QF 737 damaged at DRW
 

VH-TJB, a 737-376 of Qantas Airways Ltd sustained damage at DRW last night. Has damage to No.2 engine and port wing, aircraft parked at Bay 3...

I knew I shouldn't have had that last Crownie... Wondered what put that dint in the roof of the van...:cool:

Now parked over on the FRA. Shades of QF1?

except this one hasn't hit the media yet, wait till the NT News get a hold of it, i can see the headlines now....:eek: :eek:

btw, excuse my ignorance, what does FRA stand for????

FRA - Fighter Replenishment Apron (thanks Pharcannell)

There is also the BRA, any guesses???

If the NT News get hold of the story you can bet your bottom dollar a croc will get the blame.:=

Sounds like a crock.
Anyone know what the.......happened

I believe fr/br "A" is apron, but that's only semantics.

believe the aircraft was damaged whilst landing during heavy rain and struck the No 2 engine on the runway, QF have towed it out of view to keep the stickybeaks away, aircraft was operating QF 760 ADL-DRW.

from Stallie's media parody archives
 

Qantas passengers cheat death in landing drama

Eight-nine terrified passengers emerged shaken from a Qantas 727 after a crash landing last night. The drama unfolded at 11:38pm when the four engined aircraft was trying to land in a thunderstorm.

It is believed the aircraft scraped the engine on the runway damaging the propellor. Qantas officials had the aircraft towed to the far side of the airport to keep people away.

A Qantas spokesperson Belinda downplayed the incident, saying that there was a minor technical problem on landing. Passengers, however, tell a different story.

Brian Smythe, 31 from Redcliffe described the drama. "It was rough and there was all this noise and then a huge bang. I though we were going to die." He was visibly shaken and hugging his wife Linda who was too distraught to talk. "It has just ruined our holiday. I am just lucky to be alive."

This is the latest in a string of safety scares to strike the Qantas fleet over the past few years, prompting calls for a full investigation into allegations of cost cutting in the national carrier.

The Civil Aviation Authority is investigating the incident.

----------

See if the NT news can better that one ;)
Sadly, they probably will. :(

Hey Stallie,

You're actually going to submit that to the editor for your evening edition aren't you !!

STALLIE

My goodness me .. LOOOONG time no see : sad, but very true your 'pretend' commentary - all you could see on the news on Ch9 formerly that fine upstanding ch8 .. was the red blotch of the tail exposed from one of the fighter bunkers!

BRA I believe stands for Bomb(er) Replenishment Area ... I seem to recall that from my days on the field ...

NT News version (bottom of page 5)

"A QANTAS Boeing 737-300 carrying 79 passengers damaged runway lights when landing at Darwin Airport on Wednesday night.

Flight QF760 from Adelaide to Darwin landed in rasiny conditions about 10pm and drifted to one side of the runway, damaging the runway lights.

A QANTAS spokeswoman said the aircraft was not damaged and that all passengers disembarked the aircraft safely with no injuries.

Emergency srevices and engineers were pressed to the aircraft.

Darwin International Airport management refused to take calls from the NTN yesterday, saying it was a Qantas public relations issue.

It could not be confirmed whether the damaged runway lights have been repaired....."

See, not a croc in site :rolleyes:

Dammit - 10 pax out. I'll have to recheck my sources.:p

AAP

Qantas jet veers off runway

A Qantas jet veered to the edge of the runway after landing in heavy rain at Darwin airport on Wednesday night, authorities said.

Flight QF 760, had just carried 79 passengers from Adelaide to Darwin, when the incident occurred at around 10pm (CDT).

"After touchdown the aircraft moved to the right hand side of the runway, damaging several runway lights," a Qantas spokeswoman said.

"It was quickly brought back to the centre line of the runway.

"The aircraft stopped on the taxiway and was inspected by the rescue firefighter service."

The Boeing 737-300 was declared safe and the passengers allowed to leave the aircraft.

No-one was injured.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said it was investigating the incident.

"At about 10pm a Qantas flight inbound was landing and it hit some runway lights, crept off the runway - we're not 100 per cent sure of the exact details," an ATSB spokesman said.

"We understand there was a fierce storm at the time.

"... It did go onto the grass, the (wheels) went onto the grass."

The ATSB was studying the aircraft's flight data recorder, with the investigation into the incident likely to take several weeks.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) said investigations were underway into the incident.

"It veered off to the right and left the runway," spokesman Peter Gibson told AAP.

However, he said it was unclear whether the aircraft veered onto grass, or onto the taxiway.

There were a number of possible reasons for the incident, Mr Gibson said.

"A wet runway is the obvious first conclusion you might sort of jump to because ... there was rain in the area," he told ABC radio.

"Aquaplaning is one possibility, but there are lots of others."

Darwin runway is grooved, so light rain would not cause aquaplaning, he added.

"It's possible but it could have been a mechanical failure on the aircraft, it could have been a ... sideways gust of wind on the aircraft, a number of factors need to be looked at.

"That's why there ... are three investigations going on into the incident."

Mr Gibson said Qantas had made a number of changes to their procedures for landing in wet conditions since a jet overshot a Bangkok runway three years ago.

In September 1999, a Qantas Boeing 747-400 jet was damaged after it overshot a runway in Bangkok, Thailand, in heavy rain.

"Qantas has made a lot of changes to their procedures ... so therefore they are in a much better position to deal with monsoonal downpours than they may have been in the past.

"Qantas is certainly very well prepared for these sorts of contingencies, something clearly went wrong," Mr Gibson said.

©AAP 2003

And the 747 flight with engine vibrations...

The newsreader intro: blah blah midair drama blah blah "an engine exploded" blah blah

Just what the public needs :mad:

Aircraft landed just before the 73 and had no probs,although it was reasonably heavy rain,hardly a "fierce storm",although weather moving through at the time,not unusual for DN this time of year.Apparently another 73 arrived at HWS around the same time,and when told to hold,advised that they only had around 45 mins fuel(rather nervously).DN had TEMPO all day!!!!!!!

I have no idea about the goings on at darwin that day , but the term "apparently" does not constitute FACT. and of course Tempo doesn"t mean u need 60 minutes.

Well..enlighten us..what does it mean then?

Stallie

A classic piece of vintage ''journalism'' there!

I want to know when the 72 grew an extra donk or was that prop!!!

It would bring a tear to the eye of Messrs Pratt & Whitney. So much for JT8D's!

Btw that wasn't an incident at Tulla circa 1986 was it? :p :p