PDA

View Full Version : Qantas Link 717 hard landing Darwin


Blackhawk9
11th Feb 2008, 08:36
Heard thru the grapevine a Qantas Link 717 had a hard landing in Darwin last night.

So hard it may be a rightoff!! maybe bent mainspar and engine mounts damaged, u/c mounts damaged.

The landing pilot had a history of hard landings , this time she may have totaled the A/C!!!

Capn Bloggs
11th Feb 2008, 09:02
Please excuse these colonials: they can't even spell. It's "writeoff", Bloggs! :=

oztrekker
11th Feb 2008, 09:05
Must a lie perpetrated by third world pilots. Qantas pilots, true blue fair dinkums totalling tin...what sacrilege!!! Wash your mouth and cleanse your sick mind pronto!:=:=:=

hetfield
11th Feb 2008, 09:07
Well, right off it may be a writeoff.:)

Doors to Automatic
11th Feb 2008, 09:52
Hope it gets posted on You Tube! :p

F111D
11th Feb 2008, 11:38
Yes it happened.

Here is the story so far.

No one was injured in the crash, but there was substantial damage to the Boeing 717.
The ATSB's safety investigation report says the passenger jet hit an area of high sink just before landing causing it to drop quickly.
It hit the runway so hard that the aircraft's fuselage wrinkled.
The Boeing 717 had flown from Nhulunbuy and was carrying 84 passengers

airtags
11th Feb 2008, 11:40
jeeez guys - we're all slipping. Almost 24 hours later and not a single pix or video grab!

Torquelink
11th Feb 2008, 11:50
what about the bits that were leftoff?

Capn Bloggs
11th Feb 2008, 12:34
jeeez guys - we're all slipping. Almost 24 hours later and not a single pix or video grab!
Sorry, bin mucking around. Finally got this from one of me mates who took it from under a tree while he was having a Fosters waiting for the next wingeing cricket outfit to come downunder...

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/mcdonnell-douglas-md-80-crashes-on-landing/3243417730

(actually footage of a Maddog test flight. I think the test pilot forgot that he was in an MD-80, not his F-4! Same company, wrong jet...)

Teal
11th Feb 2008, 13:01
Sorry - don't know the url - I just get daily emails from a news service that sometimes includes aviation-related articles:

Qantas Boeing 'wrinkled' in hard landing in Darwin

Ben Sandilands writes:

Qantas is in damage control this morning trying to hide a Qantaslink Boeing 717 that was so severely damaged in a hard landing at Darwin last Thursday that it may be a write-off. No reports, no photos, no survivor interviews, indeed no recognition of any sort has appeared in the media for almost four days. No-one was injured in the "incident" that dared not show its face until an inquiry into it was officially listed on the air safety data base today.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau says it is investigating the incident which happened in a jet configured with 115 seats and flown by National Jet under contract to Qantas. The air safety investigator says on its website that "On final approach the aircraft entered an area of high sink and made a heavy landing. Wrinkling was later found in the aft fuselage. Damage: Substantial".

There were 11 Boeing 717s in the Qantaslink fleet.

S'land
11th Feb 2008, 13:16
Capn Bloggs:

Now that was NOT a soft landing, methinks!

JEM60
11th Feb 2008, 14:12
That clip is at least two years old.

mustangsally
11th Feb 2008, 14:39
Me thinks it is from the original certification of the MD-80 or even older the DC-9. I've seen this before, maybe from my first DC-9 training in the mid 80's.

Wombat124
11th Feb 2008, 15:40
As it says in the caption this video is from 1983 and its at Edwards AFB

Oneil
11th Feb 2008, 16:56
http://www.jacdec.de/news/news.htm

Knackered by all accounts

Doors to Automatic
11th Feb 2008, 18:29
There are a huge number of landing-related accidents in that report.

Looks like QFs first write-off has finally occured!

readywhenreaching
11th Feb 2008, 20:47
Looks like QFs first write-off has finally occured!

there might be a common misunderstanding about QFs "legendary" safety record...Qantas is not free of write-off accidents, even decades ago, but it happened.

a little reminder (the 744 @ BKK did in fact fly again):
http://aviation-safety.net/database/operator/airline.php?var=4842

and thats by far not all. QF lost lots of flying boats in the 40s, some of them including fatalities. maybe someone is coming up with more detailed facts..

blueloo
11th Feb 2008, 21:07
Yes it may have the rat on the tail...but its actually QANTAS LINK, operated by NATIONAL JET. So not a QANTAS write off, rather a National Jet write off, much to the disappointment of some here so it appears.

Not quite sure any of you seem so happy at the prospect of any airline writing a plane off, but such is life, there are always bottom feeders.

akerosid
11th Feb 2008, 21:15
Just wondering: since QF 707s entered service in 1959, have there been ANY write-offs of Australian commercial jet aircraft? I know TAA lost a Viscount and Ansett lost one or two aircraft, but not jets; if this aircraft is confirmed as a write-off, would this be the first - of any Australian airline.

Trojan1981
11th Feb 2008, 21:47
Qantas had several fatal crashes during WWII. Out of their control of course, at least two Qantas flying boats were shot down by Japanese fighters during the fall of Singapore, with multiple casualties, and at least one dissapeared without trace.

http://www.qantas.com.au/info/about/history/details10

cambruzzo
11th Feb 2008, 21:59
http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,26058,23199918-5009000,00.html

Qantas safety record under threat

By Steve Creedy February 12, 2008 05:53am
QANTAS'S jealously guarded reputation for never having lost a jet aircraft is under threat following an accident involving a Boeing 717.
The Qantaslink jet carrying 84 passengers from Nhulunbuy, in Arnhem Land, was substantially damaged when it landed heavily after a sudden loss of altitude as it came into land in Darwin last Thursday.

The heavy landing produced wrinkling in the aircraft's skin at the rear of the fuselage, suggesting possible damage to the airframe and prompting speculation that the plane is a write-off.

Although the leased aircraft was operated for Qantaslink by National Jet Systems, a write-off would be the first under Qantas colours.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which is investigating, yesterday described the damage to the aircraft as "substantial".
An ATSB spokesman was unable to say last night whether the aircraft could be repaired.

"There have been engineers called to inspect the aircraft, but whether it's a write-off or whether it's reparable I don't think is known," he said.

Qantaslink issued a short statement confirming the Boeing 717 operating from Cairns via Nhulunbuy to Darwin was involved in a heavy landing. It said there were no injuries, and passengers disembarked normally.

"The incident is being investigated in consultation with Boeing (and) National Jet Systems, which operates the aircraft on behalf of Qantaslink," Qantas group general manager regional airlines Narendra Kumar said.

"As required, the incident has been reported to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the ATSB."

Asked whether the aircraft would be written off, a spokeswoman said: "The investigation is under way and we've got to await the outcome."

The airline has an enviable reputation for air safety. A move to repair a Boeing 747-400, which ran off a runway in Bangkok in 1999 costing about $100m, was widely seen as a move to protect that record.

cambruzzo
11th Feb 2008, 22:09
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2008/02/12/3333_ntnews.html

Qantas jet written off after NT landing
PHOEBE STEWART
12Feb08
A $35MILLION Qantas jet is believed tohave been written off after a "heavy landing" in Darwin.
The Boeing 717 jet bumped down at Darwin airport on February 7 after flying from Cairns via Nhulunbuy.
None of the 84 passengers were hurt and they were able to "disembark normally" from the plane, the airline said yesterday.
A report said the Australian Transport Safety Bureau had listed the incident on its air safety database and had described damage to the plane as "substantial".
It said the Bureau reported the plane entered an area of "high sink", forcing it to land heavily, "wrinkling" the aircraft's fuselage.
But spokesman Geoge Nadal denied the information had come from the Bureau.
He confirmed that the heavy landing had been reported and was under investigation. An air safety expert is due to arrive in Darwin soon.
Mr Nadal said the outcome of the investigation would depend on the "complexity" ofthe incident.
Qantas said it could not comment on whether the plane had been written off but said the aircraft was out of action.
Qantaslink general manager of regional airlines Narendra Kumar said the flight - operating as QF1944 from Cairns - was being investigated in consultation with Boeing and National Jets Systems, which operated the aircraft on behalf of Qantaslink.
He said the incident had been reported to air safety authorities.
The QantasLink jet is one of 11 in the Territory's fleet of 717s, operated by NationalJet Systems.

vapilot2004
11th Feb 2008, 23:34
Qantas is in damage control this morning trying to hide a Qantaslink Boeing 717 that was so severely damaged in a hard landing at Darwin last Thursday that it may be a write-off. No reports, no photos, no survivor interviews, indeed no recognition of any sort has appeared in the media for almost four days.

No pictures or video?? The muckety-mucks over at HQ must be breaking out the good stuff about now - after thanking their lucky charms that is.

JohnMcGhie
11th Feb 2008, 23:58
I am regular SLF on that flight, in that aircraft (I work at Nhulunbuy...)

All the QantasLink drivers throw it at the ground. Those of us in the back are surprised any time we walk away with fillings still in our teeth. Chances are the guys aboard in Darwin didn't notice anything unusual.

Believe me, the girl is no worse than any of the boys on that run. Some of us call the flight a "throw-down".

A Throw-Down is either a very ancient Australian fire-cracker -- you throw it on the ground and it explodes, or a very small Australian beer bottle -- you throw a few down then you explode. Or a QantasLink B717 :-)

I've been meaning to ask on this forum for some time: "Why" do the QF drivers all throw it at the ground? We have the smoothest flying conditions in the world, yet every one ends with an almighty thump! SQ drivers don't do it, BA drivers don't do it, Thai doesn't do it, Gulf Air, Air NZ, Air China, China Southern...

Why does only the Flying Kangaroo whack its a**e on the ground like that? It has gotta be a SOP, it happens too often to be chance.

Enquiring minds...

Teal
12th Feb 2008, 00:05
If it hits the fan they may well be able to hide behind the contractural arrangements as to who crews the aircraft, but for the record, QantasLink is 100% owned by Qantas. Additionally, QantasLink aircraft are owned or leased via Qantas, or Qantas-owned leasing companies.

In any event, an isolated heavy landing by a single aircraft will not hurt them.

MDJETFAN
12th Feb 2008, 00:07
The video clip was taken during minimum landing distance parameters at Edwards AFB. I seem to recall that an FAA pilot was PIC at the time. The main L/Gs bottomed out but didn't even break any seals and no damage to the wing structure. The tail was replaced and the aircraft rejoined the test program. The only crew injury was to someone standing in the doorway behind the pilots; he broke his ankles.

JEM60
12th Feb 2008, 07:19
Must have been very expensive, for I have seen a clearer video of this that also shows the front fuselage breaking about 20 feet aft of the cockpit. It was extremely bent. Very surprised it was repaired. Standing up on a risky landing. STRANGE!

HotDog
12th Feb 2008, 07:34
Qantas had a couple of serious incidents on 707s in the sixties. One that I witnessed at Paya Lebar, was a 707 landing hard on 02 and subsequently going around, barely missing the coconut trees at the end of 02. Apparently the landing was carried out by the PF under training in the right hand seat. RW02 had a dip at the approach end, the aircraft hit the runway nosewheel first, displacing the nosegear rearwards and thereby splitting the fuselage in the L41 area. A repair team flew out from Sydney and they patched up the aircraft for an unpressurised ferry flight back to Sydney. Luckily, there were no injuries to pax or crew. The other incident was on a 707 night flight, eastbound over India when the Capt's AH toppled. Capt. disconnected the A/P and followed the toppling AH. Aircraft went into steep left bank before recovery. As far as I remember, neither incident was publicised at the time.

amos2
12th Feb 2008, 08:40
Ah! yes...Qantas...the worlds safest airline after the Dutch mob!!

Yeah!...in your dreams!!

Ye Olde Pilot
12th Feb 2008, 13:26
Mods
Historic stuff on here but the real story is on D & G.
Can you pull them together or scrub this one and move the other over here?

SeniorDispatcher
12th Feb 2008, 20:13
Qantas jet written off after NT landing
PHOEBE STEWART
12Feb08
A $35 MILLION Qantas jet is believed to have been written off after a "heavy landing" in Darwin.

Typical media BS--they hook you with the headline stating "A" while the more-detailed text of the story stating "B", which is quite different from "A".

John Boeman
12th Feb 2008, 21:08
Capn Bloggs, for what it's worth, you made me laugh!
(One or two people do appear quite short in the humour detection department.)

Capn Bloggs
12th Feb 2008, 22:31
John,
Capn Bloggs, for what it's worth, you made me laugh!

You've got to maintain yer sense of humour in this game! :D

Crosshair
12th Feb 2008, 22:58
The Qantaslink jet carrying 84 passengers from Nhulunbuy, in Arnhem Land...

Pilot: "Sorry."

Allan L
12th Feb 2008, 23:11
Was that 'sorry' approved by everyman and his dog?:}

Capt Claret
13th Feb 2008, 05:24
Well they can't be trying too hard to hide it, 'twas parked on the ramp this afternoon. Whilst I don't pretend to have any engineering background, a walk around the machine revealed far less damage than I had envisaged, given the speculation on this and other threads.

Speculation I understand. But I don't understand such negative speculation, almost hoping for a writeoff.

Beta Light
13th Feb 2008, 05:45
All the QantasLink drivers throw it at the ground

With a Kangaroo as company logo should a hop skip not be inline with the company logo:O

helen-damnation
13th Feb 2008, 06:14
The landing pilot had a history of hard landings , this time she may have totaled the A/C!!!

What a sad indictment of the posters here that after a fairly slanderous initial post that no-one here has said anything about the reports of why it happened :ugh:

Typical antipodean c:mad:p. and an interesting contrast to the BA incident :sad:

ps Like the vid link.

pps Don't mistake the moniker for the gender :=

blueloo
13th Feb 2008, 06:38
Typical antipodean c:mad:p

antipodean: "relating to the antipodes or situated at opposite sides of the earth"

I have no doubt that a lot of cr"p happens at the antipodes of Australia too. :}

merlinxx
13th Feb 2008, 07:54
You referring to GoodAndReliableUnderDutchAdministration?

mark sicknote
13th Feb 2008, 09:18
Actually I agree H&D

There could be a multitude of reasons for a hard landing apart from the implied pilot error.

Lets give this pilot the benefit of the doubt.

Best,

Sicknote:ok:

Vivio
13th Feb 2008, 09:56
Dont worry. This will not writeoff. It can be repaired and reinstated. But the cost of it will be mre than 10 years of that pilot salary.

Norman Stanley Fletcher
13th Feb 2008, 12:36
helen-damnation - In case you are interested, 'slander' applies to spoken words and 'libel' to written statements. I would agree, however, that to make a statement like this you need to be very certain indeed of your facts. Time will tell if these comments were indeed libel or an accurate representation of the situation. If true, there will be a lot of people in senior management with some explaining to do.

HotDog
13th Feb 2008, 13:03
Sorry Norman but I can't see a libelous statement made by helen-damnation, unless it has been removed?

Capt Claret
13th Feb 2008, 13:05
Well for the doomsdayers, looks like it's repairable.

And for the conspiracists, the repair bill will no doubt be some factor [insert your choice] above the market value! :p

helen-damnation
13th Feb 2008, 14:18
NSF,
Always ready to learn, thanks for the info :O
H-D

ITCZ
13th Feb 2008, 14:38
've been meaning to ask on this forum for some time: "Why" do the QF drivers all throw it at the ground? We have the smoothest flying conditions in the world, yet every one ends with an almighty thump! SQ drivers don't do it, BA drivers don't do it, Thai doesn't do it, Gulf Air, Air NZ, Air China, China Southern...

You must have been on different flights on those airlines than I.

A few concepts to throw your way. Google some of them.
Rear mounted engines
Stiff legs
Short runway
Remote from extensive ground lighting = black hole approach
Visual approach guidance lights all show PINK to pilot on final approach. ALCAN replaced accurate but expensive T-VASIS with cheap but near-useless PAPI installation that gets covered by the red bauxite dust. Letter of the law only.
High performance jet, often near max landing weight.
Monsoon conditions that can dump 80+mm of rain in an hour on an ungrooved runway. Standing water.
Implicit instructions to not have Qantas passengers disembarking in the runway end safety zone. Less complaints if the walk to the terminal is short, you see. Therefore take firm touchdown and controlled braking over possible botched attempt at soft touchdown translates to floating and mainwheels in the mud.

Its pretty much the same bunch of pilots that flew you guys around in the 146's for years. Back then the complaints were - its slow and it will poison us. Now you have an aeroplane that is fast, and despite local prejudices, has far better on-time dispatch performance.

Commercial department reports show that the 717 fleet has bettered all other QF fleets in on time dispatch reliability. Flight data analysis shows 717 is third, not top, of the list of average G forces of the QF fleets.

But lets not let the stats get in the way of a good whinge.

Complaining is the local pastime. How bout we get rid of those pesky 717s and get Airnorth Metros back in there?

Ejector
13th Feb 2008, 15:30
Yes, Finally a good reply on this forum. Many factors for harder touch downs. Just look at 737's, the NG's nearly allways are harder. Same folks put a 500 down like a pillow. Or those naughty dash-8 drivers that "slame" it in every time, just look at the gear design!!! Anyway, lifes good :):):):)

gwillie
13th Feb 2008, 17:14
Well for the doomsdayers, looks like it's repairable.

'feared not...damaged beyond repair
http://www.jacdec.de/news/news.htm

F111D
13th Feb 2008, 17:22
I wouldn't count on it.

Did you read the discalimer at the top of the page???

"The below information includes unofficial information and should be treated as this. Editors cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions caused by any information source mentioned herein. The nature of the following information should be regarded as preliminary."

gwillie
13th Feb 2008, 21:56
Did you read the discalimer at the top of the page???

yeah.

Did you notice that "damaged beyond repair" is an update to "damage: substantial"?????? (that's six question marks)

Capt Claret
14th Feb 2008, 03:39
gwillie

Are they doing their investigation by remote control?????????? Try here (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/aair200800641.aspx) for the ATSB link which shows the investigation is "continuing".

The Townsville refueller (the font of all knowledge) said Mr Boeing said that he'd seen worse.

Sorry if you're disappointed.

sevenstrokeroll
14th Feb 2008, 04:41
I am curious. Are there trees or structures that blank out the wind at this airfield?

High Sink Rates and recovery from said high sink rates takes a handful of power and a sharp eye.

at KIAD (dulles airport washington dc) there is a "high sink rate" area when landing south on one six left... trees blank the wind. If you are ready for it a handful of thrust can save the landing.

gwillie
14th Feb 2008, 14:39
Sorry if you're disappointed.

pas de tout, monsieur! :bored:

787FOCAL
14th Feb 2008, 15:39
They are going to repair it.

marty1468
14th Feb 2008, 22:12
sevenstrokeroll

I am curious. Are there trees or structures that blank out the wind at this airfield?


From memory (last one in the early 90's) Darwin's runway 11/29 doesn't have any obstacles around that would cause any air disturbances but the runway itself has quite a stepped slope up from the southern end and i remember a couple of F/A-18 drivers blowing a couple of tyres after high sink rates when we arrived for an exercise for Pitch black 87.

Of course, if there was a CB in the vicinity, the disturbance from them can travel quite a distance and from all accounts the weather was pretty bad and it is the wet season.

Marty

SeniorDispatcher
14th Feb 2008, 22:41
According to this, it's going to be repaired...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23214051-23349,00.html

Capt Claret
14th Feb 2008, 22:50
The Townsville Refueller says, 'ya gotta love the boys from Boeing, they're SO good, they can repair a writeoff in only 4 to 6 weeks"!

boundless
14th Feb 2008, 23:30
There's an original totemic reference on this myth. Here (http://video.aol.com/video-detail/rain-man-airport-scene-quantas-never-crashed/4279329490), I think.

Phil Space
15th Feb 2008, 02:32
Qantas never crashed?:=
That should read; Since 1961 Qantas has not had a fatal accident.

The never crashed myth only relates to the fact that the company has never lost a jet airliner. Between 1927 and 1951, Qantas had eight fatal accidents with the loss of 62 people. Half of these accidents occurred during World War II, when the Qantas aircraft were operating on behalf of the Royal Australian Air Force.

On 7 April 1949, Avro Lancastrian VH-EAS swung on landing at Dubbo during a training flight, causing the gear to collapse. The aircraft was destroyed by fire.

On 24 August 1960, Super Constellation VH-EAC crashed on take off at Mauritius en route to the Cocos Islands. Take off was aborted, the aircraft ran off the runway, and was destroyed by fire.

On September 23, 1999, Qantas Flight 1 a 747-400 VH-OJH overran the runway in Bangkok. The accident occurred while landing during a heavy thunderstorm. The aircraft ended up on a golf course. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau criticised numerous inadequacies in Qantas' operational and training processes.

On April 21, 2000, a 747-300 VH-EBW was damaged when its landing gear collapsed while taxiing at Rome.

And now they have this one at Darwin to add to the list:*

FoxtrotAlpha18
15th Feb 2008, 02:57
And now they have this one at Cairns to add to the list...

Cairns? Or Darwin perhaps??? :hmm:

Phil Space
15th Feb 2008, 03:10
Darwin it is:\

JohnMcGhie
15th Feb 2008, 04:23
Visual approach guidance lights all show PINK to pilot on final approach. ALCAN replaced accurate but expensive T-VASIS with cheap but near-useless PAPI installation that gets covered by the red bauxite dust. Letter of the law only.


Many thanks. I always wondered why the terminal was so close when we got off...

I'll have a "word" to the Powers that Be and see if I can get those lights changed...

Cheers

Brian Abraham
15th Feb 2008, 12:39
That should read; Since 1961 Qantas has not had a fatal accident.

That should read; Since 3 fatalities on 13 DEC 1951, VH-URV, De Havilland DH.84 at Yaramunda Qantas has not had a fatal accident.

not being picky, just historically correct - I hope.

Ye Olde Pilot
15th Feb 2008, 14:51
Quote:
That should read; Since 1961 Qantas has not had a fatal accident.
That should read; Since 3 fatalities on 13 DEC 1951, VH-URV, De Havilland DH.84 at Yaramunda Qantas has not had a fatal accident.

not being picky, just historically correct - I hope.


So do I understand 13 DEC 1951 where all the other airlines have to count from?
The Qantas story is a myth.
The BKK incident was a good example and this "heavy landing" at Darwin will be watched closely.

If as has been suggested the PAPI's were showing pink why did no one report it?
Can I suggest an inexperienced F/O female pilot banging it down hard!
(or maybe she just likes pink)

We all know the problems with inexperienced Aussie F/O's. :D
Sure Qantas will re-build this wreck to save face. Anyone know where the BKK re-build is now?

Maybe time for Mike Carlton and Steve Price on 2UE Sydney to ask questions!

Capn Bloggs
16th Feb 2008, 00:05
If as has been suggested the PAPI's were showing pink why did no one report it?
ALL PAPIs are pink. They are the most useless piece of aviation equipment known to man. Probably designed in Europe. Cheap and nasty. Give me a T VASI any day. :}

Brian Abraham
16th Feb 2008, 01:25
Ye Olde Pilot - You may care to look at the question I posed at the bottom of post #221 here, date 13th January,

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=307552&page=12

Prophetic?

We all know the problems with inexperienced Aussie F/O's

I certainly don't. Please expand.

You sure the "Ye" should not read "Grumpy"? :E

blueloo
16th Feb 2008, 02:05
.....OPERATED by National Jet folks......Not Qantas........ eye on the ball.......it may have the logo, but it wasn't Qantas... so maybe you should search for National jets history, rather than Qantas's.

Brian Abraham
16th Feb 2008, 04:28
If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck you telling us its a rooster? So they carry Qantas paint and you can only get a seat through QF with a QF flight number but its not Qantas. Qantas don't set the standards by which they operate? You not Dixons love child? You are only one. :E

ITCZ
16th Feb 2008, 11:21
If as has been suggested the PAPI's were showing pink why did no one report it?

My dear boy, if you think that every report a Captain submits results in immediate positive action by the responsible authority to rectify the reported fault, omission or deficiency, then please tell me which airline you work for and which contracting state it serves. I shall only fly on that airline henceforth.

Capt Claret
16th Feb 2008, 11:23
hallelujah Ye Olde Pilote. Why didn't any of us think to report the pink PAPI, or the two hectopascal error in the QNH. Geez we're dum. Thanks for pointing us in the rite direcktion.

ITCZ
16th Feb 2008, 11:31
I'll have a "word" to the Powers that Be and see if I can get those lights changed...

That would be appreciated - seriously. Les and his team do great work with the resources at their disposal, but the 'four pinks' are a problem for all that use the 'drome.

I dont like our chances of seeing a T-VASIS retrofit, they are significantly more expensive to install and keep in service -- many more lights in the array. If we can solve the problem of the bauxite dust it would be good for all.

FlexibleResponse
16th Feb 2008, 11:33
Brian Abraham said,
If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck you telling us its a rooster? So they carry Qantas paint and you can only get a seat through QF with a QF flight number but its not Qantas. Qantas don't set the standards by which they operate? You not Dixons love child? You are only one.

Now that takes the cake!

Oh that's super!
16th Feb 2008, 11:40
ALL PAPIs are pink. They are the most useless piece of aviation equipment known to man.

They seem to work OK if they're set up properly and maintained properly. Admittedly T-VASIs are better but I haven't found PAPIs to be that bad (as in being the most useless piece of aviation equipment) :ooh:

neville_nobody
16th Feb 2008, 12:59
The issue of the write off is because mainline own the aircraft from when they bought Impulse. If it was to be written off it would be chalked up against QF as a hull loss irrespective of who flies it.

PLovett
16th Feb 2008, 13:07
Forgive me if this has been clarified earlier but the reference to pink PAPI's is to the ones at Gove not Darwin.

There the things get coated in dust from the nearby mine (the bleedin airport was shifted north so they could further mine at the southern end) which gives all the lights a pink appearance.

Mind you at this time of year they should be getting a good daily wash from the "wet".:ok:

Capt Claret
16th Feb 2008, 13:23
It's not a writeoff. It's not going to be repaired at a cost greater than it's value.

So sorry not to scrap it just to make youse happy. :ugh:

Brian Abraham
17th Feb 2008, 08:26
Perhaps the pilot has had history of hard landings, however if that is the case why hasn't there been any measures to have a re-evaluation of the pilot and procedures

Go to the head of the class Dominic. It is extremely unusual for an incident/accident not to have been caused by organisational failures, the poor driver, whoever he or she may be, is merely the triggering agent. One only has to read the complete report of the BKK over run (since were talking QF) to see those factors at play.

Teal
17th Feb 2008, 09:51
Capn Bloggs - twice now you have stated words to the effect..:rolleyes:

.....OPERATED by National Jet folks......Not Qantas........ eye on the ball.......it may have the logo, but it wasn't Qantas... Refer my post #25, search the ASIC registers, and Qantas' own annual report -

QantasLink is 100% owned by Qantas. A tad difficult to hide behind 'the corporate veil' in this situation...

Additionally, QantasLink aircraft are owned by Qantas either in their own right, or via Qantas-owned leasing companies.

DominicYPGV
17th Feb 2008, 09:56
In reply to your comment Brian, I think you are completely correct. The BKK overun is an extremely keen example of pilot procedures (perhaps) being abused, but also let us take into consideration the weather conditions on the day of that accident. The flooded runway no doubt played a major part in the miscalculated landing slope. On that occassion i think the pilots did do quite a good job in keeping the aircraft in control for the majority of the sliding and aquaplaining. However all avoidable most likely. I suppose it brings great pride in all Australians to know that we have such a safe and reliable airliner. And once again you are too correct with your analysis into the BKK incident a closer eye reveals alot of errors within the Qantas company (management) but i don't know much about that topic so i can't really say;)

blueloo
17th Feb 2008, 12:10
Anyway - back on topic regardless of sledging......couldnt see a great deal of damage to it...left hand engine had cowling off, looked like left hand trailing edge wing to body fairing was missing, and lots of pen marks under the rego on in front of engine...bit hard to see if there was any wrinkling, but in the light there may have been.... otherwise it looked ok, not like an Adam air 737 recently on display.

fox niner
17th Feb 2008, 13:16
Anyway - back on topic regardless of sledging......couldnt see a great deal of damage to it...left hand engine had cowling off, looked like left hand trailing edge wing to body fairing was missing, and lots of pen marks under the rego on in front of engine...bit hard to see if there was any wrinkling, but in the light there may have been.... otherwise it looked ok, not like an Adam air 737 recently on display.

Alright, let's see the pictures then. They have been conspicuously absent in this thread.

JohnMcGhie
19th Feb 2008, 04:37
Hi ITCZ:

OK, I have had a word with the powers that be (and Les).

The PAPI lights are inspected every morning. They will be cleaned if required. They are also checked every evening. They will be cleaned again if required.

They will also be cleaned immediately anytime a pilot requests it. If you happen to be in the circuit at the time, please allow a few minutes for this to happen :-)

The subject of T-VASI lights is more problematic, as you surmised. Not only are they a great deal more expensive to install, operate, and maintain; there is also the problem of confusing international pilots.

We quite frequently have aircraft (usually, BizJets) coming in from overseas. Would expecting a pilot to deal with an approach lighting system they may not have seen before, at the end of a long overwater run, in possibly inclement weather, actually add to his problems? The question was asked...

However, please don't take this as a "no". Alcan is rather more safety-obsessed than most other companies around the world. If there is a safety issue here, well... they're not short of money. We just need to make a case, if we want them to spend it.

An issue is the fact that PAPI is a current international standard, and that the Australian CASA considers them appropriate. We would need to be able to make an argument (supported by recognised authorities and blah blah blah...) that the conditions at this airfield would result in greater safety if the lighting were upgraded.

Another issue is that the proportion of landings rejected on approach at this airfield is very low. Most of these are apparently due to low cloud-base, and of course better lighting is unlikely to be effective under such circumstances.

Just to head off the obvious: I was firmly given to understand that asking for an ILS system would NOT be favourably received :_)

Hope this helps

Capt Claret
19th Feb 2008, 08:53
John,

It might be a safe bet that CASA has approved PAPI as an acceptable alternative to T-VASIS based on cost and pressure.

As a pilot who's been flying in and out of Gove for some 14 years, I can only reinforce all that ITCZ has said. And add, that whilst PAPI might be the international standard, I believe T-VASIS to be far superior (I think T-VASIS as an Australian invention pre dates the International Standard PAPI too!).

blueloo
19th Feb 2008, 09:11
Rwy 11 is long overdue for an ILS

....and how bout levelling the runway!

JohnMcGhie
20th Feb 2008, 23:41
As a pilot who's been flying in and out of Gove for some 14 years, I can only reinforce all that ITCZ has said. And add, that whilst PAPI might be the international standard, I believe T-VASIS to be far superior (I think T-VASIS as an Australian invention pre dates the International Standard PAPI too!).

I never doubted him for a moment. After all, four times a month, I place my life in his hands (or yours!). That's not the issue.

The issue is: "How do we persuade Alcan to spend shareholders' money on this?"

There are only two levers we can pull: Safety, or Cost. We have to be able to show that better lights will make the airport either safer, or cheaper to operate.

And we have to be able to prove it. We need substantiated research.

The first place they are going to turn is CASA. If CASA says we should have new lights, they'll be installed next month!

Cheers

limelight
25th Feb 2008, 04:50
This is fron crikey.com.au an Aussie e-zine






Qantas gives new meaning to "bracket creep"

Ben Sandilands writes:


After giving 84 passengers a new meaning to the term "bracket creep" in a hard landing at Darwin on 7 February, exclusive images of the damage to the Qantaslink Boeing 717 have fallen from a passing jet in front of Crikey Towers.
The jet suffered extensive wrinkling or creep in areas of the fuselage rear of the wing, as shown in these images. A set of tyres also display impact-induced cracking of considerable magnitude.
http://www.crikey.com.au/Media/images/Qantas-creep1-43b008f6-99f8-4d8f-9b5b-bb964f2ee2a0.JPG
http://www.crikey.com.au/Media/images/Qantas-creep2-e9d10cd7-fbd9-45b1-92c5-e7b638e1c4ad.JPG
http://www.crikey.com.au/Media/images/Qantas-creep3-d6a9f31f-a8f4-4fe8-8a03-cf50bddba341.JPG
The jet was hidden from public view by Qantas for days in a Darwin hangar and kept out of the general media until Crikey broke the story on 11 February.
At that time it was a candidate for being the first hull loss of a Qantas jet, or any jet airliner, in Australia. (Qantas "retired" and sold a bent Boeing 707 involved in a steep dive and recovery while flying between Bangkok and Bahrain in 1969.)
This now wrinkled jet was flown for Qantaslink by National Jet, the South Australian contractor currently having its pilot training and checking processes examined as part of an Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation of the incident.
National Jet won the outsourced flight contract for its excellence and low bid and has been repeatedly endorsed by Qantas as meeting all of its safety and service standards.
The jet was supplied by Allco Leasing, an arm of the seriously compromised Allco Finance Group that was a party to the private equity bid so enthusiastically endorsed by Qantas before it went pear shaped last May, and once stood to participate in the proposed FleetCo spin off that was being pushed by the Airline Partners Australia consortium.
Qantas says the jet, worth about $35 million, will be repaired, rather than cashed out by insurance as a write-off. Industry sources say this might cost it more than $100 million, but pride in this case comes after a heavy fall, and the airline doesnt want to score its first ever jet hull loss.
Those little wrinkles are going to require very costly cosmetic surgery to smooth out.
Qantas made a similar investment in rebuilding the Boeing 747-400 it punted into a golf course at the old Bangkok airport in 1999, which ripped off an engine, pushed the nose wheel up into a bulge that was punched into the middle of first class, and tore off the main gear.
The bill for those "repairs" is believed to have been well in excess of $100 million.

Teal
25th Feb 2008, 04:58
Beaten to the punch!

zumBeispiel
25th Feb 2008, 05:15
Hmmm - some work to be done there ... but will the repairs be carried out in Oz or offshore? :confused:

inciter
25th Feb 2008, 06:02
As pilots we use a combination of factors to ensure the aircraft is on the correct approach path. Some of these include thrust setting vs rate of descent, three x height, GS, DME, position of rwy threshold on windscreen, all backed up by the PAPI.

Visual aids should not be used below 200ft anyway.

If the aircraft was not stabilised by 1000ft - 500ft agl it should have gone around but if this was a low level windshear issue the availability of either Vasi s or papi is irrelevant.

Half the airports we flew to at night back in the eighties had neither.

knotaloud
25th Feb 2008, 06:04
Inciter....beaten by seconds! Absolutely correct.

The PAPI is an approach aid. NOT a landing aid.

ITCZ
26th Feb 2008, 06:23
QantasLink is 100% owned by Qantas. A tad difficult to hide behind 'the corporate veil' in this situation...

There are none so blind....

The 717 was flown by a contract crew. They dont have QF seniority numbers, it is a completely separate employer, they cannot be members of AIPA (QF pilot union), the operations manual has "National Jet" written on it, the Air Operators Certificate is issued to National Jet. The engineers that maintain it, the parts inventory to support it, the hangar approvals, etc.

Ok, Teal, just to satisfy you, it is Qantas.

For all the other folk out there whose minds are not yet set like concrete, it is a totally contracted-out op, under a Qantas brand. Should you ever fly on a service provided by the group, just listen to the Cabin PA's from cabin crew and pilots. Qantas, Jetstar and Qantaslink DHC8 are identical. 717 are completely different. Why? Refer post by Bloggs.

The jet was hidden from public view by Qantas for days in a Darwin hangar and kept out of the general media until Crikey broke the story on 11 February.
30m from a public access gate where the anoraks and plane spotters take photos? Hidden from public view? Pull the other one.
This now wrinkled jet was flown for Qantaslink by National Jet
Teal, pay attention.
Industry sources say this might cost it more than $100 million
Absolute rubbish. Industry source? Journo at the next desk with a PPL, more like. This one will cost US$100mil because BKK cost US$100mil? The legal people call that sort of piffle 'similar fact evidence,' a label applied to a variety of wooly logic before it gets binned in the 'inadmissible' can.

:yuk:

===================
John, thanks for taking an interest. I hope you mentioned to Les and his team that we have absolutely no problem with their efforts.

max autobrakes
26th Feb 2008, 10:20
Looks like someones jet has developed cellulite!:}

Teal
27th Feb 2008, 12:40
ITCZ - accept your points - thanks. However, Qantaslink is still 100% owned by Qantas. Moreover, to quote Qantas themselves:
"When flying with QantasLink you can enjoy a range of benefits available to Qantas passengers......"

(Public) Perception is reality..:)

Capn Bloggs
27th Feb 2008, 14:48
They've done a bit of extra training and all is now well in the landing dept:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1AeHxMSCc8

Flightsimman
27th Feb 2008, 14:59
Now that is one awesome landing!!!

:D

V2-OMG!
28th Feb 2008, 00:32
Grieving for the fate of the B-717, since they don't make them anymore.

It might have been the same one I was a pax on in Oz. It felt like a very nifty little plane to fly. Our flight was seriously underbooked - we were only at about 15% capacity. I'll probably never be "indulged" that way again.

Life's a short runway - use it all.

Teal
28th Feb 2008, 04:47
This is a rumour published at crikey.com.au this afternoon:

CASA has refused to allow the Qantaslink 717 that was badly bent in a hard landing at Darwin on 7 February to be flown to Adelaide which has the nearest facilities for what will be a long and costly repair job. Qantas will now have to add to the cost of repairs by creating a special in-situ rebuilding facility for the jet which it is resisting writing off to avoid the stigma of recording its first ever hull loss of a passenger jet.

RENURPP
28th Feb 2008, 04:55
Bloggs, the pilot must have read the "Dummies Guide"to landing a 717 :eek::eek:

Capn Bloggs
28th Feb 2008, 08:58
Nah, just pulled up 2 at 30ft and closed his eyes...:ugh::=

messengerbird
4th Mar 2008, 15:40
I'm interested to know the source of these photos of Q 717 (landing in Darwin), as I haven't seen them elsewhere, or are these related to the Bangkok accident?
Also, does anyone know the update of the repairs ie: where, when and the costs?

TechCons
4th Mar 2008, 22:39
Repairs to be carried out in Darwin. Temporary hangar to be erected around aircraft for duration of repairs. Long Beach repair crew scheduled to arrive on-site sometime around mid-March - repair downtime currently estimated at around 28 days. Quoted cost is a few million USD.

Capn Bloggs
5th Mar 2008, 03:48
Quoted cost is a few million USD
There goes my pay rise....:{

max autobrakes
5th Mar 2008, 10:24
Reminds me of those guys who buy WWII fighters etc, all they get is a mass of corroded twisted metal , find the manufacturers plate in amongst it somewhere and then proceed to remanufacture an entire aeroplane around that plate. Just another simple repair really!

Sharpie
6th Mar 2008, 02:08
In days of Olde when Pilotes were Bolde, QANTAS did experience a few fatal accidents as well as non-fatal with hull destroyed. Critics can say that these were in the early days but the aircraft were registered as QANTAS aircraft and flown by QANTAS crew.

To name a few.

26 November 1943. Lockheed Lodestar VH-CAB. Capt. G.Campbell. Wards Strip Port Moresby. Crashed on landing. All crew and 14 pax killed.

July 1949. DH84 VH-BAF. Capt. R. Crabbe. Near Zenag. non-fatal. Aircraft destroyed.

May 1949. Avro Anson VH-BBZ. Capt N. Mitchell. Kerowagi. Non fatal. Aircraft destroyed.

July 1951. Drover. VH-EBQ. Capt. J. Spiers. Near Lae in water. Capt and six pax killed.

Sept. 1951 DH Dragon. VH-AXL. Capt F. Barlogie. Near Karanka. Capt. killed.

Dec. 1951 DH 84. VH- URV. Capt. S Peebles. Near Yaramunda. Capt and two pax killed.

Dec. 1951. DH 84. VH-URD. Capt.R. Davis. Non fatal. Aircraft destroyed.

:sad:

messengerbird
6th Mar 2008, 09:38
How many million $$$ is a 'few'? Is it in excess of the replacement cost of $35M to preserve the 'written off' record, which seems to be the rumour (but unconfirmed by the big Q).

Is there any news on when/ if QANTAS will release any official information regarding damages, costs and injuries incurred?

TechCons
6th Mar 2008, 13:24
The estimated repair cost is nowhere near the $35miliion replacement cost. It is a single digit number.

Weary
6th Mar 2008, 20:44
Aaaahh Gove.... the memories come flooding back, I've done a few landings there I'd rather forget about. Tell me, is my big paper fish still in the control tower? ;) Is the control tower still there?!!
PM me if you know who I am because I will probably know you................

Old Fella
7th Mar 2008, 05:46
I noted during my reading of posts on this thread that the comment was made in relation to the QF1 over-run at BKK that the pilots did a good job in keeping QF1 under control on a rain soaked runway.

Having had access to the full accicent report, via a relative who was a pax on that flight, it made for very interesting reading. The "accident", which Qantas tried to have described as an "incident", was the result of a totally inadequate appreciation of the problems likely to be encountered and no thought, apparently, to the use of Full flap and Max reverse on landing. (Rather than 25 Flap and Idle Reverse as was SOP)

My recollection of the report is that there was no discussion regarding the use of reverse thrust or full 30 degree flap for the landing. The F/O was the handling pilot. The approach was consistently flown above bug speeds, above glide slope and in addition to these points landed long. The F/O had initiated a missed approach too late to prevent touchdown, at which point the Capt took control without advising the F/O and endeavoured to complete the landing. In so doing, he retarded only three throttle to idle, leaving one engine (No 1 I believe) still developing around 1.50 EPR. The AutoBrake system would have been disengaged, the ground spoiler deployment cancelled when the throttles were advanced and all in all the situation on the flightdeck was chaotic. At no stage was full reverse selected and only 25 flap was used.

The aircraft left the end of the runway at 88 kts (101 MPH) and, fortunately, came to rest several hundred metres into the over-run which was very boggy. Approx $100 Million repair bill. In addition, it took more than 20 minutes to disembark the crew and pax. Qantas most certainly does have an enviable record, but not so good as is commonly perceived by the general public.

PBL
7th Mar 2008, 07:43
Old Fella,

For others who might wish to read it, the report is public domain and can be downloaded from the ATSB WWW site. I know the senior aviation psychologist on that investigation (the ATSB does not identify "leads", as some other organisations do).

You say The "accident" .... was the result of a totally inadequate appreciation of the problems likely to be encountered and no thought, apparently, to the use of Full flap and Max reverse on landing

I think that it is fair to point out that that list of active failures and latent failures identified in the report is rather longer than your two. They have seven "significant active failures" relating to crew behavior, one relating to runway condition and one technical (PA system failure). In addition, there were nine "significant latent failures" associated with Quantas Flight Operations Branch activities, three associated with CASA's oversight activity, and one with the design of the aircraft itself (placement of components of the PA system).

So I think your summary understates the complexity of the causal factors leading to the accident, as identified by the ATSB. You focus exclusively on the pilots, whereas the ATSB spends considerable space on the context in which the pilots did what they did.

Your "totally inadequate appreciation of the problems" corresponds to the ATSB's first active failure, "The flight crew did not use an adequate risk management strategy for the approach and landing". However, your "no one thought" about flaps Full and Max Reverse, is for me somewhat more problematic. The report does say that the crew neither selected nor noticed the absence of either idle or full reverse thrust, but there is no mention of flap setting in the list of active failures. [Edit: I now understand that Old Fella was referring to the choice during the approach of Flaps 25/idle reverse, which the ATSB characterised as "not appropriate for operations on to water-affected runways", Report p vi, but which was Qantas standard at the time. In contrast, the ATSB considers Flaps 30/full reverse thrust as "appropriate". Below, I refer to deciding about use of reverse thrust when on the runway itself and it becomes apparent that decel is not what it should be.]

Sometimes it is very hard to understand exactly why people did what they did. The crew undertook substantial interviews with the ATSB HF people, who are world-leading, and the results of those interviews do not appear to have yielded a definitive answer to the "why", otherwise it would have been in the report.

It does seem to me odd to suggest that, in a large jet, "no one thought" about reverse thrust. I think it more likely that at the point of landing they fixated on other things: one pilot was in a go-around mind set; the other decided to continue with the landing, and at that point of opposing conceptions of the situation they probably "lost the bubble" in a number of ways.

"Having the bubble"/"losing the bubble" are concepts highlighted by Gene Rochlin in his study of the shootdown of Iran Air 655 by the Aegis cruiser USS Vincennes (Iran Air Flight 655 and the USS Vincennes, in Todd R, La Porte, ed., Social Responses to Large Technical Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991.) The closest I can come to it on-line is a precis in Rochlin's book "Trapped in the Net", of which the relevant Chapter 9 (http://press.princeton.edu/books/rochlin/chapter_09.html) is on-line. There is no mention of the "bubble".

Here is what Rochlin says:


Past and present TAOs [Tactical Action Officers] have characterized their sense of having proper command and integration of the information flows as "having the bubble." When you've got the bubble, all of the charts, the radar displays, the information from console operators, and the inputs from others and from the senior staff fall into place as part of a large, coherent picture. Given the large amount of information, and the critical nature of the task, keeping the bubble is a significant strain. On many ships, TAO shifts are held to no more than two hours. When for one reason or other the TAO loses the sense of coherence, or cannot integrate the data, he announces loudly to all that he has "lost the bubble" and needs either replacement or time to rebuild it. Losing the bubble is a serious, and ever-present, threat, and has become incorporated into the general conversation of TAOs as representing a state of incomprehension or misunderstanding even in an ambience of good information.

This notional "bubble" is one of the key elements in obtaining high and reliable systemic performance in [critical , complex, high-risk settings].....

Mathematicians, computer scientists and others in the UK sometimes speak of "grocking" something, which means something similar. The idea is that there is a distinct mental state in which you intuitively understand all the relevant features and phenomena in an active situation, and equally its opposite is a mental state in which you don't have such an understanding. The point of singling this out with a special word or phrase is to indicate that the mind can switch rather rapidly between the two. I think ATCOs know about this quite well. They come to a radar screen to start a shift, and spend a while "grocking" what could be a complex situation. When they "have" it, then they can take over. And when they think that they are in danger of "losing" it in the middle of a shift, there is a second person there to offload some of the work. I hope that gives some idea of what I am getting at. It means you do/don't have a complete cognitive grasp of all relevant features of the situation at a given time.

I think all of us have experienced this phemonenon at some point, when a situation we thought we cognitively understood suddenly feels foreign, strange, and we instinctively look for clues to help us regain our cognitive grasp.

It seems to me that in a state of indecision, in which one pilot is set on go-around and the other on continuing a landing, that both pilots could easily "lose the bubble", a crew could collectively fail to "grock" the situation. Some relevant phenomena become absent from attention, and it seems use of reverse thrust may well have been one of these.

I think "losing the bubble", or failing to grock, decribes a different cognitive phenomenon than that signified by "not giving thought to" something. I hope you will agree.

Seaching for the reasons why such a lack of understanding of the actual situation developed during the landing led the ATSB to their "significant latent failures", most of which were associated with Qantas Flight Ops, so I think it is fairer to mention this along with active failures of the crew. Causally, the latent failures are just as significant as the active failures.

PBL

Old Fella
7th Mar 2008, 08:24
PBL, my comments regarding the performance of the cockpit crew on QF1 were made in response to the previous comment on their performance by an earlier contributor. Of course I realize that many factors were in play. May I recommend to all who wish to take the time to read the 8 page coverage in the CASA Flight Safety magazine summary that you go to WWW.casa.gov.au/fsa/2002/nov/24-31.pdf (http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2002/nov/24-31.pdf) and view that report. In it it mentions flap settings and the use of reverse thrust. Qantas policy was, at the time of the accident, to use 25 Flap/Idle Reverse as the preferred configuration for landing.

PBL
7th Mar 2008, 08:39
Old Fella,

Understood that your comments were focused.

The point about the flaps 25/idle reverse versus flaps 30/max reverse is of course pertinent; the ATSB found that the former configuration was "not appropriate for operations onto water-affected runways" and the other configuration was "appropriate". However, they say that inter alia the inappropriate selection of flaps 25/idle reverse (which selection was made before landing) was an error "primarily due to the absence of appropriate company procedures and training", and I would rather point the finger where the ATSB says it should be pointed.

PBL

Old Fella
7th Mar 2008, 10:17
PBL, absolutely no arguement from me on that score. In fact, QF training was found inadequate and the company now uses 30 Flap and Full Reverse as SOP, just as Boeing intended.

PBL
7th Mar 2008, 10:28
Old Fella,

on second thoughts, I think I misinterpreted you when you said "no thought to" use of Flaps 30 and Max Reverse. My comments were addressed to what one might do when barrelling along a runway much faster than one wants to be, and more flap and max reverse are two of the things one could do in a hurry. Whereas you meant the selection of landing config at the appropriate time on the approach. Sorry.

PBL

Spaz Modic
7th Mar 2008, 11:28
:rolleyes: The non accident accident at BKK was the result of the simplest of human factors - changing the mindset of a missed approach to a landing after the missed approach was initiated. ;)

Teal
7th Mar 2008, 11:57
Old Fella/PBI:

Why would Qantas change the recommended Boeing configuration of 30 flap and full reverse to 25/idle reverse? Supposed cost savings? :bored:

Brian Abraham
7th Mar 2008, 12:19
The non accident accident at BKK was the result of the simplest of human factors - changing the mindset of a missed approach to a landing after the missed approach was initiated.

Not that simplistic Spaz. Get hold of the full report on CASA's website and digest. Many, many lessons to be learnt, and the source of the smell doe's not necessarily eminate from the cockpit. :ooh:

PBL
7th Mar 2008, 12:51
Teal,

Why would Qantas change the recommended Boeing configuration of 30 flap and full reverse to 25/idle reverse? Supposed cost savings?

No, it doesn't appear to have been that at all. It appears to have been that the info on operations into wet and contaminated runways were filed off under "Cold Weather Operations" in the Supplementary Procedures section of the Ops Manual, so people didn't think they applied in the tropics (see the quote below). The procedures do include an instruction to use max reverse. They were issued by Boeing in 1975, but then limited the amount of info provided for two-crew aircraft and they were never in the B744 Ops Manual. However, Qantas included them in the "Cold Weather Ops" section when the introduced the B744 in 1989. All this in Section 1.6.1, p31 of the Report. Further,


It became evident during the investigation that many Qantas pilots (including the crew of Qantas One) viewed this section of the ... Operations Manual as relevant only to cold weather operations, such as those encountered in winter in Europe or Japan, or when strong crosswind conditions existed. They did not associate the information with water-affected runways in warmer climatic areas.

There were no definitions of the meanings of the relevant terms "wet", "icy", "slippery", "water patches", "flooded" or "contaminated" referring to runway condition in either the Qantas B744 Performance Limitations Manual or any other publication which formed part of the company ops manual. So apparently people didn't realise that wet was what "wet" meant. They thought "wet" meant "cold and wet" (if they had been Brits, I could understand it :) )

PBL

Teal
7th Mar 2008, 23:36
PBL - thanks for the explanation. Puzzling though given that wet runways (hot or cold) have always been around and operating procedures would have been honed over decades of jet operations in all weather conditions.

I could be imagining it but I do seem to vaguely recall reading a report at the time of the BKK incident which referred to maintenance savings Qantas could achieve through less frequent/extreme use of flaps/reverse thrust on landings. I stand corrected if this is not true.

punkalouver
8th Mar 2008, 00:14
PBL said

Teal,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teal
Why would Qantas change the recommended Boeing configuration of 30 flap and full reverse to 25/idle reverse? Supposed cost savings?
No, it doesn't appear to have been that at all.

Please. Lets actually read the report and get facts straight before posting this time. Accuracy is important. Of course it was for cost savings. Read page 149 of the report. There were a whole bunch of changes in procedures with the intention of cutting costs as outlined in memos. Flaps 25 landings and idle reverse with certain exceptions and this statement....."any situation where airmanship considerations dictate otherwise."

airfoilmod
8th Mar 2008, 00:15
As you may be aware, "grocking" (sic) relates to a novel by Heinlein, "Stranger in a Strange Land". The author spells it "grok" (king). It describes a state of mind that inhabits the realm of complete awareness.
John Boyd, the noted combat theoretician and combat pilot calls it "In The (OODA) Loop". It has been described in many ways over time: "Swordlessness", the Eye, the "Zone", etc. Not new, it surprises many people when they first "grok" the description. Some call it focus, that is incorrect, it is awareness cubed; focus is a narrowing, awareness is a dilation. It is a concept that is being applied in many ways in many new areas of endeavor.

PLovett
8th Mar 2008, 05:53
airfoilmod

What some in aviation would refer to as "situational awareness".

PBL
8th Mar 2008, 10:33
airfoilmod,

As you may be aware, "grocking" (sic) relates to a novel by Heinlein, "Stranger in a Strange Land". The author spells it "grok" (king).

No, I wasn't. I just picked it up from my pals. Thanks for the background! (Being a Brit, spelling it without the "c" grates on me; I think I'll leave it in.)

PLovett,

What some in aviation would refer to as "situational awareness".

Well, not quite. It is obviously related, but it is both more and less. (Not that everybody in aviation uses the term in the same way!) When mathematicians or computer scientists or physicists suddenly understand how to solve a problem, or how a particular construction works, that is not appropriately described as "attaining situational awareness". But it is grocking.

And on the other hand, if you are in a airplane, and you are situationally fully aware, you cannot just suddenly lose that in an instant if nothing else changes. But you can "lose the bubble" that quickly. There is a cognitive switch.

It is a bit like Wittgenstein's duck-rabbit picture, that you can see as a duck or as a rabbit, but not both at the same time. Your brain switches between the two (and you can help it, but sometimes it just does it by itself). Or the 2D cube outline which can be interpreted as being seen from different spatial positions relative to the cube. These are in an obvious sense symmetric states, whereas grocking and failing to grock are not. But grocking, and failing, has some of that cognitive duck/rabbit feel about it. I don't know whether, from a neuropsych point of view, similar things happen in the brain (I don't even know if the CAT-scan people can trace duck-rabbit changes), but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

The TAO "bubble" concept that Rochlin was talking about obviously has to do with integrating complex sets of information, and there are obviously times when one can integrate more and times when less. Just as there are times when I can read faster than at other times, with the same level of comprehension. But mathematical grocking is not like that at all. It is more or less sudden comprehension. And the information may not be complex (indeed, often it is sparse).

It is related to being "with the airplane" versus "behind the airplane".

There are indeed slight differences between all these examples that I think we can remark, but I am suggesting that there is a cognitive phenomenon common to them. I wonder if the CAT-scanner people could find a signature?

PBL

PLovett
8th Mar 2008, 11:50
PBL

Thanks for the expanded explanation. I certainly didn't comprehend the fact that you can "lose the bubble" without there being a change in the prevailing environment.

airfoilmod
8th Mar 2008, 20:12
Better than being with the Aircraft, is to be "ahead of it". Situational awareness is probably a "minimal" level of what the bubble people mean. With respect, "situational" implies a "lock" in the "present", a possibility of missing what's coming. Again, Focus is a word pilots use (guilty) when instructing others, and is woefully inadequate to describe what's needed in certain flight regimes, and recommended for all of them. A Blue Angel described it to me as "being as one". When the Boss wants a manouver, he states it, and all follow, as if they were all one. "thinking" can get you and your wing killed, "focussing", same. It is an intuitive ability to act as one with others, or well ahead of your "space" as a single. We teach this at the Leadership Academy, as do countless others in different domains.

Section28- BE
3rd Apr 2008, 07:42
Ex the ATSB Website- Release Date: 27 March 2008

Occurrence Number: 200800641

Link Below-

ATSB VH-NXE- Preliminary (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/aair200800641.aspx)

Engineer_aus
8th Apr 2008, 03:28
Currently being repaired. Looks pretty nasty from the photos I saw. Boeing sure know how to build a hangar (with a/c). Shouldn't be to much longer before the aircraft is back in ADL for cabin re-fitment and back into service.

787FOCAL
9th Apr 2008, 21:37
$4 million is the AOG estimate.