But what if just after the tyre failure had caused a rupture to one of the fuel tanks ….and then they had a bird strike ….and then one of the compressor blades flew off and hit the cabin and depressurised it..and then Singapore had a once in a millennium snow storm and the aircraft could not return to the field which also closed KL and every other field for 500kms and then the cabin crew found that catering had not put any beers on board and the crew could not buy any beers for the bus in FRA and then what if……. I guess you get my point.
The crew made decisions based on information available to them and that was basically the aircraft was flying with no obvious problems other than a blown tyre which they probably would have known from an Eicas message about the trye pressure in one being zero and the call from the cabin crew about the noise on take off.
Does anyone apart from the rabid anti Qantas people here actually think the skipper would have made the call to continue onto FRA if there was any hint that there was any structural damage that would endanger the aircraft ,pax and crew and which was found to not be the case after landing?
Do you think this report from channel 7 has anything to do with their recent stoush with a major competitor channel 9 in addition to the boss of channel 9 being on the Qantas board (which is another matter) .
With journalistic integrity being what it is it’s a wonder this did not end up on jerry Springer instead.