Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

SingCargo Pod/Wing/Tailstrike at YMML today?

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

SingCargo Pod/Wing/Tailstrike at YMML today?

Old 11th Oct 2016, 10:21
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Heaven on Earth
Posts: 6
I tell you what. You should ask Boeing why they are so dumb and brave as to publish this stupid QRH checklist for that particular aircraft type and model ; which could result in lawsuits against them if the pilot should follow their stupid checklist and subsequently crash.
I hope you have operated the B 773 or the B 773-ER before to be such an expert.
The first question the investigators and company will ask is why did you not comply with the QRH checklist... unless you know something that the Boeing engineers and designers don't.
Then you should tell them the checklist is flawed and rubbish...
millionaire is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2016, 11:27
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BNE, Australia
Posts: 266
And if you turn back and there's nothing wrong with the airframe and the QRH says you could have continued, the first question the company is going to ask is... why did you turn back.

Sparks and smoke don't mean much if you are seeing the purpose-designed tail skid contacting the runway...
chuboy is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2016, 12:22
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 572
Lets wait for the report. Nobody goes to work to have an incident or accident, perhaps we all may be able to learn something when the facts are eventually revealed.
Report? What report? You might be waiting a while.
C441 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2016, 12:50
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Earth
Posts: 82
MACH082.

The 777-300 has a tailskid whose very design is to absorb the impact. If the tail crushes this and hits the fuselage it triggers an EICAS. If it doesn't, then the it has done precisely as designed, prevents the fuselage from striking the surface, and it is safe to continue the flight. Exactly as per Boeing instructions and checklist design.

And exactly what the crew did correctly here. This has been proven by the inspection of the aircraft in Singapore.

It seems that you think you are smarter than the thousands of Boeing engineers who designed the aircraft. Here is your problem: they have been proven right, and you have been proven wrong.

You have displayed arrogance and ignorance; a very scary pair of traits for any pilot.
keepitrealok is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2016, 13:19
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 165
From what I heard of atc, it appears they alll based it on the fact nothing other than a mark was found on the runway, no debris.
logansi is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2016, 19:56
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
And why did you dump 70T of fuel against QRH instructions?
aussie1234 is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2016, 05:14
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 629
Singapore have cornered QF recently with new A350s, Canberra and more A380 services to Australia. Scoot has killed of Jetstar's chances in Asia.

No doubt this beat up is a result of QF picking up the phone to their ever loyal journos and telling their version of how (un)serious this is.

Can't beat them on frequency, service, aircraft, product but more than happy to rip them apart shall a PR issue arise....
wheels_down is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2016, 07:44
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: All over the Planet
Posts: 761
No doubt this beat up is a result of QF picking up the phone to their ever loyal journos and telling their version of how (un)serious this is.
I would have thought that the good folk at Qantas would have better things to do than cast aspersions on the safety of a competitor!
Ken Borough is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2016, 09:11
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 572
No doubt this beat up is a result of QF picking up the phone to their ever loyal journos and telling their version of how (un)serious this is.
Of course if this had been a Qantas aircraft in Singapore, the Straits Times would have ignored it……..

Like Ken, I doubt Qantas had any part in the notification to journos. They have there own "Sensational story" sources……scanners…..twitter…..faceplant…..
C441 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.