Passengers were never in any danger [Archive]

Buster Hyman

9th Jan 2007, 21:29

January 9, 2007 - 8:37PM
Qantas boss Geoff Dixon has denied a cover-up by the airline after a report that a packed passenger jet flew with a huge hole torn in its side.
Qantas has been accused in a Seven Network report of ignoring the incident, covering it up, and of misleading air-safety authorities.
QF5, with 408 people on board travelling from Singapore to Frankfurt, was damaged by a blown tyre shortly after take-off on March 8, 2006.
"Any suggestion that Qantas's handling of the incident ... was covered up in any way is completely wrong," Mr Dixon said.
"There was no indication at the time of take-off that a tyre had shredded."
Mr Dixon said there was no damage to the aircraft that affected its air worthiness or safety.
"There was no risk to passengers or crew at any time," he said.
"The incident was reported to the ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) and CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority).
"Qantas also undertook its own investigation and provided its results to the Australian regulators, and to the air accident investigation bureau of Singapore.
"All decided that the incident did not warrant further investigation."
Seven reported that tyre debris tore a "huge hole", "three-metres long", in the jet's fuselage, and "no official investigation was launched".
"Qantas informed Australia's regulator (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA) that no investigation was launched," Seven reported.
Perth businessman Karl Dunbar said he could have crawled through the hole, which was the size of two refrigerators, that he saw in the jet at Frankfurt.
Seven quoted him as saying the incident was a cover-up.
Former CASA chairman Dick Smith said CASA investigators feel intimidated by Qantas.
"Employees have told me if we stood up to Qantas, we wouldn't have a career path," he told Seven.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson told Seven: "It's certainly not a matter of a covering anything up.
"It's about making the right safety judgments, and we believe that was done."
CASA ruled there was no risk to passenger safety.
© 2007 AAP (http://www.theage.com.au/notebn/aap.html)

Pity it wasn't Ansett Peter, then you could've had some real "on air" time whilst you were grounding planes.:suspect:

Was this the same hole that was mentioned in the AVV maintenance thread???

HotDog

9th Jan 2007, 21:41

"There was no risk to passengers or crew at any time," he said.

Correct, tyre debris punches a nasty looking hole in the fiberglass body fairing aft of the main gear doors but rarely affects the integrity of the pressure hull.

golfjet744

10th Jan 2007, 00:46

I believe this excellent piece of journalism may have something to do with an attempt to blackmail QF. Apparently a pilot was looking at photos of the damaged aircraft on their laptop in London. Fortunately for the citizens of the world an upstanding gentleman was looking over the pilots shoulder and then confronted the pilot about the photos.

Within a couple of days this heroic gent was demanding to speak to Geoff and demanding all sorts of rewards as hush payments. With out hush payments our intrepid fellow was going to go to Today Tonight or ACA. I am scratching my head to think why seven picked up the story. :hmm:

The unfortunate thing for him is that it was a complete non event, not a safety concern in sight. In fact it was excellently handled by the tech crew and cabin crew. The event was also a very good example of CRM with both sides of the cockpit door communicating in a professional manner to ensure that a potential safety concern resulted in a non event. :D

Where have all the JetStar bashers dissappeared to?

I guess we move on to the next size comparison. :}

Pete Conrad

10th Jan 2007, 01:08

So peuce......does that mean when Jetstar have a similar incident...we can all say.."where have all the QF bashers gone"..?????

Parrhresiastes

10th Jan 2007, 01:44

golfjet744

Your post has the clear ringing of verity about it.

Sorta makes the huffers and puffers around it look a bit silly don't you think.

In the not so long ago that would have been reported here first and those in the know would come and check before being suckered into embarrassing "statements ". Pyrrhic is a word that comes to mind.

QF MAINT OUTSOURCED

10th Jan 2007, 02:43

Bolty McBolt

10th Jan 2007, 02:59

Buster hyman said
Was this the same hole that was mentioned in the AVV maintenance thread???

Totaly different to the AVV thread.

Tyres on QF flights have burst and done similar damage reported in this thread approx 10 times before. Majority of the time the aircraft continued to its destination, all without (further) incident.

If it has happened on QF 744 fleet it has happened on all other operators fleets which means if it was a problem boeing would have mandated a fix.

So while a hole in the fiber glass wing to body fairings looks aweful it does not pose any safety issues.

I hate to say it but I agree with Geoff Dixon in this case :yuk:

peuce

10th Jan 2007, 03:01

So peuce......does that mean when Jetstar have a similar incident...we can all say.."where have all the QF bashers gone"..?????

I guess my point is (bearing in mind I do not work for any airline) that as soon as Jetstar has a leaking fuel tank (which by all accounts is not an infrequent event within the world airline fleet) and passengers are put up in hotel, PPruners come down on them like a ton of bricks. We want explanations! We want answers!

Qantas flys for 10 hours with a 3 metre hole in its fuselage ... which is "assumed" to be of little significance by the company ... and it's suddenly good airmanship ... but let's keep it quiet.

To the casual observer, it smacks of double standards.

peuce

10th Jan 2007, 03:03

Buster hyman said
So while a hole in the fiber glass wing to body fairings looks aweful it does not pose any safety issues.

Yes, but who inspected the damage in flight and made the assessment?

QF MAINT OUTSOURCED

10th Jan 2007, 03:12

Buster hyman said

Totaly different to the AVV thread.

Tyres on QF flights have burst and done similar damage reported in this thread approx 10 times before. Majority of the time the aircraft continued to its destination, all without (further) incident.

If it has happened on QF 744 fleet it has happened on all other operators fleets which means if it was a problem boeing would have mandated a fix.

So while a hole in the fiber glass wing to body fairings looks aweful it does not pose any safety issues.

I hate to say it but I agree with Geoff Dixon in this case :yuk:

so are you saying they should of taken a punt to continue,while not knowing what damaged was sustained,this is what set Qantas apart from everone else years ago and this is what gave it such a great safety record,DONT TAKE ANY RISKS

Pete Conrad

10th Jan 2007, 03:14

There are a LOT of double standards in this industry peuce...........

HotDog

10th Jan 2007, 03:42

so are you saying they should of taken a punt to continue,while not knowing what damaged was sustained,this is what set Qantas apart from everone else years ago and this is what gave it such a great safety record,DONT TAKE ANY RISKS

I have experienced three or four tyre burst episodes during take off in my flying career. Each time the gear retracted normally and we were unaware of the situation until ATC informed us that we left tyre debris on the runway. All systems were operating normally so it made no sense to abort the flight, dump down to ldg. wt. and return. You have to make a landing anyhow, it may as well be your destination airport that was informed of possible need for emergency equipment to be on standby. Don't see where the risk factor is; Outsourced.

Buster Hyman

10th Jan 2007, 03:44

Yeah, got that thanks Bolty. :ok: Had a brainstorm afterwards & went & had a look!:rolleyes:

So, tyre debris damaged the aircraft...is the affected area weaker, or as strong as the area near the fuel tanks?

I think you all know where I'm going with this...

Hot Dog. (and anyone else for that matter) Would you take into consideration the location of the damage, ie; leading edge for example? Could 8, 10, 12 hours at cruise impact on the surface structure of the wing/fuselage? I'm thinking Aloha, but knowing this isn't the same damage or location...(Serious Q from a non Tech/Engr)

Bolty McBolt

10th Jan 2007, 03:46

Yes, but who inspected the damage in flight and made the assessment?
Peuce.
I hope that is rhetorical question.

The aircraft took off from SIN with no discernable problems except for slightly larger than usual bump on takeoff roll.
Comms carried out with various departments Maint, Ops, tower etc
The aircraft experienced no buffeting or control issues.
SIN airport did not report any debris left behind by the airborne aircraft.
The pilot continued to destination.
As I have mentioned this has happened more than a few times before.
With the benefit of experience continued to destination.

2 months prior a QF 5 left SIN and experienced similar on take off. The aircraft experienced buffeting and vibration that increased with speed.
The pilot dumped fuel and returned to SIN, pax off loaded to hotels while aircraft repaired but there is no debate about this incident.
On this occasion there was no gaping hole in the fairings or damage that the untrained eye would notice therefore not news worthy due no pictures to exaggerate a story.

You seem more concerned with aesthetics and semantics rather than aircraft serviceability.
The 747 is not a concourse show piece you would expect to see on display at the "summer nats" its much more akin to the bus you would catch to travel to Canberra :ok:

Bolty McBolt

10th Jan 2007, 04:03

Buster Hyman
Stop thinking concorde. This is not a fuel tank damage issue.
The fairings that sustained damage are as strong as a fibreglass surfboard. IE if you were big enough and mad enough you could probably put your fist thru it not that I would advise trying.
The panels damaged are "fairings" that smooth the contour of the wing to the fuselage. Aerodynamic purposes. The damage would have added to the aircrafts drag but obviously not enough to effect reaching destination some 13 hours away.
This is an important fact as any QF 744 pilot can attest to. QF 744 fuel policy is about carrying minium fuel. So any substantial increase in drag would have resulted in a diversion for fuel.

Hot Dog I totally agree.(thats twice today) If you have burst tyres you still have to land somewhere. May as well be your destination with services informed.

golfjet744

10th Jan 2007, 04:09

I guess my point is (bearing in mind I do not work for any airline) that as soon as Jetstar has a leaking fuel tank (which by all accounts is not an infrequent event within the world airline fleet) and passengers are put up in hotel, PPruners come down on them like a ton of bricks. We want explanations! We want answers!

Qantas flys for 10 hours with a 3 metre hole in its fuselage ... which is "assumed" to be of little significance by the company ... and it's suddenly good airmanship ... but let's keep it quiet.

To the casual observer, it smacks of double standards.

I don’t think anyone is picking on Jetstar for poor airmanship. In fact not taking the bus for a trip with a leaking tank is good airmanship. Full points to the Jetstar boys and girls. :ok:

I would suggest that the jetstar bashing over the PHNL debacle is more to do with the fact that Jetstar has been set up with the underlying principle that management knows best, and all the front line workers are greedy overpaid good for nothings.

Several engineers and pilots could have wandered into their manager’s office and prevented this delay from occurring (a couple of years ago this would have happened). But under the current ‘management knows best’ climate we all just sit back watch the resultant mess and shake our heads. When the company calls you for a favour to sort the mess out, we don’t answer unless contractually obliged. Sad isn’t it. :{

As for a QF worker wandering into the office to ensure that Jetstar runs smoothly, well that would be a bit like the USA funding al-Qa’ida – not very smart.

By the way the tire blow-out wasn’t kept quite. Sure it wasn’t publicised with a full page spread in the paper but it wasn’t hidden from anyone. QF safety did an investigation and I believe that CASA chose not to do an investigation because it was such a minor event. CASA do investigate QF from time to time and they are not always complimentary in their findings.

Capt Claret

10th Jan 2007, 04:10

I propose that after each takeoff, the aircraft should return to the departure field to be inspected by licenced engineers to ensure nothing untoward occurred during the takeoff and that it is safe to continue. :oh: :zzz:

lowerlobe

10th Jan 2007, 04:39

Capt Claret,

I think you've stumbled onto a great idea there.

This could be groundhog day II.

The Capt is the only one who remembers taking off and just after take off wakes back up in his room at the crew pub only to have to go through it all again.

My people can talk to your people and we'll get a script going

Jet_A_Knight

10th Jan 2007, 04:58

"
8 March 2006 Qantas tyre burst incident in Singapore
10 January 2007
The ATSB has reviewed safety information on a Qantas 747 tyre burst incident on take-off at Singapore Airport on 8 March 2006 and agrees with the Singapore and German authorities that there was no safety concern warranting a major investigation.
In March 2006, specialist investigators in Australia, Singapore and Germany determined after preliminary investigation that a full investigation was not warranted. From September 2006, the ATSB and Singapore Air Accidents Investigation Branch reviewed detailed material received with the full cooperation of Qantas and again determined a major investigation was not required.
While tyre burst incidents can be potentially very serious, in the Singapore incident the aircraft crew was not aware of any damage to the aircraft as a result of the loss of one of its 18 tyres on take-off until about 6 hours into the flight to Frankfurt when a problem with the number 4 hydraulic system became apparent. The crew managed the problem and landed safely in Frankfurt where the damage to the aircraft wing-to-aircraft body fairing (fibreglass non-structural) outer skin was seen. Repairs were made and appropriate safety authorities notified.
Under international aviation law (the Chicago Convention and its Annex 13) the country of occurrence is responsible for any safety investigation. Singapore assessed that the occurrence was not an accident or serious incident as defined by Annex 13 and decided not to investigate.
Modern passenger aircraft have many redundant safety systems and while damage to the aircraft’s fairing may look very worrying to the general public, it was superficial and did not affect the structural integrity of the aircraft. There is also no suggestion of a systemic problem with 747 tyres or the aircraft’s hydraulic systems.
The ATSB investigates aircraft accidents and serious incidents in Australia and has to apply judgement as to which of the more than 7000 occurrences reported annually warrant investigation within a budget that allows for about 30 larger and 60 smaller new investigations. Similar judgements are made by other professional investigation bodies around the world.
The ATSB investigates all fatal accidents (except sport aviation) which are overwhelmingly in the general aviation sector and all accidents involving international carriers in Australia. A number of recent ATSB investigations have involved aircraft in the Qantas group, which is in line with Australian passenger airline activity levels.
After further review of the circumstances of the tyre burst, the ATSB agrees with the Singapore authorities that a major investigation would not contribute to future safety in a manner that would be likely to lead to an improvement in 747 or tyre design, manufacture or operations.
Media Contact: George Nadal Tel: 1800 020 616 "

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story:hmm:

news

10th Jan 2007, 05:48

It seems common that crew of large aircraft do not know their tyres are falling apart becoming defective on take off.
The crew would become aware of a mishap should the occurrence create a non normal situation with another system. However their actions would only be reactive to the system problem without knowing the cause. Is it wise to fly an aircraft with a system fault that you cannot determine the cause of?
What if the problem occurred at night or in bad vis and the tower was unable to inform the crew. Would the problem lay dormant, if retraction was normal, until finals at the other end.
In the end its all about safety and the best option. Is safety jeopardised in any way by tyres becoming defective? Some would say yes others no.
What does the Qantas SOPs say for such an occurrence. Is it clear cut return or go, or is an involved decision process required where all the information is considered. The only problem with that is the crew won't know the extent of the damage. Is that a good way to fly?

peuce

10th Jan 2007, 05:50

While tyre burst incidents can be potentially very serious, in the Singapore incident the aircraft crew was not aware of any damage to the aircraft as a result of the loss of one of its 18 tyres on take-off until about 6 hours into the flight to Frankfurt when a problem with the number 4 hydraulic system became apparent. The crew managed the problem and landed safely in Frankfurt where the damage to the aircraft wing-to-aircraft body fairing (fibreglass non-structural) outer skin was seen. Repairs were made and appropriate safety authorities notified.

That clears it up for me.
Myself, and other posters, were concerned that the flight was knowingly allowed to continue on without an assessment of the damage ... as the only "reported" assessment was Geoff Dixon's 20/20 hindsight at the other end. However, as in this case, if you are not aware of any damage, you can't be expected to assess it.

golfjet744 I take your point. But as an outsider, without knowledge of the internal politics, the continual Jetstar bashing appears to be a symptom of an unlevel playing field. But, that's life and we all have to make our travelling decisions based on our own best judgement.

Jet_A_Knight

10th Jan 2007, 06:24

News:
From your post, I am assuming you are not a pilot.

Let me put it in this basic way - others may be able to give more details about the 747 - but basically, this is how it works.

1. Aeroplanes are machines made up of numerous parts, in numerous sub systems, of which there are multiples of most of these subsystems (engines/electric/hydraulics/avionics etc).

2. Parts often fail in these systems, being machines.

3. The pilots are 'experts' on the machine they have THEIR arse strapped to, and understand the inter-relationship between the sub-systems, the ramifications of the failure of one or more of them, (whether they know the cause of it working or not) and then use the company SOP's as a guide (which may or may not apply to every scenario or failure) and then use their wisdom, nouse, gut feeling or rat-cunning that they have garnered from operating experience and experience on type, to look at all the options and how it affects the flight, draw a conclusion from the FACTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THEM, and to make a decision about whether it is safe, legal or indeed prudent, to continue with the flight.

4. It is generally, not in the pilot's best interest to continue flight with an 'unsafe aircraft', to risk his/her arse, that is strapped to the same machine as the pax.

Chimbu chuckles

10th Jan 2007, 06:39

Jet...if the media did research before airing a story, and as a result only published the facts then the media industry would cease to exist.

They survive, and thrive, on uneducated speculation dressed up as facts to entertain a generally ignorant audience.

We have all seen stories in the media of which we had direct, accurate knowledge..and not just aviation stories. They NEVER get it right with those and yet the average public, who one would assume also experience this, can turn the page and read another story, about which they know nothing, and accept it as factual.

If the media cannot get a story right that happens within he city they operate from, say Sydney, what hope for a story happening on the other side of the world...In Iraq for instance...where while they may have 'journalists' based they are all trapped inside 'the green zone' merely regurgitating 'facts' as told to them by sundry groups operating within 'the system' in Iraq..and all with their own adgendas.

Modern media have long been incapable of fullfilling their role in society...reporting in an unbiassed fashion...they are about as useful to the average member of society as Infomercials.

Modern media, TV and 99% of print, are acually part of the problem rather than the solution.

Jet_A_Knight

10th Jan 2007, 07:19

Amen to that CC.

However, i still think that Joe Public is a big part of the problem, in that they quite easily 'swallow' whatever it is that is presented to them.

In this day and age, with the internet etc, 'digging in the dirt' has never, in all our human history, been easier.

Most people just don't give a fcuk about anything for more than 10mins, unfortunately.:{

noip

10th Jan 2007, 07:35

Ok, I've had a couple of glasses of red, so I'll bite.

The "Chicken Little" posts above are just drivel. Sorry.

As a previous poster explained (as well as JaK and CC and anyone else I've left out), the crew handled the situation exceptionally well. And it was a NON-EVENT. (I have a couple of hours in the last few years on the 744).

To cover a couple of concerned posts ... the crew would have known exactly which tyre had burst (cockpit indication). To allude to a Concorde type incident is invalid .. completely.

It really just comes down to common sense, systems knowledge, rational thought and experience. But what would I know .. I'm just an over-paid, under-worked person who rorts the system.

Feel better now ... :}

N

Edited to give credit where it's due

podbreak

10th Jan 2007, 07:42

how do you know that there was no damage caused to the fuse( by means of the fairing support structure not breaking away and slamming into the fuse),the aircraft should of returned to it's departure point for an inspection,as we all know little things can lead to large problems.

With the information and indications the crew had at hand post the tyre burst, their decision to continue was warranted. There was no indication that any fairing damage had occurred. Are you suggesting that every time a jumbo bursts a tyre it should return immediately to land? I'd love to see the cost. How many aircraft of this category have suffered significant (say catastrophic) damage induced by a burst tyre? And tyre bursting occurs more than many people seem to be aware. The event was handled well by the crew, who made a good decision, and this was all in all a non-event. I doubt the Singaporean authorities are even remotely intimidated by QF, nor would the Germans.

Alistair

10th Jan 2007, 09:00

Total NON EVENT. Correctly handled by all concerned in what sounds like a very professional manner. Exactly how every company (and the crew involved) would train for this event in the sim.

The comments on this thread are becoming more the norm on PPRuNe. The ill informed passing comment on things that they have very little knowledge about whilst casting judgement on the decisions of professionaly trained people who were actually there. Makes me want to :yuk: The speculation on here says more about the intelligence of the posters than anything else.

Chimbu/Clarrie et al, far more eloquently put than I can manage.

Oh and News, welcome to the real world where **** happens.

BHMvictim

10th Jan 2007, 09:50

Correct, tyre debris punches a nasty looking hole in the fiberglass body fairing aft of the main gear doors but rarely affects the integrity of the pressure hull.

Precisely Hotdog. Had there been a "three metre long" hole in the fuselage, I somehow think they would not have been able to maintain cabin pressure.

Would have been an awfully uncomfortable flight from Singapore to Frankfurt had that been the case.

woftam

10th Jan 2007, 09:54

Slow news day eh?
Yawn.
:ugh:

BHMvictim

10th Jan 2007, 10:03

so are you saying they should of taken a punt to continue,while not knowing what damaged was sustained,this is what set Qantas apart from everone else years ago and this is what gave it such a great safety record,DONT TAKE ANY RISKS

Do you know the complete facts surrounding the incident?

NO.

Neither do I.

However, I think you will find that there is a procedure to be followed should such an incident occur. Additionally, Boeing would more than likely have designed the 747 to withstand such a tyre failure.

Those of you who believe the absolute garbage mis-reported by channel 7.... you have exposed yourselves as either trolls or amateur spotters.

... a three metre hole in the fuselage.... for f%$#ks sake.

Sprite

10th Jan 2007, 10:56

"the country of occurrence is responsible for any safety investigation."
Well, there goes Dick Smith again. Will he now say that Qantas intimidates Singapore?!!
Actually as ex CASA chief he would know this, so one must think that he is a bit short of publicity, needing to see his face on TV and the only way he can do it is this sad effort at making an incident out of a completely normal and well handled event.
Congrats to the crew, they did the right thing, the -400 will tell you if anything was wrong, it did not, and there WAS nothing wrong.

Eastwest Loco

10th Jan 2007, 11:14

The huge gaping hole in the fuselage has been identified as the same gaping hole that affected a Singapore Airlines flight out of New Zealand.

This now mythical hole has infected a number of aeroplanes transiting Changi Airport and appears now to have started biting other components of aeroplanes including tyres and parts of wings, its appetite no longer sated by mere fuselage metal.

Airlines have been advised to have their pilots ensure they do under no circumstaces taxi or park in dark areas of Changi airport as they may be infected by the Herpes Changius virus as it has been dubbed in the Straits Times and various desperate "news that's printed to fit" rather than fit to be printed publications in Australasia.

The Australian Government has issued a Travel Bulletin allerting potential travellers that their flight may be affected if a journalist desperate for a story is ingested into a turbine during takeoff.

Give us all a break. The crew would never have continued if there was any danger. There was none. Flight projected successfully and aeroplane fixed.

Journos in here need a red flag and a mental health warning on all postings.

Best all

EWL

peuce

10th Jan 2007, 20:25

Do you know the complete facts surrounding the incident?
NO.
Neither do I.
.........
Those of you who believe the absolute garbage mis-reported by channel 7.... you have exposed yourselves as either trolls or amateur spotters.
... a three metre hole in the fuselage.... for f%$#ks sake.

BHMvictim, this statement goes someway in proving my original thread point .... if it's a Qantas "event", we are supposed to do hours of reasearch to get the verifiable facts before opening our mouths ... if it's a Jetstar "event", jump in boots and all, sort out the facts later. Have a re-read of the "Jetstar's great PHNL debut from YMML" thread to see what I mean. Just substitute "News.com" for "Channel 7"

The_Cutest_of_Borg

10th Jan 2007, 22:04

Puece, I can't find anything in the PHNL thread that is critical of the airmanship and decision making skills of the crew involved.

The two incidents have no correlation and any criticism levelled in that thread is aimed at Jetstar (and Qantas) management. You are being unnecessarily sensitive.

Transition Layer

11th Jan 2007, 01:07

Now it looks like the SMH is in on the act:
A hole lot of trouble for Qantas (http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/a-hole-lot-of-trouble-for-qantas/2007/01/11/1168105093842.html)
Now have a close look at the caption and the photo.
Trouble in the hold...officials inspect the damage
Officials! Haha, they look suspiciously like a couple of flight attendants having a sticky beak. In fact I would be willing to bet a lot of money that the photo was taken by one of their colleauges and flogged off to the media.
What a crock of ****!

Jet_A_Knight

11th Jan 2007, 02:51

I might be naive....but I am pretty sure if the commander of that 744 actually saw the physical damage to the aircraft, he would have returned for a landing.

The crux is, no matter how bad it looked after the fact, and on the ground, from what I can gather, the crew made use of all information available to them, and made a decision to continue based on the facts they had available. Period.

These guys don't get paid any extra for breaking the rules or risking their arse.

HotDog

11th Jan 2007, 04:14

if the commander of that 744 actually saw the physical damage to the aircraft, he would have returned for a landing.

IF my auntie had balls, she would be my uncle:ugh: Maybe doing a spacewalk after take off should be made mandatory.:rolleyes:

Ron & Edna Johns

11th Jan 2007, 04:34

Don't you just LOVE all this Monday morning quarter-backing......... Some people really need to get away from MSFS and into the real world of commercial aviation.

Give the PROFESSIONALS some credit for a job well done. Please.

lowerlobe

11th Jan 2007, 04:46

"Give the PROFESSIONALS some credit for a job well done. Please."

Exactly,could not have put it better myself.

I often wonder how many of these arm chair experts are actually journalists fishing.

kellykelpie

11th Jan 2007, 05:16

I have to disagree that the regulator needs to take a big stick to QF.

In Singapore everyone seems scared of the regulator despite a pretty good safety record. A lot of things which are mindless in detail (filling in the flight plans with altitudes every hour as an example) are driven by a fear of regulator audits.

The Qantas Jet would not have been able to pressurise with a gaping hole in it and it would not have made Frankfurt at 10000ft. There is no safety issue given the result and what the crew would have known at the time.

Lets not turn Australia into a police aviation state. We have the best safety record in the world. Indonesia has not one conviction against airlines - so I could then relate to such an argument.

Eastwest Loco

11th Jan 2007, 07:46

Good call Kelkel
Indonesia's airlines are generally owned/operated/piloted by the rich sons of Generals, high ranking Politicians, Regional Governors and the like.
There is no way that even a hull loss will cause criminal charges in Indo, even if you are an ex-pat providing you grease the right palms in sufficient amounts of greenbacks.
Definitely the finest officials money can buy.
In the land of Oz, it takes a little motivation but the regulator will act on anything that deliberately places passengers and crew at risk. The crew in question weighed up options, checked the operational integrity of the aeroplane and with no untoward indications projected the flight safely. What problem?
Mr Boeing does however build rather a good product that stood up beautifully.
Long may that be so.
EWL

Taildragger67

11th Jan 2007, 10:25

how do you know that there was no damage caused to the fuse( by means of the fairing support structure not breaking away and slamming into the fuse),the aircraft should of returned to it's departure point for an inspection,as we all know little things can lead to large problems.

Going by the ATSB press release (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2007/release/2007_1.aspx) (previously copied onto various threads), no indication of a problem (other than, perhaps, zero pressure in a tyre, but hey! - we've got 11 more back there) until 6 hours into the trip. So to return to departure point would've been 6 hours back-tracking. Or take the same 6 hours and head for... the destination.

6 hours up the track WSSS-EDDF - plenty of divert options.

Further, as has been alluded to, pilots have their own dates strapped to aircraft; most pilots I know are not suicidal maniacs and have partners/spouses/kids they want to see again, hence they are not in the game of taking silly risks with their own arses, even before factoring in those of CC & SLF on the other side of the door. Why anyone would think otherwise is beyond me.

HotDog

11th Jan 2007, 11:38

no indication of a problem (other than, perhaps, zero pressure in a tyre, but hey! - we've got 11 more back there)
I thought it was a 744.:confused:

Taildragger67

11th Jan 2007, 11:40

[QUOTE]no indication of a problem (other than, perhaps, zero pressure in a tyre, but hey! - we've got 11 more back there) . [/QUOTE
I thought it was a 744.:confused:

Sorry - 15 more.

BHMvictim

11th Jan 2007, 12:44

BHMvictim, this statement goes someway in proving my original thread point .... if it's a Qantas "event", we are supposed to do hours of reasearch to get the verifiable facts before opening our mouths ... if it's a Jetstar "event", jump in boots and all, sort out the facts later. Have a re-read of the "Jetstar's great PHNL debut from YMML" thread to see what I mean. Just substitute "News.com" for "Channel 7"

....and the point of my posts is this. Aircraft tyres fail in this manner quite often. Damage to the WTBF's and sometimes the I/B T/E flaps due to the tyre failure happens occasionally. This is NOT a one off occurance. It happens frequently.

Sensationalist media, such as Today Tonight attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill for ratings.

....we are supposed to do hours of reasearch to get the verifiable facts before opening our mouths

The media should be the ones doing the research. Unfortunately, they do not as this would be counterproductive towards the goal.

Today they Jetstar bash.... tomorrow the Qantas bash. Next week, it may be VB. Just don't believe the garbage you read/see.

Honestly, anyone with a hint of intelligence would realise that 3m long hole in the fuselage = plane don't fly.