Qantas Heavy Landing At Sydney?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it really matter why the brakes were on fire?The one consistent story coming through is that the ground crew CONFIRMED that there was a FIRE!
Does it really matter if the ground crew got it wrong?That one will come out in the wash!
I havent seen a QRH for a 747,but I figure that there is an Emergency Evac procedure for ANY fire,as is pointed out in previous posts,therefore the Captain(and crew) are obliged to carry out the appropriate checklist,and if that says evacuate,then get everyone the hell out of there and worry about the paperwork later.
I dont know about the rest of you,but fire scares the absolute
out of me!
Does it really matter if the ground crew got it wrong?That one will come out in the wash!
I havent seen a QRH for a 747,but I figure that there is an Emergency Evac procedure for ANY fire,as is pointed out in previous posts,therefore the Captain(and crew) are obliged to carry out the appropriate checklist,and if that says evacuate,then get everyone the hell out of there and worry about the paperwork later.
I dont know about the rest of you,but fire scares the absolute
out of me!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I'm not normally inclined to post such info on the Net, but to settle any arguments, here it is verbatim straight from the actual, sitting in front of me, 747-400 ops manual written by Boeing and used by QF..................
'It should be stressed for persistent smoke or a fire that cannot be POSITIVELY CONFIRMED to be COMPLETELY EXTINGUISHED, the earliest possible descent, landing, AND PASSENGER EVACUATION should be accomplished.' (caps for emphasis only)
Case dismissed. Costs awarded against media and any other doubters.
'It should be stressed for persistent smoke or a fire that cannot be POSITIVELY CONFIRMED to be COMPLETELY EXTINGUISHED, the earliest possible descent, landing, AND PASSENGER EVACUATION should be accomplished.' (caps for emphasis only)
Case dismissed. Costs awarded against media and any other doubters.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wish someone (eg. a QF spokesman would have been good, instead of the bs that was reported) had taken the opportunity to ram home to the public that the Noise Nazis can actually affect safety. Wouldn't it be good if you saw the bosses on tele saying "right, that's it, no more 'quiet landings', cross wind ops etc. it's safety first from now on"?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dutchy what does it (QRH) say for the position of the flaps during evac? On the 73 it states speed brake to stow and flaps full down to assist with pax movement over the wing, no slides of course. The QF a/c appears to have flaps up and this may well have caused the slide to deflate, although a pair of stilettos sounds a better cause.
Not many evacs go exactly accordinng to plan so I say well done to the lads/ladies involved. Someone mentioned it was total chaos during the evac. Yep, sounds normal to me.
Not many evacs go exactly accordinng to plan so I say well done to the lads/ladies involved. Someone mentioned it was total chaos during the evac. Yep, sounds normal to me.
Nunc est bibendum
Seldomfixit, just some information regarind your query about why the overwing exits were used.
Once the Captain orders the evacuation, he has zero control over which doors are used. The thinking is that the crew member in that area is better able to assess whether or not the door is safe to open or not. This is exactly as it should be. In this case, I'd suggest that the overwing primary looked out, saw no fire (only smoke from an undetermined origin) and opened the door. Procedure followed with good result.
With a precautionary disembarkation though, the Captain CAN nominate which doors we are going to leave via- IE, we have a bit of time on our side and so we can take it a bit easier and so the Captain may elect to use doors on one side of the aircraft to keep passengers under control and so on.
Saw a news report this morning about the crew not getting people to take heels off before getting on the slide. Just what you want when you're trying to empty an aircraft in the shortest amount of time- policing and stopping people at the door for still having heels on. If they tried that with the person in front of me they'd still be going out!!
Still, good to see the journo's maintaining their high standards! 
Once the Captain orders the evacuation, he has zero control over which doors are used. The thinking is that the crew member in that area is better able to assess whether or not the door is safe to open or not. This is exactly as it should be. In this case, I'd suggest that the overwing primary looked out, saw no fire (only smoke from an undetermined origin) and opened the door. Procedure followed with good result.
With a precautionary disembarkation though, the Captain CAN nominate which doors we are going to leave via- IE, we have a bit of time on our side and so we can take it a bit easier and so the Captain may elect to use doors on one side of the aircraft to keep passengers under control and so on.
Saw a news report this morning about the crew not getting people to take heels off before getting on the slide. Just what you want when you're trying to empty an aircraft in the shortest amount of time- policing and stopping people at the door for still having heels on. If they tried that with the person in front of me they'd still be going out!!
Still, good to see the journo's maintaining their high standards!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
"Once the Captain orders the evacuation, he has zero control over which doors are used."
Are you sure about that, Keg?
If so, it must be QANTAS policy, as it's not the same for other airlines with which I'm familiar.
Are you sure about that, Keg?
If so, it must be QANTAS policy, as it's not the same for other airlines with which I'm familiar.
Nunc est bibendum
G'day Kap. Yep, absolutely sure. It is different for a precautionary disembarkation where the Captain nominates the slide/door to be used but on an evac, the door primary is considered the best judge of whether the door is 'safe' to open or not. Again, you want everyone off as quick as possible and nominating a side (which a crew member may assess as NOT being suitable for reasons unknown to the tech crew) can cause all sorts of ramifications. Besides that, I thought it was a Boeing procedure?!?!? I'll have to follow up on that one!
Still, great job. No major injuries is just fantastic.
Still, great job. No major injuries is just fantastic.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not see the Television footage so could someone please confirm that this was a 400 and not one of the classics. It does come as a surprise to see the carbon brakes on a 400 get to such temperatures on a long runway with low ambient temperatures and after what was probably an 8 hour flight (no heat sink) even with the application of idle reverse............. but would be par for the course on a classic with steel brakes without the use of reverse.
Are we all just assuming it was a 400?
Are we all just assuming it was a 400?
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thanks Keg. My training from several other Boeing operators wrt evacuations, has been that the tech crew will advise which exits are NOT to be used (which is more expedient, and less confusing, than running through the list of usable ones), as THEY may be in a position to know where there is a potential hazard eg. fire....esp. a brake fire....which cannot be detected from an overwing observation, or the smoke from which may be blown across to the opposite side, thus giving a false indication to the cabin crew.
However, the cabin crew will determine which exits of the remaining usable ones are suitable (ie. those that the tech crew have NOT said were unsafe) by first checking outside. In that case, the F/A's may decide to block further exits.
"Take off your shoes, and leave EVERYTHING behind". Hmmm, I wonder how many bothered to pay attention when this was told to them at the pre-flight briefing - or how many were even LISTENING/WATCHING.
This is a good lesson in how ONE pax, wearing high heels, or carrying a sharp/semi sharp object down a slide can then stuff it up for those following.
However, the cabin crew will determine which exits of the remaining usable ones are suitable (ie. those that the tech crew have NOT said were unsafe) by first checking outside. In that case, the F/A's may decide to block further exits.
"Take off your shoes, and leave EVERYTHING behind". Hmmm, I wonder how many bothered to pay attention when this was told to them at the pre-flight briefing - or how many were even LISTENING/WATCHING.
This is a good lesson in how ONE pax, wearing high heels, or carrying a sharp/semi sharp object down a slide can then stuff it up for those following.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S/B
There's no item relating to flaps or speedbrake in the Passenger Evac non-normal. The overwing slides on the 400 should operate fine either way. I guess they'll find out soon enough whether it was due to a defect, or a suspiciously stilletto sized puncture.
Talking of passengers reluctance to follow crew instructions if it means leaving their Chanel No 5 behind, I noted one passenger being interviewed saying her & her kid were almost clobbered in the head by a bunch of carry on baggage some idiot just had to send down the slide.
Kap:
Keg is absolutely right about the door/slide nomination during evac. I assume it has the full concurrence of Boeing, as the ops manual has their copyright logo on the front!
There's no item relating to flaps or speedbrake in the Passenger Evac non-normal. The overwing slides on the 400 should operate fine either way. I guess they'll find out soon enough whether it was due to a defect, or a suspiciously stilletto sized puncture.
Talking of passengers reluctance to follow crew instructions if it means leaving their Chanel No 5 behind, I noted one passenger being interviewed saying her & her kid were almost clobbered in the head by a bunch of carry on baggage some idiot just had to send down the slide.
Kap:
Keg is absolutely right about the door/slide nomination during evac. I assume it has the full concurrence of Boeing, as the ops manual has their copyright logo on the front!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NSW
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sperm Bank,
Given that the A/C was shut down at the gate when the evacuation was ordered, the flaps and spoilers would have been retracted anyway. Even if they weren't, pulling the fire switches during the evac. checklist depressurizes hydraulics so the flaps remain where they were left. Had the evac. occurred on the runway, then the flaps would have been extended, but I can't remember whether that has any ramifications for the overwing slides - I've been off the aircraft for a while.
By comparison, on the 767, the inboard spoilers auto - retract when the overwing exits are opened, so I recall !!
As for heavy braking being an issue, I would be very surprised if that had any bearing on the incident. The aircraft would have been relatively light, autobrakes are used for all landings, it was a cold morning, and it is a short taxi to bay 33, where it was parked.
I think the crew did a great job - exactly what was expected of them, and a good judgement call given pressure of time vs. information gathering with reports of "fire".
Given that the A/C was shut down at the gate when the evacuation was ordered, the flaps and spoilers would have been retracted anyway. Even if they weren't, pulling the fire switches during the evac. checklist depressurizes hydraulics so the flaps remain where they were left. Had the evac. occurred on the runway, then the flaps would have been extended, but I can't remember whether that has any ramifications for the overwing slides - I've been off the aircraft for a while.
By comparison, on the 767, the inboard spoilers auto - retract when the overwing exits are opened, so I recall !!
As for heavy braking being an issue, I would be very surprised if that had any bearing on the incident. The aircraft would have been relatively light, autobrakes are used for all landings, it was a cold morning, and it is a short taxi to bay 33, where it was parked.
I think the crew did a great job - exactly what was expected of them, and a good judgement call given pressure of time vs. information gathering with reports of "fire".
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read both versions on the Bangkok incident. The prior to Qantas threatening the accident investigators and removing most criticisms of the airline and the post Qantas version, I sincerely hope that an impartial version of events can be printed this time around. Though I doubt it will happen. A first world democracy? Impartiality?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dunno, I think again there will be a preliminary and then a final draft. If they recommend changes at Qantas they get sh*tcanned (for suggesting there was a problem) and if they don't then when something similar happens again they get.............. They're really only independent as far as the Govt. is still paying their wages.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF engineer in Syd told me today that the ground engineers got a big surprise when they fired the slides and chucked everyone out. He didn't think it was warranted and said they had another brake fire this morning!! that quickly burnt out, not an uncommon occurence.
The F/O apparently grabbed a extinguisher off the a/c and jumped out the top slide with it tucked under his arm to go and put it out, however it caught on the slide and flipped him onto the tarmac dislocating/breaking his shoulder!!
While the captain walked off the airbridge, best to leave the heroic stuff to the fire boys!
The F/O apparently grabbed a extinguisher off the a/c and jumped out the top slide with it tucked under his arm to go and put it out, however it caught on the slide and flipped him onto the tarmac dislocating/breaking his shoulder!!
While the captain walked off the airbridge, best to leave the heroic stuff to the fire boys!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, N.S.W. Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F/O apparently grabbed a extinguisher off the a/c and jumped out the top slide with it tucked under his arm to go and put it out
G'Day Waste Gate, how's it going?
You never know, heavy braking may have been a factor. Anyone know what the wind was doing that morning? It's been southerly/westerly all week. Landing with a tailwind on 34L perhaps, plus wet runway? A -400 can take up to 15kt tail. And twr says to vacate on Golf? His weight, yeah probably not too high, but may have had an extra 7 or 8 tonnes of fuel in order to hold until after 0600 if necessary (in case southerly is greater than 15kt upon arrival). All in all, maybe a fair bit of stopping required, and idle reverse only..... Bloody nonsense this idle reverse stuff pre 0600 LCL - who are we really going to wake up when on 34L: the fish?
Should not be speculating, it'll all come out in the wash, but it behoves us all who use SYD to think carefully about this incident and learn from it. There but for the grace of God go us all. Could have been any of us there. Some good lessons will no doubt come out of it - both from techie and cabin crew points of view, me thinks.
And P.S.: My thoughts and support for the skipper and his decision to call for the evac after the fire was confirmed. Maybe they could have extinguished the fire quickly.... but maybe not? A really tough call but the right call nevertheless....
You never know, heavy braking may have been a factor. Anyone know what the wind was doing that morning? It's been southerly/westerly all week. Landing with a tailwind on 34L perhaps, plus wet runway? A -400 can take up to 15kt tail. And twr says to vacate on Golf? His weight, yeah probably not too high, but may have had an extra 7 or 8 tonnes of fuel in order to hold until after 0600 if necessary (in case southerly is greater than 15kt upon arrival). All in all, maybe a fair bit of stopping required, and idle reverse only..... Bloody nonsense this idle reverse stuff pre 0600 LCL - who are we really going to wake up when on 34L: the fish?
Should not be speculating, it'll all come out in the wash, but it behoves us all who use SYD to think carefully about this incident and learn from it. There but for the grace of God go us all. Could have been any of us there. Some good lessons will no doubt come out of it - both from techie and cabin crew points of view, me thinks.
And P.S.: My thoughts and support for the skipper and his decision to call for the evac after the fire was confirmed. Maybe they could have extinguished the fire quickly.... but maybe not? A really tough call but the right call nevertheless....
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: East of Greenwich
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was it not a downwind landing to comply with the noise rules prior to 6 am?
... and I must disagree with the bloke who said you couldnt expect the FAs to insist on "shoes off". Struth.
... and I must disagree with the bloke who said you couldnt expect the FAs to insist on "shoes off". Struth.