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

Another day, another QF incident

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

Another day, another QF incident

Old 20th Feb 2023, 22:20
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,282
Received 415 Likes on 206 Posts
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.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2023, 03:17
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,244
Received 189 Likes on 85 Posts
The line of wx was 100 miles each side of SYD so CBR wasn’t an option unless you went to Parkes then south.
​​​​​​​How far do you think WLM is from Sydney?
Lookleft is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2023, 04:31
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Richmond
Age: 70
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 11 Posts
That is exactly what about 4 aircraft that I saw did.
JamieMaree is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2023, 06:21
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: melbourne
Posts: 787
Received 66 Likes on 35 Posts
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
Believe it or not, the spare engines were bolted to the wing. I think the 707 had the same 'hardware'?

73s? No so much...
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.
blubak is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2023, 06:32
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,363
Received 77 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by Lookleft
How far do you think WLM is from Sydney?
What's your problem? WLM is a lot closer than a 300+ mile route to CBR
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2023, 06:58
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,244
Received 189 Likes on 85 Posts
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.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2023, 01:10
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 552
Received 80 Likes on 62 Posts
Originally Posted by blubak
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.
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!).
PiperCameron is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2023, 02:58
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Received 53 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by PiperCameron
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!).
On my Mum and Dad's first flight on a Boeing 707-138, from SYD-PER in 1959/60, they were landing in PER and a sudden gust caused the #4 Engine to strike the runway, causing a shower of sparks. Probably inappropriately for those days, my Dad uttered "Jesus Bloody Christ!!". I think his exclamation caused more attention than the engine strike.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2023, 07:06
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Richmond
Age: 70
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by PiperCameron
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?
).
All were capable of fifth podding.
JamieMaree is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 25th Feb 2023, 12:53
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Received 53 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by PiperCameron
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).
Also, most airports in the US including major ones are owned by the local municipality. If I'm not mistaken, Los Angeles World Airports Inc which runs LAX and other areas around LAX are owned by the City of Los Angeles.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2023, 12:56
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Received 53 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by ZebraFlyer
No mayday, no news coverage. Why the indignation?

If you call mayday then expect media coverage along with the rest of it.. doesn't seem surprising to me..
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'.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2023, 12:59
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Received 53 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
Believe it or not, the spare engines were bolted to the wing. I think the 707 had the same 'hardware'?

73s? No so much...
Correct. There are more than a few pics around the internet of 707s carrying a fifth pod, they had a cone that fit the front of the engine, presumably to reduce buffeting, which 747 Pilots I've spoken to over the years said was substantial on 747s.

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.
AerialPerspective 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 © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.