QANTAS 744 Incident SIN-FRA 9/3/06
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: REAL WORLD
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
csm cant do it
csm's are biased. cant use them as returning officers. they would think its a union ballot. call for a doctor and in case non onboard consult medlink, much better idea.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Would've thought IFE could handle such a vote now and the results could flash up on the EICAS.
Indeed, with today's uplink capability, punters on other aircraft nearby could also be polled to see if they want a potentially dangerous aircraft in their midst.
The results could be ACARSed back to Ops and immediately published in the early-edition newspapers.
Everyone's a winner.
Indeed, with today's uplink capability, punters on other aircraft nearby could also be polled to see if they want a potentially dangerous aircraft in their midst.
The results could be ACARSed back to Ops and immediately published in the early-edition newspapers.
Everyone's a winner.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot Dog is showing one of his archive photos from the 1970's.
I saw the damage on its return to syd and it was significantly larger hole that resulted in approx 5-6 wing to body fairings replaced in syd(basically all those fairings in that photo were rooted) . This is in addition to a T/E flap torque tube and a couple of gear doors and brake lines that were replaced in FRA.
Despite the damage I agree with the crews action to complete the flight. It was mostly superficial and nothing would have been achieved by dumping fuel and turning around, there were plenty of alternatives if a problem did present itself.
I saw the damage on its return to syd and it was significantly larger hole that resulted in approx 5-6 wing to body fairings replaced in syd(basically all those fairings in that photo were rooted) . This is in addition to a T/E flap torque tube and a couple of gear doors and brake lines that were replaced in FRA.
Despite the damage I agree with the crews action to complete the flight. It was mostly superficial and nothing would have been achieved by dumping fuel and turning around, there were plenty of alternatives if a problem did present itself.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=numbskull]Hot Dog is showing one of his archive photos from the 1970's.
QUOTE]
Yes numbskull, it's certainly not the worst tyre burst incident we ever had but the only one I have a photograph of. We suffered similar damage as you have described when we lost a tyre during a MTOW take off from Dubai. Advised by tower but decided to keep going to destination without further incident. As I said, not neccessarily a big deal. Incidentally, my logbook shows the picture is from 1993 after T/O from Delhi. (HKG/DEL/DXB.)
QUOTE]
Yes numbskull, it's certainly not the worst tyre burst incident we ever had but the only one I have a photograph of. We suffered similar damage as you have described when we lost a tyre during a MTOW take off from Dubai. Advised by tower but decided to keep going to destination without further incident. As I said, not neccessarily a big deal. Incidentally, my logbook shows the picture is from 1993 after T/O from Delhi. (HKG/DEL/DXB.)
Keg,
How much do you Qaintarse guys get for each EVA?
no visible signs of damage after inspection by crew
Dollars and Cents
I presume the costs don't come into it when the captain makes his decision.
Early in the thread 100 tons of fuel was mentioned. Would it be necessary to actually dump that much to reach an acceptable landing weight?
What is the cost of 100 tons of Jet fuel?
J
Early in the thread 100 tons of fuel was mentioned. Would it be necessary to actually dump that much to reach an acceptable landing weight?
What is the cost of 100 tons of Jet fuel?
J
Jung
The aircraft probably departed at MTOW (397,200kgs) and the max landing weight of that particular aircraft is 295,700kgs. Therefore, 100 tonnes sounds like it's on the mark. Can't help you with the price of fuel in litres or kilos.
The aircraft probably departed at MTOW (397,200kgs) and the max landing weight of that particular aircraft is 295,700kgs. Therefore, 100 tonnes sounds like it's on the mark. Can't help you with the price of fuel in litres or kilos.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those of you advocating the dumping of 100 tonnes of fuel, what are the environmental costs of such action? Surely we need to take some environmental responsibility as well as safety and cost.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: expat
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually this is quite an interesting topic. Even our own (major overseas airline) manuals give conflicting advice>
From Boeing FCTM (condensed):
If the crew suspects a tire failure during takeoff, advise ATC for runway inspection. Crew should consider continuing to destination unless there is indication that other damage has occured. This will provide an opportunity to reduce weight normally and provide opportunity to plan and coordinate arrival when workload is low.
From Company Ops Manual (condensed):
Crew should be reluctant to continue the flight as damage may not show up immediately and the aircraft's condition may deteriorate during continued flight.
So there you go: you're damned if you do and damned if you don't!
From Boeing FCTM (condensed):
If the crew suspects a tire failure during takeoff, advise ATC for runway inspection. Crew should consider continuing to destination unless there is indication that other damage has occured. This will provide an opportunity to reduce weight normally and provide opportunity to plan and coordinate arrival when workload is low.
From Company Ops Manual (condensed):
Crew should be reluctant to continue the flight as damage may not show up immediately and the aircraft's condition may deteriorate during continued flight.
So there you go: you're damned if you do and damned if you don't!
Perfectly BC. But I strongly object to gratuitous condescendsion or disparagement and if you've read these columns for a while you'll know both are institutionalised in that phrase.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, let me get this straight...
we have a high speed, heavy jet transport aircraft operating from A to B with anywhere between 150 and 450 bods on board.
On T/O at A we blow a tyre!
The crew decides that because they have plenty of alternates en route they should continue the flight to B...even though B may be 8 or 10 hrs away!
This decision is made because the crew has considered all options and is convinced that they have all bases covered. In other words..."they know it all".
But, what if they're wrong?
Keep it simple guys!...go back and land at A!
Basic airmanship...
that's not too hard is it?...
or is it?
we have a high speed, heavy jet transport aircraft operating from A to B with anywhere between 150 and 450 bods on board.
On T/O at A we blow a tyre!
The crew decides that because they have plenty of alternates en route they should continue the flight to B...even though B may be 8 or 10 hrs away!
This decision is made because the crew has considered all options and is convinced that they have all bases covered. In other words..."they know it all".
But, what if they're wrong?
Keep it simple guys!...go back and land at A!
Basic airmanship...
that's not too hard is it?...
or is it?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: expat
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I mentioned above Amos, Boeing actually recommend continuing if there is no indication of other damage at the time of the event.
Which there wasn't.
Mind you what would they know?
Not saying its right one way or another, but it seems to come down to opinion really doesn't it?
No matter how loud you shout.
Which there wasn't.
Mind you what would they know?
Not saying its right one way or another, but it seems to come down to opinion really doesn't it?
No matter how loud you shout.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of crap. Nobody can criticise unless they have all the facts. Nothing ever gets blown out of proportion here now does it?
With a blown tire, the risk is still the same on landing be it Singapore, Frankfurt or wherever. And what were the conditions at these airports at the time? Don't think I would be going back to Singpore if the a/c is heavy with a wet runway.
If I was on the way to the states I think I would push on to somewhere nice, burn the fuel normally and look forward to a stay in somewhere like Samoa, Hawaii. I am sure the punters would vote for that if it was put to them. Not sure the company would be impressed though. Ashgabat may be an interesting place to see, the weight should be down enough by there, but don't know how the punters would vote for that one.
With a blown tire, the risk is still the same on landing be it Singapore, Frankfurt or wherever. And what were the conditions at these airports at the time? Don't think I would be going back to Singpore if the a/c is heavy with a wet runway.
If I was on the way to the states I think I would push on to somewhere nice, burn the fuel normally and look forward to a stay in somewhere like Samoa, Hawaii. I am sure the punters would vote for that if it was put to them. Not sure the company would be impressed though. Ashgabat may be an interesting place to see, the weight should be down enough by there, but don't know how the punters would vote for that one.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Future
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VC9, is there an ecological difference between dumping it, or burning it? 
If it vapourises before it hits the ground, is there a difference? It doesnt come out like a canadian fire bomber, with a result like the exon valdeze. It actually does vapourise into the atmosphere, just like the exhaust fumes if you burnt it. The only difference is you get to spread the exhaust fumes over a much larger area, and usually much closer to the ozone layer. Neither result is very environmentally friendly.
If it vapourises before it hits the ground, is there a difference? It doesnt come out like a canadian fire bomber, with a result like the exon valdeze. It actually does vapourise into the atmosphere, just like the exhaust fumes if you burnt it. The only difference is you get to spread the exhaust fumes over a much larger area, and usually much closer to the ozone layer. Neither result is very environmentally friendly.
