Jetstar A330 Osaka - Gold Coast

[tail wheel]

Jetstar A330-200 cockpit fire and diversion
June 11, 2009 – 6:48 am, by Ben Sandilands

Jetstar statement regarding Jetstar Flight (JQ 20) Osaka - Gold Coast

A Jetstar A330-200 aircraft operating directly between Osaka and the Gold Coast has made an emergency in-flight diversion but safe landing into Guam International Airport this morning.

Flight JQ 20 departed Osaka (Kansai International Airport) at 20.50 pm local time/ 22.50 pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (AEST) bound for the Gold Coast.

It is understood there was smoke in the cockpit followed by the right hand cockpit window area catching fire before being extinguished by technical crew approximately 3 hours and 50 minutes into the flight operating direct to Australia.

The cockpit window fire was contained to the cockpit only of the aircraft before it was extinguished.

The A330-200 Osaka-Gold Coast service was carrying 186 passengers, 13 crew (including 9 cabin crew and 4 pilots) and 4 infants.

The majority of passengers are Japanese nationals in addition to some overseas nationals and a small number of Australians, the final number to be confirmed.

The aircraft landed without incident into Guam International Airport at 02.20am local time / 02.20am AEST.

All passengers and Jetstar crew are safe and there are no reports of injuries.

Passengers were successfully disembarked around one hour after arrival into Guam.

All passengers were addressed by Jetstar crew, were cleared through Customs and Immigration in Guam, and are now being accommodated in local hotels in Guam.

Alternative flight arrangements have now been made for them to continue to Australia.

Passenger and Jetstar crew recovery will occur through a Jetstar A330-200 aircraft departing this morning from Sydney to Guam and returning to Brisbane International Airport.

Aircraft Engineers in Guam are currently inspecting the aircraft and Jetstar have both advised and are working proactively with relevant authorities.

Further customer enquiries can be made to Jetstar on 131 538 (Australia).

[wing & a prayer]

Jetstar flight from Japan diverted to Guam

Jetstar has just confirmed that one of its A330-200 aircraft operating from Osaka to the Gold Coast has been forced to make an emergency landing at Guam International Airport after part of its cockpit caught fire.

The aircraft landed safely in the early hours of this morning after smoke was detected in the cockpit "followed by the right hand cockpit window area catching fire" before being extinguished by the crew about 4 hours into the flight.

There are 213 people on board including 200 passengers - mostly Japanese nationals with a small number of Australians - and everyone on board is safe.

Jetstar will this morning dispatch an A330 from Sydney to Guam to bring the crew and passengers to Brisbane.

Jetstar says it's "working proactively with relevant authorities" in relation to the incident.

[Transition Layer]

Perhaps the title should have read "Qantas Pilot saves Jetstar Aircraft"? :} :}

Emergency landing: fire on board Jetstar flight to Gold Coast

A cockpit fire has forced an international Jetstar flight carrying 203 people into an emergency landing on the tiny Pacific island of Guam.

The A330-200 aircraft - flight JQ 20 - left Osaka's Kansai International Airport for the Gold Coast just before 11pm last night (AEST) carrying 186 adult passengers, four infants and 13 crew including nine cabin crew and four pilots.

Jetstar says a small number of Australians were on board the plane, which was carrying mainly Japanese nationals.

The airline says almost four hours into the flight, smoke was seen in the cockpit and moments later the right-hand cockpit window caught fire.

"There was smoke in the cockpit followed by the right-hand cockpit window actually catching fire before it was extinguished by our pilot," Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway said.

"The fire in the cockpit window area was contained only to the cockpit and no other part of the aircraft."

Mr Westaway said the pilot who extinguished the fire was "very experienced''.

"He has over 12,000 hours in flight experience - he's a 14-year pilot and he's come out of Qantas, so they're a very experienced crew on the flight,'' Mr Westaway said.

"We've advised the relative authorities , we're working with them and Qantas engineering are also working on it as well.

Mr Westaway said it was "way too early'' to speculate about what caused the cockpit fire.

"We have a very modern fleet of A330s, the aircraft in question has been in operation for less than two years,'' he said.

"Our A330 fleet are maintained by Qantas and it's last major maintenance check occurred in Australia with that aircraft.

"We are, naturally, concerned, but our most important priority is to get everybody to Australia.''

Mr Westaway said the aircraft, which was operating directly between Osaka and the Gold Coast, landed safely in Guam earlier this morning.

No passengers were injured.

Jetstar would send another A330-200 aircraft to Guam to ferry the stranded passengers to Brisbane early tomorrow morning, Mr Westaway said.

The island of Guam is a US territory, located in the Pacific Ocean about 2100 kilometres east of the Philippines.

[bullamakanka]

Simon Westaway was also on ABC fm this morning. He managed to successfully say Qantas engineering twice in his 30 second grab. Talk about trying to share the incident around the group. Why cant they just cop it on the chin and deal with it like big boys??

Bulla

[600ft-lb]

"Our A330 fleet are maintained by Qantas and it's last major maintenance check occurred in Australia with that aircraft.

Maybe an A check was done in Australia, unless the definition of a major check has changed, the last major maintenance check was done in the Philippines.

Mr Westaway, stop lying.

[Bumpfoh]

Is it VH-EBE OR EBF??

Not that it matters just curious, and not net savvy enough to find out.:ok:

[vee1-rotate]

VH-EBF

message too short...blah blah blah

[Mike773]

Flight JQ 20 departed Osaka (Kansai International Airport) at 20.50 pm local time/ 22.50 pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (AEST) bound for the Gold Coast.



Not a major thing, but 2050 is OSA is 2150 AEST, not 2250. If they can't even figure out the time difference between Japan and Australia, how reliable is the rest of the article?

[D.Lamination]

Dear Tailwheel - o great and powerful moderator (a bit of flattery never hurt!):ok:

Would mind editing the thread title to read "Osaka" instead of "Osake" - which, last time I checked, is a rather powerful Japanese beverage.:}

After which you can delete this post!

_____________________

What do you expect over the second cup of coffee in the morning? :}

Title corrected! :ok:

Tail Wheel

[Ngineer]

Maybe an A check was done in Australia, unless the definition of a major check has changed, the last major maintenance check was done in the Philippines.

Mr Westaway, stop lying.

Have any of the A330's had a check bigger than an 'A' check done in Australia? I doubt that alot of these spin doctors would even know what an 'A' check or a 'C' check was. Don't they just love using the QF Engineering name when it suits them best.

[HotDog]

Why speculate where the last major check was carried out? It has absolutely nothing to do with a windshield heat malfunction that most likely caused the smoke and overheat.

[fordran]

The last cockpit smoke incident on EBY was linked to maintenance and it was carried out in HAEKO. See atsb report below.

200801100 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/aair200801100.aspx)

This is just garbage to claim the major maintenance was done in Australia it never has been. EBF had a c check in Dec last year in Manilla.

[Cubbie]

Pilot was from Qantas? probably explains why the bbc ws just reported it as a qantas a330 not jetstar!..oops.

[Capt Kremin]

Bruce Buchanan ,Simon Westaway emergency checklist

1. Jetstar Emergency= Qantas to be linked in at all costs.

Condition lever, you reading this? God this makes me vomit.:yuk::yuk:

BTW, I am not having a go at the Jetstar crew here. They did the right thing.

[BigGun]

does it really matter where its last check was, an aircraft this new, Its highly unlikley we have even touched the windows, besides cleaning them :}

Mabey his map fell down there and caught fire.

How much mess does a halon fire extinguisher make?

[tjc]

For those who are interested, I am sure more will come and please, ignore the headline grabbing pretenders;

MEDIA RELEASE



2009/06

In-flight windscreen fire in an Airbus A330 aircraft en route from Osaka, Japan to Coolangatta, Australia

11 June 2009

At approximately 0400 Eastern Standard Time today the Australian Transport Safety Bureau was notified of a in-flight windscreen fire in an Airbus A330 aircraft that was en route from Osaka, Japan to Coolangatta, Australia.
The incident occurred at about 0220 and the flight crew diverted to Guam where the 13 crew and 185 passengers disembarked safely. There are no reported injuries.
The ATSB has commenced an investigation in accordance with International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 13 on the understanding that the event took place over international waters. The ATSB has notified the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the French Bureau dEnquêtes et dAnalyses pour la sécurité de laviation civile (BEA).
A team of investigators including operations, electrical engineer and licensed aircraft maintenance engineer will travel to Guam this morning to commence the investigation.

[tjc]

Just the facts;

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/pdf/AO2008013.pdf

[ebt]

Calm down, re Qantas enginnering. The A330's maintenance program is managed by QF Engineering not JQ, so nothing wrong with making the point. It is QF Engineering who make the decisions to send them off to Manilla or elsewhere for the heavy checks. Obviously that changes next year with the new facility in BNE.

[Tempo]

Regardless of who the pilots may or may not have worked for, where the aircraft got maintenance done or what Jetstar have said to the media.....it sounds like a great effort by the crew.A few articles have quoted passengers commending the crew on how they handled the situation. A diversion to an unfamiliar airport after fighting a fire on the flight deck is a fair workload so top bloody effort!

[RadioSaigon]

hmmm... tjc: the link you provided seems to refer to another similar event that occurred on a QF 747-338 on 25/02 rather than the A330 yesterday, as under discussion on this thread.

[airtags]

Temp & ebt

good points.

I think however the very overt grabs by Westy & Co were and & are very deliberate -

Whether the intent of constantly repeating their JQ company line was to mitigate the possibility of the Manilla angle being beaten up, or to deflect AF447 connotations or;
... if it was to actually underscore the cred of JQ, through the integrity of Q Engineering, (one expects it was the latter).....it was the on air delivery by Westy and JQ's Chief Pilot which was a little amatuerish, and that has prompted some to react.

Just gives rise to the old chestnut that unless you have experienced seasoned journalists who actually fly doing the media roles,
the stories and messages published/broadcast will be at best pragmatic speculative and most likely sensationalist.

The real story is the safe handling of any irreg such as this one is a proof point of quality training and having professional people in control.

AT

[tjc]

hmmm... tjc: the link you provided seems to refer to another similar event that occurred on a QF 747-338 on 25/02 rather than the A330 yesterday, as under discussion on this thread.


Really...........!!!

Just prompting what will come out after the professionals do there investigating, hence "Similar Window Event".

The media will do a Jetstar bash, just like they always do when these things happen, ala Qantas.

[The masked goatrider]

This is a strange way for Strambi to admit that Jetstar lied by saying the last major check was carried out in Australia. He could have titled it

"Qantas refute claims by Engineers union that maintenance was carried out overseas even though it was carried out overseas."

Qantas press release below -

QANTAS STATEMENT ON ENGINEERING UNION CLAIMS
SYDNEY, 11 June 2009: Qantas today strongly refuted claims made by the Federal Secretary of an aviation
engineering union regarding maintenance of the aircraft involved in today’s Jetstar inflight incident and
diversion to Guam.
Group Executive Qantas Airlines Operations, Mr Lyell Strambi, said the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers
Association’s (ALAEA) Steve Purvinas was well known for making inflammatory statements and not letting the
facts get in the way of his story.
“The A330-200 aircraft involved in this incident was delivered new by Airbus in 2007,” Mr Strambi said.
“It has since undergone a number of routine maintenance checks – most recently by Qantas Engineering in
Melbourne in May this year, while its one and only heavy maintenance check was done by Lufthansa Technik
in Manila in December 2008.
“We don’t resile from this in any way and Mr Purvinas is deliberately twisting words in suggesting Jetstar has
tried to link the issue to Qantas engineers in Australia.”
Mr Strambi said the union also knew that:
�� where Qantas Engineering does not have the capacity to do work in Australia, it is done by reputable
overseas providers. They are certified by CASA and Qantas and their work is overseen by on-site Qantas
engineers; and
�� Qantas recently announced that Qantas Group A330 heavy maintenance would be undertaken in Brisbane
from 2010.
“Qantas always has high levels of oversight in place, so where maintenance takes place is not relevant,” Mr
Strambi said.
“Had Mr Purvinas checked his facts and been able to think outside his narrow industrial agenda, as any good
engineer would, he would know that the electrical connector that caused the Jetstar incident was not part of
the work undertaken in Manila last year.
“There has been no requirement to touch this component since the aircraft was delivered, there is no history of
it being an issue with our A330 fleet and there have been no directives from Airbus covering this component.
“And had he checked, he would know that the B747 issue referred to was fully and independently investigated
by the ATSB. The issue was known to Boeing, which was developing a modification to address it and the
ATSB could not link the issue with any previous heavy maintenance work.
“Qantas is committed to the highest operational and safety standards, and the ALAEA is slandering the hard
work of its members when it makes baseless and ill-informed claims regarding our engineering operations.”
Issued by Qantas Corporate Communication (Q3926)
Media Enquiries: Simon Rushton T: 02 9691 3742

[Bo777]

If overseas maintenance is the issue here, just wondering where do all the other australian carriers such as VA have their heavy maintenance carried out? :hmm:

[teresa green]

Regardless of who serviced the a/c all that will come out later, congratulations to the tech crew, a **** of a way to spend the flight, a bbq on the flight deck, followed by a trip into a unknown airport, and a military one at that, well done lads or ladettes.:D

[pigdriver]

Military, yes, but just another airport. Many civil airlines use it every day/night, not hard at all to get in and out of.
Sounds like the crew did a great job.
Well done....

[mary meagher]

Tic, thanks for your lead to the 747 incident. A lot of people may be jumping to the conclusion that whoops, another problem with the Airbus........I did when I heard it on BBC world service last night.

The Flight Crew were certainly handy with the extinguisher, is locating the fire extinguisher part of the pre-flight checks?

At least he didn't get sucked halfway out of the cockpit, like that poor pilot over Newbury in the UK, who spent the remainder of the flight mostly out the window with only a steward hanging on to his heels; I heard about that one from someone who knew the steward, he said there was no way I thought he was still alive so I almost let go.......

In that case, the engineers had fitted a replacement window with the wrong size screws....

Thread creep, sorry, Mods.


Mary, Mary, now I'm contrary!

Thread creep? :confused: How about a continental leap! :mad:

This thread topic or the posts disappear!

:=

Tail Wheel

[Boomerang_Butt]

As I recall, the flight deck extinguisher on the Bus is in pretty close proximity to the FO, anyone else care to confirm?

Crew being praised all round, except for one bogan on the radio inferring that the cabin crew were panicky, making a crude comment about laundry... :ugh:

I'm sure they all acted professionally, having experienced a lav fire warning myself (turned out to be a false alarm thankfully) it does get the adrenaline going, but I'm sure that's all he would have observed... passengers tend to get alarmed when the FAs suddenly get very alert and move quickly anywhere in the cabin... wouldn't call that panicking though!

[tail wheel]

Jeeeezus!!! :{

Sky News:

"Jetstar passengers tell of their fear when their Airbus caught fire!"

Together with the usual passenger cell phone footage..........

All the usual comments "Same type as the Air France Airbus"; "No indication it was the same problem"; "Passengers have praised the pilots for extinguishing the fire."

Not denigrating the crew - well done, very professional, another good day in the office - but I wonder what else they would do but extinguish the fire? Cook their breakfast or brew up a morning coffee perhaps? :}

Can't say I've ever traveled in an A330 but I doubt I'd get too excited about a cockpit window heating element getting fried, especially when I know the guys in the front seat have very well developed personal survival instincts!

Another day of the life of an Australian airline! Hope Jetstar don't charge the passengers extra for the stop over! :E

[witwiw]

Guam (PGUM) is not a military airfield, that is Andersen AFB about 10 nm to the SE. Guam is a civil airport, nothing else. I think there is also a Navy airfield to the west but am ready to be corrected on that.

Radar services there are excellent, from experience.

As for it being an "unknown airport", I would have expected the crew to have been thoroughly briefed seeing it was on their route and most likely an EDTO alternate. Regs require crew on RPT flights to be so briefed. Maybe they hadn't ever operated into the place (although if the airline is using the sim properly the crew should have been there in that manner, at least) but they should certainly should have had a working knowledge of it. If they hadn't then something is amiss.

Not taking away from their response to the situation one iota, just let's keep it factual.

[pigdriver]

Actually, your correct, Andersons the military field, and Guam ( Agana) is the civil field.
Job well done by the sounds of it.

[Quokka]

Mr Westaway said the pilot who extinguished the fire was "very experienced''.

Experienced in... putting out fires in A330 cockpits? :uhoh:

Oh dear...



:E

[Shot Nancy]

Sounds like a job well done. ILS ok but NPA can be a bit tricky as the Nimitz VORTAC is on a hill short of the runway. The Korean Airline accident photos show it well.
NAS Agana closed in 95 or so but the memories of the Trench Bar and throwing all of those screwed up USD1 bills on to the floor remain.
So what could be the cause of the window fire, why didnt the Cb trip?

[Razor]

Isn't the NAS Satation at Nimitz. the western end of the island? Agana (civilian ) is in the middle. Andersen is at the eastern end - a long way away from the hills. It is also a USAF bsae

[Jabawocky]

Hey ........ Look on the bright side, at least they can find this one!:ooh:

:E

[dodgybrothers]

i'm not sure what you mean Jaba. Would you care to explain your comment?

[Jabawocky]

All the hype and hysteria, refer to Tail Wheels post for exapmle and anywhere else the media get involved.......... was it too cryptic???

Jeeeezus!!! http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/boohoo.gif

Sky News:

"Jetstar passengers tell of their fear when their Airbus caught fire!"

Together with the usual passenger cell phone footage..........

All the usual comments "Same type as the Air France Airbus"; "No indication it was the same problem"; "Passengers have praised the pilots for extinguishing the fire."

Not denigrating the crew - well done, very professional, another good day in the office - but I wonder what else they would do but extinguish the fire? Cook their breakfast or brew up a morning coffee perhaps? http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Can't say I've ever traveled in an A330 but I doubt I'd get too excited about a cockpit window heating element getting fried, especially when I know the guys in the front seat have very well developed personal survival instincts!

Another day of the life of an Australian airline! Hope Jetstar don't charge the passengers extra for the stop over! http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif Today 18:23

The crew had a situation, not nice, maybe really threatening, maybe just a small issue , but they handled it well and all are safe.............. at least this A330 they can find. The other one and 200+ pax they may never find. Some folk just need to get a few things in perspective. And the media need to stop over hyping the minor scary moments to the point they are equal to a major one like the AF crash.

Does that help?

J

[dodgybrothers]

yes thankyou. Your reference to 'this one' was slightly ambiguous

[Capn Bloggs]

is locating the fire extinguisher part of the pre-flight checks?

WTF?? Oops, sorry, yes, well it is in my machine. We even have to check the red button to make sure it's got enough squirt in it.

the flight deck extinguisher on the Bus is in pretty close proximity to the FO, anyone else care to confirm?
There's a good reason for that. If the CRM (I'm the Captain, you're the Resource, and I'll Manage you any way I damn-well please) gets a little out of hand, the FO can use the extinguisher to level-up the cockpit authority gradient a tad...

[OhSpareMe]

Well the BCF on the QF A330's that I fly is located on the bulkhead behind the Captain. Either Techie would need to get out of their respective seats in order to grab the BCF.

[DutchRoll]

NAS Agana closed in 95 or so but the memories of the Trench Bar and throwing all of those screwed up USD1 bills on to the floor remain.

You threw them on the floor??? That's not how I remember Guam on my occasional stops there back in the good ol' days!

Though I never landed at Agana (we always went up the road to Anderson) I recall that getting in was never much of an issue, with quite good radar control. Certainly there are far worse places to divert into.

Razor, the Naval Air Station was actually at Agana, now the civil airport. It was a joint military/civil field until the NAS was closed in the 90s. You are correct in saying that Anderson AFB, which is still fully operational, is at the north-eastern tip of Guam. Agana is in the middle, closer to the hills.

[HANOI]

In my time , Agana also was known as Brewer Field Naval Air Station.
Who can remember , just down the road , Barneys-by-the Sea and the Viking Tavern. Aahhh the things those girls could do with a rolled up dollar note.

[Loiter1]

I was just watching the news and watched 3 reports in a row about the Airbus. First, that the airspeed sensors may not be the cause of he Air France crash. Second, the cockpit fire on the Jetstar A3330 (thats right, the A3330. You read it here first, apparently Jetstar now flys a previously unknown type!) and then a report on an A320 that had 'engine troubles.' Prepare yourself for a few months of media hype about every Airbus snag. God help us if they get hold of any airline safety mags.:ugh:

[Razor]

Thanks Dutch - just like flying you learn something everyday

[Shot Nancy]

You threw them on the floor???
Of course! I will let you think about the ways the barmaid could pick them up.

[Old Fella]

:ugh:Holy Smoke! Reading some of the infantile comments on this thread the casual observer could be forgiven for thinking a heated window arcing is a hitherto unheard of event. Window filaments arcing and transformers burning out has been happening almost since day one of having heated cockpit windows. Seems to me that having handled the abnormality and conducted a diversion to Guam the crew did exactly what they considered appropriate. Some posters give the media a bagging for beating up the airlines. Maybe those same posters ought to take a look at their own contributions and consider how uninformed and 'off thread' they are. :ugh:

[another superlame]

Well the aircraft will be in good hands for sure,knowing that the Base Maintenance A330 Operations Manager has been sent to Guam to save the world.

The only question I have is that if you put someone in the position to be an Ops Manager of a fleet type would it not be prudent to have them licenced on that type. Or at least give him famil course.

[tjc]

the Base Maintenance A330 Operations Manager has been sent to Guam to save the world.

The only question I have is that if you put someone in the position to be an Ops Manager of a fleet type would it not be prudent to have them licenced on that type

Oh.....Umm.....Do you need to be....?

Now that would be logical, and logic and 'a certain operator' don't seem to fit into the same sentence.

[GE90115BL2]

Air France had a 77W divert to a very cold snow covered airfield around 2 years ago after the F/O's window overheated, sparked and caught fire.

It happens to the best as well!!:ok:

[teresa green]

Witwiw, give us a break, a first time into a unfamiliar airport is always a bit stressful, without the added problem of a possibly unstable window is NOT the way you want to spend the night, top marks to the crew both tech and cabin, for a job well done.

[Weapons_Hot]

You people must have quaint little outfits dunnunda, running around with BCFs on the flight decks. Somewhere in the back of my fuddled brain, I remember most reputable airlines (read environmentally friendly) got rid of them and replaced them with halon extinguishers back in the 20th century.
:oh:

[Capn Bloggs]

got rid of them and replaced them with halon extinguishers back in the 20th century.

Bromochlorodifluoromethane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromochlorodifluoromethane)

Befuddleds right...

[witwiw]

You missed the point, Teresa Green. Your words wereinto a unknown airportMy point is it shouldn't have been so because the regs require pilots to be familiar with the route, sometimes even physically route endorsed, for RPT ops. And that would include being familiar with all the likely alternate airports even if they hadn't actually been there. I do stand by my statement if the operator is using the sim properly then the crews should at least have had exposure that way. If it was "unknown" then something is wrong - which was my point.

Incidentally, why would the window be "possibly unstable"? Boeing windows don't do that without heat, you are just required to slow down at lower levels. I would have expected Airbus windows were the same. Maybe a 'Bus driver can clarify?

[kellykelpie]

Ofcourse the window was possibly unstable. Likewise the crew would probably not have been to that port before. You can't get familiar with a place by flying over it on a route check.

[Weapons_Hot]

Bloggs, what is the color of your extinguisher? Yellow (a la BCF/carcinogenic/banned) or Red (a la Halon (the non-carcinogenic/approved) one?

I am not certain of the type of halon in our extinguishers, except that it is "approved". What I am certain about (i.e. not befuddled) is that somewhere in the late '90s, the yellow BCF was banned (possibly with the exception of Oz).
:}

[witwiw]

I'm begining to wonder if Teresa Green or Kellykelpie are that versed on industry requirements otherwise they wouldn't have trouble grasping the point. For their benefit, the following extracts from the CAOs and the CARs. My emphasis on selected passages:-

From the CAOs:
9 Obligations in relation to route and area qualifications
9.1 Subject to paragraph 9.2, an operator must ensure that a pilot does not act as pilot in
command of an aircraft engaged in a regular public transport service unless the pilot
meets the requirements of subregulation 218 (1).
9.2 Where a pilot has completed an audio-visual briefing as set out in Appendix 2 in
respect of a proposed flight, the pilot is to be taken to have met the requirements of
subregulation 218 (1) in respect of the aerodrome or route which was the subject of
the briefing, if the briefing occurs:

3.7 Briefing for route qualification
3.7.1 For the purposes of 3.5.2 (c) and 3.5.2 (e), the briefing for route qualifications is to
consist of a set of 35mm colour slides and a matched pre-recorded cassette tape
covering as many of the following points as may be relevant to the route under
discussion:
(a) geographic location of the aerodromes comprising the route;
(b) administration:
(i) local time zones;
(ii) documentation to be carried;
(iii) prerequisite qualifications (e.g. physical entry or audio-visual briefing for any
of the en-route aerodromes);
(iv) customs, health and immigration requirements for crew and/or passengers;
(v) fuel policy;
(vi) special equipment or extra personnel to be carried;
(c) navigation and flight-planning:
(i) planned route and alternates/emergency airfields;
(ii) special navigational techniques or limitations;
(iii) controlled airspace/restricted airspace;
(iv) maps and charts;
(v) flight planning;
(vi) weather;
(d) in-flight procedures:
(i) communications;
(ii) altimetry and Air Traffic Control procedures;
(iii) reporting points;

From the CARs:
218 Route qualifications of pilot in command of a regular
public transport aircraft
(1) A pilot is qualified to act in the capacity of pilot in command
of an aircraft engaged in a regular public transport service if the
pilot is qualified for the particular route to be flown in
accordance with the following requirements:
(a) the pilot shall have been certified as competent for the
particular route by a pilot who is qualified for that route;
(b) the pilot shall have made at least one trip over that route
within the preceding 12 months as a pilot member of the
operating crew of an aircraft engaged in any class of
operation;
(c) the pilot shall have an adequate knowledge of the route to
be flown, the aerodromes which are to be used and the
designated alternate aerodromes, including a knowledge
of:
(i) the terrain;
(ii) the seasonal meteorological conditions;
(iii) the meteorological, communication and air traffic
facilities, services and procedures;
(iv) the search and rescue procedures; and
(v) the navigational facilities;
associated with the route to be flown;
(d) the pilot shall have demonstrated either in flight or by
simulated means that he or she is proficient in the use of
instrumental approach-to-land systems which he or she
may utilise in operations on that route; and
(e) the pilot possesses such other qualifications (if any) as
CASA specifies in relation to that route having regard to
any special difficulties of that route.
(1A) A pilot must not act in the capacity of pilot in command of an
aircraft engaged in a regular public transport service if the pilot
is not qualified in accordance with subregulation (1).

There it is, nobody ever said you do it "by flying over it on a route check." My point is that it wouldn't have been an "unknown" airport. If the operator is abiding by the rules, as I expect they are, then the pilots would have been adequately briefed.

Kellykelpie - are you a 'Bus driver? If so, please explain the "unstable" window to me. I'd be informed appropriately along with many others if you can. I don't believe from the reports that it was cracked (that would make it unstable), bolts missing a-la the Trident (that was unstable) so how is it an electrical short makes the window unstable.

Apologies for the long post, but it appears to be necessary to get the point to sink in.

[Bullethead]

Capn Bloggs,

BCF is a Halon according to your same reference source.

Halon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halon)

Halon 1211 (bromochlorodifluoromethane, CF2ClBr)

So I'm wondering why the supposed ban on one and not the other? In my "quaint little outfits dunnunda" we still have BCFs all over the place, including on the aircraft.


Regards,
BH.

[down3gr33ns]

BCF = 1211, correct.

There are certain applications where BCF/1211 is still approved. The following extracts from the current Australian regulations might clarify matters (with my highlighting):

Ozone Protection and Synthetic
Greenhouse Gas Management
Regulations 1995
304 Offence — possessing halon
(1) On or after 1 November 2005, a person must not possess halon
that is, or has been, for use in fire protection equipment unless:
(a) subregulation (4) applies to the equipment; or ………..

[sub-regs 2 & 3 deleted]


(4) This subregulation applies to equipment that:
(a) is used by the Defence Force in:
(i) a Collins Class submarine; or
(ii) an FFG7 Class destroyer; or
(iii) an ANZAC Class frigate; or
(iv) an Assault Landing Vehicle; or
(b) is installed in, or carried in, an aircraft; or
(c) is installed in an enclosed space containing machinery,
[balance of this sub-reg deleted]


Hope this helps.

[turtlehead]

WITWIW

As for your comment on FLT Deck windows

-Incidentally, why would the window be "possibly unstable"? Boeing windows don't do that without heat, you are just required to slow down at lower levels. I would have expected Airbus windows were the same. Maybe a 'Bus driver can clarify?

I do believe A330 cockpit windows are structurally sound without window heat " ON " but as for some BOEING aircraft, the heat feature enhances their impact strength................thats what I've ben told...FYI

TH :)

[witwiw]

Turtlehead, yes that's correct, hence the Boeing requirement (737, at least) to slow down at lower levels to account for the reduced impact tolerance. They are, however, in no way "unstable" and there are no limitations at upper altitudes without window heat. Now, if you are correct about the Airbus windows not requiring heat to maintain their integrity, I go back to my query about how there is anything "unstable" about them in such circumstances?

[stable approach]

witwiw
You sound like someone I went to school with - suffice to say he was not the most popular guy in class.
Have you ever operated long haul flights? Twelve hour flights are common, and some ultra long haul flights are eighteen hours. Do you know how many airports you pass enroute on such a flight? Are you seriously suggesting that the operators should have the crews perform all the available approaches into each of these airports in the sim?
Having a PRACTICAL knowledge of enroute airports and then having to do an unplanned diversion into one while trying to sort out an inflight emergency would still be stressful to any sane pilot.
I think the guys you are trying to belittle while sitting there cutting and pasting regulations, may have a bit more of an understanding of real world international operations.

[witwiw]

I doubt if the A330 does 18 hour flights (and possibly not that many 12 hour flights either - I'd be interested to know) so the number of aerodromes passed is considerably less than you try to make out, Stable Approach. And, of those passed, how many are suitable enroute alternates? As a twin engine aircraft and considering EDTO, it is logical that the rules were followed and an "adequate" knowledge level had been attained by the crews as required and it was not a diversion into an "unknown" airport scenario as suggested.

I've not belittled the crew at all, read post number 30 which is where you'll find my only reference to the crew and their actions. Nor have I said such an event wouldn't be stressful. It is to those posters who can't understand that properly prepared crews would have had a working knowledge of those airports possibly required for a diversion whom my comments are directed.

As for pasting the regulations, it gives those who obviously haven't read them a chance to do so. Simple, really.

[who_cares]

God Damn Witwiw.

You should be a lawyer, I've got no idea what you just said.

I've flown at many ports in the sim that I have never been to in the
flesh, last thing I really want, is to divert in an emergency to one of these ports

[witwiw]

Ah, but if you ever had to, you've the benefit of having been there in the sim. My point exactly - preparation, as per the regs, not into the "unknown". Thank you.

[kellykelpie]

Hi Witwiw,

Thanks for posting the info from the regs. Hopefully it will 'sink in' as you said - although I find no matter how many times I read some things it takes me a while to get it (this is the same with the Guam approach charts when I'm not anticipating going there. I find it hard to get familiar with a place by reading about it.)

Good point about being prepared - I think you can never be prepared enough for something like a cockpit fire and unexpected diversion.

Not totally familiar with the windows, although I am an Airbus pilot. I guess, whether it is Airbus or Boeing doesn't really matter too much. If a cockpit window caught fire I would be concerned that one of the risks might be that the window could pop out.

Anyway, thanks for your valuable feedback.

Regards..

[teresa green]

Witwiw, I am just a old bloke used to flying dinosaurs, for about 49 years, firstly I never enjoyed going into a unknown airport first up, however how much training, with the possibility of equipment failure, secondly a window that has suffered any sort of trauma, I consider unstable and for the sake of the F/O if on his side, the pax and the A/C, I would not be able to get her on the ground quick enough, which is exactly what the crew did, hence my comment. Perhaps I was a over cautious pilot, but that is what we learnt in my day, never trust the bastard, and I never did.