The QF A380 crew in this incident deserved the awards for a fine job done; at least they did nothing to aggravate the incident unlike an Air Transat A330 pilots who got the Air Pilot's Guild award after stuffing up a simple engine fuel leak problem ending up with a dead stick landing at Lajes. Not too long ago, some EK spin doctors almost make heroes out of the crew who took off grossly under powered in MEL, almost crippling the A340 and then landing unscathed with a partly damaged plane.

Really? Where do I find a copy of that? I thought the crew 'resigned´promptly after the incident. Why would EK then talk them up?

Not trying to hijack this thread, folks, but ...
 

I have had this A380 near disaster on my mind ever since it happened and to me there has always been a dulling of the sheen on the heroic crew that saved the day.

I clearly remember a great PR exercise involving RR and it's trumpeting announcement that it had successfully detonated charges in a (at the time) new A380 jet engine at full power, to prove that its nacelle would contain all the debris of such an exploding jet turbine.

Since then, we have witnessed a catastrophic failure of a nacelle follow through in the real world and where is the outcry from an industry so proud of its safety records?

Please don't for a minute think I'm trying to belittle the heroic crew, for you would be way off the mark. Their names should (if anything) be the very start of an Australian aviators' hall of fame.

Me thinks he was referring to some friends or colleagues of the EK crew who tried to put a positive spin with some posts after the incident. I had seen some of those but I believe they were removed after some time. Smart eh?

cattleclass waif

I standby to be corrected however, I am sure that the test is of a FAN blade detaching NOT a TURBINE DISC breaking up. You are comparing completely different kinds of failure and all the manufacturers only test for FAN blade release damage / containment not turbine disc failure.

So that is the reason there is no outcry.

Thank you, Iceman50 ...
 

... now that my non-airman status has been embarrassingly exposed and my cattleclass waif status is worse than useless, are there any seats available in the wheel well class?

Uncontained engine failure doesn't even begin to cover it does it? That with so many seniors on hand the messages were prioritised, the plane was flown and correct decisions made. No time for Ego's just a time for teamwork.
Fantastic. :D

I see the aircraft with all four engines attached parked at SIN Changi. After 15 months looks like shes going home. :D

Looks can be deceiving ! :{

not quite ready..
 

Saw her today at Changi, parked at the east services apron. Awaiting parts, maybe?

http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/z...cher/photo.jpg

She's not quite ready to fly, many parts still missing. Engine 2 was wrapped in plastic, because most of the cowling wasn't there. Patches everywhere. New mid-span slats.

It’ll be a while, I would say.

But back on subject, what an outstanding piece of airmanship that was. :D
Shows what we can do, and makes you feel proud to be a pilot.

And Airbus ought to give 'm a medal, too. ;)

Video Interview With Capt. Richard De Crespigny Part 1
 

Video Interview With Capt. Richard De Crespigny Part 1


J.A. Donoghue, editor-in-chief of AeroSafety World interviews Capt. Richard de Crespigny, captain of Qantas Flight 32 on November 4, 2010, an Airbus A380 that suffered a massive engine failure. Thanks to the actions of de Crespigny and his crew the damage did not precipitate a catastrophic accident, and 469 people returned safely to the ground at Singapore. Part 1 of 2.

Video Interview With Capt. Richard De Crespigny Part 1 | Flight Safety Foundation

Video Interview With Capt. Richard de Crespigny Part 2 | Flight Safety Foundation

Mariner, please excuse a 'civvy" posting on here but yesterday I was talking to a couple of Australians who know a Qantas mtce engineer in Australia. He has told them that the latest that he had heard was that she will never fly again.

Agree 100% about the crew.

He should have made them a bet.

Qantas makes is a point not to lose airframes, and this is not about to be the first.

Interview on the Australian 60 minutes last night, mainly with the Captain
but also the others that were on the flight deck.

It was very interesting and for me, showed some more close up pictures / film of the holes in the aircraft.

I liked his description that it looked like the wing (and body) had been cluster bombed. I didn't realise how many pieces hit the fuselage.

Whoa, big call. However, awesome job chaps.

Let's not forget the crew of the 2003 Baghdad DHL attempted shootdown incident.

I have nothing but admiration for the crew in getting the aircraft back on the ground.

However, with the questions being asked at the Qld flood inquiry in relation to operators (pilots?) following Operations Manuals to the inth degree, will pilots in future have any latitude in not completing checklists for all the items that appear as faults on an electronic checklist (or however presented), even though completing all checklists may result in the loss of the aircraft due to time/fuel/CofG constraints.

601,
At least, in Australia, we have a NSW Supreme Court (sitting as an Appeal Court) finding that the PIC can take whatever action he or she deems necessary, in an emergency, including overriding the SOPs, Operations manuals in general, and published Emergency Procedures in particular.

The NSW Court of Appeal found that the Cth regulations defining the rights and duties of the PIC meant exactly what they say, and the authority of the PIC cannot be circumscribed. There was no appel to the High Court of Australia, so this stands as a very strong precedent.

The way some airline ops. management now behave, it is clear that they and (all too often) their tech, crews, simply do not understand the law.

Look for Markey, G v ??

Tootle pip!!

Leadsled's link
 

Markey v Wansey & Ors [2002] NSWCA 221 (11 July 2002)

With the minimum of respect, I couldn't find anywhere a judicial statement that gives effect to what Leadsled reported. By my reading, none of the reported issues were even debated. := := :=

Maybe I'm reading the wrong decision... :hmm: :hmm:


Stay Alive,

I read that appeal judgment as one that addresses the first trial judge's reasons for coming to the conclusions he did. The trial judge said that lowering the gear contributing to an increased rate of descent and therefore should not have been done, in contravention of the POH. The appeal judge said that the first judge had not considered whether the second stage of the engine failure - going from partial to full loss of power had actually happened, and therefore that it was unreasonable to attribute failure to make the field solely to the pilot for lowering the gear. The POH called for gear up in a crash landing; until the second stage of the power failure, there was not going to be a crash landing, just a normal landing, albeit with less than normal power available, and on a normal landing ground.

None of the appeal judgment addresses the pilot's discretion to ignore the POH; indeed, it's not apparent that he did ignore the POH.