Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 hours ago, Love to fly said:

All way outside my knowledge & experience, but I think once the Oceanic Datalink Comms transmission was triggered so was the Squawk 7700.  Media and many others monitor FlightRadar24 and similar for any aircraft squawking 7700.

So that's where the name comes from.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, onetrack said:

It's all about the impression of readiness. The people organising the ambulances obviously have no understanding of what a single engine landing entails, and they have been told to expect "injuries".

So they read "aircraft emergency landing" to attend to, and they envisage another UA Flight 232 event.

Best to be ready and standdown; than be needed and experience delays in responding.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative 1
Posted
4 hours ago, onetrack said:

The people organising the ambulances obviously have no understanding of what a single engine landing entails ...

And even those who DO have "understanding of what a single engine landing entails" can not know what it MIGHT entail (what, with one having quit for unknown reasons).

I'd be rolling the ambos if it was up to me, if only for fear of looking like a goose if it ended badly - a BA38 style arrival, say - with nary a first-aider in sight.

 

(BA Flight 38: the 777 that fell a bit short at LHR 15 years back.)

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38  )

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Posted

There's plenty of talk about maintenance outsourced to Malaysia. The CEO buys planes he is told don't need maintenance in the past.. Keeping quiet about the nature of the first engine failure. Nev

  • Like 1
Posted

Just another example of a journalistic brainfart when it comes to reporting anything aviation. The Herald-Sun published a photo purporting to show "Visible damage to Qantas 737 engine after mayday".

 

The picture showed the open thrust reverser door on the STARBOARD engine of a 737 when the engine failure occurred on the PORT engine.

 

May be an image of aeroplane and text that says "Visible damage to Qantas engine after mayday call INTAS ...... Herald Sun"

  • Haha 1
  • Informative 1
  • Winner 1
Posted

It doesn't even look like that engine photo is from that aircraft. 

  • Like 1
Posted

Well spotted, kgw. If the concrete barrier obscures the nosewheel, how can the taxiway beneath the engine be visible?

  • Like 1
Posted
On 20/01/2023 at 8:43 AM, Love to fly said:

Media and many others monitor FlightRadar24 and similar for any aircraft squawking 7700.

30+ years ago. I had a spar failure in a Pteradactyl on take off. (Yes, in those days safety reports were written on such events, look it up!) Anyway, my point is that the local commercial radio station, obviously through monitoring emergency vehicle frequencies, had reported an ultralight aircraft crash had killed the pilot. Thus my family were aware of my premature death before I was. Don't trust the media! Don

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Posted

THAT is unfortunately very true. Sensation (Headlines) beats boring truth and on the worst TV shows the ' Panel' is the Entertainment and SHOW and any facts are purely Co incidence.   "You're not wrong Young Harry). He's lit out on the Part Murdoch plays in all of the ROYAL Hoo Haa. In my view he's the best of  all that mob by a long way. Jeremy Clarkson is a grub. . Nev

  • Like 1
Posted

One of the most amusing things for me is Qantas has been known as the preferred option for safety....

 

When Virgin (both the English and the Australian company) have such a clean record, and are arguably the biggest competitor

  • Like 1
Posted

Others may have a good record, but compare it with Qantas and what is your answer. A few years ago I googled safest airline and the answer was KLM. It seems they started record keeping after the big KLM crash.

When did Qantas last have a fatal accident? When will they have another? Going on their current record it could be any day soon. It looks as if maintenance is not being done properly.

  • Like 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, Yenn said:

Others may have a good record, but compare it with Qantas and what is your answer. A few years ago I googled safest airline and the answer was KLM. It seems they started record keeping after the big KLM crash.

When did Qantas last have a fatal accident? When will they have another? Going on their current record it could be any day soon. It looks as if maintenance is not being done properly.

the answer is that Qantas had good PR, but the record isn't exactly matching.
 

Virgin Atlantic have had 2 major incidents but both aircraft are still flying and haven't had a fatality.

Hawaiian airlines has been flying since 1929 with no hull losses.

QANTAS has never had a fatal jet accident, But they were crashing seaplanes and DH. 84's into the 50's

they just happen to have built this reputation thanks to a movie line a few decades ago.

in fact of the list of Airlines that have never had a fatal accident.... QANTAS doesn't appear (except as JetStar)
 

  1. Air Berlin
  2. Air Europa
  3. AirTran Airways
  4. Allegiant Airways
  5. Cape Air
  6. Chautauqua Airlines
  7. CommutAir
  8. DragonAir
  9. Easyjet
  10. Emirates
  11. Era Alaska
  12. Expressjet Airlines
  13. Frontier Airlines
  14. GoJet Airlines
  15. Hainan Group
  16. Hawaiian Airlines
  17. Horizon Air
  18. Jazz air
  19. Jet airways
  20. JetBlue
  21. Jetstar
  22. Lion Airlines
  23. Mesa Airlines
  24. Olympic Airways
  25. Oman Airways
  26. Pinnacle Airlines
  27. Qatar Airways
  28. Republic Airlines
  29. Ryanair
  30. Shenzhen Airlines
  31. Shuttle America
  32. Southwest Airlines
  33. Spirit Airlines
  34. Swiss
  35. Trans State Airlines
  36. Transaero Airlines
  37. Ukraine International Airlines
  38. Vietnam Airlines
  39. Virgin Atlantic
  40. Virgin America
  41. Virgin Australia
  42. Vueling
  43. Westjet
  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Posted

The A380 incident was lucky anyone got off it alive.   The PR  dept has been in overdrive. No JET pax deaths in 100 years. When you cut maintenance you don't improve safety. Get rid of your regular  staff and hire off the street. Great for MORALE too. Nev

  • Like 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, facthunter said:

The A380 incident was lucky anyone got off it alive.   The PR  dept has been in overdrive. No JET pax deaths in 100 years. When you cut maintenance you don't improve safety. Get rid of your regular  staff and hire off the street. Great for MORALE too. Nev

Richard knew what he was doing.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Posted (edited)

The worst Qantas loss was the Avro Lancastrian (G-AGLX) that is believed to have exploded in mid-air due to suspected fuel leakage over the Indian Ocean between Columbo and the Cocos-Keeling Islands in 1946.

However, violent weather associated with crossing the ITCZ may also have been a factor. 

 

No trace of it was ever found, and all 10 on board perished. However, this aircraft was actually owned by BOAC, although it was operated by Qantas on the Colombo-Perth service.

 

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19460323-0

 

 

Edited by onetrack
  • Informative 1
Posted

There have now been 6 incidents in less than a week, the latest turnback to Fiji with fumes from the galley oven cited as the issue. Maybe it is just that these have all been reported in the Press when they normally wouldn't. Apparently there are over 10,000 turnbacks annually with Qantas averaging 60. They are well ahead of their average this year if the last week is anything to go by.

  • Informative 1
Posted

Whether you "turn back " or not depends on whether you have reached an equi time point. Many are a result of passenger behaviour, medical emergency and weather changes. You need a better definition. Turnback is a more military connotation.  "Unscheduled diversion or abnormal landing condition etc.".  Nev

  • Informative 2
Posted
23 hours ago, facthunter said:

…Turnback is a more military connotation.  "Unscheduled diversion or abnormal landing condition etc.".  Nev

Better than having a rapid, unscheduled disassembly.

  • Agree 1
Posted

A flight from Perth to Kalgoolie returned to Perth with technical difficulties at 5:20 lasdt night.

Posted

It was a Fokker 100, and it was a fault that wasn't really serious enough to turn the flight around - but it meant it had to be addressed upon landing in Kalgoorlie.

 

However, due to a shortage of engineers in Kalgoorlie, the decision was made to turn back to Perth, where engineers were actually available to rectify the fault.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-24/qantas-flight-perth-to-kalgoorlie-turned-back-mechanical-issues/101889308

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...