Qantas plane in forced landing

[NAMPS]

Qantas plane in forced landing
February 5, 2004 from www.news.com.au

A QANTAS plane carrying 11 people made a forced landing at Sydney Airport today after a suspected fire in an engine.

The Qantas Link flight QF 2042 from Sydney to Dubbo returned to Sydney soon after take-off at 11.30am (AEDT).

No one was injured and the plane landed safely, police said.

A Qantas spokesman said the pilot of the Dash 8 Turbo aircraft was advised by air traffic control to return to Sydney after smoke was seen coming from one engine.

A replacement aircraft, with all passengers on board left Sydney at 12.30pm, the spokesman said.


http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8589742%255E26462,00.html

[compressor stall]

It is a QantasLink aircraft - a Dash 8. NOT owned and NOT operated by Qantas.

It did not have a forced landing.

Decisions to return are made by crew NOT ATC.

Finally - so what? Hardly newsworthy. A piece of machinery operated abnormally, and the crew did what they were paid for.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[NAMPS]

Those journos know nothing, don't they...

Smoke pours from those f#%kers all the time, dont they...

Get out of bed on the wrong side this morning cs?

[compressor stall]

Yeah - sorry. Journo's and media are sh!tting me at the moment. Inaccurate scaremongering only makes fewer people fly which means fewer jobs for us.

Keeps Murdoch et al in BMW's though :mad:

[NAMPS]

It makes me wonder whether the other stuff we read (or hear) is anywhere near the truth. I would say not.

You're right though cs...not 'newsworthy' in the sense that it it is just the same rubbish quality reporting...

[turbantime]

Apparently a hydraulic leak onto the engine which caused the smoke....so not even an engine problem

Quote from channel 10 news, "Plane on fire over Sydney CBD", "Mid-air Mayday"

Funny thing is that they're the worst when it comes to aviation related matters. Remember the United Airlines 747 that had to make a landing in NZ due to a cabin fire.

As they showed the thing land the reporter said "smoke could be seen coming from the wheels as it landed, noone was injured"

The media guys really do know how to scare the public don't they?

[Deano777]

Smoke from the wheels eh? hell thats scary stuff http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/cwm/eek2.gif

[PAXboy]

NAMPS: "It makes me wonder whether the other stuff we read (or hear) is anywhere near the truth. I would say not."

I would say not. There was a recent event at which I was the organiser and main speaker. The Daily Telegraph reported in some detail but it became clear that the person who wrote the article was not the same person who was sitting in the hall, nor the same person who had spoken to me on the telephone for 20 mins afterwards.

What they reported was not of national importance otherwise I would have complained BUT what they said happend was not exactly how it did happen. If they cannot accurately report something simple, at which they had an eye witness and spoke to the organiser ... :hmm:

[Jim Morehead]

Hey...you guys are holding on tooooo tight. Maybe they hit an air pocket and the engine stalled........


Bubba..what did you see?

Well, I saw everything!

The plane went straight down. It was on fire. I could see the pilots eyes. The people inside the airplane at the windows were screaming for help........

And we return you to our normal programming....This has been a special on the spot report.

[WHBM]

Although the rest of the journalist's article appears pretty poor, I don't think you can blame them for calling it a Qantas plane when it is in full Qantas livery, with Skippy on a red tail, it was a QF flight number, you get Qantas tickets and boarding passes, the Qantas mag is in the seat pockets ... etc.

The industry is too bad at on the one hand marketing themselves as one organisation (which seems fine to me), but then when there's an incident going into "nothing to do with us" mode. For me, to the general public this is as much a Qantas flight as a mainstream 747 would be.

In the Beech 1900 accident at Charlotte NC, the website press releases of US Airways and their commuter operator each tried to pass the flight off as being the primary responsibility of the other. Not a mature way to act.

[turbantime]

WHBM, in all fairness to qantas, the incident was responded to by a qantas spokesperson because just as you stated the travelling public sees it as a Qantas aircraft.

However, if it had been an accident then I have no idea how each one of the airlines would have responded to it. :confused:

[DocManhattan]

Alright, defending an unpopular position here, but where's the inaccuracy in this report? In the second paragraph, he refers to it as a Qantas Link flight, and according to the information on my expensive terminal, QantasLink is a brand of Qantas Airways Ltd. So to all intents and purposes, it was Qantas. In the fourth paragraph, he correctly calls the aircraft a Dash 8 (though he adds the redundant Turbo -- but then that's hardly a crime for a layman). He correctly says the aircraft returned to Sydney after smoke was seen coming from the engine -- he doesn't venture to speculate on the cause of the smoke. And as for CS's gripe that this was ``not a forced landing'' ... well, seems to me the crew was forced to land because of a malfunction. What better definition of a forced landing could there be?
So where's the problem? Where's the poor journalism? The reporter did his job. It turned out to be a non-story, but it could easily have been the start of something bigger. Here in Japan, JAS grounded its entire MD-80 fleet recently because of cracks in their JT8s, and the first indication of that problem was one flight that had to divert with vibrations coming from one engine. Whichever news agencies missed the initial story (which many of you guys would have scoffed at, no doubt) ended up behind the news when the bigger issue broke.
One of the reasons I became a journalist in the first place is because the fear of exposure by a free and aggressive press is one of the things that keeps profit-hungry companies from cutting corners on safety. As long as this is true, then society needs this kind of reporting.
I don't, and wouldn't, work for a scandal sheet. I believe that accuracy in reporting is paramount. But I also believe that it's absolutely correct that businesses and governments should be subject to scrutiny by the press. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would believe otherwise.

[blueloo]

Doc - why let the facts get in the way of a good story eh.

oh whats that I stepped in.......

[soothfast]

Official Aussie BASI investigation leaking Gen Seal is all!!

[compressor stall]

A forced landing is where an aircraft can no longer defy gravity.

If the DHC8 lost both engines, then it's a forced landing.

[Iron City]

I have never worked on a project of reasonable technical or operational complexity that was reported accurately by the general purpose media.

Sometimes the aviation specialty media get it wrong.

The government watchdog organizations of an inspector general and accounting bent tend to get it wrong in their reports a significant part of the time if it isn't fairly plain 2+2 or malfeasance/misfeasance.

I do have to sympathize some with the general purpose media when only a handful of broadcast/web/newspaper entities have aviation reporters with some knowledge and who have taken the time to learn things (like that RTBing after seeing smoke is not a forced landing). An aviation beat reporter would also know which flights are run under contract or by a partner in aircraft that are not really owned (oops, they lease lots of them and have power by the hour engines that they rent) by the major carrier. But however the legalities work out the "Duck Test" (if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck) still applies so Quantas pointing fingers other ways is being a little cute.

[arcniz]

So this would have been a "persuaded" landing then?

[Few Cloudy]

"Precautionary" is the word I believe.

[HotDog]

I guess adding a U to Qantas is like dropping the H in herbs in the US of A?

[AerocatS2A]

This all reminds me of a news item on a NZ TV station stating that a Metro (or something similar) had had a crash landing and that there were several injuries.

30mins later the same station broadcast a very quick apology stating that it was actually a practice scenario for emergency services. I can only guess that some jurno was monitoring a radio frequency and started hearing all these details of an accident and jumped the gun on the story rather than doing any fact checking.

[contrails03]

The official definition of a forced landing from the online oxford dictionary:cool:



forced landing

• noun the abrupt landing of an aircraft in an emergency.


I wonder if the dash landed in this fashion?!

[lackov]

I'll be the first to have a shot at sh!tty media, but I gotta back previous comments here.

CS If the aircraft isn't owned by Qantas, then who actually does have it? Are you trying to tell the good folk down at Eastern that they're finally free of big brother? Of course QF owns the aeroplane, just like they own the rest of the company. And if it ain't operated by Qantas then you'd better tell IATA so that they can take that little "QF" thingy off the front of all the flight numbers (such as the one the journo quoted..correctly..).

Sorry, but a bit of perspective. At least this time they only reported the news, rather than making it up.

[404 Titan]

lackov

I think what CS was saying is that it isn’t operated under Qantas's AOC. It is operated under the Eastern AOC. Different document, different company. Yes Qantas does own Eastern but Eastern don’t operate under Qantas’s AOC. As for who owns the aircraft, most airlines lease their aircraft these days, so in reality they are, or a lot of them are, owned by the leasing companies.