Safety implications of flights from Australia to South America
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety implications of flights from Australia to South America
I am a very nervous flyer at the best of times, but the flight I will be taking next Monday has got me worried to the extent of considering cancelling my ticket and thus my holiday....
I will be flying the QANTAS flight 17 from Sydney direct to Buenos Aires via the south pacific (Boeing 747). I have had a look at the flight path for this flight and am amazed (and shocked) by how far away this flight is from any diversion airports. Once the flight gets past New Zealand, there are no more alternates until South America - nothing but ocean and ice, with the nearest airport up to 5 hrs away if a problem occurs in mid flight.
What about a fuel leak that occurs half way through the flight (remember the AIR TRANSAT flight in the Atlantic) a cargo hold fire, or fire anywhere else on the plane from for example from faulty wiring (remember SWISSAIR) with the nearest airport 5 hours away? The key to getting out of these problems is to land ASAP, which is just not an option with this incredibly isolated flight.... As the distance of the flight is pushing the maximum range of the 747, what if you lose an engine or two and need to descend, thus increasing fuel use and jeopardising the ability of the aircraft to reach its destination or any diversion airport? How good is the weather forecasting down in the depths of the south pacific / Antarctic area - are the headwind forecasts reliable enough to be planning fuel loads with current margins of error? What about a medical emergency? (best not to have a heart attack on this flight...)
Does anyone know if there are any extra precautions (extra mechanical checks, additional fuel loading requirements, extra redundancies in equipment e.g. navigational instruments) that are put in place for flights of this nature so distant from diversion airports? I have trouble seeing myself sitting on board this plane thinking that we are so far from anywhere to land should any problem happen to occur. Any thoughts or comments from anyone on the safety implications of such an isolated flight, or any experiences with having flown on QANTAS 17/18. Thanks
I will be flying the QANTAS flight 17 from Sydney direct to Buenos Aires via the south pacific (Boeing 747). I have had a look at the flight path for this flight and am amazed (and shocked) by how far away this flight is from any diversion airports. Once the flight gets past New Zealand, there are no more alternates until South America - nothing but ocean and ice, with the nearest airport up to 5 hrs away if a problem occurs in mid flight.
What about a fuel leak that occurs half way through the flight (remember the AIR TRANSAT flight in the Atlantic) a cargo hold fire, or fire anywhere else on the plane from for example from faulty wiring (remember SWISSAIR) with the nearest airport 5 hours away? The key to getting out of these problems is to land ASAP, which is just not an option with this incredibly isolated flight.... As the distance of the flight is pushing the maximum range of the 747, what if you lose an engine or two and need to descend, thus increasing fuel use and jeopardising the ability of the aircraft to reach its destination or any diversion airport? How good is the weather forecasting down in the depths of the south pacific / Antarctic area - are the headwind forecasts reliable enough to be planning fuel loads with current margins of error? What about a medical emergency? (best not to have a heart attack on this flight...)
Does anyone know if there are any extra precautions (extra mechanical checks, additional fuel loading requirements, extra redundancies in equipment e.g. navigational instruments) that are put in place for flights of this nature so distant from diversion airports? I have trouble seeing myself sitting on board this plane thinking that we are so far from anywhere to land should any problem happen to occur. Any thoughts or comments from anyone on the safety implications of such an isolated flight, or any experiences with having flown on QANTAS 17/18. Thanks
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: bearsden
Age: 65
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect
you should probably have a word with your Medical Advisor with regard to MILD tranquiliser use. They can be very effective and whilst not assuaging your worries may give you enough respite from your anxiety symptoms to complete your flight in relative composure. Be assured that you airline WOULD NOT fly the route if the safety margins were in any way compromised.
Hope this helps!
Iain
you should probably have a word with your Medical Advisor with regard to MILD tranquiliser use. They can be very effective and whilst not assuaging your worries may give you enough respite from your anxiety symptoms to complete your flight in relative composure. Be assured that you airline WOULD NOT fly the route if the safety margins were in any way compromised.
Hope this helps!
Iain
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: utopia
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're not serious are you!!! The probability of being involved in an aeroplane accident are 1 in 11 million. The chances of dying in a car crash are 1 in 5000. This means you are at a greater risk driving to the airport. Just like one pilot answered when asked the question referring to his occupation "Aren't you scared?" His response, "Yeah everytime I hop in the car and drive to work".
Happy flying
Happy flying
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sin City
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rest assured, all safety concerns regarding the route would have been looked into before any airline was even allowed to fly that route.
Losing an engine on a 4 holer is a not a big deal actually. A BA 747 actually flew with 3 engines when one of its engines failed on take off on tran-atl routing. Losing all 4 is a statistically remote event. AFAIK, it has happened only once and the a/c actually landed safely. Also, there are multiple redundancies to prevent such a thing happening.
Fuel is uplifted with any sudden changes in the wind conditions in mind. When you are onboard, take the best tranquiliser in the a/c, BOOZE. Just drink enough to get you sleepy and the next thing you know, you are at your destination
Losing an engine on a 4 holer is a not a big deal actually. A BA 747 actually flew with 3 engines when one of its engines failed on take off on tran-atl routing. Losing all 4 is a statistically remote event. AFAIK, it has happened only once and the a/c actually landed safely. Also, there are multiple redundancies to prevent such a thing happening.
Fuel is uplifted with any sudden changes in the wind conditions in mind. When you are onboard, take the best tranquiliser in the a/c, BOOZE. Just drink enough to get you sleepy and the next thing you know, you are at your destination
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd rather be on a ETOPS Twin than a non ETOPS 747. Having said that, the statistics are meaningless as both are ridiculously safe. At the end of the day you want to take the one that costs least money.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
weeerl...
taking a very quick guess and using great circle mapper
a routing syd-ivc-NZWD-ush-bue would be (miles)
syd-ivc 1245
ivc-nzwd 2178
nzwd-ush 2986
ush-bue 1476
great circle SYD-BUE 7342
or syd-ivc-ush-bue
syd-ivc 1245 (say 2.5 hours) midway = 1.25hrs
ivc-ush 4716 (say 9.5 hours) midway = 4.5 hrs
ush-bue 1476 (say 3 hours) midway = 1.5 hrs
So you see you're not far from somewhere really
(I have no idea if you could get a 747 down an McMurdo Sound)
taking a very quick guess and using great circle mapper
a routing syd-ivc-NZWD-ush-bue would be (miles)
syd-ivc 1245
ivc-nzwd 2178
nzwd-ush 2986
ush-bue 1476
great circle SYD-BUE 7342
or syd-ivc-ush-bue
syd-ivc 1245 (say 2.5 hours) midway = 1.25hrs
ivc-ush 4716 (say 9.5 hours) midway = 4.5 hrs
ush-bue 1476 (say 3 hours) midway = 1.5 hrs
So you see you're not far from somewhere really
(I have no idea if you could get a 747 down an McMurdo Sound)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airstrip at McMurdo shows 10000' x 220'. More than enough length and width for a 744 -- but guessing that the surface may be gravel or ice and can't take the weight. But if the plane was in real distress, I would assume crew would be happy to land there -- even if the plane got knackered and couldn't take off again.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 66
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@baltique,
I share your pain. I too am one of those notorious nervous passengers. My wife and I recently did a round-trip (vacation) from CT, USA to St. Thomas USVI. Not much of a distance. I have found the key to relaxation on any flight is contained right there in the plane: wine. Drink lots of it and the flight will be just fine. I usually drink enough of the red stuff until the FA's won't serve me anymore. That's usually enough to cause me to relax and, occasionally, sleep.
I share your pain. I too am one of those notorious nervous passengers. My wife and I recently did a round-trip (vacation) from CT, USA to St. Thomas USVI. Not much of a distance. I have found the key to relaxation on any flight is contained right there in the plane: wine. Drink lots of it and the flight will be just fine. I usually drink enough of the red stuff until the FA's won't serve me anymore. That's usually enough to cause me to relax and, occasionally, sleep.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or... to look at it another way...
41% of airborne time is <= 60 mins from airport
17% is >60.and.<=90
or 59% of the journey time is within 90 mins
thereafter for each 30 mins represents +/-7%
so 66% (or two-thirds) is within 120 mins of airport
only 34% (or 1/3rd) is more than 2 hours
edit - ummm yes I know its called 'rounding'
41% of airborne time is <= 60 mins from airport
17% is >60.and.<=90
or 59% of the journey time is within 90 mins
thereafter for each 30 mins represents +/-7%
so 66% (or two-thirds) is within 120 mins of airport
only 34% (or 1/3rd) is more than 2 hours
edit - ummm yes I know its called 'rounding'
If a 747 had significant difficulties over The Ice, there are 4 big issues to deal with:
1) Antarctica can experience some appalling weather - people who are dressed for the interior of an aircraft cabin may have some issues here. Even the Antarctica peninsula can experience some pretty lousy weather in January at very short notice.
2) The austral winter makes it very difficult to land a large airplane. Even in summer, a white-out is not the time to try landing on an ice runway !
3) Where do you accommodate 400 extra people at an Antarctica base ? Even somewhere as large as McMurdo would have difficulties. Accommodation quarters in most bases are pretty cramped.
4) How do you get these 400 people out of Antarctica if the weather is nasty ?
1) Antarctica can experience some appalling weather - people who are dressed for the interior of an aircraft cabin may have some issues here. Even the Antarctica peninsula can experience some pretty lousy weather in January at very short notice.
2) The austral winter makes it very difficult to land a large airplane. Even in summer, a white-out is not the time to try landing on an ice runway !
3) Where do you accommodate 400 extra people at an Antarctica base ? Even somewhere as large as McMurdo would have difficulties. Accommodation quarters in most bases are pretty cramped.
4) How do you get these 400 people out of Antarctica if the weather is nasty ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cabin decompression mid route
Thanks for the replies so far (apart from those just telling me to get drunk and not think about it.....
)
Just another thought - what about a cabin decompression at maximum distance between airports? - an event well within the realms of possibility. Could a 747 descend to 14000 feet (or whatever is required for passengers to breathe normally) and still have enough fuel to motor on to South America or back to New Zealand??
As for McMurdo - I once spent a season at Macquarie Island (arrival by boat
) and the weather on this sub-antartctic island is enough to convince me that the concept of using Antarctica as a diversion possibility is pretty dodgy (as per the above comments....)
Still unsure whether I am going to cancel
)Just another thought - what about a cabin decompression at maximum distance between airports? - an event well within the realms of possibility. Could a 747 descend to 14000 feet (or whatever is required for passengers to breathe normally) and still have enough fuel to motor on to South America or back to New Zealand??
As for McMurdo - I once spent a season at Macquarie Island (arrival by boat
) and the weather on this sub-antartctic island is enough to convince me that the concept of using Antarctica as a diversion possibility is pretty dodgy (as per the above comments....)Still unsure whether I am going to cancel
Baltique - the limited time I've spent at Antarctic bases has reinforced very strongly quite how much thought goes into safety, and how much people living at bases think ahead on the lines of "What would I do if X happened and what precautions do I need to take to ensure that I have a backup if X should happen".
Even simple things like rowing a boat across ten metres of water are covered by this - on the grounds of 'What happens if I drop an oar ?' People spending their first few months living on The Ice describe it as very much a learning experience in this aspect. If living at a base, once you go more than a short distance away from the base, the safety procedures are very tight. The first thing a scientist working on the ice does when arriving at a remote site to perform an experiement, is set up the safety equipment - only then do they think about the scientific gear they are carrying.
On that basis, I would imagine that aviation authorities have adopted a similiar approach to flying over Antarctica of paying particular attention to safety.
One final thing to add - Argentina is a fantastic place for a holiday, don't even think of missing out on going there !
Even simple things like rowing a boat across ten metres of water are covered by this - on the grounds of 'What happens if I drop an oar ?' People spending their first few months living on The Ice describe it as very much a learning experience in this aspect. If living at a base, once you go more than a short distance away from the base, the safety procedures are very tight. The first thing a scientist working on the ice does when arriving at a remote site to perform an experiement, is set up the safety equipment - only then do they think about the scientific gear they are carrying.
On that basis, I would imagine that aviation authorities have adopted a similiar approach to flying over Antarctica of paying particular attention to safety.
One final thing to add - Argentina is a fantastic place for a holiday, don't even think of missing out on going there !
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about...
Baltique, please don't take this the wrong way, but so far, we've had:
and a decompression.
I'm sure with a bit of imagination you can come up with some more.
With respect (thanks Iain) I think you're talking yourself out of your holiday.
As some other posters have mentioned, Air travel is the safest form of modern transport. You're travelling in one of the safest modern airliners, with Qantas, who have arguably the safest reputation of any jet airline.
Although you wont have time to do this before you take this trip (if you go, that is) I'd suggest that you take a "fear of flying" course.
Meanwhile, the suggestion of tranqs, OR alcohol (not at the same time, obviously) is a good one.
DIVOSH!
A fuel leak that occurs half way through the flight... a cargo hold fire, or fire anywhere else on the plane from for example from faulty wiring ... if you lose an engine or two ... How good is the weather forecasting down in the depths of the south pacific ... a medical emergency?
I'm sure with a bit of imagination you can come up with some more.
With respect (thanks Iain) I think you're talking yourself out of your holiday.
As some other posters have mentioned, Air travel is the safest form of modern transport. You're travelling in one of the safest modern airliners, with Qantas, who have arguably the safest reputation of any jet airline.
Although you wont have time to do this before you take this trip (if you go, that is) I'd suggest that you take a "fear of flying" course.
Meanwhile, the suggestion of tranqs, OR alcohol (not at the same time, obviously) is a good one.
DIVOSH!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not so much the range of things that could go wrong - any of these could happen on any flight. It is rather the distance of this particular flight from any diversion airports (5 or more hours distant from the nearest possibility in the worst case scenario), where the plane could divert to deal with any problems that is worrying me. Its a long way from anywhere at 70 degrees south in the Pacific between New Zealand, South America and Antarctica........
Last edited by Baltique; 4th Sep 2009 at 01:54. Reason: Further precisions, spelling
...and it would be at best ironic if you made it all the way to the end of a flight and got hit by a runaway elephant from the local zoo as you exited the airport.
It could happen - it's just not very likely is it?
It could happen - it's just not very likely is it?