QF575 return to SYD and emergency evac
I would have thought that the Captain would have been shielded from talking to the media at least until they have had a day or two to gather info etc. Isnt there normally company policy on this?
VH EBC is 16.9 years old
Snoop Doggy Dog
The engines on wing wouldn't be the originals. They would have been removed and exchanged for overhauled engines by now?
Snoop Doggy Dog
As engined get older, seals do not seal as good as they do when new. It is a well known fact for the seal manufacturers, however Airlines and Aircraft manufacturers, Airbus in this case, tend to kick the bucket down the road.
I was just stirring but events like these demonstrate that fleet renewal is an urgent matter for QF. Once the 321LRs arrive at JQ, I think half a dozen of the 787-8s for QF to use domestically and/or to Asia, replacing the oldest 330s is not the dumbest idea.
“Qantas insisted the incident did not fit its definition of an “emergency”.”
(News.com)
If a smoke/fumes event with injury’s as a result of an evacuation via slides doesn’t cut the mustard for an emergency, what is their definition/line in the sand for an emergency?
(News.com)
If a smoke/fumes event with injury’s as a result of an evacuation via slides doesn’t cut the mustard for an emergency, what is their definition/line in the sand for an emergency?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engines on wing wouldn't be the originals. They would have been removed and exchanged for overhauled engines by now?[/QUOTE]
Turbine engines are different to piston engines Possibly been replaced if they were out of spec, or replaced parts that were out of spec. The engine seals do not completely seal from day one, and deteriorate from there.
There is always Toxic Cabin Air Contamination at varying levels. What has not been established in the Airline Industry, unlike the Fire Industry for example, are what the safe exposure levels/times to Tri Cresyl Phosphate (amongst other toxins) are.
Obviously, you did read the links provided in the post above Industry Insider, before shooting off at the mouth?
Do a little research for yourself Industry Insider.
As for the Captain evacuating the Aircraft ASAP, so as to expose their crew and passengers to less Toxic Cabin Air Contamination, excellent job
That decision has possibly saved the company millions, due to less exposure
Goes to show, at least the crew at Qantas, make Safety their number one priority. It makes me phuckin mad that management will use their crews' excellent Safety ethic to feather their own nest 24,000,000 times over, whilst the coalface gets jacksh!t 
Turbine engines are different to piston engines Possibly been replaced if they were out of spec, or replaced parts that were out of spec. The engine seals do not completely seal from day one, and deteriorate from there.
There is always Toxic Cabin Air Contamination at varying levels. What has not been established in the Airline Industry, unlike the Fire Industry for example, are what the safe exposure levels/times to Tri Cresyl Phosphate (amongst other toxins) are.
Obviously, you did read the links provided in the post above Industry Insider, before shooting off at the mouth?
Do a little research for yourself Industry Insider.
As for the Captain evacuating the Aircraft ASAP, so as to expose their crew and passengers to less Toxic Cabin Air Contamination, excellent job
That decision has possibly saved the company millions, due to less exposureGoes to show, at least the crew at Qantas, make Safety their number one priority. It makes me phuckin mad that management will use their crews' excellent Safety ethic to feather their own nest 24,000,000 times over, whilst the coalface gets jacksh!t
Last edited by snoop doggy dog; 15th Dec 2019 at 12:06.
Evertonian
I’m seeing an increasing number of comments here about seals, washes and engines but very little mention (apart from one or two early posts) of the reported reason for the return to Sydney.
Is the team postulating that two (possibly) unrelated failures lead to this evacuation, or we going to start thinking about using Occam’s razor at some point?
Is the team postulating that two (possibly) unrelated failures lead to this evacuation, or we going to start thinking about using Occam’s razor at some point?
Burst hydraulic line in the empennage area that leaked down the tail and was sucked up by the ingenious 330 design of an under slung APU intake. This was then comsumed by the APU and into the air con. Only happened at the terminal when the APU was turned on.
Or
It could be another busted rotator splint and thronomister. They are always breaking.
Or
It could be another busted rotator splint and thronomister. They are always breaking.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: earth
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if you turned on the bleed and fumes appear, then turning off the bleed may isolate the fumes. (a good place to start!)
Like I said I reckon it was something much more serious to command an emergency evacuation.
In any case, fuel saving measures enforce APU bleed OFF at the bay anyway these days don't they ?
Like I said I reckon it was something much more serious to command an emergency evacuation.
In any case, fuel saving measures enforce APU bleed OFF at the bay anyway these days don't they ?
