More Qantas woes - Page 2

xy500 · 25-01-2011, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJR-351

Gotta love the media....

Have been listening to reports on the latest Qantas mishap on the Adelaide/Melbourne run, one report says the plane dropped 10000ft and another says 16000m....

Bit of a difference there guys....

16km? sounds like the jet must've dropped out of orbit!

**DJR-351** · 25-01-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason[98.EL]

Qantas passenger jet drops 26,000 feet

makes you wonder even more about the people reporting this stuff

Just done the maths using all the reports and it looks like the plane is 16493.23ft or 5027.137m under ground........and all survived!!!......

**Kingsley** · 25-01-2011, 03:03 PM

Oldie but a goodie;

Technical problem or defect reported by pilot or crew. Remedial action or answer reported by maintenance engineer
Something loose in cockpit. Something tightened in cockpit.
Left-inside main tyre (tire) almost needs replacing. Almost replaced left-inside main tyre.
Autopilot tends to drop a wing when fuel imbalance reaches 500lbs. Flight manual limits maximum fuel imbalance to 300lbs.
Unfamiliar noise coming from No2 engine. Engine run for three hours. Noise now familiar.
Mouse in cockpit. Cat installed.
Target radar hums. Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.
Number three engine missing. [not firing properly presumably] Engine found on starboard [right] wing after brief search.
Pilot's clock inoperative. Wound clock.
Aircraft handles funny. Aircraft told to straighten up, fly right and be serious.
Whining sound heard on engine shutdown. Pilot removed from aircraft.
Noise coming from under instrument panel - sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer. Took hammer away from midget.
Suspected crack in windshield. Suspect you are right.
IFF inoperative. [IFF = Identification, Friend or Foe.] IFF always inoperative in 'off' mode.
Test flight okay except Auto-Land very rough. Auto-Land is not installed on this aircraft.
No2 ADF needle runs wild. [ADF = Automatic Direction Finder/Finding?] Caught and tamed No2 ADF needle.
Turn and slip indicator ball stuck in center during turns. Congratulations. You just made your first coordinated turn!
Dead bugs on windshield. Live bugs on back order.
Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces 200 feet per minute descent. Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
Evidence of leak on right main landing gear. Evidence removed.
Three roaches in cabin. One roach killed, one wounded, one got away.
DME volume set unbelievably loud. [DME = Distance Measuring Equipment?] DME volume set to more believable level.
No2 propeller seeping prop fluid. No2 propeller seepage normal. Nos 1, 3 and 4 propellers lack normal seepage.
Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick. That's what they are for.

Jason[98.EL] · 25-01-2011, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJR-351

Just done the maths using all the reports and it looks like the plane is 16493.23ft or 5027.137m under ground........and all survived!!!......

I guess that the people on the plane were bloody lucky then

flappist · 25-01-2011, 03:31 PM

If pressurisation fails in any way they have to descent to 10,000 ft by law.

The average person cannot survive above 10,000 ft with smokers and overweight or asthmatic people not even being able to hang on there for very long.

The systems do not have to fail completely or even partially, they just has to come up with warnings in the pointy bit and off they go.

Streets · 26-01-2011, 02:01 PM

I love how a controlled descent to 10,000 feet becomes a white-knuckle out-of-control nose-dive

Jim Goose · 26-01-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streets

I love how a controlled descent to 10,000 feet becomes a white-knuckle out-of-control nose-dive

Actually for passengers it is white knuckle.. once a cabin depressurizes they must make a very rapid decent (as long as the plane is structurally sound that is).

I did it twice during training, once in a Kingair and in a TBM700 (both turboprops). 8000fpm was around the rate we went down in both..

There is only a limited amount of oxygen in the masks (cant remember the number but i think its 2 minutes?). So from 36000ft they have to get to 10000ft in a hurry.

pottery beige · 26-01-2011, 02:28 PM

yawnn bloody media at it again.....
i jump on six flying skippys every couple of weeks up and back to work...
never occured to me they may fall out of the sky......
too busy snoozing to worry about death........

xy500 · 26-01-2011, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Actually for passengers it is white knuckle..

only if you are soft!

Bud Bud · 27-01-2011, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason[98.EL]

Qantas passenger jet drops 26,000 feet

makes you wonder even more about the people reporting this stuff

I must be missing something here

From the article-
plunged 26,000ft
cruising at 36,000ft
drop to 10,000ft
so 36,000 feet (operating flight level)
- 26,000 feet ( the amount of height the flight crew need to lose)
= 10,000 feet ( the required height by law for flight crew to operate within a non pressurised environment without the aid of an independent oxygen supply)

I still don't get the mistake???

My C.A R.s’ (and my PPL) are a little rusty but perhaps ltd or flappist can bring me back up to speed, I think from memory that in a non pressurised aircraft the pilot is required by law to have an independent oxygen supply from 10,000 feet, and pax are required by law to breath from an independent oxygen supply from 13,000 feet.

The plane would need to descend to 10,000 feet for the sake of the flight crew by law, regardless of the needs of the passengers.

Bud Bud

gtfpv · 27-01-2011, 10:02 AM

i think it is normal to be concerned , qantas was /is our 5 star airline and , we like to think of it as the safest in the world , then we sold it to america years ago , now we got rid of our australian engineering maintenance to some degree , which was what gave us the safety world record , and now we are having record near misses , and being told not to worry , other airplanes fall out of the sky .
these things are happening , and we are being dumbed down and told it's all ok .
when there is a major , are we then going to be told that all the other problems had nothing to do with this one , and it is all normal .
sounds like qantas have factored in losses of life and aircraft , over safety standards , and still come out on top $$$$ wise .
thats my mainstream society concern .
BASH IT WITH DEFENSE IF YOU LIKE .

I CANT QUESTION THE SKILLS OF THE PILOTS AND CREWS , but why are they having to utalise evasive emergency precedures to save them ? nothing wrong with thier total avoidence of catastrophe measures , however , that shouldnt be the safety factors that people rely on .
soon the world saftey record will be based on how the pilots managed to save hundreds of near death mehanical . explosions / electrical and hyd failures etc etc .
but maintenance cost cutting isnt the cause .
ohh look darling lets fly Qantas , they had 780 failures in the air last year and no crashes . they must be the worlds safest airline . i'm glad they are looking after the passengers .

Jim Goose · 27-01-2011, 10:28 AM

Bud Bud they were referring to different articles where one said it dropped 16000m... not feet....

Bud Bud · 27-01-2011, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Bud Bud they were referring to different articles where one said it dropped 16000m... not feet....

Ahh thanks Jim Goose, I see that reference now. Cheers.

Bud Bud

ELGT4me · 27-01-2011, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xy500

only if you are soft!

Ha ha, Sounds like your an ex FIFO employee!!! I still have nightmares about Skipper's flights to Jundee years ago.

**Professor Farnsworth** · 27-01-2011, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

I must be missing something here

From the article-
plunged 26,000ft
cruising at 36,000ft
drop to 10,000ft
so 36,000 feet (operating flight level)
- 26,000 feet ( the amount of height the flight crew need to lose)
= 10,000 feet ( the required height by law for flight crew to operate within a non pressurised environment without the aid of an independent oxygen supply)

I still don't get the mistake???

My C.A R.s’ (and my PPL) are a little rusty but perhaps ltd or flappist can bring me back up to speed, I think from memory that in a non pressurised aircraft the pilot is required by law to have an independent oxygen supply from 10,000 feet, and pax are required by law to breath from an independent oxygen supply from 13,000 feet.

The plane would need to descend to 10,000 feet for the sake of the flight crew by law, regardless of the needs of the passengers.

Bud Bud

yes i was looking at the posts as well and wondering what the issue was?

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

If you can't afford to pay $400 to fly from Sydney to Melbourne then you should take a bus or a train. Aircraft will only get you there 10 hours earlier.

that's right! Also:

If you can't afford a Department Store pc, you should stick to using an abucus

If you can't afford an F6E, you should ride a scooter or walk

If you can't afford a University Degree, you should just stay at home your whole life, and smoke funny stuff

If you can't afford a 65" 200hz 3D LED TV, you should just sit with your family around the "wireless" for all your entertainment needs

If you can't spring for fine china to eat your dinner from, you should just throw the food on the ground and feast on it like a wild dog

Life is full of options, without them it would be more of a communist regime, so if you have money to burn then fine go for what your ideals tell you to go for, however until i'm earning substantially more for what i do, i'll stick to what fits into the budget better.

EgoFG · 27-01-2011, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtfpv

then we sold it to america years ago

Interesting tidbit.
It is currently a publicly listed company on the Australian Stock exchange.
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/c...de&asxCode=QAN
I don't see the American ownership thingy ?
Please ellaborate

Jim Goose · 27-01-2011, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EgoFG

Interesting tidbit.
It is currently a publicly listed company on the Australian Stock exchange.
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/c...de&asxCode=QAN
I don't see the American ownership thingy ?
Please ellaborate

I believe British Airways and Singapore Airlines are the biggest stock holders of Qantas? Qantas has never been in American hands?

nuthin' fancy · 27-01-2011, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

If pressurisation fails in any way they have to descent to 10,000 ft by law.

The average person cannot survive above 10,000 ft with smokers and overweight or asthmatic people not even being able to hang on there for very long.

The systems do not have to fail completely or even partially, they just has to come up with warnings in the pointy bit and off they go.

It is actually the opposite way around, the fitter you are, the more you suffer. The class of person least likely to not suffer at altitude are middle aged, overweight male smokers.

AU3XSR · 28-01-2011, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Actually for passengers it is white knuckle.. once a cabin depressurizes they must make a very rapid decent (as long as the plane is structurally sound that is).

I did it twice during training, once in a Kingair and in a TBM700 (both turboprops). 8000fpm was around the rate we went down in both..

There is only a limited amount of oxygen in the masks (cant remember the number but i think its 2 minutes?). So from 36000ft they have to get to 10000ft in a hurry.

The 'plunge' or 'plummeted' bit in the news articles is typical of the rubbish that media put out when sensationalising these stories. How a plane can 'plummet' during a controlled descent when the most serious failure is of your airconditioning i do not understand. The concept that qantas is responsible for most of the incidents is convenient but highly fallacious. They are no more responsible for this than ford is for the a/C failing in my 5 year old BF.

Swordsman88 · 28-01-2011, 01:36 AM

12000ft would do in a pinch if you oxygen runs out but the rules say 10k so that is what you aim for. 8000fpm is not mucking around but i don't know if the 737 would be able to maintain that rate for long. Idle thrust and straight to the barber's pole gives you something like 6000fpm in a 767 over the course of the descent.....you can keep it to that easy enough with flight spoilers and the like. 737-4 is hardly the cleanest bird out there so you can't imaging it being too hard to get down in time. I thought it was 5minutes not 2 but i may be wrong. Oxygen supply to passengers lasts at least that long and the crew supply (including backup bottles) lasts twice that. Not sure for non-airline models....

Jim Goose · 28-01-2011, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AU3XSR

The 'plunge' or 'plummeted' bit in the news articles is typical of the rubbish that media put out when sensationalising these stories. How a plane can 'plummet' during a controlled descent when the most serious failure is of your airconditioning i do not understand. The concept that qantas is responsible for most of the incidents is convenient but highly fallacious. They are no more responsible for this than ford is for the a/C failing in my 5 year old BF.

Yes it is a controlled descent, but as stated they need to do it as quickly as possible, a 10000fpm (or even 8000fpm) is an "unnatural" attitude which passengers are not subjected to during a normal flight, hence to them, the untrained passenger the plane is plummeting to earth and the end is neigh!

mik · 28-01-2011, 11:42 AM

it must be costing Qantas a fortune in fuel dumps

Swordsman88 · 28-01-2011, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Yes it is a controlled descent, but as stated they need to do it as quickly as possible, a 10000fpm (or even 8000fpm) is an "unnatural" attitude which passengers are not subjected to during a normal flight, hence to them, the untrained passenger the plane is plummeting to earth and the end is neigh!

Then nose down is a bit pronounced so you do make a good point. I should fire up the sim and try out an emergency descent and see what i can get the old 763 to do.

Mik makes a good point RE fuel dumps. Not so much of an issue with the smaller aircraft (can't dump fuel anyway) but the 744 flights may have thrown a bit over the side or else hold to burn if off. Either way these sorts of things are costly but that is something the guy complaining about not getting an extra can of coke never considers...