Qantas jet baggage door opens inflight?
Just had this pop up on the news in HK. Cant see anything online yet. Anyone got the info?
|
Qantas aircraft makes emergency landing in Darwin By Jane Bardon Posted October 21, 2011 10:51:43 A Qantas aircraft has made an emergency landing in Darwin following a mid-air incident on a flight from the Northern Territory capital to Alice Springs. Territory MLA Adam Giles texted the ABC and his advisers to say he is on the plane that departed from Darwin at about 7.30am. He says the cargo door of the plane popped open mid-flight. The pilot returned to Darwin and landed the plane safely at about 8.30am. The aircraft remains on the Darwin tarmac surrounded by emergency vehicles. Mr Giles says he was sitting in the front row of the plane with the Minister for Central Australia Karl Hampton. Country Liberals MLAs Robyn Lambley and Matt Conlan were also on board. It is believed there were more than 110 passengers on board the aircraft. |
Wasn't the bent 717 was it?
|
If it was a 717, the "cargo" doors pop in, not open (if things that open inward could be described as popping in).
Good load factor. :} :ok: |
Rubbish again.
Hopeless media relying on information from a politician, who by the way, should be charged for not following crew instructions (not following a lawful instruction) and using his phone in flight after receiving specific instructions to the contrary. Rules obviously don't apply to NT politicians? It was a gear door issue, not a cargo door. No emergency was declared it was simply burn some fuel and land so engineers can inspect. I'm not sure if its protocol or some over excited ATCer made his own mind up that emergency services were required. If its the later, you would think they would rely on the aircraft Captain advising if such action was necessary and simply look after the separation, let the crew look after the rest. |
A Qantas spokeswoman said a hydraulic fault caused the incident.
"There is no safety risk whatsoever ... it is a mechanical issue," she said. See now we have the new spin, probably right but it just doesn't have the right feel when Qantas say it. That just about sums up their current position which they refuse to acknowledge on matters that six months ago, would never have even rated a mention. One day they might get it that the public are worried. |
And from Qantas passengers mad after mid-air mishap | Courier Mail:
Another man seemed more concerned with his thirst as he waited for Qantas to find a replacement plane. He berated Qantas staff because an airport bar had not been opened early while the passengers were waiting. "A man's not a bloody camel," he was overheard telling one staff member. @ohallen: The public are worried, but far more about the staff than the management. Aren't these aircraft maintained in Australia by Australian technicians? To me and others I speak to in my social circles who fly reasonably regularly, Q staff are rapidly gaining the reputation of being unreliable and intransigent, and seemingly hell bent on the destruction of the airline. |
Could have been worse for him:
Air India passengers left stranded on plane at Gatwick for 9 hours | TERMINAL U | Travel News |
David I am not sure about that and if it does exist I suspect it is a result of the Rat spin.
Do we know for a fact that staff are overpaid? There seems to be major doubt that they are paid $170k as alleged by AJ or someone. The truth is that no one knows the truth because the Rat is spinning and the union doesn't seem to want to put out a clear and concise response in a way that some "alleged " staff do on this site. Then we need to go back to the cause if it does exist. There is a legitimate EBA process that both management and union have participated in and agreed an outcome for many years. Now it seems that the Rat has said hold on...you guys are paid too much and we wont budge an inch (as in 15% over three years plus job security issues). Surely there must be some room for compromise here because all parties are here because of what they have previously agreed and now the Rat says no more we are going offshore and to hell with you guys. The Rat places no value on its safety record and has shown that it has advanced its ethos from "safety at any cost" to "safety at an affordable cost". They have also redefined what a safety issue is and I suspect that will only be when there is a smoking hole and it wont be the current excess who have to explain that one because they will be gone with their greedy bonus driven culture. I understand both sides but until the Rat agrees to go to the table and both sides stop the swinging dick syndrome, nothing is going to be sorted.The outcome of that is the rat is gone overseas, a lot of people will lose their jobs and customers will abandon the brand because their brand differentiation is gone. Then again I could be wrong yet again. |
It's not a Qantas aircraft. It's a Qantas Link aircraft operated by National Jet. Read the fine print.
|
Nup! It's a Qantas Jet...
It's a Qantas jet. It's got a rat on the tail, that means it is "Qantas".
Anything else is simply variations of tax-evasion. I am perfectly well aware that the Qantas bean-counters pay some other bunch of bean-counters to fiddle the taxes on these aircraft; but while they paint the flying kangaroo on the tail, it's Qantas, and if its maintenance is not so good, that's Qantas' fault. I fly on these things up to four times a month. The 717 is a nice aircraft to fly on. But the flight number is a QF flight number, the welcome aboard announcement says "Qantas", the flight attendants are dressed in Qantas uniforms, and the ground-handlers' uniforms are all Qantas. What concerns "me" is that the reliability of this operation appears to be following the trend established by Qantas Mainline. Which gets one's attention when you're about to strap your bum into one... |
I believe your correct JM,all the punters see is the Red Rat on the tail and the main stream Media are not interested in semantics,just sensation.
Thats the trouble with abrogating your responsibility as upper management and empowering accountants to run your business when they generally are not equipped to do so.Im sure Sunfish has greater knowledge in this area. |
FWIW, It's a white rat
|
Wow John you fly on the 717 up to 4 times a month?!?! Congrats! As a passenger I presume? That certainly qualifies as an "expert" opinion these days. The a/c in question is operated, staffed and engineered by COBHAM. No one who touches that a/c is employed by QANTAS. the fact that it has a QF flight number means nothing. Ever heard of jetconnect?
Geez! Cheers, greaser. |
206
I think you need to reread John's post. He's well aware that Qantas have subcontracted. What he is saying is that the subcontract does not allow Qantas to wash its hands of its contractual oversight. If Qantas want the good publicity of painting a contractors aircraft into the brand/group colours then they also accept the bad publicity and the responsibility. |
For the traveling public, it's a QF aircraft. Virgin is flirting with the same relationship should they have any incidents with their ATR operation. It's exactly the style of operation Joyce is pursuing, where it's a QF group operation but with a workforce priced according to profitability.
|
It was a gear door issue, not a cargo door. No emergency was declared it was simply burn some fuel and land so engineers can inspect. I'm not sure if its protocol or some over excited ATCer made his own mind up that emergency services were required. If its the later, you would think they would rely on the aircraft Captain advising if such action was necessary and simply look after the separation, let the crew look after the rest. If as the thread intimates, it was a nose gear door problem then it would be absolutely acceptable that the controllers have local services on standby. It is called a precaution. What if it is more than a door problem? What if steering is also affected. I know it is a slim chance, but how do you think ATC would be portrayed if nothing was done, and the aircraft speared off the runway. Either way, if there is any hint of hydraulic fluid, a runway inspection would be needed to make sure that nothing was left on the runway. You know, for those other aircraft that might want to use the runway after you.;) |
Yaasb,
That is a non sensical argument. Organizing emergency services on a guess? The captain decides on what services are required, not the air traffic controller not the cabin crew and not the passengers. If we used your idea we would have emergency services available for every movement. Just incase. It wasn't the nose wheel or nosewhel door, there was no hydraulic leak, there was no fire, the thing returned because it wouldn't get repaired in alice(it destination) and hat would be a huge inconvenience to every one. That is about it, you guys are as bad as the media you complain about. By the way, who would inspect the runway, the ambulance or the fire brigade? |
And the next incident of all-Australian-airways will go something like:
Capt Ok Bloggs, don't worry about that QRH, it's the PPRuNe Gurus we've got to consider. Bloggs Ok Skip, I'll just pull out the iPad and post our dilemma, and see what the Gurus say, for sure they'll have a better handle on it than us. :E |
A lot of wotifs, there, YAASB. ATC wouldn't have a clue about the intricacies of aircraft systems. The pilots should decide what is required, nobody else.
Further, any unneeded escalation of the alleged "drama" merely scares the travelling public unnecessarily. I assume you are not a two-crew operator similar to the subject flight. How would you feel in this situation? I'd be a bit miffed. It is also pretty poor that the NT News hasn't corrected the "baggage door" theory. |
I think you'll find that Controllers are REQUIRED to err on the side of safety if there is ANY hint of uncertainty about the safety of a flight.
Correct, they are not engineers ... that's why they err on the side of safety. Controllers don't wait till they see a plane crash before calling the cavalry, they must make a judgement call beforehand. With all due respect, I think you'll find that many pilots tend to, how can I put this ...under report many situations. You just have to read some of the communications transcripts in the crash comics to see this. I'm sure most Controllers would rather be called "over enthusiastic" ... than to have done nothing ... because the Pilot said everything was OK. |
What's the problem with having services available
So what if atc put the services on standby.
I don't see what the problem is. Sure they weren't asked for but we all know the armchair experts would have hoe'd in if an incident occurred and they hadn't been put on standby. You've only got to look at the recent coronial report which critised the atc personnel involved in the benalla crash. |
You've only got to look at the recent coronial report which critised the atc personnel involved in the benalla crash. Peuce, the problem with your argument is that it subconsciously sways pilots to not make a big deal of any problem, knowing that ATC is probably going to overreact. |
Peuce, the problem with your argument is that it subconsciously sways pilots to not make a big deal of any problem, knowing that ATC is probably going to overreact
CASA and Airservices are continually encouraging pilots to contact Air Traffic Services at the first sign of a problem. If it doesn't develop into something nasty, that's great. But if it does, forewarned is forearmed. P.S. I've never heard of any plane crashing or passengers dying because ATS provided too much service. However, I have heard of the opposite happening ... and it's usually because ATS weren't FULLY informed of a developing situation. |
. No one who touches that a/c is employed by QANTAS. |
Annoying aspect of any report to ATC about a return due technical issue is the questions they then immediately become obliged to ask. When you are deep in thought about alternative options, revised clearance, fuel burn, landing weight, approach plates, descent profile, checklists, contacting company, reprogramming FMS, etc; ATC will start their routine about 'normal approach and landing', 'dangerous goods', 'services required'....... Usually the services required right then are an airways clearance and no interuptions.
|
sorry airdualbleedfault - wrong again .. at least catering and (cough) cleaning are not completed by QF paid staff but by those of other ground service companies located in DRW.
And .. depending upon the advice given by the crew when they would have requested a diversion of some sort, whatever happened to the polite question of "expecting a normal approach and landing?" followed up by a "do you require emergency services on arrival?" by the by : The NT news and their intelligent readers/FB followers sunk to a new low "as it was happening" ... |
It was a Qantas flight from the point of view of liability anyway.
If things ever come to court the precedent has been well and truly set, morally and legally: "Federal Jury Finds American Eagle Liable for the Crash of One of Its Commuter Planes February 6, 1998 Late yesterday afternoon, a federal jury in Greensboro, North Carolina, found that AMR Eagle, Inc., a subsidiary of AMR Corp. and the commuter arm of American Airlines, is responsible for the December 13, 1994, crash of one of its commuter airplanes in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. AMR Eagle, Inc. has continuously denied responsibility for the crash, which killed 15 and injured 5, according to Michael K. Demetrio of Chicago's Corboy & Demetrio, who had been appointed by the Federal Court for the Middle District of North Carolina as lead counsel for plaintiffs and was lead trial attorney. Michael K. Demetrio, along with Thomas A. Demetrio and Robert A. Clifford, represent six of the nine victims whose cases were partially tried in North Carolina this week. Michael Demetrio stated: "Throughout the three years since the crash, AMR Eagle, Inc. has used every tactic it could imagine to avoid responsibility for the crash of this plane. In the final analysis, the jury found precisely what we've been saying all along: AMR Eagle should and will be held accountable for this crash." Until yesterday, AMR Eagle had been promoting the position that its regional carrier, Flagship Airlines, was the only entity which should answer for the crash. AMR Eagle, Inc. operates small commuter aircraft all over the country under the American Airlines trademark name "American Eagle." "Nobody has ever heard of these small regional outfits owned and operated by AMR Eagle, and that's done on purpose," Demetrio added. "AMR Eagle makes its money by convincing travelers that American is operating the aircraft - and in fact it does. AMR Eagle's surprising position - saying 'it's not our plane' - was disingenuous, and the jury recognized that." |
My understanding is that the captain told aTC three times they did not require emergency services. He outlined their requirements and e was 100% correct.
Not only did they have emergency services but "some one" had TV, newspapers the works there all for a minor fault. Do people get paid a spotters fee? If same had happended at a non controlled airport it would not have been an issue and certainly no compromise in safety. I don't expect some sprog straight from RAAF ATC school with no technical knowledge to decide on my behalf. No. The real question here is not, should emergency services be available if there is any doubt as to an aircraft or it's passengers safety. The simple answer to that is yes, of course they should be available. The question is, who is best placed to make that decision? Answer, the flight crew, plain and simple. The sort of behaviour displayed simply discourages pilots advising of issues until they become major, its unhealthy, unhelpful and of no benefit to anyone. ATC will start their routine about 'normal approach and landing', 'dangerous goods', 'services required'....... Usually the services required right then are an airways clearance and no interuptions. |
The real question here is not, should emergency services be available if there is any doubt as to an aircraft or it's passengers safety. The simple answer to that is yes, of course they should be available. The question is, who is best placed to make that decision? The rules make that decision. I don't remember the exact words, but in the ATS documents ,it's along the lines of ....ANYONE becoming aware of a situation blah blah blah ....must blah, blah, blah. Until you have that responsibility removed/amended/better defined ... you will have to live with it... and I daresay, in order to protect their arses, Controllers will continue to err on the side of safety. Put yourself in the shoes of that "sprog". Will I do nothing and trust that the pilot is 100% aware of the full implications of his situation? Or, will I call out the troops ... just in case he's got it wrong ... or doesn't have the full picture? Which scenario will keep me out of jail? |
The rules make that decision. I don't remember the exact words, but in the ATS documents ,it's along the lines of ....ANYONE becoming aware of a situation blah blah blah ....must blah, blah, blah. |
RENURPP, seriously, what's the problem with the firies being on hand just in case? So what if it causes the punters a little angst? So what if the media has a scanner and hears it? Putting safety below media exposure is surely not the best outcome.
Reminds me of a time a Metro driver told me he would be a little slower on descent - no worries, thanks for telling me. When he landed, turns out only one of the engines was turning and burning (can't remember the exact nature of the shut down)! "Didn't want to make a fuss" he told us later. FFS, what if things had gotten worse all of a sudden? Or I had slowed/turned him enough that it caused a controllability problem? I understand it isn't the job of ATC to second guess the crew when it comes to malfunctions, but equally it isn't the role of aircrew to second guess an ATC action that does not put your flight into harms way, but in fact enhances safety. With regards to the questioning by ATCs, a phrase that is often used is 'report situation stabilised with intentions' which gives the crew time to work out what they want and get back to us. Here's your reference (MATS 4-15-220): "The ATS Officer first becoming aware of an aircraft operating in other than normal circumstances, and there is doubt concerning the aircraftʹs safety, is responsible for declaration of the phase appropriate to the emergency situation" The phases they are talking about are ATC internal coordination phases that indicates the degree of apprehension we have about the safety of the flight. It is up to the ATC with the facts in hand to determine the level of the phase. Would like to hear why aircrew are upset about the firies being called out. You pay for the service anyway, might as well make use of it! Arigato, Showa Cho. |
RENURPP, seriously, what's the problem with the firies being on hand just in case? So what if it causes the punters a little angst? So what if the media has a scanner and hears it? Putting safety below media exposure is surely not the best outcome You guys seem to get all excited about getting the furies out, but don't have a reason why. Go back and read my previous. If there's a problem and they're needed, you will be the first to know. There was no problem, they were not needed. With your logic we should have firies at runway edge for ever landing, just in case! there is doubt concerning the aircraftʹs safety, " This is the contncious part isn't it? The crew had no doubt there was no doubt concerning the aircrafts safety, they advised ATC likewise. |
You guys seem to get all excited about getting the furies out, but don't have a reason why. other than normal circumstances, and there is doubt concerning the aircraftʹs safety, is responsible for declaration of the phase appropriate to the emergency situation" There's your reason. It's not excitement mate, believe me. It's that one hair on the back of the neck that stands up and makes you think "What if the gear door flies off and the engine eats it?" Regardless of the improbability or technicality of the situation, the ATC erred on the side of safety. With your logic we should have firies at runway edge for ever landing, just in case! If there's a problem and they're needed, you will be the first to know. I really can't believe we are debating about someone in aviation leaning on the side of safety. Just in case of what? |
WRT the phrases "declaration of the phase appropriate to the emergency situation" surely that means a declaration of one of the three options, or are there more these days?
Is it mandatory for RFFS to roll out if one of the higher priority phases are declared? |
Originally Posted by RENURPP
The captain decides on what services are required, not the air traffic controller not the cabin crew and not the passengers.
Originally Posted by RENURPP
If we used your idea we would have emergency services available for every movement. Just incase.
... besides, rolling the tenders every now and then is good training for the Rescue and Fire Fighting crew. |
We do. As an international airport, Darwin would be RFF cat 8 or so. |
No. Totally ridiculous comment. Not all aircraft tell ATC they have a problem with a gear door and are burning off fuel and returning for a landing. Do you understand why they were returning to land? think "What if the gear door flies off and the engine eats it?" Regardless of the improbability or technicality of the situation, the ATC erred on the side of |
Perhaps this is a case of ideas getting legs for no valid reason. What are the examples of injury (or potential injury) that have occurred because pilots did not request appropriate services?
As for the moron on one engine in his Metro not declaring it, that should not be used to justify having everything on tenderhooks whenever an aircraft returns. And, Showa Cho, you may be an ATC but I'm hardly going to slow down, under orders, so that I stall! Although I wouldn't be so sure with our Metro ace... :E |
Capn ... the most obvious, and most widely publicised one,that comes to mind is Avianca Flight 52.
The NTSB's report on the accident determined the cause as pilot error due to the crew never declaring a fuel emergency to air traffic control as per International Air Transport Association (IATA) guidelines And those reasons aren't particularly important in this discussion. The point is, for whatever reason, the pilot did not convey the full extent of the issue to ATC. That's why ATS has a responsibility to:
And, do I really have to point this out? ... but, as people are really pushing this issue ... one must also consider situations where the pilot may not be in a situation where he is able to communicate the full story.(not saying this is the case at Darwin) ATC can sit there, fat, dumb and stupid ... or they can use initiative, consider all the signals and undertake actions ( which, of course, sometimes may later prove to have been unnecessary ... big deal) and possibly save your arse. You can't expect ATC to turn off their initiative when you want it off. It's either on or it's off. And at the moment, it's mandated as ON. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:40. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.