|
QF17 to Argentina Turnback
|
At least it's not a Roller B744 so it gives RR a bit of slack as far as the media is concerned. The pax load is a worry though.
|
Smoke in the cockpit! :mad::mad::mad: When will it end. Lucky again. Better that it happens near the beginning of the flight than when it is down near the pole. Scary stuff.
|
Qantas seem to be having their fair share in incidents. Not just over the last few weeks but dating back a couple of years now. Did they change maintainence programs a few years or something? Is this the effect of those changes?
(sorry for any sp? mistakes) |
Qantas flight turns back to Sydney
Paul Tatnell and Glenda Kwek November 15, 2010 - 2:47PM A Qantas plane en route to Argentina has been forced to return to Sydney after an electrical problem led to smoke in the cockpit, the fifth in-flight or pre-flight incident since an engine failure on a Singapore-bound A380 flight 11 days ago. QF17, which took off from Sydney Airport at 11.11am today with 199 passengers on board, turned back about an hour into the flight to Buenos Aires, a Qantas spokeswoman said. Advertisement: Story continues below A friend of one of the passengers said the pilot announced there was smoke coming from the instrument panel. A Qantas spokesman confirmed an electrical problem had caused the smoke. The Boeing 747-400, with three flight and 18 cabin crew, touched down safely at Sydney Airport at 1.22pm after priority clearance to land was given by air traffic control, a Qantas spokesman said. "Engineers are inspecting the aircraft to determine the cause of the issue. Passengers have disembarked into the terminal building," the spokesman said. "Reports that the aircraft lost pressure in the main cabin are incorrect. Oxygen supply to the cabin was unaffected." The spokesman said the incident was reported to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Air Transport Safety Bureau. "Qantas regrets the inconvenience to passengers and will seek to make contingency arrangements for those affected." A replacement flight would leave Sydney at 5pm, the spokesman said. On Saturday, a missing screw delayed a Qantas flight from Sydney to Melbourne by an hour, while a QantasLink flight to Sydney from Coffs Harbour was delayed by five hours after a warning light indicated a problem with the engines as it came in to land. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any body else heard about sinapore airlines as well this morning had a problem? also rumors a ml-syd flight had a warning light and returned back to ml |
from news.com
Qantas flight 17 turns back to Sydney en route to Buenos Aires | News.com.au The captain advised passengers that there was an electrical failure on the main control panel, which Ms Sanhueza said was expelling smoke into the cabin pit. |
A friend of one of the passengers said the pilot announced there was smoke coming from the instrument panel. I have maintained for some time, we (as pilots) are telling the folks on board too much about issues thay may or may not understand. Unless it's glaringly obvious to the passengers, I simply use the terms: a. "in the interest of safety we will be........" b. "we have a technical issue so we will be.........." c. "we have an indication in the flightdeck so we will be.........." d. "our engineers are working on a minor issue so we will be..........." In nearly 20 years of airline flying, I have never had a passenger want more specific information after a generalised PA about a technical issue. What I am quite specific about is, how they as passengers will be affected. How long the delay is, what we are doing about their connecting flights, what time they will be getting to their destination & that we are dealing with the problem as expeditiously as possible. And most importantly it's in the interest of their safety. And we wonder why wer'e all getting a bad wrap in the press about issues that are mostly inconsequential. MC |
SMH report
SMH has a report here though it is full of sensational passenger quotes.
I'm already sceptical about the press reports. For example: A friend of one of the passengers said the pilot announced there was smoke coming from the instrument panel. Sounds more like the PA was out. Also looks like a lack of information freaked some passengers out. |
Sounds like the quoted news.com passenger was well prepared & provisioned for the incident- or given recent events are Catering bulk loading chill pills??
"I had to take some pills to call me down.” S28-BE:E:E;) |
The "friend of the passenger" is a hardly credible source of what was or wasn't said in the announcement. I personally doubt that an alarmist announcement like this would be made .
|
A Qantas plane en route to Argentina has been forced to return to Sydney after an electrical problem led to smoke in the cockpit, the fifth in-flight or pre-flight incident since an engine failure on a Singapore-bound A380 flight 11 days ago. QF17, which took off from Sydney Airport at 11.11am today with 199 passengers on board, turned back about an hour into the flight to Buenos Aires, a Qantas spokeswoman said. A friend of one of the passengers said the pilot announced there was smoke coming from the instrument panel. A Qantas spokesman confirmed an electrical problem had caused the smoke. Passenger Teague Czislowski, a Sydney lawyer, said fellow travellers became concerned when they noticed fuel coming out of the wings. "About an hour into the flight we suddenly did a 180-degree turn and you could see the wing section and while it looked like there was smoke coming out of it, it was actually the fuel dump taking place," he said. Electrics out "The first thing you noticed was then the electrics going out. There was no lights, no entertainment, only the emergency panels were on." Mr Czislowski said the flight then headed towards Sydney and circled Botany Bay for "what seemed like ages so they could keep dumping fuel". He said passengers had not been told why there were returning. "I have on my watch an altimeter and it had shown they had fully depressurised the cabin," he said. "As we came in to land you didn't hear the normal electrical sounds when they activate the landing gear but you could hear something, like they were manually doing it. "We were pretty bloody concerned and they did tell us it would be all OK, but we weren't sure. There were no electrics and you really wondered whether they were flying the plane OK." The plane landed "very smoothly", Mr Czislowski said, but only then did passengers realise the "seriousness of it all". Mr Czislowski, who was heading to Brazil for a wedding, said passengers celebrated and some even hissed once the flight landed. Met by fire engines "We were waiting on the tarmac and ... then we were met by all the fire engines and fire brigade, there were reams and reams of them, and then we realised something major must have happened," he said. "We then pulled up and told to say in our seats and ... then the captain came through the cabin stopping at 10-metre intervals so people could hear. "He explained that they took off and everything was fine. They finished their ascent and everything was fine and then smoke started coming out of their flight control at their panel upfront and that's when they knew there was some problem. "They then went straight into emergency procedures and a series of tests." Mr Czislowski said the latest Qantas mishap "is a disgrace". "Excuse my French, but this is just another Qantas f--- up - that is what the QF probably stands for," he said. "Questions from the passengers were whether maintenance crews were putting all their attention into [the problems with the] A-380s and this is why it happened. "But, whatever it is, it's ridiculous. It is simply unacceptable and a lot of people were saying I just will stop flying Qantas." Touch down The Boeing 747-400, with three flight and 18 cabin crew, touched down safely at Sydney Airport at 1.22pm after priority clearance to land was given by air traffic control, a Qantas spokesman said. "Engineers are inspecting the aircraft to determine the cause of the issue. Passengers have disembarked into the terminal building," the spokesman said. "Reports that the aircraft lost pressure in the main cabin are incorrect. Oxygen supply to the cabin was unaffected." The spokesman said the incident was reported to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Air Transport Safety Bureau. "Qantas regrets the inconvenience to passengers and will seek to make contingency arrangements for those affected." A replacement flight would leave Sydney at 5pm, the spokesman said. On Saturday, a missing screw delayed a Qantas flight from Sydney to Melbourne by an hour, while a QantasLink flight to Sydney from Coffs Harbour was delayed by five hours after a warning light indicated a problem with the engines as it came in to land. On Friday, Melbourne-bound QF768 returned to Perth after flight crew noticed a vibration in the No.1 engine of the Boeing 767. All of Qantas's Airbus A380s remain grounded after the November 4 midair engine explosion on QF32 from Singapore to Sydney. Both Qantas and Rolls Royce, the maker of the Trent 900 engine, are investigating the incident. The following day, a Boeing 747-400 plane departing from Singapore and heading for Sydney had to turn back after a "contained engine failure". Qantas's chief executive Alan Joyce defended the Australian airline's safety record during its 90th anniversary celebrations on Saturday. "Hundreds if not thousands of these type of things would happen on airlines around the world every year," he said when asked about the incident involving QF768. It is not known when the A380s will be cleared to fly again. Qantas shares fell 5 cents immediately after news about this latest incident broke, but regained some of their value later. Mr Czislowski is qualified - he has an altimeter in his watch!!! |
Investigation: AO-2010-095 - Smoke event - Boeing 747-438, VH-OEI, near Sydney Aerodrome NSW, 15 November 2010
that was quick "During the climb, the crew detected smoke in the cockpit. The crew donned oxygen and conducted an emergency descent. The aircraft returned to Sydney after dumping fuel. The investigation is continuing. A report has not yet been released for this investigation." |
The ""If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going"" crowd are strangely quiet.
|
Another QF media success...........not
Chris Reason's story on 7 was factual and authorative ...even a verified recording of the ATC comms .........followed by dear little Olivia with yet another uniformed, ignorant comment on technical, procedural and ATC matters. (sadly she also missed mentioning the thronmister) How much longer can this company continue to put up an inarticulate, uniformed arrogant spokesperson who KNOWS NOTHING and makes the pilots and crew look bigger fools than the Exec Management. Send her back to Joe Hockey's office or shuffling paper at the Tourism Task Force. oh BTW......Where was little commander dodgy today...........dodging the hard questions yet again. cue the kids choir AT |
......compare this with the 7:30 Report.
No Olivia......:= Capt Woodward,Harbison and AJ.....good job. Clear, succinct and non emotive. The clanger though was ....."it could be weeks, months 'till the A380 gets back in the air". Agree with Harbisons view on RR......they've come out of this looking very shabby |
RR have come out of this looking very shabby........
So We'll order a few hundred more for the 787....... Yet another incompetent decision from Qf management. |
Another QF media success...........not a lot of people were saying I just will stop flying Qantas Excuse my French, but this is just another Qantas f--- up - that is what the QF probably stands for And there is the crux of the matter! It doesn't matter if the press are being sensationalist. It doesn't matter if the passengers have no idea of the technical issues and are talking absolute rubbish (funny as it is). It doesn't matter if the problems are mostly minor in nature & safety was never compromised. It doesn't matter if these sorts of things happen every day somewhere around the world. What matters is that public perception is starting to change. And perception is everything because what a person perceives is their reality, regardless of whether it is true or not. It seems to be basic human nature to immediately believe the worst, no matter how good the history has been. If the public start to believe that Qantas is unsafe, then management have a serious issue. A very serious issue! Senior management these days seem have no idea how quickly & easily an impecable reputation can be tarnished, or just how important that reputation actually is to the business. It appears that short term, bonus based thinking is what is being taught at business school these days & the cancer is spreading fast. Cost saving is the 'in' mantra. What they don't comprehend or conveniently ignore, is that the fall from the top can be amazingly fast & the damage done so severe, that it can take decades to regain that enviable position again. |
It doesn't matter if the problems are mostly minor in nature & safety was never compromised. It doesn't matter if these sorts of things happen every day somewhere around the world. |
JB over at Vb must be loving this.
But seriously is this normal for a fleet of qfs size to have so many problems. Vb has half the planes but have not had any noticeable incidents in a while. I guess VB keep a new fleet and this is why but 4 problems in 2 weeks? plus the SFO, Manila, A330 dive. These are all very serious. Some airlines like Lufhthansa have 4 times the fleet but never so many major problems. Or do they? |
Why......
.......are foreign airlines protected species?
Today an SQ service returned to Sydney. Why hasn't this been reported by the mainstream media and the reasons for the return? SQ212 initially departed at 0915, returned at 1145 and then made a second departure at 1230. (Times from SACL website). Obviously, their passengers were not in fear of their lives. :E |
Safety Category ?
Supposedly 12 months ago the FAA were behind a private push to have Australia downgraded to Cat 2 due to 'Qf issues' that were never ending and the FAA had lost faith in Australia's ability to oversight the nations number 1 carrier.
Does the latest round of issues again raise the issue of a possible downgrade ? For the record, I am not advocating anything here or taking sides, simply putting the question out there ? |
The airline needs to return to being run by Pilots and Engineers who have a clue about the industry and have an inherent safety culture.
Short sighted accountants and greedy bonus driven executives have FAILED!!!:= It really is time to wake up. :ugh: |
<<then we were met by all the fire engines and fire brigade, there were reams and reams of them>>
Isn't a ream 500? |
SQ was a security issue, not a problem with the aircraft.
If this was Ansett CASA would have issued a show cause by now. |
So SQ's security issue that resulted in an unscheduled landing and return does not warrant any comment or media reporting at all? For all they knew, SQ's passengers could have been at greater risk than the punters on QF17?
|
Ken's got a point about media selectivity. Brisbane had several overnight diversions the other day due to bad weather in Sydney, including an Emirates A380, couple of different 737s and a Qantas 747. The local media wrote it up as '200 Qantas passengers stranded in Brisbane' with nary a mention of the other carriers.
I don't think it's a foreign airline immunity, more of a non-Qantas immunity. If the media decides Qantas FUBAR stories sell, every time they run out of loo paper it will end up on the front page. Media perception is just as capricious as public perception with the added factor being that they want to sell papers. The more Qantas FUBAR articles, the more damage to the brand occurs. Even if the issues are relatively trivial the average person knows so little about aviation that it doesn't matter. I've had several friends ask me about Qantas being in trouble, I'm sure you all have too. This is damaging their reputation with Australians. I wonder if they've ever costed the value of that brand? The Australian airline, the world's safest airline, the airline flying more Australians that any other, etc. etc. It's served them well when competing against SQ, EK and the like. If they lose their reputation for safety and Aussieness, they will surely see an impact on ticket sales, being a relatively small carrier that mainly sells to Australians. It's also difficult (if not impossible) to buy a reputation back once you lose it. Decent PR should be able to mitigate recent events, but they seem to be cost cutting with that as well. Bunging the Pet PR Poppet on the 6 o'clock news to be condescending, inarticulate and poorly informed* doesn't begin to address the widening credibility gap between their reputation and the perceived recent reality. *IMHO |
Vb has half the planes but have not had any noticeable incidents in a while. However the point made about other carriers not getting a mention is very relevant. I recall that during the last round of QF-centric media attention (circa QF 72) there were numerous incidents concerning DJ (a couple of slides blown, bird strike necessitating engine change etc etc) that never even made it to press. Whether that's down to the media hounding QF, or QF's crap PR department, I'm not sure. However as a CC I do agree that sometimes the pilots give too much information. In this day of the "instant internet expert" the pax have all Googled the terms on their iPads and then get freaked out over things that in the scheme of things aren't going to bring a plane down, but have in movies. So they email the media (SMH being a big offender with their "Know someone on this flight? Call us on 1800-hysteria" tagline) and tell them about something which would otherwise have gone unmentioned in the media. I think it's only going to get worse in this digital age. Does anyone know if QF have ever gone after any of the pax posting stupid "Drama in the skies" videos of incidents on YouTube? Many of them clearly show landing phases of flight and use of electronics like mobiles is not permitted. No mention by the media of those people pontentially endangering the flight and/or breaking laws there, oh that's right without thsoe vids they've got no hysterical stories!!! :ugh: |
I've read all the posts and the first one that made me stop and think was the one that said 'no coverage of the overseas airlines delays due to the weather'. The simple solution to that is that noone cares if a foreign airliner is delayed due to weather. By-and-large, when it comes to news in the domestic section of the newspaper, they mainly report on news that has an impact on Australians and Australian companies.
Then I read the bit on this thread about how several other internal carriers had issues recently and they weren't followed up as much as Qantas were. This made me think further from what I learnt of the media. The fact of the matter is that newspapers have to make money. They have to come out with these sorts of stories. Sure the 'terrified passengers carryon' is a bit over-the-top but if one paper decides 'right, were going to treat all airlines fairly' then they will rapidly lose market share. People like reading this sort of thing. So it's not really a case of newspapers hounding airlines down, it's a reflection on what people what to read. A reflection on society. And believe me, it's not just airlines they go after. An incident of a drunk doctor will see the spotlights put on doctors' behaviour for months, charities will get the heat if one is exposed as fraudulent. And it goes on. Perhaps some perspective is needed. Qantas isn't helping themselves with 4 turnbacks in 10 days though. I certainly don't think it is a sign of a media 'agenda' (whatever that might be). |
Why doesnt anybody give Olivia a brush?!
|
The fact of the matter is that newspapers have to make money. They have to come out with these sorts of stories. Sure the 'terrified passengers carryon' is a bit over-the-top but if one paper decides 'right, were going to treat all airlines fairly' then they will rapidly lose market share. People like reading this sort of thing. So it's not really a case of newspapers hounding airlines down, it's a reflection on what people what to read. A reflection on society. And believe me, it's not just airlines they go after. An incident of a drunk doctor will see the spotlights put on doctors' behaviour for months, charities will get the heat if one is exposed as fraudulent. And it goes on. Perhaps some perspective is needed. |
Yeah i can see the qantas bashing, but dj has not had bits fall out the back of any of their donks, holes in the sides of the jets, computer glitch dives, smoke in cockpits, explosions and gas leaking out the flagship and grounding the whole entire fleet type. Surely their should have been one major problem for dj in the same period of qantas's 6 or 7 big ones.
So how can every say that qantas is the safest airline in the world because the stats aren't matching up. So I would suggest that qantas is no longer the safest airline in the world. Or even Australia. how much is this all costing Q, money must be pouring out the door with the disruptions with the a380, probs with the 747s etc. |
Why doesnt anybody give Olivia a brush?! Woof |
Seriously guys, just check out this website:
avherald.com Every airline has INCIDENTS all the time, yet it only seems one has theirs plastered over every news bulletin! |
there were numerous incidents concerning DJ (a couple of slides blown, bird strike necessitating engine change etc etc) that never even made it to press. Turn it up mate, everyone has bad runs in the press due to things that us crew know are less than critical and rarely newsworthy (I think we had one of the 73's nose wheels "roll off and away on the taxi out in SYD - now thats a great look :p), and I am try to be as unbiased as anyone, but CUMMON! What the HELL is going on over there... I don't think we can ENTIRELY blame the media (as biased and hysterical as they often are) for reporting serious occurences that really shouldn't be happening to any airline. Short of some monkey backing a trippler in to a hanger door (twice! lol), a few human error ground instances, a cracked flight deck window about 8 years ago, oh and the runaway wheel, it ain't happening to us mate. I'd take bad jokes and expensive pringles anyday over what you poor buggers are dealing with at the moment. Fingers crossed it stops happening soon! It's getting a bit silly! It's getting a bit scary! |
I certainly don't think it is a sign of a media 'agenda' (whatever that might be) However, if you whinge about the media picking on you they tend to heap even more manure your way, because it's entertaining. Far better to get your PR machine, advertising and credibility cranked up and run some counter-spin so that people believe your story rather than the media's. They're not doing that, and it shows. Even more far better to make sure your product's as good as you say it is, but that's another story from a galaxy far, far away. :ugh: Why doesnt anybody give Olivia a brush?! |
A simple statistical set of tests, which QF should be doing as a matter of course every month to every fleet will settle the question of QF's reliability and safety once and for all.
If they aren't doing that and examining the results, then God help them. |
Would I be correct in saying that only 4 engined aircraft would operate this route due to the lack of available alternates for a 2 engine aircraft on ETOPS??
Thanks in advance |
Old Fleet
All,
A typical graph of airframe reliability on the vertical scale and time on the horizontal is reflected in what's going on. A new typw, (A380 with QF or 777 with CX, back when they got them, E190 VB), will always have troubles in the first few years. After a while they settle down and become much more reliable as design fixes come in and experience grows(E190 with VB for example). After about 20 - 30 years the reliability begins to fall away, despite the engineering regime, cycles etc. The QF 747 fleet is old. 20 to 30 years. S70IP |
SQ was a security issue, not a problem with the aircraft.
So if it was a security issue, why did they require fire tenders to enter the runway after landing, SACL cars conducting a runway inspection, and finding FOD, requiring a QF 747 to make a missed approrach?:confused: |
The QF 747 fleet is old. 20 to 30 years. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:06. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.