Originally Posted by BNEAU (Post 11381415)

I do know that the fire B139 was working on was given a Watch and Act warning.

Last year it wouldn’t have been B139, it was being modified at that time and this was its first season here.

Originally Posted by rattman (Post 11381402)

There was the qantas 747 that ended up in the golf course in Bangkok, they repaired few once and retired it

Originally Posted by Mumbai Merlin (Post 11381481)

Cheap operator ...

Extremely poor management, lacking in awareness.

The visibility out of a B737 at best of times is limited. Add in a mix of smoke, and any other challenges of "fire attack" etc; .. simply ask the question.. Why were there not at least two observers in the cockpit; additional to the two flying pilots; both of the "eyes" would be fully qualified B737 pilot's.

I'm pleased the crew escaped with nothing more than a bruise or two from their seat belt.

But really ?? No observers ??

Originally Posted by laardvark (Post 11381404)

I just saw an ATSB guy interviewed .
he said the 737 may have clipped a ridge before crashing .

Originally Posted by laardvark (Post 11381404)

I just saw an ATSB guy interviewed .
he said the 737 may have clipped a ridge before crashing .

Originally Posted by prickly (Post 11381459)

Nah, that was a total financial loss, QF spent about as much as a new 747 400 to repair the wreck just so they could perpetuate the myth

Originally Posted by A little birdie (Post 11381530)

Tell me you know nothing about the QF1 repair job without telling me you nothing about the QF1 repair job.

Repair was less than $100 million. New 744 at the time was more than $160 million. Avagoodone.

Originally Posted by Sailvi767 (Post 11380919)

I have never known a airliner that made a off airport landing and flew again. I am sure it’s happened but incredibly unlikely. Even if zero damage the recovery effort would almost certainly render the aircraft unairworthy.

Originally Posted by 43Inches (Post 11381542)

Not entirely true, Qantas claimed it cost less than $100 mil, but never released any financials on it. The point was to make it look like a pure financial decision rather than avoiding tarnishing its jet hull loss record. There's a few that claimed it cost much more.

Originally Posted by Duck Pilot (Post 11381501)

I never had 2 observers in the cockpit when I was doing dive bomb approaches with 36 pax in the back of a Dash 8 into Tabubil, so why with no pax doing this ****?

All legal dive bomb approaches into Tabubil!! CASA PNG approved……..👎

Originally Posted by Kulwin Park (Post 11380917)

How do you know that??? Nobody has even seen pictures yet to determine the condition of the hull.

Originally Posted by A little birdie (Post 11381547)

I’ll take the word of the bloke who oversaw the repair job and still has OJH’s nose gear doors in his garage as wall art. avagoodone

Originally Posted by logansi (Post 11381286)

Ever since the Black Saturday Royal Commission there has been an big focus in Australia on keeping fires small and hitting them hard as fast. It's why Victoria now uses what is called PDD (Pre-determined dispatch) where aircraft are deployed to all Grass and Scrub fires at the same time as the first truck. (If you call 000 an aircraft will respond).

LATs play this role by hitting fires in remote country and helping contain them before they are a threat to property. Just this year the Victorian LATs (an RJ85 and Q400) have been deployed multiple times to lightning strike fires in the Big Desert National park in the states NW. And have in the past been used on tiny fires (less than a few sqm) in remote alpine areas in the far east. They also become cost-effective when the reduce the number of flights required by Air tractors and commitment of ground resources.

Originally Posted by Sailvi767 (Post 11380919)

I have never known a airliner that made a off airport landing and flew again. I am sure it’s happened but incredibly unlikely.