Qantas 744 Depressurisation
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
one is forced to note that NONE of the luggage on shown shows any sign of heat, melting, burning, or molecular/ physical change.
The visisble red bag would perhaps show such if it is synthetic and had been subject to combustive force.
The visisble red bag would perhaps show such if it is synthetic and had been subject to combustive force.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fatigue
does this look like metal fatigue?
From the picture, the edges look smooth. If it were an explosion, would there not be jagged edges. The lower edges look as if a pies 'flaked' off. The upper edge looks as if is peeled off.
From the picture, the edges look smooth. If it were an explosion, would there not be jagged edges. The lower edges look as if a pies 'flaked' off. The upper edge looks as if is peeled off.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: windsorCA
Age: 97
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incidental damage to cabin floor
I recall that many years ago a DC10(or Tristar) outbound from CDG, suffered decommpression while climbing. It transpired to be caused by incomplete closure of a baggage door.The result was loss of pressure in the hold ,but not in cabin which in turn led to cabin floor rupture and fatal damage to the control runs. This occurence sounds similar (although maybe frm different cause), so why no catastrophic floor damage?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was really "explosive" decomp... and without reliefe valves or blow-out panels...
Public Lessons Learned from Accidents
Public Lessons Learned from Accidents
Last edited by františek dobrota; 25th Jul 2008 at 18:53.
Flying Frog- post #80.
If Mrs Manchester did hear a loud bang 20 mins. out of LHR, this could have been the first piece of structure failing.
The remaining structure could then have held together for the 12 hour flight to Hong Kong (1 pressure cycle) and then failed on the next flight when the cabin diff built up towards max.
This failure would mean that the "fail Safe" load paths "Failed"!
However other design features appear to have worked. "Tear Stoppers" to limit the progression of splits in the A/C skin.
Just my thoughts from 39 years in aviation engineering.
If Mrs Manchester did hear a loud bang 20 mins. out of LHR, this could have been the first piece of structure failing.
The remaining structure could then have held together for the 12 hour flight to Hong Kong (1 pressure cycle) and then failed on the next flight when the cabin diff built up towards max.
This failure would mean that the "fail Safe" load paths "Failed"!
However other design features appear to have worked. "Tear Stoppers" to limit the progression of splits in the A/C skin.
Just my thoughts from 39 years in aviation engineering.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The remaining structure could then have held together for the 12 hour flight to Hong Kong (1 pressure cycle) and then failed on the next flight when the cabin diff built up towards max.
What alterations to the freight/baggage load were made at Hong Kong?
The image in http://www.pprune.org/forums/4287721-post69.html is of good resolution and responds well to 'stretching' (load it into 'Paint' and 'Image' 'Resize' for users of M$).
The residue of film-wrap appears visible on the grey 'bag'.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I presume the investigation authorities, Qantas and CAA are busy doing their initial assessment. We might hear something official latest Saturday afternoon local time, or, as Manila is UTC+8h, morning European time.
I wonder if the incident location has been pinpointed? IIRC the lead investigating agency should be from the country overflown at the time of the incident, or if over international waters, the country of registration.
Edit: According to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, ATSB is dispatching a team of four investigators to Manila to assist local authorities with the investigation.
I wonder if the incident location has been pinpointed? IIRC the lead investigating agency should be from the country overflown at the time of the incident, or if over international waters, the country of registration.
Edit: According to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, ATSB is dispatching a team of four investigators to Manila to assist local authorities with the investigation.
Last edited by snowfalcon2; 27th Jul 2008 at 08:44. Reason: additional info
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brunei
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quantas 744 Depressurisation
Forget Fairing failure initiating this amount of damage. Skin is the old waffle doubler construction I believe. Two sections of frames missing and the remains of at least two stringer repairs obvious. Other stringers seem to have failed pretty cleanly each side of the hole ? and the fwd frame has failed at some frame joint ?. And why the fillers under the frame feet ? Usually only do this if you replace a frame or skin. The remaining protruding forward Lap joint is very interesting as the lower skin is not connected to it ! And can you see the edge of a Lap joint scab repair ? Looking for the broken bits of frame or frame chord or safety chord but can’t see any - I believe that’s an intercostal sticking up in the lower part of the hole. This looks awfully like a structural failure, with some collateral damage. Don’t see any clues as to where the failure started but the experts will.
At a guestimate of 80,000 hrs and 12,000 cycles this aircraft would be deep into its ageing aircraft and corrosion control inspection programmes plus a whole raft of SB and AD inspections.
If the boffins rule out an explosion, Quantas/Boeing will be doing a lot of heartsearching about grounding the rest of their fleet. At least it’s not the crown skin.
At a guestimate of 80,000 hrs and 12,000 cycles this aircraft would be deep into its ageing aircraft and corrosion control inspection programmes plus a whole raft of SB and AD inspections.
If the boffins rule out an explosion, Quantas/Boeing will be doing a lot of heartsearching about grounding the rest of their fleet. At least it’s not the crown skin.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: I live like a gypsy.
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If the boffins rule out an explosion, Quantas/Boeing will be doing a lot of heartsearching about grounding the rest of their fleet. At least it’s not the crown skin".
The problem is enchrisg we are talking BOEING. The 737-200's were not grounded even after THREE hardover rudder crashes.
No one has an explanation for the BA 038 crash, yet hundreds of B777's still fly with yet more power down incidents.
A Concorde runs over a bit of metal off of a DC10 and the fleet is grounded, even though it has been flying for over 25 years with no previous loss of life and tyre vulnerability to debris a known Achilles Heel.
Make your own mind up.
The problem is enchrisg we are talking BOEING. The 737-200's were not grounded even after THREE hardover rudder crashes.
No one has an explanation for the BA 038 crash, yet hundreds of B777's still fly with yet more power down incidents.
A Concorde runs over a bit of metal off of a DC10 and the fleet is grounded, even though it has been flying for over 25 years with no previous loss of life and tyre vulnerability to debris a known Achilles Heel.
Make your own mind up.
Last edited by Poof in Boots; 25th Jul 2008 at 20:06.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: WGS 84
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Concorde runs over a bit of metal off of a DC10 and the fleet is grounded, even though it has been flying for over 25 years with no loss of life and tyre vulnerability to debris a known Achilles Heel.
It's wonderful to know 777s are still flying while the officials just cleared the crew (otherwise what's the point of the medals ?). It's good to know that medals can improve 777's operational safety on similar issues.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada/Ireland
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While reading this thread and watching the news I would have to agree that the level of journalism is dire. I understand that they want a big story and would like to make it as dramatic as they possibly can. However it would be better for all if they could try report the facts rather than shocked passengers with high adrenaline rushes.
From the 747 Operations Manual, here is the check list for Rapid Depressurization;
02.20.48
1. OXYGEN MASKS AND REGULATORS.................... ON 100% ALL
2. CREW COMMUNICATIONS..............................ESTABLISH ALL
3. ISOLATION VALVE (either)...................................CLOSE E
4. PACK VALVE SWITCHES..................................ALL OPEN E
5. EMERGENCY DESCENT (if required).....................INITIATE PF
6. PASSENGER OXYGEN (if required)..............ON/CK LT ILLUM E
7. NO SMOKING & SEATBELTS......................................ON E
8. P.A ANNOUNCEMENT.......................................AS REQ'D PNF
9. PASSENGER OXYGEN (below 10,000 ft.).................RESET E FA
As for the procedure for an emergency descent, well thats another checklist. They desent withen the aircraft disign limits. They basicaly get to 10,000ft as quickly and safely as they can.
So congrats to the crew as it looks like you delt with the problem to the book.
Anyone want some more information from the ops manual, pm
regards,
Rick
From the 747 Operations Manual, here is the check list for Rapid Depressurization;
02.20.48
1. OXYGEN MASKS AND REGULATORS.................... ON 100% ALL
2. CREW COMMUNICATIONS..............................ESTABLISH ALL
3. ISOLATION VALVE (either)...................................CLOSE E
4. PACK VALVE SWITCHES..................................ALL OPEN E
5. EMERGENCY DESCENT (if required).....................INITIATE PF
6. PASSENGER OXYGEN (if required)..............ON/CK LT ILLUM E
7. NO SMOKING & SEATBELTS......................................ON E
8. P.A ANNOUNCEMENT.......................................AS REQ'D PNF
9. PASSENGER OXYGEN (below 10,000 ft.).................RESET E FA
As for the procedure for an emergency descent, well thats another checklist. They desent withen the aircraft disign limits. They basicaly get to 10,000ft as quickly and safely as they can.
So congrats to the crew as it looks like you delt with the problem to the book.
Anyone want some more information from the ops manual, pm
regards,
Rick
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i totally agree with enchrisg. the stringers must have been spliced too make them weak enough to break.add x amount of years of corrosion, ,leaky honeycomb fibre panel to put it under pressure-one repair job too many.
From the pics on TV it looks like its under door 2R. Theres a "strake" there to blend the fuselage with the root of the leading edge. I recall catering trucks regularly used to thump that area. The company (BA) put 2 red vertical stripes on the strakes to try and prevent this. Maybe it got thumped/damaged/punctured (and nobody owned up to it) the structure consequently weakened, which then failed when the pres diff went up.....who knows? anyway just a thought....apologies if this has already been mooted, can't read thru several pages of posts already...cheers.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A nice walk through the visible damage enchrisg but who did the structural repair that the photo suggests was done earlier? 
...and was it carried out strictly according to the repair scheme drawings?
I don't think so.
BTW, check your PMs for a bit of personal chat.
...and was it carried out strictly according to the repair scheme drawings?
I don't think so.
BTW, check your PMs for a bit of personal chat.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If the boffins rule out an explosion, Quantas/Boeing will be doing a lot of heartsearching about grounding the rest of their fleet. At least it’s not the crown skin".
The problem is enchrisg we are talking BOEING. The 737-200's were not grounded even after THREE hardover rudder crashes.
No one has an explanation for the BA 038 crash, yet hundreds of B777's still fly with yet more power down incidents.
A Concorde runs over a bit of metal off of a DC10 and the fleet is grounded, even though it has been flying for over 25 years with no previous loss of life and tyre vulnerability to debris a known Achilles Heel.
Make your own mind up.
I believe there are about 700 777s in operation. They must rack up more departures in one year than concorde did in its entire service. They have been in production for 20 years. Incidents like the BA crash are demonstrably rare and it is not unreasonable that the risk is seen as acceptable for them while that for concorde was not. The same went for 737 rudder hardovers and 747 failures.
Disclaimer: I haven't read all the posts, but if I was a PAX or pilot or skydiver, I would call a rapid descent from FL 300 to FL 100 a PLUNGE, or one quick drop.
Don't whine/whinge if you don't like the reporting. POLITELY TELL THEM WHY WHAT WAS DONE WAS DONE WITH THE SAFETY OF THE PASSENGERS IN MIND.
Instead of whining at journos from a forum few people in the general public read (e.g., fare-paying passengers), I strongly suggest that everyone bothered by this description of a normal, life saving procedure:
PLEASE POLITELY CONTACT your local news media and explain how this is ROUTINE PROCEDURE designed TO SAVE LIVES in the event of loss of normal cabin pressure. Explain that at 10,000 feet (yes, US units), there is adequate air pressure, similar to that found on most flights, but that at 30,000, people who had not properly used the oxygen masks which immediately deployed might be at risk, so descending rapidly is done with the best intentions, not as a plunge, EVEN IF THE PASSENGERS MAY BE SURPRISED BY THE RAPID DESCENT.
[Infants can't clear their ears as easily as adults because their ear canal is shaped differently. (I assume you've all noticed the wailing "baby barometers" that are usually the first signal of a descent to land? They can't help it -- it hurts. Babies can clear their ears more easily if they suck on a pacifier, milk bottle, or some such...)
Likewise small children may have trouble clearing their ears because they don't know how.
Way back when, Cabin Crew used to hand out chewing gum or lollipops to young children for this very purpose, but it's another sensible courtesy that's fallen by the wayside.]
As to the passengers "getting sick" upon seeing the hole in the undercarriage... I'd be upset myself. Have the crew say again how grateful they were too the passengers for remaining calm and confident during the flight. CRM should include keeping the pax and CC in the loop and calm.
Congrats to the pilots and crew for a job well done.
Don't whine/whinge if you don't like the reporting. POLITELY TELL THEM WHY WHAT WAS DONE WAS DONE WITH THE SAFETY OF THE PASSENGERS IN MIND.
Instead of whining at journos from a forum few people in the general public read (e.g., fare-paying passengers), I strongly suggest that everyone bothered by this description of a normal, life saving procedure:
PLEASE POLITELY CONTACT your local news media and explain how this is ROUTINE PROCEDURE designed TO SAVE LIVES in the event of loss of normal cabin pressure. Explain that at 10,000 feet (yes, US units), there is adequate air pressure, similar to that found on most flights, but that at 30,000, people who had not properly used the oxygen masks which immediately deployed might be at risk, so descending rapidly is done with the best intentions, not as a plunge, EVEN IF THE PASSENGERS MAY BE SURPRISED BY THE RAPID DESCENT.
[Infants can't clear their ears as easily as adults because their ear canal is shaped differently. (I assume you've all noticed the wailing "baby barometers" that are usually the first signal of a descent to land? They can't help it -- it hurts. Babies can clear their ears more easily if they suck on a pacifier, milk bottle, or some such...)
Likewise small children may have trouble clearing their ears because they don't know how.
Way back when, Cabin Crew used to hand out chewing gum or lollipops to young children for this very purpose, but it's another sensible courtesy that's fallen by the wayside.]
As to the passengers "getting sick" upon seeing the hole in the undercarriage... I'd be upset myself. Have the crew say again how grateful they were too the passengers for remaining calm and confident during the flight. CRM should include keeping the pax and CC in the loop and calm.
Congrats to the pilots and crew for a job well done.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: ingerland
Age: 42
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Beausoleil....That's just a silly thing to say...to say it's the models fault...it wasn't concorde's fault that the DC-10 dropped debris all over the runway...any plane could have puntured their tire...