Qantas Drama...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia mate
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas Drama...
Qantas 'regrets' injuries caused in plane evacuation
A Qantas executive says the airline regrets that nine people were injured during an emergency evacuation of one of its planes in Japan early this morning.
However the airline says it is not embarrassed by the incident.
An A330 Airbus bound for Perth with 191 passengers and crew on board had to make an emergency landing in Osaka after a sensor indicated smoke in the cargo hold.
Nine people were hurt during the evacuation and a Japanese man remains in hospital with what is believed to be a fractured hip.
Qantas head of engineering, David Cox, says it is not yet clear whether there was a fire or the sensor was faulty, but it was essential to get people off the plane as quickly as possible.
"Obviously we regret that those injuries have occurred but it is not unusual during an evacuation for there to be some minor injuries," he said.
"Obviously a fracture is at the top end of the injuries you'd expect but it is an evacuation so you go down that slide very quickly."
Mr Cox, says he is confident cabin crew followed the evacuation procedures to the letter.
"The aircraft systems, evacuation systems are designed to get people off, within 90 seconds and that means they're going to go down those slides very, very quickly and there is the risk of minor injuries," he said.
"That's got to be balanced against the more serious consequence of not being able to evacuate as quickly as you can."
A Qantas executive says the airline regrets that nine people were injured during an emergency evacuation of one of its planes in Japan early this morning.
However the airline says it is not embarrassed by the incident.
An A330 Airbus bound for Perth with 191 passengers and crew on board had to make an emergency landing in Osaka after a sensor indicated smoke in the cargo hold.
Nine people were hurt during the evacuation and a Japanese man remains in hospital with what is believed to be a fractured hip.
Qantas head of engineering, David Cox, says it is not yet clear whether there was a fire or the sensor was faulty, but it was essential to get people off the plane as quickly as possible.
"Obviously we regret that those injuries have occurred but it is not unusual during an evacuation for there to be some minor injuries," he said.
"Obviously a fracture is at the top end of the injuries you'd expect but it is an evacuation so you go down that slide very quickly."
Mr Cox, says he is confident cabin crew followed the evacuation procedures to the letter.
"The aircraft systems, evacuation systems are designed to get people off, within 90 seconds and that means they're going to go down those slides very, very quickly and there is the risk of minor injuries," he said.
"That's got to be balanced against the more serious consequence of not being able to evacuate as quickly as you can."
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly Balus, they all got out.
But now starts the period where people sit around in chairs drinking coffee with the sole purpose of second guessing the crew. It happens everytime. Maybe they shouldn't have evacuated, we don't know, but they did!! And they are all alive.
I still remember the Saudi L-1011 rolling down the runway with people unable to get out and dying as a result of it.
If all the crew had was an indication of a possible problem in the cargo hold I don't envy them. You have to make a decision based on very little information. I would have done the same thing, better safe than sorry.
Regards,
Ramrise
But now starts the period where people sit around in chairs drinking coffee with the sole purpose of second guessing the crew. It happens everytime. Maybe they shouldn't have evacuated, we don't know, but they did!! And they are all alive.
I still remember the Saudi L-1011 rolling down the runway with people unable to get out and dying as a result of it.
If all the crew had was an indication of a possible problem in the cargo hold I don't envy them. You have to make a decision based on very little information. I would have done the same thing, better safe than sorry.
Regards,
Ramrise
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With a potential fire on board I would hope that it's a no-brainer to evacuate, irrespective of the potential cost to the airline.
When I was helping to make detections system (at Graviner, many years ago) the false alarm rate (without physical damage to the kit) was incredibly low.
When I was helping to make detections system (at Graviner, many years ago) the false alarm rate (without physical damage to the kit) was incredibly low.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Glad they landed at 1 am, during the day this would close KIX for several hours and generate mass diversions. The recent AF mishap at YYZ demonstrated what a lifesaver a good evacuation can be. Watching the plane burn on CNN I was sure there would be numerous casualties...
Here are some sobering musings on inflight fire:
http://www.airborne.org/flying/forum3.htm
Here are some sobering musings on inflight fire:
http://www.airborne.org/flying/forum3.htm
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that an evacuation is always the safest bet, and I congratulate to the Qantas crew involved (why is it titled as a "drama"?).
Nonetheless I'm not sure if I would evacuate in any case. It's mostly a good move to ask for information from people outside the flight deck, i.e. CAs and tower. If there is a real fire, then there are obvious signs of it. If the fire is so small that you cannot see anything, then there is most probably enough time for the fire brigade to have a look inside the cargo bay.
I also have to disagree with egbt's statements: a) these sensors are not fire detections (like they are e.g. in the engine nacelles), but smoke detection systems. b) yes, they are relatively reliable, most of all in a controlled environment like the developement room - in the outside world it happens from time to time that you receive false warnings. If I evacuated everytime I had a smoke warning, I would have performed quite a lot of them... I'm talking here mostly about detection systems in smaller airliners, not those in Airbus and Boeings.
Now start shooting...
Nonetheless I'm not sure if I would evacuate in any case. It's mostly a good move to ask for information from people outside the flight deck, i.e. CAs and tower. If there is a real fire, then there are obvious signs of it. If the fire is so small that you cannot see anything, then there is most probably enough time for the fire brigade to have a look inside the cargo bay.
I also have to disagree with egbt's statements: a) these sensors are not fire detections (like they are e.g. in the engine nacelles), but smoke detection systems. b) yes, they are relatively reliable, most of all in a controlled environment like the developement room - in the outside world it happens from time to time that you receive false warnings. If I evacuated everytime I had a smoke warning, I would have performed quite a lot of them... I'm talking here mostly about detection systems in smaller airliners, not those in Airbus and Boeings.
Now start shooting...
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll run with the Dani post.....using all available resources comes to mind......but theres never a right or a wrong in these situations. the capt on the day deemed it prudent and necessary. S/He felt it the best option.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi...here goes my first post...
According to ABC News Online, Japanese transport investigators are questioning the pilots. Perhaps I'm reading between the lines a bit too much, but a statement in the ABC article lead me to wonder if the Japanese authorities are questioning the crew's decision to evacuate:
"Japan often takes a strong line on aviation incidents and in the past pilots have faced prosecution for professional misconduct if someone is injured on board their plane."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...8/s1442737.htm
I remember following a major train accident in Japan recently, some media reported that a very strong focus on punctuality sometimes leads to punishment of train crews by their supervisors when the trains arrive even a minute late. The operator of the train apparently exceeded the posted speed limit on the section of track where the crash ocurred, possibly trying to make up for lost time and maintain punctuality.
The investigation now underway by Japanese authorities might be based on some sort of warped equation balancing the cost of rolling the trucks, shutting down the runway, and dealing with the media against the actions of the crew.
According to ABC News Online, Japanese transport investigators are questioning the pilots. Perhaps I'm reading between the lines a bit too much, but a statement in the ABC article lead me to wonder if the Japanese authorities are questioning the crew's decision to evacuate:
"Japan often takes a strong line on aviation incidents and in the past pilots have faced prosecution for professional misconduct if someone is injured on board their plane."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...8/s1442737.htm
I remember following a major train accident in Japan recently, some media reported that a very strong focus on punctuality sometimes leads to punishment of train crews by their supervisors when the trains arrive even a minute late. The operator of the train apparently exceeded the posted speed limit on the section of track where the crash ocurred, possibly trying to make up for lost time and maintain punctuality.
The investigation now underway by Japanese authorities might be based on some sort of warped equation balancing the cost of rolling the trucks, shutting down the runway, and dealing with the media against the actions of the crew.
Last edited by TurningFinal; 21st Aug 2005 at 23:02.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the fire is so small that you cannot see anything, then there is most probably enough time for the fire brigade to have a look inside the cargo bay.
Open the door and have a look??? With 200 punters sitting there waiting for their backsides to catch fire I would have thought the very last thing you would want to do was to give the fire some oxygen. Short answer is no, you don't open the door until you have the punters off.
Not sure how accurate the news report I heard was, but they specifically mentioned that the tower advised of smoke on touchdown. That would have done it for me I'm afraid. "All out, all change please"
Cheers
Bendy
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ramrise,
I, too, still remember the Saudi L-1011. But if memory serves, they did stop, nobody got out and it was later found that because the doors needed to move inward before moving up and people in panic were pressing against them, they (the doors) couldn't move. I stand to be corrcted, though.
I, too, still remember the Saudi L-1011. But if memory serves, they did stop, nobody got out and it was later found that because the doors needed to move inward before moving up and people in panic were pressing against them, they (the doors) couldn't move. I stand to be corrcted, though.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The decision to evacuate has to be taken on the basis that some people will be injured if they go down the slides. Ultimately it's a risk assessment. In this case, I would venture that it was a greater risk keeping the pax on board a potentially burning aeroplane.
No brainer really.
No brainer really.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crew were absolutely correct.Never roll the dice and assume a faulty warning.Not with smoke or fire.Take the handful of minor injuries that are inevitable with an evacuation of a large passenger jet and know that you did the right thing.This typfies just why Qantas are held in such esteem by the entire industry.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from 'that' incident which we're not allowed to talk about. It wasn't a crash, honest.
Open the door to see if the cargo hold is on fire? I'll watch that one from the safety of the terminal thank you.
Open the door to see if the cargo hold is on fire? I'll watch that one from the safety of the terminal thank you.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could someone justify (or explain) how Japan remains a Chicago Convention signatory, while they clearly disagrees with the principles of Annex 13 (I know about the deviations, but they seem to have even the fundamentals of accident investigation "wrong" from the Western point of view)?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Elsinor
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Communication
The aircraft was crewed by shorthaul crew ex Perth.
There was no Japanese language speaker on board.
The pax could not be briefed and had no idea what was happening.
This would have a most terrifying situation for them.
There was no Japanese language speaker on board.
The pax could not be briefed and had no idea what was happening.
This would have a most terrifying situation for them.
Could someone justify (or explain) how Japan remains a Chicago Convention signatory, while they clearly disagrees with the principles of Annex 13 (I know about the deviations, but they seem to have even the fundamentals of accident investigation "wrong" from the Western point of view)?
You made the allegations without citing support for them. So perhaps it is you that need to justify your specific complaint.
The investigation is a separate entity from a justice system. Just about the same all over the world. You may be critical of their justice system, but I doubt they care.
However if you meant to be critical of their investigation then you seem to have left out supporting reasons.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: europe
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey guys good call for me for the evac...
any body actually had one?
all information gathered nonone behind us at hold, tower need binoculars to see one of 4 runways, emergency services 2 mins drive away. are we on fire ????????
lets go talk about it later.
no question do the same again.
turns out leaky apu dropping oil on exhaust... hey but we al have that.
any body actually had one?
all information gathered nonone behind us at hold, tower need binoculars to see one of 4 runways, emergency services 2 mins drive away. are we on fire ????????
lets go talk about it later.
no question do the same again.
turns out leaky apu dropping oil on exhaust... hey but we al have that.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dani
In pedant mode, the engine nacelle detectors are (or at least were when I was in the industry) actually heat detectors, either firewire (coaxial steel with a glass dielectric), bi-metallic or other sensors.
Exactly why I qualified my statement regarding physical damage. but how frequently is that going to create an in flight false alarm?
I think the biggest damage issue we used to have was on military aircraft with fitters knocking / leaning on the firewire on maintenance intensive equipment
I was talking about airbus, Boeing, Military etc but I would have hoped the systems would be similar
On a less defensive basis
I agree smoke detectors of various types are generally less reliable, but we had very few reports of false alarms (but I am going back to the early 80's when fewer devices were fitted)
I'd be interested to know what the general reliability is now.
a) these sensors are not fire detections (like they are e.g. in the engine nacelles), but smoke detection systems. b) yes, they are relatively reliable,
in the outside world it happens from time to time
I think the biggest damage issue we used to have was on military aircraft with fitters knocking / leaning on the firewire on maintenance intensive equipment
I'm talking here mostly about detection systems in smaller airliners, not those in Airbus and Boeings.
On a less defensive basis
I agree smoke detectors of various types are generally less reliable, but we had very few reports of false alarms (but I am going back to the early 80's when fewer devices were fitted)
I'd be interested to know what the general reliability is now.
I agree smoke detectors of various types are generally less reliable, but we had very few reports of false alarms (but I am going back to the early 80's when fewer devices were fitted)
I'd be interested to know what the general reliability is now.
I'd be interested to know what the general reliability is now.
Indeeed a very scary statistic, to those of us as pax that consider any evacuation as scary as death itself.
Not that I agree with the practice, but the police do get involved here in NZ too. Its nothing specific to Japan.
A friend was quizzed by police last week over an incident in which nobody was even injured.
What do they do elsewhere? Just decide who is responsible and then settle it all in private lawsuits...?
[I should add that I am in no way questioning the decision of the Qantas crew]
A friend was quizzed by police last week over an incident in which nobody was even injured.
What do they do elsewhere? Just decide who is responsible and then settle it all in private lawsuits...?
[I should add that I am in no way questioning the decision of the Qantas crew]
Last edited by glekichi; 22nd Aug 2005 at 13:03.