Qantas plane forced back to Sydney
Guest
Posts: n/a
Where's Sunfish..I mean Gilligan..
If the aircraft has to return why did it not fly to Mel and so give the Mel tourist economy an injection of needed cash and sales boost .
If the aircraft has to return why did it not fly to Mel and so give the Mel tourist economy an injection of needed cash and sales boost .
Are you blokes for real?
You would "rush" to get the aircraft on the ground, potentially risk wheels and brakes" as one poster put it, but in actuality risk the safety of the whole aircraft just because you lost an engine?
These aircraft are certified for 180 minutes ETOPS or more - rushing is the last thing you want to do.
By all means don't take it for a sightseeing jolly, but why rush and risk stuffing it up?
You would "rush" to get the aircraft on the ground, potentially risk wheels and brakes" as one poster put it, but in actuality risk the safety of the whole aircraft just because you lost an engine?
These aircraft are certified for 180 minutes ETOPS or more - rushing is the last thing you want to do.
By all means don't take it for a sightseeing jolly, but why rush and risk stuffing it up?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orstralya
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airsupport,
Gotta back up Devillanddriver here. MOST twins these days operate on 180 min etops. However, by your reckoning, an engine out half way across the Atlantic, or the Tasman for that matter, would require an imediate ditching due to an impending failure of the second engine. Excluding fuel exhaustion, any aircraft operating under 180 min etops can be a max of three hours away from an alternate on one engine.
Your insistance that aircraft land overweight due to a single engine failure alone seems ill-informed.
Gotta back up Devillanddriver here. MOST twins these days operate on 180 min etops. However, by your reckoning, an engine out half way across the Atlantic, or the Tasman for that matter, would require an imediate ditching due to an impending failure of the second engine. Excluding fuel exhaustion, any aircraft operating under 180 min etops can be a max of three hours away from an alternate on one engine.
Your insistance that aircraft land overweight due to a single engine failure alone seems ill-informed.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: n/a
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be careful
All the years that I flew jets - I never had an engine failure or shutdown. Birds, cardboard boxes, plastic bags all down the chute and never a failure - I guess mine must be just around the corner!!
But seriously - someone mentioned you would be in a rush to get back on the ground? Why? If you are not on fire and not running out of fuel, or both your engines have not been overhauled or changed at exactly the same time - is there really a rush? What are the chances of 2 engines on a B767 failing within a 45 minute time frame (give or take a bit of time by the time the CRM happens, a bit more gathering and talking and a fluffy hug alround)?
I am open to all comments and suggestions - but there is no hurry to get on the ground in my book. Please convince me otherwise - and then please go and convinve the FAA and JAR to remove the 180 minutes ETOPS for the old dump truck (B767).
As for the 747 - with an engine shutdown or failed and secured - is it not just like a DC10/MD11/L1011?
Thankyou for your sanity and common sense Dehav. I wish there were more like you.
But seriously - someone mentioned you would be in a rush to get back on the ground? Why? If you are not on fire and not running out of fuel, or both your engines have not been overhauled or changed at exactly the same time - is there really a rush? What are the chances of 2 engines on a B767 failing within a 45 minute time frame (give or take a bit of time by the time the CRM happens, a bit more gathering and talking and a fluffy hug alround)?
I am open to all comments and suggestions - but there is no hurry to get on the ground in my book. Please convince me otherwise - and then please go and convinve the FAA and JAR to remove the 180 minutes ETOPS for the old dump truck (B767).
As for the 747 - with an engine shutdown or failed and secured - is it not just like a DC10/MD11/L1011?
Thankyou for your sanity and common sense Dehav. I wish there were more like you.
Apparently a 767 also did an air return yesterday 40mins out of sydney/brisbane (not sure) on its way to perth. Vibrations in the engine. Arrived in perth a couple of hours late.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason most of these aircraft do not have dump systems, someone earlier said there are odd 767s with them, but I have never seen one, is because they can land at their max takeoff weight. The A300-600 incident I mentioned earlier was not technically a weight problem but rather a very short runway.
When we did 767 training at Boeing, they advised immediate return, ETOPS may be okay to sell the aircraft, but as the man at Boeing told us, just remember when you lose one engine, the engine on the other side is exactly the same, possibly even consecutive serial numbers, possibly assembled by the same people on the same day, and it MAY be about to fail for the same reason.
Why on Earth would anyone want to stay airborne any longer than necessary in a 767 or A300 with one engine out when you can land.
When we did 767 training at Boeing, they advised immediate return, ETOPS may be okay to sell the aircraft, but as the man at Boeing told us, just remember when you lose one engine, the engine on the other side is exactly the same, possibly even consecutive serial numbers, possibly assembled by the same people on the same day, and it MAY be about to fail for the same reason.
Why on Earth would anyone want to stay airborne any longer than necessary in a 767 or A300 with one engine out when you can land.
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
and it MAY be about to fail for the same reason.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was NOT my theory, it was Boeings. 
And if you have lost one engine due fuel starvation, why would you want to fly around using up fuel?
Surely even more reason to land urgently in your case.
And if you have lost one engine due fuel starvation, why would you want to fly around using up fuel?
Surely even more reason to land urgently in your case.
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
And if you have lost one engine due fuel starvation, why would you want to fly around using up fuel?
May I suggest you misinterpreted the boeing representatives intent, as you have mine.
I suspect he intended that you would make plans to divert immediately to a suitable aerodrome, this may or may not be the destination/departure point and would probably take into consideration a lot of other factors including, engineering availability, accomodation for passengers , etc...
There is no logical reason to suspect that the second engine will fail even if they are built at the same factory, on the same day, with consecutive serial numbers. Whilst I don't totally discount your theory, I am merely trying to point out that statistical and anecdotal evidence, simply does not support this outcome!
Why would anyone compound the problems by conducting an overweight landing in a hurry up situation? The only exception I could think to this scenario is if you are on fire, with no means of extinguishing the fire.
We owe it to ourselves, our families, our passengers and lastly our shareholders to evaluate all options before deciding on a couse of action. Now I will even acknowedge that the possibility of a second failure may even be a factor in the decision making process. But I would stand by the remark that its probability is extremely minimal, you are more likely to have a double engine failure from fuel exhaustion or by ingesting some foreign matter than anything else, the probability of two mechanical failures is miniscule and something I am able to live with.
Last edited by Howard Hughes; 3rd Feb 2007 at 10:20.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I give up, there are so many here that chose to misread everything.
I was there, that is what they said.
IF you bothered to even read this topic you would see, as Boeing told us, that the B767 is DESIGNED to be okay to land back at its departure airport at max takeoff weight, and this was what Boeing recommended.
Re your fuel starvation scenario, IF you were saying NOT to land ASAP, the only other option is to keep flying, that is burn off fuel.
I was there, that is what they said.
IF you bothered to even read this topic you would see, as Boeing told us, that the B767 is DESIGNED to be okay to land back at its departure airport at max takeoff weight, and this was what Boeing recommended.
Re your fuel starvation scenario, IF you were saying NOT to land ASAP, the only other option is to keep flying, that is burn off fuel.
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
I give up, there are so many here that chose to misread everything.
I was there, that is what they said.
IF you bothered to even read this topic you would see, as Boeing told us, that the B767 is DESIGNED to be okay to land back at its departure airport at max takeoff weight, and this was what Boeing recommended.
one A300-600 even destroyed all the main wheels and brakes doing it, but that was preferable to risking running out of noise while airborne.
Re your fuel starvation scenario, IF you were saying NOT to land ASAP, the only other option is to keep flying, that is burn off fuel.
I simply said that probabilities do not support your theory that there is to be an IMMINENT second failure, unless the initial failure was caused by FUEL STARVATION!! Nothing about flying around, nada zip, zilch!!
Time for bed me thinks...
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airsupport
It was not even a 767 but a 744 so why argue? If it was a 767 then they would have done as you suggest but it wasn't.
However I don't know of any airline whose SOP's after an engine failure in a twin (330/777) would be to land overweight. If above MLW dumping fuel is normal procedure unless you have an uncontained fire. If fear was our reasoning we would never take off.
It was not even a 767 but a 744 so why argue? If it was a 767 then they would have done as you suggest but it wasn't.
However I don't know of any airline whose SOP's after an engine failure in a twin (330/777) would be to land overweight. If above MLW dumping fuel is normal procedure unless you have an uncontained fire. If fear was our reasoning we would never take off.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haha gotta love the SMH for getting advice from the experts - planespotters.
Heath Gilmore, Caroline Marcus and Daniel Dasey
February 4, 2007
MORE than 270 Qantas passengers endured a traumatic 90 minutes in the skies over Sydney yesterday after a jumbo jet's engine failed.
Passenger Pedram Danae deduced something was wrong when he heard a loud noise as flames trailed from one of the Boeing 747's engines, forcing flight QF 149 back to Sydney.
Mr Danae, 37, of Greenfield Park in western Sydney, said the plane was shaken by a large bang from the No. 3 engine on the Los Angeles-bound plane carrying 274 passengers.
The aircraft had left Sydney at 11.35am. About 15 minutes into the flight, the aeroplane developed problems.
"We heard a clunk and it didn't feel right," Mr Danae said. "The plane swerved to the left and then to the right.
"The pilot took a few left turns and no right turns and a few minutes later he explained one of the engines on the right-hand side was not working."
Passengers were told that while the aircraft could fly with three of four engines functioning, the pilot was going to make an early landing.
Mr Danae said the mood in the cabin was surprisingly relaxed as the crew handed out snacks and ice-cream to help passengers stay calm.
Peter Morris, a Sydney Morning Herald photographer, was playing at Wakehurst Golf Club on Sydney's northern beaches when he noticed the plane was in trouble.
"I just looked up when the plane flew overhead," he said. "There was a puff of smoke trailing from the starboard engine. Then I heard an explosion, followed by the engine catching alight. The flames were trailing from the engine."
A Qantas spokesman described the problem as an engine surge, similar to a car backfiring. "It's not an explosion. There is an excess amount of air that comes into the engine, which creates a number of loud bangs and a bit of noise," he said. "It's not uncommon to see flames exiting the engine. However, there is no major safety issue."
The spokesman said the pilot shut down the faulty engine and dumped the plane's fuel load so it could land.
The plane landed at 1.20pm and it was expected that the passengers would be kept at the airport until a replacement aircraft was ready about 9pm.
Beau Chenery, from Brisbane, a planespotter who was in Sydney for a meeting of enthusiasts, watched the drama unfold.
"We heard it over the scanner. It was pretty scratchy. When it came in, you could see all the other engines had on their reverse thrusters and I saw the engine cowling moving back. The No. 3 was shut down," he said.
BOEING 747-400
- First flown commercially in 1970, it has held the passenger capacity record for more than 35 years.
- It accommodates between 416 and 524 passengers, depending on its layout.
- It has 6 million parts, half of which are fasteners, 274 kilometres of wiring, eight kilometres of tubing and 66,150 kilograms of high-strength aluminium.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/qa...919577563.html
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect to the dueling over 767 capabilities, people just don't seem to be paying attention to what is being written.
What Airsupport has been saying seems pretty well OK to me. "Immediate return" does not mean running down the cabin screaming "we're going to die" (OK, literary licence there) .. It just means - "let's land". As he said, some 767 aircraft don't have dump capability, and as far as I can remember, no 767 has the capability to dump to Max Landing Weight when at its Max Takeoff Weight.
Back to the topic ....
N
What Airsupport has been saying seems pretty well OK to me. "Immediate return" does not mean running down the cabin screaming "we're going to die" (OK, literary licence there) .. It just means - "let's land". As he said, some 767 aircraft don't have dump capability, and as far as I can remember, no 767 has the capability to dump to Max Landing Weight when at its Max Takeoff Weight.
Back to the topic ....
N
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the mid-late 80's when the 767 was brought in at QF, one of the 200's had a similar problem and because the operational experience on twins was low and no-one had really gone into it, the crew circled Townsville for an extended length of time to get below MLW and landed.
Messiah, the policy at QF for all twins is to land above MLW in the engine-out case. The A330 even has a checklist for it. It's not a problem when handled correctly.
This does not mean screaming back to the field at VNE, with an unprepared cabin and checklists incomplete. It means an orderly return, briefed and prepared.
Note that this is only for situations such as loss of a critical system where a further loss would jeopardise the safety of the flight. A few years ago a 767 departed for HKG on an MEL with one pressurisation controller U/S. On climb the second controller failed. The Captain elected to return to SYD but he was well above MLW, He could not justify an overweight landing so he circled off the coast for quite a few hours to get down to MLW. (This was an early build 767 without fuel dump.) It was an inconvenience to the pax and crew but he did exactly the right thing.
In an A330 at MTOW, you would have to wait an awful long time on a single engine to land below MLW. In the worst case you'd have to burn 46 tonnes of fuel.
Messiah, the policy at QF for all twins is to land above MLW in the engine-out case. The A330 even has a checklist for it. It's not a problem when handled correctly.
This does not mean screaming back to the field at VNE, with an unprepared cabin and checklists incomplete. It means an orderly return, briefed and prepared.
Note that this is only for situations such as loss of a critical system where a further loss would jeopardise the safety of the flight. A few years ago a 767 departed for HKG on an MEL with one pressurisation controller U/S. On climb the second controller failed. The Captain elected to return to SYD but he was well above MLW, He could not justify an overweight landing so he circled off the coast for quite a few hours to get down to MLW. (This was an early build 767 without fuel dump.) It was an inconvenience to the pax and crew but he did exactly the right thing.
In an A330 at MTOW, you would have to wait an awful long time on a single engine to land below MLW. In the worst case you'd have to burn 46 tonnes of fuel.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
767 dump
it amazes me, that certain posters believe 767,s do not have fuel dump availalibility.i guess the rotary knob and two jettison valve switches on the p5 pnael dont do anything.also the overide jettison pumps in the ctr aux tank just sit there fat dumb and lazy.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From my post on the thread on same subject in the main R&N board:
From an amateur's point of view:
Engine surge near home base where there's lots of engo support, hotels and punters' homes for them to go back to if necessary. And a nice, 13,000'-long strip. Plus the possibility of being able to get another airframe ready reasonably quickly.
Shut down as a precaution rather than suffer a nasty case of press-on-itis.
Dump juice to get under weight, can fly happily on three for as long as you like and no screaming need for an immediate overweight return.
Decent weather.
Keep the punters happy and any nerves to a minimum. Smiles on dials.
Put her down, walk away and put the punters on another aircraft.
Sounds like the planning and training worked well, professionally handled, a good job done by all involved and a bit of a non-event in the end.
QED.
That said, I can understand why a loud noise and a bit of flame coming from an aircraft's donk would cause a bit of talk on the ground.
Tail wheel,
From an amateur's point of view:
Engine surge near home base where there's lots of engo support, hotels and punters' homes for them to go back to if necessary. And a nice, 13,000'-long strip. Plus the possibility of being able to get another airframe ready reasonably quickly.
Shut down as a precaution rather than suffer a nasty case of press-on-itis.
Dump juice to get under weight, can fly happily on three for as long as you like and no screaming need for an immediate overweight return.
Decent weather.
Keep the punters happy and any nerves to a minimum. Smiles on dials.
Put her down, walk away and put the punters on another aircraft.
Sounds like the planning and training worked well, professionally handled, a good job done by all involved and a bit of a non-event in the end.
QED.
That said, I can understand why a loud noise and a bit of flame coming from an aircraft's donk would cause a bit of talk on the ground.
Tail wheel,