QF A380 rejected take off YMML
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 blame Melbourne, would never have happened in Sydney!
Is this really news? It ain't even new! I remember spending 8 hours on a QF 747 in Melbourne back in 1982, long before the days of mobile phones and PSP's to pass the time. Two meal services and two movies later we departed for London via Singapore, it didn't stop me from flying with them again, I'd rather they fixed a defective aeroplane prior to departure, but hey that's just me...
Is this really news? It ain't even new! I remember spending 8 hours on a QF 747 in Melbourne back in 1982, long before the days of mobile phones and PSP's to pass the time. Two meal services and two movies later we departed for London via Singapore, it didn't stop me from flying with them again, I'd rather they fixed a defective aeroplane prior to departure, but hey that's just me...
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The fax, man, the fax (according to the meejia)
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RPT is publicised. It doesn't neccessarily mean that the aircraft will fly or not. We have all been numbed of the fact that the aircraft is still a piece of machinery that CAN and WILL break down. Murphy's law dude.
You've always complained when it's your time, but how do you think the pilots and crew feel ??? They might be getting paid but they all have plans too!
You've always complained when it's your time, but how do you think the pilots and crew feel ??? They might be getting paid but they all have plans too!
What's the matter sunfish, still a little sad that your application to said airline was rejected?
You are very over the top and passionate with hate for some reason and I can't put my finger on where it stems from.
If you were onboard, a) you would have mentioned that. And b) I would then understand where your anger comes from.
You love the word "REGULAR". If you define that through the AOC, I think you will find it refer's to departure times and arrive times being set in stone and the operation runs to that. Sometime's aircraft break down, and therefore wont be departing. If the charter company or flying school you work for makes you depart with a fault, the responsibility is still on you as PIC to say if you go or not. My point is, REGULAR as you put it, does not mean, "depart on time, regardless of the fault present on the aircraft, the lack of fuel to make it, it does not mean depart even if 10 passengers have failed to board." It refer's to a time schedule.
Sunfish quote,
"And, don't try and tell me that this was a "sudden" occurrence, I've heard that one before (although it can happen)."
You're entire argument about REGULAR revolves around this thought in your head that they KNEW the problem existed prior to the boarding of passengers. Get your fact's straight! Even you admit that it does happen mate, pax board and then woompa something hits the fan.
Using this pathetic argument about REGULAR, is about as mad as that other bloke refering to people who don't like, or agree with America's policies as racist.
You are very over the top and passionate with hate for some reason and I can't put my finger on where it stems from.
If you were onboard, a) you would have mentioned that. And b) I would then understand where your anger comes from.
You love the word "REGULAR". If you define that through the AOC, I think you will find it refer's to departure times and arrive times being set in stone and the operation runs to that. Sometime's aircraft break down, and therefore wont be departing. If the charter company or flying school you work for makes you depart with a fault, the responsibility is still on you as PIC to say if you go or not. My point is, REGULAR as you put it, does not mean, "depart on time, regardless of the fault present on the aircraft, the lack of fuel to make it, it does not mean depart even if 10 passengers have failed to board." It refer's to a time schedule.
Sunfish quote,
"And, don't try and tell me that this was a "sudden" occurrence, I've heard that one before (although it can happen)."
You're entire argument about REGULAR revolves around this thought in your head that they KNEW the problem existed prior to the boarding of passengers. Get your fact's straight! Even you admit that it does happen mate, pax board and then woompa something hits the fan.
Using this pathetic argument about REGULAR, is about as mad as that other bloke refering to people who don't like, or agree with America's policies as racist.
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharing is caring but really, just keep it here mate.
Honest.
_______________________
flapsforty
Jet Blast Moderator
Nunc est bibendum
...the cavalier attitude to despatch reliability of certain posters here gets my goat, and if that attitude is wide spread in Qantas, then God help you.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Said ROH111. Couldn't have said it better myself 
Now can we all drop the topic. What has happened, happened. Lets stop crying over spilt milk, and move on with our lives and learn from it!
Now can we all drop the topic. What has happened, happened. Lets stop crying over spilt milk, and move on with our lives and learn from it!
ROH, what gets me very annoyed is comments like the one below:
They annoy me because they betray a certain contempt for the airlines customers, just like the phrase "Self loading Freight", and the scorn poured regularly on frightened individuals whose uninformed quotes make it to the newspapers.
I'm not sure if those that make such comments are actually working for airlines, I'd like to think that airline staff would know who ultimately pays their salaries and be reasonably circumspect, leaving the wannabees and hangers on to pour scorn on the unfortunates.
To put it another way; it's your airline. You own the delay. Deal with it, don't abuse your customers for being upset.
...And for the record, I've never applied for a pilots position with any airline. I was very happy working in Ansett Engineering.
Stop crying you pathetic weasels...an aircraft delay is NOT news, unless you are a reporter looking for an easy 'story' to make it look like you actually did something today.
I'm not sure if those that make such comments are actually working for airlines, I'd like to think that airline staff would know who ultimately pays their salaries and be reasonably circumspect, leaving the wannabees and hangers on to pour scorn on the unfortunates.
To put it another way; it's your airline. You own the delay. Deal with it, don't abuse your customers for being upset.
...And for the record, I've never applied for a pilots position with any airline. I was very happy working in Ansett Engineering.
Sunfish didn't you work at AN? They never delayed a passenger? 767s were grounded why?
Sh*t happens. The crew would have extended up to the point that they couldn't extend anymore. Some would have just got off as soon as the normal duty hours limit was up. The pax would have got off sooner though their chance of actually going would have been deminished. Which is the lesser evil? So it seems the crew went above to try and get the pax away even though late, this resulted in a longer stay on the aircraft than all would have liked.
Could the delay have been better handled by the company. Probably, though they have no control of the security requirments. Melb airport and customs and immigration have some role to play in this. QF possibly could have flown a crew down to MEL off standby if the crews were available and the called out crew would have been able stay within their own duty limits having been called out.
As for this tripe about depatching with known problem YGTFKM. It is a brand new jet!!!!! In service for two weeks. You would get on thinking it would be in perfect working order and any issue would easily solved, you would be unllikely to hold boarding if the issue appeared early. It would not have many MELs let alone any EAs or ATPs. This is a non-event though inconvincing for pax. Sad thing is that it is getting more coverage than Air berlin or AA overruns which are much much more dangerous events.
Sh*t happens. The crew would have extended up to the point that they couldn't extend anymore. Some would have just got off as soon as the normal duty hours limit was up. The pax would have got off sooner though their chance of actually going would have been deminished. Which is the lesser evil? So it seems the crew went above to try and get the pax away even though late, this resulted in a longer stay on the aircraft than all would have liked.
Could the delay have been better handled by the company. Probably, though they have no control of the security requirments. Melb airport and customs and immigration have some role to play in this. QF possibly could have flown a crew down to MEL off standby if the crews were available and the called out crew would have been able stay within their own duty limits having been called out.
As for this tripe about depatching with known problem YGTFKM. It is a brand new jet!!!!! In service for two weeks. You would get on thinking it would be in perfect working order and any issue would easily solved, you would be unllikely to hold boarding if the issue appeared early. It would not have many MELs let alone any EAs or ATPs. This is a non-event though inconvincing for pax. Sad thing is that it is getting more coverage than Air berlin or AA overruns which are much much more dangerous events.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People need to be more 'Zen' about travelling by air - It makes life infinitely calmer.
The plane may fly on time - it may not.
You might get a good seat - you might not.
The service might be good - it might not.
Any delay may be handled properly - or it may not.
The plane may make it to its destination - or you may die enroute.
The problem stems from the fact that so many people have worked so hard to make travel by air, safe and dependable, and it is generally so good - that it is now an expectation that everything will go to schedule, and all the planets will align and make the aeroplane travelling experience 100% as planned.
The reality of life is that the only sure things are: death & taxes - most people should learn to live with that.
The plane may fly on time - it may not.
You might get a good seat - you might not.
The service might be good - it might not.
Any delay may be handled properly - or it may not.
The plane may make it to its destination - or you may die enroute.
The problem stems from the fact that so many people have worked so hard to make travel by air, safe and dependable, and it is generally so good - that it is now an expectation that everything will go to schedule, and all the planets will align and make the aeroplane travelling experience 100% as planned.
The reality of life is that the only sure things are: death & taxes - most people should learn to live with that.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
I doubt very much that security rules in the US were the main reason that passengers were kept on board.
The MEL-LAX operation is always going to be critical from a crew duty/delay point of view.
If the crew are presented with a fault that Engineering is unsure of precisely when it will be fixed, then it makes sense to keep everyone on board. Maybe that should be explained to passengers. The 20 hour limit is inviolate.
Every A380 or 744 leaving MEL for LAX has a maximum of five hours to get away after a delay of any description or the same thing will happen. There are no standby crews sitting around for any aircraft away from the Sydney main base. No airline in the world maintains standby crews away from its main crew bases.
If passengers wish to have entire crews on standby at every departure, that are available to cover the occasional technical delay, then fine... stump up the money. If not, perhaps a little more understanding of the complexities of the operation, and a little less faith in the idiots of the media, and one or two posters here might be the order of the day.
The MEL-LAX operation is always going to be critical from a crew duty/delay point of view.
If the crew are presented with a fault that Engineering is unsure of precisely when it will be fixed, then it makes sense to keep everyone on board. Maybe that should be explained to passengers. The 20 hour limit is inviolate.
Every A380 or 744 leaving MEL for LAX has a maximum of five hours to get away after a delay of any description or the same thing will happen. There are no standby crews sitting around for any aircraft away from the Sydney main base. No airline in the world maintains standby crews away from its main crew bases.
If passengers wish to have entire crews on standby at every departure, that are available to cover the occasional technical delay, then fine... stump up the money. If not, perhaps a little more understanding of the complexities of the operation, and a little less faith in the idiots of the media, and one or two posters here might be the order of the day.
The question was posed to me: under the circumstances i.e. stuck cooped up on the ground for hours, what are the legalities re not permitting a passenger to disembark if they choose to?
I know of a few people who would go somewhat troppo under the circumstances and want to get off, and if they insisted, what legal right do the crew or company have to deny them?
There are the practicalities of course e.g. baggage location and removal if they wanted to move to another carrier etc., but it was the legal issue of holding people against their will that was raised.
An interesting question
I know of a few people who would go somewhat troppo under the circumstances and want to get off, and if they insisted, what legal right do the crew or company have to deny them?
There are the practicalities of course e.g. baggage location and removal if they wanted to move to another carrier etc., but it was the legal issue of holding people against their will that was raised.
An interesting question
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need to keep stby crews all around the country. All that is required in the circumstance of this flight ,was to defuel A/C to an amount (MLW @ SYD) that would allow the A/C to transit via SYD and pick up the Stby crew and continue to LAX.
I'd venture there were other reasons (fault rectification) for the delay than the crew duty times.
I'd venture there were other reasons (fault rectification) for the delay than the crew duty times.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptainMidnight. Legalities of keeping pax on board is a simple one. If the engineering crew thought it was possible to repair the aircraft in time, then to save time and the hassel of deboarding the pax and thier luggage, they keep the pax on board.
Lets say if a strobe light or a landing light blows then its a simple 10 minute fix. Fuel issues are not so simple but still a quickish fix. If it was deemed that the fix would take longer then the pax would have debarked. No passenger would be denied to leave the aircraft. And come on! Its an A380. Not a 717/MD80. They aren't small. Passengers can walk about and what not.
They would have turned on a movie, and served copious amounts of booze. And when that happens the captain wouldn't remove the pax because the Ops Manual would not allow them to fly. So in effect, the captain was doing the passengers a favour.
Lets say if a strobe light or a landing light blows then its a simple 10 minute fix. Fuel issues are not so simple but still a quickish fix. If it was deemed that the fix would take longer then the pax would have debarked. No passenger would be denied to leave the aircraft. And come on! Its an A380. Not a 717/MD80. They aren't small. Passengers can walk about and what not.
They would have turned on a movie, and served copious amounts of booze. And when that happens the captain wouldn't remove the pax because the Ops Manual would not allow them to fly. So in effect, the captain was doing the passengers a favour.
Capt Snafu:
Yep, and when delays occurred, as they always do, the reasons were examined and God help you if it was your snafu. But I left long before AN was hollowed out and the cracking incidents.
Yes, the first 767's did have one or Two delays. I remember a rollback, flameout at top of descent and single engined landing caused by flight idle settings being too low (AN was first CF6-80 customer, there was apparently nothing in the manual about a relight from that condition for some reason) and I remember a few unscheduled engine changes due to a tri lobe engine bearing issue that lead to vibration, but that was about all. It was a very smooth entry into service according to Boeing.
The issue I have is about purported Qantas posters here who don't "own" the issue and instead blame the passengers for unrealistic expectations.
...It's like when QF lost my bags between Melbourne and a Conference in Brisbane and I went to the lost luggage office to raise the matter. The first thing the QF guy on duty said was: "Well it's not my effing fault!" And as I was working as a management consultant at the time of course I had to tell him that, as a representative of his company, it darn well was his fault, but I can imagine disengaged QF staff at present feeling exactly the same.
Sunfish didn't you work at AN? They never delayed a passenger? 767s were grounded why?
Yes, the first 767's did have one or Two delays. I remember a rollback, flameout at top of descent and single engined landing caused by flight idle settings being too low (AN was first CF6-80 customer, there was apparently nothing in the manual about a relight from that condition for some reason) and I remember a few unscheduled engine changes due to a tri lobe engine bearing issue that lead to vibration, but that was about all. It was a very smooth entry into service according to Boeing.
The issue I have is about purported Qantas posters here who don't "own" the issue and instead blame the passengers for unrealistic expectations.
...It's like when QF lost my bags between Melbourne and a Conference in Brisbane and I went to the lost luggage office to raise the matter. The first thing the QF guy on duty said was: "Well it's not my effing fault!" And as I was working as a management consultant at the time of course I had to tell him that, as a representative of his company, it darn well was his fault, but I can imagine disengaged QF staff at present feeling exactly the same.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really sure what your point is Capt.
In respect of your claim of a 5 hour departure delay meaning stumps had to pulled for the day, well as politely as I can put it, you're wrong.
Yes, removing 160Tonnes of fuel from the aircraft, which would then need to be reprocessed, would be a financial burden, but the process itself is quite simple, and has been done a few times before so that a delayed 93 can transit SYD to be recrewed.
Perhaps that is not how you roll in the 'Star Corps'.
In respect of your claim of a 5 hour departure delay meaning stumps had to pulled for the day, well as politely as I can put it, you're wrong.
Yes, removing 160Tonnes of fuel from the aircraft, which would then need to be reprocessed, would be a financial burden, but the process itself is quite simple, and has been done a few times before so that a delayed 93 can transit SYD to be recrewed.
Perhaps that is not how you roll in the 'Star Corps'.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Maybe we can start up a new international carrier to cater for those passenger's who have no concern for safety. Let them fly on planes that are broken, and alongside d!ck-heads with undies full of explosives. I am sure they will always push back on time and be happy. Problem solved.
Thanks pilot2684 "Legally" covered in the T&C's when you buy a ticket I guess.
How time rolls by with rectifying faults. When you think something is going to be a 5 minute fix it ends up not being for various reasons, and if told something should only take an hour max you naturally hold off for that, etc. etc.
I read somewhere that in the U.S. there was a class action by pax against an airline for being held on board for many hours due to some issue, and the airline settled. Also heard over there they have some proposed rule/legislation that would mean a max 3 hour limit to holding pax on board on ground.
How time rolls by with rectifying faults. When you think something is going to be a 5 minute fix it ends up not being for various reasons, and if told something should only take an hour max you naturally hold off for that, etc. etc.
I read somewhere that in the U.S. there was a class action by pax against an airline for being held on board for many hours due to some issue, and the airline settled. Also heard over there they have some proposed rule/legislation that would mean a max 3 hour limit to holding pax on board on ground.