Merged: Qantas 747 Engine failure. Returns to SFO
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
I am guessing that one of the reasons why these guys initially appeared a bit tense is the subconscious knowledge that their every action is going to be reviewed by a small audience of partially informed spectators (us), and large audience of completely uniformed spectators; the media and their customers.
It didn't happen like that in the old days and I feel airline managements have not addressed the issue of the intense scrutiny placed on any crew in this situation and the subtle pressure it places on them.
Watching the A330 last year that had a hydraulic system failure and landing live on the 6.00 news, I realised that any incident is sensationalist fodder. The captain on that flight was a close friend and although I knew a safe landing was a formality, he would have been aware of the TV choppers following him and there must have been a lot of pressure on him that wasn't there in the past. Food for thought.
It didn't happen like that in the old days and I feel airline managements have not addressed the issue of the intense scrutiny placed on any crew in this situation and the subtle pressure it places on them.
Watching the A330 last year that had a hydraulic system failure and landing live on the 6.00 news, I realised that any incident is sensationalist fodder. The captain on that flight was a close friend and although I knew a safe landing was a formality, he would have been aware of the TV choppers following him and there must have been a lot of pressure on him that wasn't there in the past. Food for thought.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Love it! From the SMH:
and
"
Kirk Willcox, from Randwick, was seated in a row near the aircraft's wing when he "suddenly heard a loud pop and a swish" as the jumbo's fourth engine caught fire.
"We knew we had not hit turbulence and then we made a bit of a skid to the left and got the wobbles and then dropped in altitude," he said.
"We knew we had not hit turbulence and then we made a bit of a skid to the left and got the wobbles and then dropped in altitude," he said.
and
"
The ironic thing is that it was probably one of the most gentlest and softest landings I have ever experienced and that was on three engines," Mr Roberts said.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: West of Point Byron!!!
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...is largely irrelevant - as Australian registered aircraft are approved to use their Flight Admin manual and procedures. The Jepp WWT (world wide text) outlines a summary of the main changes which are relevant (in addition to company Route Manual).
From what we have seen over the years the USA /FAA /ATC dont have a particularly good track record with Radio Voice Procedure. Its all a bit care free really.
On a side note. Have you got a link or reference for that 'Jepp WWT' for me? I can't seem to find it in my set. Cheers
Use of mobile phone in-flight?
Video of this incident shown on commercial television was reportedly captured on a mobile phone. I wonder if Qantas, CASA or the FAA will be trying to establish whether
1. the report is correct
2. if it is correct, was the phone being used in 'flight mode'
3. if the answer to question 2 is 'no', will the person who took the video (who no doubt was paid handsomely for his video) be prosecuted?
That said, the captain's PA was extraordinarily professional and must have engendered a great deal of confidence in the passengers whose lives were in his very capable hands. Well done Sir!
1. the report is correct
2. if it is correct, was the phone being used in 'flight mode'
3. if the answer to question 2 is 'no', will the person who took the video (who no doubt was paid handsomely for his video) be prosecuted?
That said, the captain's PA was extraordinarily professional and must have engendered a great deal of confidence in the passengers whose lives were in his very capable hands. Well done Sir!
Last edited by Ken Borough; 2nd Sep 2010 at 05:32.
Bottums Up
I can't see that the use of a mobile phone will raise the ire of the authorities, unless they can some how prove that the device wasn't in flight mode, which allows it's use on QF once the seatbelt sign has been extinguished after take off. 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emergency status
I found it interesting that (based on my interpretation of the LiveATC.net recording) the crew had to taxi to the ramp to get the engine inspected after landing (where the emergency vehicles were apparently waiting), apparently crossing at least one other runway in the process.
There did seem to be a vehicle or two following the aircraft however I would have thought it best to land , taxi clear, then stop. Then get fireys to have a look and then get them to follow to the terminal.
As for PAN vs. emergency - I think the crew conveyed the message to the ATC (except the bit about dangerous goods) well enough - as some kind of emergency response was waiting when the aircraft touched down.
I agree though I would have thought QF would have announced the PAN earlier. This recording makes it sounds like they are returning for anything but an engine-out scenario.
There did seem to be a vehicle or two following the aircraft however I would have thought it best to land , taxi clear, then stop. Then get fireys to have a look and then get them to follow to the terminal.
As for PAN vs. emergency - I think the crew conveyed the message to the ATC (except the bit about dangerous goods) well enough - as some kind of emergency response was waiting when the aircraft touched down.
I agree though I would have thought QF would have announced the PAN earlier. This recording makes it sounds like they are returning for anything but an engine-out scenario.
Nunc est bibendum
Gunger, an engine failure wouldn't necessarily warrant a PAN in the first instance. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that they upgraded to PAN once the information got through to them that they were shooting sparks out the rear of the engine.
It all sounded pretty good to me.
It all sounded pretty good to me.
Speaking of communications, wondering where Qantas CEO Alan Joyce or General manager Lyell Strambi have been during this entire episode? You'd think an event like this might prompt an appearance in the media to show the 'managers' of the airline are concerned, not spokesperson Epstein to say "sorry".
Bottums Up
I've only listened to the ATC feed once. As I recall, QF 74 asked to taxi clear of the runway, to the apron for inspection before continuing to the bay.
I thought it OTT that a message would be passed from the company, seemingly early in the sequence of events, asking for details. ('Hey Skip, want me to do a wing walk to see what the problem is?') I'd have though that the tech crew would pass on relevant information at their earliest convenience.
I thought it OTT that a message would be passed from the company, seemingly early in the sequence of events, asking for details. ('Hey Skip, want me to do a wing walk to see what the problem is?') I'd have though that the tech crew would pass on relevant information at their earliest convenience.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect the WWT is a document produced for airlines by Jepps on request. Not sure of the availability outside these channels...possibly try Jeppesen direct?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Orstraylia
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where's the CEO and his chief stooge?
Speaking of communications, wondering where Qantas CEO Alan Joyce or General manager Lyell Strambi have been during this entire episode? You'd think an event like this might prompt an appearance in the media to show the 'managers' of the airline are concerned, not spokesperson Epstein to say "sorry".
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melb
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the overall event was handled well enough.Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing & perhaps QF as well as the rest of us here can learn from the way this was handled. It's obvious that the engine failure caught the crew out somewhat would do for all of us hence their initial R/T that was a little disjointed but effective enough at the time.
I would have thought though that a pan call would have been appropriate upon first contact with ATC as any engine failure regardless of it's cause (vibs must have been going thru the roof!)or effects is an abnormal event therefore creating an abnormal operation. IE: fuel dumping & a 3 eng ldg etc, all considered 'not normal'. Such a call makes it B&W with regards to further R/T's meaning that there is now a level of urgency about the matter. Not declaring a Pan call in the first instance could (it didn't in this case too much as the Yanks are fairly casual) have added to ATC's decisions for processing the A/C back to Frisko.
I was also surprised to see that the A/C was allowed to cross any rwy unescorted as such a failure(eng) could easily have led to debris falling from the now severely damaged engine onto any part of both rwy's where other A/C would have been Ldg & Taking off.
Hypothetically if that event had turned out horribly wrong by way of the airframe breaking up in flight due sever damage to wing for Eg then the first thing that we would be reading might very well have been was the failure conveyed to ATC with any level of urgency IE was a "PAN" call made straight up? As I said hypothetically but we often read these stories where ATC wasn't offered any direction as to the level of urgency at first.
The amusing stuff here is the media's attempt at describing these events.
Heard on the ABC wireless news comments from a whom pax was sitting on top of the effected engine (or words to that effect)......man that must have been one hell of a ride !
Still all's well that ends well
Wmk2
I would have thought though that a pan call would have been appropriate upon first contact with ATC as any engine failure regardless of it's cause (vibs must have been going thru the roof!)or effects is an abnormal event therefore creating an abnormal operation. IE: fuel dumping & a 3 eng ldg etc, all considered 'not normal'. Such a call makes it B&W with regards to further R/T's meaning that there is now a level of urgency about the matter. Not declaring a Pan call in the first instance could (it didn't in this case too much as the Yanks are fairly casual) have added to ATC's decisions for processing the A/C back to Frisko.
I was also surprised to see that the A/C was allowed to cross any rwy unescorted as such a failure(eng) could easily have led to debris falling from the now severely damaged engine onto any part of both rwy's where other A/C would have been Ldg & Taking off.
Hypothetically if that event had turned out horribly wrong by way of the airframe breaking up in flight due sever damage to wing for Eg then the first thing that we would be reading might very well have been was the failure conveyed to ATC with any level of urgency IE was a "PAN" call made straight up? As I said hypothetically but we often read these stories where ATC wasn't offered any direction as to the level of urgency at first.
The amusing stuff here is the media's attempt at describing these events.
Heard on the ABC wireless news comments from a whom pax was sitting on top of the effected engine (or words to that effect)......man that must have been one hell of a ride !
Still all's well that ends well
Wmk2
Borescope interval
In the aviation section of today's The Australian a Qantas spokesman is quoted as stating:
"The last borescope inspection was July 8. We do it every 750 flight hours, or roughly every six weeks..."
Could somebody with QF RB211 knowledge please advise if this interval is normal for the engine maintenance program, or as a result of an airworthiness directive.
"The last borescope inspection was July 8. We do it every 750 flight hours, or roughly every six weeks..."
Could somebody with QF RB211 knowledge please advise if this interval is normal for the engine maintenance program, or as a result of an airworthiness directive.
I'm with Capt Claret ... the most prominent issue for me was why the Company was asking such a wankish ( I'm sure it's a word) question of the crew at such an innapropriate time
From my one listening of the tape, I think ATC were advised a lot earlier about the problem than is obvious. You can tell by some of their questions that they know the story. I think a fair bit was not included. In fact, I don't think the phrase engine failure is ever mentioned ... so obviously it was discussed earlier.
P.S. I just listened to the 2nd recording ( the video) and they advise ATC straight off that there's been an engine failure. That was not in the first audio recording.
From my one listening of the tape, I think ATC were advised a lot earlier about the problem than is obvious. You can tell by some of their questions that they know the story. I think a fair bit was not included. In fact, I don't think the phrase engine failure is ever mentioned ... so obviously it was discussed earlier.
P.S. I just listened to the 2nd recording ( the video) and they advise ATC straight off that there's been an engine failure. That was not in the first audio recording.
Bottums Up
Wang,
YouTube is your friend. I'm not 747 rated, so take the video at face value. I am confident that fuel dump systems would be designed not to dump fuel in the trail of the engines.
YouTube is your friend. I'm not 747 rated, so take the video at face value. I am confident that fuel dump systems would be designed not to dump fuel in the trail of the engines.
Nunc est bibendum
The shots of the bulk of sparks looks like it was before the engine was actually shut down. There is another shot (it appears to be a bit out of sequence) where the sparking has decreased significantly to almost nothing.
Given that we weren't there and don't know what state the engine was in when the fuel dumping actually occurred it's a bit premature to suggest that the decision to dump fuel may have been incorrect or not have considered the sparks and other things.
From what I recall of the engine/ dump geometery I don't think it'd be much of an issue.
Given that we weren't there and don't know what state the engine was in when the fuel dumping actually occurred it's a bit premature to suggest that the decision to dump fuel may have been incorrect or not have considered the sparks and other things.
From what I recall of the engine/ dump geometery I don't think it'd be much of an issue.
Last edited by Keg; 3rd Sep 2010 at 05:13.
Wang
I think that Capt Claret knows what he is talking about here. "Pretty close" (as you put it) is about 36 ft or 11m, and with the airspeed taken into account it is difficult to see a problem. Now take a look at the A340-600 (see link below), but it must also have met the stringent certification requirements. Are there any 744 guys able to tell us of any restrictions on the dump procedure ?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mpA340-600.JPG
I think that Capt Claret knows what he is talking about here. "Pretty close" (as you put it) is about 36 ft or 11m, and with the airspeed taken into account it is difficult to see a problem. Now take a look at the A340-600 (see link below), but it must also have met the stringent certification requirements. Are there any 744 guys able to tell us of any restrictions on the dump procedure ?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mpA340-600.JPG
Bottums Up
WangFunk,
Lucky as pilots then, that we can't see what comes out of the back of the engines.
Jet fuel is pretty difficult to light with a match, I don't know how easily the vaporising fuel being jettisoned would ignite in flames/sparks coming from an engine. However, at the sort of speed required to remain airborne, I can't see fuel being dumped from a wing tip, getting close enough to an engine to ignite.
Further, none of the manufacturers would stay in business too long, if the fuel dump system caused the aircraft to catch fire or blow up.
An alternative dump, from a 747-200.
Lucky as pilots then, that we can't see what comes out of the back of the engines.
Jet fuel is pretty difficult to light with a match, I don't know how easily the vaporising fuel being jettisoned would ignite in flames/sparks coming from an engine. However, at the sort of speed required to remain airborne, I can't see fuel being dumped from a wing tip, getting close enough to an engine to ignite.
Further, none of the manufacturers would stay in business too long, if the fuel dump system caused the aircraft to catch fire or blow up.
An alternative dump, from a 747-200.
Bottums Up
WangFunk
I don't see any rudeness.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd opt for fuel dump and not landing overweight, as I don't perceive the ignition threat that you do.
If the fuel jettison was between engines 1&2 and 3&4, I might agree with you but from close to the wing tip, I'd be quite comfortable.
Mind you, I've not flown a jet that can dump fuel.
I understand that.
It would be interesting to know whether fuel vapour would ignite at high altitudes. I'd imagine that it would be too rich a mixture, with too little oxygen, and how quickly would the sparks cool in sub zero airflow of a > 200 kias?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd opt for fuel dump and not landing overweight, as I don't perceive the ignition threat that you do.
If the fuel jettison was between engines 1&2 and 3&4, I might agree with you but from close to the wing tip, I'd be quite comfortable.
Mind you, I've not flown a jet that can dump fuel.
Ohh and by the way, a match doesnt even nearly resemble the temperatures from a turbine section!!
It would be interesting to know whether fuel vapour would ignite at high altitudes. I'd imagine that it would be too rich a mixture, with too little oxygen, and how quickly would the sparks cool in sub zero airflow of a > 200 kias?
