Qantas Heavy Landing At Sydney?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
someone might be able to answer why the aircraft did not use more than idle reverse thrust? Having spoken to a retired cathay 747 cap, he said that no mater what the Wx they would always give the reverse a good workout.
Im not sure if he is correct, but why do QANAS seem to have the procedure of not using reverse at higher settings than idle? ESP when the runwat is wet?
Im not sure if he is correct, but why do QANAS seem to have the procedure of not using reverse at higher settings than idle? ESP when the runwat is wet?
I dare say Sprocket has hit the nail on the end considering the aircraft landed at 5.15am EST, presumably one of the flights each week that has a dispensation to land between 0500 and 0600 local.
Although the Jepps do say "Pilots of aircraft (during the curfew period) must use the minimum reverse thurst necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft."
It then goes on to say that certain paperwork is to be lodged when greater than idle reverse is used, blah blah...
TL
Although the Jepps do say "Pilots of aircraft (during the curfew period) must use the minimum reverse thurst necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft."
It then goes on to say that certain paperwork is to be lodged when greater than idle reverse is used, blah blah...
TL
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the comfy chair.
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently it was a normal landing, and as spoken of, sans reverse thrust. It was a ground engineer that noticed smoke from the wheels when the plane pulled into the gate.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NSW
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R555c & others:
It is normal procedure to use idle reverse for arrivals during the curfew.
Also, the wear characteristics of carbon brakes are such that they wear less when using idle reverse. That was one of the arguments for the Flap25/idle reverse policy. . .less brake wear!!
Crew discretion not withstanding, it would be normal to use idle reverse on a wet 34L during the curfew - I mean, it's hardly a limiting runway.
WG.
It is normal procedure to use idle reverse for arrivals during the curfew.
Also, the wear characteristics of carbon brakes are such that they wear less when using idle reverse. That was one of the arguments for the Flap25/idle reverse policy. . .less brake wear!!
Crew discretion not withstanding, it would be normal to use idle reverse on a wet 34L during the curfew - I mean, it's hardly a limiting runway.
WG.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just saw it on the evening news & the media seems to have settled down a little bit. Of course they chose to interview only the most traumatized little old ladies. Bummer of a time to have a brake or wheel well catch fire (or appear to catch fire).
The skipper of the QF1 in Bangkok was criticized because he didn't do an emergency evac. This skipper will probably be criticized because he did. Damned if you do - damned if you don't, it seems. But for anyone to have a go at him at this early stage is drawing a rather long (and unfair) bow. Hope he gets a fair go.
The video seemed to show all slides operated normally, but one at the back deflated at some point. Sh** happens, I guess. Remain, block & redirect! Let's hope the bloke with the knee graze and torn jeans doesn't feel the need to sue for 'infliction of physical & psychological trauma'.
R555C: Use of greater than idle reverse thrust during Sydney curfew (arrivals before 6am). Refer DAPS or Jeppesen charts. Not saying that you absolutely can't use more if you must, but it's strongly discouraged. This is a regulatory requirement, not a QF one.
The skipper of the QF1 in Bangkok was criticized because he didn't do an emergency evac. This skipper will probably be criticized because he did. Damned if you do - damned if you don't, it seems. But for anyone to have a go at him at this early stage is drawing a rather long (and unfair) bow. Hope he gets a fair go.
The video seemed to show all slides operated normally, but one at the back deflated at some point. Sh** happens, I guess. Remain, block & redirect! Let's hope the bloke with the knee graze and torn jeans doesn't feel the need to sue for 'infliction of physical & psychological trauma'.
R555C: Use of greater than idle reverse thrust during Sydney curfew (arrivals before 6am). Refer DAPS or Jeppesen charts. Not saying that you absolutely can't use more if you must, but it's strongly discouraged. This is a regulatory requirement, not a QF one.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The facts from someone who was involved.
The aircraft arrived as QF006 from SIN at 0510 onto the gate after carrying out a normal landing during which only idle thrust reverse was used (due to curfew requirements).
Upon arrival at the gate the crew informed engineers that they had high brake temps in the body gears. The aerobridge was cleared to dock and the ground engineers checked the gear due to high temp report and some smoke from the brakes (which is quite common on this aircraft type). The engineers saw flames from one of the brakes and asked the techies to turn the beacons back on to alert ramp staff to clear the area, and informed crew of fire on brakes. The crew asked for confirmation of fire and groundies replied confirmed and no further communication took place. Obviously the crew initiated an evac as the slides appeared and the passengers deplaned in a totally chaotic manner.
Some slides did not operate simply because the were still disarmed (for the normal arrival) and weren't re-armed before opening the doors. The slide at door 3R did deploy but for reasons yet to be established it deflated a short time after.
The questions that need to be asked here are Why did the crew initiate a total evac without firstly gaining more information from ground crew and why was the evacuation process carried out so badly?
For info, a brake fire on arrival is not a major situation. Generally it is grease, oil and dust that catches fire and can be easily extinguished if it doesnt extinguish itself. I believe in this situation the whole fiasco would have been avoided if the tech crew had asked the groundies if an evac was necessary. Hopefully QF will learn from this and procedures will be changed to enable more input to the crew before they make a rushed un-informed decision.
The aircraft arrived as QF006 from SIN at 0510 onto the gate after carrying out a normal landing during which only idle thrust reverse was used (due to curfew requirements).
Upon arrival at the gate the crew informed engineers that they had high brake temps in the body gears. The aerobridge was cleared to dock and the ground engineers checked the gear due to high temp report and some smoke from the brakes (which is quite common on this aircraft type). The engineers saw flames from one of the brakes and asked the techies to turn the beacons back on to alert ramp staff to clear the area, and informed crew of fire on brakes. The crew asked for confirmation of fire and groundies replied confirmed and no further communication took place. Obviously the crew initiated an evac as the slides appeared and the passengers deplaned in a totally chaotic manner.
Some slides did not operate simply because the were still disarmed (for the normal arrival) and weren't re-armed before opening the doors. The slide at door 3R did deploy but for reasons yet to be established it deflated a short time after.
The questions that need to be asked here are Why did the crew initiate a total evac without firstly gaining more information from ground crew and why was the evacuation process carried out so badly?
For info, a brake fire on arrival is not a major situation. Generally it is grease, oil and dust that catches fire and can be easily extinguished if it doesnt extinguish itself. I believe in this situation the whole fiasco would have been avoided if the tech crew had asked the groundies if an evac was necessary. Hopefully QF will learn from this and procedures will be changed to enable more input to the crew before they make a rushed un-informed decision.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTB, the trouble with asking the ground crew if an evacuation is required is that the particular ground crew may have no knowledge of the different ways an aircraft may be emptied and hence may give the crew misleading information. it is not the groundcrew's job to decide that, just give timely and accurate advice.
Dutchroll, hit it on the head... the Captain in this particular situation is damned both ways.
After QF 1, Qantas pilots were told to err on the side of caution where smoke was concerned.
If indeed what BTB relates is the actual chain of events, i.e. a fire is reported with little clarification, the captain is in a invidious position.
This is the first evacuation called on a QF aircraft in living memory. The fact that it occurred at the worst possible time, at the gate after the doors had presumably been ordered disarmed, may go some way to explaining why it didn't go smoothly.
I also wouldn't mind betting that some stilletto heels has some role in the deflation of that slide.
Dutchroll, hit it on the head... the Captain in this particular situation is damned both ways.
After QF 1, Qantas pilots were told to err on the side of caution where smoke was concerned.
If indeed what BTB relates is the actual chain of events, i.e. a fire is reported with little clarification, the captain is in a invidious position.
This is the first evacuation called on a QF aircraft in living memory. The fact that it occurred at the worst possible time, at the gate after the doors had presumably been ordered disarmed, may go some way to explaining why it didn't go smoothly.
I also wouldn't mind betting that some stilletto heels has some role in the deflation of that slide.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTB, the techies had all the information they needed from the groundies, i.e. the fire in the gear was confirmed. To quote the 747 operations manual for Brake or Wheel Fire (On Ground) "Request confirmation or assistance to determine actual presence of fire. Request fire crew assistance. If fire confirmed from either aircraft and/or external sources CARRY OUT PASSENGER EVACUATION NON-NORMAL PROCEDURE." The Captains decision was completely in accordance with the 747 emergency procedures and I dare say if he had failed to follow them he would be hung out to dry by the company, the lawyers and the media You are obviously not a techie BTB nor have you seen how quickly a gear fire can develop into something more serious. Have a nice day.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTB, a bit harsh at this early stage don't you think?
Has there ever been an 'orderly' evacuation using escape slides at 5am after a 20 hour (plus turnaround in Singapore) trip? I've seen the videos of the experiments done in the UK on passenger evacuations some years ago, using money as the incentive to get out quickly. They were complete chaos - and the passengers knew they were in no danger at all!
Call me crazy, but I'm giving the crew the benefit of the doubt. If the investigation shows they screwed up, only then do I reserve the right to change my mind.
Has there ever been an 'orderly' evacuation using escape slides at 5am after a 20 hour (plus turnaround in Singapore) trip? I've seen the videos of the experiments done in the UK on passenger evacuations some years ago, using money as the incentive to get out quickly. They were complete chaos - and the passengers knew they were in no danger at all!
Call me crazy, but I'm giving the crew the benefit of the doubt. If the investigation shows they screwed up, only then do I reserve the right to change my mind.
Guest
Posts: n/a
But if the touch-down speed was correct for weight, and the runway well in excess of that required for landing (wet), then if use of idle reverse is automatically going to cause a potential for red hot brakes, it seems to me that this very much a flight safety issue - meaning that stuff the curfew, use of normal reverse thrust is the prerogative of the captain.
If he chooses to accept the hot brake risk over keeping the noise down at curfew time - maybe someone needs to review the priorities. Are hot smoking brakes considered normal in the 747? Or is that the result of automatic brakes being on for all landings - rather than for specific conditions?
I have not flown the 747 hence this is a general airmanship observation - not anything else.
If he chooses to accept the hot brake risk over keeping the noise down at curfew time - maybe someone needs to review the priorities. Are hot smoking brakes considered normal in the 747? Or is that the result of automatic brakes being on for all landings - rather than for specific conditions?
I have not flown the 747 hence this is a general airmanship observation - not anything else.
Evertonian
Well, in future, I guess any crew using more than idle reverse can refer to this incident in his/her paperwork, and that should be enough justification. I find it bizarre, having lived under flight paths all my life, that some punters sleep in a swinging electorate, can be allowed to compromise the decision process of any crew in a critical stage of flight!
As for this incident, I found it strange, as a ground staff member, to see all chutes deployed at the gate, but if the QF ops manual, as quoted, is company policy, then good on him/her for doing exactly what they are trained to do! Litigation is just such a wonderful thing, at least the crew should be able to defend their actions.
As for the faulty chute, I'd put money on someone's too expensive to leave on the aircraft shoes for this.
As for this incident, I found it strange, as a ground staff member, to see all chutes deployed at the gate, but if the QF ops manual, as quoted, is company policy, then good on him/her for doing exactly what they are trained to do! Litigation is just such a wonderful thing, at least the crew should be able to defend their actions.
As for the faulty chute, I'd put money on someone's too expensive to leave on the aircraft shoes for this.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTB - I find absolutely no fault with your report of events. very hard to given you appear to have been there, perhaps even involved. What you cannot assert however is that the crew would ask you if you considered an evacuation necessary. That HAS to be the commander's call after quickly digesting the information he has available. What I don't understand is why the off wing slides were deployed ( the one that did in any case ) if a brake fire, obviously thought to have been serious enough to prompt an evac, had been confirmed ?
I've seen one brake fire, and it was a storm in a teacup, so to speak. A small amount of grease on fire can "look" far worse than it is and is easily contained if approached in accordance with accepeted fire fighting norms and a healthy respect for very hot wheels. I'm sure statistics would support this too.
Slim is a little harsh I feel, perhaps it's the brother mason in him, who knows.
The CEO of the airport corporation had his foot out of his mouth just long enough to be quoted as saying that the fire was associated with the nose gear, during a radio interview early after the event.
In any case, the usual suspects are all here. World class mediocrity in how events are reported coupled with a dash of " ****** " by those having to explain the way it went down. Another day at jet city.
I've seen one brake fire, and it was a storm in a teacup, so to speak. A small amount of grease on fire can "look" far worse than it is and is easily contained if approached in accordance with accepeted fire fighting norms and a healthy respect for very hot wheels. I'm sure statistics would support this too.
Slim is a little harsh I feel, perhaps it's the brother mason in him, who knows.
The CEO of the airport corporation had his foot out of his mouth just long enough to be quoted as saying that the fire was associated with the nose gear, during a radio interview early after the event.
In any case, the usual suspects are all here. World class mediocrity in how events are reported coupled with a dash of " ****** " by those having to explain the way it went down. Another day at jet city.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: nth west-- Australia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a live and learn situation.The ground crew had probably never experienced such a problem before.
How many times do you see racing cars pit with brakes on fire and no one gives it a second thought.
A quick peek to see if its being fueled by anything--oil etc is all thats needed ,and surely there would be a handy fire extinguisher to give it a squirt if so desired.
Leaving Sydney a few weeks ago the emergency thing went off when we were being pushed out from the terminal---------electrical fault and no one seemed alarmed.If it was at 25,000ft i for one would have had skidmaks,but after a succesful landing and at the terminal i would have kept reading my book.
If they had mentioned a small brake fire things may have been different,but with the world full of weido,s ,everyones thoughts go to a bomb or something.
How many times do you see racing cars pit with brakes on fire and no one gives it a second thought.
A quick peek to see if its being fueled by anything--oil etc is all thats needed ,and surely there would be a handy fire extinguisher to give it a squirt if so desired.
Leaving Sydney a few weeks ago the emergency thing went off when we were being pushed out from the terminal---------electrical fault and no one seemed alarmed.If it was at 25,000ft i for one would have had skidmaks,but after a succesful landing and at the terminal i would have kept reading my book.
If they had mentioned a small brake fire things may have been different,but with the world full of weido,s ,everyones thoughts go to a bomb or something.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: sydney
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not about whether or not the captain of this flight gets a fair trial for ordering an evacuation as one poster commented. Its actually quite simple really, the decision to evacuate rests with the captain. FULL STOP!
There is no argument in this instance, nor should there be....that was his best judgement at the time, a judgement that does not need to be defended in my view. He's quite entitled to make that call.
powerbeat.
There is no argument in this instance, nor should there be....that was his best judgement at the time, a judgement that does not need to be defended in my view. He's quite entitled to make that call.
powerbeat.
Hudson this is only a comment on your post and NOT the thread, on the 767 there are 6 settings for the auto brakes. One for the rejected takeoff, and 1,2,3,4,or max for landing. The 744 is probably similar.Normal ops is a setting of 2 or 3 for a normal landing even with idle reverse(runway length permitting).Under normal conditions the consideration of RED HOT brakes is not an issue,and even smoking brakes, which are not uncommon, aren't considered a major drama,on a wet day steaming brakes are fairly common. Autobrakes are normal ops and do a better more efficient job of stopping the aircraft than manual braking. As far as the incident today, it will all come out in the wash.Forget the media reports!!!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just imagine if this had happened in the so-called 3rd World and some poor unsuspecting soul had taken a fire extinguisher to the problem and ruined a slow news day for the journos.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Overheated brakes may also result from a binding brake or brakes, or persistent use of brakes during prolonged taxi-ing....but you ALREADY knew that!