Qantas safety boast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas safety boast
Just saw an ad in which Qantas boasts about an "unrivalled saftey record". It seems like Bangkok has faded in the collective Qantas memory. I wonder what other incidents have faded.
Qantas until recently flew mostly longhaul in warm climates. To boast of safety records is pathetic compared with northern European or North American shorthaul operators who enjoy truly challenging operational conditions during the winter season.
Seems to be a case of "Look at us, we can also fly airplanes! (we think)".
Qantas until recently flew mostly longhaul in warm climates. To boast of safety records is pathetic compared with northern European or North American shorthaul operators who enjoy truly challenging operational conditions during the winter season.
Seems to be a case of "Look at us, we can also fly airplanes! (we think)".
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say that 99% of QF pilots would never mention said safety record, and most are very aware of Bangkok golfing expedition. Having said that, it is only a minor blemish on a pretty fair record, and touch wood it stays that way.
I think your angst should be directed at QFs mis-marketing and PR department. Trust me, most QF folk responsible for its safety record would not be proud (and pissed off) of someone marketing the company on their hard work and goodwill.
Anyway, a similar thread was started a little while ago.
I think your angst should be directed at QFs mis-marketing and PR department. Trust me, most QF folk responsible for its safety record would not be proud (and pissed off) of someone marketing the company on their hard work and goodwill.
Anyway, a similar thread was started a little while ago.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably true, but the "minor blemish" is rumoured to have been a write off, were it not for QF management choosing to spare no cost in repairing the aircraft to maintain the statistic of "no hull loss".
Using safety in PR campaigns leaves one open for closer scrutiny. You also shouldn't tempt fate my wife says.
Using safety in PR campaigns leaves one open for closer scrutiny. You also shouldn't tempt fate my wife says.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Friend who was a B747 engineer at QF told me it (BKK 744)was a "write off" but QF would do anything to perpetuate this myth.
Also lost a Shorts Sandringham in Vila Harbour in the 60's after a water taxying accident (you can scuba dive on it if you like - even had a "glow in the dark" plastic skeleton in the cockpit at one stage - quite a hoot if unprepared!). That was an accident, but QF said it sank after drifting from the repair morrings during a storm (It was a write off - they had already salvaged the engines), so therefore wasn't a hull loss resulting from an accident. There was another story of a total loss / burn out in the early days of QF domestic flying (1920's or 30's) and the company did some name changing, thus - "what a great safety record "WE" have!"
The old "touch wood" scenario would be haunting me if I went around saying "aren't we so safe". Its only a matter of time...
They are only people and the machines are still mechanical and electrical. Corporate arrogance is one thing, (To me they seem to have plenty of it at times) statistical enevitability is another!
Also lost a Shorts Sandringham in Vila Harbour in the 60's after a water taxying accident (you can scuba dive on it if you like - even had a "glow in the dark" plastic skeleton in the cockpit at one stage - quite a hoot if unprepared!). That was an accident, but QF said it sank after drifting from the repair morrings during a storm (It was a write off - they had already salvaged the engines), so therefore wasn't a hull loss resulting from an accident. There was another story of a total loss / burn out in the early days of QF domestic flying (1920's or 30's) and the company did some name changing, thus - "what a great safety record "WE" have!"
The old "touch wood" scenario would be haunting me if I went around saying "aren't we so safe". Its only a matter of time...
They are only people and the machines are still mechanical and electrical. Corporate arrogance is one thing, (To me they seem to have plenty of it at times) statistical enevitability is another!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well nobody is perfect and it may well have been a near write off. luckily it wasnt, and more importantly, there were no injuries, and the aircraft is still flying today. I put it to you, if you had the choice of a repair at half the cost of a new jet, which also kept your hull loss record at nil or a new jet which damaged your record at double the cost, what would you choose? Seems fairly logical to me.
From your post i would suggest you would rather have had a twisted lump of metal with body parts hanging out just to ruin the name of a generaly speaking safe operator. And as i said before touch would there are no bent aircraft for QF or any carrier for that matter. I suspect QF like many other airlines has had its fair share of luck.
From your post i would suggest you would rather have had a twisted lump of metal with body parts hanging out just to ruin the name of a generaly speaking safe operator. And as i said before touch would there are no bent aircraft for QF or any carrier for that matter. I suspect QF like many other airlines has had its fair share of luck.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney
Age: 64
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FACT of the matter is that QF don't get to decide if the hull is a write-off or not - the insurance company does!
And the insurance company said fix it.
For those of us that work here, I can assure you that safety is the first, the second, the third and the last priority...
We deserve the 'unrivalled safety record'.
And the insurance company said fix it.
For those of us that work here, I can assure you that safety is the first, the second, the third and the last priority...
We deserve the 'unrivalled safety record'.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casper that is possibly the most pathetic generalisation I have ever heard. The report indicates the fault is the use of the incorrect brake grease....and pray tell, that has what to do with Bangkok?
Surely you cant expect every evacuation to be text book perfect? There are so many variables involved things are bound create difficulties.
Really, I suspect this thread is more about those who have an axe to grind with QF rather than its safety record. You guys need to build a bridge and get over it.
Surely you cant expect every evacuation to be text book perfect? There are so many variables involved things are bound create difficulties.
Really, I suspect this thread is more about those who have an axe to grind with QF rather than its safety record. You guys need to build a bridge and get over it.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mostly hotels
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i am in no way connected to qantas,ok flew as a pax once.i congratulate the airline on their envious record and wish them all the best for the future. as far as bangkok incident is concerned, we are all human, if they salvaged their machine, and it is still airworthy, good for them.
I've flown for six airlines, all of which could make the "No hull loss" claim as or more justifiably as QF.
QF are a good, safe operator (though not as good OR safe as some might try and perpetuate) but they are hardly "Unrivaled".
QF are a good, safe operator (though not as good OR safe as some might try and perpetuate) but they are hardly "Unrivaled".
A brave move by Quantas I'd say!
bluloo, you're missing Casper's point.
The key parallel between the 2 incidents is the fact that the crews in both cases did not notice the absence of reverse thrust respectively full thrust.
Both reports also criticised evacuation procedures.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/pdf/200302980.pdf
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/acci/ojh/vh-ojh.pdf
The key parallel between the 2 incidents is the fact that the crews in both cases did not notice the absence of reverse thrust respectively full thrust.
Both reports also criticised evacuation procedures.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/pdf/200302980.pdf
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/acci/ojh/vh-ojh.pdf
Last edited by RevMan2; 31st Mar 2005 at 09:12.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
QF aren't the only operator to have had a 744 end up in 'interesting' circumstances, then repair it & put it back in service:
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/f-gita/photo.shtml
This one, however, was a bit too soggy (and the bent nose probably didn't help):
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/296829/M/
But yes, does seem to tempt fate a tad. When the film 'Rain Man' was released, QF showed it on IFE - but with Dustin Hoffman's piece about Qantas being the safest airline, quietly left on the cutting room floor...
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/f-gita/photo.shtml
This one, however, was a bit too soggy (and the bent nose probably didn't help):
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/296829/M/
But yes, does seem to tempt fate a tad. When the film 'Rain Man' was released, QF showed it on IFE - but with Dustin Hoffman's piece about Qantas being the safest airline, quietly left on the cutting room floor...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Revman, Sydney landings on 34L (some 4000m) prior to 6am, require idle reverse due curfew limits. As I am sure you are aware there is adequate distance for this and reverse should in this instance (unlike bangkok) should have had negligable effect. In fact this landing happens for almost every carrier every day prior to 6am. It is well within normal standard performance capability of jumbo. And it would have been a non event had the corrrect grease been used.
For your info another jumbo landed a few days later with a brake fire too- as a result of same grease problem, only this time nil evacuation as ground crew had been advised on how to provide better information to flight deck to prevent unnecessary evacuation.
For your info another jumbo landed a few days later with a brake fire too- as a result of same grease problem, only this time nil evacuation as ground crew had been advised on how to provide better information to flight deck to prevent unnecessary evacuation.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wherever i lay my hat, that's my home...
Age: 44
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It just seems a little like Shipping safety figures to me.
"Draw a line under the Titanic and move on."
I know that I have para'd... Dave Gunson I think.
"Draw a line under the Titanic and move on."
I know that I have para'd... Dave Gunson I think.
Both reports also criticised evacuation procedures
Easy to be critical in hindsight.
Bluloo
ATSB findings - SYD
3.2 Significant factors
Flight Crew Actions
1. The inadvertent de-selection of reverse thrust
2.The flight crew failed to detect the deselection
ATSB findings - BKK
6.1 Significant active failures
The flight crew did not select (or notice the absence of) idle reverse thrust
The flight crew did not select (or notice the absence of) full reverse thrust
Failure to detect = Did not notice =
common factors determined as having significantly contributed to both incidents.
ATSB findings - SYD
3.2 Significant factors
Flight Crew Actions
1. The inadvertent de-selection of reverse thrust
2.The flight crew failed to detect the deselection
ATSB findings - BKK
6.1 Significant active failures
The flight crew did not select (or notice the absence of) idle reverse thrust
The flight crew did not select (or notice the absence of) full reverse thrust
Failure to detect = Did not notice =
common factors determined as having significantly contributed to both incidents.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the QF's record a good one considering it is one of the oldest airline in the world.....yes.
Is it wise to bring up safety records in advertising...... I doubt it.
Do the vast majority of QF crews try and be as professional as they can like all good airline crews do......yes.
Do QF crews fly in CAVOK all the time.....no.
Can QF crews make the odd mistake like any other airline's crew.....I would say so.
Are some of you fellow pilots having a go at QF crews because you think it is clever and because you can........it would seem so.
Am I a QF pilot.... I guess you have already worked that out.
See you in the pub!
Is it wise to bring up safety records in advertising...... I doubt it.
Do the vast majority of QF crews try and be as professional as they can like all good airline crews do......yes.
Do QF crews fly in CAVOK all the time.....no.
Can QF crews make the odd mistake like any other airline's crew.....I would say so.
Are some of you fellow pilots having a go at QF crews because you think it is clever and because you can........it would seem so.
Am I a QF pilot.... I guess you have already worked that out.
See you in the pub!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody denies the Qantas achievement. But is Qantas really that big an airline ? How many departures a year does Qantas carry out, compared with American, United, Continental, Delta, Southwest, or even British, Lufthansa and Japan ? My point is that some of these airlines fly in a month or two what it takes Qantas a year to achieve in terms of flights flown.
