Qantas a380 forced to turn back to sydney
 

Jus heard qantas a380 forced to turn back to sydney after strong fumes in cabin !!! Yet to find out if it was nancy bird or another!!


A QANTAS A380 was forced to make an emergency landing at Sydney Airport Wednesdau night after reports of smoke in the cabin.

The plane, which took off from Sydney bound for Singapore at 5.25pm, was about 30 minutes into the flight when the captain made the decision to turn back.

Emergency crews were put on standby at the airport, with firefighters and ambulances meeting the flight on the runway as it landed safely at about 8.10pm.

Paramedics boarded the aircraft to check over passengers and crew, but none of the 271 persons on board required further treatment.

A spokesman for Qantas said the decision to turn back was a "precaution'', saying the pilot made the call "due to a very strong smell in the cabin.''

He denied the smell was smoke, saying the airline was still trying to determine what had caused the smell.

"That's something that we'll be investigating,'' he said.

Passengers were provided accommodation overnight and are due to fly out at 8am today on a different aircraft.

The incident has been reported to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

Why is that relevant ?

Are you suggesting that the history of this particular airframe makes it unusually prone to defects and failures ?

Yes boy genius thats why i mentioned because if it is then its prone to problems :ugh:

Nancy Bird is the first a380 delivered and the pride of the fleet after last incident this doesn't do any justice in terms of media light and customer confidence...

Btw you can quit being a armchair ****** as well the post was regards to a incident not for an opportunity where you could tell the world how much you know more then someone else or that they have no idea :mad:

Calm down now, dear, it was a perfectly straightforward question.

"Yes" or "No" would have sufficed as an answer without the gratuitous, juvenile diatribe. :=

It took 12 seconds to research AH website, to find it was VH-OQF.

No need for the attitude, it was a perfectly reasonable question. god help your CRM course, if you are actually studying one...:ugh:

My problem is countless times i visit threads where alot of the forums members are a bunch of wannabe heros who give **** to newbies asking questions, posting threads or replying.... Just because one is new or is maybe not as knowledgeable its not a invitation to criticise or put down for your own self confidence or whatever the excuse....
What was so straight forward about the question my post was in regard to a Qantas jet being turn back to sydney (hence the title) not whether i believe due to this that the aircraft is prone for issues.


No wonder why i dont see too many newbies here or at least dont see them posting .... They all get scared away by you guys

PS: In Australia udachi its a CPL

CPT
 

You mix up CRM with CPL me thinks /////

and

I think more newbies are probably scared off by that kind of rant, than the other way around. There's no need for it whatsoever.

I thought this was Spotter's Corner?

271 pax in an A380....no wonder there are no share dividends being paid!

An A380 will ONLY make money when its full or close to it!

Thats not even counting the cost of the turnback, fuel dump(if it did/can), landing fees, pax onight accomodation, and generally starting the whole thing over again...

Exactly what i was amazed at EW73 ..... Dunno if that one has been reconfigured to more capacity !!!


Gilerguy the thread was moved to here dunno why

Probably because the mods didn't feel it have enough gravitas to be anywhere else.

May I respectfully suggest you loose the attitude as well, it won't do you any favours here in the long run.

I give advice to people on the forum in what i have experienced so far and why that may be a reason you rarely come across newbies.... and yes it was with attitude cause i was sick of seeing it.....
But again you dismiss my opinion amd advoce so ill dismiss yours

Really? Methinks the price charged for a seat is a factor in determining the break even load factor.

CPT733, you are the one with the problem. DavidReidUK's response to your post was a fairly innocuous question asking why the identity of the aircraft was of importance to you. Then you light off with a whole load of insults!

Maybe you should sit back quietly for a minute and re-read exactly what DavidReidUK's post said - and then apologise.

Have to agree with the replies to this thread, seems the OP is setting the example he is trying to highlight.

Breath, it's not worth this kind of carry on, if you have issues with "other" threads and responses then comment in them, instead of serving up a vile diatribe that only serves to make you look like the people you are complaining about.

I get what your saying ozsmac and i tried to ignore it and got a request to apoligise hence my last reply ..... All im trying to say is why question one sentence with clear negative intention when the thread had nothing to do with that small sentence i wrote .... i guess it all comes down to the day i posted this thread i had seen countless irritating replies on other threads, where poeple had been given crap to for less knowledge or diff opinions and once i saw the initial reply to my post and having seen where it goes from them i reacted before it occured

Exactly. You could charge a million pounds per seat, carry one passenger and make a profit. Or charge 3 pence per seat, fill it up and make a loss.

A spell and grammar checker wouldn't go a miss;)

I hope you are not a professional pilot.:rolleyes:

WTF has speling and gramur got to do with flying a aircraft?