Qantas Plane Loses Electrical Power But Lands Safely In Bangkok

[gregb]

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.

Funny you should say that. I'm sure tensor calculus is beyond most on this site, but the fact is a meaningless little theory advanced by a crazy man with funny hair has explained that is exactly what happens. General Relativity basically says that acceleration and gravity are identical.

I can be spinning backwards and upside down...as long as the acceleration vector is normal to the floor and positive, I would never know it without external references.

Strange as it may seem, gravity does appear to be switched off in these situations. That is why an aritificial horizon is such an important instrument when flying a plane. As a pilot, you have to trust your eyes, not your ears. If you can't see a horizon, things go bad quickly.

[sibeymai]

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.

Funny you should say that. I'm sure tensor calculus is beyond most on this site, but the fact is a meaningless little theory advanced by a crazy man with funny hair has explained that is exactly what happens. General Relativity basically says that acceleration and gravity are identical.

I can be spinning backwards and upside down...as long as the acceleration vector is normal to the floor and positive, I would never know it without external references.

Strange as it may seem, gravity does appear to be switched off in these situations. That is why an aritificial horizon is such an important instrument when flying a plane. As a pilot, you have to trust your eyes, not your ears. If you can't see a horizon, things go bad quickly.

Thank you for the vindication.

[Supaporn]

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.

Funny you should say that. I'm sure tensor calculus is beyond most on this site, but the fact is a meaningless little theory advanced by a crazy man with funny hair has explained that is exactly what happens. General Relativity basically says that acceleration and gravity are identical.

I can be spinning backwards and upside down...as long as the acceleration vector is normal to the floor and positive, I would never know it without external references.

Strange as it may seem, gravity does appear to be switched off in these situations. That is why an aritificial horizon is such an important instrument when flying a plane. As a pilot, you have to trust your eyes, not your ears. If you can't see a horizon, things go bad quickly.

Thank you for the vindication.

Vindication? Just so I am clear.....You are implying that with total electrical failure... gravity is switched off? I have no arguement that without a horizon reference that things can go bad - but did anyone say they did not have that? Has anyone with knowledge of the systems on that airplane said that even with total electrical failure that they are now left without that reference? Even after a certain period of time?

I do not argue that this aircraft, with total electrical failure, is not a good place to be or in potentially dire straits. I am just saying that too many people without expertise in this area just LOVE to champion their theories - it is a common event on TV. Even confusing the issue now seems to join the fray - gravity? I think a better explanation would be potential spacial disorientation which could lead the aircraft to depart controlled flight due to lack of attitude reference. But.... I will defer to some others that think they have a better explanation. I would be curious to hear what the ACTUAL system capabilities are for this aircraft first......

No?

EDIT : I may have jumped too fast - I was referring to other comments as opposed to these in particular. I do agree with your assesment on the 'feel' of lack of sensation of gravity. It is very possible to do a 1 G manuever in any attitude... Upside down or whatever and the passengers would never know. But you have to be a fairly good aerobatic pilot to do it. Quite fun though actually.

Cheers!

Edited January 10, 2008 by Supaporn

[yorkman]

But.... I will defer to some others that think they have a better explanation. I would be curious to hear what the ACTUAL system capabilities are for this aircraft first......

No?

Cheers!

As posted above "(ASI, ALT, Horizon, T&S) and (Com 1, Nav 1, ILS indicators). Flaps and Gear" That is minimum, other subsystems I cannot remember.

With COM 1 and NAV 1 you can still fly to the VOR, then controller vectors onto approach (assuming they are not related, I have no idea at BKK).

Without ILS (which you would have on the "steam" instrument) the approach is flown using the VASI's (Visual Approach Slope Indicator) and/or under approach controller's instructions.

Still, they did an excellent job. I hope somebody in maintenance gets a rocket!!

[Supaporn]

But.... I will defer to some others that think they have a better explanation. I would be curious to hear what the ACTUAL system capabilities are for this aircraft first......

No?

Cheers!

As posted above "(ASI, ALT, Horizon, T&S) and (Com 1, Nav 1, ILS indicators). Flaps and Gear" That is minimum, other subsystems I cannot remember.

With COM 1 and NAV 1 you can still fly to the VOR, then controller vectors onto approach (assuming they are not related, I have no idea at BKK).

Without ILS (which you would have on the "steam" instrument) the approach is flown using the VASI's (Visual Approach Slope Indicator) and/or under approach controller's instructions.

Still, they did an excellent job. I hope somebody in maintenance gets a rocket!!

Thanks! Basic instruments for instrument flight -... how long will they work on Standby power? Not a fun position to be in.

[LaoPo]

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.

Not if you're over the ocean and hours of flying in all directions without a possibility of landing.....

LaoPo

[yorkman]

Thanks! Basic instruments for instrument flight -... how long will they work on Standby power? Not a fun position to be in.

I can't tell you without an operations/emergency procedures manual, which whoever was not flying will have been rattling through; my experience was from a few years ago, and the remaining brain cells just don't have room for that

But, considering that you still need to run navigation lighting, strobes, emergency cabin lighting, intercom, passenger address etc etc AND need a reserve to trigger emergency equipment (oxygen, engine fire suppressant etc) then the hour quoted does seem reasonable. I really cannot answer that authoritatively, sorry.

@LaoPo To be honest, on a long Pacific ocean leg I think you would be in deep s**t. Despite the fact that an in air APU start (Auxiliary Power Unit, its a tiny jet engine with generator) is not certified I see no reason why it would not start. However, as I recall, that would fail to deliver power too for the same reason as the other generators did (or did not rather). Co-location of the electrical racks and it all got flooded.

It's really a freak situation, quadruple redundancy and it all gets taken out at once by something that could hardly be foreseen. It is waterproofed and it sounds like bad maintenance or more likely somebody broke something and did not report it.

However, somebody asked if it is trained for in the Simulator. Yes it is, if the Training Captain is feeling really cruel. Usually you only get the one wing double engine fire after V1 (cannot abort takeoff) . Shows the training is worth it for the "Airborne Taxi Drivers" though eh?. Well done the 2 Quantas Guys or Gals. They earned their money.

Edited January 10, 2008 by yorkman

[tropo]

This is a good wake up call for Qantas.

For too long they've been going on about them being the safest airline in the world.

You don't really want to hear this type of bragging (even promotion) from any airline.

[peter991]

Cracks in several Qantas jumbos

Potentially disastrous cracks found in jets

Qantas confirmed problem, refused to go into detail

Cracks, other defects may affect six other jets

QANTAS has found more problems with cracked drip trays in its jumbo jet fleet, suggesting the potentially disastrous problem is more widespread than first thought.

The airline confirmed the find last night but refused to go into detail.

"There were some instances of cracks," a Qantas spokeswoman said.

"They were immediately repaired and the aircraft have been cleared."

The Australian understands cracks or other defects were found in as many as six 747 aircraft.

A cracked drip tray under the first-class galley was blamed this week for a Boeing 747-400 on approach to Bangkok being robbed of its main electrical power.

The latest development comes as Qantas licensed engineers postponed threatened industrial action over a pay dispute until the beginning of next month, averting potential chaos for thousands of holiday travellers.

Qantas started to check its others planes following the leak, which forced the plane to land on battery back-up after water shorted a generator control unit.

The water is understood to have come from a blocked drain and should have been caught by the drip tray, but instead leaked through on to the control unit.

Potential disaster

The jet landed safely because it was only 15 minutes from the airport, but pilots and other aviation sources warned that the incident could have been disastrous if it had happened further out to sea.

Battery back-up is guaranteed to last 30 minutes, and pilots would lose essential instruments once the batteries were drained.

Pilots say the issue is more complicated because the likelihood of this kind of failure is considered so remote that procedures to deal with it are no longer available on 747-400s.

Qantas would not say how cracks were found or in how many other planes, but it is understood there could have been as many as six.

Asked about the new finds last night, Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said the regulator would be watching investigations closely and was waiting for a response from manufacturer Boeing.

"In the first instance (Qantas) did the right thing in inspecting the fleet and that's what we'd expect of a good operator," Mr Gibson said.

"They've identified the problems and rectified them and in the immediate sense that's what what we want to see.

"The next step, of course, is up to Boeing to consider."

Boeing investigates

The US aerospace giant is conducting an urgent investigation into the failure and said yesterday it would not alert other operators until that was finished.

Spokesman Ken Morton said Boeing did not understand what had happened, nor why.

News of the additional cracks came as Qantas passengers contacted The Australian to tell of electrical failures on other flights.

One passenger said QF10 from London to Melbourne on Saturday came to a complete stop before reaching the runway in Singapore with no power, lights or engines.

Peter

[PhilHarries]

So the viability of an airplane with 300+ souls on board can be compromised by a cracked drip tray in the galley?

Oh how life so often hangs by an insignificant thread.

[geriatrickid]

I knew this would be an interesting and educational thread for me. I did notice that Quantas was quick with an intelligent response and there was no finger pointing or attempt to avoid responsibility. Contrast that with the Airbus wing clip incident at BKK.

The Quantas 747-400 fleet averages 10 yrs of age. We all know plastic can crack with age and environmental factors, but that was awfully fast. Now that there is a worldwide order to inspect the 747 trays (at least in those nations with a functioning civil aviation authority) I wonder how many deteriorated trays will show up? Since Boeing often uses similiar components on its plane versions, I wonder how widespread this problem is. I have a bad feeling this will show up on the 767s that are older and in the UA/AC/US fleets.

Anyway, thanks for the education, I learnt some stuff.

[jackspratt]

Ya live and learn. Mea culpa!

[TAWP]

Yes, it's interesting to see an airline that actually takes responsibility for the event and want the problem fixed together with the manufacturer...

[peter991]

14 Qantas B747 flawed: report

Wednesday, 20 February 2008

Australian aviation investigators Tuesday announced that Qantas have found another 14 B747s with flaws similar to the ones which caused a Qantas plane to lose all power early January.

A crack in the drip shields and block in the ice drawer, was discovered as the reason that a Qantas Boeing 747-400 lost all power on approach to Bangkok Airport last month.

The leaking drip shield in question was located directly above an electrical component rack in the aircraft’s main equipment centre.

The subsequent investigations into the carrier’s entire B747-400 fleet discovered “cracks in the drip shields of 14 out of 30 aircraft inspected”.

A preliminary report of the incident was released by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) yesterday, who has said that Qantas has already “made temporary repairs of any cracks found during those inspections”.

It also adds that, “An ATSB preliminary factual report... indicates that the event was less serious than first reported.”

Peter

[BigSnake]

Great all safe and sound. Qantas please get your act together quickly.

[peter991]

Breaking News: Qantas Jet in SA Makes Emergency Landing

Saturday Mar 29 18:45 AEDT

A crack in the external window of a Qantas jet caused an emergency landing at Adelaide airport on Saturday afternoon.

A Boeing 747 flying from Perth to Sydney was forced to make the unscheduled landing when the window "popped", a passenger said.

"A window in the business class section popped mid-air," said the passenger, who did not want to give his name.

"The pilot got people to sit down and fasten their seat belts and assured passengers later on that they (the windows) were triple strength and the plane was being diverted just to be on the safe side."

The passenger said the plane landed safely in Adelaide where it was met on the tarmac by a full suite of emergency service vehicles, but that no one had been injured.

Qantas confirmed the reports of the unplanned landing, saying the diversion to Adelaide was merely "a precaution".

"The plane was diverted to Adelaide as a precaution due to a suspected crack in an external window panel," a Qantas spokeswoman said.

"Engineers are inspecting the aircraft in Adelaide."

She said passengers would be accommodated on another aircraft leaving Adelaide this evening.

It was the latest in a string of mechanical problems or gear failure incidents which have beset Qantas planes this year.

On January 7, a Qantas Boeing 747 carrying more than 300 people lost power while approaching Bangkok.

On February 20, a plane's landing gear failed on a Qantas flight from Gladstone to Rockhampton in Queensland.

Then on March 25, an international Qantas flight carrying 232 passengers was forced to abort its takeoff at Los Angeles.

In July last year, The Australian newspaper reported that staples were used to hold wiring in place on a Qantas 747-400.

This came days after a tyre burst on a Qantas plane landing at Sydney domestic airport, and an engine panel fell from QF415 upon landing at Melbourne.

Peter

[john b good]

Breaking News: Qantas Jet in SA Makes Emergency Landing

Saturday Mar 29 18:45 AEDT

A crack in the external window of a Qantas jet caused an emergency landing at Adelaide airport on Saturday afternoon.

A Boeing 747 flying from Perth to Sydney was forced to make the unscheduled landing when the window "popped", a passenger said.

"A window in the business class section popped mid-air," said the passenger, who did not want to give his name.

"The pilot got people to sit down and fasten their seat belts and assured passengers later on that they (the windows) were triple strength and the plane was being diverted just to be on the safe side."

The passenger said the plane landed safely in Adelaide where it was met on the tarmac by a full suite of emergency service vehicles, but that no one had been injured.

Qantas confirmed the reports of the unplanned landing, saying the diversion to Adelaide was merely "a precaution".

"The plane was diverted to Adelaide as a precaution due to a suspected crack in an external window panel," a Qantas spokeswoman said.

"Engineers are inspecting the aircraft in Adelaide."

She said passengers would be accommodated on another aircraft leaving Adelaide this evening.

It was the latest in a string of mechanical problems or gear failure incidents which have beset Qantas planes this year.

On January 7, a Qantas Boeing 747 carrying more than 300 people lost power while approaching Bangkok.

On February 20, a plane's landing gear failed on a Qantas flight from Gladstone to Rockhampton in Queensland.

Then on March 25, an international Qantas flight carrying 232 passengers was forced to abort its takeoff at Los Angeles.

In July last year, The Australian newspaper reported that staples were used to hold wiring in place on a Qantas 747-400.

This came days after a tyre burst on a Qantas plane landing at Sydney domestic airport, and an engine panel fell from QF415 upon landing at Melbourne.

Peter

Still the safest carrier in the world.

QANTAS has not had a fatal in the jet era. More than you can say for the majority of other airlines.

If someone can think of another carrier with a similar of better record I'm all ears.