Wasps blamed for aborted Qantas takeoffs

[flyhardmo]

[URL="http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=375551&rss=yes"]

A wasp infestation among Qantas aircraft at Brisbane Airport caused three flights to be aborted during takeoff, a safety report has found.

An Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report has found a wasp infestation at the airport in the first half of 2006 particularly affected Qantas' Airbus A330 fleet, with the insects nesting in parts of the aircraft sitting idle on the tarmac.

Between January and March, five Qantas flights were affected by wasps, with three takeoffs aborted due to the insects' impact on the airspeed measuring equipment.

On one occasion the method used to stop the plane caused the brakes to overheat, in turn causing the landing gear tyres to deflate, stranding the plan on the tarmac.




The March 19 flight, bound for Singapore, was aborted when the pilots noticed a major discrepancy in their airspeed readings.

The pilot in control applied the brakes while the plane was travelling at 122 knots (226km/h).

As the plane taxied off the runway the brakes reached a temperature of 685 degrees celsius, causing six of the eight landing gear tyres to deflate.

"It was reported that smoke was seen coming from the main landing gear and, as a precautionary measure, the airport rescue and fire fighting service attended," the report said.

Passengers had to leave the aircraft on portable stairs.

No one was injured in the incident.

A subsequent sweep of the airport in April that year found up to 30 wasp nests.

Qantas' initial efforts to control the wasps were ineffective and slow, the ATSB found.

However the bureau is now satisfied with the operator's control methods, which include weekly searches of ground equipment for wasp infestation.

[737pnf]

From a big Virgin Blue supporter...

Why do we hear about Qantas and wasp infestations and 747 troubles, Jetstar and smoking engines and airspace collision scares, but never (or rarely) anything on Virgin Blue (and subsidiary companies)?

I worked for VB pit crew for 2 and a half years, and the only thing that was reported while I was there were two windscreen cracks that resulted in the aircraft returning to Brisbane Airport due decompression. This happened to a number of QF 73's that same year, and the heat stresses on the glass proved too much.

Are the Qantas group really so obsessed with their share price/profits and moving jobs overseas that they can't keep up on the basics? Surely if their share price is to grow, you'd need passengers to purchase the product? And I can't understand how they expect this to happen when safety issues further compound the problem of LCC's taking business from them?!

I feel the Australian Virgin model has it right - keep your staff happy. They'll come to work with GENUINE smiles, take less unaccountable leave. This results in fewer wage payouts (due noone being on sick leave), and the customer can literally see and feel the enthiusiasm, encouraging the customer (aka guest) to think VB for their next flight.

[IAW]

I was working on the day the A330 had the aborted takeoff. It made it back to the International Apron, and then one by one the tyres let off a puff of smoke and deflated (fusible plugs). Poor dejected pax had to walk back into the Terminal.

So this begs the question, are Qantas ground staff slack with their Pitot Covers on longer than normal turnarounds? In my experience I have found 2 pitot tubes blocked by wasp nests on non operational aircraft left out in the open. The little buggers just love them!

[Going Boeing]

The media recently got access to a large number of ATSB reports and are now making them newsworthy despite the fact that many occurred more than two years ago. Mustn't be anything important happening on the planet at the moment.

[Eastwest Loco]

Going Bowyang

I am just pleased that the initial report in the Headline was not correct.

Seeing wasp infestations causing were causing emergency situations at airports, I was afraid that us White Anglo Saxon Protestants were going to be barred from flying commercially!!!!

Best all

EWL

[airtags]

reaux

happy people is a good thing but it's a very broad statement you are pitching - so.......... if we use your logic: if one is happy the world is a great safe place..........good theorey but then maybe you should ask VB about the CASA dispensation for liferafts (which expired at the end of Oct last year ........actually maybe we all should ask CASA why they granted it in the first place (I'm sure if a MEL PER 73 ever hit the water out in Tony Bullimore territory that the punters would be very happy to find the overhead raft stowages empty......)

then again maybe we could ask about a VB 73H boarding with insufficent crew onboard - the CS was off buying a sandwich when a lady produced a handful of (diabetic) syringes to the young pretties at the back door.......or we could ask about the VB 738 that gently lifted out of MEL with only ONE door armed ..........( I have copies of the internal reports so no correspondence pls)

we could of course do the same airline by airline domestic and international and list the black marks....(might even make a book) .....but maybe it just comes down to the fact that in a self reporting self compliance regime that things are not always perfect.

Maybe consider that also some us are both happy and very professional and just don't like acepting second rate standards. End of the day it comes down to making the punters come back to fly again and making sure its safe enough so that we're all there to take them.

Glad you're happy but save the Bransonesque routines - it's a new era where airlines have cut what they can with staff, fuel, pilots' pay and facilities - the last frontier being eroded is the regulatory regimes - from which you may note VB has had more than its fair share of dispensations.

VB is a good operation but let's leave the company lines for the onboard IFE and get back to the wasps :bored:

[737pnf]

Fair call airtags.
I've quite rightly been put in my place by someone who knows more about the occurences. (may i ask what position you work in to get such information on VB incident reports? It seems you're arguing the side of QF?)

QF have my support and respect. They demand it with their "zero accident" history (there'd have to be a thread here on QF1!), and long running history. I am wondering however, how can they get themselves into messes like such? What's the missing piece to the puzzle as to why wasps can nest in pitot tubes, and generators can fail on 747's?

If VB have their indescretions, why aren't they released into the media the way QF and JQ incidents are? Is there some media foul play at work?

I assume VB have shown a good record of safety to CASA, and hence the dispensation of the overhead life rafts. I should think it has something to do with the routes they use, especially when crossing water. I know that VB didn't apply for 737 ETOPS due to the route they use en route to/from Perth, and I think Darwin. If it saves money, why doesn't QF do the same with their life rafts?

[Centaurus]

The ATSB report said the crew (captain) elected not to use reverse during the abort. His prerogative of course. No wonder the brakes were hot as non-use of reverse can under certain conditions double the brake energy. In some airlines the procedure requires the PF to quickly call his own airspeed during the ASI check during the take off run, if there was no call by the PNF for whatever reason. "105 my side" if no call by PNF for example or "88 my side" in a Boeing. This immediately alerts the crew to possible significant ASI discrepancy and if a reject is required there is more time. And with 3560 metres of available runway it should leave plenty to spare to take it easy on the brakes rather than full RTO. Should be part of simulator training.

[drshmoo]

On the subject of life raft dispensations - Qlink flights to Lord Howe don't need to have life rafts anymore.

I know the pilots aren't that crazy about it - wonder what the pax would think if they knew?

QF group and VB get a lot of pretty significant CASA dispensations

[FlexibleResponse]

And with 3560 metres of available runway it should leave plenty to spare to take it easy on the brakes rather than full RTO. Should be part of simulator training.

Whoops! That's wrong.

When is an RTO not an RTO?

At what speed, distance, power setting, weight, runway friction coefficient, wind condition may a pilot ignore the recommended RTO procedure?

There is only one procedure.

[Keg]

Every now and then PPRUNE throws up a new wunderkid with all the answers.

reaux is today's wunderkid. We should all bask in his reflected glory. I wonder if he's aircraft's brother? :rolleyes:

QF have my support and respect. They demand it with their "zero accident" history (there'd have to be a thread here on QF1!), and long running history.

What utter crap. QF don't demand anything. Like DJ and J*, QF is a bunch of blokes and blokettes working hard to avoid stuffing up. Most times that works, sometimes it doesn't- like not getting into reverse thrust during an RTO for any number of reasons.

I am wondering however, how can they get themselves into messes like such? What's the missing piece to the puzzle as to why wasps can nest in pitot tubes, and generators can fail on 747's?

It's called aviation and any endeavour on this planet that involves humans will have it's stuff ups. Space Shuttle's Challenger and Columbia are two prime examples. Generators didn't 'fail', they were working perfectly. Not a skerrick of work was done on the generators. The Generator control units on the other hand were fine until water got into them. Why does this happen? Watch any episode of aircraft investigation and see how completely unrelated issues and occasional minor mistakes result in bad things happening. Then come back and perhaps you may have a better idea.

If VB have their indescretions, why aren't they released into the media the way QF and JQ incidents are?

Perhaps you hear more about QF incidents simply because they have more of them. That would make sense given that their fleet is about three or four times the size of Virgin's.

I assume VB have shown a good record of safety to CASA, and hence the dispensation of the overhead life rafts.

Sometimes it's more advisable to just say 'I don't know' and be thought ignorant than to hit the 'submit' button and remove all doubt. Remember the old saying about what happens when you assume? In this case though the only person looking like an ass is you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Qantas apologist (goodness knows we have a lot of issues to work through at the moment) but if you're going to lob into a professional pilots forum and expect to contribute in a meaningful way then you need to arrive with more than 'DJ must be great because they get lots of dispensations and you never hear about them in the press except when they're talking about cheap airfares or hot hosties'. :ugh: :rolleyes:

[Taildragger67]

Keg,

:ok:

[permFO]

"What utter crap. QF don't demand anything. Like DJ and J*, QF is a bunch of blokes and blokettes working hard to avoid stuffing up. Most times that works, sometimes it doesn't..."

Spot on Keg. No airline can claim to have the inside running on the safest operation DJ included. As to why the media pick up on some airline incidents and not others, thats more a reflection on the media than the safety record of any particular airline.

[737pnf]

d'ya feel better now mate? got it all out of your system? anything else you want to add?

everyone, shh, keg's talking.

Reading messages is different to hearning them, as tone cannot always be effectively conveyed. I'm talking from the side of VB because, from my experience, that's what I know. Please, collect yourself and help me learn.

1) I wondered if there are any internal reasons (ie vested interest) for why, if VB do have incidents, why they aren't bought out to the open, while it seems the QF an JQ amake it to the news headlines? Clearly QF's fleet is much larger than VB's, but is this the only reason why QF have more incidents?

2) What's wrong with commenting on QF's outstanding record? Clearly they've done something right over the years? Hence they should be respected.

3)The crux of what I'm getting at...is it pure chance that these wasps nexted in pitot tubes, or are there systemic problems at work?

reaux aka wONderkid

[Fliegenmong]

Quote:


" Every now and then PPRUNE throws up a new wunderkid with all the answers.

reaux is today's wunderkid. We should all bask in his reflected glory. I wonder if he's aircraft's brother? "

......looks as though I'm off to get a new keyboard.......aircraft's brother LOL!:D

[Section28- BE]

Not wanting to back one side over another- but would offer some points…….. also not associated with any operator.


Why do we hear about Qantas and wasp infestations and 747 troubles, Jetstar and smoking engines and airspace collision scares, but never (or rarely) anything on Virgin Blue (and subsidiary companies)?

As to why they are reported more than another operator??, I think there are many reasons and motivations for that, as to where these reports come from- should you like to do some research of your own and observe/compare registration marks- link here:

ATSB Safety Investigation Reports (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/index.aspx?mode=avi)

I would put it to you that, it is a very big call to play I’m better than you- particularly with High-Cap Aviation and metal tubes putting out 7 nautical miles a minute with 180 odd souls on board- there but for the grace of god, and the systems and procedures encompassed in your AOC…..

I originally got a login and password for this forum having read a similar thread on offshore maintenance- which in turn prompted me for the sake of balance to put the following extract (ex my 1st post) before those assembled here. And I offer the link again for your edification:

ATSB Aviation Safety Investigation Report – Final
Release Date: 05 February 2007

Flight control system event; Boeing Company 737-X00, VH-#@^

“...a Boeing Company 737-X00 aircraft, registered VH-#%^, completed a scheduled flight from Melbourne, Victoria to Sydney, NSW. The pilot then reported that the aircraft had ‘heavy’ flight controls. An inspection by maintenance engineers revealed that the left lower rear elevator cable was incorrectly routed around a stiffener and that the stiffener and cable section had been damaged as a result of contact between them.”…..

“In the last week of July 2005, a contract maintenance organisation had replaced eight elevator control cable sections during a scheduled heavy aircraft maintenance check.”

“The aircraft was released to the aircraft operator on 1 August 2005 and remained in service until the pilot in command reported the ‘heavy’ flight controls on 9 August 2005.”…..

Link to Full Report below (trusting that it is functional??):

ATSB Report: 05Feb07- Cable B73-X (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2005/AAIR/aair200503971.aspx)

Go easy now- new at this……

The above in my mind is easily as significant as the occurrences mentioned in your posts.



It is my understanding that, the organization you work for- did in fact apply for/and operate ETOPS- you may like to investigate why the original……………………..

And I'm sure if we spent the time we could all assemble examples from all operators ex the ATSB site- tyres, pressurization valves etc, etc........
A proactive and inquisitive safety culture is a very integral and fragile part of a modern Hi-Cap AOC or any AOC for that matter- and not a game of my team’s flogged your team, and indeed far beyond a commitment to a brand/ corporate culture should be a commitment to the Safety and Operational Culture of the organization. Your operation is only as good as the weakest link in the cycle and what defences are in place.

As to your comment to Keg-



Please, collect yourself and help me learn.

You may care to study the works of James Reason (the Reason Model), professor of psychology. Department of Psychology- University of Manchester.

And the Piper Alpha (http://www.fabig.com/Accidents/Piper+Alpha.htm) oil rig disaster- on which the Reason model of accident causation was built, amongst other things.

And of course the Act, Regs and Orders are all freely available on the CASA website.

The knowledge and experience on this forum covers the length and breadth of what is a disciplined and technical vocation- I in the main have seen it freely shared when sort in a polite considered fashion.

The air like the sea is very unforgiving of……………..
Good luck with your aviation career

Rgds
Section28- BE

[Tee Emm]

There is only one procedure

You surely jest! There are high speed heavy weight aborts and low speed heavy weight aborts. It was a low speed abort with plenty of runway remaining.

[FlexibleResponse]

That is interesting.

Could you please detail your Company's Low Speed Rejected Takeoff Procedure and your aircraft type?

Any criteria for determining the difference between when to use the the manufacturer's RTO procedure and when to use your Company's "low speed" procedure would be most welcome as well.

[Back Seat Driver]

Was told by int. apron engineers that 2 SQ 777's and an MH 777 (may have been the other way around) also had rejected take-off's due wasps in the Pitot tubes, all in the same time period as the QF events. Not news here though. Good on the crews for doing their jobs as they were trained to. As for the lack of reverse selection, an A330 stops very very quickly from 100 - 120 knots with max autobrakes applied, hardly enough time to get reverse in considering the engines are then bought back to idle reverse at 70 knots.

[FlexibleResponse]

hardly enough time to get reverse in considering the engines are then bought back to idle reverse at 70 knots.

But not in the case of RTO.

[Tmbstory]

I wonder what the wasps think about all this thread creep.

Tmb

[Wandering]

Perhaps it's some of those "killer wasps" that escaped from Toyota's Kluger!!

[Kangaroo Court]

Were they cleared by CASA and were they wearing ID's.