Passengers were never in any danger
Evertonian
Qantas denies cover-up over damaged jet
January 9, 2007 - 8:37PM
Qantas boss Geoff Dixon has denied a cover-up by the airline after a report that a packed passenger jet flew with a huge hole torn in its side.
Qantas has been accused in a Seven Network report of ignoring the incident, covering it up, and of misleading air-safety authorities.
QF5, with 408 people on board travelling from Singapore to Frankfurt, was damaged by a blown tyre shortly after take-off on March 8, 2006.
"Any suggestion that Qantas's handling of the incident ... was covered up in any way is completely wrong," Mr Dixon said.
"There was no indication at the time of take-off that a tyre had shredded."
Mr Dixon said there was no damage to the aircraft that affected its air worthiness or safety.
"There was no risk to passengers or crew at any time," he said.
"The incident was reported to the ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) and CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority).
"Qantas also undertook its own investigation and provided its results to the Australian regulators, and to the air accident investigation bureau of Singapore.
"All decided that the incident did not warrant further investigation."
Seven reported that tyre debris tore a "huge hole", "three-metres long", in the jet's fuselage, and "no official investigation was launched".
"Qantas informed Australia's regulator (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA) that no investigation was launched," Seven reported.
Perth businessman Karl Dunbar said he could have crawled through the hole, which was the size of two refrigerators, that he saw in the jet at Frankfurt.
Seven quoted him as saying the incident was a cover-up.
Former CASA chairman Dick Smith said CASA investigators feel intimidated by Qantas.
"Employees have told me if we stood up to Qantas, we wouldn't have a career path," he told Seven.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson told Seven: "It's certainly not a matter of a covering anything up.
"It's about making the right safety judgments, and we believe that was done."
CASA ruled there was no risk to passenger safety.
© 2007 AAP
Pity it wasn't Ansett Peter, then you could've had some real "on air" time whilst you were grounding planes.
Was this the same hole that was mentioned in the AVV maintenance thread???
Qantas boss Geoff Dixon has denied a cover-up by the airline after a report that a packed passenger jet flew with a huge hole torn in its side.
Qantas has been accused in a Seven Network report of ignoring the incident, covering it up, and of misleading air-safety authorities.
QF5, with 408 people on board travelling from Singapore to Frankfurt, was damaged by a blown tyre shortly after take-off on March 8, 2006.
"Any suggestion that Qantas's handling of the incident ... was covered up in any way is completely wrong," Mr Dixon said.
"There was no indication at the time of take-off that a tyre had shredded."
Mr Dixon said there was no damage to the aircraft that affected its air worthiness or safety.
"There was no risk to passengers or crew at any time," he said.
"The incident was reported to the ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) and CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority).
"Qantas also undertook its own investigation and provided its results to the Australian regulators, and to the air accident investigation bureau of Singapore.
"All decided that the incident did not warrant further investigation."
Seven reported that tyre debris tore a "huge hole", "three-metres long", in the jet's fuselage, and "no official investigation was launched".
"Qantas informed Australia's regulator (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA) that no investigation was launched," Seven reported.
Perth businessman Karl Dunbar said he could have crawled through the hole, which was the size of two refrigerators, that he saw in the jet at Frankfurt.
Seven quoted him as saying the incident was a cover-up.
Former CASA chairman Dick Smith said CASA investigators feel intimidated by Qantas.
"Employees have told me if we stood up to Qantas, we wouldn't have a career path," he told Seven.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson told Seven: "It's certainly not a matter of a covering anything up.
"It's about making the right safety judgments, and we believe that was done."
CASA ruled there was no risk to passenger safety.
© 2007 AAP
Pity it wasn't Ansett Peter, then you could've had some real "on air" time whilst you were grounding planes.
Was this the same hole that was mentioned in the AVV maintenance thread???
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"There was no risk to passengers or crew at any time," he said.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe this excellent piece of journalism may have something to do with an attempt to blackmail QF. Apparently a pilot was looking at photos of the damaged aircraft on their laptop in London. Fortunately for the citizens of the world an upstanding gentleman was looking over the pilots shoulder and then confronted the pilot about the photos.
Within a couple of days this heroic gent was demanding to speak to Geoff and demanding all sorts of rewards as hush payments. With out hush payments our intrepid fellow was going to go to Today Tonight or ACA. I am scratching my head to think why seven picked up the story.
The unfortunate thing for him is that it was a complete non event, not a safety concern in sight. In fact it was excellently handled by the tech crew and cabin crew. The event was also a very good example of CRM with both sides of the cockpit door communicating in a professional manner to ensure that a potential safety concern resulted in a non event.
I guess we move on to the next size comparison.
Within a couple of days this heroic gent was demanding to speak to Geoff and demanding all sorts of rewards as hush payments. With out hush payments our intrepid fellow was going to go to Today Tonight or ACA. I am scratching my head to think why seven picked up the story.
The unfortunate thing for him is that it was a complete non event, not a safety concern in sight. In fact it was excellently handled by the tech crew and cabin crew. The event was also a very good example of CRM with both sides of the cockpit door communicating in a professional manner to ensure that a potential safety concern resulted in a non event.
I guess we move on to the next size comparison.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
golfjet744
Your post has the clear ringing of verity about it.
Sorta makes the huffers and puffers around it look a bit silly don't you think.
In the not so long ago that would have been reported here first and those in the know would come and check before being suckered into embarrassing "statements ". Pyrrhic is a word that comes to mind.
Your post has the clear ringing of verity about it.
Sorta makes the huffers and puffers around it look a bit silly don't you think.
In the not so long ago that would have been reported here first and those in the know would come and check before being suckered into embarrassing "statements ". Pyrrhic is a word that comes to mind.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how do you know that there was no damage caused to the fuse( by means of the fairing support structure not breaking away and slamming into the fuse),the aircraft should of returned to it's departure point for an inspection,as we all know little things can lead to large problems.
Last edited by QF MAINT OUTSOURCED; 10th Jan 2007 at 03:06.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buster hyman said
Totaly different to the AVV thread.
Tyres on QF flights have burst and done similar damage reported in this thread approx 10 times before. Majority of the time the aircraft continued to its destination, all without (further) incident.
If it has happened on QF 744 fleet it has happened on all other operators fleets which means if it was a problem boeing would have mandated a fix.
So while a hole in the fiber glass wing to body fairings looks aweful it does not pose any safety issues.
I hate to say it but I agree with Geoff Dixon in this case
Was this the same hole that was mentioned in the AVV maintenance thread???
Tyres on QF flights have burst and done similar damage reported in this thread approx 10 times before. Majority of the time the aircraft continued to its destination, all without (further) incident.
If it has happened on QF 744 fleet it has happened on all other operators fleets which means if it was a problem boeing would have mandated a fix.
So while a hole in the fiber glass wing to body fairings looks aweful it does not pose any safety issues.
I hate to say it but I agree with Geoff Dixon in this case
Thread Starter
Qantas flys for 10 hours with a 3 metre hole in its fuselage ... which is "assumed" to be of little significance by the company ... and it's suddenly good airmanship ... but let's keep it quiet.
To the casual observer, it smacks of double standards.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buster hyman said
Totaly different to the AVV thread.
Tyres on QF flights have burst and done similar damage reported in this thread approx 10 times before. Majority of the time the aircraft continued to its destination, all without (further) incident.
If it has happened on QF 744 fleet it has happened on all other operators fleets which means if it was a problem boeing would have mandated a fix.
So while a hole in the fiber glass wing to body fairings looks aweful it does not pose any safety issues.
I hate to say it but I agree with Geoff Dixon in this case
Totaly different to the AVV thread.
Tyres on QF flights have burst and done similar damage reported in this thread approx 10 times before. Majority of the time the aircraft continued to its destination, all without (further) incident.
If it has happened on QF 744 fleet it has happened on all other operators fleets which means if it was a problem boeing would have mandated a fix.
So while a hole in the fiber glass wing to body fairings looks aweful it does not pose any safety issues.
I hate to say it but I agree with Geoff Dixon in this case
so are you saying they should of taken a punt to continue,while not knowing what damaged was sustained,this is what set Qantas apart from everone else years ago and this is what gave it such a great safety record,DONT TAKE ANY RISKS
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so are you saying they should of taken a punt to continue,while not knowing what damaged was sustained,this is what set Qantas apart from everone else years ago and this is what gave it such a great safety record,DONT TAKE ANY RISKS
Evertonian
Yeah, got that thanks Bolty. 
Had a brainstorm afterwards & went & had a look!
So, tyre debris damaged the aircraft...is the affected area weaker, or as strong as the area near the fuel tanks?
I think you all know where I'm going with this...
Hot Dog. (and anyone else for that matter) Would you take into consideration the location of the damage, ie; leading edge for example? Could 8, 10, 12 hours at cruise impact on the surface structure of the wing/fuselage? I'm thinking Aloha, but knowing this isn't the same damage or location...(Serious Q from a non Tech/Engr)
Had a brainstorm afterwards & went & had a look! So, tyre debris damaged the aircraft...is the affected area weaker, or as strong as the area near the fuel tanks?
I think you all know where I'm going with this...
Hot Dog. (and anyone else for that matter) Would you take into consideration the location of the damage, ie; leading edge for example? Could 8, 10, 12 hours at cruise impact on the surface structure of the wing/fuselage? I'm thinking Aloha, but knowing this isn't the same damage or location...(Serious Q from a non Tech/Engr)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but who inspected the damage in flight and made the assessment?
I hope that is rhetorical question.
The aircraft took off from SIN with no discernable problems except for slightly larger than usual bump on takeoff roll.
Comms carried out with various departments Maint, Ops, tower etc
The aircraft experienced no buffeting or control issues.
SIN airport did not report any debris left behind by the airborne aircraft.
The pilot continued to destination.
As I have mentioned this has happened more than a few times before.
With the benefit of experience continued to destination.
2 months prior a QF 5 left SIN and experienced similar on take off. The aircraft experienced buffeting and vibration that increased with speed.
The pilot dumped fuel and returned to SIN, pax off loaded to hotels while aircraft repaired but there is no debate about this incident.
On this occasion there was no gaping hole in the fairings or damage that the untrained eye would notice therefore not news worthy due no pictures to exaggerate a story.
You seem more concerned with aesthetics and semantics rather than aircraft serviceability.
The 747 is not a concourse show piece you would expect to see on display at the "summer nats" its much more akin to the bus you would catch to travel to Canberra
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buster Hyman
Stop thinking concorde. This is not a fuel tank damage issue.
The fairings that sustained damage are as strong as a fibreglass surfboard. IE if you were big enough and mad enough you could probably put your fist thru it not that I would advise trying.
The panels damaged are "fairings" that smooth the contour of the wing to the fuselage. Aerodynamic purposes. The damage would have added to the aircrafts drag but obviously not enough to effect reaching destination some 13 hours away.
This is an important fact as any QF 744 pilot can attest to. QF 744 fuel policy is about carrying minium fuel. So any substantial increase in drag would have resulted in a diversion for fuel.
Hot Dog I totally agree.(thats twice today) If you have burst tyres you still have to land somewhere. May as well be your destination with services informed.
Stop thinking concorde. This is not a fuel tank damage issue.
The fairings that sustained damage are as strong as a fibreglass surfboard. IE if you were big enough and mad enough you could probably put your fist thru it not that I would advise trying.
The panels damaged are "fairings" that smooth the contour of the wing to the fuselage. Aerodynamic purposes. The damage would have added to the aircrafts drag but obviously not enough to effect reaching destination some 13 hours away.
This is an important fact as any QF 744 pilot can attest to. QF 744 fuel policy is about carrying minium fuel. So any substantial increase in drag would have resulted in a diversion for fuel.
Hot Dog I totally agree.(thats twice today) If you have burst tyres you still have to land somewhere. May as well be your destination with services informed.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Management Knows Best
I guess my point is (bearing in mind I do not work for any airline) that as soon as Jetstar has a leaking fuel tank (which by all accounts is not an infrequent event within the world airline fleet) and passengers are put up in hotel, PPruners come down on them like a ton of bricks. We want explanations! We want answers!
Qantas flys for 10 hours with a 3 metre hole in its fuselage ... which is "assumed" to be of little significance by the company ... and it's suddenly good airmanship ... but let's keep it quiet.
To the casual observer, it smacks of double standards.
Qantas flys for 10 hours with a 3 metre hole in its fuselage ... which is "assumed" to be of little significance by the company ... and it's suddenly good airmanship ... but let's keep it quiet.
To the casual observer, it smacks of double standards.
I would suggest that the jetstar bashing over the PHNL debacle is more to do with the fact that Jetstar has been set up with the underlying principle that management knows best, and all the front line workers are greedy overpaid good for nothings.
Several engineers and pilots could have wandered into their manager’s office and prevented this delay from occurring (a couple of years ago this would have happened). But under the current ‘management knows best’ climate we all just sit back watch the resultant mess and shake our heads. When the company calls you for a favour to sort the mess out, we don’t answer unless contractually obliged. Sad isn’t it.
As for a QF worker wandering into the office to ensure that Jetstar runs smoothly, well that would be a bit like the USA funding al-Qa’ida – not very smart.
By the way the tire blow-out wasn’t kept quite. Sure it wasn’t publicised with a full page spread in the paper but it wasn’t hidden from anyone. QF safety did an investigation and I believe that CASA chose not to do an investigation because it was such a minor event. CASA do investigate QF from time to time and they are not always complimentary in their findings.
Bottums Up
I propose that after each takeoff, the aircraft should return to the departure field to be inspected by licenced engineers to ensure nothing untoward occurred during the takeoff and that it is safe to continue. 
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Claret,
I think you've stumbled onto a great idea there.
This could be groundhog day II.
The Capt is the only one who remembers taking off and just after take off wakes back up in his room at the crew pub only to have to go through it all again.
My people can talk to your people and we'll get a script going
I think you've stumbled onto a great idea there.
This could be groundhog day II.
The Capt is the only one who remembers taking off and just after take off wakes back up in his room at the crew pub only to have to go through it all again.
My people can talk to your people and we'll get a script going
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Atsb Press Release
"
8 March 2006 Qantas tyre burst incident in Singapore
10 January 2007
The ATSB has reviewed safety information on a Qantas 747 tyre burst incident on take-off at Singapore Airport on 8 March 2006 and agrees with the Singapore and German authorities that there was no safety concern warranting a major investigation.
In March 2006, specialist investigators in Australia, Singapore and Germany determined after preliminary investigation that a full investigation was not warranted. From September 2006, the ATSB and Singapore Air Accidents Investigation Branch reviewed detailed material received with the full cooperation of Qantas and again determined a major investigation was not required.
While tyre burst incidents can be potentially very serious, in the Singapore incident the aircraft crew was not aware of any damage to the aircraft as a result of the loss of one of its 18 tyres on take-off until about 6 hours into the flight to Frankfurt when a problem with the number 4 hydraulic system became apparent. The crew managed the problem and landed safely in Frankfurt where the damage to the aircraft wing-to-aircraft body fairing (fibreglass non-structural) outer skin was seen. Repairs were made and appropriate safety authorities notified.
Under international aviation law (the Chicago Convention and its Annex 13) the country of occurrence is responsible for any safety investigation. Singapore assessed that the occurrence was not an accident or serious incident as defined by Annex 13 and decided not to investigate.
Modern passenger aircraft have many redundant safety systems and while damage to the aircraft’s fairing may look very worrying to the general public, it was superficial and did not affect the structural integrity of the aircraft. There is also no suggestion of a systemic problem with 747 tyres or the aircraft’s hydraulic systems.
The ATSB investigates aircraft accidents and serious incidents in Australia and has to apply judgement as to which of the more than 7000 occurrences reported annually warrant investigation within a budget that allows for about 30 larger and 60 smaller new investigations. Similar judgements are made by other professional investigation bodies around the world.
The ATSB investigates all fatal accidents (except sport aviation) which are overwhelmingly in the general aviation sector and all accidents involving international carriers in Australia. A number of recent ATSB investigations have involved aircraft in the Qantas group, which is in line with Australian passenger airline activity levels.
After further review of the circumstances of the tyre burst, the ATSB agrees with the Singapore authorities that a major investigation would not contribute to future safety in a manner that would be likely to lead to an improvement in 747 or tyre design, manufacture or operations.
Media Contact: George Nadal Tel: 1800 020 616 "
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story
8 March 2006 Qantas tyre burst incident in Singapore
10 January 2007
The ATSB has reviewed safety information on a Qantas 747 tyre burst incident on take-off at Singapore Airport on 8 March 2006 and agrees with the Singapore and German authorities that there was no safety concern warranting a major investigation.
In March 2006, specialist investigators in Australia, Singapore and Germany determined after preliminary investigation that a full investigation was not warranted. From September 2006, the ATSB and Singapore Air Accidents Investigation Branch reviewed detailed material received with the full cooperation of Qantas and again determined a major investigation was not required.
While tyre burst incidents can be potentially very serious, in the Singapore incident the aircraft crew was not aware of any damage to the aircraft as a result of the loss of one of its 18 tyres on take-off until about 6 hours into the flight to Frankfurt when a problem with the number 4 hydraulic system became apparent. The crew managed the problem and landed safely in Frankfurt where the damage to the aircraft wing-to-aircraft body fairing (fibreglass non-structural) outer skin was seen. Repairs were made and appropriate safety authorities notified.
Under international aviation law (the Chicago Convention and its Annex 13) the country of occurrence is responsible for any safety investigation. Singapore assessed that the occurrence was not an accident or serious incident as defined by Annex 13 and decided not to investigate.
Modern passenger aircraft have many redundant safety systems and while damage to the aircraft’s fairing may look very worrying to the general public, it was superficial and did not affect the structural integrity of the aircraft. There is also no suggestion of a systemic problem with 747 tyres or the aircraft’s hydraulic systems.
The ATSB investigates aircraft accidents and serious incidents in Australia and has to apply judgement as to which of the more than 7000 occurrences reported annually warrant investigation within a budget that allows for about 30 larger and 60 smaller new investigations. Similar judgements are made by other professional investigation bodies around the world.
The ATSB investigates all fatal accidents (except sport aviation) which are overwhelmingly in the general aviation sector and all accidents involving international carriers in Australia. A number of recent ATSB investigations have involved aircraft in the Qantas group, which is in line with Australian passenger airline activity levels.
After further review of the circumstances of the tyre burst, the ATSB agrees with the Singapore authorities that a major investigation would not contribute to future safety in a manner that would be likely to lead to an improvement in 747 or tyre design, manufacture or operations.
Media Contact: George Nadal Tel: 1800 020 616 "
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story