Another day, another QF incident

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by itsnotthatbloodyhard

If we’re pinging people over correct English usage, it’s ‘hear, hear’.

I know what hear hear means, I was drawing attention to what he wrote as in 'look here'.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by dr dre

Calm down children,

Even Steve Purvinas from the ALAEA, who we all know isn’t shy about speaking his mind, has said the current media reporting is overblown:

Nothing ‘too out of the ordinary’ in Qantas turnbacks

Saw his interview the other day and thought it was very calm and balanced. I know he can sometimes sound a bit extreme but he's just trying to do the best for his members and stand against cost-cutting for cost-cutting's sake.

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by AerialPerspective

Saw his interview the other day and thought it was very calm and balanced. I know he can sometimes sound a bit extreme but he's just trying to do the best for his members and stand against cost-cutting for cost-cutting's sake.

That he is, but also he’s saying the last week of overly sensationalised reporting is not indicative of a widespread problem.

[Capn Bloggs]

A 330 on ADL-PER. Things are looking up!

[Saintly]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

A 330 on ADL-PER. Things are looking up!

QF887 (A330-200), VH-EBA, was on its way to PER earlier today from ADL....turned around and flew back to ADL.

[Saintly]

Originally Posted by Saintly

QF887 (A330-200), VH-EBA, was on its way to PER earlier today from ADL....turned around and flew back to ADL.

So I saw on facebook some interesting comments, apparently they turned around due to a compliance issue. Another comment was they turned around because they didn't have all paperwork signed off

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Saintly

QF887 (A330-200), VH-EBA, was on its way to PER earlier today from ADL....turned around and flew back to ADL.

So yes, Saintly, I deduced that from your post #58. No need to repeat yourself.

[VHOED191006]

Well, whatever the cause was, it seems like it has been resolved as EBA is on the move again.

[VHOED191006]

Originally Posted by Saintly

So I saw on facebook some interesting comments, apparently they turned around due to a compliance issue. Another comment was they turned around because they didn't have all paperwork signed off

Would certainly explain why they hugged the coastline on the way back.

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by dr dre

That he is, but also he’s saying the last week of overly sensationalised reporting is not indicative of a widespread problem.

Agreed. That's why I thought his interview was good.

[Capt Fathom]

No doubt the media will be all over it. Not sure what the issue was

Ha. Those pesky pilots are doing this on purpose to stir up the media!

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Originally Posted by Capt Fathom

Ha. Those pesky pilots are doing this on purpose to stir up the media!

Nah, the opposite. Do enough turnbacks and diversions, and it stops being newsworthy. The media loses interest and can get back to concentrating on Bachelor recaps.

[Bleve]

Originally Posted by Saintly

So I saw on facebook some interesting comments, apparently they turned around due to a compliance issue. Another comment was they turned around because they didn't have all paperwork signed off

Oh dear. I was looking at their flightpath on FR24 and wondering why they initially turned north for about 30 minutes before returning to ADL. As soon as I saw the above post the penny dropped: they probably weren't signed off for ETOPS. The northly track would have kept them within 60 minutes of ADL. I'm guessing they were looking to see if they had enough fuel to get to PER non-ETOPS. The answer being no, so back to ADL.

[cooperplace]

QF887 turned back because of "incomplete paperwork"

ABC news report:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-...work/101888324

"Adelaide Airport confirmed flight QF887 departed for Perth at 3:35pm and almost made it to the Nullarbor near the West Australian border before it circled back over the Great Australian Bight, landing back in Adelaide at 6:50pm. The flight departed again to Perth at 7:30pm.

A Qantas spokesperson confirmed there were no technical issues with the plane, and the delay was due to incomplete paperwork by the airline's staff."

Makes you wonder if the report is some kind of joke.

[VHOED191006]

I reckon they got JQ to do it. They seem to know their way around paperwork.

[Saintly]

Another one

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-...sues/101889308

Another one. But it was the right decision to turn back. I still say the media are just reporting on everything and trying to scare the public.

[601]

Would certainly explain why they hugged the coastline on the way back.

At least someone must have had a WAC on board.

they didn't have all paperwork signed off

Does it have to be witnessed by a JP.
I would have thought the PIC could sign the paperwork.

[Eclan]

Originally Posted by Bleve

Oh dear. I was looking at their flightpath on FR24 and wondering why they initially turned north for about 30 minutes before returning to ADL. As soon as I saw the above post the penny dropped: they probably weren't signed off for ETOPS. The northly track would have kept them within 60 minutes of ADL. I'm guessing they were looking to see if they had enough fuel to get to PER non-ETOPS. The answer being no, so back to ADL.

Turning back for paperwork? Why not just get approval over ACARS to sign it yourself and continue? The jet doesn't know if it's signed off or not. Neither does the weather. Must've been a cadet...

[unobtanium]

And last Thursday, another Qantas Boeing 747 bound for Fiji turned back to Sydney after it experienced a potential mechanical issue.

ABC at its best
​​​​​​​

[Bleve]

Prior to every ETOPs sector, a LAME has to check that all the ETOPs critical systems are serviceable and endorse the Tech Log that the check has been carried out and the aircraft is ETOPs capable. This is not something the CPT can do mid-flight.