Another QF diversion....

[Sue Ridgepipe]

'Emergency' forces Qantas jet down.....


'Emergency' forces Qantas jet down - News - Travel - theage.com.au (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/09/01/1220121085923.html)

[The Hill]

Is anyone else sick of sensationalised journalism.......????

[mrpaxing]

leaving oz are more at the moment expensive as you get a mystery destination as well!:eek:

[satos]

In the Melbourne 'Sun' newspaper a Qantas spokeswoman said the shutting down of the engine was not a safety issue.An engine shut down in flight in my eyes is a major safety issue because if you loose another engine I'm afraid it's only downhill from there.
It is then no wonder Qantas looks at aircraft maintenance in this light with people like that working for them.

[teresa green]

Ho hum another one, what a load of crap, show me a pilot over 40 who has not lost a donk, somewhere along the line, and I will show you a lucky fellow. :bored::bored:

[dragon man]

What a laughing stock management have turned this airline into. 1x 400 in Frankfurt, 1x 400 in London, 1 x 400 in Manila all broken. 1 x 400 in Avalon late out of maintenance. Todays 577 classic to Perth(EBX) cancelled due to wiring problems on fuel pumps in NO1 main tank (relays fused together) best guess 2 days out. EBW in the hangar due to rear toilet line burst and crap etc all over the rear cargo hold.Approx 150 pax to overnight. It wont end unless the board wake up and get rid of the lot of them and start afresh with outsiders. Wont hold my breath.

[Jabawocky]

I know a bloke who had 30 odd years at QF and some 26000 hrs or so and shut down two, due parameters exceeding a limit but never lost one with a failure.

Is that close enough?

Had a few in the bush with old 185's etc when he was a young fella!

J

[woftam]

QF used to be run by Engineers and Pilots who fully understood the fact that the airline business was not like any other business and that A/C and Crew (ground and flight) were not liabilities but assets. If a dollar needed to be spent on maintenance or training then it was, no questions asked.
For far too many years now the airline has been run by accountants who know the cost of everything but the value of nothing!!!!
The whole strategy of rewarding managers (at least that's what they call them) with bonuses for reducing costs was only ever going to end up the way it has i.e rich managers and an airline that's fu#k*d. Segmenting the business and setting department against department in the cost cutting and blame game was another master stroke (NOT). There was no doubt fat needed to be trimmed a few years ago but the clowns have cut through the muscle and bone as well.
Very sad indeed. :ugh:

[UDP]

I love the media.
"Emergency forces Jet down"

I have one for them.
"Plane screeched to earth shattering stop and passengers flea once theaircraft stops"
Thats a normal landing and disembarkation in my world.

The media are idiots and Mr and Mrs Below Average love sensationalism which is why they buy NW Magazine.

[ZK-NSJ]

anyone remember the "mystery" weekend flights offered by ansett,
maybe this is qantas's way of breaking into a new market, get on the plane, not knowing where you will end up

[sthaussiepilot]

woftam,

I agree, and remember that time aswell, lets hope one day sooner rather than later it will come around again...........

dont forget the stock holders, but put them down the bottom of the list, safety first, no matter what the cost...

Theres a reason they make that much money, and its from the safety record they made... stock holders wont be happy if they loose that...

[Cap'n Arrr]

Probably the only good part about that particular article was that it's the only one I've seen to say "wheel bay door" as compared to "door" re the adelaide incident.

And evidently the media trust Mrs Rees more that the people who knew what was going on (by her own admission Mrs Rees didn't have a clue!)

[ozbiggles]

Boeing may call it a non-normal. PR may call it a pilot induced delay.
I still call it an emergency. Not dire but still not ops normal!
Im the first to have a go at the media, but I can't blame them for a story about an inflight engine shutdown. I do draw the line at tech delays at the gate however.

[Pontius]

An engine shut down on a 744 is not an emergency (given the definition of the term or the 'spirit' in which it is used), especially given the situation in which they found themselves. It just about qualifies as a non-normal but only because it's usual to have all 4 donks spinning. A Jumbo without one of the engines is hardly noticeable and most times would not even affect the operation, especially if it happens fairly late in the flight without hours of travelling a bit slower for the same fuel burn as four engines ahead of you. With only 1.5 hours-ish to run to LHR they would have been pretty light and the eng out page would almost certainly have told them they could have stayed at their present flight level, if they so wished. I have absolutely no idea why they decided to divert to FRA but I'm certainly not going to second-guess the crew. They did it for a reason or two and that's that. Good decision, well executed, end of story.

Yes, the pax are inconvenienced and, especially given QF's recent lacklustre performance, they are angry. But (a)they are safe (and that, of course, is the name of the game) and (b)there are millions of flights per day from FRA to LHR, so they won't be there very long.

Again, more sensationalism from journalists looking for non-events to write about. They'd be far better concentrating on how windscreen wipers on my ute are not really up to the job and could well cause an accident in torrential rain.

The only time I ever found engine failures vaguely 'interesting' on the Jumbo was losing 2 on the same side with lots of terrain around. Never done it for real but places like Bogota, in the sim, with 2 out on the same side at max take-off weight makes it sporty and probably worth declaring a Pan ;).

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Pontius, the word from a -400 mate of mine is that the shut-down occurred much earlier - somewhere just past Afghanistan. If so, then they would have been tighter on gas for LHR; and LHR actually had a TEMPO below op reqt on it also. On the other hand, FRA was clear.

So lobbing into FRA makes sense afterall.

[bdcer]

Anyone know the tail number?

[Capt Claret]

An engine shut down in flight in my eyes is a major safety issue because if you loose another engine I'm afraid it's only downhill from there.

Twaddle. Even the underpowered BAe146 would fly on 2. Not really well, but it'd still fly.

[Kangaroo Court]

And if you lost the remaining two..you'd be up there all night.

Sorry, I use to love Irish jokes as a kid; just a relapse.

[Pontius]

Ron & Edna,

The engine being shut down at the point you suggest makes a lot of sense, as far as diverting into FRA versus continuing to LHR, especially if LHR's weather was looking dodgy. As I said above, the fuel burn doesn't really go up with one engine shut down but, obviously, you end up cruising at a slower speed, the flight time is longer and, overall, you end up using a bit more fuel due to being up there longer. Couple that with a poor forecast and it sounds like the crew made excatly the right decision (something I never questioned for one moment).

Depending on the individual companies, an engine shutdown on a Jumbo can make almost no difference whatsoever to the actual operation of the beast. The aircraft is still certified for Cat IIIB operations with 3 engines (and autolands just as well with 3 as with 4) and, again depending on company rules, if you calculate you have enough fuel you can continue the flight even if it's only just started i.e. lose one engine on takeoff. It's a great machine :ok:

[zumBeispiel]

I am in fear of the media deciding to group these "major incidents" (eg. BKK water tray, BKK overshoot, O2 bottle, Darwin 717, FRA divert, etc.) by manufacturer and reach the "obvious" conclusion that the weak link here is Boeing. What a headline - declining standards at QF & an overreliance upon a (clearly) unsafe marque.

[cattleclass]

As a member of the SLF community with some experience of the power of the media (Who owns what, who says jump, etc,etc) I'm interested to find if there is a sense of Media driven hysteria amongst the Av. industry. To who's advantage would it be to drive down Qantas share prices, given the rumours of mergers? I'm not a pundit, but everybody loves a conspiracy theory. :E

[Unhinged]

An engine shut down in flight in my eyes is a major safety issue because if you loose another engine I'm afraid it's only downhill from there.

Bloody hell, by that definition I'd better declare an emergency every flight - All the aircraft I fly have trouble staying up with one less engine than we took off with !

At least the 744 stays up with no apparent drama.

[B747-800]

Saw it landing in EDDF last Sunday. 1 position. CFR vehicle were chasing it.

What's happening to our blocks from QZ?

AVHERALD shows these incidents sinc Manila:

http://avherald.com/images/incident.gifQantas B744 near Frankfurt on Aug 31st 2008, engine vibration, in flight shut down (http://avherald.com/h?article=40bfef94&opt=0)http://avherald.com/images/news.gifQantas ordered to improve maintenance (http://avherald.com/h?article=40c0a8cb&opt=0)http://avherald.com/images/accident.gifQantas B744 near Manila on Jul 25th 2008, large hole in fuselage at FL290 (http://avherald.com/h?article=40a29b54/0037&opt=0)http://avherald.com/images/accident.gifQantas B744 near Manila on Jul 25th 2008, large hole in fuselage at FL290 (http://avherald.com/h?article=40a29b54/0036&opt=0)http://avherald.com/images/incident.gifQantas B763 near Perth on Aug 20th 2008, ruptured water tank (http://avherald.com/h?article=40b718c2&opt=0)http://avherald.com/images/incident.gifQantas B763 near Adelaide on Aug 17th 2008, toilets force diversion (http://avherald.com/h?article=40b4de78&opt=0)http://avherald.com/images/incident.gifQantas B744 enroute On Aug 15th 2008, engine access panel falls off (http://avherald.com/h?article=40b30c8e&opt=0)http://avherald.com/images/incident.gifQantas B743 near Auckland on Aug 13th 2008, one engine rolled back to idle on approach (http://avherald.com/h?article=40b1e9bc&opt=0)http://avherald.com/images/incident.gifQantas B738 over Tasman Sea on Aug 10th 2008, lightning strike (http://avherald.com/h?article=40b015bb&opt=0)http://avherald.com/images/incident.gifQantas B734 at Melbourne on Aug 7th 2008, rejected takeoff due to noises (http://avherald.com/h?article=40acd9a7&opt=0)http://avherald.com/images/incident.gifQantas B763 at Sydney on Aug 2nd 2008, hydraulics leak (http://avherald.com/h?article=40a8e499/0000&opt=0)http://avherald.com/images/incident.gifQantas B763 at Sydney on Aug 2nd 2008, hydraulics leak (http://avherald.com/h?article=40a8e499&opt=0)http://avherald.com/images/accident.gifQantas B744 near Manila on Jul 25th 2008, large hole in fuselage at FL290 (http://avherald.com/h?article=40a29b54&opt=0)http://avherald.com/images/incident.gifQantas B763 at Adelaide on Jul 28th 2008, gear door did not close (http://avherald.com/h?article=40a518fd&opt=0)

[hadagutfull]

Whats happening is the result of 3-5 years of stupidity and clever accounting.
Its a given that a gas turbine engine is a sum of many moving parts and the chance of one of them failing at some point is a very real prospect...
BUT, once upon a time we had a thing called EOC ( engine overhaul centre). This WAS a centre of excellence.. a thriving environment where all QF and customer engines where stripped, built and tested to a level that had even the engine manufacturer asking how the hell we built engines that stayed on wing for anything up to 6-7 years!!
There is a trophy case in one of the corridors there.. under al the dust there are certificates, awards, trophies, banners that were awarded to QF for being the best.
Fast forward to the present day.... you would be lucky to get 2-3 years of wing time with an RB211... just look at the tech log to see when engines were fitted.
The only engine we overhaul is the Roller now... go have a look at the engine line now... ghost town.
Dont forget as well, most of the "team" that did this to the engine overhaul business are now running what was once called base and line maintenance...
so what do you expect. This is why we have lost heavy maint in Sydney.. and this now reflects on the state of the fleet in general.
Lets see how low it can go shall we....
Yes.. the media is mis reporting things. The crew made the right decision to divert to FRA. These things happen and have been happening for years... but not at the frequency we are experiencing now.
In the good old days, when a plane was stuffed... it was sent to the hangars and another put in its place.. minimum disruption to the pax..
now.. no spare planes, and most of the ones at the hangars are no where near being ready for flight....

[SkyScanner]

Pontius, the extra fuel burn is around 10%. As for continuing to London - the only reason you would over fly Frankfurt is if the weather was dodgy. Otherwise you can expect to get a please explain from Management and CASA for flying past a suitable airport.

[ACMS]

You Qf bashers do get your knickers in a knot over simple stuff.

In the CX manuals they say:

A 4-engine aircraft with an engine shutdown in-flight has no airworthiness requirement which dictates a
landing within a given time-scale. However, in the event of two engines being shutdown in-flight, the
situation becomes one of an emergency and the flight should be terminated at the nearest suitable
airport. It may be necessary to jettison fuel and deviate from the airway in order to maintain terrain
clearance

AND

Flight Beyond The Nearest Suitable Airport (4-Engined Aircraft)
The prime requirement following an engine shutdown in-flight is the continued safety of the aircraft and
its occupants. The Commander may elect to continue beyond the nearest suitable airport, to a more
distant airport, if the following requirements are met:
A. The Commander considers that in all respects it is safe to continue to that airport.
B. Capability exists with two engines inoperative to clear all obstacles by at least 2,000 FT
within 10 NM either side of intended track to that airport. Should escape charts be predicated on
different obstacle clearance criteria this will be specifically annotated on the appropriate chart.
C. If continuing to filed destination, Normal Fuel Required must be available unless the requirements
of In-flight Reduction of Normal Fuel Required can be met.
D. Sufficient fuel must be available at all times for two engine inoperative flight to the nearest
suitable airport, plus a fixed reserve of 30 minutes.
E. Sufficient fuel must be available at all times to support depressurized flight to the nearest suitable
airport, plus a fixed reserve of 30 minutes.

[Capt Fathom]

You will notice the Australian Regulations do not differentiate between 2, 3, or 4 engined aircraft!

CONTINUATION OF FLIGHT BY MULTI-ENGINE
AIRCRAFT WITH 1 OR MORE ENGINES INOPERATIVE

The pilot in command of a multi-engine aircraft in which 1 engine fails or the rotation thereof is stopped, may proceed to an aerodrome of his or her selection instead of the nearest suitable aerodrome if, upon consideration of all relevant factors, he or she deems such action to be safe and operationally acceptable.

These factors shall include the following:

(a) nature of the malfunctioning and the possible mechanical difficulties which may be encountered if the flight is continued;
(b) availability of the inoperative engine to be used;
(c) altitude, aircraft weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage;
(d) distance to be flown coupled with the performance availability should another engine fail;
(e) relative characteristics of aerodromes available for landing;
(f) weather conditions en route and at possible landing points;
(g) air traffic congestion;
(h) type of terrain;
(i) familiarity of the pilot with the aerodrome to be used.

It really is russian roulette if you decide to continue past the nearest suitable airport.

What you have to do is convince yourself nothing else will go wrong.

The lawyers could have a field day!

[PW1830]

The requirements as per the checklist are quite different for a "straight" failure and "Severe Damage". No indication here as to the type of failure experienced. Perhaps judgements could wait until the facts are available - again.

[ACMS]

Well isn't that what they PAY YOU FOR. To determine the best course of action. 1 Eng out on a 400 is a NON Event ( if it's only that )

If it's safe to continue to your filed destination then WHAT'S THE PROBLEM.

Grow some balls and stop trying to second guess any lawyers.

[SkyScanner]

ACMS - until CASA changes the rules, that is the LAW.

[ACMS]

Rubbish

The pilot in command of a multi-engine aircraft in which 1 engine fails or the rotation thereof is stopped, may proceed to an aerodrome of his or her selection instead of the nearest suitable aerodrome if, upon consideration of all relevant factors, he or she deems such action to be safe and operationally acceptable.

from YOUR own law aparently.

It says you can proceed to an airport of your selection ( or the companies ) CONSIDERING the conditions.

The PIC can interpret these guidelines/rules AS HE SEES FIT under the circumstances.
Now as I said GROW SOME BALLS and stop worrying too much about 'Monday morning quarterbacks'

If what you did was safe then you'll be fine.

[Keg]

Where was the a/c when the engine failure occurred?

What was the weather at LHR?

Until anyone is able to answer those questions with any degree of expertise it's impossible to actually get into the discussion about whether the quarterbacks that frequent PPRUNE would do something different or not.

Further, Qantas policy puts a more restrictive slant on the CAOs. The QF policy- which does mention the CAOs- stresses that diversion beyond the nearest suitable airport is only justifiable if a bunch of issues are ticked off- and mentions 9 or 10 of them. Whilst ultimately it may be the similar, the wording of QFs policy of 'only justifiable' rather than the CAOs 'may' shows QFs different slant as to what they want the crew to do. QF implies go to nearest suitable unless a diversion elsewhere is 'more safe' than the nearest. CAOs just let you go beyond nearest if you think it's 'safe'.

I've been inelegant in the illustration above. I'll have a re-read tomorrow and see if I can tidy it up.

[desmotronic]

policy schmolicy, its bluddy outrageous he shoulda gone straight to Kabul. :zzz:

[Pontius]

I really can't see what you're bleating about SkyScanner, in fact it would seem neither can many of your fellow Oz flyers. Admittedly my comments were made as a UK operator of 744s but it would seem that CASA allow you to do exactly the same thing. I can appreciate your thought process for a 2-engined aircraft but 4 engines is a different kettle of fish. Can I continue and not hit the ground if another one fails? Can I get where I want to go (or closer to it) given the extra fuel I'm going to use (by virtue of being up there longer because I'm going slower)? Are there suitable diversion airfields along the way which would allow me to land if another one fails? If the answer to these three is yes then there's absolutely no reason, according to my company's policy (and I'm pretty certain the CAA would have a thing to say if the Company just made up the rules themselves) and, it would seem, CASA law, that would prevent overflying a suitable airport.

I don't know if you mis-read my previous postings. In no way at all did I criticise the crew's decision to divert to FRA, in fact quite the opposite. I was responding to the sentationalism that an engine shutdown on a 744 is an emergency, when it's not.

I don't know about QF's policy regarding flying past a suitable airfield and that is, maybe, where you're coming from and I'm not arguing that point. But, stressing again that I'm talking about a 744 here and not a 2-engined aircraft where the checklist almost always says 'land at nearest suitable', there is not a requirement to dive into the nearest airport in either CAA or CASA law, so the 'please explain' message would be fairly brief and to the point; because I deemed it safe and because I was able to, according to the aircraft performance and according to the law. End of.....

[teresa green]

I had a interesting donk shutdown out of CBR one night, 1900hrs DC9, friday night, good WX, full load, last flight of the day, F/O and I hanging out for a beer, a microsecond before V1 she shred a tyre staight into the port engine, went on to rotate, F/O took care of the A/C whilst I shut the engine down, heavy vibration, but she handled it beautifully, other donk firing well, did a go around, winter, so dark, and straight back in. (Bit rough) Pax whinging (a lot of pollies on board) till I explained the situation. When I got off to have a look, some tyre left, but not pretty. We went back to the old CBR hotel (later the Hyatt) and drowned our sorrows, and then spent a few hours with BASI the next morning. Never heard anymore about it, just got a letter from TAA thanking us for not pranging the thing. (I considered a flyover for the engineers to have a look but with the CBR terain being what it is and still some vibration I opted to go in with the F/Os blessing) . The donk was stuffed though, and required a engine change.

[ACMS]

Just as long as you went to the nearest airport these guys will be happy.;);)

Sounds like a fun 20 odd minutes handled very well.

I'm told the old 9 didn't have a lot of extra performance out of CB with a full load.
Especially when it was warm.

[teresa green]

A lovely aeroplane the 9, bitchy and beautiful, (but noisy) good A/C to have strapped to your Ar#e. In the days when aviation was fun, TAA decided to beat an American record with a 9 over a certain distance. (The A/C was being repositioned at Willie). With the ATC in the know, she blasted off in SYD, and went past Tomaree Point (Pt Stephens) exactly 8mins 3 secs later (empty of course) taking about 4 seconds off the record, the yanks whinged, stating she was not carrying the correct amount of fuel. Bollocks! Capt. Dave Baker was her Skipper if I remember and I think Roger Barnes was the F/O but not sure. Not sure of her height, but she was low passing Tomaree Point. This was in the late 70s.

[teresa green]

ACMS, she pulled like a trouper, a bit of yaw on of course, but the F/O was comfortable with her handling, when these things happen, the training just kicks in, all was calm, though the ATC, was "you wanna what"? till a more experienced TC kicked in, and cleared the decks. The pax faces was the interesting bit, sort of like" does this bloke know what he is doing he has stuffed up our night" I could have stuffed up their night alright!:uhoh: