QF depressurisation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: between supple thighs
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF depressurisation
A Qantas plane en route to Brisbane was forced to turn back to Auckland on Saturday after losing cabin pressure at 7,000 metres.
The mechanical fault occurred soon after take-off from Auckland.
The plane had climbed to over 7,000 metres when it started losing cabin pressure.
It returned to Auckland, landed safely and 91 passengers were transferred to other flights.
The mechanical fault occurred soon after take-off from Auckland.
The plane had climbed to over 7,000 metres when it started losing cabin pressure.
It returned to Auckland, landed safely and 91 passengers were transferred to other flights.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
rego anyone?
Blueloo and Tank, 
, you'l be ok, stop crying.
How about the actual incident? Handled well? Anyone know the crew?
Is JTS one of the older ones or a newer ausi import? Rapid, Explosive or Gradual loss of pressure?
Framer
, you'l be ok, stop crying.How about the actual incident? Handled well? Anyone know the crew?
Is JTS one of the older ones or a newer ausi import? Rapid, Explosive or Gradual loss of pressure?
Framer
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Framer, I am OK!
Not so my junior friends though.
I am sure the JETCONNECT incident was handled professionally by the crew,
pity they take the crap money to do such a job though!
Not so my junior friends though.
I am sure the JETCONNECT incident was handled professionally by the crew,
pity they take the crap money to do such a job though!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jconnect relies on the same politics of envy........
the oldmeadow policy relies on people undervaluing their skills.....
Whenever something goes wrong it is a Qantas group aircraft...except when it comes to recruiting and remuneration!!
the oldmeadow policy relies on people undervaluing their skills.....
Whenever something goes wrong it is a Qantas group aircraft...except when it comes to recruiting and remuneration!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Herald article quoted "At about 25,000 feet (7,600 metres), while it was climbing out of Auckland, it experienced a subtle pressurisation problem,"
No oxygen deployed, no emergency declared, just a simple turn back and normal landing. Hysterics over.
Qantas flight to Brisbane turns back - National - NZ Herald News
S2K
No oxygen deployed, no emergency declared, just a simple turn back and normal landing. Hysterics over.
Qantas flight to Brisbane turns back - National - NZ Herald News
S2K
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Auckland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yet another example of the media jumping on a QF incident whereas the EK saga at MEL took days to reach the papers and never got the attention that it really deserved......
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF 116 Passenger Account
I was a passenger aboard QF 116 (Z-JTS) last Saturday (25 July), I am not involved in the aviation industry rather a geologist, so my commentary is on the basis of an informed traveller. I have been a keen reader of PPrune for 4 years and this is my first posting.
I was sitting in 2A in business class on QF 116. The incident first became known to us during the climb out of Auckland. At this time we mostly engrossed in completing landing cards for Brisbane, when a crackled voice came on the public address system and announced "This is the captain, Emergency Descent, repeat Emergency Decent". During the anouncement the aircraft rotated from the climb to the descent. Descent was not noticiably rapid and as reports have mentioned no oxygen masks deployed. As the aircraft rotated into the decsent there was a wave of warm air that seemed to pass from the front to the rear of the cabin, I assume this is normal as warm air rises and would have been forward during the climb and was moving to rearward in the descent configuration. The crew quickly returned to their seats. Shortly after a passenger from economy walked up to the front of the cabin and asked the crew a question (no idea what) as the passenger returned to its seat the cabin crew advised passengers to remain seated. The descent continued on an outbound (Australia targetted) heading and the aircraft levelled out at what I guess was FL 080 to 010. After a short while perhaps five minutes the Captain addressed the passengers again.
I cannot recall the exact words, but he apologised for the incident and advised that the problem was related to indications that the presurisation system was not working properly and that an emergency descent was required. He advised that the oxygen masks had not deployed because we had not been high enough for that to be required. He then assured us that the aircraft was perfectly flyable and that we would be returning to Auckland but as we were "a little heavy" it would be necessary to burn off some fuel for about 40 minutes during which we will be commencing a long slow descent prior to landing in Auckland, After another 5 minutes or so the aircraft turned to fly parallel to the coast heading southwards. The aircraft then slowed significantly and we flew with quite a noticable "angle of attack" for the remained of the fuel burn portion of the flight. By the time we were heading back to Auckland a few 10's of kms from the airport we were pretty low - perhaps 3000 - 4000 ft. From their the aircraft flew a low but normal approach and landed.
The Captain and Cabin Crew apologised for the problem and inconvenience etc and we waited on the apron whilst a vintage fire truck and ambulance officers checked for problems with the aircraft or passengers of which there were non. Eventually buses arrived to return us to the Terminal where we awaited a replacement aircraft, flight crew and cabin crew.
There was no panic during the incident, a few passengers showed genuine concern of course, but calm prevailed.
In hindsight the climb out of Auckland prior to the incident was unusually slow especially compared with the performance of the replacement aircraft, so I suspect but do not know that the flight crew were either cautions because of the reported problem the day before (if that is real) or because of early indications of a problem with the pressurisation.
Visually both ZK-116 and the replacement aircraft are in a poor state of maintenance with respect to their internal fixtures, the seats are old and many of the internal cabin fixtures such as the cloakroom doors are poorly fitting and the crew had trouble closing them. Also the paintwork looked "blotchy and old". Clearly these are older aircraft to what are used on most internal domestic Australian flights. On the replacement aircraft the window blinds rattled like a Melbourne Red Rattler (for those who remember then) as the aircraft took off. All these elements mean that I will look for alternatives to Jet Connect operated services when crossing the Tasman in the future. I will be testing Air New Zealands efforts on Monday. Together with the much reported incident at Darwin in which a heavy landing occured and this personal incident my confidence in Jet Connect is very low.
So on the issue of was this an emergency? Well the captain declared an emergency descent to the cabin crew and to the passengers. So at that time in my book he was dealing with an emergency. Of course the Qantas PR spin doctors are saying there was no emergency to the media, which is fine if you make the assessment with the knowledge that no one was hurt and with the advantage of this hindsight. So yet again the fare paying public is misled for the sake of protecting Qantas former good name. In my book this was an emergency, supported by the Captains declaration. Because there was a good outcome does not mean it was not an emergency.
I was sitting in 2A in business class on QF 116. The incident first became known to us during the climb out of Auckland. At this time we mostly engrossed in completing landing cards for Brisbane, when a crackled voice came on the public address system and announced "This is the captain, Emergency Descent, repeat Emergency Decent". During the anouncement the aircraft rotated from the climb to the descent. Descent was not noticiably rapid and as reports have mentioned no oxygen masks deployed. As the aircraft rotated into the decsent there was a wave of warm air that seemed to pass from the front to the rear of the cabin, I assume this is normal as warm air rises and would have been forward during the climb and was moving to rearward in the descent configuration. The crew quickly returned to their seats. Shortly after a passenger from economy walked up to the front of the cabin and asked the crew a question (no idea what) as the passenger returned to its seat the cabin crew advised passengers to remain seated. The descent continued on an outbound (Australia targetted) heading and the aircraft levelled out at what I guess was FL 080 to 010. After a short while perhaps five minutes the Captain addressed the passengers again.
I cannot recall the exact words, but he apologised for the incident and advised that the problem was related to indications that the presurisation system was not working properly and that an emergency descent was required. He advised that the oxygen masks had not deployed because we had not been high enough for that to be required. He then assured us that the aircraft was perfectly flyable and that we would be returning to Auckland but as we were "a little heavy" it would be necessary to burn off some fuel for about 40 minutes during which we will be commencing a long slow descent prior to landing in Auckland, After another 5 minutes or so the aircraft turned to fly parallel to the coast heading southwards. The aircraft then slowed significantly and we flew with quite a noticable "angle of attack" for the remained of the fuel burn portion of the flight. By the time we were heading back to Auckland a few 10's of kms from the airport we were pretty low - perhaps 3000 - 4000 ft. From their the aircraft flew a low but normal approach and landed.
The Captain and Cabin Crew apologised for the problem and inconvenience etc and we waited on the apron whilst a vintage fire truck and ambulance officers checked for problems with the aircraft or passengers of which there were non. Eventually buses arrived to return us to the Terminal where we awaited a replacement aircraft, flight crew and cabin crew.
There was no panic during the incident, a few passengers showed genuine concern of course, but calm prevailed.
In hindsight the climb out of Auckland prior to the incident was unusually slow especially compared with the performance of the replacement aircraft, so I suspect but do not know that the flight crew were either cautions because of the reported problem the day before (if that is real) or because of early indications of a problem with the pressurisation.
Visually both ZK-116 and the replacement aircraft are in a poor state of maintenance with respect to their internal fixtures, the seats are old and many of the internal cabin fixtures such as the cloakroom doors are poorly fitting and the crew had trouble closing them. Also the paintwork looked "blotchy and old". Clearly these are older aircraft to what are used on most internal domestic Australian flights. On the replacement aircraft the window blinds rattled like a Melbourne Red Rattler (for those who remember then) as the aircraft took off. All these elements mean that I will look for alternatives to Jet Connect operated services when crossing the Tasman in the future. I will be testing Air New Zealands efforts on Monday. Together with the much reported incident at Darwin in which a heavy landing occured and this personal incident my confidence in Jet Connect is very low.
So on the issue of was this an emergency? Well the captain declared an emergency descent to the cabin crew and to the passengers. So at that time in my book he was dealing with an emergency. Of course the Qantas PR spin doctors are saying there was no emergency to the media, which is fine if you make the assessment with the knowledge that no one was hurt and with the advantage of this hindsight. So yet again the fare paying public is misled for the sake of protecting Qantas former good name. In my book this was an emergency, supported by the Captains declaration. Because there was a good outcome does not mean it was not an emergency.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alverton
The heavy landing incident that you are refering to in your post was a National Jet 717.
Think qantas are aware of the substandard quality of the Tasman aircraft, guess thats why they will be getting brand new 737-800s
The heavy landing incident that you are refering to in your post was a National Jet 717.
Think qantas are aware of the substandard quality of the Tasman aircraft, guess thats why they will be getting brand new 737-800s
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correction
Thanks for correcting me re-the National Jet incident.
Is it normal to fly at a high angle of attach during fuel burn?
I hope Qantas are not forgoing maintenance whilst awaiting new equipment.
Is it normal to fly at a high angle of attach during fuel burn?
I hope Qantas are not forgoing maintenance whilst awaiting new equipment.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watch out Alverton, if more pax reports of incidents are as lucid as yours, the media will stop reporting them and/or the rest of us will stop reading pprune to find out what happened.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High angle of attack normally corresponds to low speed. Putting out flap and gear helps produce more drag, requiring more power, therefore burning fuel faster, but it is noisy and discomforting to passengers. I'd say flying slow with a high(ish) angle of attack is normal....otherwise you end up travelling big distances in the time needed to burn fuel (unless you are in a holding pattern of course)