Qantas Crash Report Comes Out (QF1 - BKK)

[TheComparer]

Here's an article of the results of the investigation of the QF001 crash at BKK.

Interesting reading.

[TheComparer]

Qantas slammed over poor pilot training

By CNN's Grant Holloway

CANBERRA, Australia (CNN) -- Australia's largest airline Qantas has had its safety practices and pilot instruction attacked in a report into a runway accident in Bangkok, Thailand, two years ago.

A Qantas 747 jet skidded off the end of a rain-saturated runway and into a golf course at Bangkok in September 1999.

No passengers or crew were injured in the accident but $50 million of damage was caused to the plane.

An investigation report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau into the accident, released Wednesday, finds the Qantas first officer and captain misjudged the landing and were inadequately trained to subsequently prevent the accident.

The accident resulted from "a complex mixture of active failures, inadequate defenses and organizational factors", the report says.

In particular, the first officer landing the craft touched down well beyond the normal zone on the runway, then aqua-planed along the surface due to heavy rain. However, if the crew had applied reverse-engine thrust the accident could still have been prevented.

Cost saving measure a factor

The report finds Qantas management had instructed its pilots not to use reverse thrust because it caused wear and tear on the planes.

"Although the flight crew and cabin crew made a number of errors, many of these were linked to deficiencies in Qantas's operational procedures, training and management processes," the report says.

"As with other B747-400 pilots, the crew had not been provided with appropriate procedures and training to properly evaluate the potential effect of the weather conditions," the report says.

"In particular, they were not sufficiently aware of the potential for aquaplaning and of the importance of reverse thrust as a stopping force on water-affected runways."

Qantas pilots have now been instructed to use full reverse thrust when landing in conditions similar to those which resulted in the Bangkok incident.

Wake-up call on safety

Safety bureau executive director Kym Bills said the report was "a wake-up call to Qantas, who may have been lulled into a false sense of security by their very good safety record".

Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority is also criticized in the report for latent failures, including deficient rules for wet landings, emergency procedures and training, and poor surveillance of flight operations.

Responding to the report Qantas said it accepted the investigation's findings and the airline was now continually reviewing and enhancing its operational training and procedures.

Qantas chief executive officer Geoff Dixon said the airline had strengthened its safety procedures as a result of the Bangkok accident.

He said Qantas was continually looking at ways to improve its productivity but, "under no circumstances would we compromise safety standards in any way to gain efficiencies".

Second incident that year
The Bangkok accident was the second major incident for Qantas that year.

Six months earlier, the landing gear on a Qantas jet collapsed while it was taxi-ing on a runway in Rome. Preliminary investigations into that accident suggest inadequate testing procedures by the company which makes and re-conditions the landing strut which failed on that occasion.

April 2001 has been a bad month for Australian aviation, with earlier this month the nation's second largest airline Ansett having 10 of its passenger jets grounded by safety authorities.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority grounded the jets after repeated concerns over Ansett's safety and maintenance procedures

[airforcenone]

Apparantly, QANTAS had the aeroplane rebuilt even though it was an insurance write-off and it is now flying again (with another company). They can still say they never lost a hull!! (Misplaced one briefly perhaps)

[In the slot]

Not even "Rainman" will be fooled into thinking that QANTAS has never crashed now!
Maybe a wake-up call for Australian aviation in general, luckily before anything major has happened. Keep it safe guys.

[thegypsy]

A FRIEND OF MINE JOINED A CERTAIN Oz Airline in 89 when they had several hundred vacancies and could not believe how behind the times they were in most operational areas!!

[lame]

This URL is already posted on a similar thread on Dunnunda, in case you haven't seen it there you may want to check it out. It downloads a computer simulation of the final approach and landing of VH-OJH that day in Bangkok.

http://www.basi.gov.au/acci/ojh/vi.cfm



------------------
"I USED to be a PPRuNaholic, but now I'm CURED"

[Feather #3]

AF1,

Sorry, but your comment is a bit too far from the truth to let go unchallenged.

Following the assessment, the insurance company paid in full for the restoration of VH-OJH which flies happliy for Qantas [or did when I flew it a few days ago!]

Equally, it was never 'lost', nor were we even 'unsure of it's position'. The tail sticking out of the Thai hangar at BKK was there for all to see for many months.

By all means acknowledge the accident, but stick to the facts, please.

G'day

[Jumbo Mumbo]

A message for thegypsy:
Stick to the facts friend, end leave hearsay and bulls***t out of here.

[ABGO]

I find it very hard to believe that Qantas flight crew were not aware of the potential realities of such weather and wet runways - and the factors that lead to aquaplaning, and the benefits of reverse thrust in stopping in such circumstances.
Similarly, not to be convinced as to the paramount importance of a stabilized approach from 1000 ft AGL in IMC and 500 ft AGL on a visual approach to ensure an on-speed and accurate touchdown point: and to "GO AROUND" if not!!
Every abinitio pilot upwards knows that "Runway behind you is as useless as altitude above you"!
Why can't Qantas be honest for once? It is an insult to the particular crew's intelligence - even though they stuffed up!

I am refering to:

"As with other B747-400 pilots, the crew had not been provided with appropriate procedures and training to properly evaluate the potential effect of the weather conditions," the report says.

"In particular, they were not sufficiently aware of the potential for aquaplaning and of the importance of reverse thrust as a stopping force on water-affected runways."

Qantas pilots have now been instructed to use full reverse thrust when landing in conditions similar to those which resulted in the Bangkok incident.

[The The]

The gypsy.

You are definately in the wrong crowd. With a friend like that, watch your back! and your job.

[twistedenginestarter]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Stick to the facts friend, end leave hearsay and bulls***t out of here.</font>

And there was I thinking this was a rumour network....

;)
;)
;)

[thegypsy]

Re sticking to the facts,
We all know what ATC particularly Sydney is like.
What a fiasco in Ansett Engineering!!
Quantas are now told they can use Reverse Thrust!!
I see what my friend means when he said how behind the times they were in so many areas!!
Anyone who thinks there is not room for improvement in their operations are dangerous fools.
The The Why would I need to watch my job??
I can understand watching my back from someone of your mentality but not my job.

[The The]

start here gypsy

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum12/HTML/003498.html

read the 609 posts, you may then get an idea what I mean.



[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 26 April 2001).]

[thegypsy]

The The. Started as you suggested but bored to death after a few minutes!!Yawn Yawn.
What a waste of time that list is. What do you hope to achieve by it??

[triadic]

What has all this '89 stuff got to do with this post? Ans: Zip!

Why dont you chaps get a life? IT'S HISTORY AND NOTHING YOU SAY OR DO NOW IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT - JUST GET OTHERS LIKE ME ARKED UP over having go thru this dribble!

Mr Towers - I thought you said on another post you did not permit links to this site mentioned above????