR dept. Any airline is one bad landing away from having it's safety record trashed and we all know this.

[Sunfish]

I respectfully suggest reading a thread about QF Lame morale in the "dunnunda and Godzone reporting points" forum.

It would appear that while QF PR is touting the safety record, QF management is busy undermining the culture that contributed to its safety record as fast as it can.

[treadigraph]

Just been reading an old book called "Airport International" which mentioned that IATA (I think) frowned upon airlines referring to their safety records in advertising. Have things changed, or are QF's marketeers a tad headstrong?

[max AB]

C'mon...cut QF some slack here guys. They have got to boast about something, after all their service is crap!

[Evening Star]

Just saw an ad in which Qantas boasts about an "unrivalled saftey record"

Seriously tempting fate. Counterproductive even to those of us SLF who are not normally superstitious.

[Going Boeing]

It's about time that this "hull loss" BS was put to rest. The aircraft was insured for US$187m and the repair bill was US$96m. It's quite clear that the insurance company would repair the aircraft in this instance rather than payout a huge sum extra to write the hull off.

[jetjackel]

Would continue to wish Quantas the best of luck.

Would be a tad leery of bragging about safety records. Its the kind of thing that can change instantly, especially with aircraft flying all over the world.

Aircraft Evacuations have historically been "semi controled pandamonium". Whenever there is a full evac critisism folows by the applicable CAA and procedures / training are enhanced.

An evac without injuries is a pretty rare thing.

[AnQrKa]

There are numerous airlines out there that have never killed a passanger but have operated more sectors than QF making them safer, if there is such a thing. No, QF is not the "safest" but lets keep the myth alive anyway.

[Old Smokey]

Are we witnessing the tall poppy syndrome at work here?

For heaven's sake, 28 fatalaties in 80 years, and zero in the jet age is a statistic that most airlines would kill for.

As for the Bangkok B747 that "should have been a hull loss", well, it wasn't lost, they knew exactly where it was.

It was always one of the unspoken ethics of the airline business that one didn't boast of an excellent safety record. Such a public relations / advertising strategy can only come from the marketing department goons, and NOT from the people who made such an enviable record possible, Operations and Engineering.

[MkVIII]

Ufortunately Old Smokey, as you may know, Qantas is now run by a board of accountants and a CEO with no geuine interest in the company or it's staff, so long as he and his accountants can have impressive figures to show shareholders, and even more impressive pay packets for themselves, whilst the majority of staff get pay cuts. Well, that is most airlines...

Since airlines management have lost ALL perspective of aviation (odd, but true), you see some truly moronic advertising and press statements.

One look at a Jetstar TV commercial here Dunnunda is enough to want you to travel on ANOTHER airline... I particulalry liked the ad where they claimed their pilots were really safe. Kind of like admitting to the existance of a problem, or a perceived problem. Like dobbing yourself in!