Qantas Ditching Perth - Myth?
 

I can see why there's some confusion about the Qantas Ditching off Perth myth and why some people here vaguely recall it as a real incident.

This thread on PPRuNe back in 2004 was probably the "myth" about such an incident. But then in 2006, there's an intriguing twist in that a similar incident to the myth actually did occur, whereby the crew conducted an autoland and landed below Cat 1 landing minima. The ATSB investigation report for that incident is here.

What would have happened if the crew weren't successful with their last attempt at landing? They had 30 minutes of fuel left above their minimum fuel reserves. Would they have discussed the possibility of ditching in the event that their last approach attempt was not successful?

Which leads to the point of whether a possible ditching incident off Perth is a myth or whether it actually did occur in 2006.

The Myth goes a lot further back than 2004:ok:

In 1983 a 727 going to Perth had to conduct 3 missed approaches due to severe weather, was hit by lightning twice and landed in excess of the maximum crosswind limits with less than 15 minutes fuel remaining.

I think the myth regarding the Qantas incident is that the crew considered ditching as an option, not that it was the only option.

It wasn't so much that crew didn't know how to press the auto land button, it was the fact the airport wasn't certified for such approaches creating a situation - follow the SOPs and ditch or break the rules and fly the approach anyway. This is where the Checky assisted in making the right decision in the "version" that was told to me.

Well,here is a real life horror story of a jet VERY low on fuel. Every pilot's worst nightmare.Forty years ago today ... [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

43 Inches - very good post.

The 1983 Incident was not the only such case of aircraft being caught-out in PER (for a variety of reasons).

If memory serves correctly, the fallout from the 727 case revealed a QF aircraft that very same evening assessing the need to ditch (happy to be corrected there).

The prevailing consensus is that additionally on a later occasion, a 767 actively considered ditching. QF colleagues related the case to me at the time and I believe sim sessions were subsequently developed with such a scenario in mind.

I'm sure there are QF contributors who can validate (or not) the above.

Naturally, general criticism at the time was: "Why would you even consider ditching an aircraft due only to fog causing vis/RVR below minimums". Of course that's a reasonable assumption and it was used as 'proof' of how QF pilots were so rule-oriented that they couldn't use common-sense.

However there must have been much more to the story than emerged - there always is.

Nonetheless, I think that there is more to the story than mere rumor and it might be a worthwhile discussion point.

After the 727 case, DoA/CASA absolved themselves of responsibility to provide WX updates to enroute aircraft as had previously been the case. The onus for this then lay with the crew. With this increasing trend to make literally everything the responsibility of pilots, the PER scenario is probably even a more relevant discussion topic...

What do we mean when we say "ditch" here do you think?

Major highway, the ocean or an open area?

OK. I'll say again what I said on the other thread. It didn't happen. A QF 767 has never considered ditching in PER instead of auto landing. I've flown with guys who have been on QF 767s for the entirety of it's service in Qantas- all 26+ years. They too have no idea where the myth comes from. They have no names of the Captain, no name of the F/O, no year attached to it. Nothing.

Compare that to the 747 into Learmonth on the final command check. Everyone knows the story (diverting to Learmonth due fog, missed out on the approach, did a let down over water and scud ran back in), the year is traceable (to when that Captain did his final command check), the name of the check captain is known, etc.

I've never done a sim on the 767 related to ditching off Perth or anywhere else or where that was even an option to be considered but then again I didn't fly the 767 prior to '97. Perhaps in the previous 12 years they did but I'd be surprised were that to be the case given that none of those other crew I've flown with have ever talked of doing a sim where ditching was an option and the reason they had the sim was as a result of someone getting out of shape in Perth (or somewhere else).

Others such as Captain Kremin- who has been around Qantas for nearly a decade longer than me- have previously confirmed the same thing. The supposed potential ditching of a 767 off Perth averted by a check and trainer didn't occur.

The ONLY time I've ever heard this myth is on PPRUNE. I'm interested in where crystalballwannabe heard the story as part of his (or her) airline induction? Surely not Qantas?

Ditch= Water

PS: I should add that I HAVE ditched the 767 in the sim. Double engine failure stuff. I've done it at 2000', 2500', 3000', in a variety of configs to work out whether I could get it back onto the runway. Great fun! :ok:

Well Keg if you reckon that's a myth then you'll love this one....

It's on the best authority of all, the Townsville refuellers flatmate, so can in no way thus be discredited.

Did you ever wonder why in the mid-80's Qantas changed aircraft livery from this:
VH-EBA Boeing 747

to this?:
VH-EAL Boeing 767

You'll notice the absence of the fuselage-long stripe from nose to tail on the newer version?

In nautical terms this stripe is known as a lubber-line (or plimsol line I believe). This is used to ascertain whether a vessel is misloaded by comparing the line with that of the sea-surface.


Perhaps Qantas wanted to avoid the double Department of Aviation scrutiny of both the famous PER near-ditching and a mis-loading issue.

You'd think a smart pilot would go for some flat land and a few fences versus the water.


Am thinking back to the Ansett 747? that was enroute to Perth with heavy fog at Perth and went beyond the point of no return from the East Coast with nowhere to land at Perth due to the fog.

The Meeka refuelled back in the day told me he had to refuel a QF 737 that diverted from Perth towards Kalgoorlie that then closed in too.

Apparently all the pax where like where the hell are we and the engines that were so far over the runway width made one hell of dust storm departing.

In nautical terms this stripe is known as a lubber-line (or plimsol line I believe). This is used to ascertain whether a vessel is misloaded by comparing the line with that of the sea-surface. - Al E Vator

If I may be allowed a little thread drift from the northern hemisphere, the Plimsoll line, or international load line, marks the maximum safe draught for a merchant vessel in various operating conditions (eg salt, or fresh water such as the Great Lakes), whilst the lubber's line is a fixed line marked on the glass of a ship's compass to indicate the direction in which direction the bows of the ship are pointing.

Meanwhile, back in WA .....

Jack

@Keg, I am not a pilot type but the first time I heard the rumour was in '93 (I specifically remember the years due to the reason I was at the party chasing a specific bit of tail) from a Cathay skipper. Now, I know no actual working of how Qantas used them but the version I got was that it was a 767 and a Cadet Captain and there was a Training guy as a passenger who saved the day by coming and seeing if he could help when it became obvious they missed out few times.

You're going to cop it now! ;)

With a wheel track of 5m and an engine span of 12m, I don't think so.

As with the 2006 incident I quoted in my original post, there would have been an ATSB (or BASI back then) incident report if this 'rumour' was actually true.

With regard to the 2006 incident what options are there if the final attempt to land was unsuccessful?

Union Jack - thanks for the information; Plimsoll Line it is.

So Qantas 767's had no Plimsoll lines and therefore it would be impossible to ascertain their maximum draught whilst floating in the Indian Ocean.

A cunning plan indeed. Never underestimate the breadth of issues airline managers need to consider.

This plan (devious removal of Plimsoll Lines in re-working airline liveries) of course was replicated some years later by another airline, clearly following this brilliant Qantas lead:

Old livery floating, Plimsoll Line validity clearly evident:
http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/1/5...1065535655.jpg

New livery, Cunningly designed to look appealing against a backdrop of smoke:
http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/.../planefire.jpg

Not many large aircraft would survive landing on any land surface that was not capable of supporting its weight. The landing gear would very quickly collapse and fuel tanks pierced causing large fires etc. An off airport landing in these sorts of aircraft is much better attempted on calm waters where the aircraft should remain intact and the risk of fire very low.

The Hudson river episode is a good example and also JAL proved it years ago in 1968 when they unintentionally, successfully ditched a DC-8 in San Francisco bay 2nm short of the runway. The DC-8 was lifted onto a barge, repaired and flew for a further 14 years after the event, although JAL changed the aircrafts name.

* It flew for a further 14 years with JAL, actually continued to fly until nearly 2001 at which point it was scrapped.

According to the SES if there is to be a ditching near Perth it will be on the Swan River rather than the open ocean, specifically the stretch between the Causeway and the Narrows. Something about it being shallow, calm, less sharks...