I have to disagree that the regulator needs to take a big stick to QF.

In Singapore everyone seems scared of the regulator despite a pretty good safety record. A lot of things which are mindless in detail (filling in the flight plans with altitudes every hour as an example) are driven by a fear of regulator audits.

The Qantas Jet would not have been able to pressurise with a gaping hole in it and it would not have made Frankfurt at 10000ft. There is no safety issue given the result and what the crew would have known at the time.

Lets not turn Australia into a police aviation state. We have the best safety record in the world. Indonesia has not one conviction against airlines - so I could then relate to such an argument.

Good call Kelkel
Indonesia's airlines are generally owned/operated/piloted by the rich sons of Generals, high ranking Politicians, Regional Governors and the like.
There is no way that even a hull loss will cause criminal charges in Indo, even if you are an ex-pat providing you grease the right palms in sufficient amounts of greenbacks.
Definitely the finest officials money can buy.
In the land of Oz, it takes a little motivation but the regulator will act on anything that deliberately places passengers and crew at risk. The crew in question weighed up options, checked the operational integrity of the aeroplane and with no untoward indications projected the flight safely. What problem?
Mr Boeing does however build rather a good product that stood up beautifully.
Long may that be so.
EWL

Going by the ATSB press release (previously copied onto various threads), no indication of a problem (other than, perhaps, zero pressure in a tyre, but hey! - we've got 11 more back there) until 6 hours into the trip. So to return to departure point would've been 6 hours back-tracking. Or take the same 6 hours and head for... the destination.

6 hours up the track WSSS-EDDF - plenty of divert options.

Further, as has been alluded to, pilots have their own dates strapped to aircraft; most pilots I know are not suicidal maniacs and have partners/spouses/kids they want to see again, hence they are not in the game of taking silly risks with their own arses, even before factoring in those of CC & SLF on the other side of the door. Why anyone would think otherwise is beyond me.

I thought it was a 744.:confused:

[QUOTE=HotDog;3062566]Sorry - 15 more.

....and the point of my posts is this. Aircraft tyres fail in this manner quite often. Damage to the WTBF's and sometimes the I/B T/E flaps due to the tyre failure happens occasionally. This is NOT a one off occurance. It happens frequently.

Sensationalist media, such as Today Tonight attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill for ratings.

The media should be the ones doing the research. Unfortunately, they do not as this would be counterproductive towards the goal.

Today they Jetstar bash.... tomorrow the Qantas bash. Next week, it may be VB. Just don't believe the garbage you read/see.

Honestly, anyone with a hint of intelligence would realise that 3m long hole in the fuselage = plane don't fly.

Looking at the pic I'd say it's a body gear door thats been damaged, possibly a failure or a fwd body gear tyre (#10), as said well handled by all concerned.
A few months back a mate sent picks from an Atlas 744F had a rear body gear tyre fail, similar damage but to the aft wing to body fairing. Crew continued damage was repaired. Non event.

This incident is well covered on:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=216491
dated 15th of March 2006. It has taken a long time for the press to get hold of it. The comments on that thread mirror the ones expressed here.