PDA

View Full Version : Qantas bomb scare


Waghi Warrior
6th Apr 2013, 23:45
Channel 7 saying that there was a bomb scare on a Qantas flight out of Auckland this morning, suspect item found on board enroute and the aircraft returned to Auckland.

Ixixly
7th Apr 2013, 00:37
Yep, turns out it was actually a part of the aircraft just normally not seen! I'd love to have seen the look on the face of the guy who went in to identify it :E

Qantas 'bomb' part of aircraft | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/nz-qantas-flight-turned-back-in-bomb-scare/story-e6frfkui-1226614195871)

falconx
7th Apr 2013, 01:11
Credit to the crew and atc for working through the situation

ampclamp
7th Apr 2013, 01:19
Shear wild guess here that it may have been an emergency battery pack that had become visible behind some lining.:uhoh:

buzzz.lightyear
7th Apr 2013, 02:38
oops...o dear... how embarassment...

always inverted
7th Apr 2013, 03:45
Well done, better the return to auckland and, oh yeah sorry it was just... Than a Big Bang and a holy s..t!!!

Tangogolf
7th Apr 2013, 04:21
Well done, hahaha. "Interior explosive" made by Boeing !?

Long Bay Mauler
7th Apr 2013, 14:07
I guess none of the Tech Crew were able to identify the offending item?

always inverted
7th Apr 2013, 20:38
I know If I had a potential device in m plane I wouldn't be going back to check it and thats in line with the company's Procedures... So I would assume that they would be similar, so how could they possibly identify it.:ugh:

ad-astra
7th Apr 2013, 20:46
Hmmmm....shame no one had a camera on board!

Sunfish
7th Apr 2013, 20:46
Sensible procedure. The fact that something looked like "part of the aircraft" is irrelevent otherwise something could be sneaked on board by camouflaging it with a Boeing part number and identification plate.

RENURPP
7th Apr 2013, 22:30
Hmmmm....shame no one had a camera on board!

Just about every one has one, BUT, not a recommended procedure.

Capt_SNAFU
7th Apr 2013, 23:05
I thought QF142 was Jet Connect not Qantas.

Still better to go back I think.

27/09
8th Apr 2013, 02:58
I thought QF142 was Jet Connect not Qantas.

No, definitely Qantas. :ok:

fltdispatch
8th Apr 2013, 03:32
It was Jetconnect a ZK registered aircraft

601
8th Apr 2013, 07:41
I guess none of the Tech Crew were able to identify the offending item?

All the tech Crew need to know is what to do if a light in the flight deck is "on" or "off" and what to do if a light is "on" or "off".

Obviously it did not have a flight deck light attached so no procedure would appear in the QRH..

27/09
8th Apr 2013, 09:29
It was Jetconnect a ZK registered aircraft
So it was a Qantas aircraft then. No difference from what I can tell.

Pucka
8th Apr 2013, 09:35
It all goes back to dumbing down the knowledge of our airframe, pilot requirements. If the ground school was anything like the "old days", this would have been quickly trouble shot and ended in a minor sector comment...peanuts and....etc?.

blueloo
8th Apr 2013, 09:43
27/09


It was Jetconnect a ZK registered aircraft


So it was a Qantas aircraft then. No difference from what I can tell.

You are correct.

It IS a QANTAS group aircraft. Sporting a New Zealand Flag and New Zealand registration.

Operated by JETCONNECT Crew.

So it is a QANTAS group aircraft, but it is not QANTAS.

But you already knew that.

Didn't you.

hownowbrowncow
8th Apr 2013, 10:29
It all goes back to dumbing down the knowledge of our airframe, pilot requirements. If the ground school was anything like the "old days", this would have been quickly trouble shot and ended in a minor sector comment...peanuts and....etc?.

Are you saying that Jetconnect pilots are inferior, and if this was a mainline crew, they would've know what it was?

Keg
8th Apr 2013, 10:36
I think it's a point about the way the industry has gone. Pay peanuts for training, get monkeys. I don't know even what the 'equipment' was so not sure whether I would have dealt with it differently but the fact that crews are trained with far less in depth knowledge regarding the aeroplane and how it's put together is obvious. It doesn't make a difference on 99.9% of flights. Every now and then that lack of in depth knowledge results in things happening (or not happening) that perhaps should have happened differently. Not all of these is a prang. Sometimes it's as simple as a diversion.

What The
8th Apr 2013, 10:37
I hazard to guess that what is being said is the technical teaching from endorsements these days is so minimal that technical aircrew are incapable of making technical assessments when they may be required.

Cabin crew have no hope because the empire building losers running those sections wouldn't know their elbow from their arsehole. Then again:}

Pucka
8th Apr 2013, 11:01
Hownow et al.. didn't mean to take a swipe at LCC crews but its the industry generally..whether its a bus conversion or a 777...sadly, its all about need to know, not what is best practice to know. In some legacy carriers, the crew don't even need to check the gear pins FCS!! as long as the AML was annotated correctly..all is well and checked: besides the fact that some outfits install maintenance pins without feathers, or even wooden blocks..! i recall the latter was a snag a few years ago with a Virgin 340 on approach to LHR!! sadly, its all about taking the authority FURTHER away from the flight deck and allowing the decision processes to be made by non pilot staff who think they can rise to an eventual bonus tree, whilst tech crew can continue to suffer professional sluffing at the coal face to mitigate reduction in salary and T &C...The fuel nazi's as an example with more than CFP fuel, irrespective of wx alternates etc: MEL's that are superceded by ground maintenance overrides: minimal sector training for new F/O's during weather seasons that require larger bollocks...etc. Pilot managers have lost all sense of reality..mitigated partly by sound airframes and their reliability, I agree, but non the less...as I recall, in those heady early days of first type training, when engineers delivered the pre exam tech schooling..woe betide those who didn't know the TR ratings or limits to a genset before it tripped: battery ratings and thermal runaway criteria! ask that to a newbee and I would hazard a guess that many, as on my fleet would have no idea where the battery was or even what a thermal runaway actually was!!..people..its the world of CTC and where the merchant shipping world used to be, 30 years ago. Enjoy the ride!!

ejectx3
8th Apr 2013, 12:24
It was a squib.

ampclamp
8th Apr 2013, 20:27
Ejectx , the reports said it was a squib but where in the cabin of an -800 is a squib as we know them? I know of 2 squibs and they are in the left wheel well.

blueloo
8th Apr 2013, 22:29
Don't they have 2 large bottles of Isoflurane installed mid cabin, ready to deploy via Squib (and frangible disc) in case the passengers become to demanding. (ie if anyone presses a call button) :E :E

NSEU
9th Apr 2013, 01:20
If it was a squib, perhaps the labels on the box or on the item indicated its explosive nature, hence the reason for the concern.

ampclamp
9th Apr 2013, 02:24
I could be wrong but to the best of my knowledge there are no squibs in the cabin or cockpit. Squibs being an explosive are also classed as a dangerous good and would not be carried as a spare inside the cockpit or the cabin.
The term squib I suspect has been used incorrectly to describe some other part or to desribe a situation where something does not turn out right ie "a damp squib".

Ngineer
9th Apr 2013, 07:23
Pay peanuts for training, get monkeys

That rule proved incorrect with the dawn of EASA & B1/B2. And the old mantra of "Pay peanuts, get monkeys", well that theory was smashed a few years ago.

SpannerTwister
9th Apr 2013, 07:30
I know of 2 squibs and they are in the left wheel well.

I know of about FOUR in that location, and one further aft ;)

ST

ampclamp
9th Apr 2013, 07:33
lol, yeah, spanner man dead right.:O Bit quick from the hip, not thinking.

mangere1957
11th Apr 2013, 02:16
hownowbrowncow ALL "pilots" now are inferior. Everybody who learnt to fly in the fifties and sixties has gone. We now have EICAS readers instead of pilots.

Three or four years ago a UAL 747 returned to Syd after a couple of hours(at least) outbound because a piece of paper with the letters bob written on it was found in a toilet.FFS

mangere1957
11th Apr 2013, 03:21
falconx can you explain how they could have managed to NOT "...work through the situation."?

There was no SITUATION, just stupidity. If not by the pilots then certainly the management

601
11th Apr 2013, 06:09
Everybody who learnt to fly ... sixties has gone

On what research did you do rely backup this statement ?

Normasars
11th Apr 2013, 11:22
Wally, Touche.

:ok: