Letter in Sydney Morning Herald

[B A Lert]

From today's paper

Wing and a prayer

A Qantas spokesman is reported as saying that QF925, which suffered an oil leak flying from Cairns to Sydney, landed without incident and "under its own power". ("Runway emergency", March 3). I don't know where else it would get its power.

David Howells
St Ives

Even with this gentle reprimand, I wonder if the teenagers who form the Qantas spin machine will 'get it'? On the other hand I wonder if the letter-writer has ever heard of the glider (aka A330) operated by Transat?

http://www.airtransat.ca/en/images/7_0/a330-200.gif

[Going Boeing]

I take it BA that you recognise the letter writer!

[4Greens]

The author of the letter is a distinguished ex aviator. He has heard of the Transat experience and also the Gimli glider.

[Going Boeing]

and the "Bahrain Bomber".

[Avid Aviator]

....and a certain BA 777 "landing" in LHR.

[Kangaroo Court]

What's the story on the B777? I mean probable cause.

[Mr. Hat]

mishandling? were they not a glider of the heavy 777 type at that stage?

I like to see others in the seat do better.

[Merlins Magic]

Heard the other day that the initial report has been released. It should be available on the net somewhere.

It apparantley states that the crew failed to descend enroute to LHR to a warmer level to avoid the fuel tanks icing up. This is common practice along this air route. Also states that they left their descent a bit longer (increasing the risks) and idle descended the whole way in. It wasn't until a few miles out that they needed power to capture glideslope and airspeed and no response due to solid fuel. (Maybe not solid but definately ice particles).

This is what I heard only - haven't seen the report.

If this is the case, a very good outcome for BA. It could have been a lot worse.

[B A Lert]

Hey GB! You can take whatever you like as long as you don't pinch my wallet. :ok:

[AerocatS2A]

Merlins Magic and Eclan, you guys need to read the report because it doesn't say anything like what you're saying. It describes a flight where certain flight levels were planned and then higher flight levels were flown. However, at no time did the fuel temperature get anywhere near it's freezing point (10 degrees warmer than the specification freezing point and 20 degrees warmer than the fuel's actual tested freezing point.) The report didn't have much specific to say regarding causes but it actually RULED OUT freezing fuel. There was also NO mention of mishandling.

In short, get the facts before spouting crap, particularly when the link to the report is available on these very forums (have a look at the Rumours and News forum.)

[Nuthinondaclock]

A bit hash there Merlins Magic.

From the Department of transports initial report;


The lowest TAT recorded during the flight was ‑45ºC, and the minimum recorded fuel temperature was -34ºC. The fuel temperature in flight must not reduce to a temperature colder than at least 3ºC above the fuel freezing point of the fuel being used. The specified freezing point for Jet A-1 fuel is -47ºC; analysis of fuel samples taken after the accident showed the fuel onboard the aircraft had an actual freezing point of -57ºC.

From Merlin;
"......and idle descended the whole way in...."

That's not mishandling mate. I wish my descents were like this everytime.

I can include the whole report if you wan't but it's a pretty dry read.

Nuf.

[Kangaroo Court]

Would the new aim point have been short of the runway then?

[Capn Bloggs]

Eclan,
The reports indicate they remained on the glideslope instead of maintaining airspeed and selecting a new aimpoint. The IAS washed off and a massive sink-rate was allowed to develop.
They probably did that to prevent crashing into the houses on short final, resulting in the near-certain deaths of all on board and many on the ground.

Back to your C152 sonny.

[Jabawocky]

Capn Bloggs

Just being an armchair commentator like yourself here, but I am not so sure they did Anything.

From memory when I read the preliminery report a while back, it seems they left the AP engaged all the way until it disconnected in the final seconds of flight. The crew did nothing as such. More likely the AP was trying to maintain the ILS and kept pulling up to hold the speed that was set.

Talking to a well known Boing driver the other day, who with his colleagues had a play in their B777 sim, and if you set it up and let it go, at flight idle.......result is identical.

Now I am sure they also did not want to land on any houses either.

The final report will be a good read I am sure!

J:ok:

[SeldomFixit]

Back to the point shall we ? The QF CNS/SYD event was a rear bearing failure was it not ? How does that relate to ANY of the quoted " similar events "
Amateurs. :bored:

[Going Boeing]

Seldom, I agree with your comments re the massive thread drift. The letter writer in question is a very experienced pilot (retired) who does not hold the media and company spin doctors in high regard. The "subtle" way that he got his message across is indicative of his sense of humour.

[ampan]

I've never understood why press releases on this sort of subject have to go through the bloody Marketing Department. If you want to minimise an incident, and if you want to do it properly, why not give the job to the Flight Ops manager, or the Chief Pilot?

[galdian]

That would raise the question of whether a "Flt Ops Manager" or "CP" could be both a "company person" and a "person of integrity."

One might suggest that at times (if not many times) the concept is mutually incompatible; in which case they may get a bonus however the guys who go out and actually do the work that keeps EVERYONE in the company with a pay packet lose respect for those they would like to be leaders (big difference betwen leaders and managers, the former a dying breed big time IMHO.)

[ampan]

I'd go for the CP: He, or she, has no particular financial interest. Demotion to the line means a lot less work, and only a bit less pay.

[teresa green]

I think Dave who is from the old school (and a top aviator) sees it purely with humour and probably a touch of frustration as our once fine company continues to grind along, but us old bastards were used to the days where pilots and engineers were able to have a say in all things aviation, and left the bean counters to bean counting, and the marketing people to marketing etc and never the twain did meet. Now they wheel some bloke out who would not know a APU from a camels arse, and he/she assures us all is well, even if it does have two donks out and a hijacker on board. It was much more fun in our day..when if it was up the creek without a paddle, it really was! Like to catch up for a beer Dave!