|
Jetstar make the correct decision (A claim.)
The Sydney Morning Herald reports
Wrong plane recalled due to burst tyre January 24, 2008 - 4:03PM A Jetstar flight to Hamilton Island was ordered back to Brisbane today with a suspected burst tyre - but it was the wrong plane. Just half-an-hour after take-off, the 9.45am (AEST) flight was forced to turn around and return to Brisbane, causing a two-hour delay for 105 frustrated passengers. Remnants of a tyre had been found on the runaway but it was later discovered it belonged to a Jetstar aircraft bound for Avalon in Victoria. Simon Westaway, a spokesman for the budget airline, said the aircraft had landed in Avalon without incident, despite the burst tyre and damage to a flap adjacent to the undercarriage. Mr Westaway said recalling the Hamilton Island flight was a precautionary move but the right one. "We're about operating our services in a safe and efficient manner and meeting our schedule," he said. "It was an appropriate thing to do, bringing the aircraft back to Brisbane when it wasn't that far out. "It just so happened it was another plane that had burst a tyre. We have an engineering presence in Avalon to cover that anyway. "We just couldn't determine which aircraft (had burst a tyre) and it's obviously very difficult to inspect an aircraft when it's in the air." Mr Westaway said passengers on the flight to Avalon were never in danger. He said the experienced pilot landed the plane without any problems. These Jetstar spin-doctors really take the cake but it is good to see that neither 'Qantas' nor "the Qantas Group' have been used to prop up their nonsense.:mad::mad: |
Maybe its something to do with a short runway at Hamilton Island, and no engineering there, unlike Avalon - which also has heaps of runway.
It's not rocket science. |
Yeah B ALert wake up I hope I am never in row 13 if you are the skipper
|
Yes, obviously B A Lert should do a little research or even think a little before making brazen statements.
Had it been the HTI bound aircraft, you would have had a potentially disabled aircraft on the runway (had the tire shredded or burst) with no engineering, resources or parts. And with the small runway; even the potential for the aircraft to go over the end... It makes clear sense to recall the aircraft back to Brisbane. Avalon has a long runway with engineering and parts available. Also from the website, the two aircraft departed within 2 minutes of each other. Maybe it was not determined to be the second aircraft until a little later. |
Was the Avalon bound aircraft told it was potentially their aircraft with the blown tyre as well? :8
|
Lert hasn't done too badly with his little aside and the little devil emoticon. Throws out a line and nets three! :E :}
|
The crew were told that it might have been them but they didn't experience anything abnormal during the takeoff. It was only when they landed at AVV and experienced the vibrations of an unbalanced tyre that they realised that it was them. The tyre didn't disintegrate but a strip of rubber from one side had come off. The RHS inboard flap had a puncture on the lower surface with a piece of rubber in it. VB had a run of tyre failures in 2005 and I think that was due to a change in tyre manufacturer. As to the recall of the HTI flight I think that it shows that Jetstar took the conservative approach and recalled the flight with the highest potential risk due to the limitations of HTI.
|
Just a question from ignorance (sadly the standard state of afairs for moi :( ) but from the F.R.E.D. drivers is there a procedure in the non-normals for a known/perceived blown tyre??
Only ask as unsure whether BOTH crews were advised of the potential problem - I realise that how the company views things may be different than what the PIC may decide is prudent in light of confirmed or uncertain possibilities. Having now checked appologies to MstrCaution with a similar question - but so far no response. |
The whole point was that it could have been either aircraft. If it was (as it turned out) the Avalon bound A/C, they had the engineering backup to handle the problem. If it was the Hamilton bound A/C, it would have been stranded on HI, as would the outbound Pax.
I had a similar problem going to HI in a 737. We lost a Generator. No problem, but the aircraft would have been grounded in HI untill an engineer got there (MANY hours!!) to either fix it or apply the MEL. The logical thing was to call into BN and get it done. I'm no fan of J*, but in this instance it was a normal, rational operational decistion. |
I find it interesting that most replies to BALert are from a pilots point of view and are looking at it from the engineering side of things....
Perhaps the Hamilton Island aircraft was returned because there is not a large emergency capability from a medical point of view compared to Avalon.... Then again if the aircraft had a similar landing to the BA 777 in LHR then it would have blocked the runway in either airport for a few days while investigations are carried out..... The question as pointed out by galdian is were both aircraft told about the possibility and not just the HI aircraft ? |
Bringing the nearer aircraft back to a major port allows
1. Better emergency capability 2. To know whehter the other aircraft (still in the air) is likely to be the real culprit |
Bringing the nearer aircraft back to a major port allows 1. Better emergency capability |
Mr Westaway states:
"It just so happened it was another plane that had burst a tyre. We have an engineering presence in Avalon to cover that anyway. "We just couldn't determine which aircraft (had burst a tyre) and it's obviously very difficult to inspect an aircraft when it's in the air." It was only when they landed at AVV and experienced the vibrations of an unbalanced tyre that they realised that it was them. |
No just Jetstar being tightarses and not wanting the crew stuck overnight on Hamo Island
|
You know....how dare you say that. What an ugly mind you have to assume no-one other than you could ever put "Safety First". That is way over the top, even for an amateur wannabe. Get some time in son and see how the real world works. Slag not now....and maybe someone won't slag you later
|
If the HTI bound aircraft was recalled on account of the limited facilities etc etc at HTI, then why the hell didn't the Jetstar spin-doctor say as much rather than suggest that that aircraft was closer to Brisbane than the Avalon bound aircraft? There's nothing quite like transparent honesty instead of glib throwaway lines.
Also, wouldn't Tullamarine have offered better facilities than Avalon for a landing that could go pear-shaped? |
B A Lert : You my friend, and I'm sad to have to be the one who tells you, are an idiot.:)
|
Two jets depart YBBN. One of them leaves some rubber behind but no one's sure which. Both have already retracted their gear. One is heading to YBHM where maintenance is virtually nil. The other is heading to YMAV where work can be carried out. Both are revenue-earning flights. Which would you recall to YBBN, Lert? BOTH????? Sorry but I tend to agree with ozmahseer. Why are you muck-raking? This is less than a non-event and shouldn't even have made the papers.
|
To answer the question, both aircraft crew were alerted to the problem and were involved in the decision process for the outcome of their flight. BA Lert. I hope you aren't even a pilot because I would hate to think that any person paid money to be transported by someone so willing to jump to an early conclusion without researching the facts. Have you ever heard of CRM?
|
fistfokker
in fairness I rasied a question 2 days ago - which you have answered on behalf of many interested people. thanks. Of course one could now beg the question - prior to arrival Avelon I assume the HTI flight had landed BNE and been assessed as "not the aircraft concerned." If so what was the aircraft/cabin prep for arrival Avelon?? cheers galdian :ok: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:05. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.