QF 5 March 2006

[blackguard]

http://news.aunz.yimg.com/xp/mali/20070110/19/1056220015.jpg
Ouch!...and this is airworthy?

[Spitty42]

Right hand body landing gear door.

Non structural...
Non pressurised area..


Never let the truth get in the way of a good story!

[LME-400]

Ouch!...and this is airworthy?

How about a picture standing back from the aircraft?

[QF MAINT OUTSOURCED]

if the tyre could do that to the gear door it would have no trouble in ripping out hydraulic lines either,like i said little things can lead to much bigger problems very quickly

[bushy]

Funny, there has been no discussion about possible causes, or prevention of a recurrence.

[Bleve]

In which case the EICAS would have lit up like a xmas tree. But it didn't, so I guess no hydraulic systems were damaged. Can't you guys/gals understand that the crew acted professionally on the information that was available to them at the time. If we worried about everything that might happen instead of dealing with situation at hand then we would never get airbourne. :ugh:

[lowerlobe]

But what if just after the tyre failure had caused a rupture to one of the fuel tanks ….and then they had a bird strike ….and then one of the compressor blades flew off and hit the cabin and depressurised it..and then Singapore had a once in a millennium snow storm and the aircraft could not return to the field which also closed KL and every other field for 500kms and then the cabin crew found that catering had not put any beers on board and the crew could not buy any beers for the bus in FRA and then what if……. I guess you get my point.

The crew made decisions based on information available to them and that was basically the aircraft was flying with no obvious problems other than a blown tyre which they probably would have known from an Eicas message about the trye pressure in one being zero and the call from the cabin crew about the noise on take off.

Does anyone apart from the rabid anti Qantas people here actually think the skipper would have made the call to continue onto FRA if there was any hint that there was any structural damage that would endanger the aircraft ,pax and crew and which was found to not be the case after landing?



Do you think this report from channel 7 has anything to do with their recent stoush with a major competitor channel 9 in addition to the boss of channel 9 being on the Qantas board (which is another matter) .

With journalistic integrity being what it is it’s a wonder this did not end up on jerry Springer instead.

[captainrats]

I dont think anyone is questioning the competency of the crew or engineering.
Rather,CASAs lack of transparency and the media's complicity.
Qantas has a large advertising spend annually and it leverages this into media compliance with regard to any and all incidents.
Much like SingAir really

[blackguard]

Sorry this is the best I could do
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/01/11/PICT0107_edited_wideweb__470x352,0.jpg

[Bolty McBolt]

Ouch!...and this is airworthy?[/

No its not airworthy. The aircraft was grounded until temp repairs were fitted Then it was flown back to SYD as a regular flight pax on board.

Goes to show how good the 747 family is.

captainrats. Are you saying QF influenced 3 countries regulators Singapore , Germany and OZ. Drawing a long bow perhaps?

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 "

[captainrats]

No I am saying that there is a general lack of transparency in THIS country by CASA ,Qantas and the media.
Qantas beats everyone around the head...the media, employees, government authorities.
IMHO........ It is not a good corporate citizen.
An opinion only.

[Bleve]

The incident was reported to the ATSB and details were published in a March 2006 weekly summary that is publicly available for all to read. :hmm:

[woftam]

I think it should polish out OK :ok:

[numbskull]

A picture is worth a thousand words. The damage certainly looks bad and on closer inspection was certainly significant.

I saw the damage on its return to syd and it was significantly large hole that resulted in approx 5-6 wing to body fairings replaced in Syd. This is in addition to a T/E flap torque tube and a couple of gear doors and brake lines that were replaced in FRA.

Despite the damage I agree with the crews action to complete the flight. It was mostly superficial and nothing would have been achieved by dumping fuel and turning around, there were plenty of alternatives if a problem did present itself on route.

Sure, the crew probably would have turned around and landed in Singapore if they had seen the damage. The fact is that they couldn't see it, and made the right decision with all the information they had on hand. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The causes of tyre failure are well documented and the results are often similiar to this. A costly investigation would probably be inconclusive as to the cause and would not add anything to prevent this happening in the future.

All the correct Qantas, CASA and ATSB procedures were followed and there is no cover up!!!!!

[Volume]

The causes of tyre failure are well documented and the results are often similiar to this. A costly investigation would probably be inconclusive as to the cause and would not add anything to prevent this happening in the future.


Thats probably just half of the truth. During certification of new aircraft, a lot of so called "System Safety Analysis" is done, to prove the aircraft system design is safe enough. This analysis is taking into account possible failures, causes, effects and probabilities. To do an accurate analysis, you need a good database of incidents and accidents, to come up with the right numbers for probabilities i.e. the probability of a tyre failure causing a hydraulic failure.
Therefore it is important, that any accident and incident is well investigated and published to the right people, so that the database they base their work on is accurate. The probability for hydraulic failures caused by tyre burst is not very high, so each single case has a impact on the numbers used.

So this event may not "add anything to prevent this happening in the future", but it may influence future aircraft design with respect to routing of hydraulic lines in the trajectory of tyre debris, and hence make future aircraft designs safer.
It has often been a single event, that changed the rules in the past. Unfortunately it often takes a number of fatalities to rate the event serious enough. If the first damage to a concorde fuel tank skin by a bursting tyre (don´t know the date, but it was in the 80s in Washington) would have been taken seriously, the CDG accident may have been prevented, and the "queen of the skies" may still be around today.

[Bug Smasher Smasher]

In several of the reports on the telly the other day there was an interesting comment made by a CASA spokesman (Peter Gibson?) regarding the alleged "cover-up" by CASA.

He alluded that CASA was quite willing to keep reports of such incidents quiet, with regards to media exposure, to keep the airlines honest.

A valid point. Do you think airlines would be quite as open to self reporting if every little issue was released to the media? Doubt it. We're all well aware of how things tend to be blown out of all proportion once some media outlets get wind of them.

This is not at all to say that incident reports should not be made publicly available. I, and so it would seem CASA, just don't feel that it's necessary to announce every incident to the masses.

I can fully understand the situation the crew of the QF5 were placed in. Ok, you heard the bang, nothing on the EICAS, no unusual vibration, aircraft is handling fine and performing as expected. Now, in the middle of the night, do we circle SIN, and the inevitable Cbs, dump 100T of fuel and return to land ensuring considerable delays, etc, etc, or press on? In this case, Frankfurt ho!

Good call and good work boys. :ok:

And as for this (http://www.smh.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Qantas-denies-coverup-over-damaged-jet/2007/01/09/1168104981614.html) from the Sydney Morning Herald,
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,"
Geez Dick. If this is honestly the case I suggest those people seriously reassess their position within CASA
Is resilient in the face of pressure
(From a job advertisement (http://www.casa.gov.au/jobs/06-11-02/1900.pdf) for a CASA Air Transport Inspector)

or at least have another good hard read of the CASA Service Charter (http://www.casa.gov.au/corporat/charter/index.htm)
...it will be independent, enforcing civil aviation regulations, as it deems appropriate, while bearing in mind these expected standards of behaviour.
:hmm:

[rammel]

Incident reports are available to the public in the crash comic which you can view online. If you have a little knowledge it doesn't take much to know who is involved in the incident. But I guess this would involve a journalist doing some work and quoting facts.