PDA

View Full Version : MERGED: Qantas Decompression ?


Pages : 1 [2]

NSEU
27th Jul 2008, 03:53
What where the bottles made of ?

Most of the Qantas 744 ones are steel. Some, I hear, are now lighter weight carbon(?) composites.

The necks of the pax bottles in the cargo sidewall are pointing upwards (all in parallel). The threaded connections for the plumbing are at right angles to the neck.

Perhaps the newer bottles are more fragile.. or rather, certain types of damage may be less evident. There was this concern with the fuselage of the new 787.

I can't see how something(shifting) in the cargo could impact the bottles and damage them. There will be fore-aft movement forces on takeoff, and turns should be "co-ordinated" with forces down rather than sideways. Also, if I remember correctly, there is a step in the cargo sidewall which puts decent space between the cargo and the bottles.

If the reports about a missing bottle are true, then it either got sucked out or blew itself out by bouncing off something (or deflecting off its mounting frame).

Trojan1981
27th Jul 2008, 04:09
The more theorys appear on this site, the more appear in the media. Is there such thing as real investigative journalism in Australia anymore? or just info-tainment with "expert aviation opinions" sourced from PPrune?

Jay Arr
27th Jul 2008, 04:32
1. From the videos it looks like the landing was on Rwy 06. Through the window you can see the international terminal, a couple of parked aircraft and also the single taxiway. So, yep, ILS 06 not available - another factor to deal with. If the weather was ok (looks like it was) then a visual approach is probably the go, as opposed to a VOR app. Perhaps this is where the media have come up with comments like "flew by instinct"?

2. Sounds like they didn't use reverse on landing? Smart thinking - will file that one away for myself - who knows what damage had been done and what reverse may add to.

3. The various suggestions that the aircraft was closer to HKG than MNL may come from the idea that normally you are still climbing when reaching/passing FL290 and thus would be closer to departure a/p. However, anyone who flies that route knows that you often get held down to FL290 ex HKG and can be cruising there for a long time. So I don't doubt MNL was the closest decent airport - suggestions that the crew dismissed a nearer option such as HKG for cost reasons are amongst the most outrageous, disgraceful comments I've ever read on PPrune.

4. Similarly, various comments around on PPrune that the crew just "performed in accordance with their training, what's the big deal?" are similarly outrageous and obviously are made from non-pilots. A bang, deco, no a/p's, structural integrity in doubt; and as you start the Recalls you'd be wondering whether this thing is going to hold together. Pucker Factor Rating: HIGH. Well done, boys, for keeping it all together. I hope I could do as well in the same situation.

5. And - there is a 50:50 chance the S/O would have been in one of the seats. Without labouring the specifics, that's the last sector the boys will fly together before returning to SYD, and last chance for the S/O to "get" a sector. I don't have any info on what did occur, but either JB or BW may well have jumped out of his seat on climb ex HKG and S/O jumped in. If so, "well done" to the S/O also.

6. As for what caused the problem, who knows? Can't investigate it via the internet from the other side of the world, or from reading the media, so I'll leave it to the real experts to discover.

7. Up the track, we're already nick-naming JB "Boom Boom Bartels"..... ;) Great team effort, guys, you make us proud. Well done.

Stationair8
27th Jul 2008, 05:18
The main thing to be learned from this incident is that the Captain made it home to the missus with the duty free still intact, as per the photo in the Herald-Sun.

Devcon4
27th Jul 2008, 05:25
I am a LAME 744 rated and I have to agree strongly with you Jay Arr.

Mate, I bet if some of the "What ever/ big deal" people were on that flight as pax much less flying the thing they would be crapping themselves!!

Pretty easy to make big statements on the net people. The guys flying that thing did a top job. Do not belittle what they have done. Every time they jump into the cockpit they are taking on a MASSIVE resposibility and those guys stood up to the litmus test.

These are the sort of Pilots that make QF what it is. The s##t doesn't hit the fan to often, but when it does they are up to it!

Great job you guys! You ARE worth more money.

stoned philosopher
27th Jul 2008, 05:59
Sounds like they didn't use reverse on landing?

If you watch this video from the LA Times you will hear the roar of the reverse thrusts several seconds after touch down, and the pax applauding after the reversers were stowed.

Los Angeles Times Video (http://www.latimes.com/video/?clipId=2731433&topVideoCatNo=undefined&c)

This of cause does not add nor take away the credit due to the admirable act of the flight crew. Well done chaps.

Happy Potter :zzz:

Capt Kremin
27th Jul 2008, 06:07
The Capt and FO were in the seats. The FO hand flew the descent whilst the Capt dealt with the checklists and systems failures. The Captain landed the aircraft as per SOP.

another superlame
27th Jul 2008, 06:18
Wow what an exciting week for all the wrong reasons.
I hope this is a BIG BLOODY WAKE UP CALL to Geoff Murray David and all the other morons that run this once illustrious and wonderful airline. It is after all an airline, not a BRAND, not a shareholders investment but a company that is being undermined by its management.

I applaude the crew of this aircraft, no more needs to be said.

But with QFs run of incidents in the last 12 months somebody in a postion of power needs to wake up to themselves and allow QF to return to its position of the worlds best and safest airline once again.

In my time with QF I have heard people say they are the luckiest airline in the world, with what could have been,eg Bangkok Qf1, and again this year with the 744 losing most of its elec power, VH-OED with its cracked butt joint about 5 years ago.

Whatever the reason for this latest incident, now is the time for the board to rebuild the airline and engineering and give their passengers the service,reliability and safety that they have paid for.

It is time to stop taking the paying passengers for granted and treat them with the respect and courtesy they deserve.

Thank you
I will now hop off my high horse

employes perspective
27th Jul 2008, 06:33
if an oxy bottle let go,why?heat?fatigue?(very little cycles raised in the life of an oxy bottle)manufacturing fault?(cyclinders go through extensive testing before released[tested to higher px than 1800 psi that is used])
if heat(where would the heat come from) the px relief valve would of let go first....too many questions ,i say let the investigators do their jobs,as long as CASA has nothing to do with it:\

Jay Arr
27th Jul 2008, 06:34
Thanks, Happy Potter, for that but I still can't hear the reversers. It might be a combination of poor audio quality and the crap speakers on this laptop. Whatever - the issue isn't that important, not intended to distract from the other issues or the sterling work of the crew.

And thanks for that info, Capt Kremin. Hand flying decompression events is not something we practise very often - so it just reinforces my admiration of BW.

7378FE
27th Jul 2008, 06:59
Well done to the crew of this flight, it was close to suitable airports on this route, but what if the incident happened on the soon to be SYD-EZE route, which the great circle track takes the aircraft around 2000nm from the nearest suitable airport?

What is the endurance of a 744 at 10000 feet?

7378FE

another superlame
27th Jul 2008, 07:05
Just a thought. The media is going on about oxy bottles letting go. But that far back in the cargo there are no oxy bottles, but there are cargo fire bottles.

DEFCON4
27th Jul 2008, 07:10
1.No One was Injured
2.The Fellows in the Cockpit performed admirably.
3.The Cabin Crew likewise performed well.
4.The hull is intact and will fly again.
5.The event did not occur over the Himalayas.
6.Best of all...this whole bloody mess is what that vertically challenged R Sole Dixon will be remembered for.The treatment of LAMES over the last couple of months has been both immoral and reprehensible.Dixon will leave on a low note...aas he deserves.
To the entire crew of the QF 30...an outstanding result!!

Going Boeing
27th Jul 2008, 07:16
Posted by 7378FE

what if the incident happened on the soon to be SYD-EZE route, which the great circle track takes the aircraft around 2000nm from the nearest suitable airport?

Every flight plan calculates all contingency range configurations including engine/critical systems failure and depressurisation. The SYD-EZE route will be planned in accordance with CAR's, CAO's, AIP's etc and the route will be such that the aircraft will have sufficient range to divert to a suitable airport at all stages of the flight. Some posters on this thread have commented that it was lucky that this event did not happen on the previous sector wrt high terrain adjacent to the Tibetan plateau. Every segment of that route has been analysed and "Escape Procedures" have been published (& which both pilots at the control seats have in front of them) to take into account Single Engine Failure, Two Engine Failure and Depressurisation cases. By law, RPT operators are required to comply with these requirements and at no stage is an aircraft going to caught in a no option situation.

Bad Hat Harry
27th Jul 2008, 07:23
It is the people who work for Qantas who are Qantas.
It is not the opportunists who masquerade as management.Those whose prime motivation over the last ten years has been the creation of executive wealth.
Mr. Clifford when Dixon leaves you will have an opportunity to do something that the current managment have failed to do.
Rebuild Qantas back into the premier/premium Airline that it deserves to be.
Dont Phuck Up this Golden Opportunity?
Everyone in Qantas will be behind you in this endeavour.
We have been waiting for a long bloody time.
You have what Jackson didnt...balls.....use them.

Short_Circuit
27th Jul 2008, 07:28
Just a thought. The media is going on about oxy bottles letting go. But that far back in the cargo there are no oxy bottles, but there are cargo fire bottles.

No wanting to criticise but on several pics you can see aft of the hole one of the Green oxy cylinders still in place. It looks indeed likely a cylinder departed the aircraft bottom first, folding up that flap of skin and breaking free thru the stringers. There is even rumours of LHR doing work in this area prior to its DEP from LHR, unconfirmed....

r3please
27th Jul 2008, 07:32
Bad Hat Harry - doesn't 'penultimate' means 2nd to last? I would have thought QF deserves something a little higher than that:\

another superlame
27th Jul 2008, 07:33
Fair enough Short Circuit and reading smh.com they have reported a missing oxy cylinder, as I said just a thought. But thanks anyway

Bankstown
27th Jul 2008, 08:06
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/arff/arff747.pdf
Page 747.6.1 shows the location of the oxy bottles relative to R2.

PS - Big file!

Antisplash
27th Jul 2008, 08:10
Seems the hole was caused by a failed Oxy cylinder BBOOOMM!!. They are stored along that side of the fwd cargo and contain O2 at about 1720 psi. QF sent a team of specialists well 3 anyway - A LAME and 2 Sheeties plus they were outnumbered by "managers". Lucky it wasn't a dinosaur as the oxy bottles in those are in the cargo roof which is also the cabin floor. Also ALL the control cables run above the cargo. Good ol' GD sacked all the guys who recovered OJH and could have recovered this one too. Looks like it will have to be out sourced perhaps to Boeing. There are reports from locals that there is significant structural damage around door 2 R from the initial explosion and decompression.
Any one know where the O2 bottles are overhauled, OS perhaps? :yuk::*

Antisplash
27th Jul 2008, 08:15
Sorry Bankstown. The diagrams you refer to is for a 747-200/300 OJK is a -400.

another superlame
27th Jul 2008, 08:24
Keep scrolling Anti splash it shows -400 too. But it is not a very good image. Qf 400s have the extra bottles installed to allow flights over the himalayas, this image does not show the full number of bottles that can be installed.

Little_Red_Hat
27th Jul 2008, 09:35
I've copied this from the thread on R&N... just to pre-empt the comments and questions which may otherwise appear...

It seems pax are now saying that the oxygen system failed (at least at some seats). Just a thought here that it may not have failed but that pax are required to pull the mask down for it to work, and unlike other aircraft which use the chemical oxygen generators, activiating one mask on the 744 will NOT activate the entire row.. so maybe the 02 didnt fail, maybe the pax just didnt know how to use it properly??


B747 300 & 400 Pax Oxy
Pax oxy sys on this aircraft, as stated previously, is of the 'stored gaseous type'.

Pulling down on a mask will activate o2 flow to THAT MASK ONLY.

Therefore, if pax are too shocked/innattentive to briefing to REMEMBER this, they may NOT have pulled down on their mask- if it was flapping in front of them my guess is they'd remember the part to grab it and put it on- but possibly forgot the part of "Pull down on it firmly"" in favour of put it on quicklÿ, and ensure the strap is tight"

Most pax wouldn't know what a flow indicator is or how to check for oxy flow. (In this case, bag MAY inflate)

Flow can be shut off at individual units/masks when no longer required. Duration would vary on time of descent, number of pax, demand etc...

Yes, flight crew also have backup in the form of a portable bottle similar to those seen worn by the cabin crew in that video.

Ngineer
27th Jul 2008, 09:37
If the bottle is missing, did it cause the decompress or did it simply get sucked out when the decompress happened. If they are able to find the missing bits it would go a long way in solving this problem. That, however, remains unlikely.

Hasherucf
27th Jul 2008, 10:11
Another theory is the oxygen being contaminated by oil . Oxygen and oil are an explosive mix

LAME2
27th Jul 2008, 10:35
Contaminants need flow or a shock to cause problems, just sitting there is unlikely to cause you any problems until you need to use it or you do maintenance. A latent time bomb.

Anyone remember A9-300 1984?

Fris B. Fairing
27th Jul 2008, 10:59
LAME2

Anyone remember A9-300 1984?

Coincidentally, the fuselage of P-3B A9-300 was scrapped at Edinburgh just last month.

empire4
27th Jul 2008, 11:08
i think the best thing to come out of this is the FAA and NTSB. I wonder if QFE management are as friendly with them as CASA? maybe we might hear some resignations soon if this thing turns out to be maintenance error. GD and DC better get there cards out and start shouting dinners!

Captain.Que
27th Jul 2008, 11:13
Events like this provide an opportunity for those who feel they know a great deal to illustrate to a broad forum how little they actually know.

Bankstown
27th Jul 2008, 11:24
Thought I said Page 747.6.1 Antisplash! :ok:

Lookleft
27th Jul 2008, 11:47
Hopefully one benefit of all this discussion will be that pax may pay a bit more attention to the safety brief. I think too many of them think that the flow of oxygen through the mask will be like the car air-conditioner on max. Mind you I know of one decompression incident in Australia where one of the CC thought that they only had 20 seconds to live because they thought that the oxy mask wasn't working. I',m not sure why Empire 4 thinks that the best thing to come out of this will be the FAA and NTSB. They will not have the lead role in this investigation. Under Annex 13 the Phillipine equivalent to the NTSB will lead the investigation unless they ask the ATSB or NTSB to take over.

Matt-YSBK
27th Jul 2008, 12:22
Sorry for all the oxygen questions but.

Is there a regulator attached to the neck of each bottle or is there high pressure pipeing/manifold over to a remote regulator. What I'm getting at here. Can a bottle easily turn into a missile.

There is a good mythbusters episode. where they cut off the valve of a compressed gas tank (cant remember what was in it) and the tank went through a brick wall.. How many newtons of force would one of the brackets that hold the bottle in place hold. Are we talking a hard clamp here or a hockey strap :)

(thinking of moving that bottle from my seat back pocket)

Splitpin44
27th Jul 2008, 12:23
I'm an ex QANTAS employee who did a large part of my avionics apprenticship in Sydney heavy maintenance on 747s and 767s. I also got the opportunity to work in Brisbane at the new 767 heavy maint hangar.

All I can say is that the maintenance and values I learnt at Syd Heavy Maint in both line 1 (747) and line 2 (767) were at a level that was way above anything I have ever seen since. The attention to detail was what we were there for and was the reason for qantas's perfect safety record.

Just a few of the ideals that were drumed into me were....

1. "Who cares how long it takes to do an inspection?" The longer and more detailed the inspection is the safer the aircraft gets. There was never any pressure on me both as an appentice or AME to do inspections in a set time.

2. "Who cares how much parts cost?" Not me! nor anyone eles who worked in those hangars. If a part is stuffed or broken however minor the problem was it was replaced and no questions were asked......now i think of it the best idea is not to let engineers know the price of parts at all.

3. "Who cares if the aircraft is not out of heavy maint in time" Theres a reason it wasn't out in time and thats because every single little defect was being fixed. You can't make up a set time on something thats a variable. Each aircraft is a lucky dip as to how many defects will be found and this is the reason why LEAN SIGMA will not work. The LEAN idea is based a factory not a repair facility.

4. "You found a defect.....thats great!" I lost track of how many times i was praised for finding defects.

These are just a few of the ideals that i think QANTAS has lost in its heavy maint areas. It all comes down to saving time and money. The results of which we saw the other day.

I have no doubt the hole in the side of OJK was in some way related to cost cutting. Most likely the experienced LAME or AME who usually does the inspection of the cargo area got a better paying job eleswhere. Leaving someone with less experience to inspect it.

The last thing I have to say is morale in qantas heavy maint is at all time lows. You don't have to be Einstein to work out that when all you hear is stories of bad times, cost cutting and the very real chance of you loosing your job, you are in no way going to perform at your best. Thats the reason why I left QANTAS 2 years ago and haven't looked back, except for just now of course:rolleyes:

primethius
27th Jul 2008, 13:11
Re-Hole in the Hull of OJK, It appears that many posters as always fail to mention that the flaws in the machine are those that are designed by humans.
If it is caused by corrosion then we need to design materials or build machines that do not suffer such effects, carbon fibre perhaps but time will no doubt reveal all the flaws in that technology.
Oxy bottles failing, redesign to remove possibility or remove nessessity for onboard carriage of emergency oxy.
Other speculations that humans who wish ill on others and fabricate harm that is more difficult to engineer out of the human condition.
Random acts of chance well that is the most difficult to control that will be possibly the most difficult to re-engineer.
The pax on JK should feel relieved that they experienced the best of our current engineering and human skills whilst travelling in a machine only dreamed of a century ago.

teresa green
27th Jul 2008, 13:30
Sadly, I think splitpin has just nailed it. Well its a hell of a wakeup call, and we can only thank God or who ever looks after QF, (and somebody or something sure as hell does), it just worries me that some AME or LAME will be made to wear it, when we all know the reason why, has been coming a long time. Perhaps its time that the AIPA and the LAMES union got together as a united front, and faced management with some very strong recommendations and stuff the shareholders, we are dealing in lives here, not jam tins, and if we cannot supply aircraft that are suitable to service the industry in the manner the travelling public pay for and deserve then its time to close the shop. I sincerely hope (if it is proven to be a oxy bottle) that the engineer that is invited for tea and bikkies by management has the full support of his/her union behind them, and the general public is told the truth. In my wildest dreams, in all my years in aviation did I ever expect QF to go downhill like it has, and it is no LAME or AME to blame, the full fault lies with management and the beancounters cost cutting. QF has run on loyalty for many years and for many years it was appreciated, but for the last eight years or so, with the attitude of management of "you play along with us and we will stick the bat up your Ar#e anyway" the loyalty is drying up, and staff have become cynical and downhearted, perhaps this near tragedy had to happen, and perhaps it is the road to recovery, with one hell of a wakeup call, just let us hope the mighty dollar comes second to safety from now on. JC it has to.

Green gorilla
27th Jul 2008, 14:54
Looking at testing done on oxygen bottles you will find they are designed not to explode.

scurv
27th Jul 2008, 19:10
noone has mentioned qantas +nitrogen yet?

Could the nitrogen mix up from last year have anything to do with eventual (but premature) failure of seals, pressurerelief valves?
Or could the nitrogen have promoted corrosion inside an oxy cylinder.



edit - to you below - ive been called scurvydog for 25 years, its been shortened to scurv, we will have to share:yuk:

edit2 - to you below - i really dont care what you think 'mate', if you want to post like a 2 year old having a tanty thats your problem.

Scurvy.D.Dog
27th Jul 2008, 20:21
Appologies for the wee thread drift
.
To you above ... :hmm:
.
Eh .. piss off and use yer own name :*
.
LoL Scurv

P.S I don't give a rats mate ... stick yer sharing mate http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/piss2.gif

http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/geno/321.gif

Actual
27th Jul 2008, 21:25
The Sunday Times here in the UK said today that:
'Qantas haven't lost a jet aircraft since 1920'
Did Frank Whittle do his apprenticeship with Qantas? :confused:

Negative Feedback
27th Jul 2008, 23:03
Its correct though, they could also have written "since 1120" and still be right. They also could have said they haven't lost an A380, also true.

Its the media, truth takes another form.

Desert Dingo
27th Jul 2008, 23:30
Put up your hand all of you who believe Qantas has never had a passenger fatality. OK. Put your hands down now. You are all WRONG!
Qantas have been littering the countryside with wrecked aircraft and dead passengers for a long time.

A search through www.planecrashinfo.com (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/) reveals the following info about Qantas' fatalities:

de Havilland DH-9C G-AUED 24 Mar 1927 - 3 died
de Havilland DH-86 VH-USG 15 Nov 1934 - 4 died
de Havilland DH-86 VH-USE 20 Feb 1942 - 9 died
Short S-23 (flying boat) VH-ADU 22 Apr 1943 - 13 died
Lockheed 18 Lodestar VH-CAB 26 Nov 1943 - 15 died
Short S-23 (flying boat) VH-ABB 11 Oct 1944 - 1 died
Lancastrian VH-EAS 07 April 1949 - 0 died
de Havilland Drover II VH-EBQ 16 Jul 1951 - 7 died
Lockheed L1049 VH-EAC 24 August 1960 - 0 died
Boeing B747 VH-OJH 22 September 1999 - 0 died

Also, there is an article about the L1049 crash at Mauritius at http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/fsa/do...0jan/page49.pdf (http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/fsa/download/00jan/page49.pdf) where it mentions that on 23 March 1946 a Lancastrian G-AGLX operated by Qantas with 5 crew and 5 passengers went missing on a flight between Colombo and Cocos Is. and no trace of it was ever found.

I must admit to once believing that Qantas had a perfect safety record. This shows the power of selecting only the statistics you want. I think Qantas start counting from 1952 onwards. A bit like the White Star Line ruling a line just after the Titanic and counting from there.

Qantas do have a good record, but it is not as perfect as some people would have you believe.
Text added to get to minimum limit for post

Capt Fathom
27th Jul 2008, 23:48
Qf 400s have the extra bottles installed to allow flights over the himalayas

No sane airline flies over the Himalayas. :ok:

ampclamp
28th Jul 2008, 00:11
I dont think you'll find anything official from qantas sprouting the safety record and I cant remember them ever saying so in any official blurb/sales pitch.Could be wrong but just cant recall anything.

A lot of it stems from Rainman imho and an ignorant media who 'educate' an unknowing public who take that as fact without question.
It does help qantas charge that little bit more I believe trading on that reputation.Sooo many folks I know pay the extra for that implied safety record which despite the numbers you provided is still remarkable.

Sunfish
28th Jul 2008, 00:45
Not quite the Himalayas, my understanding is that LSALT is above the max. altitude the engines are certified to be relit. Last time I think I went over Afghanistan, LSALT just a bit lower.

Capt Kremin
28th Jul 2008, 01:00
From my understanding of this event, it will not be attributed to any failings by QF, maintenance or otherwise.
There will however be a worldwide flap about the construction standards of oxy bottles.
QF will turn out to be the unlucky recipient of a dud piece of equipment over which it had no control, much like the Sioux City incident.

Nudlaug
28th Jul 2008, 01:16
As "Negative Feedback" also stated, above comment

The Sunday Times here in the UK said today that:
'Qantas haven't lost a jet aircraft since 1920'

is correct. True, the year is misleading, they have crashed and had plenty of fatalities before the jetage, as Desert Dingo conviniently reposted, but they never lost a jet aircraft period. Yes Rainman comes into play and it's now stuck into peoples minds that Qantas just simply never crashed, which is not true.

But still, Qantas holds an impressive safety record albeit now with a bit of luck. Considering all of those fatalities were at times when other airlines didnt even exist, some during wartimes, or with crazy wooden and cloth machines at times when flying was almost inevitably going to get you killed, we are talking 1920's and 1930's here, that was experimental stages, people flying by their bum, hardly any instruments, ticking timebomb crazy flying machines just waiting to crash. That is one good safety record i reckon. :ok:

Yes, people shouldn't keep harping on as to how Qantas never ever crashed and has an immaculate safety record, but for me, even if they killed people before the 50's, Qantas never killed any passenger or lost a hull when it counts, from 1960 or so onwards. When most other airlines just started up and killed pax on an almost regular basis.

wessex19
28th Jul 2008, 04:09
J.B's wife (apparently going under the name OZWITCH) had this to say

Commwealth flying | Neptunus Lex (http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/07/26/commwealth-flying/)

"You might not recall that my husband was ex-RAN A4. He now flies 747-400. He had the explosive decompression yesterday.

Fun day!

I can give your readers some facts that are solid:

No engines were shut down.
Aeroplane’s controls were unaffected.
Some computer functions and electrics were affected - all 3 ILS shut down and the Capt’s FMC. Antiskid warning came on.
The R2 door alarm activated.
Capt inititated controlled descent from 29K to 10K, which took about 4 mins. Mayday was called (John never ever thought he would have to declare a mayday in his entire career!)

After levelling off, fuel dump of 50 tons was commenced, and plane landed afterwards normally, but used all available runway. Engine #3 was shut down first, then 3 others after and plane was towed to terminal. Passengers disembarked normally via aerobridge.
John praised crew and passengers, who all rose to the occasion.

I have a few pics I can share if you’d like. Let me know, and if any other q’s

Ozwitch"

Capt Fathom
28th Jul 2008, 04:14
She's not shy of the media (attention)! :confused:

International Trader
28th Jul 2008, 05:40
With the news on Yahoo that there was an AD to check bottle mounts months ago and that QF did not comply, surely Naffy must step up to the plate and do something to ensure the safety of QF passengers.
QF has taken care of its reputation by itself.
Remember that another airline's whole fleet was grounded after the airline reported a paper discrepancy! No holes in aircraft.

Bits can fall off QF aircraft, fuel computers can have problems, galley sinks can be allowed to continue leaking perhaps causing a total electrical failure and the side of an aircraft can blow out.What is done? Order them to check their aircraft? They were supposed to do that all along!
What else is wrong with their aircraft?
I am amazed that they still have 747-300's. Even decent freight operators are using 400's.

3 Holer
28th Jul 2008, 06:38
Yes, THIS (http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080728-The-full-bottle-on-the-latest-Qantas-thrill-ride.html) makes interesting reading.

Trojan1981
28th Jul 2008, 06:59
Interesting article...

Had this occurred say mid way to Johannesburg, or somewhere between Los Angeles and Australia, the jet, forced to fly at less than 10,000 feet would have consumed much more fuel than normal, and it could have all ended rather badly.

This was mentioned earlier in this thread, on the first day in fact.
Good work Ben Sandilands, I know you're reading:ok:

601
28th Jul 2008, 07:19
AD to check bottle mounts months ago

The original Boeing SB was issued December 19, 2002. Only 83 aircraft worldwide affected. Qantas management has said that only 3 Qantas 747s affected. This aircraft was not in that 3.

Good work Ben Sandilands

Maybe he will get a mention on Media Watch for plagiarism.

Desert Dingo
28th Jul 2008, 07:32
Had this occurred say mid way to Johannesburg, or somewhere between Los Angeles and Australia, the jet, forced to fly at less than 10,000 feet would have consumed much more fuel than normal, and it could have all ended rather badly.So the depressurised critical point is no longer considered in flight planning now days?

The airlines must have all gone downhill fast since I stopped flying.
What ill-informed crap! :ugh:

JaseAVV
28th Jul 2008, 07:41
man, if this was a bottle (either O2 or cargo fire) I will be very surprised.

Something must've gone really really wrong.

To me it still looks like something in the baggage/freight. Whether it caused the hole or upset the bottle. But a bottle on it's own?

Really looking forward to finding out for sure, the suspense is unbearable!

Spaz Modic
28th Jul 2008, 07:46
:} Looks like the grievance committee is also the PR committee.:rolleyes:

Capt Kremin
28th Jul 2008, 08:04
It was a Pax O2 bottle. Pieces of it were found in the main cabin. Ben Sandilands, you seem to believe everything you are told. Maybe you shouldn't?

NSEU
28th Jul 2008, 08:43
Some computer functions and electrics were affected - all 3 ILS shut down and the Capt’s FMC.

Scratching my head over this one :confused:

ILS: VOR/ILS antenna cables damaged? May have worked during approach if LOC or APP mode had been selected?

FMC: Weird... I wonder if the shrapnel pierced the Main Equipment Centre? Surely the FMC is protected from sensor input shorts (FQIS, etc)?

Clearedtoreenter
28th Jul 2008, 09:09
Some computer functions and electrics were affected - all 3 ILS shut down and the Capt’s FMC

Hope they had the Garmin 396 all charged up in the bottom of the flight bag!

HotDog
28th Jul 2008, 10:44
Trojan 1981, you and Ben Sandilands obviously have no idea of flight planning considerations on a long haul sector over water. All possible contingencies, including depressurization are caterd for with suitable PNRs and diversion capabilities.:rolleyes:

Lasiorhinus
28th Jul 2008, 10:52
Even when flying to Perth?:}

HotDog
28th Jul 2008, 10:56
Well Lasior, sh!t happens now and then which usually is not the fault of the system.:E

ampclamp
28th Jul 2008, 11:14
like it or not ben sandilands and peter harbison seem to be the go to "experts" on all things aviation.

Blacksheep
28th Jul 2008, 11:23
...my understanding is that LSALT is above the max. altitude the engines are certified to be relit. Last time I think I went over Afghanistan, LSALT just a bit lower.As I understand the rules, supplementary oxygen is required on routes where terrain would prevent immediate descent to 10,000 feet in the event of depressurisation and the aircraft would need to remain above this altitude for some time during the diversion - e.g. some parts of Iran which would be on a direct Singapore - Europe non-stop flight.

Now, if the oxygen system is responsible for a depressurisation, where do we stand as regards a diverting aircraft flying above 10,000 feet for an extended time with insufficient oxygen to supply the passengers for the duration?

I hope the full implications of an unprecedented, unexplained and unexplainable aircraft oxygen system bottle explosion are becoming clear.

ampclamp
28th Jul 2008, 11:35
good post blacksheep.
If indeed the cause is a ballistic o2 cylinder [as it seems to be, if one can believe anything ] your inference will have the boffins scratching their heads raw.
How indeed?
Chem gen's the size of a suitcase?

Trojan1981
28th Jul 2008, 12:00
Um, I was being sarcastic guys!:confused:

Capt Fathom
28th Jul 2008, 13:45
All possible contingencies, including depressurization are catered for with suitable PNRs and diversion capabilities.

Hotdog..what utter BS.

Qantas is no different to all the others! It's all about costs.
Flightplans are just that. A Plan. They bare no resemblance to the real world!

As a FlightPlanner once told me...

"It's a calculated risk! We make the calculations, and YOU take the risks!

How true!!!

HotDog
28th Jul 2008, 20:37
Well Capt. you are entitled to your opinion, BS or not.

Qantas is no different to all the others! It's all about costs.
Flightplans are just that. A Plan. They bare no resemblance to the real world!


Not all airlines are like yours or Qantas, I was involved in the flight planning of a 14 hour long haul sector in a previous life, which would not have been possible if all contingecies were not taken into consideration. Depressurization formed a large part of that.

Capt Fathom
28th Jul 2008, 23:07
BS was a rather harsh description! I'll retract that!

The rest stands...

Cessna Capt
29th Jul 2008, 02:15
striking similarites to Apollo 13.... did i hear "Manilla we have a problem"?
:}

Kelly Slater
29th Jul 2008, 04:26
Does inadvertantly putting Nitrogen in an Oxygen tank lead to any sought of corrosive action?

Deaf
29th Jul 2008, 04:59
IIRC from years ago the tanks are made the same except for the thread. Any corrosive effect would be due to contaminants like water and care is taken that there is no water in either.

ampclamp
29th Jul 2008, 05:14
no.nitro would actually inhibit corrosion as it's inert preventing oxidisation.

Dagger
29th Jul 2008, 05:25
Out of interest, how many passenger oxygen bottles are there on QF 744's, and are they all located in the one row?

NSEU
29th Jul 2008, 08:17
Out of interest, how many passenger oxygen bottles are there on QF 744's, and are they all located in the one row?

There is a picture of the (seven) pax cargo sidewall bottles in the Rumours and News forum. There are also a further 6 bottles in the middle of the cargo ceiling. This is a typical Qantas Rolls Royce-powered 744 configuration.

I see the (Australian) Daily Telegraph were well out of their depth when they posted a pic of the very large potable(drinking) water bottles in the aft of the Forward Cargo, claiming that they were oxygen bottles. Someone posted the same pic on PPRuNe the day before, but he did warn the forum that he wasn't sure if these were the bottles in question. Looks like the Telegraph ignored that warning. :D

Chardy
29th Jul 2008, 09:22
And guess where the so-called reporters get it from - here! Plus other places of course.

We should really get our memberships done here based on our licence numbers. But then it probably won't help...Chards

Lookleft
29th Jul 2008, 10:15
To those wondering about the depress case with an oxy bottle taken out of the system there are portable oxy bottles on board which are there as part of the theraputic oxy requirement. I'm sure that will all be covered in the final report which I don't think will be ready until 2010.

idydir
29th Jul 2008, 10:27
It is quickly becoming an empty shell, all that will be left is a brand with everything outsourced. A full service provider without providing anything physically itself. (perhaps contract management?)

Frequent flyers sold?
Airports sold?
Catering sold?
Holidays sold?
Flight Training spun off?
Engineering reduced and outsourced?
Ramp services outsourced?

Most of the fat is gone, and now the butcher is making cuts into the muscle, weakening a once fine beast. The remaining quality cuts left are being affected and demoralised by a brain infected with mad cow disease.

Perhaps it's time to cut off the head? (lots of fat there)

Totally agree with splitpins take on the situation.

Evidence suggests another game plan that's not being divulged to "relevant stakeholders"

Does anyone know if are Airbus and Boeing providing "Total Care Packages" for the A380 and B787 for engineering?

SCHAIRBUS
29th Jul 2008, 10:42
Don't know about Airbus but a Boeing gold care manager in Seattle told me they were backing away from the full line service especially in places like downunder.

He also mentioned facilities in other countries after giving us a presentation that showed their Brisbane location in OZ and many other countries.

Sorry can't tell you any more he refused to give any other info they all claimed to be ignorant of any details other than the marketing spiel on the 787 they were giving us.

Should be a nice plane if it ever gets here.

Hopefully QF BNE heavy maint will get some work it's the only hope they've got

vortsa
29th Jul 2008, 11:18
Frequent flyers sold?
Airports sold?
Catering sold?
Holidays sold?
Flight Training spun off?
Engineering reduced and outsourced?
Ramp services outsourced?

Sounds very much like an empty shell, or should I say cylinder.

Maisk Rotum
29th Jul 2008, 12:41
Bottle Bomb Blows Bum Out Of Boeing's Best

Jabawocky
29th Jul 2008, 12:53
FG

I have no hardware knowlege but I thought from an ATSB / news report that it said the CVR only keeps the last 2 hours or some shorter period than the data recorder that stores the last 24 hours.

So its quite likely the CVR was full of everything they could get.

J

Blacksheep
29th Jul 2008, 22:25
When was the first C of A issued? Most of the thirty minute recorders that were original equipment in older aeroplanes still meet the ICAO Annex 6 requirement and may remain in service.

The 01 January 1990 recommendation for a two hour recorder was just that - a recommendation. Most operators have specified the two hour recorder for aircraft acquired after that date but very few have accomplished retrospective modifications, especially on leased aircraft.

Capt Kremin
29th Jul 2008, 22:45
Flyinggit, you appear to be alleging that the crew erased the CVR? Absolutely wrong.

Capt Claret
29th Jul 2008, 23:56
Bloody cool character that Captain. First thing he thinks of after an on board explosion, emergency descent, and diversion, is, park the brakes, open the door, and press the erase button! :oh:

Kiwiconehead
30th Jul 2008, 00:43
What starts/stops the CVR in the 744?

Clipped
30th Jul 2008, 01:18
What starts/stops the CVR in the 744?

CVR powered whilst power is available to AC Bus 3.

Newgen
30th Jul 2008, 02:20
The CVR records all flight interphone and cockpit area microphone audio (via 4 channels) on a closed magnetic tape loop that overwrites itself every 40 minutes. It is impossible to erase any recorded information while in flight, the tape simply writes over old information due to the fact that it is primarily used to investigate cockpit conversations just prior to an extreme incident (read hull loss).

As a result, whatever expletives were voiced when the oxy cylinder let go would have been erased by the time the aircraft landed in Manila (recording continues even once on the ground until pwr is removed from the aircraft..or AC bus 3 at least). It is possible to "bulk erase" the recorded audio with the erase button on the voice recorder control panel but only once you are in full ground mode (park brake set, no engines running and at least one main entry door open)

Simple

Raider1
30th Jul 2008, 10:00
Looks like the gas cylinder was most likely the cause.
If you wish to read todays ATSB press release follow this link
MEDIA RELEASE : 30 July 2008 - Investigation into Boeing 747- 400 depressurisation and diversion to Manila, Philippines (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_28.aspx)

Managers Perspective
30th Jul 2008, 10:59
So do I take it once that once again this has absolutely nothing to do with QF utilising modern cost effective offshore maintenance facilities for their airframe maintenance?

Where are the bottles maintained?

Internally?

Redstone
30th Jul 2008, 11:27
Managers Perspective: So do I take it once that once again this has absolutely nothing to do with QF utilising modern cost effective offshore maintenance facilities for their airframe maintenance?

Where are the bottles maintained?

Internally?

Used to be the case, years ago, however I am informed that this function of QE has also been "outsourced", presumably to the lowest bidder. Will stand corrected if anyone can rebut.

NSEU
30th Jul 2008, 13:18
It is possible to "bulk erase" the recorded audio with the erase button on the voice recorder control panel but only once you are in full ground mode (park brake set, no engines running and at least one main entry door open)

Simple

Even simpler... There is no engine input or main entry door input on 744's in respect to the bulk erase.

IMHO, the problems with QF began when the new managers starting breaking up the Sydney 747 maintenance facility into large chunks and putting these chunks as far away as possible from each other. Major maintenance, Engine Overhaul, Stores, Servicing, Line Maintenance, etc... Then improved morale no end by telling apprentices that they were no longer guaranteed a job in Qantas at the end of their time... and the tradesmen that they had no guarantee of licence training.

Newgen
30th Jul 2008, 22:43
I stand corrected NSEU (took an educated guess on the bulk erase inputs as I don't have the schematics in front of me) :)

zoics88
31st Jul 2008, 00:32
Landing systems failed - Travel - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/landing-systems-failed/2008/07/30/1217097331347.html)

Lovely juxtaposition with the frequent flyer add!!

What's that animation? Oxygen masks falling?

:O

32megapixels
31st Jul 2008, 22:33
http://bl138w.blu138.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=0&messageId=438c8359-c222-4ae0-af56-9f311384cb87&Aux=4|0|8CAC146CB56A260| (javascript:;)



From the Sydney Morning Herald.

NSEU
31st Jul 2008, 23:41
From the Sydney Morning Herald.

Expired link?

relax737
3rd Aug 2008, 22:46
I haven'r read much of what's between P7 and 17 so the question may already have been asked, but if not, here goes,

Does that donkey Ben Sandilands know anything about aviation? Has he ever flown an aircraft? Has he ever flown a high performance jet aircraft?

Harbison isn't any better, so same questions apply to him.

lowerlobe
3rd Aug 2008, 23:06
Funny coincidence that a Sunday newspaper had the same pics that were also posted here on Pprune.....

flyer_18-737
4th Aug 2008, 00:40
With regards to the Manila Sydney incident yesterday, whn it dumped fuel over the bay, how much $$$ of fuel are we talking here?

SYD-MANILA would be a fair bit?

Jabawocky
4th Aug 2008, 01:31
Enough to reach the max landing weight............ I am sure they would not ditch much more thana that!:uhoh:

J

NSEU
4th Aug 2008, 02:16
Not sure if these values are still valid for QF's 767-300ER, but..

Max T/O weight 172356Kg
Max Landing 145150Kg.

The tanks won't be full going to Manilla, so there wouldn't be a great deal of fuel to dump.

Ngineer
4th Aug 2008, 06:41
Does anyone have a revised ETA for "Apollo 13" returning back to Syd from Manila?

Hercfix
4th Aug 2008, 11:40
I wouldn't hold ya breath, :)

601
4th Aug 2008, 12:49
Can someone confirm which method is used on this 744 for pax O2.
1. Is it from O2 generators or O2 bottles?
2. If it is O2 generators how is the O2 from the extra O2 bottles carried for the longhaul flights across Asia plumbed into the system?

employes perspective
4th Aug 2008, 20:20
you must be old,it's o2 bottles

max1
5th Aug 2008, 01:32
From todays Courier Mail

Mr Cox said the latest round of safety scares had nothing to do with the airline's growing reliance on overseas maintenance firms.

He said Qantas employed 7000 engineers in Australia and 2000 of them conducted heavy maintenance.

"So that means the vast majority, and I mean the vast majority, of our work is actually done here in Australia and has been for many, many years and will continue to be," he said.

Must have been a big recruitment drive overnight?

NSEU
5th Aug 2008, 01:48
Must have been a big recruitment drive overnight?

Maybe he meant.. "Since 1920......" ?

LAME2
5th Aug 2008, 01:54
Maybe David and Muzza consider each scab to be worth 100 ordinary LAMES and counted them as such? After all, for the money they paid those people there had to be some benefit to it all. I could never see it, but I'm only one LAME!

Max Tow
5th Aug 2008, 03:42
Clearly no limit to the laziness of journalists in creating a bit of sensational reporting to sell their product...NZ Herald website currently using a 9 year old pic of the BKK 747 to headline a story re the incidents of the last few days:

Qantas quick to defend safety record after fourth incident in two weeks - 05 Aug 2008 - NZ Herald: World / International News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10525309)

Cap'n Arrr
5th Aug 2008, 08:37
I've stopped watching the news on Qantas. It's sh**ing me off how they report every delay like its a major emergency. If you're reporting on QF, then report on every JQ/DJ/QL/REX/every other airline in australia that has a delay.

Methinks they're trying to create such a bad public image that QF is forced into an Ansett situation.

NSEU
5th Aug 2008, 09:53
Don't worry.... The Olympics is on in 3 days ;)

Another day, another headline...

Transition Layer
5th Aug 2008, 12:44
Air Crash Investigators is on Channel 7 right now, and guess which episode it is - The Aloha 243 Decompression.

Co-incidence? I think not...

A late schedule change...much more likely!

fatcat69
8th Aug 2008, 09:59
This is for all the CASA investigators and media out there....its simple

Go back to a QF done D check, look at the check component and more importantly the number of hours spent fixing problems found.

Look at the external MRO and compare the numbers, if they do 1/5th of the extra hours ill eat my hat.

We had workshops and support for all these avtivities today we have nothing left.

Go on ask the question it just so easy to catch these fools out. All those defects not fixed are the swiss cheese of the future. We have been so lucky with total power shut down 15min from landing and the oxy bottle that explodes for the first time ever in history...lets hope we are always lucky....never forget Mr Murphy and his laws!!!!!! :=

Syd eng
12th Aug 2008, 09:15
Does anyone have a revised ETA for "Apollo 13" returning back to Syd from Manila?Heard today that the Boeing team have gone back to Seattle and told QANTAS to call them once the aircraft has a hangar. The hangar will be available in November. Don't expect OJK back until after Xmas.

Transition Layer
12th Aug 2008, 09:35
The hangar will be available in November

Geez, u could almost build an entirely new hangar by November!!!

bushy
13th Aug 2008, 02:13
Does anyone know what actually caused the oxygen bottle to explode.
Or was it just because a full moon occured on a Thursday??

keagy
20th Aug 2008, 21:57
Notified of this "urgent" AD yesterday entitled Lower Lobe lap joints at wing to body fairing.Could some knowedgable LAME tell us if it has any relevance to the decompression event?What came first?the chicken or the egg??

SCHAIRBUS
20th Aug 2008, 23:38
Last I heard there were two theories on why the bottle blew, one was that the bottle may have been dropped prior to fitting and the other was that the bottle had some water in it and it corroded very quickly due to the high O2 level in the bottle.
As there are no pieces of the bottle left it's hard to tell what really made it blow and we may never know.
As for blaming foreign MROs this was all in house work right back to the D check done in Sydney, sad to say.
The lap join AD is not relevant to this incident but it has to be said that Boeing's engineering stood up extremely well yet again.:ok:
Qantas was very lucky again, but I can't help wondering when that luck will run out.:hmm:

moa999
21st Aug 2008, 05:23
comment from crikey.com.au reporting on the Qantas AGM today

"However he did say all of the 737s in question were back in service, and that the damage to the 747-400 that made an emergency diversion to Manila last month would cost less than $10 million to repair and would return to service in October. "

QF22
5th Nov 2008, 01:52
I taxied past OJK the other night in MNL. Area below Door 2R looks ok, but all engines blanked up. Anybody know when it will RTS?

SUB
5th Nov 2008, 06:57
Test Flight 9th Nov, Ferry flight to AVV arriving on 11th Nov for a "D" Chk if all goes to plan.

QF22
5th Nov 2008, 10:31
Ok thanx SUB

Wod
6th Mar 2009, 06:05
Here

200804689 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/aair200804689.aspx)

I found this interesting


Previous cylinder failures

To explore any historical experiences with the in-service failure of compressed gas
cylinder/s, the ATSB has discussed the issue with several large manufacturers and
users of transportable compressed gas containers, from both aviation and general
industrial operations. On that basis, it appears that the VH-OJK cylinder event has
been without precedent in the aviation arena, in terms of what is known about the
nature of the failure and the aircraft damage sustained. Aviation oxygen cylinders
have failed on-board aircraft previously, however all of the known events have been
attributed to external influences, such as on-board fires or damage sustained during
accident impacts.
Industrial oxygen and compressed gas cylinder failures have also been reported,
however in each instance examined, the failures have been attributed to valve
damage or to improper maintenance activity, resulting in excessive corrosion or
material degradation. While the history of cylinder failure remains under
examination, the characteristics of the occurrence event appear to remain unique in
world-wide experience.

Kangaroo Court
10th Mar 2009, 19:25
I think they should re-investigate TWA-800 based upon this experience. Maybe it's the second time it happened!

mrdeux
24th Jan 2010, 03:20
Enough to reach the max landing weight............ I am sure they would not ditch much more thana that!

Dumping was continued well past max landing weight, and was only secured at about 20 nm to run. With an anti skid failure, the lowest weight possible was the aim.