Another day, another QF incident
The airports know exactly what they are doing: Maximising profits and minimising risks. It's Page 1 of the 'Big Book Of Running Corporations'. And when one has a monopoly and the Minister rubberstamps whatever Master Plan you put up, it's as easy as shooting a fish in a barrel.
Why would they care about ****ty, third world taxiways and being embarrassed if they are rolling in profits? I wouldn't.
Why would they care about ****ty, third world taxiways and being embarrassed if they are rolling in profits? I wouldn't.
That is correct as far as the 747 is concerned BUT it was only if the operator had optioned that facility & the placement of it was inboard of the #2 engine.
No problem but you stated that the storms were 100nm each side of Sydney. I assumed you meant north and south. I assume that WLM had a TEMPO for TS so there was at least 60 min of fuel that could be used for somewhere else.
(I recall a QF 737 a number of years back landing at Perth in stiff gusty crosswindy rainy awful weather on both the left gear and the left engine then needing to wait for a spare to be ferried across. Apparently the engine strike happened so quickly none of the passengers and crew actually noticed until they got to the gate!).
Qantas had at least one 747 that was optioned that way (https://simpleflying.com/qantas-747-5-engines/) and if I recall correctly it had the bits to ferry a CFM56 if needed. I have no idea how they'd do that now. Perhaps road freight really is the only option?
(I recall a QF 737 a number of years back landing at Perth in stiff gusty crosswindy rainy awful weather on both the left gear and the left engine then needing to wait for a spare to be ferried across. Apparently the engine strike happened so quickly none of the passengers and crew actually noticed until they got to the gate!).
(I recall a QF 737 a number of years back landing at Perth in stiff gusty crosswindy rainy awful weather on both the left gear and the left engine then needing to wait for a spare to be ferried across. Apparently the engine strike happened so quickly none of the passengers and crew actually noticed until they got to the gate!).
Qantas had at least one 747 that was optioned that way (https://simpleflying.com/qantas-747-5-engines/) and if I recall correctly it had the bits to ferry a CFM56 if needed. I have no idea how they'd do that now. Perhaps road freight really is the only option?
).
).
The following users liked this post:
The problem stems from a particular combination of airport owners who, having been handed the keys to vast tracts of prime commercial real estate by the federal government many moons ago, simply don't know what they're doing ("What's a taxiway? Don't you mean the entry ramp to the carpark?!?") engaging large engineering consulting firms who also don't know what they're doing ("Does that taxiway really need to go right to the end? If we stop it here instead, there'll be more money for car parking").
It seems they're a bit more familiar with aircraft and airports in the US since most folks over there know what they're used for (a hint: no, it's not car parking).
It seems they're a bit more familiar with aircraft and airports in the US since most folks over there know what they're used for (a hint: no, it's not car parking).
Except the other half dozen or so so-called Qantas incidents didn't involve a Mayday call either, but they got reported incessantly, inaccurately and endlessly - milked for everything they were worth, including the, frankly imbecilic, Murdoch pic of a thrust reverse vent labeled as a 'huge hole in the engine'.
From memory I think one of the photos that pops up often if you do a search is of a Qantas 707-338C in the V-Jet livery at Frankfurt with a 5th pod. Same location as 747, inboard of #2 Engine.
