PDA

View Full Version : Renamed & Merged: Qantas Severe Engine Damage Over Indonesia


Pages : [1] 2

Pat S
4th Nov 2010, 03:26
Rumours coming out now.

Pat S
4th Nov 2010, 03:28
False rumour. Apparently engine trouble and is turning back from Singaore.

Keg
4th Nov 2010, 03:33
A PASSENGER plane believed to be bound for Singapore crashed on an Indonesian island.
Debris from a plane was found on Batam Island, according to media reports citing a police chief in western Indonesia, Japan's Kyodo news agency said.

The Jakarta Globe quoted Batavia Air's Riau office as saying the plane did not belong to them, but they thought it may have been a Qantas plane.
more to come ...



Scared the crap out of me for a minute. :eek:

Hope you're right Pat.

Pat S
4th Nov 2010, 03:39
Looks like another engine incident. It appears at the moment that it may be just debris from the engine that has been found on the island. Plane has landed safely in Singapore. This is still all third hand info at the moment though.

6080ft
4th Nov 2010, 03:39
From the nz herald web site.

Airliner crashes in Indonesia - report - World - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10685347)

QF not confirming anything.

I hope this is just a media beat up over a non event.

Mstr Caution
4th Nov 2010, 03:39
<H1>Reports of passenger plane crash on Indonesian island

Posted 3 minutes ago
A passenger plane, believed to be bound for Singapore, has apparently crashed on the Indonesian island of Batam, according to police and witnesses.
Witnesses told the Jakarta-based private radio station Elshinta and the private television network Metro TV they saw smoke coming from what at least one of them said appeared to be ''a big passenger plane''.
Not long afterward, an explosion was heard at 9.20am (local time) at the Hang Nadim International Airport on Batam Island near Singapore.
Police said the plane was believed to have been headed for the city-state.
Qantas says it has no immediate information regarding a reported accident involving a Qantas plane
</H1>other news comming out of the region.

astroboy55
4th Nov 2010, 03:39
This from Reuters...

(Reuters) - Qantas told CNBC television that a plane that crashed near Singapore was an Airbus A380. No other details were immediately available.

The plane can carry more than 500 passengers. Witnesses said they had heard an explosion over the Indonesian island of Batam.

Doesnt sound good:(:{

waren9
4th Nov 2010, 03:42
SMH article here

Qantas Flight QF32: Emergency Landing Singapore | Engine Failure (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/qantas-jet-engine-fails-20101104-17f49.html)

Keg
4th Nov 2010, 03:43
The SMH report is a bit contradictory:

A Qantas A380 has been forced to return to Singapore's Changi Airport after pilots were forced to shut down one of its four engines.
QF32 was bound for Sydney when the engine failed.
A Qantas spokesman said the problems were with engine number two. She did not know why the engine had to be shut down.
The incident sparked widespread rumours over the internet through PPRuNe, that the plane had crashed, which Qantas said were wildly inaccurate.

astroboy55
4th Nov 2010, 03:43
thank christ for that. Thanks for posting the update waren.

tail wheel
4th Nov 2010, 03:48
Sky News retracted earlier reports and confirmed QF32 landed back at Singapore.

No clarification on the "explosion" and "debris near a shopping mall" reports.

hotnhigh
4th Nov 2010, 04:02
sky news now showing pictures of debris on batam.
Perhaps part of engine cowl?

RYAN TCAD
4th Nov 2010, 04:04
some good sized chunks of debris. Possibly the engine exploding and cowling detached as a result.

RYAN TCAD
4th Nov 2010, 04:07
classic QF response from unnamed source that there is no suggestion that the debris is from a QF aircraft.

Ramjager
4th Nov 2010, 04:12
Uncontained no2 engine failure.
Pics up at ANET taken from cabin show pretty substantial wing damage may be very lucky there was no wing fire.
Glad to see all down ok..good work.

OneDotLow
4th Nov 2010, 04:13
Classic QF response from unnamed source that there is no suggestion that the debris is from a QF aircraft

That is very true. They are scant on information when people most want it and I am not for one minute defending this tactic. However in this scenario, when the aircraft had not even been on the ground 20 mins (ie maybe not even at the terminal yet depending on fire services inspections etc), would you really expect them to give any more details? Do they even know any more details as yet?

Wonderworld
4th Nov 2010, 04:13
Taken from a post on airliners.net

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/0quh4dj - Shared by ulfw (http://yfrog.com/0quh4dj)

73to91
4th Nov 2010, 04:13
What Sky News is showing right now, is a large !!!! piece of metal.

The people standing near it gives an indication of the size.

Wonderworld
4th Nov 2010, 04:27
Just watching ABC 24 and Olivia Wirth from QF public affairs could not confirm that the pics of the debris on Batam were from the QF aircraft :ugh:

Looked like SQ debris to me :E

appex
4th Nov 2010, 04:36
more pics here

Qantas: No Crash / Explosion | Plane Lands In Singapore | QF 32 (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/qantas-jet-engine-fails-witnesses-tell-of-hearing-explosion-20101104-17f49.html)

Sorry already posted above

puff
4th Nov 2010, 04:37
Also reporting 3 Captains onboard ?

OneDotLow
4th Nov 2010, 04:37
Olivia Wirth from QF public affairs

Very quick to pull out the old "experienced flight crew" line. I have no problem with that - HOWEVER when you are trying to tell the traveling public one thing and then actively working to do the opposite (in order to reduce costs), it is more than a tad hypocritical.

RYAN TCAD
4th Nov 2010, 04:38
As I said - classic QF response. But it's OK, this sort of thing happens all the time. No problem. I don't know why all the fuss!!! :P

Jabawocky
4th Nov 2010, 04:39
That's a rather large chunk or two. :ooh: Makes the B744 damage in SFO look rather less severe.

Does that require a rethink on containment design etc?

el_rooto
4th Nov 2010, 04:43
From another forum:

"I believe the plane is VH-OQA (Nancy Bird) which recently received heavy maintenance in Germany "

Mach2point7
4th Nov 2010, 04:48
Olivia Wirth's obfuscation was painful. She had seen the pictures of the debris. Qantas logo prominent, but refused to concede that the debris was from QF32.

hotnhigh
4th Nov 2010, 04:52
Don't you love qantas spin.
Only when its convenient.
"Experienced Qantas crew".
Well done to them.
Shame that some of the same "experienced crew" cannot be part of the ongoing growth within the group.
Sorry, but most junior pilots have had a gutful of the treatment from management about career progression. Again, you are only worthwhile, unfortunately, when an incident occurs. Never a two way street when it comes to mutual respect wrt to management and mainline pilots.

Keg
4th Nov 2010, 04:53
Interesting el rootoo. I didn't think the check in Germany involved engines. Will be an interesting investigation to watch.

airtags
4th Nov 2010, 05:07
Glad everyone is OK however....................

Olivia Wirth lacked cred and was appalling, unprofessional and an utter embarassment.

[Did love the pic of the Indonesian local standing with his wife holding a piece with part of a logo.....]

hotnhigh
4th Nov 2010, 05:20
...........but is it possible that this has nothing to do with pilot wages or any other industrial shenannigans?
Yes, but it appears the crew operated in an appropriate manner. As you would expect,... as the passengers expect and pay for. The thing that is galling, is the way in which qantas pr promotes its relationship with its pilots and other staff in times like these.
Only last week, the union representing qantas mainline pilots, was yet again told to f$ck *&^ in no uncertain terms, whilst attempting to gain future work for qantas pilots.
In complete contrast to the usual "experienced qantas pilots" line that comes out today.
One has to wonder why qantas treats such an asset, like pilots and other staff, as they do.
Its summed up by the word RESPECT or lack there of. And it covers all front line staff in qantas. Those very staff that will be at the forefront today dealing face to face with the public and not on the end of a phone trying to spin some rubbish to sky news.

Clipped
4th Nov 2010, 05:21
Wait for it, regardless of cause - 'Safety was not an issue'.

Iron Bar
4th Nov 2010, 05:23
Lester,

Not when the good name and reputation of Qf pilots is cynically used to rescue their corporate reputation. . . . AGAIN!

I liked that photo too. Grinning Indo' policeman with broken roo on engine cowl. Grrrrreat publicity shot.

neville_nobody
4th Nov 2010, 05:28
I wish journalists who don't really know what on earth they are talking about would comment on such matters. The ABC correspondent in Indonesia said on the radio this afternoon that the aircraft landed with part of the tail missing. He must have seen footage of the engine cowl with the roo on it and thought it was the tail section.:ugh: At least get your facts straight before going on air.

Icarus2001
4th Nov 2010, 05:28
Could we limit the thread to comments about the actual incident?

Experienced is a great word...it implies a great deal but really all it means is that they have done this a few times before. End of story.

Now let's leave it alone and deal with the actual failure.:ok:

Torqueman
4th Nov 2010, 05:32
Check out the photos on herald sun

www.heraldsun.com.au/news/plane-reportedly-qantas-sheds-parts-before-landing-at-singapore/story-e6frf7jo-1225947832315"]http://http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/plane-reportedly-qantas-sheds-parts-before

Notice the big hole in the turbine section and debris sticking up on the wing.

gordonfvckingramsay
4th Nov 2010, 05:33
I think it funny that it is ok to employ inexperienced crew when it helps the bottom line, but when the all important "perfect" safety record is at stake, experience is something to crow about.

Going Boeing
4th Nov 2010, 05:41
Can any engineers confirm that the damage to the wing appears to be in the "dry bay" area?

teresa green
4th Nov 2010, 05:58
looks like she has shat her cowling big time, and possibly part of the cargo door, or so it looks.

Mustangbaz
4th Nov 2010, 05:59
One of the pictures from The Herald Sun has what appears to be a turbine hub, well 50% of a hub sitting in the back of someones truck (pic 9of11) :uhoh:
reminds me of the uncontained turbine failure to American Airlines B767 a few years back although totally different engines, damage all the same.....


Fan cowls look fine.... damage to Thrust Reverer Half only, thats the pieces that have the Kangaroo Logo on them

Mstr Caution
4th Nov 2010, 06:02
I'm extremely relieved after reading the initial reports comming out of Indonesia.

ps:
Alan Joyce live on Skynews now.

Artificial Horizon
4th Nov 2010, 06:05
http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1288847202/204/4309204.jpg

Doesn't look good:eek: especially the scar erupting from the upper surface of the wing just behind the leading edge. It looks at though pieces of the engine went everywhere. Not exactly contained.

RYAN TCAD
4th Nov 2010, 06:09
The MD is giving a live Q & A to the media now... "we at Qantas take safety unbelievably seriously"... many agree!

blueloo
4th Nov 2010, 06:10
A380s for Qantas grounded till further notice.

Gas Bags
4th Nov 2010, 06:13
Correct MustangBaz,

This is a very large section of turbine disc
http://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/af246/GasBags/877767-qantas-explosion.jpg?t=1288850785

And this looks like a section of turbine nozzle guide vanes???
http://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/af246/GasBags/878980-qantas-explosion.jpg?t=1288850785

Keg
4th Nov 2010, 06:14
Maybe the 767 will pick up some international flying over the next few days! That'd be nice for a change! :E

Skynews
4th Nov 2010, 06:15
The interview with Joyce was fairly basic, covering the type of questions the general public would ask and want answered.
The part I found interesting was joyce's statement that the aircraft had three Captains on board.
Two scenRio's, he doesn't know the difference between a "Captain" and the rest of the flight crew, which would highlight his compete ignorance re his staff and their roles within the company. ( shameful), or there were three Captains onboard. how often would that happen?

mrdeux
4th Nov 2010, 06:18
Also reporting 3 Captains onboard ?

Check and training...training.

Thats what she said
4th Nov 2010, 06:18
I'm hearing the entire A380 fleet is now grounded

airtags
4th Nov 2010, 06:20
the drover's dog could'nt get AJ out of thre quick enough!

Again shameful media performance - thought AJ should have answered the Q's before running away.

AT :E

Jabawocky
4th Nov 2010, 06:25
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2010/11/04/1225947/870459-qantas.jpg

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2010/11/04/1225947/870459-qantas.jpg


So does this mean that every damaged bungalo on the island will have a claim against QF for repairs? :ooh:

Looking at the brick debris on the chair its quite possible that wall was hit by the large rotor disc pictured further up!

Capt Kremin
4th Nov 2010, 06:32
Looks like the grounding rumour is true. Who else flies the Trent on the A380... Emirates?

Jabawocky
4th Nov 2010, 06:34
And why would the larger gear doors at the front of the nose gear bay still be open? I would assume they are closed while the gear is extended and only open during the extension.

If you see the video on the ground you will see what I mean.

Wonder what other problems may have resulted.

Going Boeing
4th Nov 2010, 06:36
CK, SQ has Trents but Emirates has Alliance Engines.

I don't think that SQ will ground their A380's.

Skynews, the sectors between Oz and Singapore are often used for training of pilots under conversion so it's probable that one captain was a Check & Training Captain who was supervising a Captain new to the type. There are quite a few Captains undergoing conversion now in time for the delivery of the next four A380's scheduled Nov through Feb.

Skynews
4th Nov 2010, 06:40
Interesting. Joyce stated that all 380's, in answer to a question about other operators, had RR's. I certainly took his response to mean exactly that that all 380' flying were on RR's

blueloo
4th Nov 2010, 06:45
I would think If he is grounding the fleet there must be something more to it than just an un-contained failure.

Ultralights
4th Nov 2010, 06:55
http://a.yfrog.com/img26/6519/uh4d.jpg

i can understand an uncontained failure throwing parts through the leading edge panels, but it looks like a part has penetrated what i thought would have been structural wing plank area! (the dark grey area)

Jabawocky
4th Nov 2010, 07:08
Maybe it should after recent events.

teresa green
4th Nov 2010, 07:10
Lames, it appears to be in the fan area going on the fire marks, possible?

Torqueman
4th Nov 2010, 07:18
You can see a big hole in the turbine region. Definitely a turbine failure. Most likely HP from the pictures of the disk. Those Guys don't know how lucky they really are. There was some movie of the plane flying from the back with what looked like a lot of fuel trailing the inboard area. Most likely from the big hole the departing turbine disk left.

When will QF's luck run out.

If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Bring all maintenance back onshore.
http://i51.tinypic.com/ilketf.jpg

FoxtrotAlpha18
4th Nov 2010, 07:24
If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Bring all maintenance back onshore.

Here we go :suspect:... hang on, I thought all ENGINE maintenance WAS done onshore?!?!?!

Gas Bags
4th Nov 2010, 07:27
Teresa,

Definately not fan. The fire marks are coming from the front of the thrust reverser cowl (Hot section). By the photos it is definately an uncontained turbine disc failure. And yes the engine design is supposed to contain this type of failure.

Does anybody remember the Air New Zealand 767 that blew a CF6-80A on climb out of Brisbane (I think 2002). That was a very similar event (uncontained failure) and they were very lucky that all the debris went outboard and thus did not enter the passenger cabin.

If I recall correctly that engine was purchased by Aviation Australia once the investigation was finished.

GB

Qantas 787
4th Nov 2010, 07:31
Well done to the crew as usual for the way they handled it.

Typical responses on news sites about offshore maintainence and the unions getting thier day in the sun in the media.

Capt Kremin
4th Nov 2010, 07:31
Fleet manager on Qrewroom reporting more to this than meets the eye.

Channel 9 set a new low. "A Qantas jet exploded this afternoon." Followed by an animation of the QF72 diving vertically....:ugh::ugh:

Torqueman
4th Nov 2010, 07:35
FoxtrotAlpha, you are damn right! Here we go again. And rightly so!

For your info the aircraft recently came out of it's first heavy maintenance check in Germany. LTQ I think. And before you ask, NO, I don't work for QF.

Tiger35
4th Nov 2010, 07:41
Not as bad as the QF media spokesperson, Olivia Wirth, who couldn't recognise the corporate logo.

A quote from SMH: "A Qantas spokeswoman said there was "no suggestion it's come from our aircraft".

Qantas 787
4th Nov 2010, 07:45
No wonder AJ wanted to get out of the presser quickly - wanted to get away from stupid questions from journalists.

Kremin - all the media have been terrible. 7 reported that is actually crashed. I switched through all of them and they were all just as bad. I swear they are getting worse.

Capt Kremin
4th Nov 2010, 07:46
Coverage on SBS showed the firies at Changi clearly spraying water or foam directly into engine 1?!!? Sympathetic damage perhaps?

Jabawocky
4th Nov 2010, 07:48
Fleet manager on Qrewroom reporting more to this than meets the eye.

Come clean Kremin....what's the gossip? ;)

The Chaser
4th Nov 2010, 07:50
blueloo & Capt K, I wondered about that

The Sky footage shows a tender using the cannon straight in the inlet of No.1 .... given the velocity of the fine sray exiting, was No.1 still turning and burning?

Reason I ask, is whilst this was happening, the stairs were already up on the righthand side and pax were exiting, so the cannon down the intake of No.1 was occuring quite some time after the aircraft stopping.

I wonder if the departing rotating parts of No.2 punched through some vital nerve bits in the forward spar area? ... control systems for No.1?!?!?!

The The
4th Nov 2010, 07:55
Gear doors open and no slats out. Looks like possible complete loss of green hydraulic system? Is that also a gravity extension of NLG and WLG.

Tough day at the office boys. Well done!!!!!!!!

Capt Kremin
4th Nov 2010, 07:56
No goss... just that statement.:confused:

ABC also clearly had them sending water into the intake of No 1 with the engine still running. Fuel SOV inop?

Jabawocky
4th Nov 2010, 08:21
Could have been a busy place up the front. Seems like damage to hydraulics, no slats, reverse thrust is only on the inboards so thats them out. And maybe not a lot of control with the outboard engine on landing and possibly at a pretty high weight.

How do you calculate the required runway length for that! :eek:

Well done all round.

PS: Also black mark on the pylon of 1, maybe some ejected bits found their way into it?

stubby jumbo
4th Nov 2010, 08:52
Just saw AJ on 7:30 Report. Kezza carefully laid out the interview to get the facts straight then set the trap.

AJ stepped straight into it.

His response should have been "keep it straight -no comment"

No...... he took the bait and put the boot in.:rolleyes:

Dope !:ugh:

This is "the pride of the fleet" buddy. Now is not the time to bang on about this.

You have more on your Irish plate than the ALAEA at this point in time.

Get on with it.

Can some one with some operational experience like the Chief Pilot ( PW) for example get on the TV. The Leprechaun looks way out of his depth.

Going Boeing
4th Nov 2010, 08:56
Gas Bags,
By the photos it is definately an uncontained turbine disc failure. And yes the engine design is supposed to contain this type of failure.

My understanding is that engines are designed to contain blade failures but it is impossible to contain a turbine disc failure due to the mass of the disc and the huge amount of energy it has at high RPM. GB

Bayfield
4th Nov 2010, 09:11
I am not sure if it is a requirement for the HP section to have containment testing.

There sure is. According to EASA Certification Specification Engine CSE 510 under “Safety Analysis” one of the failure definitions regarded as Hazardous Engine Effects is the non-containment of high energy debris.

And in CSE 520 “Strength”

(c) (1) The strength of the Engine must be such that the shedding of compressor or turbine blades, either singly or in likely combinations, will not result in a Hazardous Engine Effect

(d) Design consideration must be given to avoiding the risk of major rupture of Engine casings (particularly those which are subjected to high pressure loads) in the event of a local Failure in the casing or damage to the casing arising, for example, from a torching flame following a combustion system Failure.

http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/g/doc/Agency_Mesures/Certification_Spec/CS-E%20A2/CS-E_Amendment%202.pdf

So in a nutshell Rolls Royce, this is a big FAIL.

Keg
4th Nov 2010, 09:14
Lol. A route check as well! Just what you need! He probably needs to do another one due to not doing an an all engine landing! :}

airtags
4th Nov 2010, 09:22
attribute it to my ageing memory, but did not Nancy have an engine change earlier this year?

Capt Kremin
4th Nov 2010, 09:22
Aren't the turbines connected to the fan and hence spinning at the same RPM? If so the fan should have the higher energy.

I'll leave that open for debate.

However, watching the leprechaun on the 7.30 report just got me angry. Any other QF pilot watching would have felt the same emotion as the same man responsible for denying mainline pilots any career progression, the same man who didn't want mainline pilots "polluting" the Jetstar culture, waxed lyrically about how Qantas pilots are the best trained/most experienced in the world and what a wonderful job they did.:mad::mad::mad:

For the record; there is no empirical evidence to confirm those claims either way; all that can be said is that this crew and others have handled critical situations safely and professionally, as pilots should.

However:

If you truly believe that Alan, why are you hell-bent on diminishing and destroying mainline and it's culture? Why are you continually auctioning off mainline flying to the lowest bidder? Why do you seek to arrest the career progression of good pilots that your recruiting department spent so much time identifying?

You can't have it both ways Alan.

Signature
4th Nov 2010, 09:22
I doubt a third of the turbine disc counts as a normal number of blades...

There will be a lot to come out of this.


Another excellent crew display. Truly professional.

FMU
4th Nov 2010, 09:37
Uncontained #2 engine failure, resulting in loss of both green and yellow hydraulics. Debris punctured leading edge and damaged wiring to #1 engine. Also debris punctured under wing surface resulting in fuel leak. On landing, blew 4 tyres. Stopped on runway. Unable to shutdown #1 engine due to damaged wiring. Attempted to drown #1 engine with water from fire truck, but did not work. 3 hrs after landing #1 engine still running.

astroboy55
4th Nov 2010, 09:38
Kremin,

perhaps this will serve as a timely reminder of the value of QF staff to the daily operations and safety of the airline. perhaps aipa will use this to their advantage.

well done to all involved

Zoomy
4th Nov 2010, 09:41
Brilliant Crew, fantastic job. All you need to do now is rid QANTAS of tosser CEO's and you will return to your former glory.

Just heard him on the radio, personally I feel like dacking the little sh%t.

Fliegenmong
4th Nov 2010, 09:41
Not sure why, but it reminded me of the Ansett 727-200 incident at BNE, July 1992?, no 2 failure, that failure was of the first stage low-pressure compressor??

Here it is...

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 727-277 VH-ANA Brisbane International Airport, QLD (BNE) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19920704-0)

Capt Kremin
4th Nov 2010, 09:42
Thanks FMU. Was the double hyd failure due to loss of fluid? Great job guys!:D:D:D

quadradar
4th Nov 2010, 09:43
Well Done to another great QANTAS crew .... have the greatest of respect for QANTAS Flight Crews - whether at the sharp end or self loading freight end.
:D:D:D

Bootstrap1
4th Nov 2010, 09:47
Engine 1 was pumped full of water to shut it down. Possible wiring damage at #2 strut area might have stopped engine shut down.

Only 1 hydraulic system was down. The trailing edge flaps only work hydraulically. The slats work hydraulic or electric. My guess is that the yellow system was still working but the slats were damaged and so didnt move or the slat controller resets were pulled to stop them moving.

Gear free fall worked fine as well by the look of things.
Possible aileron faults as well. It would seem that most of the safety systems airbus designed for this aircraft got a workout today. I didn't see the RAT deployed, maybe they need to save something for another day.

Lean Sigma
4th Nov 2010, 10:09
j973645y5AA

Ngineer
4th Nov 2010, 10:48
I doubt Qantas would be capable of being able to determine the cause of this failure. That would be up to the experts at RR. My guess, if indeed it was a turbine disc failure, is a manufacture fault of the disc that went undetected.

Galley Raider
4th Nov 2010, 11:00
My mail says Eng#2 on that A/C has been carrying a Cat A Turbine Overspeed MEL since Tuesday.

Going Boeing
4th Nov 2010, 11:04
Ngineer, the B744 Engine failure out of SFO appears to have been caused by a centre bearing failure which caused a shaft to shear. With the compressor section detached, the turbine section on that shaft oversped and subsequently suffered a failure of the turbine disk so the problem can be caused by a failure elsewhere in the engine.

air bender
4th Nov 2010, 11:41
The holes are beginning to line up at QF
Hope someone is monitoring

FlexibleResponse
4th Nov 2010, 12:25
Galley Raider

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Age: 92
Posts: 27

Turbine Overspeed MEL
My mail says Eng#2 on that A/C has been carrying a Cat A Turbine Overspeed MEL since Tuesday.

Now this little snippet might make the Joyce/Purvinas boxing match, or perhaps pistols at dawn, (called for by Joyce with rather loose lips on the ABC's Kerry O'Brien's 7:30 Report) very interesting indeed!

Safety is QF management's number one priority...Bullshit!

It's all about the management bonus you fools!

bubble.head
4th Nov 2010, 12:42
I am quite surprise AJ grounded the A380 fleet. I guess the 744 drivers will be working quite hard in the following week or two.:zzz:

aviator's_anonymous
4th Nov 2010, 12:50
Wouldn't this aircraft/engine be too new to be a engineering/maintenance problem? I would suspect it would be a manufacturing problem..something to do with RR... poor Qantas will get all the blame tho!

Capt Fathom
4th Nov 2010, 12:54
Come on guys and girls!

The crap that is being posted here is embarrassing!

You lot should be banished to the local CWA to continue your
gossip at a tea and bikkie session!

:yuk:

SOPS
4th Nov 2010, 12:58
BBC just reprted that SIA are grounding thier A380s as well for inspections.

Capn Bloggs
4th Nov 2010, 13:10
I thought most of the posts were quite reasonable, Fathom.

TIMA9X
4th Nov 2010, 13:20
Qantas A380 emergency landing | Singapore (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/qantas-engineers-want-full-probe-20101104-17fqr.html)

ALAEA federal secretary Steve Purvinas said safety was a growing concern for Qantas engineers with continued outsourcing of maintenance work.
"We know that the dramatic increase in the number of safety incidents involving Qantas jets coincides with an increase in the amount of work that is no longer carried out in-house," he said in a statement.
In the past 10 years, Qantas has shut down every in-house engine shop in Australia, he said, leading to a reduction in safety standards.
"We have seen some pretty horrid results of maintenance from the overseas facilities - things that aren't reported in the press," he told AAP.
AJ (and the bonus boys in QF management) time to listen. My congratulations to the Captains and crew on today's QF 32 for a job well handled, as usual. It is my view the blokes in management need to get back to basics and sort themselves out regarding day to day airline operations, ie reinvesting in local in house engine shops to regain some credibility lost with poor management decisions over the recent years. :mad:

Homesick-Angel
4th Nov 2010, 14:25
Im still astounded by the strength of the explosion in the Rolls Royce engine test posted by Lean Sigma..

The woman in the vid described the forces going on in the blades as hanging a locomotive in the engine.. Jee zuz! :eek:

I dont care how tough any of you think you are, if you felt that kind of explosive energy (watch the vid) on any airplane anywhere anytime you would be an idiot not to be deeply concerned and or sh*t your pants.
Now pretend you are Pax that doesn't know that aircraft generally dont fall out of the sky even with engine loss, and you just heard that explosion..

That would not have been a fun flight to be on, and it seems the crew did an amazing job (as they should at their pay grade:E ).

Iron Bar
4th Nov 2010, 14:33
"Our passengers BECAME our top priority"

A Joyce
7:30 report

Says it all really

ferris
4th Nov 2010, 15:43
Re; the MEL (if true). How could that NOT be negligence, in light of what transpired? Lawyerfest......

ALAEA Fed Sec
4th Nov 2010, 19:37
Just posting to remind readers what sort of a management team we are dealing with here and where their priorities lie.

We (ALAEA) currently have 6 Qantas group LAMEs stood down from duty subject to a disciplinary investigation because they reported defects on aircraft in an area that they weren't asked to look. Relates to Dash 8 aircraft and the cockpit doors that coud be opened with paddle pop sticks.

Yes, yesterdays incident has nothing to do with cockpit doors but what kind of a message does it send to Engineers who can be disciplined for reporting aircraft defects if it was just something they happened to notice in the course of their duties.

I'm getting sick of this safety is our number one priority thing. I suspect the 380's have been grounded because they are still under warranty.

Sunfish
4th Nov 2010, 19:56
1. Can someone enlighten us as to what the alleged "CAT A engine overspeed" is on the RR engine, what caused it and how can it be carried on a MEL and how it can be rectified?


2. It is Fan blade failure that must be contained, usually by a bloody great band of Kevlar wound around the case in line with the blades.

There is no way in hell that a turbine disc failure can be contained. For this reason, turbine discs are made of the finest materials, using the best machining and inspection techniques known to the best engineers on this planet. The discs are on a "hard time" life basis and must be scrapped when out of cycles and/or hours. That is why a disk failure is a big deal.

I hope for the sake of the RR designers that it's a manufacturing defect.

I hope for the sake of the manufacturers it was a design defect.

I pray for the LAMES that it wasn't a maintenance defect. God help the poor bastard whose signature last appeared in the engine log.

3. If "The wiring was cut" was the reason No.1 engine couldn't be shut down, then considering that the engine has FADEC, are there duplicate wiring runs to it? Is the FADEC wiring anywhere near what was cut? How close was the aircraft to a double engine shut down on one wing?


As for Qantas, I think the depth of their concern would have been for the the dollar cost of Three hours of fuel and engine charges incurred by No. 1 engine when it wouldn't stop.

teresa green
4th Nov 2010, 20:06
Chaser, think they were unable to shut nbr 1 down, so must have been some damage there.

teresa green
4th Nov 2010, 20:10
Sorry Sunfish had not read your post. Just repeated it. Well done tech and cabin crew. (Hope they don't put that Capt. thru another check! I would have passed him!):D

Sunfish
4th Nov 2010, 20:24
ALEA Fed. Sec.:

Just posting to remind readers what sort of a management team we are dealing with here and where their priorities lie.

We (ALAEA) currently have 6 Qantas group LAMEs stood down from duty subject to a disciplinary investigation because they reported defects on aircraft in an area that they weren't asked to look. Relates to Dash 8 aircraft and the cockpit doors that coud be opened with paddle pop sticks.

Yes, yesterdays incident has nothing to do with cockpit doors but what kind of a message does it send to Engineers who can be disciplined for reporting aircraft defects if it was just something they happened to notice in the course of their duties.

I'm getting sick of this safety is our number one priority thing. I suspect the 380's have been grounded because they are still under warranty.


...So if a LAME is working away at some hydraulics, and notices that One or Two fuselage frames appear to be cracked and a pressurization valve is black and smoking and he decided to follow QF's instructions and ignore it?

What would CASA make of that? Obviously the manager who penalised LAMES for reporting defects outside their direct work sheet requirements, thus setting up a culture of deliberate ignorance would be held blameless by CASA.

What would CASA do:

(a) If it was a Qantas LAME?

(b) If it was a GA LAME working for a Charter operator?

Will Qantas get the CASA letter at 4.30pm on a Friday night, suspending its AOC, like a charter operator?

..Or will their be unctuous Tut tutting by CASA about how this incident is perfectly understandable.

Does anyone else see the slow march to death and destruction caused by a combination of toxic corporate culture and toxic regulatory culture?

Then, isn't QF angling to reduce the pay and experience levels required of its pilots? What happens if a similar incident happens with a 1500 hour Twenty something in the left seat and a 300 hour Twenty something in the right seat?

RedTBar
4th Nov 2010, 20:27
This incident is a timely reminder of the environment we work in and how quickly it go pear shaped.
Well done to the crew and again it shows the benefit of training and experience.
I heard on the TV (yes I know to be taken with a grain of salt) that the aircraft dumped it's fuel.
I had heard the 380 cannot dump it's fuel!
Is that true?

Also it's a miracle that no one on the ground was hurt by the debris.

Capt Kremin
4th Nov 2010, 20:29
A380 can dump fuel. A330's not.

Airbus CAT A MEL's mandate that each CAT A item has it's own particular repair date according to requirements of the fault. Anyone know what the repair interval was in this case?

DUXNUTZ
4th Nov 2010, 21:26
In-flight video from pax, courtesy the guardian paper (UK)

Video: Qantas A380 engine failure filmed by passenger | Business | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/video/2010/nov/04/qantas-a380-engine-failure-video)

Nice reassuring pa from the crew. :ok:

Capn Bloggs
4th Nov 2010, 21:50
Re; the MEL (if true). How could that NOT be negligence, in light of what transpired? Lawyerfest......
Provided the MEL has been applied appropriately, then there is no "legal" problem, apart from the manufacturer's and regulator's decision to create such an MEL in the first place.

A jet I have flown had two overspeed protection systems; one electric and one mechanical. Either would shut down the engine if the front end (N1) became disconnected from the back end (N2). The electric overspeed protection system was MEL-able. That may be the situation here.

On my current aircraft, a Cat A MEL has the time or cycle limit stated in the MEL text for the item. A Cat B MEL expires after 3 days, a Cat C MEL after 10 days and a Cat Z MEL expires at the next EBA negotiation finishes. ;)

RedTBar
4th Nov 2010, 22:11
Rumour that QF is leasing a BA 777 for LHR/SYD flight departing LHR 5/11

Capn Bloggs
4th Nov 2010, 22:18
Good to see FO Bloggs wearing his AIPA ID card strap! :ok:

Pic 17 (http://pictures.reuters.com/c/C.aspx?VP3=FlashSlideShow_VPage&R=2C0BF1T20AUW&T=A&H=1)

How many pilots did they have on that thing? Looks like a half a dozen at least! :{

Capt Kremin
4th Nov 2010, 22:30
They had five. Four man heavy crew plus a checkie. I believe it was a Route check for the Captain. Ex RAAF Caribou pilot. I believe he passed!;)

..and before anyone asks why a four man crew for a 7.5 hour sector, they operate the SO's to free up seats in the cabin.

Aquaplaner
4th Nov 2010, 22:34
Well done to the crew for getting her back safely. Media reports out this morning quoting passengers saying that the pilots and cabin crew acted very professionally, kept a cool head and the passengers well informed. Well done!

RedTBar
4th Nov 2010, 22:43
.and before anyone asks why a four man crew for a 7.5 hour sector, they operate the SO's to free up seats in the cabin.
Wouldn't it be better to have the S/O on the flight deck regardless of cabin space?
It's where his experience as a future Captain (hopefully for his/her sake) starts as it certainly did in this case.

Capt Kremin
4th Nov 2010, 22:48
Aircraft these days are designed to operate with two crew. The old "Three sets of eyes are better than two" argument died with the 767. Most of the aircraft you see operating around the world have two pilots, unless it is a long sector or a special arrangement like this.

Plus it is a cost.... and we all know airlines attitudes to costs don't we?!

mrdeux
4th Nov 2010, 23:27
They had five. Four man heavy crew plus a checkie. I believe it was a Route check for the Captain. Ex RAAF Caribou pilot. I believe he passed!Not quite. Captain, FO, SO. A new check and training captain, doing a check on the operating capt. And another C&T supervising. So, 3 captains.

OneDotLow
4th Nov 2010, 23:40
Posted without comment :

Qantas A380 landing: Airlines were warned in August over engine safety (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/04/airbus-a380-qantas-singapore-engine)

FMU
5th Nov 2010, 00:32
Confirmed- #2 engine Intermediate Pressure Turbine IPT disk failed. Extensive damage to the #2 strut and wing panels will mean this a/c will be in SIN for some time. Minimum repair- replace both #1 and #2 engines, replace/repair #2 strut, wiring repairs, repair to damaged wing panels.

FMU
5th Nov 2010, 00:42
Sunfish said- If "The wiring was cut" was the reason No.1 engine couldn't be shut down, then considering that the engine has FADEC, are there duplicate wiring runs to it? Is the FADEC wiring anywhere near what was cut? How close was the aircraft to a double engine shut down on one wing?


FADEC is a system which is basically contained within the engine. There are no "FADEC" wiring running to the engine. The fact that the engine "command" wiring was cut, and the engine kept operating, although at idle power, comfirms the integrity and robustness of the engine and the FADEC system. The aircraft was NOT at all close to a double engine shutdown.

MyerFlyer
5th Nov 2010, 00:57
A380 engine explosion: Qantas boss blasts off-shore maintenance claim (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/a380-engine-explosion-qantas-boss-blasts-offshore-maintenance-claim-20101105-17gcu.html?from=age_sb)

Mr Joyce said the exact cause of the engine failure was not yet known, but early investigations suggested it was a problem with the design of the engine rather than its maintenance.

Should SQ follow QF and ground A380s as well?

At least QF took the lead!

Capn Bloggs
5th Nov 2010, 01:18
FMU...
The fact that the engine "command" wiring was cut, and the engine kept operating, although at idle power, comfirms the integrity and robustness of the engine and the FADEC system.
Eh? One blown up and the other at idle is close enough to a
double engine shutdown.
if you ask me.

404 Titan
5th Nov 2010, 01:28
Capt Kremin
The old "Three sets of eyes are better than two" argument died with the 767.

I'm sorry, just because an aircraft is designed to be operated by a minimum of two crew doesn't mean three sets of qualified eyes isn't better than two. We've already been down this line of debate regarding jump seat pax.:ugh:

Capt Kremin
5th Nov 2010, 02:08
I meant as far as airline managements go... :ugh::ugh:

DutchRoll
5th Nov 2010, 02:25
Come on guys and girls!

The crap that is being posted here is embarrassing!
You should read the comments about this incident on the Daily Telegraph website. PPrune commentary is exceedingly sensible and well informed by comparison!

Ken Borough
5th Nov 2010, 02:49
You should read the comments about this incident on the Daily Telegraph website

It's not known as the Telecrap for nothing!:E

That aside, I think the ALAEA has not done itself any favours, here or elsewhere, by dragging their dispute with the Company into this incident. Their bogan-like attitude disgusts me. :yuk::yuk:

A slight drift but why are so many quick to jump on the off-shore maintenance band-wagon? I've heard so many punters say they won't use QF because of 'overseas maintenance' and, in the same breath, say they travel on CX, SQ, EK etc. These deep thinkers, when asked where these airlines aircraft are maintained, just look dumb-struck and stupid when they realise their shallowness.:mad::mad:

Well done to the lads who delivered in fine style, again.:D:D:D .

RedTBar
5th Nov 2010, 03:25
Capt Kremin,I think you missed my point.

Cost is not an issue because the S/O is already there on the flight regardless of pax loads.
Isn't it better to have a junior pilot such as a S/O on the flight deck instead of sitting in P/C watching a movie and I'm not talking about rest breaks.How else do you get experience unless of course we are talking about wine selection :rolleyes:

Also as said by 404 Titan three sets of eyes will always be better than two regardless of flight deck design design and you might also add 4 engines are better than two :E.

stubby jumbo
5th Nov 2010, 03:32
What a surprising post from you Ken B.

Referring to people as "bogans" in a derogatory manner,

then referring to people as "lads". mmmmmmm.

Captain Ritchie must be one of your mates -eh ? same era I suspect:cool:

fix767
5th Nov 2010, 03:42
Yep, Boeing to the rescue!

Capt Kremin
5th Nov 2010, 03:46
Red T-Bar. It is a cost. Night flying attracts extra credits. Pilots can be paxed up to 24 hours continuous tour of duty but if they operate they must get rest in a hotel. Hours operated count towards min crew rest/weekly/annual total requirements whilst hours paxed do not.
Offsetting the cost is the availability of premium seats. You'd have to talk to management about who comes out ahead.

I am not saying you don't have a point regarding getting experience. Years ago S/O's operated on all flights regardless of length. My first trip was a SYD-MEL-SYD and I actually learned a thing or two that helped later doing domestic flying. But those days have long gone.

TIMA9X
5th Nov 2010, 04:01
By Ken Borough I've heard so many punters say they won't use QF because of 'overseas maintenance' and, in the same breath, say they travel on CX, SQ, EK etc.

Although I agree with your post in general, ALAEA may be a little out of line by using QF 32's incident yesterday (different to the past) to make a case.
A380 engine explosion: Qantas boss blasts off-shore maintenance claim (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/a380-engine-explosion-qantas-boss-blasts-offshore-maintenance-claim-20101105-17gcu.html)
Mr Joyce said the exact cause of the engine failure was not yet known, but early investigations suggested it was a problem with the design of the engine rather than its maintenance. Let's hope AJ is right as his feathers seem ruffled this time.
Having said that, there has been a bank of incidents over the past few years at QF which are engineering related in my view. We don't hear the same issues happening at CX SQ & EK as we have from QF, which leads to the question, why is this so?

Although we don't have the facts to judge the reasons for yesterdays incident, it does in fact highlight the previous incidents that may indicate to some observers that something is NQR (not quite right) at the flying roo. I say this out of total respect for the pilots at QF who have handled all of the past incidents with great professionalism. After yesterdays shock I trust AJ who cheer-leads his pilots skills in the press translates to maintaining the value of keeping good pilots happy.I think that's the outcome people want to see on here.

Ken Borough
5th Nov 2010, 04:14
What a surprising post from you Ken B.

Why? It is easy to be objective and give credit where credit and, particularly in this instance, admiration are due. :ok:

Referring to people as "bogans" in a derogatory manner

Perhaps, but I didn't: bogan-like is subtely different.

Captain Ritchie must be one of your mates -eh ? same era I suspec

No, and no.

Now, back to the thread!

601
5th Nov 2010, 04:26
We don't hear the same issues happening at CX SQ & EK as we have from QF

Or they are just not reported here in the local rags

Now if it was QF that lost the 747 instead of UPS, we would still be hearing about it.

Selective media beat-ups by jurnos who don't know :mad:.

teresa green
5th Nov 2010, 04:38
Ken, I have a son a LAME, next time you are in port take the time to pop over to the Jet Base and have a little chat. You might find one of the finest Engineering units in the world has for the last ten years at the hands of Dixon etc, become a shadow of its former self, you might find exellent engineers looking outside the industry to get some satisfaction that they once had, you might find the frustration of engineers of receiving parts that for all intents and purposes were supposed to be maintained (overseas) and were anything but, you also might note the frustration of not having heavy maint, done in the one hanger, on the one computer, with a changeover of crews being able to hand from one to another, without a scramble for parts, information etc. in other words, a day in the life of a QF engineer is not what it used to be. All of my kids in moments of madness, decided to follow their ol man into the industry, whilst the pilots, are forever leaping up and down about something, the most frustrated is my young bloke, the engineer. He went into QF aged 18 years with all the excitement of a young bloke fullfilling a dream, and it continued for a while until Dixon.................... as they say the rest is history.

airtags
5th Nov 2010, 05:00
Agree that some of the reporting has been less than lousy, however we're all very quick to bag the media when in a lot of cases it's those involved in the incident that actually promotes some of the idiot writings.......
...........for instance....yesterday QF Media Management failed to:

1. Brief the media with authority (not Olivia Wirth who is an embarassment)
2. Educate the media by providing proper background - (i.e. facts, stats, myths - & not threatening to leave them in the dark if they write a bad story or ask a tough question)
3. Deploy and make available credible, professional subject matter experts that can 'guide' journos. Remember, we fly they don't - so the story is written and driven only by what content or actuality is available. Stonewall or feed the media garbage and you get garbage being written.

Good media management starts before any incident happens. By doing these things you actually control the information and therefore influence and control story.

QF does not do it well.

AT :E

bartholomewrose
5th Nov 2010, 05:01
Its no wonder the public have such a distorted view of aviation safety.

All they have to reply on is the uninformed, sensationalist nonsense propagated by the mainstream media.... and the pro-company, anti-union spin from Alan Joyce and Olivia Worth.

mightyauster
5th Nov 2010, 05:07
Great points AT. Although I think a lot of airlines have trouble with handling the media in an effective manner when something turns pear shaped...

mightyauster
5th Nov 2010, 05:10
The (Q)ALAEA needs to get back in their box too. They are not doing themselves any favours at the moment....

Terminalfrost
5th Nov 2010, 05:13
What QF doesn't like to say in public is that they made a deliberate decision, based on an accountants recommendations to close their Rolls Royce Centre of Excellence 18 months ago, based purely on an expected dollar bottom line basis. They had already planned to expand the test cell to facilitate bigger thrust engines and could have become THE south pacifics RRs one stop shop. The Qantas Engine Line had a formidable record of quality and engine reliability, with world records for longest on wing time for RR engines. When an engine had problems there was a plethora of experience available to lend a hand and give advice. Qantas EOC used to advise RR on how to fix problems.
Bean counters got in there and flushed the whole thing away. They didn't learn a thing from the Sydney Heavy Maintenance experience and the world of pain it caused them when the outsourced their 744 checks. The drop in reliability, the loss of experience, the pressure placed on the rest of the engineering system, the loss of an aircraft to cannibalise.
The 737 fleet is in the midst of the same crap - with the current check in Singapoor a month behind schedule.
Will they ever wake up?
Not till QF is a shelf company with 100% of all business outsourced- the dream situation from the consultant accounts view.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Nepotisim
5th Nov 2010, 05:18
Some very wise words spoken by Terminalfrost. :ok:

Hugh Jarse
5th Nov 2010, 05:27
TG and Terminal Frost:

I know a guy who was heavily licenced and got 'packaged out' of the Evil Empire (QF) a few years ago.

He used his payout to buy our local bottle-o, and couldn't be happier to be out of that place. 'Tis a pity that he took over 30 years experience with him, though. I get a really good discount on my grog, even though I work for his former opposition. :}:}

Terminalfrost
5th Nov 2010, 05:28
North Ryde?

Galley Raider
5th Nov 2010, 06:03
Cat A MEL was 600 Hrs in this instance.

mmurray
5th Nov 2010, 06:11
Can someone explain what this comment from the ABC website about this problem means when it refers to mathematicians? I understand accountants and pen-pushers.


The Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association has been involved in an 18-month long feud with Qantas against aircraft maintenance work being moved overseas.

Union secretary Stephen Purvinis says the airline is too focused on the bottom line.

"The quality of maintenance in Australia has been second to none and when you're starting to take some of your advice from your accountants, pen-pushers and mathematicians working for the airline, rather than the experts who delivered your reputation in the first place, that's when we have some concern," he said.

I'm a mathematician by trade so just wondering where we come in.

Thanks - Michael

Short_Circuit
5th Nov 2010, 06:11
The (Q)ALAEA needs to get back in their box too. They are not doing themselves any favours at the moment....

So when do you suggest the ALAEA come out of the box, when there is a smoking hole?

LAME2
5th Nov 2010, 06:23
defining mathematician:

I believe the use of the word mathematician in this context refers to those persons who can staticially show the time in sevice between scheduled checks of either airframe or components can be extended, due to the probablility of failure being within the risk matirx of the business. Of cause this then has to be approved by QCASA. A very easy task these days.

Mach2point7
5th Nov 2010, 06:29
Michael

Its a reference to the fact that A Joyce is a mathematician by profession.

POT100
5th Nov 2010, 07:51
Well said Lester..

The association needs to wait for the outcome of the investigation and not bash the airline too quickly..God help us if one of the QF Lames makes a mistake which leads to a similiar incident.

CSTGuy
5th Nov 2010, 07:56
astroboy55 - perhaps aipa will use this to their advantage

Well I'm confused??!!! Whats AIPA got to do with this? Take credit for the great job of the pilots? They did a brilliant job, but AIPA's connections or involvement? Get real.

Qantas 787
5th Nov 2010, 08:16
Well said Lester and mightyauster. :D The ALAEA getting their name in the press with alarmist comments is expected these days but it would be smarter to comment once more information is known, rather than sprouting the predictable lines about offshore maintainence. Once again, well done to the crew again for an amazing job.

Icarus2001
5th Nov 2010, 08:30
From Mr Joyce as reported on the ABC on line...

"The aircraft would have been heavy on landing, the pilot used full reverse thrust and there were tyres that burst on landing, but that was not significant, that can happen every now and again on aircraft landings particularly when the aircraft is heavy," he said.

Really? With number two thrust reverser on the island of Batam?

mrdeux
5th Nov 2010, 09:37
Well, perhaps he simply meant full available reverse thrust...

4Greens
5th Nov 2010, 09:40
Reference press briefings to the press on operational matters. Many moons ago it was standard practice for a Management pilot and a Senior engineer to do these briefings and they worked well.

TBM-Legend
5th Nov 2010, 09:43
Old fashioned thinking here.

bit missed a fuel tank by 50mm...

Captain Nomad
5th Nov 2010, 10:01
"Qantas is a strong brand. One of the reasons why is because when it is in a tight spot it always comes out on top." (paraphrase)

Thanks to whom? Especially in this case...

Take note Jetstar and other cadetship pushing 'low time pilots make no difference' proponents. How much do you value your brand? How easily could it be destroyed? What are you investing in those people that largely carry that burden?

Arnold E
5th Nov 2010, 10:12
Although I agree with your post in general, ALAEA may be a little out of line by using QF 32's incident yesterday (different to the past) to make a case.
Can I ask, and I dont know the answer, how many catastrophic engine failures did QANTAS have when all maint was done in house. And how many catastrophic engine failures has it had since engines were NOT done in house. I dont know, but, maybe there is a relationship there. I will declare that I am in the maintenance business, but not at QANTAS, just interested, thats all.

max1
5th Nov 2010, 11:11
Lester,

You get stuck into someone

It is disgraceful behavior from an aviation proffessional

There seems to be a disconnect here, Are AJ and Leigh Clifford aviation proffessional. They are the CEO and Chairman of QANTAS.

AJ fronted the media tonight/ this afternoon to discuss the investigation of the incident.

How can these people who have been there the equivalent of 5 minutes talk about the enviable safety record, they had bugger all to do with it. That record has been built up over decades by aviation professionals.
These parasites are happy to use that decades long record to feather their own nests.

Kangaroo Court
5th Nov 2010, 11:22
I think Qantas will get a LOT more respect in the media after this incident. It was hands down the best example of professionalism and courage in recent aviation events.

The entire population of Australia, not just the flying public, sees Qantas as "their" airline, just like the Olympic teams.

It's a pretty proud moment!

Gunger
5th Nov 2010, 11:31
I think Qantas will get a LOT more respect in the media after this incident. It was hands down the best example of professionalism and courage in recent aviation events.

The entire population of Australia, not just the flying public, sees Qantas as "their" airline, just like the Olympic teams.

It's a pretty proud moment!

Get your hand off it :rolleyes:

mightyauster
5th Nov 2010, 11:42
Quote:
The (Q)ALAEA needs to get back in their box too. They are not doing themselves any favours at the moment....
So when do you suggest the ALAEA come out of the box, when (if) there is a smoking hole in the ground?

Maybe if the ALAEA did something serious about the disgraceful General Aviation Award, they might just attract some members back into the fold!:*
If they also took the cudgels to CASA and its political masters about the appalling back sliding, procrastination and other BS that has held up proper reform of the Regulations for the past decade +, more people would take them seriously. Instead, Australia has become a backwater for LAMEs :ugh:
If the ALAEA is so keen to be in the media to push their point of view, why wasn't the disgraceful antics of AMSA that have come to light in recent weeks publicised? A major Asian airline has been lobbying the Federal Government for some years now for fifth freedom rights, but its engineering subsidiary thinks it's ok to trample all over Immigration rules to bring their own people in, because it is cheaper than employing and training locals.:yuk:
Until the ALAEA gets serious about doing something constructive with the real problems that LAMEs in Australia face, they've lost my support.

Ok. Rant over.....

Kangaroo Court
5th Nov 2010, 12:17
Gunger,

A typical Gen Y response!

Redstone
5th Nov 2010, 12:19
Until the ALAEA gets serious about doing something constructive with the real problems that LAMEs in Australia face, they've lost my support.

OK, newsflash.... who do you think the ALAEA or any union is for that matter? They are not some white knight who rides in at the 11th hour to fight the fight and banish the trolls in isolation. The ALAEA is the members, all members sticking together and striving for common goals. This is easier in a highly engaged worksite but damn near impossible in a fragmented and self seeking work site.

Think about what you posted and then think about what YOU can do to rectify YOUR situation. Whenever there are people who will not speak out or turn the other cheek or not be supportive, the association is weaker for it.

flying-spike
5th Nov 2010, 12:22
Give him a break, it is probably the only "pole" time he has got

Kangaroo Court
5th Nov 2010, 12:29
He's probably gone back to playing with Beavis, who's missing his friend Butt Head.

Anyway Guys, we all have the sad news this morning of a crash in Pakistan and one in Cuba. Australia has always had a proud reputation of being one with safe skies and of being the lucky country.

It's good to see that this time, the reputation of both continues.

Terminalfrost
5th Nov 2010, 12:41
Maybe if the ALAEA did something serious about the disgraceful General Aviation Award, they might just attract some members back into the fold!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/bah.gif
If they also took the cudgels to CASA and its political masters about the appalling back sliding, procrastination and other BS that has held up proper reform of the Regulations for the past decade +, more people would take them seriously. Instead, Australia has become a backwater for LAMEs :ugh:
If the ALAEA is so keen to be in the media to push their point of view, why wasn't the disgraceful antics of AMSA that have come to light in recent weeks publicised? A major Asian airline has been lobbying the Federal Government for some years now for fifth freedom rights, but its engineering subsidiary thinks it's ok to trample all over Immigration rules to bring their own people in, because it is cheaper than employing and training locals.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif
Until the ALAEA gets serious about doing something constructive with the real problems that LAMEs in Australia face, they've lost my support.



Couple of small points. The General Aviation Award no longer exists. It was modernised and became the Airline Operations Ground Staff Award and had the pay rates increased. The ALAEA spent a lot of time and effort in an attempt to really get the award on track using a system to recognise qualifications (and equivilent to certifcate level qualifications) as a basis for payments. The result was as best as could be hoped for under the new industrial laws.
The ALAEA have been at CASA and have been involved in legal battles for over three years to bring them to account for their lack of oversight of maintenance facilities. The ALAEA members have stopped CASA in their tracks on introducing a damaging licence system for the GA sector by being involved and participating in making submissions on proposed legislation as individulas. The ALAEA is working actively with the GA associations and employers to get GA back on track.

The department of Immigration is aware of AMSA and their practices. They will do what they need to do.

The ALAEA has successfully coordinated an industry resarch project supported by not only unions but employers and the education sector to adequately define the real worth of aircraft maintenance to Australia. Both economic and social, committing not only time funds and resources but attracting almost a quarter of a million from the federal government on top.

The ALAEA hasn't been sitting on its hands and ignoring everything bar Qantas. The members that take an interest and read the newsletters know that. Maybe you should have a read sometime. If you are a member then YOU need to participate.

PT6
5th Nov 2010, 12:52
According to the quoted reference below the inability to shutdown #1 is also classed as Hazardous Engine Effect even though it was a secondary effect. Yes Rolls Royce will be very busy with this one.

A superb job by the crew due to good training and experience. Well done fellas.


Quote: "There sure is. According to EASA Certification Specification Engine CSE 510 under “Safety Analysis” one of the failure definitions regarded as Hazardous Engine Effects is the non-containment of high energy debris.

And in CSE 520 “Strength”

(c) (1) The strength of the Engine must be such that the shedding of compressor or turbine blades, either singly or in likely combinations, will not result in a Hazardous Engine Effect

(d) Design consideration must be given to avoiding the risk of major rupture of Engine casings (particularly those which are subjected to high pressure loads) in the event of a local Failure in the casing or damage to the casing arising, for example, from a torching flame following a combustion system Failure.

EASA - European Aviation Safety Agency (http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/g/...ndment%202.pdf)

So in a nutshell Rolls Royce, this is a big FAIL."

PT6
5th Nov 2010, 13:24
Now this is interesting: 'Package A' Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 suffers engine failure - FlightBlogger - Aviation News, Commentary and Analysis (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/08/package-a-rolls-royce-trent-10.html)

Car RAMROD
5th Nov 2010, 16:01
The "grounding" of the QF A380s is purely just a PR thing.

You will see them flying in a couple of days time after "extensive checks have deemed them safe" or similar.

It is better for QF's abysmal public image to ground them for a few days "in the interest of safety" and wear the cost of the associated delays than to suffer even more public negativity if they just kept flying them.

"Safety" ??? It's PR spin... that's all.




Looking forward to the report. Will be good reading.
Fookin' bang she went!

Should have gone Boeing. Should have gone GE. :ok:

Sunfish
5th Nov 2010, 17:47
Does anyone else see the irony and hypocrisy of the Board and senior management labelling QF and its staff as a "Legacy Airline" that is not part of the bright new Jetstar future, limiting career progression of experienced pilots, reducing salaries and qualifications required of new pilots, firing experienced engineering staff, outsourcing maintenance overseas and generally doing the generation Y management thing of removing anyone with enough experience to contradict their insane ideas?

....And then talking to the media about QF's "proud tradition" and safety record???????


.....and closing down an RR centre of engine maintenance excellence Eighteen months ago?

What in the name of hell?

DrPepz
5th Nov 2010, 18:54
A very interesting take on the QF32 incident by Stephen Forshaw

Login | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/notes/stephen-forshaw/some-thoughts-on-qf32-crisis-management-and-the-media/167384773288830)

He makes a very good point with the following:

This begs the question; did Qantas tell CNBC television that the plane crashed, or did they say that the plane involved in an incident near Singapore was an Airbus A380? Did CNBC report that the plane crashed? Or did Reuters add that? Whichever, for 17 minutes until it was corrected, the impact of this crisis on Qantas’ reputation meant nothing to the families of the 400+ people on that flight, who would have been distraught and suffering a level of anguish that was entirely avoidable if a serious mistake in news reporting, like this one, didn’t occur.

And therein lies a warning: for all the principles that an organisation can follow to ensure its reputation is safeguarded, the speed of news, and the nature of wire services that measure speed against their competitors in seconds, means you can end up reacting to a crisis far worse in perception that reality. We all know speed compromises accuracy sometimes.

17 minutes is an age in the generation of new media: down the side bar of that Reuters webpage are buttons: Tweet This, Recommend or Share on Facebook, Share on LinkedIn, among others. One mouse click by a thousand people during the 17 minutes that story was uncorrected spreads the story to millions within seconds; most of whom will believe it as true because it comes from a credible source like Reuters.

That’s what happened yesterday. I, for one, would like to hear how that story ever appeared on the wires from a reputable news agency like Reuters; especially as it appeared without a crucial word in the story: Unconfirmed.

capt.cynical
5th Nov 2010, 21:25
"Journalistic Integrity" & "Airline Management Integrity" :yuk:

chockchucker
5th Nov 2010, 22:06
Should have gone Boeing. Should have gone GE.



You might be right as far as should've gone GE goes.


Another Roller engine problem. This time on VH-OJD on QF6 saw another air return to Singapore last night.


Sometimes it takes a while but, the reprocussions of cost-cutting to the bone may now be coming to the surface.



Awful lot of coincidences occuring with Qantas over the last five years or so. Especially since the closure of Sydney Heavy Maintenance, the increase in Heavy off-shoring and the closure of component overhaul and engine overhaul facilities.:ugh:

Bad Hat Harry
5th Nov 2010, 22:15
Anyone Going to the Base today to celebrate.....management stupidity and cost cutting?

ampclamp
5th Nov 2010, 22:34
Anyone Going to the Base today to celebrate.....management stupidity and cost cutting?

Not a chance.It would be like visiting a museum...this is where we used to overhaul engines and this is where we used to do heavy maintenance on all manner of aircraft for decades.These workshops could make or repair many of the parts required in these aircraft. Thousands of trades people & engineers used to be trained here.

"Used to" sad words indeed.

It was never perfect far from it but it had some pride attached.

UPPERLOBE
5th Nov 2010, 22:39
In reply to Arnold's question about previous uncontained engine failures during the time QF had it's own engine shops. I was with QF engineering (Line Maint) from 1966 to 2006 and I can't recall an uncontained engine failure occurring on a QF a/c during that time. Yes, there were plenty of turbine & compressor (not fan) blades coming adrift but to my recollection they managed to follow the gas path.

Such failures were apparently not rare during the Connie days and I have seen a couple of other operators JT9D's let go in dramatic fashion.

Hopefully, if my memory is incorrect someone will point my error out.

With regard to the 90 years of Qantas celebration, that is apparently only for current employees according to the Friday Flyer, as a retiree I was certainly not invited.

peuce
5th Nov 2010, 23:51
You will see them flying in a couple of days time after "extensive checks have deemed them safe" or similar.

I assume a similar "extensive check that deemed the engine to be safe" was carried out before this (and QF6) aircraft departed.

My point being .... obviously this type of engine abnormality is impossible to predict ... or it would have been.

Sunfish
5th Nov 2010, 23:57
It's not impossible to predict, it's called "Infant mortality" and it associated with new designs. As Yeager said; "Don't fly on the "A" model of any aircraft."

ozbiggles
6th Nov 2010, 00:09
Airline management are funny types aren't they. Location is everything.
Outside the boardroom Safety is good PR and airline pilots and crew are well trained professionals.
Inside the boardroom both are ways too cut costs.

peuce
6th Nov 2010, 00:20
Headline in the Singapore "Straits Times":

"Aussies return to Singapore in droves !"

ALAEA Fed Sec
6th Nov 2010, 00:31
A few posters here critical of the ALAEA and our public position.

We are not going to sit around with our heads in the sand like Qantas and CASA hoping this problem goes away. The causes of their maintenance issues have been put in place over the last few years and they will continue until this alcoholic comes out and admits that it has a problem.

Happy birthday Alan and crew.

Keg
6th Nov 2010, 00:32
I was with QF engineering (Line Maint) from 1966 to 2006 and I can't recall an uncontained engine failure occurring on a QF a/c during that time.

I can recall at least one 767 uncontained failure. There was another significant engine failure- not sure if that one was contained or not. Those were between 1998 and when I started facilitating CRM in 2004.

Old Fella
6th Nov 2010, 01:04
Sunfish, I logged well over 4000 hours in 8 years on the venerable Lockheed C130A model and they were brought into RAAF service in 1958. One of them is still flying (former A97-212) in the USA, still with the Aeroproducts 3 blade propellers. Some aircraft 'A' models last.

thecatinthehat
6th Nov 2010, 01:25
The Tech and Cabin crew on the 32 on Thursday were paxing on the 6 last night. Im sure they're ready for birthday celebrations :mad:

teresa green
6th Nov 2010, 01:34
Regardless of the bickering, lets all acknowledge not a bad job for four or so "overpaid bus drivers" (circa Bob Hawke 89') or 20 years later "jumped up blue collar workers" (circa Buchanan 2010"). A job well done to both the A380 and 747/400 skipper's and crew.:D Let there be no more.

ALAEA Fed Sec
6th Nov 2010, 01:45
Pick your fights then Fed Sec. If this was a design flaw in a near new engine then it has f**k all to do with the issues that concern you and your members. You are playing a PR game, pure and simple.

You probably have real beefs with QF, but when you dishonestly argue about safety you do a disservice to people who actually believe in safety. You are about as impartial as a Boeing rep commenting on the A380.

I don't work for QF or have an association with them; but I would say that the public line you have taken in this incident will put you head to head with QF managers with long memories and bruised egos and they will work three times harder to fight you and your members now. Maybe if you'd kept your mouth shut or said that while we have issues with QF, it is too early to draw conclusions on the outcome etc etc you may have done your members more favors.


Noted with thnx.

Old Fella
6th Nov 2010, 01:48
That statement by Bob Hawke was not only a derision of pilots, it also was a backhander for professional bus drivers, whom in an earlier life I'm sure the "Silver Haired Boofhead" had represented via the ACTU. :ok:

airtags
6th Nov 2010, 02:08
on a slightly more relevant note - anyone know what's the outcome/progress of the 380 inspections?

teresa green
6th Nov 2010, 02:12
Lester Burham, you sir need to go read some history. ANYBODY who worked for QF,TN,AN, would acknowledge that from the 60s or so QF had, without a doubt, the best engineering unit in the world. The was a scramble from high school students so inclined, to get a guensey there, a future for them in any airline in the world awaited. They spat out top quality apprentices year after year, they trained many apprentices from OS including Bangladesh, Singapore, India, QF engineering was on top of its game, bigtime. Then came Strong, a little bit of cost cutting here, and little bit of cost cutting there, the engineers started to get nervous, they were signing out aircraft, that they would not have previously done so, they did not like it. Then BIG DADDY arrived. Dixon. The best and only way to descibe it was a bull in the china shop. Its all about the shareholders he screamed, and the Engineers stood by helplessly as they watched their traditions and values, their work ethics slowly disappear down the gurgler. Now this sounds all very dramatic, but ask any engineer over 40 yrs about his apprenticeship, about his work ethics and he will tell you its all gone to sh%t. I am not a union man, but if any union had a reason to complain then the engineers union come out on top. You expect these blokes to sign out aircraft that they would not have done 10 years ago, its on their shoulders, if a aircraft malfunctions, and gives the tech crew a almighty headache, and believe me, there is nothing like a headhunt done in a airline, in comparison to any other industry. So before you condemm, put yourself in their shoes, they deserve better, and hopefully this might be a turning point, in getting engineering back up to scratch, acknowledging the work, all the work, is better done in this country. It worked before.

woftam
6th Nov 2010, 04:12
Well said TG!!!!!:D

hotnhigh
6th Nov 2010, 04:45
Plenty of armchair experts suggesting that outsourcing maintenance to third party providers is standard practice the days. You know the names recently SQ, LH, CX etc for Qantas work.
But why doesn't any media type ask, But is this right?
Is it right to have the results of QF2, 72,30,74, 32 and now it seems the 6. All occurances over the last few years, roll along without questioning the decisions of outsourcing?
The words from those lost in all of this, are those with the skills, ie Engineers and pilots. And no one is happy with direction that Messers Joyce, Clifford and the remainder of the board are steering.
Perhaps more attention to the main game here of Qantas as opposed to ramming the benefits of the Jestarisation of everything down everyones throat, would be a more prudent approach from the board and ceo.
And this is not a crack Jetstar per se, but the focus of the entire senior management for the last 5+ years has certainly not been on Qantas and the good people of qantas. They are all driven by one thing, their bonus. They don't believe in Qantas and what it use to stand for.
The results lately are pretty damning.

captainrats
6th Nov 2010, 04:55
The Minister for Aviation has been particularly quiet regarding this kerfuffle

The Bullwinkle
6th Nov 2010, 05:09
Where's Albanese?

Trying to get onto a jump seat using a paddle pop stick! :E

mmurray
6th Nov 2010, 05:17
Thanks for the thoughts on the mathematicians.

I am assuming this report on today's Advertiser in Adelaide

Richard de Crespigny, Qantas's Captain Marvel | Adelaide Now (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/richard-de-crespigny-qantass-captain-marvel/story-e6frea6u-1225948751217)

is in part made up by the Daily Telegraph in London. Would the captain's wife really tell them the contents of her text messages ?

Michael

Fris B. Fairing
6th Nov 2010, 05:29
From the source in the above post:

For a long time after he guided QF32 safety, Captain de Crespigny addressed passengers personally and spent 20 minutes answering their questions in the terminal. He even gave some his personal mobile number and told them to call him if they had any problems or issues.

and in so doing has done more for Qantas PR than any CEO or spokeswoman in recent years.

TIMA9X
6th Nov 2010, 05:32
I double the "well said TG" and raise it 5 on ya, good post..

Capt Kremin
6th Nov 2010, 05:36
QF pilots are getting good at the PR thing... lotsa practice these days. As far as the Trent's go, how many people reading this know that QF doesn't own those engines, but pays by the hour for their use direct from RR?

frangatang
6th Nov 2010, 05:37
Aagh, l can see why it was a successful outcome, le captain avec a french surname!

Old Fella
6th Nov 2010, 05:39
Who cares where Albanese is. The dipstick would not know anything about aviation except what he is told to sprout. Unfortunate as it is, Qantas will never get back to the great days where it was the Australian Government Airline and there were no shareholders to satisfy. As for engineers signing off aircraft they would not have done in days past, if that is true, we all have to be concerned. Like TG, I'm no union man but if engineers are being forced into releasing aircraft they consider below par they need to dig in their heels and demand it stop. I'm sure any pilot worth his/her salt would expect no less and be supportive of his/her engineering staff.

Ascend Charlie
6th Nov 2010, 05:45
Seem to recall that when Flying Officer de Crespigny was on 107 pilots course, he was known as Discrepancy!:8:p:ok:

Old Fella
6th Nov 2010, 05:54
Must have worked AC, he's in command of the A380 and you have your angry palm trees.

Ngineer
6th Nov 2010, 06:35
Not long ago under the GD regime, some engineers were being sent on courses run by a group called "Amazing people". It was called "Change Management". This training cost quite a few bucks, and some engineers were taught that recent surveys revealed the travelling public were more concerned with departure times, not safety. They also learnt how to cross a room carrying a ping pong ball on a bit of plastic. Pretty frustrating when what we really wanted was more CAR214 training, or even more LAME's being trained.

teresa green
6th Nov 2010, 07:34
Mmurray, I got into the papers some years ago after a engine failure out of CBR, the old girl (DC9) ingested part of one of her own tyres, and I ended up with one donk on rotate. Needless to say the F/O and I decided a beer at the CBR Hyatt was a much better bet than one at the SYD Hilton and did a quick go around and straight back in. As I was carrying the pollies back to their wives/ mistress's (it was a friday night) all of a sudden I was a hero, (until 89, then I turned into a overpaid bus driver) so the difference from the A380 missus comment was completely different to my missus. Your not coming home, she thundered, "but its your turn to do the Rugby/ netball run"! Ah, marital bliss.:rolleyes:

bubble.head
6th Nov 2010, 11:28
Food for thought,

According to this article Qantas to change engines on two A380s (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/06/349411/qantas-to-change-engines-on-two-a380s.html) two trent 900 engines are being replaced. VH-OQC was found with an abonormal oil leak.

And with that in mind, going to this article , Oil Fire Suspected In Trent 1000 Failure | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/awx/2010/09/01/awx_09_01_2010_p0-251440.xml), dated in September, it suggests that
However, industry sources say an oil fire broke out within the engine during high-power runs. The heating is believed to have ‘softened’ the intermediate pressure (IP) shaft which subsequently failed. The unconstrained IPT then reached an over-sped condition and ultimately disintegrated; parts thrown loose penetrated the casing.

Maybe a possible cause to the engine failure?

Captain Nomad
6th Nov 2010, 11:32
Did anyone else see some iphone footage of the cabin after landing and everyone applauding? No problem with that except doesn't Qantas have a policy of 'electronic devices' switched off for take off and landing? If that is indeed the case, such footage shouldn't be indulged and payed for by the media... What's more if I were Qantas I would go after the guy - I think they named him when crediting the footage!

Another frequent flyer who was mucked about because of the fleet grounding and subsequent flight changes commented that he would never fly with Qantas again. I would have to say that is a bit rich, but if people are going to respond to an incident with a good outcome like this can you imagine the response to an incident with a less favourable outcome?

What else is needed to affect a 'wake up call...'

lurker999
6th Nov 2010, 14:59
"The father of a cabin attendant who was flying home to Sydney on QF6 as a passenger said his daughter was "definitely frightened" after the first one, but her insecurities were peaking after it happened again. She was considering flying home with another carrier, he said."

Read more: Richard de Crespigny, Qantas's Captain Marvel | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/richard-de-crespigny-qantass-captain-marvel/story-e6frfq80-1225948836103#ixzz14VxMihOt)

I did wonder today whether any of the crew thought SQ et al might be a better choice.

scam sniffer
7th Nov 2010, 02:12
A job well done by the guys up the front, or as the papers would have us believe, the guy up the front.

Would someone with knowledge of the QF system care to comment. From the papers, Capt D'C was the second pilot checked onto the A380 when it was introduced.

Also from the papers, this flight was a check flight and had on board a Capt under check, a new checkie, and a supervising checkie. Given that he was second on to the aircraft it could be assumed (but not assured) that Capt D'C was the supervising checkie.

The question is: is it Qantas policy for the most senior guy to kick the most junior out when the smit hits the fan?

If so, what confidence can the public have, in the Q training system when although a guy is good enough to put up for check, he gets booted so the "best" pilot (wifes words "they were lucky to have Richard as their Capt") can demonstrate to the world why he is so.

SS :confused:

justflythething
7th Nov 2010, 08:26
No problem with that except doesn't Qantas have a policy of 'electronic devices' switched off for take off and landing?

I think cabin crew would careless about someone with an Iphone when the arse of an engine is strewn through the gardens of an some Indonesian Is?:ugh:

Captain Nomad
7th Nov 2010, 08:56
I think cabin crew would careless about someone with an Iphone when the arse of an engine is strewn through the gardens of an some Indonesian Is?

Yeah, and the flight crew have enough on their hands to deal with without any additional unecessary anomolies possibly created by mobile phone use... :ugh:

(I'm not saying that this is what happened but there is always that intereference possibility especially if a whole bunch of people get the same idea - despite what Mythbusters might think of mobile phones and aircraft...)

Arnold E
7th Nov 2010, 09:19
Yeah, and the flight crew have enough on their hands to deal with without any additional unecessary anomolies possibly created by mobile phone use... :ugh:Show me the hard evidence of interference from mobile phones.:rolleyes:

B772
7th Nov 2010, 09:24
ALAEA Fed Sec

So your aware AJ of QF likes a drink. Word is the drinking hole next to the ex AN building in MEL noticed a big drop off in sales after AJ left AN.

airtags
7th Nov 2010, 09:36
Arnold dont bite....

- the only mobile phone interference was when Olivia Wirth responded to one of the very few experienced journalists who posed a wholly reasonable and logical question and then challenged her inarticulate, immature, uniformed, arrogant and WRONG B.S. response with hard evidence.

A mobile phone can only endanger an aircraft when in the hands of a brainless, brainwashed QF PR bimbo.

[sorry mods - may sound harsh - but sometimes even the rumour network needs to convey facts]

AT

limelight
7th Nov 2010, 11:45
Forget the phone camera usage issue, it is not one. iPhones have a 'flight mode' which turns the transmitter bits off, so you can still listen to stored music etc inflight-legally.

And of course the camera is still able to be used.

Icarus2001
7th Nov 2010, 13:46
That's a negative there buddy ALL ELECTRONIC devices must be turned off when required by the operator, check their inflight magazine for the requirement.

Or here...Using other electronic equipment inflight (http://qantas.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/qantas.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=140)

The offence is one of failing to comply with flight crew instructions.

Capt_SNAFU
7th Nov 2010, 17:15
If RR own and maintain the engines then why aren't they coping more flak? Why aren't QF shifting the heat onto the owners of the engines, especially as it seems they have discovered problems in more engines? Qantas A380s not likely to take off again soon (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/qantas-a380s-not-likely-to-take-off-again-soon-20101107-17j15.html) Why haven't SQ of Luft found similar defects?

Capt Kremin
7th Nov 2010, 19:24
Scam Sniffer, you sound like a journo but here goes anyway. The captain slated for the flight would have remained in command. That was Richard. As far as the right seat goes, my guess is that they would have kept the FO in the seat and the other two check captains would have assumed monitoring and support roles. One of the PA's broadcast is the senior check talking, not Richard.
Richard was second on the aircraft because he bid on to it early, thats all.

sleemanj
7th Nov 2010, 19:39
ALL ELECTRONIC devices must be turned off

http://www.nexternal.com/armynavy/images/silva-digital-watch-CW2.gif http://healthy-ojas.com/assets/diab/insulin_pump.jpg http://mykentuckyheart.com/images/pictures/pacemaker.jpg

Thankfully common sense generally prevails.

AN1944
7th Nov 2010, 21:49
Well I Guess The 747>> 767s Will Have To Come Back From The Bone Yard :d

scam sniffer
7th Nov 2010, 22:09
So Capt Kremin

You are saying that "Richard" was in the seat as a Capt under check, and was not on board as a checker himself.

From all the accolades, none denied, "Richard" was at the controls for the handling of this emergency. If he was under check then it is understandable that he was the handling pilot or the PM. If he was not under check, then presumably he kicked the other guy out. Alternatively, he was not in a control seat but is prepared to take all the credit.

Something doesn't add up.

The question remains.

SS

Jabawocky
7th Nov 2010, 22:22
Phone him up and ask him......can't get any more direct than that!


And as for this
There has never ever been a case of a fire started from a mobile phone at a refueling point. Ever.

This is probably true, most servo fires are from static jumping across from the victim, no doubt on a windy winters day and wearing synthetic materials.....you know those big zaps you get when you touch your car.

Truth is ask some folk from BP, they had a refinery explosion when a tradesman took his mobile phone into an area he should not have, commenced work, and his phone was called he answered.....:uhoh: and exactly that time was recorded by the phone company to the second.....BOOOM!!!!!:\ Nothing else he was doing could have ignited the explosion at the time, and needless to say he was not able to deny the claim.:ouch:

Thread drift off........

Keg
7th Nov 2010, 22:23
On a route check the captain under check is the PIC. There is no authority for the checker to boot the operating captain out of the seat. I can't envisage a circumstance where this would even raise itself as an issue.

There is an exception where the checker is the PIC if the captain under check has an 'expired' route check. He is the PIC from the back seat and technically could boot the checkee out of the seat but even in a situation such as this I would find that incredibly unlikely.

Captain Nomad
7th Nov 2010, 22:41
Okay guys, clearly the mobile phone is a bone of contention. There is obviously more that can be said on both sides of the argument and I don't want it to derail this thread so lets drop it.

To put it simply, Qantas along with numerous other companies have a policy requirment for personal electronic devices including mobile phones to be switched off (not just flight mode) during the take off and landing phases of flight.

Straight off the Qantas website:

Note: All types of mobile phones must be switched off during take-off and landing.


and...

All electronic devices, including PDAs, laptop computers, handheld games, iPads, Ebooks and toys must be switched off during take-off and landing.


There was a passanger on this flight who recorded the landing using his iphone with flagrant disregard for this direction. I do not agree that his behaviour should be either promoted or rewarded by the media. End of story.

Icarus2001
8th Nov 2010, 00:08
I am not debating the point of whether a phone is dangerous per se.

I am pointing out what the QF rules are, that is surely the issue.

Groaner
8th Nov 2010, 00:23
Just want to correct what is almost certainly an error in the comments:

I very much doubt that RR still owns the engines in a legal sense. RR almost certainly "owns" the engine failure in a technical and financial sense (maintained on a power-by-the-hour contract, and also almost certainly a warranty failure). QF owns the engine in a legal sense and "owns" the failure as far as pax are concerned (there may be an impact on loads/yields, and is already an impact on costs to get out from under the operational disruption).

And now onto opinion: things have changed in the engine business in the past few decades. Setting up an engine overhaul shop is vastly more complex than previously (especially for such a big donk as this), at present I suspect there is only one engine shop that actually has overhaul capability (Derby...). Airlines want to reduce risks, especially on big-ticket items such as engines, so many new engines (and almost all of these engines) are sold bundled with PBH contracts, so the (overhaul) maintenance is already decided "at birth". This makes sense for RR, because they get the overhaul revenue for ever (and of course that is way more than they make from selling engines) and also reduces their reputational risk (they've also got a pretty good monitoring centre so they can usually keep on top of developing problems).

For an airline, it makes little financial sense to set up a new engine overhaul capability. You'd need $X million (and X is *very* large), without the same knowledge that a manufacturer has of the design/weak points etc. It doesn't make sense for a small engine fleet (X divided by the fleet size is frightening), and if you tried to make a business out of it by taking in other airline's engines, you're up against the manufacturer who tied up the overhauls at birth on PBH contracts.

Mind you, there maybe a business in being RR's captive south-pacific overhaul shop, but I'm not sure you could get RR's attention right now to arrange it... and of course you have to be cost-competitive (with RR taking a margin on top) to be in the game. Not sure the Trent 900 fleet is going to be large enough to need a south-pacific shop.

btw, third point, most people don't know that most modern electronics almost never gets turned off, even when the power switch is used. They keep the time/date correct, don't they? Typically they go into a lower-power state whereby they get put to sleep and woken up by a timer a few hundred times a second just to see if anything is happening (like the power switch being pushed). Some gadgets don't even turn completely off if you remove the battery (because they've got another, small, built-in battery to keep the clock running).

But of course, the "off" state is vastly lower-power than the "on" state, and therefore safer. And of course, we should turn the things off when required, as under certain (fault) conditions there is a possibility of compromising avionics. I do wish that posters here would stop throwing stones about this, though, as I think there's many experienced pilots who have forgotten to turn off their mobile on a sector...

RedTBar
8th Nov 2010, 00:27
Regardless of whether or not these electronic items are a safety hazard or not how would it look to the media and the travelling public if QF went after the kid who took the video and sound footage????

It would look like they had something to hide.

Back to important issues.

To me this is one of three possibilities.

1:A maintenance issue

2:A manufacturing issue

3:A design issue.

In any case I think it shows that there are better investment opportunities than the aviation industry.

scam sniffer
8th Nov 2010, 00:40
Trent 972

Thanks for that. The assumption was that Capt D'C was the checker checking the new checker checking the PIC. Now that it is clear that he who was assumed to be a checker was in fact the PIC being checked by a checker being observed by a senior checker, makes everything check out OK.

Glad I got that straightened out.

Well done guys.

SS

blueloo
8th Nov 2010, 00:41
All electronic devices, including PDAs, laptop computers, handheld games, iPads, Ebooks and toys must be switched off during take-off and landing.

Qantas has various classifications for Personal Electronic Devices (PEDs)

The statement that ALL electronic devices must be turned off during takeoff and landing is not QANTASs policy.

PEDs are restricted by phase of flight.

eg unrestricted PEDs
Group 1:
Devices not restricted from use
Medical PEDs that are required for the essential
support of human life. Examples include:
• Medical implants, hearing aids, insulin pumps,
ventilators, electronic nerve stimulators,
automated external defibrillators and Airborne
Patient Medical Telemonitoring (APMT).
PEDs of the following kinds may be used at any time,
except when special operational restrictions are
applied by the Captain:
• Electronic watches, GPS, electric shavers, video
and still cameras, pocket calculators and other
devices powered by micro-cell batteries and solar
cells.


it further goes on into category 2, 3 etc.

This information is available in the Flight Admin manual and the Cabin Crew Manual.

I would assume it is published in the inflight magazine too.

AWB_Clerk
8th Nov 2010, 01:10
Jee-zuz!

Talk about a thread drift...

Was the flamming mobile phone responsible for the uncontained engine failure on Nancy Bird? NO.

Didn't we all initially crave and pour over the pictures gathered from such devices, some posted on this very thread? YES (hypocritical?)

This thread isn't about about some kid with a mobile phone taking pictures on a mobile device from an aircraft.

OK, he's a very naughty boy, but in the scheme of things, you people want to worry about a bloody mobile phone over an uncontained engine failure that could of possibly lead to a very bad outcome for a lot of lives?:ugh:

This thread needs to reconsider its priorities.

How about you talk about the real issue here.

AWBC

Howabout
8th Nov 2010, 01:31
VGP Groaner (read informative).

Turban
8th Nov 2010, 01:39
It has been said before, and I'll ask it again, but why does only QF's Trents seem to go wrong?

I mean...come on... one dead, two with unsustainable oil leak...

Nothing whatsoever with Luft* or SIA ....

Is that just..bad luck ? May be...why not :ooh: Souns like a bad excuse though

Capt Kremin
8th Nov 2010, 01:39
Scam sniffer, I and no doubt many others take exception to your insinuation that this particular captain was "prepared to take all the credit."

He is probably very embarrassed by all the attention and has made no public statements to my knowledge.

Unfortunately he drew the short straw in this incident. Fortunately, he and his crew did their jobs in an exemplary fashion and I am sure he'd be the very first to acknowledge all the assistance and experience, flight and cabin, that was available to him as part of his crew.

Captain Nomad
8th Nov 2010, 01:50
For Pete's sake! An iphone is NOT the same as video
and still cameras. An iphone is subject to:

Note: All types of mobile phones must be switched off during take-off and landing.

You are deliberately stirring the pot.

I can't believe how much of a thread drift people have created by taking on the 'devil's advocate' for a simple observation that I made regarding someone deliberately disregarding a company requirement and being rewarded for it by the media.

It was only intended as an observation and not a thread drift starter. I agree with AWB - lets get back on topic to the real issues please...

scam sniffer
8th Nov 2010, 02:18
Capt Kremin.

Did you and those "many others" take exception to the implied slur on your collective capabilities, espoused by Mrs D'C when she is quoted as saying that the passengers were lucky to have Capt D'C on board. (as if no one else from your esteemed ranks could have handled it as well)

Have you and those collective others noticed the lack of credit given to the other members of the TEAM, in many, if not all, newspaper accounts.

Bloody sure I would have/did.

Nuf said.

SS

B772
8th Nov 2010, 02:25
The Latest info.

QF has 3 x A380's stranded in LAX, 1 x A380 in SYD, 1 x A380 in FRA as well as the A380 that will be in SIN for some time before it goes back to the factory.

At least 3 engines will now be changed on the QF fleet A380 (up from 2), both SQ and LH will be changing A380 engines, the number unknown at this stage.

QF will continue to charter aircraft from BA. Prior to the grounding the QF
A380's were committed to 50 departures per week.

Jabawocky
8th Nov 2010, 02:41
Trent 972

Have you been inspected :E.........watch that boroscope :ooh:

And on the topic of the Lufthansa A380, I recall reading they shut an engine down in theirs due to an oil issue in the last few months.

nasa
8th Nov 2010, 03:29
There appears to be an abundance of opinoins in this thread and one must assume that these opinons are of substance. Therefore, if I may ask three simple questions relating to an e-mail that just turned up in my Inbox, refering to FAA 2010-16-07 Rolls Royce plc (RR).

1. Does this AD refer to the engine in question (read engine model here)?
2. Has this AD been complied with on the engine in question?
3. If the answer to No 2 is "No" then whose decision was it to not comply with the AD?

ALAEA Fed Sec
8th Nov 2010, 03:49
If these questions can be answered, I'd appreciate a private message.

Cat on a PC©
8th Nov 2010, 04:21
Can this get bad enough to make it feasible to change to Engine Alliance engines as on the EH fleet?

If so, how easy would it be to swap engine make and what adjustments to structure and software might be required?

troppo
8th Nov 2010, 04:34
For simplistic general knowledge reasons only...Ball park in USD what would the price tag be for a new engine from Rolls Royce? Can an airline walk in 'off the street' and buy one or do they refer you back to the aircraft manufacturer?

SweetnLow
8th Nov 2010, 04:43
Scam Sniffer i'm quite sure that the captains wife would have been portraying her solid belief in her husbands abilities and nothing more, certainly not a slight on any other airmen/women. And after reading your comments, it appears to me that you'd be the type that drives up to a garage only to reverse, go around, come back, and try again because you can't remember which side of your vehicle your fuel cap is on:O

noip
8th Nov 2010, 05:04
Scam Sniffer ...

Do you have an "OFF" button?

Contrary to everything you are trying to imply (whilst showing your ignorance of Aviation Law to boot), Richard is a really nice guy who would be the first to acknowledge everyone's contribution.

Leave him alone and give it a rest.


If you have a problem with the way the events have been portrayed in the papers, take it up with their .. er ... fiction department.


:ugh:

appex
8th Nov 2010, 05:16
Scam Sniffer ...

Do you have an "OFF" button?

Contrary to everything you are trying to imply (whilst showing your ignorance of Aviation Law to boot), Richard is a really nice guy who would be the first to acknowledge everyone's contribution.

Leave him alone and give it a rest.


If you have a problem with the way the events have been portrayed in the papers, take it up with their .. er ... fiction department.

I though he/she was writing the articles.....

Mach2point7
8th Nov 2010, 05:36
Quoting ABC website:

"Qantas will not return its A380 fleet to service until confident the issues have been identified and resolved," Mr Joyce said.

He said oil leaks had been discovered in three engines on two different aircraft.

"The oil leaks were beyond normal tolerances," he said.

Unquote.

So three engines (maybe four?) had oil leaks "beyond normal tolerances".

Interesting choice of words. This may open up a can of worms on the adequacy of inspections prior to the QF32 incident and fleet grounding.

F.O.G.
8th Nov 2010, 05:39
Maybe they should look at which 'Crew' ISN'T doing the inspections……
:ugh:

prairiegirl
8th Nov 2010, 05:40
SS Said:

Did you and those "many others" take exception to the implied slur on your collective capabilities, espoused by Mrs D'C when she is quoted as saying that the passengers were lucky to have Capt D'C on board. (as if no one else from your esteemed ranks could have handled it as well)

Have you and those collective others noticed the lack of credit given to the other members of the TEAM, in many, if not all, newspaper accounts.
somebody call the waaaahhhmbulance!!!

*giggles

Groaner
8th Nov 2010, 05:50
"Ball park in USD what would the price tag be for a new engine from Rolls Royce? Can an airline walk in 'off the street' and buy one or do they refer you back to the aircraft manufacturer?"

Errrgh. Where would you be walking into off the street if it wasn't the manufacturer? If it was an engine type that was at retirement age, then there may be a few around, or if an airline had just gone under, their spares may be available, but the engine manufacturer is the only real source of engines. Yes, you buy spare engines from RR, not Airbus.

There is a "list" price for engines, but in effect no airline would pay it. Engines are heavily discounted (rumour has it that occasionally they are discounted to zero - I personally don't believe it), especially if there is a PBH contract attached, or if there are competing engine types. Spare engines bought separately tend to be less discounted (the airline tends to be more over a barrel...).

teresa green
8th Nov 2010, 06:26
For God, sake, the poor lady just wanted her hubby back, she was upset, she said the first thing that came into her head, probably not at all used to jouno's firing questions at her. TN had a policy, no press interviews, no matter what, and that included your family. Probably best. That Skipper would be so over it, (and if the airlines have not changed, he will probably get a call from crewing, don't suppose you can do a MEL?) (After trying to get home for two days)!:{

Selfloading
8th Nov 2010, 07:37
For God, sake, the poor lady just wanted her hubby back, she was upset, she said the first thing that came into her headWell said :D
apparently it's a crime to be proud of your other half :*

73to91
8th Nov 2010, 07:56
Jabawocky,
"And on the topic of the Lufthansa A380, I recall reading they shut an engine down in theirs due to an oil issue in the last few months."

I found this article, Lufthansa A380 engine shut down during flight (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/lufthansa-a380-engine-shut-down-during-flight-20100810-11v13.html)
German airline Lufthansa said pilots on an Airbus A380 flying from Tokyo to Frankfurt shut down one of the superjumbo's four engines as it neared its destination.
Flight crew detected a change in oil pressure which was probably the result of dirt particles clogging a filter in the hydraulic circulation system, Lufthansa said. The engine was exchanged and the plane resumed service to the Japanese capital.
"It wasn't necessary to shut down the engine, but once in a while pilots do this just to be careful," Lufthansa spokesman Michael Lamberty said today by telephone. "Thankfully it happened just before landing. In another phase of the flight they may have been forced to perform an emergency landing."

hotnhigh
8th Nov 2010, 09:23
I thought the latest release from qantas had an extroadinary statement.
About Qantas - Media Room - Media Releases (http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/au/publicaffairs/details?ArticleID=2010/nov10/5033)

"Engineers have been investigating the engines in detail and how their components and design perform under operational conditions, as opposed to the original out-of-factory expectations."
WTF? Sorry. I thought this would have been the standard that the airline should have been working to from the aircrafts arrival and induction into service.
Says alot about the post dixon era.

Spotted Reptile
8th Nov 2010, 19:59
That Skipper would be so over it, (and if the airlines have not changed, he will probably get a call from crewing, don't suppose you can do a MEL?) (After trying to get home for two days)!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gifI know you're just trying to be amusing, Teresa, but there is no way on God's green earth that QANTAS will call the Captain out after an incident like this one. He will be given as much time off as he wants, plus all associated support and care. The airline will also provide support to the crew's families.