Renamed & Merged: Qantas Severe Engine Damage Over Indonesia
Nunc est bibendum
On a route check the captain under check is the PIC. There is no authority for the checker to boot the operating captain out of the seat. I can't envisage a circumstance where this would even raise itself as an issue.
There is an exception where the checker is the PIC if the captain under check has an 'expired' route check. He is the PIC from the back seat and technically could boot the checkee out of the seat but even in a situation such as this I would find that incredibly unlikely.
There is an exception where the checker is the PIC if the captain under check has an 'expired' route check. He is the PIC from the back seat and technically could boot the checkee out of the seat but even in a situation such as this I would find that incredibly unlikely.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Okay guys, clearly the mobile phone is a bone of contention. There is obviously more that can be said on both sides of the argument and I don't want it to derail this thread so lets drop it.
To put it simply, Qantas along with numerous other companies have a policy requirment for personal electronic devices including mobile phones to be switched off (not just flight mode) during the take off and landing phases of flight.
Straight off the Qantas website:
and...
There was a passanger on this flight who recorded the landing using his iphone with flagrant disregard for this direction. I do not agree that his behaviour should be either promoted or rewarded by the media. End of story.
To put it simply, Qantas along with numerous other companies have a policy requirment for personal electronic devices including mobile phones to be switched off (not just flight mode) during the take off and landing phases of flight.
Straight off the Qantas website:
Note: All types of mobile phones must be switched off during take-off and landing.
All electronic devices, including PDAs, laptop computers, handheld games, iPads, Ebooks and toys must be switched off during take-off and landing.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just want to correct what is almost certainly an error in the comments:
I very much doubt that RR still owns the engines in a legal sense. RR almost certainly "owns" the engine failure in a technical and financial sense (maintained on a power-by-the-hour contract, and also almost certainly a warranty failure). QF owns the engine in a legal sense and "owns" the failure as far as pax are concerned (there may be an impact on loads/yields, and is already an impact on costs to get out from under the operational disruption).
And now onto opinion: things have changed in the engine business in the past few decades. Setting up an engine overhaul shop is vastly more complex than previously (especially for such a big donk as this), at present I suspect there is only one engine shop that actually has overhaul capability (Derby...). Airlines want to reduce risks, especially on big-ticket items such as engines, so many new engines (and almost all of these engines) are sold bundled with PBH contracts, so the (overhaul) maintenance is already decided "at birth". This makes sense for RR, because they get the overhaul revenue for ever (and of course that is way more than they make from selling engines) and also reduces their reputational risk (they've also got a pretty good monitoring centre so they can usually keep on top of developing problems).
For an airline, it makes little financial sense to set up a new engine overhaul capability. You'd need $X million (and X is *very* large), without the same knowledge that a manufacturer has of the design/weak points etc. It doesn't make sense for a small engine fleet (X divided by the fleet size is frightening), and if you tried to make a business out of it by taking in other airline's engines, you're up against the manufacturer who tied up the overhauls at birth on PBH contracts.
Mind you, there maybe a business in being RR's captive south-pacific overhaul shop, but I'm not sure you could get RR's attention right now to arrange it... and of course you have to be cost-competitive (with RR taking a margin on top) to be in the game. Not sure the Trent 900 fleet is going to be large enough to need a south-pacific shop.
btw, third point, most people don't know that most modern electronics almost never gets turned off, even when the power switch is used. They keep the time/date correct, don't they? Typically they go into a lower-power state whereby they get put to sleep and woken up by a timer a few hundred times a second just to see if anything is happening (like the power switch being pushed). Some gadgets don't even turn completely off if you remove the battery (because they've got another, small, built-in battery to keep the clock running).
But of course, the "off" state is vastly lower-power than the "on" state, and therefore safer. And of course, we should turn the things off when required, as under certain (fault) conditions there is a possibility of compromising avionics. I do wish that posters here would stop throwing stones about this, though, as I think there's many experienced pilots who have forgotten to turn off their mobile on a sector...
I very much doubt that RR still owns the engines in a legal sense. RR almost certainly "owns" the engine failure in a technical and financial sense (maintained on a power-by-the-hour contract, and also almost certainly a warranty failure). QF owns the engine in a legal sense and "owns" the failure as far as pax are concerned (there may be an impact on loads/yields, and is already an impact on costs to get out from under the operational disruption).
And now onto opinion: things have changed in the engine business in the past few decades. Setting up an engine overhaul shop is vastly more complex than previously (especially for such a big donk as this), at present I suspect there is only one engine shop that actually has overhaul capability (Derby...). Airlines want to reduce risks, especially on big-ticket items such as engines, so many new engines (and almost all of these engines) are sold bundled with PBH contracts, so the (overhaul) maintenance is already decided "at birth". This makes sense for RR, because they get the overhaul revenue for ever (and of course that is way more than they make from selling engines) and also reduces their reputational risk (they've also got a pretty good monitoring centre so they can usually keep on top of developing problems).
For an airline, it makes little financial sense to set up a new engine overhaul capability. You'd need $X million (and X is *very* large), without the same knowledge that a manufacturer has of the design/weak points etc. It doesn't make sense for a small engine fleet (X divided by the fleet size is frightening), and if you tried to make a business out of it by taking in other airline's engines, you're up against the manufacturer who tied up the overhauls at birth on PBH contracts.
Mind you, there maybe a business in being RR's captive south-pacific overhaul shop, but I'm not sure you could get RR's attention right now to arrange it... and of course you have to be cost-competitive (with RR taking a margin on top) to be in the game. Not sure the Trent 900 fleet is going to be large enough to need a south-pacific shop.
btw, third point, most people don't know that most modern electronics almost never gets turned off, even when the power switch is used. They keep the time/date correct, don't they? Typically they go into a lower-power state whereby they get put to sleep and woken up by a timer a few hundred times a second just to see if anything is happening (like the power switch being pushed). Some gadgets don't even turn completely off if you remove the battery (because they've got another, small, built-in battery to keep the clock running).
But of course, the "off" state is vastly lower-power than the "on" state, and therefore safer. And of course, we should turn the things off when required, as under certain (fault) conditions there is a possibility of compromising avionics. I do wish that posters here would stop throwing stones about this, though, as I think there's many experienced pilots who have forgotten to turn off their mobile on a sector...
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of whether or not these electronic items are a safety hazard or not how would it look to the media and the travelling public if QF went after the kid who took the video and sound footage????
It would look like they had something to hide.
Back to important issues.
To me this is one of three possibilities.
1:A maintenance issue
2:A manufacturing issue
3:A design issue.
In any case I think it shows that there are better investment opportunities than the aviation industry.
It would look like they had something to hide.
Back to important issues.
To me this is one of three possibilities.
1:A maintenance issue
2:A manufacturing issue
3:A design issue.
In any case I think it shows that there are better investment opportunities than the aviation industry.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trent 972
Thanks for that. The assumption was that Capt D'C was the checker checking the new checker checking the PIC. Now that it is clear that he who was assumed to be a checker was in fact the PIC being checked by a checker being observed by a senior checker, makes everything check out OK.
Glad I got that straightened out.
Well done guys.
SS
Thanks for that. The assumption was that Capt D'C was the checker checking the new checker checking the PIC. Now that it is clear that he who was assumed to be a checker was in fact the PIC being checked by a checker being observed by a senior checker, makes everything check out OK.
Glad I got that straightened out.
Well done guys.
SS
Last edited by scam sniffer; 8th Nov 2010 at 00:56.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All electronic devices, including PDAs, laptop computers, handheld games, iPads, Ebooks and toys must be switched off during take-off and landing.
The statement that ALL electronic devices must be turned off during takeoff and landing is not QANTASs policy.
PEDs are restricted by phase of flight.
eg unrestricted PEDs
Group 1:
Devices not restricted from use
Medical PEDs that are required for the essential
support of human life. Examples include:
• Medical implants, hearing aids, insulin pumps,
ventilators, electronic nerve stimulators,
automated external defibrillators and Airborne
Patient Medical Telemonitoring (APMT).
PEDs of the following kinds may be used at any time,
except when special operational restrictions are
applied by the Captain:
• Electronic watches, GPS, electric shavers, video
and still cameras, pocket calculators and other
devices powered by micro-cell batteries and solar
cells.
it further goes on into category 2, 3 etc.
This information is available in the Flight Admin manual and the Cabin Crew Manual.
I would assume it is published in the inflight magazine too.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Near an Airport
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jee-zuz!
Talk about a thread drift...
Was the flamming mobile phone responsible for the uncontained engine failure on Nancy Bird? NO.
Didn't we all initially crave and pour over the pictures gathered from such devices, some posted on this very thread? YES (hypocritical?)
This thread isn't about about some kid with a mobile phone taking pictures on a mobile device from an aircraft.
OK, he's a very naughty boy, but in the scheme of things, you people want to worry about a bloody mobile phone over an uncontained engine failure that could of possibly lead to a very bad outcome for a lot of lives?
This thread needs to reconsider its priorities.
How about you talk about the real issue here.
AWBC
Talk about a thread drift...
Was the flamming mobile phone responsible for the uncontained engine failure on Nancy Bird? NO.
Didn't we all initially crave and pour over the pictures gathered from such devices, some posted on this very thread? YES (hypocritical?)
This thread isn't about about some kid with a mobile phone taking pictures on a mobile device from an aircraft.
OK, he's a very naughty boy, but in the scheme of things, you people want to worry about a bloody mobile phone over an uncontained engine failure that could of possibly lead to a very bad outcome for a lot of lives?
This thread needs to reconsider its priorities.
How about you talk about the real issue here.
AWBC
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 37
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been said before, and I'll ask it again, but why does only QF's Trents seem to go wrong?
I mean...come on... one dead, two with unsustainable oil leak...
Nothing whatsoever with Luft* or SIA ....
Is that just..bad luck ? May be...why not
Souns like a bad excuse though
I mean...come on... one dead, two with unsustainable oil leak...
Nothing whatsoever with Luft* or SIA ....
Is that just..bad luck ? May be...why not
Souns like a bad excuse though
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Scam sniffer, I and no doubt many others take exception to your insinuation that this particular captain was "prepared to take all the credit."
He is probably very embarrassed by all the attention and has made no public statements to my knowledge.
Unfortunately he drew the short straw in this incident. Fortunately, he and his crew did their jobs in an exemplary fashion and I am sure he'd be the very first to acknowledge all the assistance and experience, flight and cabin, that was available to him as part of his crew.
He is probably very embarrassed by all the attention and has made no public statements to my knowledge.
Unfortunately he drew the short straw in this incident. Fortunately, he and his crew did their jobs in an exemplary fashion and I am sure he'd be the very first to acknowledge all the assistance and experience, flight and cabin, that was available to him as part of his crew.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
For Pete's sake! An iphone is NOT the same as video
and still cameras. An iphone is subject to:
You are deliberately stirring the pot.
I can't believe how much of a thread drift people have created by taking on the 'devil's advocate' for a simple observation that I made regarding someone deliberately disregarding a company requirement and being rewarded for it by the media.
It was only intended as an observation and not a thread drift starter. I agree with AWB - lets get back on topic to the real issues please...
and still cameras. An iphone is subject to:
Note: All types of mobile phones must be switched off during take-off and landing.
I can't believe how much of a thread drift people have created by taking on the 'devil's advocate' for a simple observation that I made regarding someone deliberately disregarding a company requirement and being rewarded for it by the media.
It was only intended as an observation and not a thread drift starter. I agree with AWB - lets get back on topic to the real issues please...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Kremin.
Did you and those "many others" take exception to the implied slur on your collective capabilities, espoused by Mrs D'C when she is quoted as saying that the passengers were lucky to have Capt D'C on board. (as if no one else from your esteemed ranks could have handled it as well)
Have you and those collective others noticed the lack of credit given to the other members of the TEAM, in many, if not all, newspaper accounts.
Bloody sure I would have/did.
Nuf said.
SS
Did you and those "many others" take exception to the implied slur on your collective capabilities, espoused by Mrs D'C when she is quoted as saying that the passengers were lucky to have Capt D'C on board. (as if no one else from your esteemed ranks could have handled it as well)
Have you and those collective others noticed the lack of credit given to the other members of the TEAM, in many, if not all, newspaper accounts.
Bloody sure I would have/did.
Nuf said.
SS
The Latest info.
QF has 3 x A380's stranded in LAX, 1 x A380 in SYD, 1 x A380 in FRA as well as the A380 that will be in SIN for some time before it goes back to the factory.
At least 3 engines will now be changed on the QF fleet A380 (up from 2), both SQ and LH will be changing A380 engines, the number unknown at this stage.
QF will continue to charter aircraft from BA. Prior to the grounding the QF
A380's were committed to 50 departures per week.
QF has 3 x A380's stranded in LAX, 1 x A380 in SYD, 1 x A380 in FRA as well as the A380 that will be in SIN for some time before it goes back to the factory.
At least 3 engines will now be changed on the QF fleet A380 (up from 2), both SQ and LH will be changing A380 engines, the number unknown at this stage.
QF will continue to charter aircraft from BA. Prior to the grounding the QF
A380's were committed to 50 departures per week.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Trent 972
Have you been inspected
.........watch that boroscope
And on the topic of the Lufthansa A380, I recall reading they shut an engine down in theirs due to an oil issue in the last few months.
Have you been inspected
.........watch that boroscope And on the topic of the Lufthansa A380, I recall reading they shut an engine down in theirs due to an oil issue in the last few months.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Caloundra. Qld. Australia
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three Questions If I May Please
There appears to be an abundance of opinoins in this thread and one must assume that these opinons are of substance. Therefore, if I may ask three simple questions relating to an e-mail that just turned up in my Inbox, refering to FAA 2010-16-07 Rolls Royce plc (RR).
1. Does this AD refer to the engine in question (read engine model here)?
2. Has this AD been complied with on the engine in question?
3. If the answer to No 2 is "No" then whose decision was it to not comply with the AD?
1. Does this AD refer to the engine in question (read engine model here)?
2. Has this AD been complied with on the engine in question?
3. If the answer to No 2 is "No" then whose decision was it to not comply with the AD?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can this get bad enough to make it feasible to change to Engine Alliance engines as on the EH fleet?
If so, how easy would it be to swap engine make and what adjustments to structure and software might be required?
If so, how easy would it be to swap engine make and what adjustments to structure and software might be required?
For simplistic general knowledge reasons only...Ball park in USD what would the price tag be for a new engine from Rolls Royce? Can an airline walk in 'off the street' and buy one or do they refer you back to the aircraft manufacturer?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Perth
Age: 47
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scam Sniffer i'm quite sure that the captains wife would have been portraying her solid belief in her husbands abilities and nothing more, certainly not a slight on any other airmen/women. And after reading your comments, it appears to me that you'd be the type that drives up to a garage only to reverse, go around, come back, and try again because you can't remember which side of your vehicle your fuel cap is on