PDA

View Full Version : QF A330 Emergency landing Kansai


bonvol
21st Aug 2005, 00:27
Just heard of this but not much else. Anyone have more details?

apacau
21st Aug 2005, 00:40
Not sure how trustworthy, but there is more info here

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16334664-421,00.html

tobzalp
21st Aug 2005, 00:42
The Ninemsn headline will be. 'Mid Air Terror as Qantas plane burns in Japan'. Mark my words.

OhForSure
21st Aug 2005, 00:46
Wonder why the tower spotted smoke but there was no visible signs of smoke or fire in the a/c???

Glad to hear all are ok.

Any 330/340 drivers care to comment on how many detectors are in the hold? Are they temperature variation meters or flame/smoke sensors??? What's the go?

The_Cutest_of_Borg
21st Aug 2005, 00:57
I have some small experience with the way Japanese authorities handle these sorts of events.

I hope QF and AIPA are right on to this one because the fact that people were injured during the evacuation may mean serious trouble for the operating crew.

Japanese police seem to need someone to blame any time someone gets hurt.

I hope I am wrong. On another note, can all the professional QF baiters please hold off for a respectable time please? I know you are all itching to get stuck in, but a little decorum please.

Calligula
21st Aug 2005, 01:10
No doubt all the 'professionals' who infest these forums (including some of the mods)
will be onto the capt's decision and will soon be telling evryone what a clown he is

HIALS
21st Aug 2005, 01:34
For what it's worth (and don't know if its relevant to this incident) - Airbus have a big problem, worldwide, with their smoke detectors.

I had a fault with my SDCU (Smoke Detection Control Unit) recently. While the engineers were changing it they commented that Airbus have a global taskforce out trying to retrofit new and improved smoke detectors in all aircraft.

He indicated the new units would have internal heating to avoid condensation triggering false warnings.

BankAngle50
21st Aug 2005, 01:55
Calligula Perhaps you got up ont he wrong side of the bed.
If anybody criticizes this crew then they would clearly identifying themselves as GA/Areo club know it alls.

Sure it would be great to do a precautionary evac, but that would be the day the thing burns and you kill ˝ the pax during the delayed deboard. And sure the SLB’s are supposed to be self containing in the event of cargo fire, but I wouln’t want to be the one to test that theory. Well done to the crew.:ok:

Out of interest;
A Saudi Arabian Lockheed L-1011 on a flight from Karachi to Jeddah via Riyadh reported smoke in the aft cargo compartment shortly after take off from the capital's King Khalid International Airport. The aircraft returned to the airport and landed safely, however an emergency evacuation of the aircraft was not ordered. With a delay in evacuating the passengers, fire consumed the aircraft on the ground, killing all 287 passengers and 14 crew

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/saudi163/1.jpg

Calligula
21st Aug 2005, 02:09
BA50.

You are right of course.

Kapt M - a question.

I have read of horror stories where any incident involving pax injuries in Japan is taken right 'over the top' by the Japanese police.

Are these sort of reports a beat up, or is there a real issue here.

During an evac it is almost inevitable that there will be some minor injuries.

petitfromage
21st Aug 2005, 03:01
There are 3 cargo compartments in the 330. The foward, aft & bulk. (the aft and the bulk are seperated only by a net, so for the purpose of the fire detection/extinguishing system they are considered one compartment).

The forward compartment has 2 cavities, each with 2 smoke detectors. The aft/bulk has 3 cavites and 6 detectors.

Airbus use 2 types of detector...optical & ionisation. I dont know what sort QF 330s have.

There is also an optional system that, upon detecting smoke, isolates the effected compartment and turns off the extraction vans that ventilate the compartment. I do not know in QF brought this option?

There are 2 fire bottles that can be fired into either compartment. The ECAM checklist would have required the crew to fire both bottles.
The 1st bottle dischrages rapidly (60secs). The 2nd is flow metering and contniues to 'top up' the compartment for a further 280mins (4:40hrs)

The cockpit indications of a cargo fire will remain on...they cannot be extinguished as the fire bottle agent will contnue to trigger the sensors.

The crew cannot, obviously, assume the fire is out....they must assume otherwise. They can only attempt to confirm through other means if they fire indication etc was real...eg: ATC or cabin crew (sensing smoke or hot floor etc).

Hope this helps those interested in 'the system'.

KIX would be a shit of an airport to do a high speed, emergency approach into in the 330. (Due to terrain)

Its sounds like the crew did the right thing....however, as Kaptain M says, the real fun will start now that the Japanese police/system have got their fingers in the pie.

PS: as for the system itself; high humidity can set it off in error and as happened to me, so can the exhaust from the neighbouring aircrafts APU. Its very sensitive!

*Lancer*
21st Aug 2005, 04:36
Just out of curiousity, what's the extinguishing agent? Not halon?

404 Titan
21st Aug 2005, 04:53
There are 2 fire bottles in each compartment. The ECAM checklist would have required the crew to fire both bottles.
Just a clarification to the previous post. There are two fire bottles total for the cargo compartments that can be either discharged into the forward or aft/bulk cargo compartments. A fire extinguishing button for the forward or aft/bulk will automatically discharge both bottle into the respective compartment. Once the bottles have been discharged they are no longer available for the other compartment if god for bid you had a second cargo smoke warning in that second compartment.

Wizofoz
21st Aug 2005, 05:09
Sounds like he did all the right things. I would suspect the "smoke" the tower saw was the agent from the extinguishers.

About time Japan joined the rest of the world when it comes to aircraft accident investigation!!!

swh
21st Aug 2005, 09:51
HIALS,

Its not just an Airbus problem, happens with the 744 in the tropics also.

:ok:

Non Normal
21st Aug 2005, 10:00
I read that 8 out of 9 people taken to hospital were female.

It just made me wonder... does anyone have any figures pertaining to the injury rate for male/female in evacuation (please provide link if possible)?

Capt Fathom
21st Aug 2005, 10:18
happens with the 744 in the tropics also

Why in the tropics ? What's the difference?

swh
21st Aug 2005, 10:30
High humidity, like taking a drink bottle out of the fridge, will form beads of water on the outside of the bottle. When these aircraft come in from cruise the holds are cold relative to the outside, dew forms, sets the sensor off.

travel thickness
21st Aug 2005, 10:35
When was the last time we heard about a jumbo being involved in a similar incident?

swh
21st Aug 2005, 11:03
From Flight (http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/08/09/Navigation/195/200756/+NASA+smoke+detector+reduces+false+alarms.html)

The FAA has estimated from airline maintenance reports that 100-200 smoke detector false alarms occur for every actual on-board fire and flightcrews cannot verify fire sensor readings from remote compartments.

travel thickness
21st Aug 2005, 11:06
How many of these incidents relate to jumbos?
Or are you perhaps just guessing?

swh
21st Aug 2005, 11:18
travel thickness,

No idea of the exact numbers, feel free to contact Gary Hunter at NASA Glenn Research Center he is the world expert, email [email protected]

Example of a 747 incident report I have read ..

"Lower aft cargo hold fire warning. A/c diverted emergency evacuation. False fire warning. Following a lower aft cargo hold fire warning a/c diverted to lajes where an emergency evacuation was effected. Some difficulty due to excessive force needed to open fully doors 2 & 4 l & 2 & 5 r. Several passengers sustained minor injuries. The cause of the firewarning was attributed to condensation emanating from a considerable quantity of 'warm' fruit. The two detectors were slightly oversensitivebut this is considered a very minor contributory factor. A mod has been initiated to fit a dual loop smoke detector system."

:ok:

P.S. Whats your beef with QF ?

No Communication...
The aircraft was crewed by shorthaul crew ex Perth.
No language speaker was onboard.
Pax were not briefed.
They had no idea of what was happening.
A most terrifying experience.
Cost cutting =no language speaker=very poor customer service.


from http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=186721

OhForSure
21st Aug 2005, 11:29
404 & Petite:

Thanks for the info!:ok:

TAC On
21st Aug 2005, 13:01
Sounds like a job well done.

Nice to know Q does have some professionals.

(See Calligula I can be nice)

TO

No Further Requirements
21st Aug 2005, 22:29
Don't know if this has been suggested before, but do any airliners have CCTV set up in the holds? This could be a way to verify the sensors' indication. I suppose it adds weight, but not that much?

Cheers,

NFR.

Milt
21st Aug 2005, 23:01
The Slides.

Are the slides readily repacked and rearmed ready for reuse or do they have to be replaced for a quick turn around?

travel thickness
22nd Aug 2005, 01:45
Swiss Cheese...cost cutting....no language speaker ,aircraft that are the Hyundai of the skies...compromising pax safety..That dear boy is my problem.
Remember QF 1 BKK?.....a pure example of the swiss cheese principal.

BankAngle50
22nd Aug 2005, 03:27
Genuine Skyundai 330 replacement skins. Arrhh Quality!
More importantly cheap!

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/9688/airbus20a330300200023rl.jpg

Full spares kit

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/6842/airbus330kit4wr.jpg

Dambuster
22nd Aug 2005, 03:33
Bank Angle 50.

With the initiative and nouse that you exhibit perhaps you should take up the posting as Qantas Chief of Engineering.

What frightens me is that the bean counters would believe it !!!

If only the appropriate bean counters were shit-scared of flying, you'd get alot more out of the barstards!

swh
22nd Aug 2005, 04:15
travel thickness,

"Remember QF 1 BKK?.....a pure example of the swiss cheese principal."

Are you suggesting that the 744 is a "Hyundai of the skies" as well or is it more of a Combi-van or Tarago...the A330 is designed to a newer certification standard than the 767 and 747, it has met and exceeded those standards.

How one airline makes a fit out for an aircraft type, cannot be used to make a safety case for the aircraft. It has been mentioned elsewhere that a number of deficiencies in the procurement of the A330 were made, you cannot blame Airbus for delivering the aircraft to the customer specification contracted.

I noticed you have amended your previous posts from
"Cost cutting =no language speaker=very poor customer service."
to
"Cost cutting =no language speaker=very poor customer safety."

If you believe strongly that safety has been compromised, have you made a written report of the same ? If yes, what was the feedback you received ?

On a personal note, I have flown with Perth based crew as pax, as well as east coast long haul crews, the "service" I have received as a passenger, and attention to safety details in my view when as a pax seemed higher from the Perth based crews.

If you have safety concerns, technical crew, ground staff, and you managers will back you up 150%. If you try and push safety as a wheel barrow for EBA and IR reasons (e.g. only Australian long haul crews should do international sectors), don’t expect the same level of support here or elsewhere.

:ok:

blueloo
22nd Aug 2005, 04:51
It was cost cutting regarding the language speakers on the PERTH TOKYO Flight.

Perth Longhaul have been flying the Tokyo trips for the best part of 3-4 years now. In nearly all cases 2 or 3 Japanese speakers are planned as crew - this obviously helps customer service and in the event of an emergency helps significantly. An incident on a Melbourne Tokyo QANTAS flight highlighted this (there were no language speakers on board when the aircaft had to divert) , and as a result the Japanese language speakers were returned to these services.

In the last bid periods out of Perth, this bid period inclusive and particularly the Tokyo Perth Flight that this incident has just occured on, the flights have been crewed by Short Haul Perth based cabin crew -they are much cheaper to use on long flights with large transits (ie 80 hours). This change is a direct result of cost cutting (and their FAAA. In so doing there are no Japanese language speakers on board as part of the normal crew compliment. In all of QANTAS's wisdom, after the short haul crew on these services started serving Japanese meals for dinner instead of breakfast along with a few other stuff ups, they realised that yet again they needed language speakers on board. So QANTAS's short term money saving solution has been to have a short haul crew complimented by 1 long haul crew language speaker (instead of the minimum 2 normally used). This 1 extra crew member is purely for PAs etc and are treated as a "Sherpa".

In this particular incident, the Sherpa had gone sick in Japan.

The only language speaker on board was an off duty Long haul Perth based Japanese cabin crew who was paxing home from his family in Japan.

travel thickness
22nd Aug 2005, 05:16
1.I make no suggestion regarding the integrity of 747s
2.Customer Safety was my intention,hence the ammendment.
3.The sensor has been a known problem for some time on ALL these aircraft,not just QF.
4.I have written reports, emails etc.regarding a number of safety issues with respect to systems and aircraft fitouts....The response...deafening silence.
Why?
It will cost money to fix the problems.
5.You obviously don`t work for QF or you would realize that safety has become lip service.
6.If you do work for QF then perhaps you are part of the problem.
7.I have no problem with service offered by PER shorthaul crew.
My attitude has and always will be "Safety above Service".
Something that that myopic prick Dixon seems to have forgotten.
Now,anything else you need clarified,feel free.I am only too happy to oblige

swh
22nd Aug 2005, 16:53
travel thickness,

1.I make no suggestion regarding the integrity of 747s

Is there an integrity issue with any aircarft type in the fleet ?

Not part of the problem, just sick of hearing everthing is safety issue when in general its an industrial issue made to sound like an safety issue.

:sad:

travel thickness
22nd Aug 2005, 19:40
I have no IR barrow to push.
Regarding the scarebus its what I hear,see and experience.
The aircraft is not robust
Its daily utilisation is the worst in the fleet.
Many of your colleagues(assuming you are pilot)think its crap
The LAMES are not impressed
The pax are not impressed.
I have an opinion...to which I am entitled.
You have an opinion...to which you are entitled .
Lets leave it at that...shall we?

VH-Cheer Up
23rd Aug 2005, 01:37
You don't need to be a fluent speaker of a language to learn some simple safety basics.

Why doesn't the airline teach ALL CC to say the vital instructions required for passenger safety in the main language of the origin and destination of each flight. E.G. Brace, Jump, Run, Now, Stop, Go, Quick...?

Doesn't seem like that tall an order, does it?

VHCU

H_Girl
23rd Aug 2005, 02:10
Threre was a language speaker on board who did the PA's for the crew.

He was a Perth L/H japanese F/A who was coming home from visiting family up there.

i say good on him for stepping in, whilst not on duty to get them out of the poo.

Capn Bloggs
23rd Aug 2005, 02:24
Why doesn't the airline teach ALL CC to say the vital instructions required for passenger safety in the main language of the origin and destination of each flight

Like learning your Recalls/Memory Items in 2 different non-native languages? I don't think that would be a good idea. In the heat of the moment, you're bound to stuff it up.

VH-Cheer Up
23rd Aug 2005, 03:59
Captain Bloggs

I don't think that would be a good idea. In the heat of the moment, you're bound to stuff it up.

Good to see someone who's unafraid to scale the dizzy heights. I bet you know the word for beer in a few different languages. I'm just talking about exercising that memory gland for a few trolley-pushers. I bet if half of them remembered something it would be better than nothing.

The latest crash comic suggests assertive cabin crew can save lives in these situations. Let 'em be assertive in Japanese, French or German - maybe then the non-English-speaking xenophobes will sit up and take notice, drop their canapes and briskly jump onto the slides and get the heck outta there.

And if they did stuff it up, what's the worst thing that could happen? Would it be worse than the prospect of immolation?

VHCU

Capn Bloggs
23rd Aug 2005, 06:02
Cheerup,

Sorry; just expressing an opinion. I'll now go out and shoot myself. And no, I don't know "beer" in any language apart from English.

coitus interuptus
23rd Aug 2005, 06:28
Thats right bloggs. God forbid you have an opinion in Oz that upsets some of the sweethearts. You instantly become a redneck, racist or xeonophobe or all of the above. Cabin crew have historically had indifferent results in completing evacuations in one language, let alone 2 or more. It is completely natural to revert to the native language, hence a multitude of nationalities on some airlines.

Bodum
24th Aug 2005, 08:05
I dont want to start a Short Haul versus Long Haul battle here and I certainly will never defend the companies attitude towards cost cutting.

I operated (SYD base CSM operating with PER F/As) on this same flight a week before and was lucky enough to have a Language speaker provided on board, and it was brilliant, and I can definately see in an emergency how it is essential. I also would like to add that the Perth crew were excellent, especially their knowledge of the service and procedures, a passenger that night would not have known which division we operate in.

I personally know 7 of the 10 Cabin Crew involved in Saturday nights emergency, one who frequents this forum, and would like to congratulate them all on doing an excellent job.

Whether its Shorthaul, Longhaul, whatever, a textbook evacuation was carried out in under 90 seconds..with no lives lost..end of story..

:ok:

BankAngle50
24th Aug 2005, 10:19
Wonder how long SWH has been employed by Airbus?
In any case he must be the only who thinks they make quality aircraft. :p
CX had plenty of problems when they came; including shutdowns (remember the gear boxes). 340-600-Aerodynamically flawed, you need a new yaw damper every second sector. Ask the "ginger beers" that have to constantly fix them. To compare them (quality/dispatch etc..) to a 744 is a joke!

Geoff likes them for one reason-their cheap! Remember GOD’s comments at the 380 Superjunk launch, “the most attractive quality is the price!”:ooh:

swh
24th Aug 2005, 10:51
Yet another expert ....

CX had plenty of problems when they came; including shutdowns (remember the gear boxes). 330-600-Aerodynamically flawed, you need a new yaw damper every second sector. Ask the "ginger beers" that have to constantly fix them. To compare them (quality/dispatch etc..) to a 744 is a joke!

Must be a new model that I dont know about.

:ugh:

404 Titan
24th Aug 2005, 11:17
BankAngle50

I am very well aware of the limitations of Airbus products, particularly the A340-600. Frankly I have not heard of any problem with the yaw damper on the said aircraft with CX. This is news to me. I will ask a LAME next week when I take one to New York.

labia vortex
24th Aug 2005, 12:10
...and your not representing yourself as an expert?

The_Cutest_of_Borg
24th Aug 2005, 12:47
Kap M. Is it true that most Japanese pilots carry an open dated ticket out of the country on them every flight?

This, in case they have an incident in which someone gets hurt or worse, with the idea of leaving the country before the bovver boys of the police get to them?

There is a lot to this incident, particularly the way the tech crew were treated by the Japanese police, that still needs to come out in the wash. Suffice to say that there are real flight safety implications in how a crew with a similar emergency, or worse, may view what may await them if the nearest suitable airport happens to be in Japan.

nuff said for the time being.

AIRWAY
24th Aug 2005, 12:54
Here we go, Airbus is crap and Boeing is the best, argument :hmm:

OZcabincrew
24th Aug 2005, 15:14
The_Cutest_of_Borg

I have heard that too about the Japanese pilots, wouldn't surprise me considering the Japanese authorities seem to be in a world of their own.

Oz

swh
24th Aug 2005, 17:13
You have an incident here (or ANY other country), and it's "Welcome to MY world!"

Yep, china airlines loss of hydraulic pressure ends up in a off the side of the runway stop at sydney in an A340...would have been arrested elsewhere...no one arrested or prevented from flying in oz..some countries do actually take ICAO annex 13 in the sprit it was intended...i.e. the promotion of safety....

Your point being ...

:hmm:

jettlager
25th Aug 2005, 11:26
A cut and paste from crikey.com re QANTAS's cost cutting measures.

--------------------------

Is Qantas compromising its passengers' safety by cost-cutting?

Crikey Daily - Wednesday, 24 August

Crikey received this tip from an anonymous subscriber:
It is a requirement of Japanese law that all foreign air carriers, operating into and out of Japan must have a Japanese language speaker as part of the crew complement. Qantas have as a matter of course, over the past 18 months or so been operating into and out of Japan with domestic crews. Historically these crews are not language qualified. I am led to believe that the Qantas crew involved in this week's emergency disembarkation in Japan didn't have a Japanese language speaker as part of the crew complement. The PAs to passengers were made by a holidaying Qantas employee. If this is the case, Qantas has violated its agreement on flying into and out of Japan.
Advertisement

That's a pretty serious accusation against Qantas following the recent emergency landing in Osaka where nine people were injured. The plane, carrying 178 passengers and 13 crew, was on its way from Tokyo to Perth when it diverted to Osaka.

So did Qantas contravene Japanese law? No, says Geoffrey Tudor, director of public relations at Japan Airlines, telling us that there is "no legal requirement – under Japanese aviation law – for Qantas or any foreign airline to have Japanese speaking crew."

But in another respect, our tipster seems to be on the money – the recent emergency landing and subsequent passenger evacuation was apparently "anything but usual," an ex-Qantas exec tells Crikey. "I have it on very good authority" that a "non crew member on board gave the emergency evacuation PA after landing, where the predominantly Japanese passengers were herded out of the aircraft via the slides."

Why wasn't there a bilingual crew member on hand to assist Japanese passengers? We called Qantas, where a spokesman called Lloyd (he wouldn't give his last name) told us that there had been a fluent Japanese speaker on board. In a follow up call, we asked Lloyd whether this person was a member of the flight's crew? The answer: no. On this particular flight, he said, the normal Japanese speaker was ill, and wasn't on board. So it was another Qantas crew member – not assigned to the flight – who stepped in.

Had this stand-in not been available, however, would Qantas have left its Japanese passengers in the dark? When asked if Qantas always has a local speaker on board, Lloyd told us that it wasn't Qantas policy per se. Instead, it's a "matter of course" – and Qantas "aims to have" a fluent speaker on board. So if a Japanese speaker hadn't been available on the day, Japanese passengers could have been left without a guide.

In fact, says our ex-Qantas exec, Qantas "used to employ Japanese Flight Attendants based in Japan who flew on the route for both customer services reasons eg helping Japanese passengers fill in immigration entry cards for Australia, and for safety reasons. Being Japanese Cabin Crew, these crew were fully trained in all safety and emergency evacuations procedures on a regular basis." So why is this no longer the case? "Simple, cost cutting of the like still being advocated by Dixon and Dame Margaret!!" Ah well, he says, "as long as no shareholders on-board were inconvenienced then I guess it was OK (not)."

------------

Qantas- "Where it is all about money."



:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Chief Chook
25th Aug 2005, 11:35
"S$%T HAPPENS"!
Yours truly,
QANTAS.


I was told this by "Three Bars", a QANTAS contributor on this forum discussing another thread.

Fatter Bastard
25th Aug 2005, 12:30
I spoke to a few of the passengers who were on that flight. Very interestingly, one passenger told me he was interviewed by one of the airport police. He showed me the cops business card. The cop asked him (through an interpreter), "Do you think the crew should be punished?".

Bear in mind this was only hours after the incident. The passenger said he was flabbergasted and could not even understand why he was being asked this question. He said the crew had done everything in their power to help the passengers even to the extent of protecting passengers from media in the terminal.

Cover your ass in japan.

The_Cutest_of_Borg
25th Aug 2005, 12:33
The evacuation command was given by the Captain via the evacuation horn- end of story.

If anyone has ever heard how loud that horn is , you'd know that any PA was superfluous.

OZcabincrew
25th Aug 2005, 17:37
Once again Jettlager,

yes there was a language speaker on board which went ill in Narita, so a paxing japanese speaking F/A was used. What would be the case if you had 2 or even 3 language speakers onboard and they all went sick from food poisoning or something, you would use your resources and use a passenger like a tour leader etc that could speak both English and Japanese. I am made aware by a long haul CSM that she has been on numerous Japan trips with long haul crew and no language speaker, so..........

Also the evacuation was not given by a PA, it was initiated by the evacuation signal alarm which prompt crew to start the evacuation commands/process, including the paxing language speaker yelling the commands in Japanese in the cabin, because as every paxing crew member is required to assist in such a situation.

There are still about 6 QF long haul Japanese crew still based in Japan, it is all very quiet though, don't hear much about it.

Again i say, don't try and post facts when you don't know. I was on the damn flight, message me and i will tell you directly! There is no finding fault in the crew, absolutely i agree we need atleast 2 language speakers onboard and this has been expressed to management.

Oz

Three Bars
25th Aug 2005, 21:27
Yeah Chook. "S$%T Happens". Particularly in aviation. If you think it doesn't, you obviously don'y have any right to contribute to these forums, because all who fly know that S$%T happens every day to every one of us (whoever we fly for). Sometimes its just the depth that varies and how we manage to deflect it.

If you hate QF, why don't you just say that instead!! It'd be much clearer for everybody, than trying to imply somehow that its just Qantas that these incidents happen to.

Chief Chook
25th Aug 2005, 22:26
Sorry mate .........

"S$%T Happens. Particularly in aviation."

See ya in four days........

Woomera

Three Bars
25th Aug 2005, 23:06
Chook,

You are obviously just trying to bait me, so I am not going to reply to your crap again. If you want to believe a conspiracy theory then go ahead - nothing I can say is ever going to change your tiny mind. The issues have been argued repeatedly.

S$%T does happen in aviation over and over again. I will continue to try to deal with it as best I can - ever if your worthless carcass was on board my aircraft.

Goodbye! :yuk: :yuk: :mad:

The_Cutest_of_Borg
25th Aug 2005, 23:25
CC, you have nailed your anti-QF colours to the mast. Just go and play with yourself elsewhere old son, we know your twisted opinions.

Those of you trying to find fault with the way a situation was handled, look elsewhere. The word is that this crew did it right and did it well.

If a language speaker went sick and wasn't available, that happens. You don't cancel a flight because of it.

I just marvel that some would attempt to find some aspect of this situation that didn't go as a canned exercise would, and use it as some pathetic excuse to further their own tiny little vendettas against QF.

blueloo
26th Aug 2005, 00:27
Prior to shorthaul taking over the NRT flight, there were 2 Longhaul Japanese speakers on every flight. At 1 stage it was only 1, but after about 2 years, with enough complaints it was raised to 2 - this was not made a requirement per say, but in the bidding, 2 were planned. In short hauls attempt to undercut mainline, these language speakers were removed.

That is until the NRT groundstaff were inundated with complaints from Japanese passenegers, not just about lack of language speakers but also because of service (this presumably was teething trouble) - the longhaul cabin crew, had been giving special training for Japanese pax - being made aware of cultural issues, and service issues - the money saving solution, was to put an extra crew member on board - purely as a language speaker - they are only meant to help out over PAs or to deal with customers when there is a problem. They dont work carts, so they cant actually serve the passenegers.


Because of the pay structure, the PER-NRT flights have gone from the most popular flights, to the highest sick rates. In many cases it is young casuals who operate the flights.

Ultimately it is the passengers who suffer.

SHRAGS
28th Aug 2005, 08:43
This event begs the question............why do international operators continue to operate to a country that ignores ICAO conventions and locks up crew after an incident???

The message should be clear, follow the ICAO standard or pilots WILL NOT FLY INTO YOUR BACKWARD COUNTRY...!!!

Why don't the pilot Unions get together on this.

IFALPA etc, this is a damn serious issue and should be addressed before one of us is locked up for doing our job.

:* :mad:

Capt Fathom
28th Aug 2005, 13:32
why do international operators continue to operate to a country that ignores ICAO conventions and locks up crew after an incident???
Because the airlines don't give a flying forex about the crew. As long as they are making a profit...!!

The_Cutest_of_Borg
28th Aug 2005, 21:52
The captain could not complete his post evac duties because he was told to stand beside the nosewheel by a JCAB goon sporting a revolver on his waist. He was held waiting there for approx three hours after this traumatic event.

That, and details of the subequent "enquiry" (read interrogation), make this entire sorry saga unacceptable in my opinion.

OZcabincrew
29th Aug 2005, 08:48
while we were looking after the passengers inside the terminal after the incident while ground staff did absolutely nothing, the pilots were kept out on the tarmac with the authorities for a VERY long time, it was a very stressfull time for them all.

It sounds funny, but leaving the country isn't necessarily as stupid as it sounds, as the Captain can be held in prison for up to 28 days without being charged while the investigation continues. If there's any injuries, the Captain can be held completely responsible for them in Japan. It's a very different system over there.

Traffic
30th Aug 2005, 14:37
Some basic rules in Japan:

1. You are always guilty until you can prove your innocence.

2. The Japanese police are renowned for being strong against the weak and weak against the strong. They will tow away an old crippled lady's car but when the yakuza double park in Roppongi...there is not a policeman to be found.

3. Any accident or incident that happens must be at least partially attributable to you...because if you were not there it would not have happened!

4. As a foreign carrier, in such circumstances, always demand a representative from your government be in attendance when police wish to interview you. In this case the Ambassador saw it as sufficiently serious to attend...well done to him. The Australian Government should now follow up on the issues and anomolies in the Japanese system.

5. Always carry a small recording device.

The Captain is absolutely correct in refusing any Japan trips until this is sorted in writing to his satisfaction.

As someone has alluded to, the basic advice of the Japan pilots union is to have an open ticket out of the country at all times if you are aircrew living in or operating into Japan.

Finally, if the Japanese authorities will not budge on their non-conformist policies, foreign authorities should start harrassing Japanese airlines in subtle ways that will be easily interpreted as a protest against their non-conformist policies relating to
a/c incidents in their jurisdiction.

The Japanese aviation industry, as much as it detests this sytem of interference in aviation issues by the police, is powerless to do anything about it.

Change requires pressure from foreign governments at the highest level.

B772
3rd Sep 2005, 00:00
Ah Japan where the first Lexus showroom has just opened in Tokyo.

New lexus owners receive their purchase in a special 'presentation room' with wall to wall mirrors
which allows the proud owner(s) to admire themselves.

Japan is ok to visit but I would not want to work there.

China and Taiwan are also of concern to foreign pilots in the case of an incident. Jail is not appealing to me.

Incidentally the latest craze in China is naked internet chatting using webcams. A researcher has warned of the threat to public health and morality.

Apparently up to 20,000 Chinese chat each night in various stages of undress and chat while exposing themselves and performing provocative poses.

The researcher said it was thought initially that only a few mentally abnormal people indulged but the problem was much larger than expected.

I guess the QF cabin crew member found with a Japanese lass is still internet chatting.

aero82
3rd Sep 2005, 04:53
On a lighter note, it was great to hear Aussies flying EVA aircraft the night of the incident assisting Qantas with radio relays and wx updates. I hope the Q drivers appreciated the help.
Great airmanship lads.
Great Aussie Spirit.

Ronnie Honker
3rd Sep 2005, 09:20
By all reports, the aircraft was only a couple of hours out of NRT, why would they have required "radio relays"?
They would still have had VHF contact.
Wx updates would have been available by acars, or from Tokyo CTL.
???????????????????????

Capt Fathom
3rd Sep 2005, 10:38
Perhaps he had descended to a lower level in case things got 'out-of-hand'. I doubt I'd be hanging around 30 thousand feet with a cargo fire warning!

Ronnie Honker
3rd Sep 2005, 12:07
Care to explain the logic behind your thinking there, Capt Fathom?
They were over water, at night.

Descending to a lower level risks putting them out of radar coverage, and decreases the chance of VHF radio reception.
It would increase the air density, erso an increase in the oxygen level (which would HELP any possible fire).

rockarpee
3rd Sep 2005, 12:22
As captain fatom stated "if things got outa hand" I think maybe it was prudent thinking with a ditching very much on the cards if fire/smoke was genuine!!!!!

Ronnie Honker
3rd Sep 2005, 12:51
It IS the week-end.
It IS Saturday night!
Thank you - no further questions.

TAC On
4th Sep 2005, 01:05
Ronnie.

Can I suggest you study the fire suppression requirements for ETOPS certification, before you come back with any further comments.

TAC On

Bendy
4th Sep 2005, 23:15
Ronnie

I am assuming from your questions that you are an interested bystander and unable to reference a technical publication abou the subject. For your info, at first warning of Cargo Smoke/fire, Boeing's checklists ( and I assume Airbus) call for depressuriation of the aircraft and descent to 14000' or MEA/LSALT. This would be to "...reduce Cabin Differantial Pressure and resultant cargo compartment ventilation."

BTW unlikely to have VHF comms with anyone two hours out of Tokyo, even at normal cruise levels.

Cheers

Bendy

The_Cutest_of_Borg
5th Sep 2005, 00:26
and I assume Airbus

You assume wrongly.

Bendy
5th Sep 2005, 03:38
TCOB

You assume wrongly.

Sorry....

swh
5th Sep 2005, 04:16
Bendy, from the FCTM

FIRE PROTECTION

Fire and/or smoke in the fuselage present the crew with potentially difficult situations. Not only will they have to deal with the emergency itself, but also the passengers are likely to panic should they become aware of the situation. It is essential therefore, that action to control the source of combustion is not delayed. Consider an immediate diversion.

SMOKE

If smoke or fumes are detected in the flight deck, the crew should immediately don their oxygen masks with 100% selected.
Smoke in the cabin should be easily identifiable and thus easier to fight. The source is identified either by a local warning, e.g. lavatory fire, or by direct observation by the cabin crew. In every case, the aim is to isolate the source of the smoke and extinguish any fire. When fighting a fire in the cabin, wear a PBE to avoid smoke inhalation.
It is not so easy to identify the source of smoke from either the air conditioning or avionics. If the source of the smoke is immediately obvious, isolate the faulty equipment without delay.
Air conditioning smoke can be transported to other cabin areas and some difficulty may be encountered in identifying the origin of the smoke. Avionics smoke requires the crew to isolate the faulty equipment, which can also be quite difficult to ascertain. There may not be any ECAM warning. If this is the case, apply the QRH procedure.
The QRH procedure is designed to cover all cases even where the source of the smoke or fumes is unknown. It should be applied if smoke or fumes is detected with or without AVNCS VENT SMOKE ECAM activation. If the AVNCS VENT SMOKE ECAM procedure is displayed, suspect avionics smoke.

The single procedure layout is organised in three steps:
Common actions (before the text box). These should be applied
immediately, whatever the origin of the smoke, and before trying to identify this origin. They are designed to protect the crew, extract the smoke overboard, prevent smoke recirculation and isolate potential sources.
Smoke removal procedure (text box). At any time during the procedure, if dense smoke exists, the crew may apply the boxed items for smoke removal. The SMOKE REMOVAL procedure will eventually direct the crew back to complete the SMOKE/FUMES/AVNCS SMOKE procedure.
Specific actions to identify and isolate potential smoke sources (below text box).


CARGO SMOKE

The cargo smoke detectors are sensitive to the extinguishing agent. Therefore, even after successfully extinguishing a cargo fire, the SMOKE FWD (AFT/BULK) CRG SMOKE warning can be expected to remain. LAND ASAP in red is displayed on the ECAM. As there is no method of checking whether a cargo fire has been extinguished, divert to the nearest suitable airport.
On the ground, instruct the ground crew not to open the cargo door until the passengers have disembarked and fire services are present.
On the ground, smoke warnings may be triggered due to high levels of humidity or following spraying of a compartment to comply with quarantine regulations. If a SMOKE warning occurs on the ground with cargo compartment doors open, do not immediately discharge the extinguishing agent without first ordering the ground crew to investigate and eliminate the smoke source. If the warning is confirmed to be false, then once extinguished, it will be necessary to reset VENT CONT 1 & 2 reset buttons to restore normal cargo ventilation (FCOM 3.02.26 refers).

RaTa
5th Sep 2005, 07:28
Bendy

Actually it would seem that not all Boeing procedures are the same.
On our 767-300 the QRH calls for cabin altitude to be set to 7500ft if the aircraft is above 10,000ft.
If the aircraft's altitude is above FL350, then a decent to below FL350 is required.

Ronnie Honker
6th Sep 2005, 11:35
"Boeing's checklists call for depressuriation of the aircraft and descent to 14000' or MEA/LSALT." - Bendy.

Buzzzzzzzz. Wrrrronnngggg.
Not all Boeing checklists.

"BTW unlikely to have VHF comms with anyone two hours out of Tokyo, even at normal cruise levels." - Bendy.

Double jeopardy......Wrrrronnnnnnnggg again!
VHF comms is provided for more than 4 hours flight time by
1 Tokyo Control, then
2 Okinawa Control, then
3 Manila.

fartsock
6th Sep 2005, 13:37
Honker.

You show your ignorance here me old son.

A339 (MJE-CIN) which is the only route that QF79/70 ever flys (unless not ETOPS) has the following comms sequence.

Tyo Ctl (VHF) - Tyo Ctl (HF) - Naha (HF) - SFO (HF) - Ujung (128.1) - Bne...

Check your jepp chart and have a look at the FIR's

two hours out they would have been on HF, tends to relatively realatively quickly on this route.

Be VERY careful pal, the crew are well known to most in QF and are though very highly of...

Ronnie Honker
6th Sep 2005, 13:49
..unless deviating (north) around an approaching typhoon from the S.W.

Tokyo has VHF contact on 121.5 (by relay) for several hours out.

"..thought very highly of."
By whom?
the MAS?
Mutual Admiration Society ??!! :}

blueloo
7th Sep 2005, 02:58
ronnie, i can tell you on this route what you say about VHF coverage is utter crap. Generally speaking you bisect Koror and the Philipines and you are at least 400miles + from Manila and not withing a bulls roar of Manila Control on VHF. Transfer to VHF is after talking to Naha on HF, then around another 45minutes to Tokyo on HF, finally followed by the last 1hr 30 minutes odd on VHF. You are lucky if you can even talk to Manila on HF for the whole 3 waypoints you pass through on a tiny triangle of their airspace!


4 hours VHF coverage on this route....ha! NOT

Brisbane Lion
8th Sep 2005, 05:22
Fartsock says, "Be VERY careful pal, the crew are well known to most in QF and are though very highly of..."

If my memory serves me correctly, you're the guy who called his QF colleageus who went to AO "scabs". How dare you tell someone else to be "VERY careful", you embarrassing joke.

Stop having a go at other people when you are, so clearly, without credibility.

Go away.

I'm sure our AO brothers would agree......