View Full Version : QANTAS emergency landing Lord Howe Is
ohallen
19th Oct 2011, 05:19
"A QANTAS plane has made an emergency landing on Lord Howe Island following engine failure, an airline spokeswoman says."
Here we go again, media must be getting very tired of these stories by now.
Lets wait for the spin...there was no safety risk.
flyingfox
19th Oct 2011, 05:33
Why don't we use the term 'precautionary landing' for such events? The news report I heard suggested an oil pressure problem. 'Emergency landing' sounds overly startling for a sensible airport return and brings the press running like hyenas.
fatmike
19th Oct 2011, 05:35
Ohallen, you turkey. It was a QantasLink dash8 or Q400 ie QantasLink banner Eastern pilots flying it!
bubble.head
19th Oct 2011, 05:37
Non event.
Must we have a thread for EVERY incident that involves a kangaroo tail? The crew did what they were trained to do.
Tiger35
19th Oct 2011, 05:44
I wonder if Olivia will recognise the white kangaroo on the red tail this time?
ryanboxer
19th Oct 2011, 06:15
was going to say a little bit of a waste for 20 pax
Fuel-Off
19th Oct 2011, 06:57
The Age is reporting it as a 'Qantas Jet' :ugh:. F:mad:k me, these turkeys have no idea how to research anything.
Q400 can land into LHI, only problem is that the only way it can get back to the mainland is in a shipping container :E
Fuel-Off :ok:
Wunwing
19th Oct 2011, 07:14
While I accept that it was not an emergency landing, I assume on this route there are life rafts are carried.
If you have ditch one, how do you launch rafts and escape from a floating high wing aircraft?
Wunwing
Wunwing
19th Oct 2011, 07:36
How did they move Lord Howe?
Seriously, how are you supposed to exit a floating high wing aircraft?
Wunwing
Old Fella
19th Oct 2011, 08:01
Have to agree with FF. The aircraft did not suffer an Engine failure and the engine was shut down before the symptoms observed led to a failure. Out of interest, where are the power plants overhauled? Have not heard the usual outcry regarding off-shore maintenance.
How does it float?
As said above... Sits on a wing and the tail... Escape on the high side and in most high wings you would put in place sill raisers which make a seal. Blocks the water rushing in but only allows enough time to get out (minutes) then shell be found on the bottom...
News on the radio saying it was a qantas jet too
Going Nowhere
19th Oct 2011, 11:37
Doubt it,
Flight was ex SYD and they'll just send Eastern engineers to fix 'er up!
TQS was the rego.
This makes 3 engine shutdowns in a matter of weeks at QLink.
-300 into BNE with low oil pressure (Turns out the gauge was F*$ked)
-400 into CNJ with a FADEC failure
:ugh:
Few new bits in the left oil system, nice overnight for the engineers on LHI and she'll be right in the morning.
Not the greatest day to do a single engine landing at the Island, South Westerly at 20G38 makes for a "fun" approach.
Don Diego
22nd Oct 2011, 00:51
FJ, "fun" indeed. How many beers went around that night I wonder??:D
Howard Hughes
22nd Oct 2011, 01:09
Easiest decision in aviation..."It doesn't look good, I think we will need to overnight on Lord Howe". ;)
Howard Hughes Easiest decision in aviation..."It doesn't look good, I think we will need to overnight on Lord Howe".
Easy decision once your on the ground to decide to stay there, single engine approach to LHI on a gusty day like that... Perhaps not the easiest decision at all.
Capn Bloggs
22nd Oct 2011, 08:08
Lighten up, FJ44, it's a standing joke. Just like "forced" overnights in Broome! :D
Worst part: the beard the next morning. :}
Ive been searching for something that can go u/s then amazingly come good overnight at Lord Howe for a few years now! If only I could find that magic item!
Capt Fathom
22nd Oct 2011, 10:29
single engine approach to LHI on a gusty day like that... Perhaps not the easiest decision at al.l
Land at Lord Howe, or fly on one engine for two hours to the mainland. I'd back my ability to land back at Lord Howe!
The Dash8 crews have plenty of experience with Lord Howe.
Clearedtoreenter
22nd Oct 2011, 10:33
Whats the story if a Dash loses an engine on the way over to LHI and then cannot land due weather? Just have to turn around and head for PMQ on one engine?
Shed Dog Tosser
22nd Oct 2011, 10:36
Range generally increases with OEI ops.
Aerodynamisist
22nd Oct 2011, 10:55
Have pax'ed into LHI on many occaisions, she's a wild old landing with everything going right. Can't have been easy on one engine. All praise and admiration for the crew involved.
Howard Hughes
22nd Oct 2011, 22:33
Worst part: the beard the next morning.
On your tongue Bloggsy?:}
PA31flyer
22nd Oct 2011, 22:40
Life rafts to be carried if aircraft plans to venture more than either 100nm from 'land' or a distance equal to 30 mins at normal cruising speed, whichever is less.
Life rafts to be carried if aircraft plans to venture more than either 100nm from 'land' or a distance equal to 30 mins at normal cruising speed, whichever is less.
Think you'll find it's 120mins and 400nm.
Dragun
22nd Oct 2011, 23:20
We don't carry life rafts to LHI.
CASA exemption.
Why the exemption? LHI is under 400 nm from the mainland and I would have thought that a Dash-100/200 would TAS better then 200kts in normal cruise?
Capn Bloggs
23rd Oct 2011, 00:21
Life rafts to be carried if aircraft plans to venture more than either 100nm from 'land' or a distance equal to 30 mins at normal cruising speed, whichever is less.
Better read your CAOs again, Bloggs. :=
Dragun
23rd Oct 2011, 05:44
Why the exemption? LHI is under 400 nm from the mainland and I would have thought that a Dash-100/200 would TAS better then 200kts in normal cruise?
Nope, 186kts is the published figure.
In any case, the reason for the exemption is known really only to flight ops. Something about the risk analysis showing that the chances of both engine failing and the time taken for AMSA to get there doesn't warrant the rafts carriage. Hey, they can fit another four revenue seats on there now!
Capn Bloggs
23rd Oct 2011, 06:17
Nope, 186kts is the published figure.
You sure? I've never flown a Boat 8, but Wiki gives the -200 a cruise speed of 290KIAS.
I must be missing something here. Liferafts are required >400nm from land. SYD-LHI is 423nm (Google Earth). At the worst point, you'll be 206nm from land (not considering flying up the coast to PMQ first). I can't see that liferafts would ever be required SYD-LHI in an 20.7.1b certified aircraft. :confused:
nitpicker330
23rd Oct 2011, 06:31
Ahhhhh, would it be based on single Engine cruise speed by chance?
Same as ETOPS?
PA31flyer
23rd Oct 2011, 06:35
Haha, yeah my response was a bit premature, still stuck in GA :), twin turbine applies to this situation
Capn Bloggs
23rd Oct 2011, 06:48
Ahhhhh, would it be based on single Engine cruise speed by chance?
Arrrrr No.
Tidbinbilla
23rd Oct 2011, 07:31
Something about the risk analysis showing that the chances of both engine failing and the time taken for AMSA to get there doesn't warrant the rafts carriage
Assuming AMSA has a serviceable aircraft (and crew) within the required flying time of the ditch point to effect a rescue..... :ugh:
Dragun
23rd Oct 2011, 11:28
Yea sorry, 186kts is the single engine cruise speed and I was, for some reason, referring to EDTO (ETOPS) which obviously has nothing to do with this. Disregard.
As for the life raft "exemption" - you know what, now that I think about it, I can't see why they're required either. Maybe in the past, CASA has just applied the clause in CAO 20.11 that says they can require their carriage regardless and somehow Qlink talked them out of it.
Sorry for the stuff up, should've read things more closely on a Sunday morning. :O