MERGED: Qantas Decompression ?
Hopefully one benefit of all this discussion will be that pax may pay a bit more attention to the safety brief. I think too many of them think that the flow of oxygen through the mask will be like the car air-conditioner on max. Mind you I know of one decompression incident in Australia where one of the CC thought that they only had 20 seconds to live because they thought that the oxy mask wasn't working. I',m not sure why Empire 4 thinks that the best thing to come out of this will be the FAA and NTSB. They will not have the lead role in this investigation. Under Annex 13 the Phillipine equivalent to the NTSB will lead the investigation unless they ask the ATSB or NTSB to take over.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for all the oxygen questions but.
Is there a regulator attached to the neck of each bottle or is there high pressure pipeing/manifold over to a remote regulator. What I'm getting at here. Can a bottle easily turn into a missile.
There is a good mythbusters episode. where they cut off the valve of a compressed gas tank (cant remember what was in it) and the tank went through a brick wall.. How many newtons of force would one of the brackets that hold the bottle in place hold. Are we talking a hard clamp here or a hockey strap
(thinking of moving that bottle from my seat back pocket)
Is there a regulator attached to the neck of each bottle or is there high pressure pipeing/manifold over to a remote regulator. What I'm getting at here. Can a bottle easily turn into a missile.
There is a good mythbusters episode. where they cut off the valve of a compressed gas tank (cant remember what was in it) and the tank went through a brick wall.. How many newtons of force would one of the brackets that hold the bottle in place hold. Are we talking a hard clamp here or a hockey strap
(thinking of moving that bottle from my seat back pocket)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm an ex QANTAS employee who did a large part of my avionics apprenticship in Sydney heavy maintenance on 747s and 767s. I also got the opportunity to work in Brisbane at the new 767 heavy maint hangar.
All I can say is that the maintenance and values I learnt at Syd Heavy Maint in both line 1 (747) and line 2 (767) were at a level that was way above anything I have ever seen since. The attention to detail was what we were there for and was the reason for qantas's perfect safety record.
Just a few of the ideals that were drumed into me were....
1. "Who cares how long it takes to do an inspection?" The longer and more detailed the inspection is the safer the aircraft gets. There was never any pressure on me both as an appentice or AME to do inspections in a set time.
2. "Who cares how much parts cost?" Not me! nor anyone eles who worked in those hangars. If a part is stuffed or broken however minor the problem was it was replaced and no questions were asked......now i think of it the best idea is not to let engineers know the price of parts at all.
3. "Who cares if the aircraft is not out of heavy maint in time" Theres a reason it wasn't out in time and thats because every single little defect was being fixed. You can't make up a set time on something thats a variable. Each aircraft is a lucky dip as to how many defects will be found and this is the reason why LEAN SIGMA will not work. The LEAN idea is based a factory not a repair facility.
4. "You found a defect.....thats great!" I lost track of how many times i was praised for finding defects.
These are just a few of the ideals that i think QANTAS has lost in its heavy maint areas. It all comes down to saving time and money. The results of which we saw the other day.
I have no doubt the hole in the side of OJK was in some way related to cost cutting. Most likely the experienced LAME or AME who usually does the inspection of the cargo area got a better paying job eleswhere. Leaving someone with less experience to inspect it.
The last thing I have to say is morale in qantas heavy maint is at all time lows. You don't have to be Einstein to work out that when all you hear is stories of bad times, cost cutting and the very real chance of you loosing your job, you are in no way going to perform at your best. Thats the reason why I left QANTAS 2 years ago and haven't looked back, except for just now of course
All I can say is that the maintenance and values I learnt at Syd Heavy Maint in both line 1 (747) and line 2 (767) were at a level that was way above anything I have ever seen since. The attention to detail was what we were there for and was the reason for qantas's perfect safety record.
Just a few of the ideals that were drumed into me were....
1. "Who cares how long it takes to do an inspection?" The longer and more detailed the inspection is the safer the aircraft gets. There was never any pressure on me both as an appentice or AME to do inspections in a set time.
2. "Who cares how much parts cost?" Not me! nor anyone eles who worked in those hangars. If a part is stuffed or broken however minor the problem was it was replaced and no questions were asked......now i think of it the best idea is not to let engineers know the price of parts at all.
3. "Who cares if the aircraft is not out of heavy maint in time" Theres a reason it wasn't out in time and thats because every single little defect was being fixed. You can't make up a set time on something thats a variable. Each aircraft is a lucky dip as to how many defects will be found and this is the reason why LEAN SIGMA will not work. The LEAN idea is based a factory not a repair facility.
4. "You found a defect.....thats great!" I lost track of how many times i was praised for finding defects.
These are just a few of the ideals that i think QANTAS has lost in its heavy maint areas. It all comes down to saving time and money. The results of which we saw the other day.
I have no doubt the hole in the side of OJK was in some way related to cost cutting. Most likely the experienced LAME or AME who usually does the inspection of the cargo area got a better paying job eleswhere. Leaving someone with less experience to inspect it.
The last thing I have to say is morale in qantas heavy maint is at all time lows. You don't have to be Einstein to work out that when all you hear is stories of bad times, cost cutting and the very real chance of you loosing your job, you are in no way going to perform at your best. Thats the reason why I left QANTAS 2 years ago and haven't looked back, except for just now of course
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: queensland
Age: 54
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-Hole in the Hull of OJK, It appears that many posters as always fail to mention that the flaws in the machine are those that are designed by humans.
If it is caused by corrosion then we need to design materials or build machines that do not suffer such effects, carbon fibre perhaps but time will no doubt reveal all the flaws in that technology.
Oxy bottles failing, redesign to remove possibility or remove nessessity for onboard carriage of emergency oxy.
Other speculations that humans who wish ill on others and fabricate harm that is more difficult to engineer out of the human condition.
Random acts of chance well that is the most difficult to control that will be possibly the most difficult to re-engineer.
The pax on JK should feel relieved that they experienced the best of our current engineering and human skills whilst travelling in a machine only dreamed of a century ago.
If it is caused by corrosion then we need to design materials or build machines that do not suffer such effects, carbon fibre perhaps but time will no doubt reveal all the flaws in that technology.
Oxy bottles failing, redesign to remove possibility or remove nessessity for onboard carriage of emergency oxy.
Other speculations that humans who wish ill on others and fabricate harm that is more difficult to engineer out of the human condition.
Random acts of chance well that is the most difficult to control that will be possibly the most difficult to re-engineer.
The pax on JK should feel relieved that they experienced the best of our current engineering and human skills whilst travelling in a machine only dreamed of a century ago.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, I think splitpin has just nailed it. Well its a hell of a wakeup call, and we can only thank God or who ever looks after QF, (and somebody or something sure as hell does), it just worries me that some AME or LAME will be made to wear it, when we all know the reason why, has been coming a long time. Perhaps its time that the AIPA and the LAMES union got together as a united front, and faced management with some very strong recommendations and stuff the shareholders, we are dealing in lives here, not jam tins, and if we cannot supply aircraft that are suitable to service the industry in the manner the travelling public pay for and deserve then its time to close the shop. I sincerely hope (if it is proven to be a oxy bottle) that the engineer that is invited for tea and bikkies by management has the full support of his/her union behind them, and the general public is told the truth. In my wildest dreams, in all my years in aviation did I ever expect QF to go downhill like it has, and it is no LAME or AME to blame, the full fault lies with management and the beancounters cost cutting. QF has run on loyalty for many years and for many years it was appreciated, but for the last eight years or so, with the attitude of management of "you play along with us and we will stick the bat up your Ar#e anyway" the loyalty is drying up, and staff have become cynical and downhearted, perhaps this near tragedy had to happen, and perhaps it is the road to recovery, with one hell of a wakeup call, just let us hope the mighty dollar comes second to safety from now on. JC it has to.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
noone has mentioned qantas +nitrogen yet?
Could the nitrogen mix up from last year have anything to do with eventual (but premature) failure of seals, pressurerelief valves?
Or could the nitrogen have promoted corrosion inside an oxy cylinder.
edit - to you below - ive been called scurvydog for 25 years, its been shortened to scurv, we will have to share
edit2 - to you below - i really dont care what you think 'mate', if you want to post like a 2 year old having a tanty thats your problem.
Could the nitrogen mix up from last year have anything to do with eventual (but premature) failure of seals, pressurerelief valves?
Or could the nitrogen have promoted corrosion inside an oxy cylinder.
edit - to you below - ive been called scurvydog for 25 years, its been shortened to scurv, we will have to share
edit2 - to you below - i really dont care what you think 'mate', if you want to post like a 2 year old having a tanty thats your problem.
Last edited by scurv; 29th Jul 2008 at 07:02. Reason: elaboration
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Appologies for the wee thread drift
.
To you above ...
.
Eh .. piss off and use yer own name
.
LoL Scurv
P.S I don't give a rats mate ... stick yer sharing mate
.
To you above ...
.
Eh .. piss off and use yer own name
.
LoL Scurv
P.S I don't give a rats mate ... stick yer sharing mate
Last edited by Scurvy.D.Dog; 28th Jul 2008 at 04:58.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas invents the jet engine??
The Sunday Times here in the UK said today that:
'Qantas haven't lost a jet aircraft since 1920'
Did Frank Whittle do his apprenticeship with Qantas?
'Qantas haven't lost a jet aircraft since 1920'
Did Frank Whittle do his apprenticeship with Qantas?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Elliptical Orbit
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its correct though, they could also have written "since 1120" and still be right. They also could have said they haven't lost an A380, also true.
Its the media, truth takes another form.
Its the media, truth takes another form.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Here. Over here.
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems an appropriate time to re-post
Put up your hand all of you who believe Qantas has never had a passenger fatality. OK. Put your hands down now. You are all WRONG!
Qantas have been littering the countryside with wrecked aircraft and dead passengers for a long time.
A search through www.planecrashinfo.com reveals the following info about Qantas' fatalities:
de Havilland DH-9C G-AUED 24 Mar 1927 - 3 died
de Havilland DH-86 VH-USG 15 Nov 1934 - 4 died
de Havilland DH-86 VH-USE 20 Feb 1942 - 9 died
Short S-23 (flying boat) VH-ADU 22 Apr 1943 - 13 died
Lockheed 18 Lodestar VH-CAB 26 Nov 1943 - 15 died
Short S-23 (flying boat) VH-ABB 11 Oct 1944 - 1 died
Lancastrian VH-EAS 07 April 1949 - 0 died
de Havilland Drover II VH-EBQ 16 Jul 1951 - 7 died
Lockheed L1049 VH-EAC 24 August 1960 - 0 died
Boeing B747 VH-OJH 22 September 1999 - 0 died
Also, there is an article about the L1049 crash at Mauritius at http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/fsa/do...0jan/page49.pdf where it mentions that on 23 March 1946 a Lancastrian G-AGLX operated by Qantas with 5 crew and 5 passengers went missing on a flight between Colombo and Cocos Is. and no trace of it was ever found.
I must admit to once believing that Qantas had a perfect safety record. This shows the power of selecting only the statistics you want. I think Qantas start counting from 1952 onwards. A bit like the White Star Line ruling a line just after the Titanic and counting from there.
Qantas do have a good record, but it is not as perfect as some people would have you believe.
Qantas have been littering the countryside with wrecked aircraft and dead passengers for a long time.
A search through www.planecrashinfo.com reveals the following info about Qantas' fatalities:
de Havilland DH-9C G-AUED 24 Mar 1927 - 3 died
de Havilland DH-86 VH-USG 15 Nov 1934 - 4 died
de Havilland DH-86 VH-USE 20 Feb 1942 - 9 died
Short S-23 (flying boat) VH-ADU 22 Apr 1943 - 13 died
Lockheed 18 Lodestar VH-CAB 26 Nov 1943 - 15 died
Short S-23 (flying boat) VH-ABB 11 Oct 1944 - 1 died
Lancastrian VH-EAS 07 April 1949 - 0 died
de Havilland Drover II VH-EBQ 16 Jul 1951 - 7 died
Lockheed L1049 VH-EAC 24 August 1960 - 0 died
Boeing B747 VH-OJH 22 September 1999 - 0 died
Also, there is an article about the L1049 crash at Mauritius at http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/fsa/do...0jan/page49.pdf where it mentions that on 23 March 1946 a Lancastrian G-AGLX operated by Qantas with 5 crew and 5 passengers went missing on a flight between Colombo and Cocos Is. and no trace of it was ever found.
I must admit to once believing that Qantas had a perfect safety record. This shows the power of selecting only the statistics you want. I think Qantas start counting from 1952 onwards. A bit like the White Star Line ruling a line just after the Titanic and counting from there.
Qantas do have a good record, but it is not as perfect as some people would have you believe.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
desert dingo re qantas safety record
I dont think you'll find anything official from qantas sprouting the safety record and I cant remember them ever saying so in any official blurb/sales pitch.Could be wrong but just cant recall anything.
A lot of it stems from Rainman imho and an ignorant media who 'educate' an unknowing public who take that as fact without question.
It does help qantas charge that little bit more I believe trading on that reputation.Sooo many folks I know pay the extra for that implied safety record which despite the numbers you provided is still remarkable.
A lot of it stems from Rainman imho and an ignorant media who 'educate' an unknowing public who take that as fact without question.
It does help qantas charge that little bit more I believe trading on that reputation.Sooo many folks I know pay the extra for that implied safety record which despite the numbers you provided is still remarkable.
Not quite the Himalayas, my understanding is that LSALT is above the max. altitude the engines are certified to be relit. Last time I think I went over Afghanistan, LSALT just a bit lower.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
From my understanding of this event, it will not be attributed to any failings by QF, maintenance or otherwise.
There will however be a worldwide flap about the construction standards of oxy bottles.
QF will turn out to be the unlucky recipient of a dud piece of equipment over which it had no control, much like the Sioux City incident.
There will however be a worldwide flap about the construction standards of oxy bottles.
QF will turn out to be the unlucky recipient of a dud piece of equipment over which it had no control, much like the Sioux City incident.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As "Negative Feedback" also stated, above comment
is correct. True, the year is misleading, they have crashed and had plenty of fatalities before the jetage, as Desert Dingo conviniently reposted, but they never lost a jet aircraft period. Yes Rainman comes into play and it's now stuck into peoples minds that Qantas just simply never crashed, which is not true.
But still, Qantas holds an impressive safety record albeit now with a bit of luck. Considering all of those fatalities were at times when other airlines didnt even exist, some during wartimes, or with crazy wooden and cloth machines at times when flying was almost inevitably going to get you killed, we are talking 1920's and 1930's here, that was experimental stages, people flying by their bum, hardly any instruments, ticking timebomb crazy flying machines just waiting to crash. That is one good safety record i reckon.
Yes, people shouldn't keep harping on as to how Qantas never ever crashed and has an immaculate safety record, but for me, even if they killed people before the 50's, Qantas never killed any passenger or lost a hull when it counts, from 1960 or so onwards. When most other airlines just started up and killed pax on an almost regular basis.
The Sunday Times here in the UK said today that:
'Qantas haven't lost a jet aircraft since 1920'
'Qantas haven't lost a jet aircraft since 1920'
But still, Qantas holds an impressive safety record albeit now with a bit of luck. Considering all of those fatalities were at times when other airlines didnt even exist, some during wartimes, or with crazy wooden and cloth machines at times when flying was almost inevitably going to get you killed, we are talking 1920's and 1930's here, that was experimental stages, people flying by their bum, hardly any instruments, ticking timebomb crazy flying machines just waiting to crash. That is one good safety record i reckon.
Yes, people shouldn't keep harping on as to how Qantas never ever crashed and has an immaculate safety record, but for me, even if they killed people before the 50's, Qantas never killed any passenger or lost a hull when it counts, from 1960 or so onwards. When most other airlines just started up and killed pax on an almost regular basis.
Last edited by Nudlaug; 28th Jul 2008 at 05:58.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J.B's wife (apparently going under the name OZWITCH) had this to say
Commwealth flying | Neptunus Lex
"You might not recall that my husband was ex-RAN A4. He now flies 747-400. He had the explosive decompression yesterday.
Fun day!
I can give your readers some facts that are solid:
No engines were shut down.
Aeroplane’s controls were unaffected.
Some computer functions and electrics were affected - all 3 ILS shut down and the Capt’s FMC. Antiskid warning came on.
The R2 door alarm activated.
Capt inititated controlled descent from 29K to 10K, which took about 4 mins. Mayday was called (John never ever thought he would have to declare a mayday in his entire career!)
After levelling off, fuel dump of 50 tons was commenced, and plane landed afterwards normally, but used all available runway. Engine #3 was shut down first, then 3 others after and plane was towed to terminal. Passengers disembarked normally via aerobridge.
John praised crew and passengers, who all rose to the occasion.
I have a few pics I can share if you’d like. Let me know, and if any other q’s
Ozwitch"
Commwealth flying | Neptunus Lex
"You might not recall that my husband was ex-RAN A4. He now flies 747-400. He had the explosive decompression yesterday.
Fun day!
I can give your readers some facts that are solid:
No engines were shut down.
Aeroplane’s controls were unaffected.
Some computer functions and electrics were affected - all 3 ILS shut down and the Capt’s FMC. Antiskid warning came on.
The R2 door alarm activated.
Capt inititated controlled descent from 29K to 10K, which took about 4 mins. Mayday was called (John never ever thought he would have to declare a mayday in his entire career!)
After levelling off, fuel dump of 50 tons was commenced, and plane landed afterwards normally, but used all available runway. Engine #3 was shut down first, then 3 others after and plane was towed to terminal. Passengers disembarked normally via aerobridge.
John praised crew and passengers, who all rose to the occasion.
I have a few pics I can share if you’d like. Let me know, and if any other q’s
Ozwitch"
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the news on Yahoo that there was an AD to check bottle mounts months ago and that QF did not comply, surely Naffy must step up to the plate and do something to ensure the safety of QF passengers.
QF has taken care of its reputation by itself.
Remember that another airline's whole fleet was grounded after the airline reported a paper discrepancy! No holes in aircraft.
Bits can fall off QF aircraft, fuel computers can have problems, galley sinks can be allowed to continue leaking perhaps causing a total electrical failure and the side of an aircraft can blow out.What is done? Order them to check their aircraft? They were supposed to do that all along!
What else is wrong with their aircraft?
I am amazed that they still have 747-300's. Even decent freight operators are using 400's.
QF has taken care of its reputation by itself.
Remember that another airline's whole fleet was grounded after the airline reported a paper discrepancy! No holes in aircraft.
Bits can fall off QF aircraft, fuel computers can have problems, galley sinks can be allowed to continue leaking perhaps causing a total electrical failure and the side of an aircraft can blow out.What is done? Order them to check their aircraft? They were supposed to do that all along!
What else is wrong with their aircraft?
I am amazed that they still have 747-300's. Even decent freight operators are using 400's.