PDA

View Full Version : Air NZ plane forced to make emergency landing


Wirraway
8th Dec 2002, 04:15
ABC News Online

Sun, 8 Dec 2002 14:47 AEDT

Air NZ plane forced to make emergency landing

An Air New Zealand plane was forced to make an emergency landing in Brisbane earlier today.

The 767 aircraft landed safely and no one was injured.

Flight NZ 132 took off on schedule from Brisbane, but while the plane was ascending there was a loud bang and one of the two engines shut down.

An emergency ground alert was declared at Brisbane and the plane landed safely around 30 minutes later.

Air New Zealand's technical manager Craig Sinclair says there are signs of damage to the metal around the engine and near one of the edge flaps.

The incident has been referred to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

The airline has been plagued by a string of similar incidents.

Twice this year pieces of wing flaps have fallen off aircraft, one landed in a carpark near Auckland airport, the other into water.

=========================================
AAP

Jet emergency at Brisbane Airport
December 08, 2002

EMERGENCY personnel have rushed to Brisbane Airport after a plane reported technical problems.

The 767 aircraft, which was carrying around 200 people, had left the airport and was on its way to New Zealand when the problem was reported.

The plane was forced to return around 10.30am (AEST) and police, ambulances and firefighting units were called as a precaution.

A police spokesman said roads were blocked around the airport.

The plane landed safely 15 minutes later and there were no injuries.

Engineers were inspecting the aircraft and the 200 passengers will be transferred to another plane.

AAP

TIMMEEEE
8th Dec 2002, 09:02
Damned shame that.
Does that mean their ETOPS approval for the B767's are yet again under review?

Wirraway
8th Dec 2002, 15:00
Mon "Melbourne Age"

Pilot warns: prepare for crash landing
December 9 2002
By Bernard Orsman, Ainsley Thomson and Joseph Kerr

Passengers on a jet that suffered a major engine failure at 11,000 feet screamed after the pilot told them they were heading for a crash-landing in Brisbane yesterday.

"I thought we had hit a small plane," said former New Zealand rugby league player Brent Todd, a passenger on Air New Zealand's Boeing 767-200.

"Then there was a jolt and my heart sank. I thought we were in some major trouble."

The pilot of the Auckland-bound flight NZ132 was forced to make an emergency landing only minutes after taking off from Brisbane at 10.05am. The engine failure was accompanied by a loud bang about 40 nautical miles from Brisbane.

Parts of the damaged engine broke out of the casing, forcing the crew to immediately shut it down and rely on the second engine to land the plane.

None of the 190 passengers on board were injured, said the airline and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. After landing at Brisbane at 10.40am, damage was reported to the engine's casing and wing.

Mr Todd, travelling with his daughter, Jessica, 7, said he heard a loud bang as the aircraft climbed. The crew tried to keep passengers calm but "from the look on the chief steward's face I could see something was seriously wrong".

Mr Todd said the pilot announced the plane was going in for a crash landing. "When the pilot announced it, everyone started screaming and the air hostesses were yelling, 'Keep your heads down, keep your heads down'. The landing was pretty heavy."

Another passenger, Dean Rawle, said he had not worried until passengers were told they were going in for a crash landing.

Mr Todd described seeing the engine: "The whole side of the metal casing was totally off. And the back of it was disintegrated. Apparently it ate itself out."

Some metal pieces were reportedly recovered from the Brisbane runway.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators were on the scene immediately, and the airline will conduct its own inquiry.

An airline spokesman, Craig Sinclair, said there were signs of damage to the engine exterior and near one of the flaps. He described the single-engine landing as "uneventful".

On the eve of an Air New Zealand application to regulatory authorities for a deal under which Qantas would take 22.5 per cent of the carrier, its chief executive, Ralph Norris, said he was unhappy about the emergency. "There were no indications prior to that engine being run up or through the climb that there were any problems with the engine," Mr Norris said. "The engine obviously did have a major malfunction at getting to cruise height."

- with The New Zealand Herald

Snowballs
8th Dec 2002, 20:09
Maybe it is about time to start a forum and repository dedicated to the appallingly naive standard of aviation reporting. Reports like the one above would be a good start. Full credits could be given to the reporters and source of this type of report.
I cannot believe that any professional pilot would tell the passengers to prepare for a “crash Landing” over the PA after an engine failure ………………… Emergency landing yes, as a precaution.
:confused:

Going Boeing
8th Dec 2002, 21:58
I saw the channel 10 report last night and was absolutely disgusted with the over-dramatisation and poor choice of words. At one stage they even referred to it as "the doomed plane" which according to my understanding of the Queen's english means that the aircraft crashed instead of the completely normal engine out approach and landing that actually happened.

The media have done nothing to improve my low opinion of them.

Congratulations to the crew on a job well done.

CI300
8th Dec 2002, 22:02
What great reporting!

I think Brent Todd had one to many beers before departure, he never was the brightest.

TIMMEEEE, I never knew you were an expert on EROPS.. Your not Les Bloxham in real life are you?

luna landing
8th Dec 2002, 22:05
Perhaps it was one of the spare parts in the plane load they "borrowed" from Ansett a bit over a year ago.....

Gnd Power
8th Dec 2002, 22:17
Snow

It may seem like naive reporting to you but the reporter seems to only be stating what the passengers have said and obviously thought at the time.

Facts are facts, the engine blew up, the pax thought they were in serious do-do and told it as they saw it. Which (surprisingly!! - :rolleyes: ) was how the reporter relayed it in the press.

Just because you don't like it won't make the facts go away. Attacking the Reporter also won't make the facts go away.

This incident is a lot more serious than merely shooting the messenger, who in all probabilty has spoken to more involved in the incident than you or I.

CI300
8th Dec 2002, 22:24
Sad luna, so sad.

Gnd Power, where did you get those 'facts' from ?
Allthough you and I both know your probably correct, you, like the rest of us have none.

Boeing Belly
8th Dec 2002, 23:42
I really think that CASA need to have a serious look at this Airline with a view to either suspending or cancelling their rights to fly in Australian airspace. This is just the latest in a long line of safety and/or maintenance breaches that stretch back several decades at least. It's obvious that they don't have the financial resources to maintain their aircraft to an accceptable standard.

Wizofoz
9th Dec 2002, 00:13
Just read on the Ninemsn website that the Aircraft "Returned for a crash landing"

:mad: :mad: :mad:

I guess the fact that he landed normally means he "Failed" to make a crash landing!!

What P!22es me off is that whenever I've had any type of incident over the years, I've had to try hard to make decisions based on what was best, and dissregard the possibility of ending up in the papers. I remember a Captain once stopping me from asking for a priority approach as we had a sick passenger because "The press listen to the radio." (Appalling decision making I agree, but it shows how it can affect some peoples thinking.)

It's just one more subtle pressure you don't need at such times.

MoFo
9th Dec 2002, 00:17
The standard of journalism in this country ain't that high. Particulary Television journalism. And particulary anything to do with the mystical subject of aviation. Too much detail to worry about.

If you want the least accurate reporting on any event go straight to commercial television news.

Obviously on day one of journo training you are taught the basic rules. If you stick a microphone and a camera in front of any member of the public involved in an incident you will find they will say whatever they think you want them to say. They just want to be involved, get their head on TV and feel that somehow their 10 minutes of fame, in their life, has finally arrived.

Then you learn cliches. Doomed. Plunged. Thought I Was Going To Die. End Of An Era. Air Pocket. Witness's Saw An Explosion. etc etc.

Then you learn how to put it together. Don't worry about accuracy. If there are details getting in the way of your story just make up anything that seems feasable to your thoughts at the time. After all you are the expert journo and the public are a bunch of d*ckheads who will believe anything.

Having learnt all that you make sure you are female, big boobs, blonde or dyed blonde if possible and have a scratchy voice that becomes strident as you yell at the microphone at the top of your voice, despite the fact that your lapel microphone is only cms away from your mouth.

Any Australian TV network will jump at the chance of employing you once you've got that together.

Kaptin M
9th Dec 2002, 00:56
My "Thanks" to Bernard Orsman, Ainsley Thomson and Joseph Kerr of the Melbourne Age, Brent Todd passenger on the "doomed" flight, and, Ralph Norris, CEO of Air new Zealand, for starting my week off with a chuckle at your following STUPID, LAUGHABLE, and IGNORANT (of aviation matters) quotes:

Mr Todd described seeing the engine: "The whole side of the metal casing was totally off. And the back of it was disintegrated. Apparently it ate itself out." :eek: :D

Ralph Norris, said he was unhappy about the emergency. "There were no indications prior to that engine being run up or through the climb that there were any problems with the engine," Mr Norris said. "The engine obviously did have a major malfunction at getting to cruise height."

Mr Norris' "knowledge" (or apparent LACK thereof)..."running up" a jet engine???.....and unless Air New Zealand are now flying at 11,000' across the Ditch......of airline flight operations indicates he would have been better to have kept his mouth zipped!

Again, "Thank you" to the above mentioned, for what was a highly entertaining piece of journalism! :D

Barbers Pole
9th Dec 2002, 01:43
Didn't take long for the "Kiwi Bashing to start" I guess australian a/c never have incidents!

Well done to all the crew for their Professional job in carrying out a successfull (prepared emergency) single engine landing.

"Rumour" at work is that the failure may have occured in the HP turbine causing the engine to catastrophly "Lunch itself" (excuse the tech. describition Kaptain M)

cribble
9th Dec 2002, 02:47
:(

B.Belly
You wouldn't care to document (rather than baldly assert the existance of) the"...long line of safety and/or maintenance breaches that stretch back several decades at least..." , per chance? The only bads I recall are to do with the dogs at the late lamented subsidiary.

Or is your post merely another part of your anti-AirNZ tirade?

Boeing Belly
9th Dec 2002, 03:33
Mate, it's been raining pieces of Boeing for the last six months now. Most, if not all of it has fallen off AirNZ aircraft. To quote the Sky News today, "AirNZ have an un- enviable safety record at the moment". Your major occurence is well documented so I won't re-hash it now. As far as your comment about the"dog", need I remind you who was in charge of Ansetts maintenance at that stage?

rmm
9th Dec 2002, 06:30
Some pictures below, looks like another CF6 HPT rotor failure. They must be close to double figures by now.



http://www.members.optushome.com.au/vhrmm/nz767/index

Boeing Belly
9th Dec 2002, 06:35
rmm, great pictures but are you sure you got the date right?;)

rmm
9th Dec 2002, 06:38
Sorry, not my camera work, just passing them on.

Rmm

Wirraway
9th Dec 2002, 06:52
NZoom

Air NZ engineering to get workover (03:07)
By Felicity Anderson

Air New Zealand says it is going to get an outside organisation to put its engineering workshop practices under a microscope.

The airline's chief executive Ralph Norris says it wants to put its customers' minds at rest that it is safe to travel on Air New Zealand planes.

The move follows the shut down of an engine and emergency landing of a 767-200 in Brisbane overnight on Sunday.

Craig Sinclair, Air NZ's senior vice president operations and technical, says the damage caused to one of the plane's two General Electric engines was through a section of the high pressure turbine disc "letting go".

He says it is not known yet why that had occured and Air NZ was having difficulty finding a similar incident among the worldwide fleet.

He says that's why the United States' FAA and National Transport Safety Board were interested in NZ and Australian air safety inspectors' finding. The incident may have implications for GE, he says.

Norris decribes the Brisbane emergency as the latest in a series of "random incidents that are in no way connected".

Just what organisation is to do the workshop practices review will be announced later this week.

But the airline is making it clear that it will be someone other than a "safety regulator", to get a lateral viewpoint.

Sinclair says the airline already undergoes extensive internal and external safety audits, including those by NZ's Civil Aviation Authority and its Australian equivalent, FAA and its European equivalent and through its Star Alliance membership.

The latest incident has not attracted any comment from Air NZ's proposed alliance partner Qantas.

Under the deal Air NZ is hoping to get more of Qantas' outsourced engineering work and to have work for 200 more skilled engineers.

Norris and Sinclair acknowledge that Air NZ was already out in the market place looking for more engineers and is also looking at new ways of building up a skill base through training.

Sinclair reveals Norris signed off last week on capital expenditure for new hanger facilities.

He says Air NZ manages to win overseas contracts because it is highly competitive in terms of pricing, quality of work and the turn around time.

Brave

George Ryde of the aviation and marine engineers' union says the move to bring in an external party to review workshop practices is a brave decision.


"It will be very transparent and open and I think it should reassure people that the investigation is going to be thorough," he says.


Australian authorities are leading the official investigation into the latest problem.


The high powered team includes two US experts and a representative from General Electric, the engine makers.


The NZ Civil Aviation Authority also has the power to carry out a special safety audit but says it has no plans to.


"There are safety audits going on all the time and there is no need for additional safety audits they are underway continuously," says John Jones of the CAA.


Meanwhile the passengers on ill-fated flight 132 can expect a letter of apology from the airline and some form of compensation.

Published on Dec 09, 2002

SepsOff
9th Dec 2002, 07:13
MoFo,
You forgot to mention the media golden rule "never let the facts get in the way of a good story"
You also forgot Plummet, Slammed and Engulfed.

Was it my imagination, or did the female reporter on Holmes tonight look like she was going to puke as she was leaving the Sim?

flyby_kiwi
9th Dec 2002, 08:42
SepsOff - I noticed that too. She sure didnt waste any time getting out :D
In regards to Holmes tonight I was very dissapointed with HIM referring to Air NZ's incident as the"Crash" landing - Youd expect that given he has a background in aviation his choice of words would be a little better :rolleyes:

SepsOff
9th Dec 2002, 08:58
flyby,
You are talking about an aviation veteran who has had numerous "incidents" (accidents) himself.
For example: Circling an unattended north island airfield as a SPL on a solo x-c looking at a limp windsock and not being able to decide which vector to land on. Then leaving in search of another, hopefully that had a windsock that pointed!

He doesn't seem to have much luck with horses either.

capt cynical
9th Dec 2002, 09:35
The thing that worries me the most about the standard of journalism here and NZ is that the public tend to believe what they read and hear.
Unfortunately I suspect that does include "Maketing W#$%*&^s
and CFO's just the sort of people runing most of todays major ailines.
It really makes you wonder where we are heading.:eek:

halfrhovsquared
9th Dec 2002, 10:00
To add to the hype, channel 7 news this morning was talking about a -
"FULL SCALE EMERGENCY AT THE AIRPORT"
Good heavens, another FULL SCALE emergency. Not just a half scale emergency.

Skipper- "Ladies and Gentlemen, it appears we have lost half of our allotted engines and therefore we will be returning to Brisbane where they are preparing for a Half Scale Emergency."
:) :) :D

Jungmeister
9th Dec 2002, 11:36
I am sure that Australian pilots would be familiar with the AIP definition of Full Emergency compared with Local Standby:

6.3 Full Emergency
6.3.1 A Full Emergency is declared when activation of more than just airport-based responding agencies is advisable. A Full
Emergency will be declared when an aircraft approaching the
airport is known or suspected to be in such trouble that there is
danger of an accident. In order to provide the appropriate
response, one of the following levels must be used by ATS in
declaring the Full Emergency to outside services:
a. Level I – up to 18 seats (ATC – Light).
b. Level II – up to 150 seats (ATC – Medium).
c. Level III – up to 450 seats (ATC – Heavy).
6.3.2 When a Full Emergency has been declared, the response will be
from all services including on-airport services according to the
level (I,II or III) notified.
6.3.3 If a pilot declares a MAYDAY, then this equates to a Full
Emergency condition. The AEP will then be activated by declaring
“FULL EMERGENCY LEVEL (I, II or III)”.

Kaptin M
9th Dec 2002, 12:08
I guess, young master, that the intended REACTIVE word - INTENTIONALLY intorduced - was "scale".

"Full emergency", certainly gets the attention.
But "Full SCALE emergency" is intended to imply "lives are at risk".

Why don't you "f-off" - until you learn the sharp end of the pencil from the rubber!!

When you've done that, some of us will GLADLY assist you - rather than put you down!

Richard Kranium
9th Dec 2002, 12:31
Interesting but not relevant to the thread

halfrhovsquared
9th Dec 2002, 12:47
JUNGM,

I am sure that the channel 7 reporters were also intimately familiar with A.I.P when they were reporting the incident this morning.;)

max rate
9th Dec 2002, 19:34
:confused:
Who overhauls these engines? I don't actually think it is ANZ, I thought they were sent back to GE? I f that is the case, maybe ANZ should send them the bill for the panelbeating as well.

375ml
9th Dec 2002, 20:18
Further to snowball's original post, why was this declared - as far as pax were concerned - an emergency landing, and they were briefed by cabin crew in what sounds like a brace/crash position procedure? Like most others I'm only going off the reported story and eye witness interviews... but are we sure the hype wasn't started by the ANZ crew?

Barbers Pole
9th Dec 2002, 20:29
Boeing belly, you are being a bit harsh there fella, the incidents are isolated and only one of them was AirNZ fault (wing panel not secured)

A QF 747 had a engine shut down in the Tasman the other week and you don't see QF being lambasted by the media about being an unsafe airline.

375
As you obvisously know nothing about AirNZ's SOP's in regards to how we are trained to deal with this type of problem I suggest you keep your fingers off the keyboard and refrain from throwing mud at the crew!!! :mad:

Putting the pax into the brace position is a stardard procedure for us in an "prepared Emergency" landing.

henry crun
9th Dec 2002, 21:43
Barbers Pole, you might be a bit harsh yourself criticizing Boeing Belly.

After all, from the sounds of it, he had the inside gen and knew right from the beginning that the turbine failure was a fault of ANZ engineering.

I just hope he has passed on what he knows to the OZ/NZ/GE chappies to save them the bother of going through a long investigation.
:rolleyes:

ditzyboy
9th Dec 2002, 22:27
I have spoken to two friends abroad who are cabin crew and both their airlines use "Prepare for crash landing" as the last instruction from the flight deck that landing is imminent. Also the cabin crew yelling "Heads down, stay down" from then on is a pretty standard proceedure across many airlines.

In my initial training we discussed the "Prepare for crash landing" command used by other airlines. The company I work for uses "Brace. Brace. Brace." Which we all thought was far less distressing!

Nevertheless the tech and cabin crew obviously followed their SOPs and should be commended.

And as for "the look on the Chief Steward's face".... If he wasn't running up and down the cabin, screaming and flailing his arms like a big gay banshee, then he did pretty well in my opinion!

Snowballs
9th Dec 2002, 22:46
Ditzy ….. Perhaps you should go back and read your manuals again or your employee should have a long look at it’s emergency procedures. There is a vast difference between an emergency landing and a crash landing. An emergency landing is a “Non normal landing” in which sensible precautions are taken which may involve having the emergency services ready and or, having the cabin on alert and prepared for evacuation if necessary after landing. An example of this would be this flight landing with one engine shut down. A crash landing in one in which damage will result in landing for example landing with the gear up. Either the cockpit crew and or cabin crew got it all mixed up or more than likely, the media again displayed an appalling lack of knowledge of the aviation industry. To tell the passengers we are going to crash (crash land) guarantees total instant panic. To defend what was supposedly said is to say that all engine failures or loss of some flaps etc are to be treated as crash landings ………………… just astounding.

Kaptin M
10th Dec 2002, 00:29
Congratulations to the Air New Zealand crew on a job well done.

Anyone know what flap configuration they used to land with? Flapless? Trailing edge only? I assume that the leading edges weren't available (and missing :eek: in one case!).

And the press missed a golden opportunity to use the phrase catastrophic engine failure - and didn't!
Too busy trying to think up other [email protected] I guess.

Don't go too hard on them, Boeing Belly, it wasn't so long ago that "bits" were falling off QANTAS aircraft. remember the "piece of engine" that fell off near Cairns?

Engine failures such as this one are an irregular regularity - a JALways DC10 had a similar failure about 4 months ago after take-off from Nagoya for Bangkok, and about 10 days ago a JAS MD90 lost a donk also out of Nagoya.
And that's only two that I know about!

SOPS
10th Dec 2002, 00:52
And I am fairly sure bits WERE about to fall off a lot of Ansett aircraft, but they were grounded before it could happen..... Then all the bits fell off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dan Kelly
10th Dec 2002, 00:56
I'm not familiar with AirNZs procedures, nor the B767. From my observation of various photos and news reports I draw the following conclusions.
[list=a]
Leading edge devices were of doubtfull serviceablity.
Full extent of the damage couldn't be known by Tech or Cabin crew.
Better to be safe than sorry, thus brace for landing a good call.
Criticism of the crew's actions is poor form from Aussies. (Unfortunately it is becoming more and more prevelant and is the reason Dan K is no longer a moderator.)
AirNZ employees, as opposed to the AirNZ board, should not be villified for events of just over a year ago!
[/list=a]

(edit to correct typo - phat phingers! :D )

Barbers Pole
10th Dec 2002, 02:42
Thanx Dan, well said.

topend3
10th Dec 2002, 02:55
boeing belly,

dear dear you are at it again, long line of safety breacges and incidents hey? probably no more than qantas have had in the last couple of years mate...

airnz didn't lose an aircraft off then end of a runway either:D

i can remember bits falling off qf aircraft, a 767 lost a gear door into darwin a couple of years ago and then there was the litany of safety incidents last year when qf was in the spotlight over their own maintenance

Boeing Belly
10th Dec 2002, 03:48
"airnz didn't lose an aircraft off the end of a runway". I bet they wish that was all they did!!!!!!

ditzyboy
10th Dec 2002, 05:07
Snowballs.....

Having been involved in what you call a"non normal" landing I am familiar with the differences. However if a "Brace" command (or similar) was made from the flight deck then it is the proceedure of my employer (and most that I know of) to yell out "Heads down. Stay down" (or similar) until the a/c comes to a stop.

I agree with you that this situation perhaps did not warrent the above emeregency call from the flight deck. Not being a pilot or there at the time I wouldn't know if maybe they thought there was imminent danger/risk. You can't flame the cabin crew though for following their SOPs and yelling their commands.

Snowballs
10th Dec 2002, 05:19
Ditzy .... Brace Brace etc is OK if you think the airplane is about to crash but to suggest it be used for a return to landing after an engine failure is absurd ..... you will have the travelling public terrified of flying ! if crash landing procedures are applied to something that professional pilots are trained and paid, to cope with, in a professional manner. It is beginning to sound as though perhaps the cabin crew lost the plot ... anyway read on and see what someone with a professional knowledge of the industry says, It was an EMERGENCY LANDING nothing more, nothing less.

It is nice to read an article by someone who knows what he is talking about … NOTE the author correctly referred to the incident as an “Emergency Landing” not like the inane interpretation as reported in NZ and quoted by the news media elsewhere.

Dow Jones Business News
Air New Zealand Says Boeing Selected To Review Engineering Unit
Monday December 9, 9:14 pm ET
WELLINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Air New Zealand said Tuesday it has selected Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - News) to conduct a review of its engineering operations following a weekend safety scare.
The terms of reference for the investigation - now called a "peer review" by Air New Zealand versus "independent" review when it was announced Monday - will be worked out over the next week, the airline said in a statement.
Engine failure forced an Air New Zealand Boeing 767-200 to make an emergency landing at Brisbane Airport, Australia, Sunday morning. The engine was manufactured by General Electric.
Air New Zealand's safety record was in the spotlight earlier this year after two incidents in which wing parts flew off aircraft shortly after takeoff.
Air New Zealand Senior Vice President Craig Sinclair said the airline faces an issue of "public credibility and transparency" and will release the findings of the review and any recommendations.
The carrier is pleased to be able to draw on the expertise of "such a highly respected industry leader" as Boeing, he said.
- By Stephen Wright, Dow Jones Newswires; 64-4-471-5990; [email protected] dowjones.com
:;)

gaunty
10th Dec 2002, 05:20
I'm with Dan K
Given (a) thru (c) you could not have but done likewise.

No one so far has suggested what the consequences may have been had they NOT made the "brace" and for whatever reason it all came unglued resulting in higher than necessary injuries.
Certain super second guessers around here would have been all over them like a plague.
It's like insurance you complain about its costs until you have an accident.

(d)thru (e) well, we all know who "they" are and give their pronouncements the weight they deserve.

ZK-NSJ
10th Dec 2002, 06:54
its a pity we couldnt lose boeing belly off the end of the runway, maybe at kingsford smith or hong kong, where he could sink, and stay with his bottom dwelling friends

SepsOff
10th Dec 2002, 07:20
Topend
You and others hit the odd nerve, you know when you've hit one because you get a big bite from the likes of BB and dick head.

Just for the record the QF over-run was just an incident not an accident. I understand that they rebuilt the aircraft, (at a cost somewhat greater than buying a new one) simply to keep their "accident free" record intact.
Every airline has it's skeletons and I ain't necessarily talking about hosties that rattle.

topend3
10th Dec 2002, 08:24
couldn't agree more with you sepsoff, though losing ojh i think it was off the end of the runway at hong kong was a pretty bloody major incident i think...

boeing belly certainly has a chip on his shoulder about airnz, maybe he is ex ansett...

i don't rant and rave on about qf or any other airline as soon as they have an "incident", and they always happen together these "incidents", like a couple of years ago when qf had a string of problems with engine shutdowns and the like and everyone started asking questions about their maintenance...

it happens...getover it and you can bet one thng, when the coffee maker on zk-suh (a b747-441) breaks down, bb will be on here proclaiming it to everyone....:eek:

Boeing Belly
10th Dec 2002, 08:38
OJH.....Hong Kong????????? Who or what are you???? What planet have you been living on fella???

Maybe he is ex Ansett????:confused: :confused: Maybe that QF panel you like to mention fell on your head!!!!!!!

Bankstown
10th Dec 2002, 08:54
Before you carry on too much further about VH-OJH, this very aircraft in question, ZK-NBC, ran off the runway in Nadi in 1991.
Nadi Writeup (http://aviation-safety.net/database/incidents/19910309-0.htm) .

Boeing Belly
10th Dec 2002, 09:02
"Thit wisn't eewer filt"

VeeBee
10th Dec 2002, 09:08
For What its worth.
NZ132
The crew knew that the LE Flaps were damaged and only extended TE Flaps. The A/C was over landing weight and the resultant Vref was close to advertised tyre limit speed. The Engine went from delivering climb thrust to zero thrust almost instantaneously resulting in considerable damage to the pylon (not known by the crew but suspected).
Would you have declared an emergency? I think I would have.

Kaptin M
10th Dec 2002, 20:06
"Just for the record the QF over-run was just an incident not an accident."..............Rubbish!

Any event where damage to an aircraft or injury to a passenger or crew member is incurred is an ACCIDENT.

Feather #3
10th Dec 2002, 20:21
Re -OJH.

Have to agree with Capt M here; sure looked like an accident.

However, one persistent myth needs correcting, QF did NOT pay to repair the a/c; the insurance paid out in full on the claim. Equally, the cost was not in excess [or even close] to the cost of a new a/c [otherwise, I guess the insurance would have written it off.]

G'day :)

Snowballs
10th Dec 2002, 20:34
Back to the thread / media report.
This “Crash Landing” report is beginning to sound like a rerun of the film Flying High
Take a look at http://www.theaviationforum.com/ Forums/General Discussion and the thread “Engine Failure Forces Air NZ B767 Back to Brisbane” There is some unemotional and more professional comment
;)

Dan Kelly
10th Dec 2002, 21:39
Snowballs et al,

I fear that you fail to see the wood for the trees.

How can you sit in your armchair and state that the incident was simply a single engined return to land?

Had the engine flamed out for no apparent reason, that would be a single engine return to land. It would probably be followed by fuel burn/dump to max landing weight or less and the ensuing landing would be next to normal.

However, after a loud bang, I'd guess some airframe buffet, the sudden stopping of an engine running at high power and the loss of some systems, I don't know that the professional pilot would just assume that all would be well. Surely the prudent thing to do is to be prepared for the worst.

VeeBee says the aircraft was over MLW and near tyre limits, this in itself shows the crew had an understandable concern for the integrity of the airframe as a simple engine out return would not be over weight. Surely the crew showed sound presence of mind. At worst they only have to worry about armchair critics rather than having to explain in court why they didn't take all reasonable precautions ater the tyres blew out and the aircraft left the runway.

RaTa
11th Dec 2002, 01:40
Like all good crews they were trained for the job, congratulations to the crew as they did the job well.
Surely that is all that need be said instead of some of the rubbish that has been written.

Octane
11th Dec 2002, 02:26
Ignore him we are trying avoid tit for tat OK

Wirraway
11th Dec 2002, 05:03
Wed "New Zealand Herald"

Boeing to join Air NZ safety review panel
11.12.2002
By CATHY ARONSON transport reporter

Giant planemaker Boeing will help Air New Zealand to review its engineering systems in the wake of Sunday's engine failure.

The findings will be made public, a move the national carrier says is important for its credibility.

Air NZ announced the review after an engine on a Boeing 767-200 failed at 3000m after takeoff from Brisbane for Auckland. It was the fifth scare in as many months.

The airline said yesterday that Boeing would send a senior representative next week to help to set up the review terms and timetable.

Operations and technical vice-president Craig Sinclair said Air NZ would make the findings and recommendations public for the sake of "credibility and transparency".

Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union national secretary Andrew Little said the Air NZ engineers welcomed Boeing's participation.

"They know they are in a job where there is no margin for error, and they take it very personally. I think they welcome a fresh pair of eyes to review the process."

Images on a website found by the Herald yesterday show the level of damage caused when part of the turbine disc broke off.

The website - www.members.optushome.com.au/vhrmm/nz767/ - also shows damage to the aircraft's leading wing edge.

An international transport accident expert, Professor Colin Boyd, who is visiting the University of Auckland from the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, said the accident could have been disastrous if the rotating disc holding in the engine blades had broken off on a different angle and struck a fuel tank.

"The really scary thing is what if it had come out on a different angle and had shot out on the inside rather than the outside of the wing root where the fuel tanks are.

"That could have been disastrous. It was only luck that stopped it."

Mr Sinclair was not willing to speculate on what would have happened if the disc fragment had come out at another angle, saying the airline had to concentrate on why the accident happened.

"That's why they are called uncontained failures, because anything that breaks through an engine casing can create further damage, so that's what makes this so serious."

The airline believed it had met maintenance and airworthiness directives but would review its compliance as part of the investigation, led by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and including the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission, Boeing and General Electric, makers of the engine.

The engine has still to be released back to the airline and is expected to take three to four weeks to repair.

Mr Sinclair did not believe there was any link to an incident in Philadelphia two years ago on a Boeing 767 when a high-pressure turbine disc broke during a ground test and the metal hit a fuel tank, causing an explosion and fire. That aircraft had CF6-80C2B2 engines and the Air NZ engine was a CF6-80A2.

marshall
11th Dec 2002, 06:32
Looking at those photo's on page 2 I don't know what scares me more:

The leading edge of the wing and the engine JUST hanging on or the QF car parked up front!!! :D :D :D

rmm
11th Dec 2002, 06:34
An international transport accident expert, Professor Colin Boyd, who is visiting the University of Auckland from the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, said the accident could have been disastrous if the rotating disc holding in the engine blades had broken off on a different angle and struck a fuel tank.

Hence the reason for the "dry bay" on the inside wing root, put there for just such a failure.

Looks like AirNZ weren't to happy about the photo's being posted on the web. Some nasty e-mails from legal types in my inbox, plus about a dozen offers for the originals.

Woomera
11th Dec 2002, 07:38
rmm mon ami

'tres interessant, I see that they are now gone :( pity, I meant to save them.

So much for transparency etc....I can't possibly imagine what the justification could have been.
At least a rational one anyway, in an industry that relies on the sharing of such information to support the safety agenda.

Clearly the potential for a much more serious outcome was significantly higher than we would hope and the crew did a very professional job.
It is a pity that others are not afforded the opportunity to add the scenario and resulting evidence to their suite of experience, should they experience a similar event.
The photos made me sit up and think very very hard.
These sort of events are just not supposed to happen in this way.

It will also be pointed out to a fairly high profile self proclaimed legend that PPRuNe isn't, after all, an irrelevancy.

They haven't worked out yet, that in this internet age, the harder they try to hide the facts the more visible they become.

rmm
11th Dec 2002, 08:17
Woomera,

Could not agree more, the sole purpose was to share info.
Besides the crew, there's no mention about the aircraft itself, from my point of view it's a testament to Boeing on how good they put together an aircraft and how much damage it can substain and stay aloft.

Regards,
Rmm

Richard Kranium
11th Dec 2002, 11:01
OK, maybe but you did make a provocative comment, lets stick to the subject please.

375ml
11th Dec 2002, 22:50
... why was this declared - as far as pax were concerned - an emergency landing, and they were briefed by cabin crew in what sounds like a brace/crash position procedure? Like most others I'm only going off the reported story and eye witness interviews... but are we sure the hype wasn't started by the ANZ crew?
No offence to the anz crew were meant in this comment, it was solely posted in an attempt to defend the news reporting of the incident, of which the first two pages of this thread seemed to be dedicated to tearing to pieces. After that post it has become quite clear (to me) that there was every reason for the crew to instigate the procedures taken place, but those of you criticising the media have to wake up to the obvious press reaction this is going to make. It really is quite boring to hear some of you show disdain for journos who don't know the difference between accidents, crashes, incidents, emergencies, and local standby. All they are doing is using words Joe Public is going to understand - and those words are usually chosen with a sensationalist leaning so they can sell papers or get ratings. Why aren't you used to that? If you want inaccuracy, The Sydney Morning Herald ran a photo of a B747 to accompany the story! So once again, my personal apologies for any raw nerves that were hit. 375ml.

Snowballs
12th Dec 2002, 03:08
If they (reporters) don’t understand the industry they should stick to flower shows or something simplistic that they understand. A crash landing or emergency landing is vastly different, perhaps like saying someone was electrocuted when what they really meant was the person received an electric shock. There are plenty of knowledgeable reporters around so why publish something so outlandish and ignorant. The offending report rates a turkey:p

topend3
12th Dec 2002, 03:34
ok, so ojh was bangkok...my mistake...it was still an accident bb!!!

and RICHARD KRANIUM, if you are so sick of that comment why would you choose such a ridiculous nickname in the first place...and you wonder why you get the **** taken out of you all the time:rolleyes:

AN LAME
12th Dec 2002, 07:33
The engine has still to be released back to the airline and is expected to take three to four weeks to repair

Having seen the photos,and heard on the grapevine that the turbine shafts had sheared, I find it difficult to believe that ANYBODY would contemplate returning the engine to service at all let alone in three to four weeks.

Also heard the pylon is twisted. Somebody tell 'em VH-RMF is parked out the front in Melbourne, fresh from a C Check.

rmm
12th Dec 2002, 08:24
AN LAME,

They've already made enquires about RMF and about spare pylons that AN have. Lets hope they charge top dollar.

Rmm

Traffic
13th Dec 2002, 09:15
What happened to the photos??

has somebody had guano tipped on them and had them removed???

Wirraway
15th Dec 2002, 04:27
Sat "New Zealand Herald" 15/12/02

'We have had engine failure'
15.12.2002
By CATHY ARONSON

Dean Rawle pulled his window blind down to block the glare of the late-morning sun so he could see the inflight entertainment on his small business-class TV screen.

He had just watched a speed boat skim along the blue sea leaving a white stream behind it, and it reminded the nervous flyer that he was far from safe ground.

The Boeing 767-200 was beginning to level out after climbing to 3000m, the seat belt signs were off, the flight attendants were serving drinks and Rawle was ready to put his fears aside and enjoy the three-hour flight from Brisbane to Auckland - Air New Zealand Flight NZ132.

"Then all of a sudden there was this big bang and a thud. It felt like we'd actually hit something. The plane started to drop and that's when I thought we were on our way down into that nice blue sea."

He was almost too scared to look, but the woman in front of him began to point out the window saying, "The engine's falling apart".

He looked behind him and saw a strip missing from the engine and a dent in the wing.

"I thought, 'Oh Jesus, this is not good.' The woman next to me was asking what had happened, but I just couldn't tell her."

Steve Anderson thought they had crashed into a plane. His wife Margaret thought it was a bomb.

"The lights flickered, the plane started to go into a descent and that's when I realised it wasn't good."

From his window seat, he could see a bit of debris sticking in the wing.

He said the sound and force of impact was like a car accident.

Liza Darrow felt the bang vibrate through her feet as she stood to get something out of her overhead locker.

She fell back into her middle-aisle chair next to her husband Peter and their 2-year-old son Oliver.

Oliver looked at her with horror in his eyes and began to sob.

She tried to comfort him, but didn't know what to say. The pilot was obviously trying to control the plane and no one knew what had happened.

"Everyone was in shock. No one started screaming and crying or anything, but some people were sobbing. The girl in front of me was throwing up and one guy was clasping his chair for dear life. Everyone dealt with their anxiety in a different way."

Seven-year-old Jessica jumped in her seat and looked at her dad, former Kiwi league player Brent Todd, for an explanation.

His heart sank, but he tried to raise her spirits and told her, "We must have hit a bird".

Jessica looked at him quizzically. "I explained it must have been a big bird, it was okay, we were fine, everything would be fine."

But as he spoke the plane appeared to lose altitude - although Air New Zealand disputes this - and lurched to the left.

Tauranga Girls' College rowing team coach Jon Brady said he sat in stunned silence as the clear sky around the plane changed from a light blue to dark blue.

The 10 senior rowing girls with him remained composed and began to comfort other passengers and held their breath, waiting for the captain to tell them what had happened.

Rawle said he found the wait terrifying. "We didn't know what was happening. It was left up to our imagination and I'm sure everyone was thinking the same thing, 'We're custard'."

The cabin crew tried to reassure passengers while they put on their jackets and readied the emergency exits.

A couple of minutes later, as the plane levelled out, the captain made his first announcement.

"This is the captain, everything is under control. We have had engine failure and we are turning back to Brisbane and will be landing shortly."

The passengers began to calm down and turn their minds from dying wishes to wishing for a safe landing.

But the quick landing they were promised was drawn out for about 20 minutes as the plane circled around Brisbane airport while the pilots tested the wing's hydraulics and decided to land without using the leading edge flaps.

The closer the plane got to the ground, the better the passengers felt and as they came into land they realised the plane had made it.

The captain reassured them. "We are coming into land, 500 feet," but then he suddenly yelled, "Brace, brace, brace!"

"That's when everyone went off. People started yelling and screaming and everyone was panicking," said Rawle.

"As soon as he said brace, brace brace, that was the second point I thought my life was in danger. It was like, holy ####, what does this mean?"

The woman next to him ripped off his headphones to stop them strangling him and they both put their heads down.

The flight attendants began to yell, "Keep your heads down, keep your heads down, this is an emergency landing, keep your heads down."

Anderson said no one knew what to do. They were never told to prepare for an emergency landing.

"Most people hadn't read their safety cards and were jerking up and down in confusion going, 'Where do I put my hands, where do I put my head?'

Todd tried to cover his daughter, but couldn't reach her so threw off his seat belt and rolled on top of her bent-over body.

"I know I shouldn't have taken it off, but I just had to protect her. I didn't have time to think, all I could think about was Jessica."

Liza Darrow threw herself over her son, Oliver, and reached across to her husband and began to cry.

"We thought, 'This is it.' It's the closest feeling I've had that this is the end of my life.

"You were basically now confronted with the reality that this really is a dangerous situation."

The flight attendants continued to tell passengers to keep their heads down while the plane landed, travelling right to the end of the runway as the pilot relied on the wheel brakes to stop without being able to use the back-thrusters on the engine.

Anderson said the landing was fast and heavy, but "I've had worse landings in Wellington".

As fire engines raced to the plane to cool down the heated brakes and undercarriage, the passengers began to clap.

Later the pilots emerged to a second round of applause and walked through the plane talking to the passengers.

Passengers slowly began to compose themselves, went to the bathroom and rang friends and family on their cellphones while they waited 40 minutes to be released on to a bus.

Rawle text-messaged his wife. "All OK but lost engine. Back in Bris, emrgcy landing will call when off plane. Waiting for buses. Love you both. Wish I was with you both."

His wife, Jodie, was getting their 3-year-old daughter Tahlia ready to drive from Browns Bay to the airport.

She picked up the phone, read the message twice and began to cry.

"It didn't make sense. I started freaking out and Tahlia started crying, and I'm going, 'We can't go to the airport just yet, Daddy's plane is broken'."

Rawle was one of 56 passengers out of the 190 on board who got on an early flight the same day and was home by 9pm on Sunday.

"When I got there and saw my wife and Tahlia, that's when it hit me, that's when I knew I was so lucky to be with them."

He said he had recovered from the flight, but became anxious later in the week when he realised the turbine disc had broken out of the engine and could have hit the fuel tanks.

Most passengers said they would fly with Air New Zealand again if the problem proved to be an engine design fault, but would think twice if it was caused by poor maintenance.

gaunty
15th Dec 2002, 04:42
"Most people hadn't read their safety cards and were jerking up and down in confusion going, 'Where do I put my hands, where do I put my head?'

Todd tried to cover his daughter, but couldn't reach her so threw off his seat belt and rolled on top of her bent-over body.

"I know I shouldn't have taken it off, but I just had to protect her. I didn't have time to think, all I could think about was Jessica."


What does the Airline/cabin staff, have to do to get the message through to the passengers.:rolleyes:

My Fourth Form teacher used to give us a whack over the back of the head if we weren't paying attention, maybe we'll have to start doing likewise.

I wonder how Todd would have felt as Jessica watched him breaking the necks of the pax sitting in front of him as he passed them on the way to his meeting with the forward bulkhead.???:mad:

Rawle was one of 56 passengers out of the 190 on board

it seems had more to fear from his fellow 189 passengers than anything Air Nz could dish up.

topend3
15th Dec 2002, 05:34
hey rmm, the link to your great pics of that engine isn't working any more could you fix it up.

cheers

SepsOff
15th Dec 2002, 05:35
No need to get sucked into their silly game.

nikkojk
15th Dec 2002, 13:03
I was one of the 190 passengers onboard ANZ132.
First of all i must say that the crew did a very good job. I never got struck by panic, and i was only worried when the bang was heard and for about 30 seconds after.

The captain NEVER yelled "brace, brace, brace" over the PA. He said it in a nice calming voice. (the flight attendens did yell: "get down, grab your ankles" and all of that, but they
"we are now passing through 500 feet, so brace, brace, brace". Yes, we got a bit confused when we heard this, because we did not expect it. The plane was flying fine, and everybody thought it was going to be a "regular" landing.
I do belive that the crew did the right thing in not telling us that we had to brace before landing, untill we were at the height when we needed to hear it. I think if they did, some of the most startled pax would have freaked out even more.

All in all, I think they did a good job getting us down safely, and the took care everybody that needed it after.

I have no problems to fly with ANZ again. (acctually, i've already booked my ticket down to bris again in feb with ANZ).

Props to the crew!!!

Capt Claret
15th Dec 2002, 13:04
Let's hope that the above article gains widespread circulation and that as a result the turkeys who travel and ignore the safety demonstration, might choose for a change to pay attention! :rolleyes:

yellow rocket
8th Jan 2003, 08:15
Has anyone here heard of CRM ?

CI300
8th Jan 2003, 08:49
Ahhhh, your going to have to do better than that banana rocket. Please tell us how its done.:confused:

Groaner
9th Jan 2003, 01:25
Captain Claret;

Just a mild enquiry: assuming you have done a fair bit of paxing in the past, can you honestly put your hand on your heart and say you listened to the safety demonstration every time? All of it? Even, say, the (imho) awful QF video? And if you (even once) ignored a safety demo, what would you expect someone to do who had little experience flying and was observing you?

Perhaps also just a little harsh to refer to your customers as turkeys. None of us would make a living without them...

star gold
17th Mar 2003, 01:00
I saw this aircraft the other day taxying out from the International terminal at BNE, the rear part of the LH engine cowling (is that the thrust reverser cover?) was white rather than greyish. There wasn't an NZ flight listed at the time on the departures board, so I guess maybe it was on its way home.

Capt Claret
17th Mar 2003, 03:59
I stand with hand on heart and say to you that apart from 3 flights as a child, I have never ignored a safety demonstration.

For exactly the reason that you suggest, the example I set, I pay attention each and every time, on company dead head flights, or QF mainline.

As for turkeys, I'm not referring to all pax as turkeys, just those who don't pay attention and refresh their memory about the safety 'features'. I strongly suspect that these turkeys will be amongst the first to sue in the event of an accident when their lack of knowledge causes them more injury than perhaps they might otherwise have sustained.

VeeBee
17th Mar 2003, 08:14
ZK-NBC returned to Auckland on Saturday 15th March after a test flight.