QANTAS Explosive Decompression in Flight - Everyone OK

[SelectSys]

See the link:

 

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jUDd_bwYvIiQL0-ixzTOVzHGii7A

[M&A]

Wow that's a huge hole in the fuselage!!

[greatam]

Unless it was conclusively proven that there were "bomb" type materials in the cargo hold, could be new regulations for aerosols in checked baggage.

 

The pilot did an absolutely spectacular job getting the plane from 30,000 feet to below 10,000. One of the passengers on the plane said it felt like it looks when you see a fighter jet take a big dive. Quite an exciting ride and an excellent outcome!!!!

[SelectSys]

Wow that's a huge hole in the fuselage!!

 

The damage to United's 747 when it lost its cargo door in 1989 was even larger and it still stayed in the air. Thankfully this is one tough aircraft.

 

Congratulations to the QANTAS crew! QANTAS has an incredible safety record with no loss of life in jet aircraft mainline service due to crashes or other life-threatening incidents.

[ohioNCLcruiser]

That United was a big hole but remember this Aloha airlines flight? Pilot was able to land the plane like this.

 

[FlyerTalker]

Keep those seat belts fastened......

[Globaliser]

Keep those seat belts fastened......

Always, always, always.

 

Not sure whether it's a good thing or a bad thing that it wasn't one of the Ugly Sisters. Although it's a good thing that it wasn't -OJH.

[SelectSys]

Not sure whether it's a good thing or a bad thing that it wasn't one of the Ugly Sisters. Although it's a good thing that it wasn't -OJH.

 

You piqued my interest on this one. I went to planespotters.net to look at the history of QF's 747's. It seems that just a few of QF's aircraft were acquired from second hand from MH and Asiana. Others?

 

Some other aircraft originally delivered to QF went back and forth between QF and Garuda. For the Garuda aircraft, it seems like QF must have continued to perform maintenance as part of a lease? Is this true? If so, what was the history behind these short leases?

[SelectSys]

That United was a big hole but remember this Aloha airlines flight?

 

Yep, I remember this one. I think the aircraft had an incredible number of cycles on the airframe in a highly corrosive environment - HI. Amazing it held together. Good thing that aircraft are designed with such incredible structural integrity.

 

Are there any similar incidents with Airbus aircraft where major structural damage and decompression occured and the aircraft was still able to land?

[Globaliser]

You piqued my interest on this one. I went to planespotters.net to look at the history of QF's 747's. It seems that just a few of QF's aircraft were acquired from second hand from MH and Asiana. Others?

QF took three 744s from those airlines at a time when supply in the market was really tight, but the Asian airlines were suffering in the post-1997 financial crisis, and QF was desperately short of lift. But the experience has not been happy, and reached a particularly low point relatively recently when a D-check showed very serious structural cracking caused by the improper use of metal (rather than plastic) implements to scrape off paint when the aircraft were being repainted in QF colours on their sale to QF. The damage took years to manifest itself, and was almost serious for the aircraft to be written off.

 

QF won't make that mistake again any time soon, although I understand that they have now permanently kept on the ex-BA 767s which they had already had on lease for a long time.

Some other aircraft originally delivered to QF went back and forth between QF and Garuda. For the Garuda aircraft, it seems like QF must have continued to perform maintenance as part of a lease? Is this true? If so, what was the history behind these short leases?

Don't know about the details of short-term leases to Garuda, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Are there any similar incidents with Airbus aircraft where major structural damage and decompression occured and the aircraft was still able to land?

No, of course not. Everyone knows that all Airbus aircraft are complete rubbish, built only with tissue paper and spit, and will fall apart in midair if anyone so much as slams the cockpit door! ;)

[SelectSys]

the experience has not been happy, and reached a particularly low point relatively recently when a D-check showed very serious structural cracking caused by the improper use of metal (rather than plastic) implements to scrape off paint when the aircraft were being repainted in QF colours on their sale to QF. The damage took years to manifest itself, and was almost serious for the aircraft to be written off.

 

Oops, that doesn't sound too good. In a somewhat related thought, I did see in some of the news regarding this incident that both QF maintenance workers and pilots were speculating that outsourced maintenance to might have been part of the issue. I realize that this is self serving by QF's employees, but your tale above suggests it is an argument with some merit.

 

QF won't make that mistake again any time soon, although I understand that they have now permanently kept on the ex-BA 767s which they had already had on lease for a long time.

 

Not surprising given that they were maintained by BA. It makes me think of all the recent trading in 757's for narrow body transatlantic service. For example, CO picked up a fair number from ATA.

 

Everyone knows that all Airbus aircraft are complete rubbish, built only with tissue paper and spit, and will fall apart in midair if anyone so much as slams the cockpit door! ;)

 

I didn't think so. I think almost every major incidents with Airbus aircraft have been pilot error - even the "Azores Glider" I would bet. The only one that is kind of suspicious that I know of was is AA's A300 loss.

[ohioNCLcruiser]

Not surprising given that they were maintained by BA. It makes me think of all the recent trading in 757's for narrow body transatlantic service. For example, CO picked up a fair number from ATA.

.

 

I might be wrong but I thought the only 757s CO picked up from ata were the -300s that don't go over seas.

[SelectSys]

I might be wrong but I thought the only 757s CO picked up from ata were the -300s that don't go over seas.

 

I'm sure you are right. I just looked at CO first as they were the airline that made me notice the reintroduction of narrow body transatlantic service. Perhaps the ATA planes were used to free up more suitable 757's for transatlantic service.

[MMDown Under]

"Oops, that doesn't sound too good. In a somewhat related thought, I did see in some of the news regarding this incident that both QF maintenance workers and pilots were speculating that outsourced maintenance to might have been part of the issue. I realize that this is self serving by QF's employees, but your tale above suggests it is an argument with some merit."

 

Qantas engineers had been on limited strike to force management to agree to wage increases. Fortunately, this dispute was recently settled. As Qantas has an excellent safety record, I couldn't understand management's penny pinching attitude to what seemed to me a reasonable log of claims for such a vital service. Especially seeing senior management had given themselves huge salary increases last year.

[SelectSys]

Qantas engineers had been on limited strike to force management to agree to wage increases. Fortunately, this dispute was recently settled. As Qantas has an excellent safety record, I couldn't understand management's penny pinching attitude to what seemed to me a reasonable log of claims for such a vital service. Especially seeing senior management had given themselves huge salary increases last year.

 

Great news for all involved!

[Globaliser]

Oops, that doesn't sound too good. In a somewhat related thought, I did see in some of the news regarding this incident that both QF maintenance workers and pilots were speculating that outsourced maintenance to might have been part of the issue. I realize that this is self serving by QF's employees, but your tale above suggests it is an argument with some merit.

It's totally self-serving. The QF engineering unions are talking up the "all foreigners are dangerous" line, which (perhaps surprisingly) goes down quite well with the general Australia public. Of course, a moment's thought (particularly about the BA 767s and indeed also the 747 that QF had on a long lease) would show the falsity of that. Implicitly, what is meant is that which can't be said: "all non-white foreigners are dangerous".

 

To understand the falsity of that, you then have to know a lot more about the airliner maintenance industry around the world. Yes, there are certainly places to which Qantas would be very well advised not to send their aircraft for maintenance. It was surprising that they used the shop that they did for the pre-delivery jobs on the Ugly Sisters. But (IIRC) -OJH was repaired at Xiamen which (IIRC) is a facility part-owned and run by Cathay Pacific. Indeed, if QF were to outsource all its maintenance to HAECO, could anyone reasonably lose even a single moment's sleep?

 

Incidentally, on my usual reference source I couldn't find any QF aircraft that have gone back and forth to Garuda, so I suspect that these must have been very short-term arrangements that didn't involve re-registration.

I didn't think so. I think almost every major incidents with Airbus aircraft have been pilot error - even the "Azores Glider" I would bet. The only one that is kind of suspicious that I know of was is AA's A300 loss.

Actually, that A300 was almost as clear a case as one can have of "pilot error" being the cause of the accident - a gung-ho pilot, known to have a propensity for stamping hard on the rudder pedals, unnecessarily stamped on the rudder pedals so hard he broke the aircraft. And even then, there were a number of other underlying problems so that he wasn't the only cause.

 

Almost all of the others were the usual complex multi-factorial mix, in which the pilots are blamed either because they're dead and can't defend themselves against the slur of "pilot error", and/or because they happen to have been unable to deal adequately with what was thrown at them by other circumstances.

[Goldryder]

Just to put record straight...

 

Azores Glider was due to the wrong part being fitted by maintenance staff and not anything to do with the crew flying it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236

 

The Qantas jet problem could have been caused by many things. Collision with ground equipment is a possible scenario...baggage conveyor could have hit the wing fairing and dented it in such a way that its integrity was lost...or an oxygen bottle got loose and went bang after take-off.

 

Everyone will find out in around 6 months time when the prelim comes out, followed by a full report in around 12 months. (I will get both as on list of recipients for accident reports from AAIB, NTSB & ATSB).

 

Either way the Qantas jet passengers were as lucky as the Air France 340 in Toronto....both could have ended far worse for all involved.

[SelectSys]

Base Topic: It looks like the pilot's oxygen tanks are being looked at closely in the preliminary investigation:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24087125-23349,00.html

 

It's totally self-serving. The QF engineering

unions are talking up the "all foreigners are dangerous" line, which (perhaps surprisingly) goes down quite well with the general Australia public. Of course, a moment's thought (particularly about the BA 767s and indeed also the 747 that QF had on a long lease) would show the falsity of that. Implicitly, what is meant is that which can't be said: "all non-white foreigners are dangerous".

 

Off-topic: I sort of thought Australia was moving beyond this phase of its evolution as a nation. While the US certainly has a checkered past in terms of race relations, the dominant theme in the US against foriegn outsourcing / offshoring / acquisitions is all about money and power. You never here anything about race - at least on the "left coast".

 

Incidentally, on my usual reference source I couldn't find any QF aircraft that have gone back and forth to Garuda, so I suspect that these must have been very short-term arrangements that didn't involve re-registration.

 

I saw this on planespotters.net.

[MMDown Under]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/qantas-checks-cylinders/2008/07/27/1217097059899.html

 

Latest Sydney Morning Herald article on cylinder checks on all Qantas aircraft.

 

From one Australian's perspective, Australians aren't against outsourcing on the grounds of race. Most Australians believe in a "fair go". We don't look kindly at companies which don't treat their employees well and use outsourcing as a way of pushing down local wages and working conditions.

 

We like to think of Australia as an equitable country. However, sadly it is becoming less so.

[Globaliser]

Off-topic: I sort of thought Australia was moving beyond this phase of its evolution as a nation. While the US certainly has a checkered past in terms of race relations, the dominant theme in the US against foriegn outsourcing / offshoring / acquisitions is all about money and power. You never here anything about race - at least on the "left coast".

From one Australian's perspective, Australians aren't against outsourcing on the grounds of race. Most Australians believe in a "fair go". We don't look kindly at companies which don't treat their employees well and use outsourcing as a way of pushing down local wages and working conditions.

It would be fair enough if the unions just came out and said "We object to outsourcing because you're trying to pay us less money. You shouldn't send any work anywhere else because you should choose to use us even though it's much more expensive."

 

But they're saying "We object to outsourcing because sending the maintenance work overseas will risk safety because the overseas places won't do the work properly." And there is absolutely no doubt which unspoken card they're playing - and anyone who knows Australia well knows just how many people are, depressingly, still attracted by that particular card.

[Globaliser]

Some other aircraft originally delivered to QF went back and forth between QF and Garuda. For the Garuda aircraft, it seems like QF must have continued to perform maintenance as part of a lease? Is this true? If so, what was the history behind these short leases?

Had a bit more of a dig. Are you referring to the 743s that have gone out for 2-3 months at a time? They look like hajj leases to me.

[MMDown Under]

 

But they're saying "We object to outsourcing because sending the maintenance work overseas will risk safety because the overseas places won't do the work properly." And there is absolutely no doubt which unspoken card they're playing - and anyone who knows Australia well knows just how many people are, depressingly, still attracted by that particular card.

 

I think they have valid grounds to say the work won't be done as well as they would do. Their past record of safety standards speaks for itself. Qantas is recognised as a safe airline worldwide.

 

Judging by the decreasing quality of much of our imported goods, I would not like to see a similiar decreasing standard in airline maintenance.

 

I still believe opposition to outsourcing is not a race issue.

[ohioNCLcruiser]

Right now they are saying an oxygen cylinder is missing from the jet. They are talking about something going wrong with it and shooting out making the hole.

[Globaliser]

I think they have valid grounds to say the work won't be done as well as they would do. Their past record of safety standards speaks for itself. Qantas is recognised as a safe airline worldwide.

But they don't have valid grounds. Qantas is a very safe airline, but its maintenance standards are not unmatched by anywhere else. Just because you might not do better elsewhere does not mean that everywhere else is worse.

 

Take HAECO, for example, where the workforce is pretty much foreign and non-white - why would one even think about quibbling with the standards set there? The very claim that the work would not be done as well elsewhere is a xenophobic statement in itself. It is patently untrue - as well as implicitly offensive.

[MMDown Under]

As a way of explanation of my beliefs -

 

Once my husband got sick in USA en route to Canada. We were so relieved when we got into Canada, as Canada has a better public health system than the USA.

 

Do we think Americans can't do the job as well as Canadians? Of course not, but I'd rather be sick in Canada than the USA, because their health system is better for visiting foreigners.

 

Because Australia is/was a highly regulated country (but becoming increasingly less so, with globalisation), many of our systems are/were better.