Qantas Heavy Landing At Sydney?

[airsupport]

Channel 9 are "reporting", that a Qantas B747 arriving in Sydney from Singapore this morning, did a heavy landing causing wheel fires.

Luckily no serious injuries.

[airsupport]

Now there are some more details on my earlier story...........


Two Qantas passengers injured in emergency landing

The Age
July 2 2003


Two passengers were slightly injured after a Qantas jumbo jet made an emergency landing and was evacuated at Sydney airport this morning.

Police said the right hand side wheel of QF6 from Singapore caught fire and passengers were evacuated down the emergency chute.

"The plane was evacuated using the chute, all the passengers came down the chute," she said.

"Two passengers sustained injuries during that procedure, one has been taken to Prince of Wales Hospital," she said.

All the passengers were undergoing "disaster victim register" to ensure everybody has been accounted for, she said.


A passenger on the flight, Jasper Byrne, 27, said there was panic on the plane when they were told to evacuate.

"People were literally crying when they got off," Mr Byrne told AAP.

"Someone was having an asthma attack when she got off."

He said about 10 to 20 people at the rear of the plane had to exit via the emergency shute although Mr Byrne said he was lucky and didn't have to because he was seated near the front of the plane.

"It was quite traumatic really, definitely for the older people I think," he said.

The passengers were not told why they had to evacuate and he said they could not tell that anything was wrong from inside the plane although from outside he said "we could see something".

Charles Knight, 44, from Sydney's northern beaches was waiting for his sister's family to arrive when he first heard media reports that something was wrong.

He said his brother-in-law phoned him to let him know everything was okay but other people waiting were "really worried".

"I think there are some really worried people here and I think it's quite unnecessary for that to be the case," he said.

It was more than an hour after his brother's phone call before the airport made any announcement that there had been a problem with the flight which originated in Frankfurt.

- AAP

[Critical Reynolds No]

The poor misguided Joe- Public. You'd think the thing crashed.
Thanks Oz media.

[bitter balance]

Just watched Michael Sharp from QANTAS rip into Sky News for their reporting of the incident. In particular he was cranky about their reporting of emergency landing, heavy landing, injuries etc He was on the line during the report and when they crossed to him he let fly.

[Three Bars]

Tuned in to the 9.00 am Sky News report to hear this response from Michael Sharp. Funnily enough, it wasn't there. Instead I heard:

"The landing gear burst into flames after making an emergency landing" - doesn't sound anything like the reported smoke coming from the gear after arriving at the gate.

"The Captain sounded the fire alarm" - I can't remember a "fire alarm" on the 744.

The passengers were evacuated through the side doors" - as oppposed to the front and back doors?

Ah yes, it's good to see that journalism standards regarding aviation incidents (by some organisations) has maintained its usual standard. While this was undoubtedly, a significant safety-related event, it in no way justifies this type of sensationalist reporting.

:* :* :*

[sprocket]

Not being familiar with airliner disembarking procedures, can somebody explain why the chutes etc were used? Did the crews use the chutes as well?

Someone with calm disposition maybe?

[Wheeler]

Probably not connected, but something big and quite low went over the southern suburbs just after 5 today, spooling up and down. Woke quite a few of us up. Maybe just a visual approach or something, cloud was quite low.

[Pimp Daddy]

I liked the passenger reports of the fire engines spraying water on the brakes - last thing I was taught to do with a brake fire/overheat.

Water + hot brake = bang

Dry powder was the go IIRC

sprocket - I guess that the crew decided it was an evacuation as opposed to a precautionary disembarkation so ordered the fun park deployed.

I have to say I've always been a bit concerned about ever having to ride the upper deck slide, looks like a bit too much fun for me.

[Cap10 Caveman]

Two passengers were slightly injured after a Qantas jumbo jet made an emergency landing

I'm curious as to whether the crew had some sort of psychic ability and knew there would be a fire AFTER landing, therefore making an emergengy landing essential?

When will the w*nkers be filtered out of the media?

[Sperm Bank]

Be interesting to see the facts as they are produced. An evacuation is a big call so they must have assumed the problem to be of significant importance.

[airsupport]

A Qantas spokesperson, was just saying on Sky News, that Qantas fully backed the decision to evacuate the Aircraft, in the interests of safety.

He also said that the only injuries were caused by a slide that did not operate properly.

[HotDog]

Pimp Daddy, I think you will find that water mist spray is the norm for brake fires these days after the fusible plugs have deflated the tire. Especially carbon brakes on the
-400.

[Pimp Daddy]

I think you will find that water mist spray is the norm for brake fires these days after the fusible plugs have deflated the tire. Especially carbon brakes on the

Thanks for that - been a long time since I did fire training as a young fella.

[HotDog]

been a long time since I did fire training as a young fella

Me too and as far as I knew water on brake fires was a no no until I was involved in a V1 abort at Haneda many years ago. We taxied off the active and all main wheels deflated with brakes glowing red hot which the Japanese fire crew promptly doused with water. I got somewhat upset and filed a report but in reply it was pointed out that water mist was the suitable extinguishing agent for brake fires. I am presuming of course that the QF wheel/wheels were deflated?

[Master of the House]

In the article above it states "The plane was evacuated using the chute, all the passengers came down the chute," she said, but then in the same article, "He said about 10 to 20 people at the rear of the plane had to exit via the emergency shute although Mr Byrne said he was lucky and didn't have to because he was seated near the front of the plane."

What the??? nice reporting...

[Prop's ????]

I really don’t understand your problem. The thread was supposed to report on a B747 having a wheel fire.

I have just spent 5 minutes reading a hole lot of bull$hit.

Come on, the media is useless when it comes to aviation incidents.

My point is, most of us know this fact. Why do we have to keep submitting the garbage they spread?

Question: Was the gear on fire before the landing? Why was it an emergency landing?

Most average laymen think this way, don’t they?

:8 :8 :8 :8 :8 :8 :8 :8 :8

[huan hung lo]

Agreed Props!

I am surprised that those idiots covering this story were not able to work in a hijacker scenario.

Come on you journalistic ****wits where's your sense of adventure!

[ferris]

Of greatest concern to me is this "What happens in an emergency deployment of the slide raft or the chute is that obviously not all of them necessarily work the way you want them to," Qantas aircraft operations executive general manager David Forsyth said courtesy theage site
Is it just me, or does that strike people as a stupid thing to say? I would expect the safety equipment to work!

[airsupport]

Far be it for me, to even presume to know, what the Qantas aircraft operations executive general manager meant. ;)

However, he may be trying to say that there are more than enough chutes/rafts on board each Aircraft, to allow for the fact that sometimes some of them may not work properly.

In the same way that one would hope that they have more than enough fire extinguishers, and oxygen bottles etc on board. :D

[Pimp Daddy]

More morons in the media. This time Ch10

Some 12 hours after the fact you wouldn't think they would be reporting "a fire in the brake compartment of the nose gear".

[R555C]

someone might be able to answer why the aircraft did not use more than idle reverse thrust? Having spoken to a retired cathay 747 cap, he said that no mater what the Wx they would always give the reverse a good workout.

Im not sure if he is correct, but why do QANAS seem to have the procedure of not using reverse at higher settings than idle? ESP when the runwat is wet?

[sprocket]

R555C: Would a noise curfew prevent the pilots from using a higher reverse setting ?

[Kaptin M]

Was it an emergency landing, in addition to the brake overheat?

[Transition Layer]

I dare say Sprocket has hit the nail on the end considering the aircraft landed at 5.15am EST, presumably one of the flights each week that has a dispensation to land between 0500 and 0600 local.

Although the Jepps do say "Pilots of aircraft (during the curfew period) must use the minimum reverse thurst necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft."

It then goes on to say that certain paperwork is to be lodged when greater than idle reverse is used, blah blah...

TL

[Flying Bagel]

Apparently it was a normal landing, and as spoken of, sans reverse thrust. It was a ground engineer that noticed smoke from the wheels when the plane pulled into the gate.

[Waste Gate]

R555c & others:

It is normal procedure to use idle reverse for arrivals during the curfew.

Also, the wear characteristics of carbon brakes are such that they wear less when using idle reverse. That was one of the arguments for the Flap25/idle reverse policy. . .less brake wear!! :confused:

Crew discretion not withstanding, it would be normal to use idle reverse on a wet 34L during the curfew - I mean, it's hardly a limiting runway.

WG.

[DutchRoll]

Just saw it on the evening news & the media seems to have settled down a little bit. Of course they chose to interview only the most traumatized little old ladies. Bummer of a time to have a brake or wheel well catch fire (or appear to catch fire).

The skipper of the QF1 in Bangkok was criticized because he didn't do an emergency evac. This skipper will probably be criticized because he did. Damned if you do - damned if you don't, it seems. But for anyone to have a go at him at this early stage is drawing a rather long (and unfair) bow. Hope he gets a fair go.

The video seemed to show all slides operated normally, but one at the back deflated at some point. Sh** happens, I guess. Remain, block & redirect! Let's hope the bloke with the knee graze and torn jeans doesn't feel the need to sue for 'infliction of physical & psychological trauma'.

R555C: Use of greater than idle reverse thrust during Sydney curfew (arrivals before 6am). Refer DAPS or Jeppesen charts. Not saying that you absolutely can't use more if you must, but it's strongly discouraged. This is a regulatory requirement, not a QF one.

[Bus Tie Breaker]

The facts from someone who was involved.
The aircraft arrived as QF006 from SIN at 0510 onto the gate after carrying out a normal landing during which only idle thrust reverse was used (due to curfew requirements).
Upon arrival at the gate the crew informed engineers that they had high brake temps in the body gears. The aerobridge was cleared to dock and the ground engineers checked the gear due to high temp report and some smoke from the brakes (which is quite common on this aircraft type). The engineers saw flames from one of the brakes and asked the techies to turn the beacons back on to alert ramp staff to clear the area, and informed crew of fire on brakes. The crew asked for confirmation of fire and groundies replied confirmed and no further communication took place. Obviously the crew initiated an evac as the slides appeared and the passengers deplaned in a totally chaotic manner.
Some slides did not operate simply because the were still disarmed (for the normal arrival) and weren't re-armed before opening the doors. The slide at door 3R did deploy but for reasons yet to be established it deflated a short time after.
The questions that need to be asked here are Why did the crew initiate a total evac without firstly gaining more information from ground crew and why was the evacuation process carried out so badly?
For info, a brake fire on arrival is not a major situation. Generally it is grease, oil and dust that catches fire and can be easily extinguished if it doesnt extinguish itself. I believe in this situation the whole fiasco would have been avoided if the tech crew had asked the groundies if an evac was necessary. Hopefully QF will learn from this and procedures will be changed to enable more input to the crew before they make a rushed un-informed decision.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

BTB, the trouble with asking the ground crew if an evacuation is required is that the particular ground crew may have no knowledge of the different ways an aircraft may be emptied and hence may give the crew misleading information. it is not the groundcrew's job to decide that, just give timely and accurate advice.

Dutchroll, hit it on the head... the Captain in this particular situation is damned both ways.

After QF 1, Qantas pilots were told to err on the side of caution where smoke was concerned.

If indeed what BTB relates is the actual chain of events, i.e. a fire is reported with little clarification, the captain is in a invidious position.

This is the first evacuation called on a QF aircraft in living memory. The fact that it occurred at the worst possible time, at the gate after the doors had presumably been ordered disarmed, may go some way to explaining why it didn't go smoothly.

I also wouldn't mind betting that some stilletto heels has some role in the deflation of that slide.

[slim]

BTB, the techies had all the information they needed from the groundies, i.e. the fire in the gear was confirmed. To quote the 747 operations manual for Brake or Wheel Fire (On Ground) "Request confirmation or assistance to determine actual presence of fire. Request fire crew assistance. If fire confirmed from either aircraft and/or external sources CARRY OUT PASSENGER EVACUATION NON-NORMAL PROCEDURE." The Captains decision was completely in accordance with the 747 emergency procedures and I dare say if he had failed to follow them he would be hung out to dry by the company, the lawyers and the media You are obviously not a techie BTB nor have you seen how quickly a gear fire can develop into something more serious. Have a nice day.

[DutchRoll]

BTB, a bit harsh at this early stage don't you think?

Has there ever been an 'orderly' evacuation using escape slides at 5am after a 20 hour (plus turnaround in Singapore) trip? I've seen the videos of the experiments done in the UK on passenger evacuations some years ago, using money as the incentive to get out quickly. They were complete chaos - and the passengers knew they were in no danger at all!

Call me crazy, but I'm giving the crew the benefit of the doubt. If the investigation shows they screwed up, only then do I reserve the right to change my mind.

[rockarpee]

You are quite right Dutchroll, in fact with a full aircraft during an evac pax fatalities ARE expected.

[Hudson]

But if the touch-down speed was correct for weight, and the runway well in excess of that required for landing (wet), then if use of idle reverse is automatically going to cause a potential for red hot brakes, it seems to me that this very much a flight safety issue - meaning that stuff the curfew, use of normal reverse thrust is the prerogative of the captain.

If he chooses to accept the hot brake risk over keeping the noise down at curfew time - maybe someone needs to review the priorities. Are hot smoking brakes considered normal in the 747? Or is that the result of automatic brakes being on for all landings - rather than for specific conditions?

I have not flown the 747 hence this is a general airmanship observation - not anything else.

[Buster Hyman]

Well, in future, I guess any crew using more than idle reverse can refer to this incident in his/her paperwork, and that should be enough justification. I find it bizarre, having lived under flight paths all my life, that some punters sleep in a swinging electorate, can be allowed to compromise the decision process of any crew in a critical stage of flight!:mad:

As for this incident, I found it strange, as a ground staff member, to see all chutes deployed at the gate, but if the QF ops manual, as quoted, is company policy, then good on him/her for doing exactly what they are trained to do! Litigation is just such a wonderful thing, at least the crew should be able to defend their actions.

As for the faulty chute, I'd put money on someone's too expensive to leave on the aircraft shoes for this.:rolleyes:

[SeldomFixit]

BTB - I find absolutely no fault with your report of events. very hard to given you appear to have been there, perhaps even involved. What you cannot assert however is that the crew would ask you if you considered an evacuation necessary. That HAS to be the commander's call after quickly digesting the information he has available. What I don't understand is why the off wing slides were deployed ( the one that did in any case ) if a brake fire, obviously thought to have been serious enough to prompt an evac, had been confirmed ?
I've seen one brake fire, and it was a storm in a teacup, so to speak. A small amount of grease on fire can "look" far worse than it is and is easily contained if approached in accordance with accepeted fire fighting norms and a healthy respect for very hot wheels. I'm sure statistics would support this too.
Slim is a little harsh I feel, perhaps it's the brother mason in him, who knows.
The CEO of the airport corporation had his foot out of his mouth just long enough to be quoted as saying that the fire was associated with the nose gear, during a radio interview early after the event.
In any case, the usual suspects are all here. World class mediocrity in how events are reported coupled with a dash of " ****** " by those having to explain the way it went down. Another day at jet city.

[Aussierotor]

Its a live and learn situation.The ground crew had probably never experienced such a problem before.
How many times do you see racing cars pit with brakes on fire and no one gives it a second thought.
A quick peek to see if its being fueled by anything--oil etc is all thats needed ,and surely there would be a handy fire extinguisher to give it a squirt if so desired.
Leaving Sydney a few weeks ago the emergency thing went off when we were being pushed out from the terminal---------electrical fault and no one seemed alarmed.If it was at 25,000ft i for one would have had skidmaks,but after a succesful landing and at the terminal i would have kept reading my book.
If they had mentioned a small brake fire things may have been different,but with the world full of weido,s ,everyones thoughts go to a bomb or something.

[powerbeat12]

This is not about whether or not the captain of this flight gets a fair trial for ordering an evacuation as one poster commented. Its actually quite simple really, the decision to evacuate rests with the captain. FULL STOP!

There is no argument in this instance, nor should there be....that was his best judgement at the time, a judgement that does not need to be defended in my view. He's quite entitled to make that call.

powerbeat.

[rockarpee]

Hudson this is only a comment on your post and NOT the thread, on the 767 there are 6 settings for the auto brakes. One for the rejected takeoff, and 1,2,3,4,or max for landing. The 744 is probably similar.Normal ops is a setting of 2 or 3 for a normal landing even with idle reverse(runway length permitting).Under normal conditions the consideration of RED HOT brakes is not an issue,and even smoking brakes, which are not uncommon, aren't considered a major drama,on a wet day steaming brakes are fairly common. Autobrakes are normal ops and do a better more efficient job of stopping the aircraft than manual braking. As far as the incident today, it will all come out in the wash.Forget the media reports!!!

[Traffic]

Just imagine if this had happened in the so-called 3rd World and some poor unsuspecting soul had taken a fire extinguisher to the problem and ruined a slow news day for the journos.

[Kaptin M]

Overheated brakes may also result from a binding brake or brakes, or persistent use of brakes during prolonged taxi-ing....but you ALREADY knew that!

[yowie]

Does it really matter why the brakes were on fire?The one consistent story coming through is that the ground crew CONFIRMED that there was a FIRE!
Does it really matter if the ground crew got it wrong?That one will come out in the wash!
I havent seen a QRH for a 747,but I figure that there is an Emergency Evac procedure for ANY fire,as is pointed out in previous posts,therefore the Captain(and crew) are obliged to carry out the appropriate checklist,and if that says evacuate,then get everyone the hell out of there and worry about the paperwork later.:}
I dont know about the rest of you,but fire scares the absolute :mad: out of me!

[DutchRoll]

Well, I'm not normally inclined to post such info on the Net, but to settle any arguments, here it is verbatim straight from the actual, sitting in front of me, 747-400 ops manual written by Boeing and used by QF..................

'It should be stressed for persistent smoke or a fire that cannot be POSITIVELY CONFIRMED to be COMPLETELY EXTINGUISHED, the earliest possible descent, landing, AND PASSENGER EVACUATION should be accomplished.' (caps for emphasis only)

Case dismissed. Costs awarded against media and any other doubters.

[ferris]

Just wish someone (eg. a QF spokesman would have been good, instead of the bs that was reported) had taken the opportunity to ram home to the public that the Noise Nazis can actually affect safety. Wouldn't it be good if you saw the bosses on tele saying "right, that's it, no more 'quiet landings', cross wind ops etc. it's safety first from now on"?

[Sperm Bank]

Dutchy what does it (QRH) say for the position of the flaps during evac? On the 73 it states speed brake to stow and flaps full down to assist with pax movement over the wing, no slides of course. The QF a/c appears to have flaps up and this may well have caused the slide to deflate, although a pair of stilettos sounds a better cause.

Not many evacs go exactly accordinng to plan so I say well done to the lads/ladies involved. Someone mentioned it was total chaos during the evac. Yep, sounds normal to me.

[Keg]

Seldomfixit, just some information regarind your query about why the overwing exits were used.

Once the Captain orders the evacuation, he has zero control over which doors are used. The thinking is that the crew member in that area is better able to assess whether or not the door is safe to open or not. This is exactly as it should be. In this case, I'd suggest that the overwing primary looked out, saw no fire (only smoke from an undetermined origin) and opened the door. Procedure followed with good result.

With a precautionary disembarkation though, the Captain CAN nominate which doors we are going to leave via- IE, we have a bit of time on our side and so we can take it a bit easier and so the Captain may elect to use doors on one side of the aircraft to keep passengers under control and so on.

Saw a news report this morning about the crew not getting people to take heels off before getting on the slide. Just what you want when you're trying to empty an aircraft in the shortest amount of time- policing and stopping people at the door for still having heels on. If they tried that with the person in front of me they'd still be going out!! :eek: Still, good to see the journo's maintaining their high standards! :rolleyes: :yuk: :*

[Kaptin M]

"Once the Captain orders the evacuation, he has zero control over which doors are used."

Are you sure about that, Keg?
If so, it must be QANTAS policy, as it's not the same for other airlines with which I'm familiar.

[Keg]

G'day Kap. Yep, absolutely sure. It is different for a precautionary disembarkation where the Captain nominates the slide/door to be used but on an evac, the door primary is considered the best judge of whether the door is 'safe' to open or not. Again, you want everyone off as quick as possible and nominating a side (which a crew member may assess as NOT being suitable for reasons unknown to the tech crew) can cause all sorts of ramifications. Besides that, I thought it was a Boeing procedure?!?!? I'll have to follow up on that one!

Still, great job. No major injuries is just fantastic.

[fire wall]

I did not see the Television footage so could someone please confirm that this was a 400 and not one of the classics. It does come as a surprise to see the carbon brakes on a 400 get to such temperatures on a long runway with low ambient temperatures and after what was probably an 8 hour flight (no heat sink) even with the application of idle reverse............. but would be par for the course on a classic with steel brakes without the use of reverse.
Are we all just assuming it was a 400?

[Kaptin M]

Thanks Keg. My training from several other Boeing operators wrt evacuations, has been that the tech crew will advise which exits are NOT to be used (which is more expedient, and less confusing, than running through the list of usable ones), as THEY may be in a position to know where there is a potential hazard eg. fire....esp. a brake fire....which cannot be detected from an overwing observation, or the smoke from which may be blown across to the opposite side, thus giving a false indication to the cabin crew.
However, the cabin crew will determine which exits of the remaining usable ones are suitable (ie. those that the tech crew have NOT said were unsafe) by first checking outside. In that case, the F/A's may decide to block further exits.

"Take off your shoes, and leave EVERYTHING behind". Hmmm, I wonder how many bothered to pay attention when this was told to them at the pre-flight briefing - or how many were even LISTENING/WATCHING.
This is a good lesson in how ONE pax, wearing high heels, or carrying a sharp/semi sharp object down a slide can then stuff it up for those following.

[DutchRoll]

S/B

There's no item relating to flaps or speedbrake in the Passenger Evac non-normal. The overwing slides on the 400 should operate fine either way. I guess they'll find out soon enough whether it was due to a defect, or a suspiciously stilletto sized puncture.

Talking of passengers reluctance to follow crew instructions if it means leaving their Chanel No 5 behind, I noted one passenger being interviewed saying her & her kid were almost clobbered in the head by a bunch of carry on baggage some idiot just had to send down the slide.

Kap:

Keg is absolutely right about the door/slide nomination during evac. I assume it has the full concurrence of Boeing, as the ops manual has their copyright logo on the front!;)

[Waste Gate]

Sperm Bank,


Given that the A/C was shut down at the gate when the evacuation was ordered, the flaps and spoilers would have been retracted anyway. Even if they weren't, pulling the fire switches during the evac. checklist depressurizes hydraulics so the flaps remain where they were left. Had the evac. occurred on the runway, then the flaps would have been extended, but I can't remember whether that has any ramifications for the overwing slides - I've been off the aircraft for a while.

By comparison, on the 767, the inboard spoilers auto - retract when the overwing exits are opened, so I recall !!

As for heavy braking being an issue, I would be very surprised if that had any bearing on the incident. The aircraft would have been relatively light, autobrakes are used for all landings, it was a cold morning, and it is a short taxi to bay 33, where it was parked.

I think the crew did a great job - exactly what was expected of them, and a good judgement call given pressure of time vs. information gathering with reports of "fire".

[Bankstown]

Are we all just assuming it was a 400?

No, no assuming, it was Boeing 747-438 VH-OJU, manufactured in 1999 (which doesn't make it 10 years old SMH!).

[stillalbatross]

Having read both versions on the Bangkok incident. The prior to Qantas threatening the accident investigators and removing most criticisms of the airline and the post Qantas version, I sincerely hope that an impartial version of events can be printed this time around. Though I doubt it will happen. A first world democracy? Impartiality?

[WalterMitty]

And where can we get one of those, albatross?

[stillalbatross]

I dunno, I think again there will be a preliminary and then a final draft. If they recommend changes at Qantas they get sh*tcanned (for suggesting there was a problem) and if they don't then when something similar happens again they get.............. They're really only independent as far as the Govt. is still paying their wages.

[Barbers Pole]

QF engineer in Syd told me today that the ground engineers got a big surprise when they fired the slides and chucked everyone out. He didn't think it was warranted and said they had another brake fire this morning!! that quickly burnt out, not an uncommon occurence.

The F/O apparently grabbed a extinguisher off the a/c and jumped out the top slide with it tucked under his arm to go and put it out, however it caught on the slide and flipped him onto the tarmac dislocating/breaking his shoulder!!

While the captain walked off the airbridge, best to leave the heroic stuff to the fire boys!

[Bankstown]

The F/O apparently grabbed a extinguisher off the a/c and jumped out the top slide with it tucked under his arm to go and put it out

Good to see he followed his drills to the letter!

[pullock]

I am glad its not my a rse in the seat on that one!!

[Ushuaia]

G'Day Waste Gate, how's it going?

You never know, heavy braking may have been a factor. Anyone know what the wind was doing that morning? It's been southerly/westerly all week. Landing with a tailwind on 34L perhaps, plus wet runway? A -400 can take up to 15kt tail. And twr says to vacate on Golf? His weight, yeah probably not too high, but may have had an extra 7 or 8 tonnes of fuel in order to hold until after 0600 if necessary (in case southerly is greater than 15kt upon arrival). All in all, maybe a fair bit of stopping required, and idle reverse only..... Bloody nonsense this idle reverse stuff pre 0600 LCL - who are we really going to wake up when on 34L: the fish?

Should not be speculating, it'll all come out in the wash, but it behoves us all who use SYD to think carefully about this incident and learn from it. There but for the grace of God go us all. Could have been any of us there. Some good lessons will no doubt come out of it - both from techie and cabin crew points of view, me thinks.

And P.S.: My thoughts and support for the skipper and his decision to call for the evac after the fire was confirmed. Maybe they could have extinguished the fire quickly.... but maybe not? A really tough call but the right call nevertheless....

[HotPete]

Was it not a downwind landing to comply with the noise rules prior to 6 am?

... and I must disagree with the bloke who said you couldnt expect the FAs to insist on "shoes off". Struth.

[SkySista]

...the media can be relied upon for accurate information...... ;)

The newsreader on the teaser for the 6pm news on Nine here in Perth used the phrase "Qantas jumbo in an emergency landing gone wrong."

Sheesh!!! :yuk:

They didn't even know about the fire until at the gate, so why "emergency landing"?

and What exactly is an "emergency landing gone wrong"? A crash, perhaps????? :}

Geez, makes you wonder about common sense when women wear stilettoes/pointy heels on a flight...... my motto is, wear what you'd be comfortable in walking around the bush for 3 days.... just in case.... :E

SS

[pullock]

What would I feel comfortable walking around the bush in for three days.....

I want to be dressed in camoflage gear and have my trusty victorinox knife, but for some reason i just don't think I would get past the search nazis with that on:8 :8 :8

[rockarpee]

Hot pete, whether it happened or not I dont know but"High Heels Off" is a REQUIRED call during an evac...

Sorry Hot Pete just reread your post and maybe i was directing my post at the other bloke:ouch: dohhhhh!!!

[Taildragger67]

Fire wall - see the photo on the Herald website - ends of the wings turned up. She's a -400

Hot Pete - next time you're paxing, take a look at how few punters pay attention to the safety demo. No wonder they didn't think to 'remove high heels'. I agree with wearing anything you'd be happy in the bush in - also what you reckon would allow you to crawl through burning wreckage in isn't a bad plan. As for the F/A - maybe they did yell out to get heels off, but with all the panic yelling & screaming, it might not have sunk into the skull quick enough - or there was another punter behind, pushing. At the door, it's too late: 'sorry ma'am, please just stand aside in this burning fuselage and remove your heels, there's a good girl'. I think not. F/As need to be able to throw nurf balls at inattentive punters during the briefing, to get them to pay attention - or maybe ask a couple of questions afterwards to make sure all were paying attention. Now there's a thought: add a line to the briefing: 'take a look at the person sitting next to you. They might have to help you out, so make sure they're paying attention now'.

Anyway glad everyone got out and lived to play another day. Better safe than toast. If nothing else, maybe we have learnt something from that 737 in Manchester which started smoking on the ground & people died (the one where the empennage fell off). Smoke? I'm outta here!!

[Hudson]

Do the flight attendants order everyone to take off their shoes - or just those ladies that wear high heels? In a Spanair DC10 over-run accident years ago, everyone took off their shoes in response to F/A directions, and many passengers suffered severe foot injuries caused by jagged metal and burning fragments.

[pullock]

Taildragger,

smoke from wheels is a regular ocurrence, based upon your theory evacuate if smoke, SYD alone would have many evacuations each week!!

[short-field]

Has anyone heard how long it took to evacuate all the PAX and how many were on board? It would be interesting to compare this with the trials that have been done as an indication of how long it takes under a real evacuation i.e. panic, confusion, dotty old ladies in sandshoes, posh ones in stilletos...

[Hypoxic Harry]

Short Field,

The media reported all were evacuated in 90 seconds, which is what our aim was in training.

I have absolute faith in my collegues that this time frame was met.

I doubt the media know the exact time anyway.

[Taildragger67]

Pullock,

Yes you're right, smoke from hot brakes is regular occurrence and as has been noted in this thread, a couple of oil drops or a bit of dust can add to the mix. Sorry - was just adding my (sadly, seemingly ever increasing... ) weight to the 'well-done, better-safe-than-sorry' camp. Not suggesting an evac every time a bit of steam comes off the discs.

Cheers
TD67

[Traffic]

Love a pic of the F/O heading down the chute with the extinguisher (and no doubt the seniority list).

Probably has shares in Macquarie's Airport Trust and realised there were none landside, or perhaps...

Amazing what F/O's will want to be seen to be doing when there's a potential LHS cremation in the offing.

[HotDog]

Not only Qantas has brake fires but not everybody has an emergency evacuation..

AAIB Bulletin No: 11/96 Ref: EW/C96/9/2 Category: 1.1
Aircraft Type and Registration: Boeing 747-467, VR-HUE
No & Type of Engines: 4 Rolls-Royce RB211-524G turbofan engines
Year of Manufacture: 1993
Date & Time (UTC): 9 September 1996 at 0336 hrs
Location: Stand M26, London Heathrow Airport
Type of Flight: Scheduled Passenger
Persons on Board: Crew - 22 - Passengers - 387
Injuries: Crew - Nil - Passengers - Nil
Nature of Damage: Damage to No 1 wheel, tyre and brake pack
Commander's Licence: Airline Transport Pilot's Licence
Commander's Age: 48 years
Commander's Flying Experience: 13,804 hours (of which 3,424 were on type)
Last 90 days - 171 hours
Last 28 days - 21 hours
Information Source: AAIB Field Investigation.





The aircraft had previously operated a sector from Singapore to Hong Kong, following which the No 1 main wheel assembly, complete with bearings, had been changed due to tyre wear. The aircraft then operated the Hong Kong to Heathrow sector normally until, after parking on the stand and while the passengers were disembarking, a ground engineer reported a brake fire. The fire was rapidly extinguished by the ground crew. The Airport Fire Service arrived just three minutes after being called, however the fire was out when they arrived, and they then continued to monitor the situation while the disembarkation continued normally.


Inspection of the aircraft showed that a limited fire had occurred affecting only the No 1 wheel and brake. The wheel and brake pack were removed and the axle inspected, but no other damage was found. A replacement wheel and brake pack were fitted and the aircraft was returned to service. No anti-skid or thrust reverser defects were reported or found, and the runway condition had been dry. The landing weight had been calculated as 249,200 kg and medium autobrake had been used during the landing.

It was noted that the tyre was contaminated with grease which had been thrown radially outwards by wheel rotation, and that excessive grease was visible around the inner bearing. The grease had been very hot, and a quantity of old grease had accumulated around the heat shield within the brake pack assembly. The inner bearing was inspected and found to contain excessive quantities of grease which had exuded from the bearing and migrated radially outwards. There was no evidence that the grease had come from the axle, or brake pack. The replacement wheel was inspected before fitment and it was noted that excessive grease had also been packed in the associated wheel bearings. The excess grease was removed before fitting the wheel.


Both of the wheel and bearing assemblies had been overhauled by the operator. The maintenance organisation in London has advised the operator of the problem. The operator's Engineering Department had published an Advisory Newsletter in June 1996 advising that a few cases of carbon brake fires had been reported and that these were thought to be due to excessive grease application during wheel, or brake, installation. It stated: "Excessive grease may cause a fire when the brake becomes hot".

[DutchRoll]

Hudson,

'high heels off' is a required call drummed in during regular QF evac training (tech crew do the same training incidently). It gets shouted out with monotonous regularity while you're waiting for the slide to inflate.

I'd find it difficult to believe (though not impossible, I suppose) that all of the door primaries omitted this. I'd find it much easier to believe that some pax just didn't hear it in the commotion, or heard it & ignored it. Time will tell.

Shoes other than high heels shouldn't affect the slides & there's no requirement to take them off.

[Bankstown]

Love a pic of the F/O heading down the chute with the extinguisher (and no doubt the seniority list).... Amazing what F/O's will want to be seen to be doing when there's a potential LHS cremation in the offing.
I'll be less subtle this time;
The First Officer was doing EXACTLY what the procedures dictate, and good on him for that!

[*Lancer*]

Hudson, severe foot injuries are an unfortunate byproduct of the necessity to preserve the integrity of the slides.

The aircraft was definately a -400 although some of the news footage used file images of a -200.

Pulling out the Perf Manual, even at a slightly heavier weights (for unburnt holding fuel) normal autobrakes shouldn't put the temps up too high. Even max manual is about mid-range (5-6), on a scale of 9. And the brake cooling chart doesn't allocate for reverser use at all!

It's a big call, but if someone says 'fire' and there's no tenders around (it'll take them 3 minutes to get there), there aren't many alternatives...

Hope the FO (and everyone else) gets better soon!

Lancer

[Mr McGoo]

Whilst we do our Monday morning quarterbacking on this one, add in the following: Smoke from the burning brakes enters the air conditioning system via the APU. So the captain has cockpit indications of high brake temps, the ground crew says there is smoke and flames from the brakes AND we now have acrid burning smells in the airconditioning system. Definitely time to go.

[QAVION]

"Even if they weren't, pulling the fire switches during the evac. checklist depressurizes hydraulics so the flaps remain where they were left. "

Are all fire handles pulled during an evac, Wastegate? If the APU was kept running, the main engine fire handles would have only stopped pressure coming from the engine-driven hydraulic pumps. In this case, you still could have extended the flaps using pnuematic/electric power from the APU (which would have been started up when the aircraft turned off the runway) or, failing that, by electrics from the Ground Power Unit (if it had already been plugged in at the gate). Extending flaps with vehicles/personnel around would have probably been more hazardous, however.

"By comparison, on the 767, the inboard spoilers auto - retract when the overwing exits are opened, so I recall !!"

Correct. However, the 747-400 inboard spoilers appear to be well outboard of the off-wing slide (see pic below). In any case, the spoilers should have been down at the gate.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~b744er/KALtail2.jpg

Regards.
Q.

[Area 7]

Q,

Yes ALL are pulled. Apu, Engines (all). Standard proc in evac.

Area7


:cool:

[twobigtesticles]

As a matter of interest, what does the 767 (QF procedure) do for either wheel well fire on the ground(obvioulsy nil fire fighting ability from aircraft), and secondly, is there a checklist/action for BRAKE TEMP warning light? (As far as I am aware there is no BRAKE TEMP EICAS and therefore no checklist or procedure, other than monitor the Brake Temp lights 1-9 and therefore adjusting turn around time according to published charts)

[*Lancer*]

There is a Brake Temp EICAS message for the -400 but the checklist only involves action if in flight. On the ground, it's just a cooling off period.

Requiring the extention the flaps would seem a bit impractical considering the wide variety of scenarios where you may have to jump out in a hurry. It would take over 20 seconds of your evac time away, and there may not be hyraulics for it anyway (or any wheels, or the wing at all, or...) One would hope the slides are designed to operate correctly with the flaps up! :uhoh:

[balance]

Traffic. Mate, instead of running down a bloke who did his job to the letter, why don't you tell us all exactly what the FO SHOULD have done. Please! We all want to hear your incredible wisdom.

Gees I'm sick of the smart arses that pop up here....

[Parry Hotter]

As a cabin crew member I see daily how many pax simply ignore the saftey demo. The ones that are watching are usually ownly looking at the FA and not listening. I have witnessed many pax even seated in emergancy exits sit there and chat or read through the entire demo. I would say one in 100 actually really listen. I always smile, nod or give a wink to the pax that actually look around for the closest exit, feel for the life jacket or pick up and read their saftey card. That makes me feel good, that I have at least got through to one or two on board.

And as for pax ignoring the FA's commands to remove high heels, I would believe that. I have done a precautionary disembarkation once,and even after telling pax to leave bags behind, 95% of them disembarked taking their bags with them.:confused:

[Buster Hyman]

Parry. When you are finished, why not lean towards the unattentive pax in the EMEX & whisper; "That last little bit will save your life!" Then walk away...;)

I must admit to being one that does ignore you guys, I'm sorry. I've just heard it so often, that I tune out...:(

[redsnail]

Traffic,
Taking the seniority list... hahaha :D

[Waste Gate]

Testicles,

You are correct. There is no n/n checklist for high brake temps. I have seen a couple of "5s", and all that happens is the park brake is released while the brakes cool.

Above "5", take off has to be delayed for 1 hour, then brakes reinspected. If the overheat occurs after take off, extend the gear for at least 6 mins. Above "7", the good book says:

"Clear runway immediately. Unless required, do not set parking brake. Do not approach gear or attempt taxi for one hour. Tyre, wheel and brake replacement may be required. If overheat occurs after take off, extend gear soon for at least 10 mins."

"Brake temperature monitor indication on EICAS may be used 10 to 15 mins after aircraft has come to a complete stop, or inflight with gear retracted, to determine recommended cooling schedule."

This info. is out of the Perf. Lims. Manual, landing section.

Cheers.

WG.

[Silver Shadow]

WG, there seems to be a NNC "Brake Temp" in my copy... :8

[Disco Stu]

Jeez aint Pprune great. I just learnt from MrMagoo that "Smoke from the burning brakes enters the air conditioning system via the APU." Wow and I thought the APU only provided engine start bleed air, electrical and hydraulic power. I've now got no idea what the airconditioning packs do.

Perhaps MrMagoo could help me out with this one also.

Disco Stu:confused:

[Waste Gate]

Still can't find it!!

WG.

[PW1830]

Disco Stu,
Enlighten me
What is the source of bleed air for pack operation on the ground with engines shutdown?

[Disco Stu]

I was hoping MrMagoo would help me out on this one. I'm still trying to work out what an Air Cycle Machine does.

Can anyone help out on this.

Disco Stu:confused:

[Desert Dingo]

Probably the same way as your APU provides HYDRAULIC power.
Now we can all be confused.:ok:

[Kaptin M]

Turning the strobes off, saves fuel!!

Think laterally gents, Stu is testing the wits here!!:uhoh:

No APU = no AC power...and if the donks aren't turning then the hydraulics won't be flowing. No APU - no AC.

PW, Stu OBVIOUSLY omitted a "slash" from his "engine start bleed air" (it shoulda been, "engine start/bleed air").
I think the point that he (Disco Stu) was making, was that the inlet for the APU is not in the wheel well area, and that prior to being pushed into the cabin, the air is filtered and cooled via the pack being used for ground ops.

Anyone care to explain the 3rd oil line on the Dart??!!! :{

[Traffic]

________________________________________________
Traffic. Mate, instead of running down a bloke who did his job to the letter, why don't you tell us all exactly what the FO SHOULD have done. Please! We all want to hear your incredible wisdom.
_________________________________________________

Balance

I apologise if my attempt at levity has upset your sensitivities.

Assuming the report was correct, I did see the incongruity.

The a/c was at the ramp surrounded by ground crew and all the paraphanalia. The cabin staff had been trying to persuade pax to part with their hand baggage and footwear before pushing them out the doors and then someone comes out of the flight deck armed with a big red bottle of toxic BCF and proceeds out the upperdeck slide.

Perhaps the FO could have taken his shoes off and gone out the door without nursing the extinguisher. Both he (as it turned out) and everyone else would have been safer for it.

I do not question the intent only the execution.

[Mr McGoo]

OK I'll bite. On the ground with the engines shutdown, the APU normally provides the bleed air source to run the airconditioning packs. The flow of air is from ambient air to APU inlet to APU to APU bleed air to packs to cabin. Some of the news footage of QF6 showed lots of smoke around the aircraft and certainly around the APU inlet area (high up at the tail section). So I have no doubt that the APU could have ingested smoke from the brakes.

Now as for conditioned air being filtered before entering the cabin - that is true, but it does not remove all contaminents. Anyone flow near a volcanic ash cloud and smelled acrid/sulphurous fumes? Anyone had cabin crew ring up during/after start and complain of fumes in the cabin (when the wind being such that it blows the engine exhaust towards the APU inlet)? Or smelt ozone in the cabin (with storms nearby)? All examples of unusual smells being able to enter the cabin despite the air being filtered.

So could smoke from overheated/burning brakes rise up to the APU inlet travel to the airconditioning packs and enter the cabin where it is detected as an unusual smell? You betcha ya bottom dollar it can. Cheers.

[Woomera]

It is a busy little sucker ain't it.

I my cranky 'ol memory serves me right the Poms even used its residual thrust on the Trident as a EFATO power enhancement, sorta 3 1/16th engine.:uhoh:

[Knulp]

Close Woomera but not exactly correct

So an unusual decision was made. Hawker Siddeley offered a Trident 3B (Boost) model incorporating a fourth engine mounted above the central Spey jet just below the rudder. This would be an RB.162-86 engine derived from a military vertical-takeoff engine. (Perhaps the aircraft should have been renamed the Quadrant.) The boost engine offered an additional 15% thrust at takeoff for only a 5% weight penalty. It also offered 20% more total thrust with one Spey engine out of action, and therefore allowed aircraft operation from the shorter airfields commonly encountered. The boost engine was only intended for take-off and noise-abatement climbs after which it would be shut-down. As such it would only be used when combinations of runway length and temperature would otherwise prevent the Trident 3B from flying the required distance with the required payload.

Ahhh what a f :mad: horrible piece of British blacksmithing it was.

[Three Bars]

Traffic,

As part of QF's published Emergency Procedures, following the completion of the Passenger Evacuation checklist, it is the specific duty of the F/O to take the BCF extinguisher, proceed to the cabin and evacuate the aircraft via the first available exit (in this case, the upper deck slide). I can tell you from experience in the EPs trainer, that the upper deck slide is one hell of a ride!!

Therefore, your latest comment is irrelevant becuase the F/O was only doing his job as specified in company publications. Also, as others have pointed out, the command given to passengers is "High heels OFF". So unless the F/O was wearing high heels, he/she would have had no need to remove his/her footwear.

I guess there was little tech crew input wrt the photographs of the new QF uniform where the willowy female pilot is wearing a ripper set of stilettos. Good for male pilot fantasies but not really practical in the flight deck.

[YMML]

Any reason in particular that pax can actually travel wearing high heels?

I don't allow pax on board without any shoes (unfortunately I have had a few!) for exactly the reason stated above with regard to injuries during an evac. Hygiene is a close second to this.


The aircraft I fly don't have inflatable slides so I'm not too concerned about high heels in my ops. Given that we accept that sharp heels can pierce slides, and that chances are during the chaos of an evac some will not listen/hear/repond to remove them. Why not ban them?

Love to be in a life raft with someone who's shoes just popped it!!!:mad:

[SkySista]

...as I said before, I can see no reasonable explanation for wearing (pointy/sharp) heels on an aircraft other than for the looks. Sneakers or loafers would be more comfortable/practical, especially in a situation like last week. Jumping over hot jagged metal in a crash is not my idea of fun in heels and/or pantyhose. I'd much rather sneakers or boots for that. Not to mention the fluid/bloating some people get at altitude....

I know that F/As wear "chunky" heels, I've always wanted to know why when it seems to make things more difficult during an evac. What would crew define as "heels"? I can't see the F/As dumping their shoes in the middle of an evac.....

And why do most airlines insist on female F/As wearing pantyhose? From what I've read both pax and crew have sustained nasty burns in some crashes due to melting stockings.... :ugh:

Anyone know why? (Besides "It looks good"? :p )

SS

[HotDog]

We had a Tristar evacuation at Narita some years ago. One of the girls tucked the safety briefing card into her knickers before she went down the slide.:D

[amos2]

...the third oil line on the dart was only there to activate ground fine pitch!

But everybody knows that M...you're just having us on!



:p

[BabyMetroBoy]

QAVION,

That is one hell of an angle on that pic. Did you take that shot yourself? If so, how the hell did you get up there?

[QAVION]

"QAVION,

That is one hell of an angle on that pic. Did you take that shot yourself? If so, how the hell did you get up there?"

That's secret engineers' business ;)

No, nothing out of the ordinary, BMB... a scissor lift on the back of a large truck. One of the Logo lights was not illuminating and needed a relamp. Things like Cherry Pickers are required for some of the higher stuff, however (HF Tuner changes, fin tip static discharge wicks replacements, etc).

Digital cameras are useful tools. I never go to work without one :p

Cheers.
Q.

[Parry Hotter]

Skysista- I have always asked the same question regarding FA's having to wear stockings. I am guessing that it has to do with the health authorities. I know to work as a waitress or bar person, its law that you have to wear trousers or stockings, just trying to cover as much skin as possible.

[RatherBeFlying]

So what you need on the briefing card and video is a sweet young thing zipping down the slide, catching a stiletto heel and doing a backflip off the slide to a headfirst landing on the tarmac:ouch: preferably well padded for the film.

Then tell them there's no cushions when it's for real:ooh:

To really get their attention, demonstrate the knee-chest posture to be used on the slide when you're wearing stilettos:E

[SkySista]

RBF,

>>So what you need on the briefing card and video is a sweet young thing zipping down the slide, catching a stiletto heel (as opposed to a fire extiguisher? :p)
and doing a backflip off the slide to a headfirst landing on the tarmac preferably well padded for the film.<<<


I laughed my butt off reading that!!!! I'm certain it would work...

Perhaps in addition could show just how "easy" it would be trying to jump/escape from a/c wreck wearing mini-skirt, boob tube and half a ton of flammable hair spray..... honestly, the amount of girls I've seen on planes dressed like that..... :rolleyes:

Parry, never knew there were regs about that. I wonder why waitstaff etc are required to wear those... any idea what the reason is behind that reg?

SS