Qantas 744 Depressurisation
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas never had a hull loss
Mover 625 states that Qantas has never had a hull loss.
I do not beleive that is correct.
My understanding is that a L1049 was lost in Africa, when an engine failed on take off, the aircraft crashed off the end of the runway and ran into a ditch.
Aircraft I understand was a write off but no one I believe was badly hurt.
However as an outsider looking in, the creep toward bargain maintanance should be a cause of concern to all.
Regards
Col
I do not beleive that is correct.
My understanding is that a L1049 was lost in Africa, when an engine failed on take off, the aircraft crashed off the end of the runway and ran into a ditch.
Aircraft I understand was a write off but no one I believe was badly hurt.
However as an outsider looking in, the creep toward bargain maintanance should be a cause of concern to all.
Regards
Col
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QANTAS hull loss - clarification
QANTAS has had hull losses (see wikipedia: Qantas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) BUT it has never lost a JET.
QF1 into BKK was deemed by many to be a write off but was repaired at great cost.
So, still no jets lost - an admirable record but it's getting some nicks lately, between a 747 undercarriage failure in Rome, 747 electrical bus failure on descent to BKK, 717 heavy landing in Darwin and now this. Oh, and a few engine fires a while back.
QF1 into BKK was deemed by many to be a write off but was repaired at great cost.
So, still no jets lost - an admirable record but it's getting some nicks lately, between a 747 undercarriage failure in Rome, 747 electrical bus failure on descent to BKK, 717 heavy landing in Darwin and now this. Oh, and a few engine fires a while back.
visibility3miles;
Many here, including myself, have spent time trying to educate the media and reporters, (most don't deserve the title, "journalist") and in the past I have done substantial media work directly related to aviation in terms of both industrial matters and more often flight safety matters. I was contacted only recently by an anchor of a national network with regard to an emergency (crew illness) and asked what I thought and "what it was like as a pilot to experience such a thing". I was offered about 15 seconds to say what I thought - an insult to any profession let alone one that requires patient comprehension rather than the oh-the-drama-of-it-all sensationalism which is all any newscaster is after. They don't have the time nor the inclination for anything more than that.
While there are a few true journalists who report intelligently and who ask perceptive or at least genuine questions, most have a short deadline, a cranky editor on steroids, no knowledge of aviation and no interest in further knowledge beyond what it takes to get the story out by the deadline because they've got to write another story on farm issues, the price of fuel or whatever.
I've been mis-quoted, lied to and (as the expression goes) had "tea and biscuits" with the VP for some things I tried to convey in the media but which were "misinterpreted" out of context. The risk for damage is significant and the reward for engaging the media is tiny by comparison. While I am a huge supporter of education and public relations because, again, this is a great industry, in times of ill fortune I don't blame airlines or pilots for staying away from the media. All you have to do is read what is written to know why.
I understand what you're saying, believe me, but having done it for years both in print and a bit on television where my first inclination is to patiently "teach", spending time explaining our issues in the cockpit, you have to appreciate that "understanding" and "knowledge" have a very short media shelf-life and, for media shareholders and advertisers such "human interest" stories don't capture nearly the ratings that sensational and exaggerated reporting does. To be blunt, ignorance is rewarded, understanding is not. I wish it were otherwise because this is an absolutely fascinating profession and industry which has tremendously interesting stories to tell, but for these very reasons cited, most in the media just don't want to know. That's just the way it is.
Many here, including myself, have spent time trying to educate the media and reporters, (most don't deserve the title, "journalist") and in the past I have done substantial media work directly related to aviation in terms of both industrial matters and more often flight safety matters. I was contacted only recently by an anchor of a national network with regard to an emergency (crew illness) and asked what I thought and "what it was like as a pilot to experience such a thing". I was offered about 15 seconds to say what I thought - an insult to any profession let alone one that requires patient comprehension rather than the oh-the-drama-of-it-all sensationalism which is all any newscaster is after. They don't have the time nor the inclination for anything more than that.
While there are a few true journalists who report intelligently and who ask perceptive or at least genuine questions, most have a short deadline, a cranky editor on steroids, no knowledge of aviation and no interest in further knowledge beyond what it takes to get the story out by the deadline because they've got to write another story on farm issues, the price of fuel or whatever.
I've been mis-quoted, lied to and (as the expression goes) had "tea and biscuits" with the VP for some things I tried to convey in the media but which were "misinterpreted" out of context. The risk for damage is significant and the reward for engaging the media is tiny by comparison. While I am a huge supporter of education and public relations because, again, this is a great industry, in times of ill fortune I don't blame airlines or pilots for staying away from the media. All you have to do is read what is written to know why.
I understand what you're saying, believe me, but having done it for years both in print and a bit on television where my first inclination is to patiently "teach", spending time explaining our issues in the cockpit, you have to appreciate that "understanding" and "knowledge" have a very short media shelf-life and, for media shareholders and advertisers such "human interest" stories don't capture nearly the ratings that sensational and exaggerated reporting does. To be blunt, ignorance is rewarded, understanding is not. I wish it were otherwise because this is an absolutely fascinating profession and industry which has tremendously interesting stories to tell, but for these very reasons cited, most in the media just don't want to know. That's just the way it is.
Last edited by PJ2; 25th Jul 2008 at 22:49.
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
I believe the claims refer to jet aircraft:-
More at:- Qantas fatal accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While Qantas has never had a fatal jet airliner accident, the Australian national airline suffered several losses in its early days before the widespread adoption of the jet engine in civilian aviation. These were mainly biplanes or flying boats servicing routes in Queensland and New Guinea. The incidents between 1942 and 1944 were during World War II, when Qantas Empire Airways operated on behalf of the military. While strictly speaking not an accident, the shooting-down of G-AEUH is included for completeness.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The photographs, for example that in post #146, seem to show that the fairing failed in two distinct ways. The upper part appears to have shattered as if from an impact, but the lower part has left no significat remains, as if it had been torn away relatively slowly (in seconds or tenths of a second, rather than milli-seconds). Notice that the upper edge of the piece of honeycomb that is still attached seems to be inside the flap of the pressure vessel that has been bent upwards.
Still in that area, some of the metal under the remaining honeycomb appears to have been bent inwards, rather than outwards, although immediately below that, level with the outer red bag, there are bits of skin that definitely bend outwards.
This suggests to me that the initial breach was somewhere about the middle of the outer red bag. Absence of evidence of burning and lack of obvious damage to the items remaining inside the hull suggest that the prime cause was neither a chemical explosion nor the rupture of a gas bottle. So my guess as to the cause is rapid propagation of a crack or hole caused by some combination of fatigue, corrosion or impact.
By the way, what is the vertical bundle of wires that is visible just inside the rear edge of the hole? And what is the black rectangle at the bottom of the lower panel behind the hole? The bit hanging out appears to be too small (at least from the photograph) to be a cover, so is this something else that was blown out, if so a further indication that the primary failure was not of the fairing.
Still in that area, some of the metal under the remaining honeycomb appears to have been bent inwards, rather than outwards, although immediately below that, level with the outer red bag, there are bits of skin that definitely bend outwards.
This suggests to me that the initial breach was somewhere about the middle of the outer red bag. Absence of evidence of burning and lack of obvious damage to the items remaining inside the hull suggest that the prime cause was neither a chemical explosion nor the rupture of a gas bottle. So my guess as to the cause is rapid propagation of a crack or hole caused by some combination of fatigue, corrosion or impact.
By the way, what is the vertical bundle of wires that is visible just inside the rear edge of the hole? And what is the black rectangle at the bottom of the lower panel behind the hole? The bit hanging out appears to be too small (at least from the photograph) to be a cover, so is this something else that was blown out, if so a further indication that the primary failure was not of the fairing.
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
...was significantly more dangerous than other models in operation.
If FOD results in penetration of a fuel tank or fuel system the result will generally be catastrophic for any aircraft. That is after all, why B737s now have armoured fuel tank access panels - but what were the chances of turbine disk shrapnel striking and bursting a small, ordinary fuel tank access panel, allowing fuel to flood onto the open hot section of an exploded engine and starting the Manchester fire? Such things are random events that can occur at any time, unrelated to aircraft type.
Evertonian
The FA had tears in her(his?) eyes. Could've been FOD, could've been the cold air, or it could've been that the FA was just plain scared...so friggin what? If this snippet interested me at all, it would be to see if the FA sucked it in & was a valuable contributor to the latter stages of the flight & helped bring order to the cabin.
I imagine that when this comment was made about the FA, it was during the descent when she, like the rest of the punters, was nothing more than a passenger during what would be a scary experience. I've certainly had my say about Cabin Crew over the years, but perhaps the people who were critical should take into account is that whilst there is years of training & repeated training for this event, what they cannot simulate is the fear that could be evoked & how individuals react.
I imagine that when this comment was made about the FA, it was during the descent when she, like the rest of the punters, was nothing more than a passenger during what would be a scary experience. I've certainly had my say about Cabin Crew over the years, but perhaps the people who were critical should take into account is that whilst there is years of training & repeated training for this event, what they cannot simulate is the fear that could be evoked & how individuals react.
A few posters have suggested that shifting cargo might have punctured the skin. With a full aircraft, though, on a leg where there's plenty of cargo to boot, one would expect cargo compartments to be full. So, shifting isn't likely.
Those black and red bags, though, were probably stowed further forward and cascaded back when the original cargo or luggage was sucked out. What is that beam-like thing under the black bag at a 45° angle?
And looking at that remaining exposed stringer with the dark stain in the middle, doesn't the simplest possible answer just shout out corrosion as the most likely cause?
Those black and red bags, though, were probably stowed further forward and cascaded back when the original cargo or luggage was sucked out. What is that beam-like thing under the black bag at a 45° angle?
And looking at that remaining exposed stringer with the dark stain in the middle, doesn't the simplest possible answer just shout out corrosion as the most likely cause?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: England
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, looking at the close up picture, the metalwork of the pressure hull seems to be torn outward and quite distorted. Looks to me (no expert) like some fairly violent force involved here. Fairings apart, something more involved here to breach the pressure hull methinks.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broadreach
What is that beam-like thing under the black bag at a 45° angle?
Image:Fuselage-747.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Speculating... what the hell, it would be a two post thread otherwise...
My take on it so far is that it seems to be either corrosion or a result of previous collision with ground equipment. I don't buy the explosive device scenario TBH.
All got down in one piece, nothing else matters for the souls on board.
My take on it so far is that it seems to be either corrosion or a result of previous collision with ground equipment. I don't buy the explosive device scenario TBH.
All got down in one piece, nothing else matters for the souls on board.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The center of the earths surface
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F/A's crying?
Well said Buster!
To those that have never had to resist the devils filthy out stretched hands,
I assure you, it will teach you something very quickly about your own character.
I will reinforce the fact that OAT of minus 40-50 degC, will definately make your eyes water.
Chr's
H/Snort.
To those that have never had to resist the devils filthy out stretched hands,
I assure you, it will teach you something very quickly about your own character.
I will reinforce the fact that OAT of minus 40-50 degC, will definately make your eyes water.
Chr's
H/Snort.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<snip>
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$).
The residue of film-wrap appears visible on the grey 'bag'.
The image in http://www.pprune.org/forums/4287721-post69.html is of good resolution and responds well to 'stretching' (load it into 'Paint' and 'Image' 'Resize' for users of M$).
The residue of film-wrap appears visible on the grey 'bag'.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "basics" from an SLF
I have silently watched this forum with increasing fascination over a year or so. As an aging SLF with 45 years of winged travel under my belt, the Quantas incident makes me - sort of - want to say something, with your permission.
OK, you aeronautical experts out there can professionally speculate on causes such as the recent Quantas event. All good stuff (well, mostly anyway
but let me make my somewhat earthy point. During an in-flight incident, the only people in the whole world that matter to the SLF are the folks up there behind the flight-deck door. I am constantly astounded at the skills and presence-of-mind displayed by airline pilots in cases of emergency.
Unashamedly, this posting is offered as a tribute to the gentlemen (and ladies) who can bring crippled airliners safely back to terra firma. In the final analysis, this is all that matters. Thank you.
OK, you aeronautical experts out there can professionally speculate on causes such as the recent Quantas event. All good stuff (well, mostly anyway
but let me make my somewhat earthy point. During an in-flight incident, the only people in the whole world that matter to the SLF are the folks up there behind the flight-deck door. I am constantly astounded at the skills and presence-of-mind displayed by airline pilots in cases of emergency.Unashamedly, this posting is offered as a tribute to the gentlemen (and ladies) who can bring crippled airliners safely back to terra firma. In the final analysis, this is all that matters. Thank you.
PJ2, I hear what you are saying. This is why I am trying to focus on the "plunge" aspect of the report.
Tell your local reporters that the plane did not "plunge" out of control. It may be difficult to believe, but most "journos", particularly those at local papers who can quote pilots in a general way, don't want to sound stupid.
Believe me, as someone who lives in the U.S., I am quite impressed that the reporting didn't escalate out of control.
I mentioned that babies and small children cry, when rapid pressure changes hurt their ears, in response to the fact that most early news reports I heard said that, "children started crying." So, the children crying in this case reflected the sudden decompression, not panic, and I specifically mention it as a compliment to everyone on board.
Anytime the news quotes passengers saying that a wind was whistling through the cabin has to indicate an unusual flight.
If anything, pictures indicate little luggage was lost, but I'd hate to have to fill out a lost luggage complaint on that flight...
Err, yes sir, madam, please wait over there and your luggage should float by any time now...
Tell your local reporters that the plane did not "plunge" out of control. It may be difficult to believe, but most "journos", particularly those at local papers who can quote pilots in a general way, don't want to sound stupid.
Believe me, as someone who lives in the U.S., I am quite impressed that the reporting didn't escalate out of control.
I mentioned that babies and small children cry, when rapid pressure changes hurt their ears, in response to the fact that most early news reports I heard said that, "children started crying." So, the children crying in this case reflected the sudden decompression, not panic, and I specifically mention it as a compliment to everyone on board.
Anytime the news quotes passengers saying that a wind was whistling through the cabin has to indicate an unusual flight.
If anything, pictures indicate little luggage was lost, but I'd hate to have to fill out a lost luggage complaint on that flight...
Err, yes sir, madam, please wait over there and your luggage should float by any time now...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PIB:
Firstly, I believe it was two crashes and a recovery.
Secondly, any research into the investigation of those incidents will reveal that the NTSB covered every conceivable angle, but until they hit on the perfect storm that was a worn PCU valve plus thermal shock they could not replicate the hardover and reversal in the lab. It's true that Boeing did themselves no favours by trying to prove the crashes were caused by pilot error, but unfortunately until the technical design flaw was proven it was a legitimate line of enquiry.
Thirdly, Concorde was brought down by a perfect storm of its own. The tyre burst and even the fuel leak were not dangerous on their own, but the severing of electrical connections in the wheel well in the path of the leaking fuel provided the fatal blow by igniting the leaking fuel.
Predicting this kind of systems failure was in its infancy when the first 737 and the first Concorde flew, so to call either of them unsafe does both aircraft a disservice. They were safe by the standards of their time and that's all there is to it.
Glad everyone got down safely, this one looks interesting and I'll be paying attention.
The 737-200's were not grounded even after THREE hardover rudder crashes
Secondly, any research into the investigation of those incidents will reveal that the NTSB covered every conceivable angle, but until they hit on the perfect storm that was a worn PCU valve plus thermal shock they could not replicate the hardover and reversal in the lab. It's true that Boeing did themselves no favours by trying to prove the crashes were caused by pilot error, but unfortunately until the technical design flaw was proven it was a legitimate line of enquiry.
Thirdly, Concorde was brought down by a perfect storm of its own. The tyre burst and even the fuel leak were not dangerous on their own, but the severing of electrical connections in the wheel well in the path of the leaking fuel provided the fatal blow by igniting the leaking fuel.
Predicting this kind of systems failure was in its infancy when the first 737 and the first Concorde flew, so to call either of them unsafe does both aircraft a disservice. They were safe by the standards of their time and that's all there is to it.
Glad everyone got down safely, this one looks interesting and I'll be paying attention.
QANTAS Lucky Again
Yet again QANTAS is extraordinarily lucky – not just the Bangkok overrun in 1999 and loss of most electrical power on a 747 earlier this year, but also the long fuselage crack found in 2003. My article in Air Safety Week at http://www.aviationtoday.com/asw/categories/commercial/1891.html explains structural fatigue and the limitations of “damage tolerance”. It also compares the QANTAS crack with a shorter one that downed China Airlines flight 611 in 2002
A more detailed account of the QANTAS damage is in para 8.3.2 of “A Review of Australian and New Zealand Investigations on Aeronautical Fatigue During the Period April 2003 to March 2005” at http://dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au/dspace/bitstream/1947/3593/1/DSTO-TN-0624%20PR.pdf. Here’s an extract
“In 2003, an Australian airline found a 30-inch crack in the rear fuselage of one of its Boeing 747-400s. The fuselage had lost so much bending strength it could have failed at any time.
It could have failed before the crack was obvious. Sealant hid the crack and stopped a leak. So, for this damage, there was no fail safety. When designing and approving the 747-400, to FAR 25 (Amendment 9), neither Boeing nor the FAA anticipated it.
It could have failed before the crack was detectable. So, for this damage, there was no damage tolerance. When developing and approving the SID (Supplemental Inspection Document), to FAA Advisory Circular 91-56, neither Boeing nor the FAA anticipated it.
It could have failed if a sharp-eyed mechanic had not seen the crack amid thousands of square feet of frames and stringers (like trying to find a needle in a haystack) at a 6-yearly check. The 747 would not have survived until the next one.”
A more detailed account of the QANTAS damage is in para 8.3.2 of “A Review of Australian and New Zealand Investigations on Aeronautical Fatigue During the Period April 2003 to March 2005” at http://dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au/dspace/bitstream/1947/3593/1/DSTO-TN-0624%20PR.pdf. Here’s an extract
“In 2003, an Australian airline found a 30-inch crack in the rear fuselage of one of its Boeing 747-400s. The fuselage had lost so much bending strength it could have failed at any time.
It could have failed before the crack was obvious. Sealant hid the crack and stopped a leak. So, for this damage, there was no fail safety. When designing and approving the 747-400, to FAR 25 (Amendment 9), neither Boeing nor the FAA anticipated it.
It could have failed before the crack was detectable. So, for this damage, there was no damage tolerance. When developing and approving the SID (Supplemental Inspection Document), to FAA Advisory Circular 91-56, neither Boeing nor the FAA anticipated it.
It could have failed if a sharp-eyed mechanic had not seen the crack amid thousands of square feet of frames and stringers (like trying to find a needle in a haystack) at a 6-yearly check. The 747 would not have survived until the next one.”
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Top Job To The Crew
"I have silently watched this forum with increasing fascination over a year or so. As an aging SLF with 45 years of winged travel under my belt, the Quantas incident makes me - sort of - want to say something, with your permission.
OK, you aeronautical experts out there can professionally speculate on causes such as the recent Quantas event. All good stuff (well, mostly anyway but let me make my somewhat earthy point. During an in-flight incident, the only people in the whole world that matter to the SLF are the folks up there behind the flight-deck door. I am constantly astounded at the skills and presence-of-mind displayed by airline pilots in cases of emergency.
Unashamedly, this posting is offered as a tribute to the gentlemen (and ladies) who can bring crippled airliners safely back to terra firma. In the final analysis, this is all that matters. Thank you."
I agree with Roger Dixson
As a pilot and SLF, it is thanks to people like Capt John Bartels that depressurisation is not a "plung" but a controlled flight level change.
Great Job to all crew on flight QF 30
OK, you aeronautical experts out there can professionally speculate on causes such as the recent Quantas event. All good stuff (well, mostly anyway but let me make my somewhat earthy point. During an in-flight incident, the only people in the whole world that matter to the SLF are the folks up there behind the flight-deck door. I am constantly astounded at the skills and presence-of-mind displayed by airline pilots in cases of emergency.
Unashamedly, this posting is offered as a tribute to the gentlemen (and ladies) who can bring crippled airliners safely back to terra firma. In the final analysis, this is all that matters. Thank you."
I agree with Roger Dixson
As a pilot and SLF, it is thanks to people like Capt John Bartels that depressurisation is not a "plung" but a controlled flight level change.
Great Job to all crew on flight QF 30
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: waterfall
Age: 61
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OJK Incident
I never realised there were so many experts on pprune. As an accident, incident and maintenance error investigator of some years, and 30+ years in the industry, lets keep the spekkkies way down and let CASA etc do their thing. The sort of misinformation from all and sundry on this does not help.
To the Tech and Cabin crew -well done, hope you are all well
To the Tech and Cabin crew -well done, hope you are all well