QF32 diverts to Perth

[7378FE]

Apparently QF32 LHR-SIN-SYD diverted to PER, was there for just under 1 hour, not sure why:confused:

7378FE

[ampclamp]

fuel leak and precautionary eng shutdown according to the ABC

[HEALY]

QANTAS stated the incident was not related to the blow out over the South China Sea....Is this a standard reponse to the media or did some half brained fruitcake actually suggest that it may be linked.

You just dont know wether or not you should laugh or cry at the crap that is written sometimes.

[Falling Leaf]

Aircraft divert. It happens sometimes.:ugh:

[neville_nobody]

Yep I agree. Mr Cardy should explain what relevance a faulty oxy cylinder has to a fuel leak and why half the article has absolutely nothing to do with the headline. :ugh:

A precautionary shutdown is not a mid flight drama in a 4 engine aircraft either:rolleyes:

[mahatmacoat]

and I take it you all agree with the Qantas spokesperson when they said

This was not a flight safety issue.

how many engines need to be shut down as a precautionary measure before it is a safety issue?

[Spanner Turner]

The diversion itself - usual non-story - expected stuff when you run an airline.

As for the photo, Top Marks to the engineers from the west,

*Both safety rods are in place holding the cowl open,

*High Vis vests on all and sundry,

*Plenty of PPE/earmuffs in shot,

*One of the absolute BEST bump hats I've ever seen.:D

Big Dick and Big K must be immensely proud of their engineers who are so dedicated to safety!

Pay rises all 'round. :E


:ok: :ok:

.

[Shot Nancy]

how many engines need to be shut down as a precautionary measure before it is a safety issue?

I thought it would be obvious: any of them that are required for level flight above the MEA or all of them but one, unless you only have one then that one.

[JulieFlyGal]

As for the photo, Top Marks to the engineers from the westLooks like the engineer is standing on the roof of the vehicle .. or is he standing on a raised platform that's being obscured by the vehicle?

[HEALY]

Yep, all boxes ticked now we just need to see the AFP or WAC security with an AK47 and a buckle load of armour asking for ASIC cards in the picture and its going to be "high 5's" all round.

[DutchRoll]

how many engines need to be shut down as a precautionary measure before it is a safety issue?
Are you implying that Qantas aircraft spring fuel leaks in flight every week? Or they do precautionary engine shutdowns every week?

And what is a safety "issue"? If there was evidence that this was a recurring problem I might agree. If the crew didn't shut it down I might also agree. But do you have such evidence of some systemic or recurring problem, or some violation of procedures?

Sometimes things break or leak. If you own a car or any piece of machinery for that matter you would surely know that. If this is a "one-off", then it's drawing a pretty long bow to call it a safety issue of any significance. Something broke. The crew did exactly (like - precisely) the right thing in response. No safety issue that we are aware of.

JulieFlyGal: either that engineer has the shortest knee-to-ankle length I've ever seen in a grown man, or he's standing on what appears to be a platform in front of the car, if you look through the blurring effect of the car windscreen in the photo. ;)

[SOPS]

I think a few items were left out of the article...schools/hospitals/churches that were narrowly missed, pax holding hands and praying during the nose dive death plummet, Bill Smith who missed Grannys funeral because of the delay......:E

[VH-Cheer Up]

was the same ageing aircraftMate, we're all aging.

I expect the 290 pax were aging and the tech crew especially so.

How about "This was the same proven model of 747 that succesfully flies millions of miles every month without incident..."

Oh yeah, I forgot. Only bad news sells.

[mahatmacoat]

And what is a safety "issue"? If there was evidence that this was a recurring problem I might agree.

If you might agree it would be a safety issue if it was recurring, for those passengers and crew on board, wouldn't the reduction of safety be the same whether it was the first, second, tenth or last time that this happened?

But do you have such evidence of some systemic or recurring problem, or some violation of procedures?

Your talking about the cause. That is a seperate matter that I am sure Qantas will investigate thouroughly after they have completed the investigation into who took the photo.

I'm just sick of the PR machine rolling out the same response everytime. If I was to believe Qantas, nothing that happens on their aircraft is ever a safety issue. I do agree though that most of what we see is not newsworthy.

[teresa green]

Yawn, shock, horror, gasp. Next!

[Capt Kremin]

Apparently OJK is one of the 4 aircraft due to be disposed of soon.

[Buckshot]

poor OJK will now be known as the 'jinxed' aircraft

Oh well at least it'll take the heat off -OJH for a while!

[Metro man]

1. How bad was the leak ?
2. Was there any danger of fire ?
3. Did the leak stop when the engine was shut down ?
4. Was a critical fuel situation involved ?
5. What was the cause of the leak ?

[GUARD]

I think they may have already fixed the non-normal Metro-Man:ok:

[TWT]

If you can wait 2 years you just might find out

[Mehrkin]

I thought that QF32 is usually an A380 service. What was wrong with the A380???

[Capt Fathom]

I thought that QF32 is usually an A380 service. What was wrong with the A380???

If you look at the Qantas website, you will find the answer to that 'I thought' :zzz:

[peter mcgrath]

Apparently QF32 LHR-SIN-SYD diverted to PER, was there for just under 1 hour, not sure why

VH-OJK arrived in Sydney around 11pm last night, and has just taken off again now (9pm) as QF1 headed for Heathrow via Bankok.

[blow.n.gasket]

You could blame it all on a staple that let go at a most inopportune time couldn't you?:}

[blueloo]

Speaking of staples.....did all the planes get destapled after the incident and now that the chief stapler has left?

[Baltique]

Changing the topic from this particular flight, but remaining with QANTAS and diversion airports, I am wondering about the possible implications of such a fuel leak occurring on a much more isolated QANTAS route. In particular I am thinking of QF 17/18 Sydney non-stop to Buenos Aires. Once past the south of New Zealand this flight, which can sometimes dip down to 70 degrees south and beyond, has no diversions possible until South America (discounting McMurdo base in Antarctica) with the possibility of being 5-6 hours away from any possible safe harbour at maximum distance from airport!!!!

Okay, the probabilities are slight but what about issues of:
- Fuel leaks such as QF32 or the Air Transat flight over the Atlantic compromising the ability of the aircraft to reach a suitable diversion airport (not many options in Antarctica if a fuel line starts spilling fuel....)
- A cargo hold fire, smoke in the cabin etc etc. The advice of land ASAP rings a bit hollow 5 hours away from an airport...
- A cabin decompression, can a 747 descend to 14000 feet (or whatever is required to allow the passengers to breathe normally) and have enough fuel to motor on to Sthn America or back to New Zealand if the decompression happens at maximum distance from an airport?
- Medical emergencies, best not to have a heart attack on this flight 6 hrs from Sydney.....
- etc etc

Does anyone know if particular fuel requirements, additional redundancies (e.g. additional navigational instruments), additional mechanical checks are required for such outrageously isolated flights?? Do QANTAS's South America flights require particularly stringent flight planning and safety margins given their distance from possible diversion airports? I guess this is all a bit personal as I am supposed to fly QF17 to Buenos Aires on Monday, but it’s really freaking me out at the moment......

[scran]

CAPT Fathom- I travelled on QF32 London-Singapore-Sydney on 15/16 July and the aircraft certainly WAS an A380. :rolleyes:

[phatmike128]

Looks like the A380 will be the standard for the route then?

QANTAS will retire the troubled jumbo jet involved in a mid-air explosion last year and an engine shutdown that forced the pilot to divert to Perth on Wednesday.
The airline says the 18-year-old Boeing 747 will be paid off from commercial service in November along with four other ageing jumbos as part of the carrier's fleet replacement program, reports The Advertiser.

They will be replaced by brand new A380 super jumbos that will enter service on the Melbourne-Los Angeles and Sydney-London routes the following month.

A Qantas spokeswoman claimed the looming retirement of the plane, which stranded passengers branded as jinxed after the two incidents, has nothing to do with the two mid-air incidents during the past year.

sorry for the bad source site (http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,28318,26024901-5014090,00.html)

[Taildragger67]

The dugong will eventually be standard for QF 31/32 (or some daily London rotation, whatever the flight number), but as yet the company doesn't have enough to run a daily service. So for a while, some days it'll be a Bus, others a 744. The same goes for SY and ML to LAX.

The fourth airframe was delivered only in recent days, Nancy's got some maint coming up and hulls 5 & 6 should join the flock before year's end. Then we'll be getting closer to daily dugongs to London. Bit hard to run dailies to London and LAX (the latter from both SY and ML) when you've only got 3 or 4 airframes.

Logic, people. :ugh:

[rrramjet]

The diversion itself - usual non-story - expected stuff when you run an airline.

As for the photo, Top Marks to the engineers from the west,

*Both safety rods are in place holding the cowl open,

*High Vis vests on all and sundry,

*Plenty of PPE/earmuffs in shot,

*One of the absolute BEST bump hats I've ever seen.:D

Big Dick and Big K must be immensely proud of their engineers who are so dedicated to safety!

Pay rises all 'round. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif


http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


Indeed, nice work by the engineers.

What concerns me though is the rumour i heard from one of the boys today, that after doing a long day and a bloody good job, the poor old SO got a friendly reminder from one of the wheels in QCC to wear his hat next time on the walkaround! := This could only happen in Qantas! :ugh::ugh:

[rammel]

I'm pretty sure QF31/32 is not an A380 every day. I think that by the end of the year one daily SYDLAX will be an A380, the MELLAX A380 services will increase and so will SYDLHR.

[Eastwest Loco]

Come late this month schedules show A388 equipment on 6 out of 7 days on the LHR run.

This would be with VH-OQD (I assume) coming on line.

It is all showing the QF31/32 flight number.

Best all

EWL

[Keg]

Baltique, the flight can depressurise at any point along the route and divert to a 'suitable airfield'. It won't be a drama.

In terms of an engine shut down, the flight can shut one down at any stage along the route and divert to a 'suitable airfield'. Most of the time we have a couple of ton extra on board above and beyond the 'critical' fuel. I'm not sure of the specifics of the QF32 diversion into Perth but an 'engine fuel leak' doesn't necessarily mean that fuel was flowing out of the wing, it could well have been isolated once the engine shut down. So even if we lost a bit of extra stuff with the engine fuel leak, it would have to happen at exactly the wrong place for it to cause significant issues. Even then there are options available to solve this. The fuel calcs for this are based on QF approved 'mains' or 'alternates' and so use of a closer 'emergency' field would solve that.

As to your cargo fire question, QF 744 flights are often 3-4 hours away from an alternate as it is. In this respect if you're not particularly worried about these things going SYD or MEL-LAX then don't worry about them going SYD-EZE. If you're worried about it SYD-EZE then you need to consider giving away flying. Similar advice applies to the medical situation.

The Air Transat guys ran out of fuel because they balanced the tanks without questioning why there was an imbalance and thus sent fuel overboard that could have otherwise gotten them somewhere safely. I've never seen a QF crew balance a tank without doing some sort of confidence check to determine why the imbalance exists and to ensure that we're not sending fuel out of a leak on the other side and leaving ourselves short.

I hope this assists. Seriously, don't stress about it. If you're happy to fly SYD-MEL with QF then you can be happy flying SYD-EZE with us.

[Tankengine]

Re A380 deliveries there is a rumour [that word again:E] that Airbus dropped number 5 off jacks so will be delayed!:ooh::ooh:

[Eastwest Loco]

¤KAL/S05SEPSYDLHR/QF«
KE **** INFO ONLY ****
5SEP- 2OCT MTWTFSS SYD LHR LONDON.GB
1234567 1530SYD 0545LHR*1 QF/BA 319 777 FAJCD 1
28SEP 1...... 1625SYD 0640LHR*1 QF 031 744 RFAJC 1
29SEP .2..... 1625SYD 0640LHR*1 QF 031 388 RFAJC 1
30SEP ..3.... 1625SYD 0640LHR*1 QF 031 744 RFAJC 1
...4567 1625SYD 0640LHR*1 QF 031 388 RFAJC 1
1234567 1635SYD 0620LHR*1 QF/BA 301 744 FAJCD 1
7SEP 1....67 1700SYD 0700LHR*1 QF 001 744 RFAJC 1
9SEP 15SEP 1234567 1700SYD 0700LHR*1 QF 001 744 RFAJC 1
17SEP 21SEP 1..4567 1700SYD 0700LHR*1 QF 001 744 RFAJC 1
23SEP 1234567 1700SYD 0700LHR*1 QF 001 744 RFAJC 1

That is the current schedule SYDLHR straight out of the GDS.

388s operate SYD LHR Tues Thurs Fri Sat Sun on the current schedule.

Apologies for the slightly scrambled display as it is for info of the system operators, not the public.

Best all

EWL

[DutchRoll]

What concerns me though is the rumour i heard from one of the boys today, that after doing a long day and a bloody good job, the poor old SO got a friendly reminder from one of the wheels in QCC to wear his hat next time on the walkaround! This could only happen in Qantas!
You have to be kidding.

Yes, indeed, our managers really have their finger on the operational pulse, don't they?

And they wonder why they aren't getting enough responses from the engagement survey......:rolleyes:

[blueloo]

Someone should write up wearing hats during walkaround as OHS issue. The brim prevents you from seeing the gear doors and other dangly bits, and you could walk straight into them.

Actually bugger that thought - it will allow someone to get some money from QF when they accidentally do bang their head. :} :}

[ruprecht]

Hat = FOD hazard.

Unless you actually use the chin strap.:hmm:

ruprecht.

[peter mcgrath]

That is the current schedule SYDLHR straight out of the GDS.

so we will possibly see VH-OJK again on:
7SEP as QF001
9SEP as QF001
15SEP as QF001
17SEP as QF001
21SEP as QF001
23SEP as QF001
28SEP as QF031
30SEP as QF031

fwiw this is when I've seen it in Sydney over the last couple of months but I haven't been watching full time (times are GMT not local):

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/6550/vhojk.jpg

[peter mcgrath]

so we will possibly see VH-OJK again on:
7SEP as QF001Must be the dates it arrives in Heathrow.

5.30pm on Sun 6 Sept and its just left Sydney as QFA1 YSSY-VTBS-EGLL

[Capt Fathom]

That looks like a ACARS log of past flights! Not sure how you can translate that to the future schedule? :confused:

[nitpicker330]

The feedback our top flight ops managers get from yours is that Qf like the Dugong from a reliability point of view but not from a commercial point of view. One example is that from LAX westbound it needs to carry around 32t of mandatory fuel which kills any profits they may have made.

Any Qf experts care to comment?

[ditch handle]

Loving the 4 and 5 day LA's despite the extra hours however the 3 day Sin trips are heaven! Come on over - you know you want to....!
Today 11:22

Woop Woop, Shill alert.

[DutchRoll]

Yeah nitpicker I have heard internally that there are fuel burn "issues" with the Dugong. Punters seem to love it though - roomy, big tvs, 100 channels of crap, etc.

I imagine that like all manufacturers, the marketing spruikers at Airbus embellished the fuel figures. When the 787 comes, we'll discover that Boeing embellished those too. There is nothing more certain in aviation - the salesmen tell fibs and our purchasing people buy it. However they fibbed exactly the same way about the aircraft they are replacing too, so it all balances out in the end percentage-wise.

Bloody cynic aren't I?

[nitpicker330]

Well no actually. The 777-300ER came in slightly ahead of Boeing's promised fuel burn and then later they improve it another 1%.

[Tankengine]

Ditto 744!:ok:
however MD11 well behind.:\

[DutchRoll]

Perhaps I should clarify: substitute "range/performance" for purely "fuel burn" (and I didn't say it applied to all aircraft - I just said/implied the manufacturers seem to often overstate it).

Nevertheless, I don't see how on earth you can say that about the 744 when our fuel burn figures on the flight plan are routinely adjusted upwards by several percent above the "book" figures (and have been for as long as I've known it) so that they accurately represent how much will actually be consumed. I've never personally seen one adjusted downwards!

[nitpicker330]

All A/C degrade over time. We are talking about brand new delivered A/C factory fresh!!

Boeing generally have "delivered" what they promised and more.

Airbus.................well.

[DutchRoll]

Boeing generally have "delivered" what they promised and more.
You are obviously totally unaware of the RAAF EW&C project (Wedgetail).