A380 - VH-OQA Write Off.
 

I heard last night that VH OQA is going to be written off this week.

No regulatory authority will give approval for a ferry flight.

There is no repair scheme for the front spar.

OQA will leave Singapore in chunks, by ship.

This is a rumour website and I may be wrong.

Yeah, i heard this last week from a friend who works at Qantas. Mind you, they also claimed (only half jokingly) that no one wants to fly her because she is possessed!

Jeez, that's funny. I heard the exact opposite.....rumours you make up whilst on the dunny don't count.

On the othe hand, she is haunted.

Haunted as in NBW walks the isle? Or OQA just has fault after fault?

Would be interesting if true as that would I think be considered a jet hull loss and qf's 'never had a jet hull loss' claim to fame would be no more. The press would have a field day!!!

Well if you are going to have a write off this is probably not a bad one to have on your record.

No apparent fault of QF and the crew did a great job.

People make up a lot of things about QF. Claims about never crashing, never losing a passenger, never having a hull-loss, even the silly "Qantas pilot 'gripes' sheet" that regularly does the rounds.

These things never seem to come from bona-fide QF people though. If they write off OQA so be it. There are hull losses and there are hull losses. Anyone who tries to use it to make some sort of point will only be displaying their ignorance of the industry.

Do you honestly think that Airbus will allow it's premier aircraft to be written off? I very much doubt it, even if it means sending it by sea back to the factory in sections!

I agree with the above two posts. It is not a hull loss -full stop- look up what constitutes a hull loss then come back and talk on the site.
Great job done by a great professional crew trained by a first class C+T organization.
Always Craven

Qantas' claim is a carefully-worded claim that they have never had a hull loss or pax fatality in the jet age (1951 onwards, in QF claims). This claim is always modified by lax journalism, word of mouth, and ignorant people, into ... "QF have never had a hull loss or pax fatality, EVER."

It doesn't take much research to find that QF have had many major aircraft crashes, including total losses (pax & aircraft), and many crashes weren't even recorded in detail (1920's).
During WW2, QF was cheerfully regarded as an arm of the RAAF by many Australians... and the Japs most certainly didn't distinguish between civilian aircraft (particularly QF aircraft) and RAAF aircraft.

The worst QF disasters were...

De Havilland DH-9C G-AUED - 24 Mar 1927 - 3 fatalities
De Havilland DH-86 VH-USG - 15 Nov 1934 - 4 fatalities
De Havilland DH-86 VH-USE - 20 Feb 1942 - 9 fatalities
Short S-23 (flying boat) VH-ADU - 22 Apr 1943 - 13 fatalities
Lockheed 18 Lodestar VH-CAB - 26 Nov 1943 - 15 fatalities
Short S-23 (flying boat) VH-ABB - 11 Oct 1944 - 1 fatality
Avro 691 Lancastrian (BOAC G-AGLAX, operated by QF) - disappeared between Colombo & Cocos Is (no trace found) - 23 Mar 1946 - 10 fatalities
Avro 691 Lancastrian VH-EAS - 07 April 1949 - hull loss, no fatalities
De Havilland Drover II VH-EBQ - 16 Jul 1951 - 7 fatalities
Lockheed L1049 VH-EAC - 24 August 1960 - hull loss, no fatalities

Possibly the nearest that QF came to total disaster was the last event, the rejected TO of the Super Constellation at Mauritius. To have everyone survive a rejected TO crash of a Super Constellation loaded with 8280 US gallons of avgas, that caught fire immediately after crashing, was nothing less than a miracle.

Why not leave it in Singapore? , just sell it to Singapore Airlines as scrap metal and let them raid it for spare parts as needed for their 380's.

Maybe even QF could get a couple of 777's off SQ for it.

What's all the fuss about whether the A380 is/isn't a hull loss? :confused:

Hull loss *: Airplane damage that is substantial and is beyond economic repair.

Substantial Damage *: Damage or structural failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the airplane and would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.

Sunfish mentioned hearing that the aircraft maybe a write-off (ie., a rumour), and if that's the case, then the substantial damage resulting from the inflight event probably means that it is (by definition) a hull loss. So what?

Totally agree! :D :D

* Definitions courtesy of Boeing, because despite popular belief, neither ICAO nor the NTSB has a definition for Hull Loss - refer Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST).

During the great Sydney hail storm of '99, VH-OGS apparently suffered so much damage they considered writing it off. The only reason they didn't was because it was a relatively young aircraft at the time. If it was OGA, then a different outcome.
I repeat my point. A hull loss from an insurance/repair POV is not the same as an accident.

The insurer not the airline will make the determination if the aircraft is a write off.

Lots of issues including recovery/repair and loss of use is covered. The insurer may then go after the 'third party' who caused the loss.

QF's claim vs. RR [and maybe Airbus] is separate from this.....

Qantas self-insures

Capt Kremin

Although it was the worst damaged out of the QF fleet, information at the time was that VH-OGS cost $9 mil to repair, not exactly a write off.
BTW a nice airplane to fly before and after the hail storm!

What about that QantasLink Boeing 717 that "bounced".....into DRW??

I thought that one was a Write Off

TBM-Legend

It may cost more than it is worth, but I am sure that Airbus will not allow it's premier aircraft to be a write off at such an early stage of it's career, commercially it would be very damaging!

Qantas does not self-insure its aircraft hulls. For a start it doesn't own all of them. Many are leased and I can assure you that lessors require 'real' insurance.

Why wouldn't Airbus want a write-off if indeed it was??

TBM-Legend

Premier aircraft - commercially damaging - European pride (French).