View Full Version : QF 737 damaged at DRW

20th Feb 2003, 00:42
VH-TJB, a 737-376 of Qantas Airways Ltd sustained damage at DRW last night. Has damage to No.2 engine and port wing, aircraft parked at Bay 3...

High Altitude
20th Feb 2003, 00:55
I knew I shouldn't have had that last Crownie... Wondered what put that dint in the roof of the van...:cool:

Dog One
20th Feb 2003, 03:31
Now parked over on the FRA. Shades of QF1?

20th Feb 2003, 03:56
except this one hasn't hit the media yet, wait till the NT News get a hold of it, i can see the headlines now....:eek: :eek:

btw, excuse my ignorance, what does FRA stand for????

20th Feb 2003, 04:08
FRA - Fighter Replenishment Apron (thanks Pharcannell)

There is also the BRA, any guesses???

20th Feb 2003, 04:36
If the NT News get hold of the story you can bet your bottom dollar a croc will get the blame.:=

20th Feb 2003, 04:51
Sounds like a crock.
Anyone know what the.......happened

20th Feb 2003, 05:42
I believe fr/br "A" is apron, but that's only semantics.

20th Feb 2003, 05:50
believe the aircraft was damaged whilst landing during heavy rain and struck the No 2 engine on the runway, QF have towed it out of view to keep the stickybeaks away, aircraft was operating QF 760 ADL-DRW.

compressor stall
20th Feb 2003, 07:05
Qantas passengers cheat death in landing drama

Eight-nine terrified passengers emerged shaken from a Qantas 727 after a crash landing last night. The drama unfolded at 11:38pm when the four engined aircraft was trying to land in a thunderstorm.

It is believed the aircraft scraped the engine on the runway damaging the propellor. Qantas officials had the aircraft towed to the far side of the airport to keep people away.

A Qantas spokesperson Belinda downplayed the incident, saying that there was a minor technical problem on landing. Passengers, however, tell a different story.

Brian Smythe, 31 from Redcliffe described the drama. "It was rough and there was all this noise and then a huge bang. I though we were going to die." He was visibly shaken and hugging his wife Linda who was too distraught to talk. "It has just ruined our holiday. I am just lucky to be alive."

This is the latest in a string of safety scares to strike the Qantas fleet over the past few years, prompting calls for a full investigation into allegations of cost cutting in the national carrier.

The Civil Aviation Authority is investigating the incident.


See if the NT news can better that one ;)
Sadly, they probably will. :(

Ray Dar
20th Feb 2003, 07:16
Hey Stallie,

You're actually going to submit that to the editor for your evening edition aren't you !!

The Voice
20th Feb 2003, 09:34

My goodness me .. LOOOONG time no see : sad, but very true your 'pretend' commentary - all you could see on the news on Ch9 formerly that fine upstanding ch8 .. was the red blotch of the tail exposed from one of the fighter bunkers!

BRA I believe stands for Bomb(er) Replenishment Area ... I seem to recall that from my days on the field ...

20th Feb 2003, 22:13
NT News version (bottom of page 5)

"A QANTAS Boeing 737-300 carrying 79 passengers damaged runway lights when landing at Darwin Airport on Wednesday night.

Flight QF760 from Adelaide to Darwin landed in rasiny conditions about 10pm and drifted to one side of the runway, damaging the runway lights.

A QANTAS spokeswoman said the aircraft was not damaged and that all passengers disembarked the aircraft safely with no injuries.

Emergency srevices and engineers were pressed to the aircraft.

Darwin International Airport management refused to take calls from the NTN yesterday, saying it was a Qantas public relations issue.

It could not be confirmed whether the damaged runway lights have been repaired....."

See, not a croc in site :rolleyes:

compressor stall
20th Feb 2003, 22:19
Dammit - 10 pax out. I'll have to recheck my sources.:p

21st Feb 2003, 00:26

Qantas jet veers off runway

A Qantas jet veered to the edge of the runway after landing in heavy rain at Darwin airport on Wednesday night, authorities said.

Flight QF 760, had just carried 79 passengers from Adelaide to Darwin, when the incident occurred at around 10pm (CDT).

"After touchdown the aircraft moved to the right hand side of the runway, damaging several runway lights," a Qantas spokeswoman said.

"It was quickly brought back to the centre line of the runway.

"The aircraft stopped on the taxiway and was inspected by the rescue firefighter service."

The Boeing 737-300 was declared safe and the passengers allowed to leave the aircraft.

No-one was injured.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said it was investigating the incident.

"At about 10pm a Qantas flight inbound was landing and it hit some runway lights, crept off the runway - we're not 100 per cent sure of the exact details," an ATSB spokesman said.

"We understand there was a fierce storm at the time.

"... It did go onto the grass, the (wheels) went onto the grass."

The ATSB was studying the aircraft's flight data recorder, with the investigation into the incident likely to take several weeks.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) said investigations were underway into the incident.

"It veered off to the right and left the runway," spokesman Peter Gibson told AAP.

However, he said it was unclear whether the aircraft veered onto grass, or onto the taxiway.

There were a number of possible reasons for the incident, Mr Gibson said.

"A wet runway is the obvious first conclusion you might sort of jump to because ... there was rain in the area," he told ABC radio.

"Aquaplaning is one possibility, but there are lots of others."

Darwin runway is grooved, so light rain would not cause aquaplaning, he added.

"It's possible but it could have been a mechanical failure on the aircraft, it could have been a ... sideways gust of wind on the aircraft, a number of factors need to be looked at.

"That's why there ... are three investigations going on into the incident."

Mr Gibson said Qantas had made a number of changes to their procedures for landing in wet conditions since a jet overshot a Bangkok runway three years ago.

In September 1999, a Qantas Boeing 747-400 jet was damaged after it overshot a runway in Bangkok, Thailand, in heavy rain.

"Qantas has made a lot of changes to their procedures ... so therefore they are in a much better position to deal with monsoonal downpours than they may have been in the past.

"Qantas is certainly very well prepared for these sorts of contingencies, something clearly went wrong," Mr Gibson said.

©AAP 2003

21st Feb 2003, 02:16
And the 747 flight with engine vibrations...

The newsreader intro: blah blah midair drama blah blah "an engine exploded" blah blah

Just what the public needs :mad:

21st Feb 2003, 07:37
Aircraft landed just before the 73 and had no probs,although it was reasonably heavy rain,hardly a "fierce storm",although weather moving through at the time,not unusual for DN this time of year.Apparently another 73 arrived at HWS around the same time,and when told to hold,advised that they only had around 45 mins fuel(rather nervously).DN had TEMPO all day!!!!!!!

21st Feb 2003, 09:23
I have no idea about the goings on at darwin that day , but the term "apparently" does not constitute FACT. and of course Tempo doesn"t mean u need 60 minutes.

Capt Fathom
21st Feb 2003, 09:49
and of course Tempo doesn"t mean u need 60 minutes
Well..enlighten us..what does it mean then?

MIss Behaviour
21st Feb 2003, 11:52

A classic piece of vintage ''journalism'' there!

I want to know when the 72 grew an extra donk or was that prop!!!

It would bring a tear to the eye of Messrs Pratt & Whitney. So much for JT8D's!

Btw that wasn't an incident at Tulla circa 1986 was it? :p :p

21st Feb 2003, 12:19
Capt Fathom,

how about holding an alternate from the MAPT

Capt Claret
21st Feb 2003, 13:41
Had a TEMPO on YBAS the other day, reducing viz from 10km to about 7km and cloud to about 4000 AGL. No operational requirements at all.

21st Feb 2003, 22:14
Off the runway to the right, Port engine and wing damaged???


21st Feb 2003, 23:50
TEMPO has absolutely nothing to do with 60 mins holding fuel. It is simply a statement indicating a temporary change in weather from the general weather statement.

Different aircraft have different alternate minima depending on the equipment onboard and serviceable. If the tempo, or general weather for that matter is below that that then 60/30 or an alternate may be required.

Transition Layer
22nd Feb 2003, 01:49
Does that mean Qantas is immune from the requirement to carry TEMPO fuel if Thunderstorms are forecast (which I'm assuming was the case given the weather recently)? If the TEMPO wasn't thunderstorms then ignore what I'm about to say.

According to the regs, regardless of the actual weather conditions associated with the Thunderstorms, TEMPO fuel is required.

Jepp ATC300 3.2.5 - "When thunderstorms or their associated severe turbulence or their probability is forecast at the destination, sufficient fuel must be carried to permit the aircraft to proceed to a suitable alternate or to hold (30mins or 60mins)."

So even if the weather wasn't actually forecast to go below alternate minimums, the sheer fact that there is TS forecast places a requirement for holding and/or alternate fuel.

Or am I missing the point?


22nd Feb 2003, 03:37
RENURPP - up north when people refer to a tempo they are invariably refering to one which involves thunderstorms i.e. CB BKN 1000 vis 3000m wind g35etc. Correct me if I am wrong but as I understand it any forcast for thunderstorms requires either, holding for the period during which the thunders are forecast (INTER/TEMPO/FM etc.) or diversion to an alternate without thunders (or any other alt requirement). It seems that the word tempo up north has become a colloquialism for tempo CBs.

Personally, in my time up North I have never seen a tempo refer to anything else but as you pointed out it can of course refer to any temp change in conditions. (if you count AS as being up north):}

22nd Feb 2003, 04:13
You are correct however if you watch the weather this time of year, with the monsoonal weather, you get tempo's for heavy showers with no mention of TS or CB. I have been here 13 yrs you do see it, I checked and Darwin today has TS on all but an example in Groote and Cairns.

TAF AMD YGTE 230010Z 0014
32010KT 9999 SCT018
INTER 0308 32015G35KT 2000 SHOWERS OF RAIN BKN008
T 30 31 32 31 Q 1007 1005 1004 1004

TAF YBCS 221628Z 1818 VRB05KT 9999 SCT025 SCT120
FM00 36010KT 9999 SCT030
T 24 25 29 30 Q 1005 1007 1007 1005

and Coen

BKN040 SCT120
T 24 27 29 30 Q 1008 1009 1008 1007

I am neither supporting not having fuel, nor having a go at the pilot concerned, as I don't recall the TAF/TTF on the day. My reply was to the fact that a previous post suggested that Tempo in it self required an aircraft to carry 60 hdg.

Personally I try were possible to have 60 even if its not forecaste, especially at night time.

22nd Feb 2003, 11:39
anyone read todays NTN(sat)??

Brilliant reading :rolleyes: the usual stuff "there was a loud bang, we thought we were all going to die blah blah"

howard hughes
22nd Feb 2003, 12:19

Just wondering where the alternate for Darwin from the mapt could be, with only 45 minutes fuel remaining?

Could it be Noonamah? to arrive with appropriate reserves intact.

Cheers HH:D

23rd Feb 2003, 08:56
For the guys who are quoting the definition of Tempo like they just learnt it yesterday, you can bet your life a ‘professional’ 737 pilot (airline unknown) is not going to arrive in Darwin with bad weather forecast without the legal fuel (and then some!)

You show your own weakness by seriously thinking that another professional would allow this to occur.

Secondly, the 737 driver “apparently” said he had only 45 mins, which means there’s very little evidence that this was ever said.

And finally, what I would strongly suspect is the real situation is that the 737 driver did not rather nervously say he had only 45 minutes at all. More like ‘I can hold for 45 minutes no problem, (no sign of a quaver in the voice), AND I will then have the fuel required to divert to Tindal.’

He probably just gave ATC the heads-up that he would be gone if there was any more that 45 minutes delay.

23rd Feb 2003, 09:13
when we flew up from ADL there was a huge storm, we circled for a few minutes before being told we had to goto Kathrine to refuel.

23rd Feb 2003, 09:40
If that was directed at me, I was purposely not entering the discussion on who said what, who did what and what the refueller said, leave that up to you guys.

I was more interested in the comments regarding what tempo means and when holding fuel is required. It ididn't appear to be understood, and if I am incorrect I hope some one will point it out to me!

Only a complete investigation will tell why "a professional’ 737 pilot" ran off the runway or what ever happened.

Near Miss
23rd Feb 2003, 11:33
Maybe he spilt his coffee on his leg on touch down. Or was trying to answer his mobile. Or am I the only one that does that? :D

23rd Feb 2003, 22:02
This "tempo" stuff is getting boring. If the crew had 45 mins before they had to go some where else ,then they had bucketloads of fuel, do the maths ie THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THE 60 MINS without alternate.And if they had Tindal (maybe Tempo TS there aswell) they would have been drowning in the stuff. Some should just sit on there hands and think before diving onto your keyboards for a bit of crew bashing.

Transition Layer
23rd Feb 2003, 23:17
Ditto RENURRP...

I was merely entering the discussion on TEMPO fuel, because I found it interesting and it's good to thrash out the regs every now and then. Had the very same discussion with two company pilots yesterday while they were planning an IFR flight.

My reference to QF was simply that they may have been in some way exempt from that holding fuel because of other contingencies that they may have in place. No way considering they were unprofessional - that is just a joke.

As for "quoting it like i learnt it yesterday" - no way i knew that off by heart! I just grabbed the Jepps and put in the correct definition to remove any doubts.



24th Feb 2003, 02:33
Yours is the first intelligent comment so far. Thanks.

The 737 Captain involved in the landing is an experienced guy who has been around the block a few times. Landing in the tropics in wet weather is nothing new to him. The comment about the spilled coffee is p*ss weak.

24th Feb 2003, 02:50
there was very little to nothing intelligent about his post.

Some of us were simply discussing Tempo, you will not find anything in my post suggesting that the pilot did or did not have enough fuel. I have no idea just as you don't. Myabe we should have started another post so as not too offend you precious little 737 drivers.

Nice to see your loyalties to your work colleagues but get real.

I agree about the spilt coffee comment but take it in the vane it was posted.

24th Feb 2003, 04:47
saw tjb being ground tested when we departed on tab for perth on saturday, is it long before it gets flying again???

24th Feb 2003, 05:13
Pity it was a 737. A pack of Qantas 747 w**kers pushed in front of us and a United crew at customs at Sydney earlier this week. When asked why the QF Captain curtly replied "Because we're Australia's national carrier" To a man we were too stunned to reply:confused:

24th Feb 2003, 09:05
Tross, I'll admit a poor reply but are you guys enrolled for the 'smart gate'. I've also pushed in front of crew waiting to be processed- mainly because we process ourselves these day and as AUSTRALIAN crew (rather than the 'other' comment) can take care of ourselves.

24th Feb 2003, 22:06
Tross, even if it wasn't smartgate, our paperwork is usually processed ahead of our arrival, so it is normally a case of walking staight through (not pushing to the front to be processed).I admit there is the odd person out there that can be embarrasing with offhand comments such as u quoted.

Waste Gate
24th Feb 2003, 22:12
I'll clarify this once and for all.

1. You don't require 60 mins holding fuel for a TEMPO unless the temporary deterioration is below the alternate criteria.

In most cases, QF aircraft use the special alternate criteria (SLAM). Even if tempo wx is below SLAM, it only creates an operational requirement to +/- 30 mins ETA for a TAF, or without the buffers for a TTF. You can hold until the operational requirement ends. That might not be smart, but it is legal.

2. Thunderstorms do require an alternate. However, when they are forecast as being TEMPO or INTER, holding fuel meets the requirement. That is, there is no requirement for an alternate for temporary or intermittent TS, unless insufficient holding fuel was available.

I can assure you that no one in QF would plan to Darwin at this time of year without TEMPO fuel, regardless of the forecast, preflight.

Furthermore, these requirements are not unique to QF. Check your AIP and you'll see that they apply equally to all IFR aircraft.

WG. :cool: :cool:

24th Feb 2003, 22:55
Lucky DRW is a 60M wide RWY - 90+ percent of the other RWYs the B737 operates into would be 45m or less.

A 45M Rwy would have given this story a different ending.

25th Feb 2003, 00:30
So what happens in QF in a case like this? Sim or base training, demotion, ground school? Does AIPA buy into it? What is distributed to the troops so all can learn?

Dog One
25th Feb 2003, 08:03
Its gone. Broke out of the rain on final for 29 and the FRA hangar was empty. Apparently the undamaged (according to a QF spokesperson NT News) 737 is back on line.

luna landing
25th Feb 2003, 10:54
I heard about this B737 from an Air Traffic Controller before reading this forum and he said "a QF 737 landed in the dirt short of the runway, then took out all the lights down the side for xxx metres." Got such a shock, couldn't remember how far he said - sorry. I just had a mental picture of the rat landing in a cloud of dust....

Capt Claret
25th Feb 2003, 13:38
No dust in DRW this time of year ....... just mud! ;)

Life as a journey
26th Feb 2003, 19:42
"I'll clarify this once and for all..."

Same goes for the other genius responses.

Have you all come fresh out of flying school?

Nothing wrong with being wet behind the ears, but have a little humility!