Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

QF A330 Emergency landing Kansai

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

QF A330 Emergency landing Kansai

Old 28th Aug 2005, 21:52
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The captain could not complete his post evac duties because he was told to stand beside the nosewheel by a JCAB goon sporting a revolver on his waist. He was held waiting there for approx three hours after this traumatic event.

That, and details of the subequent "enquiry" (read interrogation), make this entire sorry saga unacceptable in my opinion.
The_Cutest_of_Borg is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2005, 08:48
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: ---
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
while we were looking after the passengers inside the terminal after the incident while ground staff did absolutely nothing, the pilots were kept out on the tarmac with the authorities for a VERY long time, it was a very stressfull time for them all.

It sounds funny, but leaving the country isn't necessarily as stupid as it sounds, as the Captain can be held in prison for up to 28 days without being charged while the investigation continues. If there's any injuries, the Captain can be held completely responsible for them in Japan. It's a very different system over there.
OZcabincrew is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2005, 14:37
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some basic rules in Japan:

1. You are always guilty until you can prove your innocence.

2. The Japanese police are renowned for being strong against the weak and weak against the strong. They will tow away an old crippled lady's car but when the yakuza double park in Roppongi...there is not a policeman to be found.

3. Any accident or incident that happens must be at least partially attributable to you...because if you were not there it would not have happened!

4. As a foreign carrier, in such circumstances, always demand a representative from your government be in attendance when police wish to interview you. In this case the Ambassador saw it as sufficiently serious to attend...well done to him. The Australian Government should now follow up on the issues and anomolies in the Japanese system.

5. Always carry a small recording device.

The Captain is absolutely correct in refusing any Japan trips until this is sorted in writing to his satisfaction.

As someone has alluded to, the basic advice of the Japan pilots union is to have an open ticket out of the country at all times if you are aircrew living in or operating into Japan.

Finally, if the Japanese authorities will not budge on their non-conformist policies, foreign authorities should start harrassing Japanese airlines in subtle ways that will be easily interpreted as a protest against their non-conformist policies relating to
a/c incidents in their jurisdiction.

The Japanese aviation industry, as much as it detests this sytem of interference in aviation issues by the police, is powerless to do anything about it.

Change requires pressure from foreign governments at the highest level.
Traffic is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2005, 00:00
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: International
Age: 76
Posts: 1,394
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Ah Japan where the first Lexus showroom has just opened in Tokyo.

New lexus owners receive their purchase in a special 'presentation room' with wall to wall mirrors
which allows the proud owner(s) to admire themselves.

Japan is ok to visit but I would not want to work there.

China and Taiwan are also of concern to foreign pilots in the case of an incident. Jail is not appealing to me.

Incidentally the latest craze in China is naked internet chatting using webcams. A researcher has warned of the threat to public health and morality.

Apparently up to 20,000 Chinese chat each night in various stages of undress and chat while exposing themselves and performing provocative poses.

The researcher said it was thought initially that only a few mentally abnormal people indulged but the problem was much larger than expected.

I guess the QF cabin crew member found with a Japanese lass is still internet chatting.
B772 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2005, 04:53
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Singapore
Age: 63
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On a lighter note, it was great to hear Aussies flying EVA aircraft the night of the incident assisting Qantas with radio relays and wx updates. I hope the Q drivers appreciated the help.
Great airmanship lads.
Great Aussie Spirit.
aero82 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2005, 09:20
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nasaltown
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question

By all reports, the aircraft was only a couple of hours out of NRT, why would they have required "radio relays"?
They would still have had VHF contact.
Wx updates would have been available by acars, or from Tokyo CTL.
???????????????????????
Ronnie Honker is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2005, 10:38
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,282
Received 162 Likes on 83 Posts
Perhaps he had descended to a lower level in case things got 'out-of-hand'. I doubt I'd be hanging around 30 thousand feet with a cargo fire warning!
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2005, 12:07
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nasaltown
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question

Care to explain the logic behind your thinking there, Capt Fathom?
They were over water, at night.

Descending to a lower level risks putting them out of radar coverage, and decreases the chance of VHF radio reception.
It would increase the air density, erso an increase in the oxygen level (which would HELP any possible fire).
Ronnie Honker is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2005, 12:22
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Sydnet,NSW,Australia
Posts: 113
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As captain fatom stated "if things got outa hand" I think maybe it was prudent thinking with a ditching very much on the cards if fire/smoke was genuine!!!!!
rockarpee is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2005, 12:51
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nasaltown
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Red face

It IS the week-end.
It IS Saturday night!
Thank you - no further questions.
Ronnie Honker is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2005, 01:05
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ronnie.

Can I suggest you study the fire suppression requirements for ETOPS certification, before you come back with any further comments.

TAC On
TAC On is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2005, 23:15
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ronnie

I am assuming from your questions that you are an interested bystander and unable to reference a technical publication abou the subject. For your info, at first warning of Cargo Smoke/fire, Boeing's checklists ( and I assume Airbus) call for depressuriation of the aircraft and descent to 14000' or MEA/LSALT. This would be to "...reduce Cabin Differantial Pressure and resultant cargo compartment ventilation."

BTW unlikely to have VHF comms with anyone two hours out of Tokyo, even at normal cruise levels.

Cheers

Bendy
Bendy is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2005, 00:26
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
and I assume Airbus
You assume wrongly.
The_Cutest_of_Borg is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2005, 03:38
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
TCOB

You assume wrongly.
Sorry....
Bendy is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2005, 04:16
  #75 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,171
Received 24 Likes on 13 Posts
Bendy, from the FCTM

FIRE PROTECTION

Fire and/or smoke in the fuselage present the crew with potentially difficult situations. Not only will they have to deal with the emergency itself, but also the passengers are likely to panic should they become aware of the situation. It is essential therefore, that action to control the source of combustion is not delayed. Consider an immediate diversion.

SMOKE

If smoke or fumes are detected in the flight deck, the crew should immediately don their oxygen masks with 100% selected.
Smoke in the cabin should be easily identifiable and thus easier to fight. The source is identified either by a local warning, e.g. lavatory fire, or by direct observation by the cabin crew. In every case, the aim is to isolate the source of the smoke and extinguish any fire. When fighting a fire in the cabin, wear a PBE to avoid smoke inhalation.
It is not so easy to identify the source of smoke from either the air conditioning or avionics. If the source of the smoke is immediately obvious, isolate the faulty equipment without delay.
Air conditioning smoke can be transported to other cabin areas and some difficulty may be encountered in identifying the origin of the smoke. Avionics smoke requires the crew to isolate the faulty equipment, which can also be quite difficult to ascertain. There may not be any ECAM warning. If this is the case, apply the QRH procedure.
The QRH procedure is designed to cover all cases even where the source of the smoke or fumes is unknown. It should be applied if smoke or fumes is detected with or without AVNCS VENT SMOKE ECAM activation. If the AVNCS VENT SMOKE ECAM procedure is displayed, suspect avionics smoke.

The single procedure layout is organised in three steps:
  • Common actions (before the text box). These should be applied
    immediately, whatever the origin of the smoke, and before trying to identify this origin. They are designed to protect the crew, extract the smoke overboard, prevent smoke recirculation and isolate potential sources.
  • Smoke removal procedure (text box). At any time during the procedure, if dense smoke exists, the crew may apply the boxed items for smoke removal. The SMOKE REMOVAL procedure will eventually direct the crew back to complete the SMOKE/FUMES/AVNCS SMOKE procedure.
  • Specific actions to identify and isolate potential smoke sources (below text box).


CARGO SMOKE

The cargo smoke detectors are sensitive to the extinguishing agent. Therefore, even after successfully extinguishing a cargo fire, the SMOKE FWD (AFT/BULK) CRG SMOKE warning can be expected to remain. LAND ASAP in red is displayed on the ECAM. As there is no method of checking whether a cargo fire has been extinguished, divert to the nearest suitable airport.
On the ground, instruct the ground crew not to open the cargo door until the passengers have disembarked and fire services are present.
On the ground, smoke warnings may be triggered due to high levels of humidity or following spraying of a compartment to comply with quarantine regulations. If a SMOKE warning occurs on the ground with cargo compartment doors open, do not immediately discharge the extinguishing agent without first ordering the ground crew to investigate and eliminate the smoke source. If the warning is confirmed to be false, then once extinguished, it will be necessary to reset VENT CONT 1 & 2 reset buttons to restore normal cargo ventilation (FCOM 3.02.26 refers).
swh is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2005, 07:28
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bendy

Actually it would seem that not all Boeing procedures are the same.
On our 767-300 the QRH calls for cabin altitude to be set to 7500ft if the aircraft is above 10,000ft.
If the aircraft's altitude is above FL350, then a decent to below FL350 is required.
RaTa is offline  
Old 6th Sep 2005, 11:35
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nasaltown
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs down

"Boeing's checklists call for depressuriation of the aircraft and descent to 14000' or MEA/LSALT." - Bendy.

Buzzzzzzzz. Wrrrronnngggg.
Not all Boeing checklists.

"BTW unlikely to have VHF comms with anyone two hours out of Tokyo, even at normal cruise levels." - Bendy.

Double jeopardy......Wrrrronnnnnnnggg again!
VHF comms is provided for more than 4 hours flight time by
1 Tokyo Control, then
2 Okinawa Control, then
3 Manila.
Ronnie Honker is offline  
Old 6th Sep 2005, 13:37
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: back in europe
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Honker.

You show your ignorance here me old son.

A339 (MJE-CIN) which is the only route that QF79/70 ever flys (unless not ETOPS) has the following comms sequence.

Tyo Ctl (VHF) - Tyo Ctl (HF) - Naha (HF) - SFO (HF) - Ujung (128.1) - Bne...

Check your jepp chart and have a look at the FIR's

two hours out they would have been on HF, tends to relatively realatively quickly on this route.

Be VERY careful pal, the crew are well known to most in QF and are though very highly of...
fartsock is offline  
Old 6th Sep 2005, 13:49
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nasaltown
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lightbulb

..unless deviating (north) around an approaching typhoon from the S.W.

Tokyo has VHF contact on 121.5 (by relay) for several hours out.

"..thought very highly of."
By whom?
the MAS?
Mutual Admiration Society ??!!
Ronnie Honker is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2005, 02:58
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ronnie, i can tell you on this route what you say about VHF coverage is utter crap. Generally speaking you bisect Koror and the Philipines and you are at least 400miles + from Manila and not withing a bulls roar of Manila Control on VHF. Transfer to VHF is after talking to Naha on HF, then around another 45minutes to Tokyo on HF, finally followed by the last 1hr 30 minutes odd on VHF. You are lucky if you can even talk to Manila on HF for the whole 3 waypoints you pass through on a tiny triangle of their airspace!


4 hours VHF coverage on this route....ha! NOT
blueloo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.