Qantas Air Turnback: QF5, SYD to Singapore
 

AAP reporting QF5 turned back:
Qantas plane forced to turn around after technical issue

Stop the press!

Run it front page nationwide tomorrow!

:ugh:

The Qantas website shows that it departed again at 2100 and will arrive in Singapore just under 4 hours late wrt scheduled arrival time.

It sounds like it's not a particularly newsworthy event but the way the media carries on these days, they'll print anything.

Wishful thinking seeing it is only 1920 in Sydney!

just out of curiosity, what exactly happens with a turnaround? I can see that QF5 is/was a B744 a/c and would have theoretically been at MTOW or near there. Now from my basic understanding (and I mean basic), isn't MLW usually much lower than MTOW such that they'd have to dump fuel or fly around for a few hours to burn it off? (this is just out of interest, is all). If not, what would they do?

Cheers

How embarassing that the media go into a frenzy over a nothing event - mind you, if it happened an hour later (or next week when it is dark at 6pm), there would be no cameras so there is no story.

I can't believe guys like Peter Overton let this sort of thing make the news - I think I saw him cringe when he was reading the autocue.

Correct, it depends on the fuel load & ZFW for the sector whether you are above above MLW prior to takeoff.
The B744 has a fuel jettison system allowing a speedy reduction to MLW.

2GB News quoted somebody on the ground at Cronulla seeing smoke and flames coming from one of the engines.

Who gives a flying f#*k.
Non - event,
Thread closed please.........

Given the moist conditions in Sydney this evening, more than likely a vapour trail off the trailing edge!:rolleyes:

Can't wait for morning TV news :yuk: no doubt they will find some hysterical "screeching BIMBO" for the ineviatble quote "I thought I was going to die":ugh:

As a kid in the '50s it wasn't uncommon to see Connies, DC6s etc coming in with one prop feathered, but I never remember hearing anything about it on the news. I'd guess this is much less frequent with jets, and probably of less consequence, but there seems to be a constant demand for 'news' about anything out of the ordinary.

Dam crew, flicking their butts out the windows again!! This has to stop! :=

So was that the T/C or C/C with their butts out the window? :} :E

Regards,
BH.

Did they have TV back in those days? IIRC TV was only only introduced in 1956 in Australia. :E

.. back in the olden days we had wireless, mate ... The Goon Show and all those other rooly great shows ...

Don't forget "Life with Dexter" John! :}

Had a gut load of this topic sensationalised all over Shy News this evening.

It really is a non event. If someone will confirm the 744 has departed again, I'll close this thread.

Plane is u/s and pax have been off loaded on to another a/c

Channel 9 this morning was embarassing. Yes, they had the scared passenger (a young women with picture of course) telling how she feared for her life. And they actually had an interview with a kid (who would have been 15) who thought he saw the "big flames". :yuk: So embarassing it isn't funny.

I could be wrong, but it looks to me that either number #2 or #3 engine was shut down for the landing. I noticed from the Channel 7 vision this morning that reverse was only used on #1 and #4, it was hard to see but definately #2 and possibly #3 were not in reverse.

Oh NO!!!
Not the dreaded three engine landing !!!!!!! :ugh:

I'm trying to figure out why this non-event was given such prominence on the early morning Channel 9 news which is sponsored by Qantas and which, presumably, is the same program that is screened on the aircraft. I know Qantas would not want to be accused of a cover-up but it received the same OTT coverage as on the later bulletins for the masses.

Rgds

QF5 MAYDAY call
 

While I agree that having 1 engine fail is normally a bit of a non-story in a 747 and that Qantas is playing down the whole event, what has not been reported is that the crew called MAYDAY after the engine failed. It was still very low over the Kurnell peninsula after departing 16R in bad weather when the crew made the MAYDAY call to departures.

For the next couple of minutes until the situation was stabilised and more information was forthcoming from the crew ATC were preparing for an immediate turnback and possible emergency landing. For it to be reported by the spin doctors that the engine failed 1/2 an hour into the flight and all was okay is a complete lie.

Emergency services were advised and it was not until QF5 was inbound back for a landing on 16R that after dumping fuel did the crew downgrade to a PAN call. Calling Mayday is a very rare event fortunately, and obviously the crew were very concerned so lets not make light of last nights events . We should congratulate the crew and ATC for what was initially a heart stopping event.

Borram

Regardless of the number of engines, under ICAO procedures an engine fire requires a Mayday call. Once the fire is out you can downgrade it to a Pan. As this crew had to dump fuel once the fire was out to return to Sydney they have probably delayed the downgrade from the Mayday until it was completed. Aviating, Navigating and communicating also probably played a part in the delay in the downgrade of the emergency.

In the end once the fire is out, it really is a non-event, even with the dumping of the fuel.

Oooh! He's fallen in the water!!:ok:

I happened to be in the vicinity at the time.

The drone of the departures was in the background while I was concentrating on something else, when I heard a loud bang. It got my attention for sure, as there was a departure overhead but out of sight...I waited to hear if the sound of the jet changed but couldn't discern anything. Then I thought maybe it was the first clap of thunder of an approaching storm, as there was weather about.

I thought nothing more of it until I saw it on the news.

If in fact what I heard was the engine 'letting go' they sure would have known about it onboard.

Wish I had a buck for all the ones I turned back in, yawn!:*

Note to Ch 9 'News' Director;
''You silly twisted boy you!'':*

Dammit Pinky, I was happily reading along and saw Centaurus's post and thought "I know what I'll add", then saw your contribution! I didn't wish to know that!

So all I can say is, "needle nardle noo"!

Right the challenge is on: a pax announcement introducing one's self to the SLF as Captain Grytpype-Thynne... (and possibly F/O Neddy Seagoon and S/O Eccles).

Where's Henry Crun when you need him?

Thanks, I'll see myself out...

Titan 404
 

My point is that the powers that be are being very loose with the facts in saying it was 1/2 an hour into the flight and not about 1 minute near ground level. Also having way too many years than I want to remember in the industry, this is the first time in all the many engine failures I have seen and heard that a Mayday was called. Pilots normally advise thay have a problem and need to return- with no Mayday let alone a Pan call.

I reiterate , 1 engine out is normally a non-issue in a 747. As for ICAO procedures , airlines here have a very loose interpretation of them. The RAAF are the only ones in OZ who do the right thing in regard to them.

LiveATC has got a recording of the transmission between Sydney Approach/Tower and QF5 on its way back from dumping fuel. Pretty much a non-event as indicated by calm voices of the pilots on ATC frequency.

Seems like it was very professionally handled by all. :ok:

LiveATC Recordings | LiveATC.net

BTW, what's with the 'check wheels' from Sydney Tower? Is this a special procedure by the tower for abnormal operations?

Just out of curiosity what was the engine type fitted to this config.
Was it a Roller or Ge.

VHOJI RB211 powered 744... flight departed some four hours later with OJP

BTW, what's with the 'check wheels' from Sydney Tower? Is this a special procedure by the tower for abnormal operations?

May have been the same controller that was working the day the Ansett 747 came back with a problem...

Well done guys...:ok:

"Check wheels"
 

Got that one myself once when an SR22 popped a door just after departure from YSCB and I returned to close it. Was tempted to reply "down and welded" except the Cirrus is composite, so I was stumped on what to say :confused:. I thought it was because I had a RAAF ATCO at YSCB, but maybe they're all encouraged to say it in case - in the heat of the moment - the crew has forgotten (the usual cause of gear-up landings, after all :().

Agree the whole incident is being over reported - but they did call a mayday and quite a few departures were held and quite a few arrivals were put into the hold (if only for a few minutes) ...

Ted

Borram

I’m not sure QF procedures but at CX a severe engine failure, engine fire and depressurisation followed by an emergency descent all require a Mayday call. Once the fire is out and/or the emergency is under control we can downgrade to a Pan call. A simple engine failure i.e. an engine wind down only requires a Pan.

I think you'll find the commander still gets that decision - unless you can quote the document. :rolleyes:

Not disputing the actual decision in any way, mind.

Re the "check wheels" comment - there is a thread on R&N about a CRJ landing flapless, in which the pilots forgot to lower the gear (and didn't complete the checklist, and failed to notice the continuing warnings) - one of the suggestions on the topic was for ATC to issue and automatic "Check Wheels" to any PAN or MAYDAY aircraft, which wouldn't be a bad thing IMHO.

A non event, Hmmm. An engine failure in a passenger jet, turnback, emergency services etc.

Any on Pprune who have experience who could not to this day relate everything they did under this type of circumstance?

By the book of course, but hardly a non event.

Experimental is correct, it was an ANSETT moment!!

having said that: standard procedure is to give a "check wheels" to any aircraft subject to this sort of in flight emergency - just in case, with all the other stuff going on, the pilot forgets da wheels!

Checkboard

ICAO regulates the usage of Mayday and PAN PAN in Annex 10 to the Chicago Convention but I will admit it is merely a recommendation. Most airlines though regulate their use in their ops manuals as I’m sure QF would as well. In the case where I work certain failures require the captain to declare a Mayday. Others don’t but the captain can if he deems it appropriate to do so.