QF 767 out of Tulla
Nunc est bibendum
This particular skipper is becoming something of a media darling.
It certainly isn't the first time he has made the headlines with QF! (And for the conspiracy theorists that think it was the QF1 skipper or another front page Captain from a couple of years back (remember the photos) you'd be wrong- they were headlines but not quite that big!!)
Well done lads.
It certainly isn't the first time he has made the headlines with QF! (And for the conspiracy theorists that think it was the QF1 skipper or another front page Captain from a couple of years back (remember the photos) you'd be wrong- they were headlines but not quite that big!!)
Well done lads.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would firstly like to commend the crew on their actions which lead to a safe landing back in melb, well done.
Secondly, I wonder how the aviation industry is still going with all this pathetic reporting going on. They could at least get their facts straight, and it couldn't hurt to look at the positive side of events like this.
Secondly, I wonder how the aviation industry is still going with all this pathetic reporting going on. They could at least get their facts straight, and it couldn't hurt to look at the positive side of events like this.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the close proximity to Melbourne at which the Fan Blade parted the shaft and went out through the side of the engine, it would appear that the aircraft payload etc at take off would have been at a weight equal to or less than landing weight. There was no opportunity to, or mention made about the dumping of fuel, so there fore I assume that the max take off weight would have been at, per say Landing weight. Is a takeoff at landing weight, usually employed when pax loads and fuel loads allow this to occur?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On short sectors such as Mel-Syd, the TOW of of QF767's is invariably well below max landing weight.
The 200 series and early 300 series have no fuel dump capability and the later models can only dump from the centre wing tank which is only used on long range flights, typically a sector of about six hours or longer.
On these flights, should an engine fail and after fuel dump the weight remains above MLW, it is allowable to land above MLW.
Hope this helps.
The 200 series and early 300 series have no fuel dump capability and the later models can only dump from the centre wing tank which is only used on long range flights, typically a sector of about six hours or longer.
On these flights, should an engine fail and after fuel dump the weight remains above MLW, it is allowable to land above MLW.
Hope this helps.
