Qantas Plane Loses Electrical Power But Lands Safely In Bangkok

[peter991]

Qantas B747 has “total power failure” just before landing

Qantas narrowly avoided disaster early in the week after a London–Bangkok service lost power from all four of its generators 15 minutes before landing and was forced to land on battery power.

Flight QF2 carrying some 344 passengers on board was scheduled to arrive in Bangkok Monday afternoon at 3:55pm, when just before landing experienced an unusual power failure which caused its back-up batteries to kick in.

Qantas yesterday confirmed the incident saying, “This incident involved loss of electrical power on a Boeing 747 on descent into Bangkok.”

“The back-up system was activated and the aircraft landed safely,” said Chris Manning,

Qantas Chief Pilot. “The aircraft is currently being repaired and assessed.”

“Qantas reported the incident to Boeing, the ATSB [Australian Transport Safety Bureau] and Civil Aviation Safety Authority and is also conducting its own thorough investigation.”

Aviation experts say that Qantas has narrowly missed disaster as a plane flying on battery power could only stay in the air for around an hour.

Julian Walsh ATSB Aviation Safety Investigation Deputy Director, has said that the ATSB and Thai authorities were cooperating together to investigate the incident.

“Obviously Qantas, Boeing and ourselves are keen to get to the bottom of it,” said Mr Walsh. “The information I have at the moment is that it was a total power failure.”

Peter

[londonthai]

that's why airplanes suppose to fly over the airfields - just in case of an emergency

[taxexile]

interesting info about this incident here

[Lilawadee]

Come on, London to Bangkok is almost completely over land. One hour is plenty of time to get it on the ground somewhere.

It's a bit hard to comment in detail without the full report of course, but I would assume that the propellor-oparated generator (RAT, Ram Air Turbine) deployed, supplying electricity for essential systems.

[Jai Dee]

Qantas plane loses electrical power but lands safely in Bangkok

A jumbo jet lost its main electrical power as it prepared to land in Bangkok and was forced to rely on a back-up system, Australian airline Qantas said Wednesday.

"The incident involved loss of electrical power on a Boeing 747 on descent into Bangkok on 7th January, 2008," Qantas chief pilot Chris Manning said in a statement. "The back-up system was activated and the aircraft arrived safely."

Qantas said it had reported the incident to Boeing and aviation authorities and was conducting its own thorough investigation but was unable to comment further until its inquiries were completed.

Aviation sources told The Australian newspaper the incident was highly unusual and could have spelled disaster for the flight carrying 344 passengers.

"If this had happened over the ocean in the middle of the night, it would probably have crashed," an experienced 747 pilot told the paper.

A Qantas engineer familiar with the the 747-400's said the plane's back-up systems would likely only be able to supply power for up to an hour.

"It's pretty dramatic if they've lost all generation systems," he said.

Another 747-400 pilot told the paper he knew of two similar incidents and that the plane could "quite comfortably cope with it for a limited period of time."

Australian Transport Safety Bureau deputy director of aviation safety investigation Julian Walsh said it was too early to say what caused the power loss.

"Obviously Qantas, Boeing and ourselves are keen to get to the bottom of it," he told The Australian.

"The information I have at the moment is that it was a total power failure."

The plane involved in the incident was due to arrive back in Sydney later Wednesday, Qantas said.

Source: AFP - 09 January 2008

[Jai Dee]

Crash threat as Qantas jet loses power

A Qantas 747 with 344 passengers on board could have faced catastrophe after losing power from all four of its generators on its descent into Bangkok on Monday.

A Qantas spokeswoman was unable to say what systems were affected on flight QF2 from London to Bangkok or for how long the aircraft lost power.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said it had been told the power from the main generators was lost 15 minutes away from Bangkok.

The pilot was then forced to switch to battery back-ups for the landing.

"This incident involved loss of electrical power on a Boeing 747 on descent into Bangkok," Qantas chief pilot, Captain Chris Manning, said in a statement.

"The back-up system was activated and the aircraft landed safely.

"Qantas reported the incident to Boeing, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and is also conducting its own thorough investigation. The aircraft is currently being repaired and assessed."

A spokeswoman added: "Because it is under investigation, we are unable to provide any further information at this stage."

If the power failure had occurred further away from an airport there could have been a serious accident, Australian Transport Safety Bureau deputy director of aviation Julian Walsh said.

"Obviously there's a limit to the battery power that's available," Mr Walsh said.

"Obviously, if they were a long way from an airport then clearly there would have been potential for some sort of accident.

"All we've been advised is that there was a failure of the four electrical generators on the aircraft 15 minutes out of Bangkok - it's quite unusual."

Mr Walsh said he was liaising with his Thai counterparts to see if they would investigate the incident. If they did investigate the ATSB would send a representative to assist, he said.

Source: Sydney Morning Herald - 08 January 2008

[Jai Dee]

Faulty Qantas jet back in Sydney

A QANTAS aircraft that lost main electrical power heading into Bangkok on Monday has been repaired and landed in Sydney this afternoon.

The Boeing 747-400 was operating Flight QF2 and was about 15 minutes out of Bangkok when the highly unusual failure took place and a battery back-up system kicked in.

The battery back-up is designed to provide at least 30 minutes of power but aviation sources said the failure could potentially have been disastrous had it happened over the ocean at night.

The aircraft landed safely and passengers were accommodated overnight. Some were transferred to other flights while it was repaired and checked and others came back on the aircraft today.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating the incident, which has also been reported to Boeing and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

A passenger has told the ABC that the plane was delayed in London because of electrical problems but it is not clear whether the delay was connected to the failure.

Source: The Australian - 09 January 2008

[slapout]

Would not debate about 1 hour is enough time to get on ground, but as a passenger I would hope to land at an airport built for 747's, the only time I ever got on the ground under emergency conditions it was not pleasent but then I was informed its called a controlled crash. (that was the prop heads humor)

[Mosha]

A good landing is when you walk away from the aircraft. A brilliant one is when they get the aircraft to fly the next leg.

[geriatrickid]

I don't understand the disaster part, 30-60minutes is a fair amount of time for a pilot to undertake an emergency descent and to run through the checklist. These planes do have pilots that are capable of handling such emergency situations and they tend to be rather good at what they do, including making emergency landings if need be. This is the sort of story that terrifies the already jittery type of passenger. Sure it's serious, but I've flown enough in screwed up conditions including landing gear problems & engine failures to have confidence in the pilots to handle it.

Anyway, I was under the impression that Boeing had a wind generator device that could be lowered from the plane in the event of an emergency and this could generate additional power. (maybe I misread/misunderstood). Can't wait to read the views of the professional pilots in here. Gonna be an interesting & educational discussion.

[onethailand]

Wonderful... I'm booked to fly them in a couple weeks time on that exact route...

[astral]

So much for fly by wire..........

Better charge the battery first.

[lomatopo]

Come on, London to Bangkok is almost completely over land. One hour is plenty of time to get it on the ground somewhere.

True, but maybe not for SYD-LAX/SFO (popular QF routes operated with B747-400). ETOPS/EROPS/LROPS typically specify 180 minutes (3 hours).

It's providential that this happened so close to an airport and the destination, so that no fuel dumping was required to lighten the plane. I'd love to hear more about this failure as it sounds like four (4) independent sub-systems (power-generation associate with each engine) failed simultaneously? I believe QF uses the Rolls-Royce RB211-524H on their 747-400's?

It's great to see that QF is proactive in making information public.

Edited to add: Yikes, reading that PPRUNE thread, esp. post #33 (quoted below) indicates that this was quite dire. All because of a blocked toilet drain in first class.

Quote:

The aircraft (OJM) was on descent into BKK (late afternoon with fine weather conditions) when the cabin crew reported a major water leak in the first class galley area (turned out to be caused by blocked drains). Shortly after that the engine driven generators dropped offline accompanied by a huge number of related EICAS messages. Power was available only to the Captains PFD, ND and standby Attitude indicator. At the time that this happened, the leading edge flaps had already been deployed due to the 210 knot limit in the STAR for BKK. The crew started working through the checklists for the more important EICAS messages but after realising that they were not going to get the generators back on line the captain elected to get the aircraft on the ground ASAP before they ran out of battery power. Alt gear/flap extension, no anti-skid, no autobrakes, no thrust reverser were some of the issues that they dealt with in a very short timeframe and then landed safely. On the ground, outflow valves had to be manually opened using remaining DC power to depressurise prior to opening the doors. A flap assymetry occured when they tried to retract the flaps (believed to be due to elec control of leading edge flaps).

The directive that is now in force requires QF B744's to have every drain in the P & J class galleys (4 per galley, I believe) checked for blockages and then water is flushed through while the shields above the Main Electric Centre (MEC) are checked for integrity. There are directions as to how any repairs to the shields are to done and reports of every inspection are to be sent to Boeing's Maintenance Watch.

The main question to be answered is why the shields on OJM did not work - ie were they fitted correctly, cracked, etc and where was the last heavy maintenance check done.

Edited January 9, 2008 by lomatopo

[Spacer]

Read again Geriatrickid "the failure could potentially have been disastrous had it happened over the ocean at night." I can't recall the last time a 747 landed in the ocean and it wasn't disatrous.

I do like the idea of a wind generator if there is such a thing.

[Cobalt60]

Ram Air Turbines have been about since Pontious was a pilot, if they are fitted is another thing, some military aircraft have them.

[sniffdog]

=============================================================

can't recall the last time a 747 landed in the ocean and it wasn't disatrous.

=============================================================

Ask John Denver and he wasn't even flying a 747 .....

[sibeymai]

As it was stated quite plainly...."the failure could potentially have been disastrous had it happened over the ocean at night".....meaning that the batteries provide enough power for critical communication and navigation electronics for up to an hour, usually enough time to find an airport if over land, but maybe not enough time on a Sydney-LA flight. The engines and control systems are not affected as the engines have their own independent electrical power and the controls are hydraulic and also powered by the engines. The danger is that, over the ocean at night time, without any flight instruments after the batteries run down, the pilots would have no idea of altitude or horizon, no indication of banking or turning. In fact they could be flying upside down and not know it (yes, this is a bit far fetched but possible). There would be no autopilot either. Without any external point of reference the flight instruments and autopilot (and the pilot's observance of them) are the only things which prevent planes crashing into oceans at night.

Edited January 9, 2008 by sibeymai

[bino]

meaning electrical failure would not have a effect on control of the A/C. Standby Alt and IAS would still work ( unless freeze over due to loss of heat )

I'm no expert / aircraft engineer... but I am fairly certain that the A/C being referred to in this situation is Alternating Current, not Air Conditioning!

Edited January 9, 2008 by bino

[corkscrew]

Funny: the GOOGLE ads for this post are:

For Panic Attacks Panic Attacks Course Panic Attacks Review Panic Disorders

[chiang mai]

No air con and the food in Business/First would have to be served cold, too right it was a near disaster I would say.

[ClaytonSeymour]

Come on, London to Bangkok is almost completely over land. One hour is plenty of time to get it on the ground somewhere.

It's a bit hard to comment in detail without the full report of course, but I would assume that the propellor-oparated generator (RAT, Ram Air Turbine) deployed, supplying electricity for essential systems.

The 747-400 hasn't got RAT - the windmilling four engines are sufficient for supplying the hydraulic systems. The signalling used to control the plane is mechanical rather than electrical as found in other aircraft i.e. A340 which does have RAT.

[gregb]

The danger is that, over the ocean at night time, without any flight instruments after the batteries run down, the pilots would have no idea of altitude or horizon, no indication of banking or turning.

So does that mean, that on Boeing 747 aircraft, there are absolutely *NO* vacuum driven guages on the entire panel? Not even a 2" peanut?

Seems awfully dangerous to me. Granted, total electrical failures aren't supposed to happen, but a lightning strike could take out lots of things at the same time.

Total electrical failure, IFR, at night, and not a single vacuum guage on the whole panel? Sounds like a flying coffin....

I sure wouldn't want to be sitting left seat in that situation.

[gregb]

meaning electrical failure would not have a effect on control of the A/C. Standby Alt and IAS would still work ( unless freeze over due to loss of heat )

I'm no expert / aircraft engineer... but I am fairly certain that the A/C being referred to in this situation is Alternating Current, not Air Conditioning!

Actually, I think A/C in this situation means "aircraft"

Alt is short for altimeter, (there should be at least 1 mechanical altimeter, so not really an issue)

IAS I can't figure out...usually means indicated air speed. But I suspect he's referring to "attitude indicator", but I can't figure out the exact acronym.

[MrSquigle]

Maybe he meant ASI air speed indicator.

And certainly means AirCraft (A/C)

[jackspratt]

In fact they could be flying upside down and not know it (yes, this is a bit far fetched but possible).

So the safety harness pressing into their shoulders, plus the screams of the upside-down passengers and air crew would not indicate to the pilots that they are flying upside down.

Yes, it is a bit far fetched. Unless gravity had been switched off at the time of course.

[yorkman]

Come on, London to Bangkok is almost completely over land. One hour is plenty of time to get it on the ground somewhere.

It's a bit hard to comment in detail without the full report of course, but I would assume that the propellor-oparated generator (RAT, Ram Air Turbine) deployed, supplying electricity for essential systems.

The 747-400 hasn't got RAT - the windmilling four engines are sufficient for supplying the hydraulic systems. The signalling used to control the plane is mechanical rather than electrical as found in other aircraft i.e. A340 which does have RAT.

I used to fly the same before I failed a medical (eyesight) and had to move to a different career.

Clayton is correct, there is no RAT. It's a fitment on 2 engine sometimes.

The alternative is the APU. This is not certified for in air start and in any case would drain the batteries to such an extent that a failure to start would give you maybe, hmmm, 30 minutes in the air. In any case the generators would fail as they are located in the same place. A design fault on the 747.

The drill is that you have full primary instruments (ASI, ALT, vacuum Horizon, T&S) and (Com 1, Nav 1, ILS indicators). Flaps and Gear have overides for deployment.

You just fly it in like a 100 hour PPL in a Cessna who wants an instrument rating.

It's due to the good training of the Quantas flight deck crew that this is not a real emergency. Makes good news though eh??

[CbrLad]

Come on, London to Bangkok is almost completely over land. One hour is plenty of time to get it on the ground somewhere.

It's a bit hard to comment in detail without the full report of course, but I would assume that the propellor-oparated generator (RAT, Ram Air Turbine) deployed, supplying electricity for essential systems.

The 747-400 hasn't got RAT - the windmilling four engines are sufficient for supplying the hydraulic systems. The signalling used to control the plane is mechanical rather than electrical as found in other aircraft i.e. A340 which does have RAT.

The problem with your theory is the engines were running, what they lost was the electrical power generated by the engines. Hence the need to go to batteries. However most correct even without that the control surfaces are mechanical control so they still would have been able to bring it in, just without any electrical aid or system.

Now people talk about 1 hour flying time from a suitable landing airport, but many flights already go beyond this time. For a twin the max at the moment is 207 minutes, as done by 777's flying the Atlantic.

It is funny talk is alrady going on about shoddy maintenance (by maintenance staff in dispute with Qantas), but thus far little mainteance is done offshore and certainly the fault that lead to this problem was not caused by shoddy offshore mainteance.

The bottom line is sometimes shit happens. The good thing is the aircraft have the back-up systems to get the aircraft on the ground. What more could you ask for. Even A340's and other FBW aircraft have back-up systems for this kind of fault.

I am meant to be flying on -OJM BKK-LHR on 3rd March hope it is 100%. No doubt it will be. Oh before anyone ask's I know it is going to be -OJM as this is the first aircraft that Qantas plan to fit with premium economy seating and my flight on the 3rd is being flown by such a config. At that stage it will be the only a/c so fitted.

Edited January 9, 2008 by CbrLad

[MrSquigle]

but peeing in his pants and running down his nose might alert him of a possible abnormality.

[sibeymai]

Assuming that there are some manual instruments present by which controlled flight could be maintained when all electronic instruments fail at night (in either cloud or over water) the issue then becomes one of direction. Surely there must be a manual compass on board.

There have been cases in the past where pilots have navigated by stars when instruments fail or prove unreliable at night. I wonder how many pilots today know celestial navigation. Maybe if they sail as a pastime, but even then you'd have to know a star for the area of sky you're in.

Then having arrived over a landing area to possibly have to land at night with no ILS would be a challenge for the best polits. Can anyone confirm if this is a simulation exercise ?

Hope the toilets still work in such a situation....they would be much needed.

[Supaporn]

Never ceases to amaze me how many can jump in their two cents on a topic they obviously know nothing about. All the what ifs and maybe they have this and that , yada yada yada. Maybe some pilot type with ratings and experience on this type of aircraft can reasonably comment on the redundant systems, back up systems, and capabilities of this particular type of aircraft - I doubt many others can - even other 'pilots.' Systems do vary between types even though they may have similarities. I sincerely doubt the airplane would fall out of the sky even with total electrical failure - but I will leave that for someone with knowledge of this type to educate me.