QF144 Auckland to Sydney engine out
Marsal vanes on the flux detractor. There has been a spate of those failing recently which puts the engine into sinus-o delta configuration.
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by Pearly White
You know you're not supposed to be talking about the encabulators - in a forum where the meia might read about it. It was in the NOTAMs last week. You'd better delete the post before someone gets the wrong end of the stick.
The following 2 users liked this post by drpixie:
The following users liked this post:
Q Codes
Originally Posted by Ex FSO GRIFFO
G'Day Mr 'A',
Good to see you're still 'up' wif ya 'Q' codes.....
Possibly in order......Hey YSSY, QF 'Shittyknickers', QHH ?, QGP ? QFO ?.......
Cheeerrrsss.....
Good to see you're still 'up' wif ya 'Q' codes.....
Possibly in order......Hey YSSY, QF 'Shittyknickers', QHH ?, QGP ? QFO ?.......
Cheeerrrsss.....
Been a l o n g time since I worked with the Q and Z codes. Luckily I found my old ACP131 to de-code the Qs:
QHH: I am making an emergency landing (at...)
QGP: You are number ... to land.
QFO: You may land immediately.
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by drpixie
Yeah - ever since they stopped using thrombulators, things haven't been the same.
Last edited by roundsounds; 18th Jan 2023 at 11:14.
The following 6 users liked this post by roundsounds:
Australia has be asked by ICAO to trial a new emergency call, it's just below a MayDay but above a PanPan and it's called a "MaeDey"
Today was a great great day to try it
Today was a great great day to try it
The following users liked this post:
Eidolon
Originally Posted by VHOED191006
However, I curious to know as to whether or not it is SOP there to declare a mayday if you lose an engine during ETOPS ops?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Angle of Attack
The engine failure didn’t occur TOC, it was pretty much half way across so close to the CP.
Originally Posted by Lagiace
The aircraft started a slow descent 40 minutes after t/o indicating engine problem. Very close to Auckland than Sydney.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Sudbury, Suffolk
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
You're the second one. No it didn't. The ADS-B dropped out at 40 minutes. Take some lessons on FlightRadar. Do you have a pilot's licence?
I have the body of a 25 year old, honestly. I keep it in a cupboard under the stairs
Originally Posted by RodH
Fear not fellow aviation enthusiasts!
Our Aviation Expert, "GT", will soon tell us exactly what happened and why.
I can hardly wait to read his words of wisdom.
Our Aviation Expert, "GT", will soon tell us exactly what happened and why.
I can hardly wait to read his words of wisdom.
Then we were treated to "this near disaster" and "the pilot executed a near perfect landing as though nothing was wrong" - pretty sure the air head doing the reporting, judging by her language like with all reporters not quite being right, doesn't have a pilot license or any time on the B737 so how would she know?
Then she rabbited on about "what a terrifying experience for the passengers, with anxiety levels high and every passengers' worst fear".
Upon interviewing some passengers, the first ones she spoke to said "No. We didn't know about the engine shutdown, the Captain told us once we'd landed and explained it was a routine procedure when they shut down an engine as there was no danger".
When is the media going to spend some money and get some decent reporters. A bunch of 5 year olds would be more honest and less sensationalist.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
Based on what we know so far, [deleted for security reasons] failure is the most likely cause. It’s about time the high-bypass engines on the 737 fleet were upgraded.
Originally Posted by ControlLock
From track log details, appears to have failed shortly after TOC with a long gradual drift down all the way across the Tasman into YSSY.
All the talk on here of people like GT not knowing what the hell they're talking about put me in mind of a story I once heard at a major Australian airline (no, not QF).
At a meeting, two managers who's aviation experience between them consisted of stints at Bunnings or McDonalds or something asked of a ground person "What was the reason for the engineering delay on such and such flight?".
I've always been amused by non-aviation, non-engineering managers asking this question. My response was always, "I'm not an engineer, it was an engineering related matter".
Anyway, on this occasion, one of the ground people who was known to be a stirrer replied "It was a problem with the flux capacitor".
Yes. Sit down if you aren't already. The two managers wrote it down on their notepads. Fully prepared to go into a high level Ops Review meeting with executives on the line and say that a delay that morning was caused by a faulty 'flux capacitor'.
At the end of the meeting, the ground handler apparently said to the managers "Ah, I was just pulling your leg, there's no such thing as a flux capacitor, it's from a movie".
Both managers got visibly angry and berated the person for it.
My point is, how bloody stupid does someone have to be to fall for that? When I was told the story, I was asked "You know what a flux capacitor is" and I responded immediately "Yes. Marty my boy, it's the thing that makes time travel possible".
Reminds me of another incident many years before where an Ansett flight was delayed due to dupe seating on board. A newly minted manager fresh from Uni with his MBA butted in and said "Wait a minute. That aircraft came out of the hangar this morning, why weren't the dupe seats picked up before it left the hangar".
A brief but excruciating silence ensued after which someone was heard to mumble "I think we'll take that offline".
At a meeting, two managers who's aviation experience between them consisted of stints at Bunnings or McDonalds or something asked of a ground person "What was the reason for the engineering delay on such and such flight?".
I've always been amused by non-aviation, non-engineering managers asking this question. My response was always, "I'm not an engineer, it was an engineering related matter".
Anyway, on this occasion, one of the ground people who was known to be a stirrer replied "It was a problem with the flux capacitor".
Yes. Sit down if you aren't already. The two managers wrote it down on their notepads. Fully prepared to go into a high level Ops Review meeting with executives on the line and say that a delay that morning was caused by a faulty 'flux capacitor'.
At the end of the meeting, the ground handler apparently said to the managers "Ah, I was just pulling your leg, there's no such thing as a flux capacitor, it's from a movie".
Both managers got visibly angry and berated the person for it.
My point is, how bloody stupid does someone have to be to fall for that? When I was told the story, I was asked "You know what a flux capacitor is" and I responded immediately "Yes. Marty my boy, it's the thing that makes time travel possible".
Reminds me of another incident many years before where an Ansett flight was delayed due to dupe seating on board. A newly minted manager fresh from Uni with his MBA butted in and said "Wait a minute. That aircraft came out of the hangar this morning, why weren't the dupe seats picked up before it left the hangar".
A brief but excruciating silence ensued after which someone was heard to mumble "I think we'll take that offline".
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Reno, NV.
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could be...
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
Marsal vanes on the flux detractor. There has been a spate of those failing recently which puts the engine into sinus-o delta configuration.
Originally Posted by tornspar
Why is an engine failure a mayday ?QF sop?
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective
All the talk on here of people like GT not knowing what the hell they're talking about put me in mind of a story I once heard at a major Australian airline (no, not QF).
At a meeting, two managers who's aviation experience between them consisted of stints at Bunnings or McDonalds or something asked of a ground person "What was the reason for the engineering delay on such and such flight?".
I've always been amused by non-aviation, non-engineering managers asking this question. My response was always, "I'm not an engineer, it was an engineering related matter".
Anyway, on this occasion, one of the ground people who was known to be a stirrer replied "It was a problem with the flux capacitor".
Yes. Sit down if you aren't already. The two managers wrote it down on their notepads. Fully prepared to go into a high level Ops Review meeting with executives on the line and say that a delay that morning was caused by a faulty 'flux capacitor'.
At the end of the meeting, the ground handler apparently said to the managers "Ah, I was just pulling your leg, there's no such thing as a flux capacitor, it's from a movie".
Both managers got visibly angry and berated the person for it.
My point is, how bloody stupid does someone have to be to fall for that? When I was told the story, I was asked "You know what a flux capacitor is" and I responded immediately "Yes. Marty my boy, it's the thing that makes time travel possible".
Reminds me of another incident many years before where an Ansett flight was delayed due to dupe seating on board. A newly minted manager fresh from Uni with his MBA butted in and said "Wait a minute. That aircraft came out of the hangar this morning, why weren't the dupe seats picked up before it left the hangar".
A brief but excruciating silence ensued after which someone was heard to mumble "I think we'll take that offline".
At a meeting, two managers who's aviation experience between them consisted of stints at Bunnings or McDonalds or something asked of a ground person "What was the reason for the engineering delay on such and such flight?".
I've always been amused by non-aviation, non-engineering managers asking this question. My response was always, "I'm not an engineer, it was an engineering related matter".
Anyway, on this occasion, one of the ground people who was known to be a stirrer replied "It was a problem with the flux capacitor".
Yes. Sit down if you aren't already. The two managers wrote it down on their notepads. Fully prepared to go into a high level Ops Review meeting with executives on the line and say that a delay that morning was caused by a faulty 'flux capacitor'.
At the end of the meeting, the ground handler apparently said to the managers "Ah, I was just pulling your leg, there's no such thing as a flux capacitor, it's from a movie".
Both managers got visibly angry and berated the person for it.
My point is, how bloody stupid does someone have to be to fall for that? When I was told the story, I was asked "You know what a flux capacitor is" and I responded immediately "Yes. Marty my boy, it's the thing that makes time travel possible".
Reminds me of another incident many years before where an Ansett flight was delayed due to dupe seating on board. A newly minted manager fresh from Uni with his MBA butted in and said "Wait a minute. That aircraft came out of the hangar this morning, why weren't the dupe seats picked up before it left the hangar".
A brief but excruciating silence ensued after which someone was heard to mumble "I think we'll take that offline".
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like the QF manager that thought AOG was a rego. Apparently AOG was a very unreliable aircraft.
By the way did we find out what the actual defect was?
By the way did we find out what the actual defect was?
