QANTAS 744 Incident SIN-FRA 9/3/06
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by numbskull
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.
Funny because they wont fit. Despite being told by one of the most experienced and repected composites leaders that they were wasting their time they did it anyway and lo and behold the screw holes dont line up.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Turbo 5B
On the funny side of this, I noticed a bunch of replacement wtb fairings had arrived from avalon from VH EBU ? to replace the damaged ones.
Funny because they wont fit. Despite being told by one of the most experienced and repected composites leaders that they were wasting their time they did it anyway and lo and behold the screw holes dont line up.
Funny because they wont fit. Despite being told by one of the most experienced and repected composites leaders that they were wasting their time they did it anyway and lo and behold the screw holes dont line up.
Sorry - please forgive my cynicism.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Queensland
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aw c'mon hbomb - SLF is a term of endearment. Even the passenger forum on PPRuNe is called SLF. Anyway, getting off thread here so better stop before I get a wee rap on the knuckles from Woomera....
May as well put in my 2 cents about the topic. Don't see what's wrong with continuing onto FRA if the plane can still fly. Biggest problem with a blown tyre is with landing - and that will be the same whether you go back or keep going. I don't see any reason why the captain should have turned back, and obviously he didn't either........but there are always the arm chair pundits who think they can do it better than those who are there
May as well put in my 2 cents about the topic. Don't see what's wrong with continuing onto FRA if the plane can still fly. Biggest problem with a blown tyre is with landing - and that will be the same whether you go back or keep going. I don't see any reason why the captain should have turned back, and obviously he didn't either........but there are always the arm chair pundits who think they can do it better than those who are there
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by VC9
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.
Think about it!!
Back on topic though, seems like a job well done to me, I certainly would have done the same.
Now about my 74 DEC Mr Dixon.
Nunc est bibendum
Originally Posted by BelfastChild
Biggest problem with a blown tyre is with landing - and that will be the same whether you go back or keep going.
Amos, so are we!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Queensland
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Keg
Actually, it's easier if you keep going. Going back means dumping to probably not much below MLW. Going on to destination means being another 30-50(ish) tonnes lighter
Actually, it's easier if you keep going. Going back means dumping to probably not much below MLW. Going on to destination means being another 30-50(ish) tonnes lighter
Agreed Keg. Sorry, should have made that point myself - mea culpa.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: China
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing what happens when you put a loosely based thread on d Prune!
The intention was not to bag the QF boys, the intent was to generate some thought provoking discussion! I totally agree with comments "loosely based & Monday morn. 1/4 backs". Was quite rushed when I posted!!
Though having read some(I mean some!) of the threads, I have become more INFORMED!! As for HPSOV L , he hit the nail on the head. What would YOU DO in that scenario?
The intention was not to bag the QF boys, the intent was to generate some thought provoking discussion! I totally agree with comments "loosely based & Monday morn. 1/4 backs". Was quite rushed when I posted!!
Though having read some(I mean some!) of the threads, I have become more INFORMED!! As for HPSOV L , he hit the nail on the head. What would YOU
DO in that scenario?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
amos2
Please explain to me the danger and the lack of airmanship in continuing to destination some 12-13 hours down the road, landing @230-240t approx with only 1 out of 2 dozen tyres blown and the destination expecting your arrival with time to prepare, compared to returning for a landing @285t (MLW) approx with minimum prep time.
Please explain to me the danger and the lack of airmanship in continuing to destination some 12-13 hours down the road, landing @230-240t approx with only 1 out of 2 dozen tyres blown and the destination expecting your arrival with time to prepare, compared to returning for a landing @285t (MLW) approx with minimum prep time.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Aus
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i am not an aviation professional, so im not trying to tell people how to do a job or being critical. im just interested in the comment by hpsovL, Is there some operational procedure that needs to be corrected or cleared up amongst the pilots?. i know the procedure was followed according to Boeing, and all went well. however what if some damaged did occur that made the aircraft deteriorate to a critical point, thus ignoring the company ops manual?
HPSOV L
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!
I also would like to add that the concorde crash a few years ago, i know the aircraft designs in question are significantly different,and totally different set of circumstances lead to the failure. It just sounds like alot of damage could possibly occur, from these tire problems on T/O? im not an expert as i said im just observing what i have seen.
i would have to agree with some of the posts, and the company ops manual. to return the flight just in case anything serious has happened that doesnt show up straight away. if iwas on the flight and heard the vibration etc, i would notify the crew, but still relax and try to enjoy the flight, im sure the captain will sort it out.
HPSOV L
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!
I also would like to add that the concorde crash a few years ago, i know the aircraft designs in question are significantly different,and totally different set of circumstances lead to the failure. It just sounds like alot of damage could possibly occur, from these tire problems on T/O? im not an expert as i said im just observing what i have seen.
i would have to agree with some of the posts, and the company ops manual. to return the flight just in case anything serious has happened that doesnt show up straight away. if iwas on the flight and heard the vibration etc, i would notify the crew, but still relax and try to enjoy the flight, im sure the captain will sort it out.
Originally Posted by Capt Claret
Aw c'mon Keg, you've got to admit that the skipper would've been better off making a PA and getting a show of hands for and against continuing. 
It would be better to limit the poll to Gold or Platinum members, as they have most flying experience....... (Come to think of it possibly not platinum as I've never met a sober one yet )
In fact the IFE could be tuned to discard votes from Silver or below. Would get rid of all these silly manuals on the flight deck anyway.
