Qantas Plane Forced To Land In Bangkok

[bdenner]

Just to set the record straight QANTAS has had 79 fatalities as a result of crashes. Not with standing one of the downings was the result of a Japanese air attack during WW2. They have never lost a passenger in a jet powered aircraft, their last fatal being in 1959.

OK they have a few malfunctions but their outstanding pilot training take care of them, the most recent being the uncontained engine failure on an A388. Brand new aircraft with an enormous problem being handled very professionly in a situation that isn't or hasn't been documented by the builders or software engineers.

As I have said 'Get a life' and I will add that if you are afraid go else where, good luck!

[TimTang]

We flew at 8000 ft max and the flight from Ceylon, Ratlmalana to London, Heathrow in 6 days, they told me that they normally took 5 days, but we broke down in Beiruit and had to make an emergency refuelling at Damascus due to headwinds. lolololol An interesting if not boring flight to say the least.

That would have been a great trip to take by Airship. I wish they'd bring them back. There is an entire vacant air space that could be utilized for slow commercial flight by Airship but nobody has been able to successfully break the market. I know the Germans have the CL65, capable of carrying 65,000 lbs of cargo: The Netherlands bought rites for the Zeppelin: South Africa and the US have companies that are working on prototypes, but nothing seems to have materialized yet.

I don't know if it will ever happen but it would be great to take a slow flight where you can actually look down and enjoy the landscape.

[mystwoodcol]

..... I don't understand why people still fly on Qantas coffins.

The fact that Qantas has not had a fatal accident since 16th July 1951 may be a contributory factor.

More good luck than good management

& I for one don't want to be on the Indonesian serviced 747 when they loose their one and only claim to fame

[HernanUSA]

Naahh.....they didn't want to get wet with all the flooding down there...'n made an excuse to return to the airport. Say mate, you really want to go down under? naahh..

[mystwoodcol]

Isn't this the Airline Rainman liked? I think the odds are against them now.

Qantas.. is't the list of nearby accidents becoming a little bit disturbingly long? Isn't there a light burning in the chief of maintenance's head?

Since I ever was bluntly downgraded from business to economy class, I never flew this company anymore and... I am still alive! They even tried to justify this downgrading... can you imagine? Just as if I was the problem for their overbooking!!! The same way as they are now explaining these technical problems that in their opinion are not a "problem" to the passengers. I'm glad I took the right decision: QANTAS = never anymore. I rather fly the katoey airlines in this case...

You just want to get mouth to mouth resuscitation performed on you by the Katoey FA when you pass out.

[coma]

"The Qantas flight detected a mechanical problem shortly after it took off from Suvarnabhumi airport and the pilot drained the plane's fuel before turning back," he said

I wonder where all the fuel goes?

When aircraft is rquired to dump fuel,a quite normal and regular occurance, it evaporates in the atmoshpere. No liquid form of aircraft fuel [AVGAS] will reach the ground.

[Tjip]

"The Qantas flight detected a mechanical problem shortly after it took off from Suvarnabhumi airport and the pilot drained the plane's fuel before turning back," he said

I wonder where all the fuel goes?

Unfortunaly.....over the ocean ! But that is the normal procedure ! :-(

[Elfin]

Get a life, some of you people! A storm in a tea cup -- both events.

I don't fly with them because the airline can't fire their over weight, aged, and down right rude "Trolley Dollies"

So true! I avoid QANTAS for this reason and fly Singapore Airlines or Thai

Edited January 26, 2011 by Elfin

[lingyaiyai]

.... you will probably die.

.... I would feel much safer walking around Afganistan unarmed than I would be on a Qantas plane.

.... Give me Thai Airways over Qantas anyday.

You will die - just like everyone.

Really?

7 fatal accidents, that have cost 380 lives, since they were founded in 1959.

1959 ! ........You got that wrong. Oldest airways KLM oct 7th., 1919.

QANTAS. Nov 16th., 1920

BA 1924

Air France Oct 1933

What have KLM, BA and Air France got to do with this? My 3rd comment was (clearly) about Thai who were, according to http://aviation-safe...ne.php?var=5154, founded in 1959.

[lingyaiyai]

7 fatal accidents, that have cost 380 lives, since they were founded in 1959.

QANTAS (Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services) commenced operations in 1920. It is the second "oldest" continuously operating airline in the world.

QANTAS has never lost a jet aircraft. The last fatality on a QANTAS aircraft was in 1951 (catastrophic engine failure on a three engined De Havilland DHA-3)

Despite this unequaled safety record --- I shall never fly them ---- as their service is worse than poor.

If you had read my post you would have seen that those statistics related to Thai Airways and my earlier post stated that the last fatal Qantas incident had been in 1951.

I have no issues with your comments about Qantas' service!

[lingyaiyai]

..... I don't understand why people still fly on Qantas coffins.

The fact that Qantas has not had a fatal accident since 16th July 1951 may be a contributory factor.

More good luck than good management

& I for one don't want to be on the Indonesian serviced 747 when they loose their one and only claim to fame

I can't agree that it is entirely due to good luck, but of course acknowledge that there are problems at Qantas that need to be addressed.

[monkeyboots]

Err, what exactly is involved in the pilot draining the aircraft's fuel? Dropping it in the sea? Letting it fall as light rain on paddy fields?

Just wondering

[whybother]

Err, what exactly is involved in the pilot draining the aircraft's fuel? Dropping it in the sea? Letting it fall as light rain on paddy fields?

Just wondering

Apparently it evaporates.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/511548

If fuel is being dumped, it's usually at an altitude above flight level 030. (3000 ft) At this altitude the fuel evaporates before touching the ground.

[tartempion]

They had to come down in Manila when they blew a hole in the side of the plane last year.

Ain't no way I would fly with them!

But do you drive a car around Bangkok/Thailand, worse even, a motorbike, oh horror?

[Bucko]

2hrs out from BKK en- route SYD --must have been just about abeam Singapore ?? --wonder why the crew did not take that closer option ?/--- must have been a very minor problem --but even so ????

[kolohe]

Not quite sure how a 'mechanical problem' has become a pressurization failure but that is the way these threads go. If the cabin pressure exceeds 10,000 feet the passenger masks drop automatically. Pulling the mask to your face will activate the chemical oxygen generator which operates for about 13 minutes. The pilots have full face masks which they put on and immediately start an emergency descent down to 10,000 feet or lower depending on the minimum sector altitude, which is dependent on the height of the terrain. However there are a multitude of possible mechanical problems and this is only one of them.

If you read the OP, it also mentions a flight from Adelaide to Melbourne that had to descend rapidly due to loss of cabin pressure. The discussion refers to that, not the Bangkok flight.

You are right about the 13 mins of oxygen, hence the need to descend below 10,000ft fairly sharpish. But the masks drop if the cabin pressure is lower than the outside pressure at 10,000ft, not when it exceeds it. Put another way, they drop if the plane is at an altitude that exceeds 10,000 ft. I am sure that's what you meant.

Just to clarify things. Aircraft pressurization monitoring is done in terms of "cabin altitude", the equivalent altitude the cabin is pressurized to. When it is said "the cabin pressure exceeds 10,000ft" it is understood the terms are in cabin altitude and not in PSI.

The pressurization warning horn sounds when the cabin altitude is above 10,000ft. If for some reason the pilots are unable to control the cabin altitude the masks will drop when the cabin altitude exceeds 14,000ft (not 10,000). At that point, the procedures are to descend to 10,000ft or HIGHER dependent on MSA (minimum safe altitude). You surely wouldn't want your pilots to descend to 10,000' or lower when crossing the Himalayas, The Rockies, The Andies, etc.

The flight crew has sufficient oxygen to safely descend the plane to a lower altitude without the need of making a dive or any other sharp maneuvers. There are a few reasons why you would not want to do anything so drastic. For example, if you have a sudden loss of pressure there's a chance you may have some structural issues and doing anything to increase structural stress might not be in your best interest.

BTW, those little yellow dixie cups aren't saving your life in one of these events. They simply keep you conscious and give you better comfort until the plane reaches a lower altitude where its easier to breathe.

[warfie]

Your car starts "acting funny" so you pull over and stop, call the mechanic, does that make you a bad driver?

The pilot did the right thing... dump the fuel and return to the nearest airfield.

No-one hurt, no problem.

These things are mechanical, unforeseen problems are very likely to occur, no matter how good the maintenance schedule is.

[keymaker]

Get a life, some of you people! A storm in a tea cup -- both events.

I don't fly with them because the airline can't fire their over weight, aged, and down right rude "Trolley Dollies"

So true! I avoid QANTAS for this reason and fly Singapore Airlines or Thai

+1 for Thai and Singapore airlines, they know how to treat customers and their staff are always kind and friendly.

Qantas staff is just outdated, they're old, rude, indifferent and spoiled, their smile (when they try it) look like someone on their back with a knife telling them to do it.

Really Qantas staff isn't happy either way they seem no caring about customers.

Nobody seem caring about this issue and also safety too.

Years ago I was waiting a friend coming with a Qantas fly from Bangkok to Sydney, the scheduling went mess up and the jet was late.

I started asking around to Qantas Customer Care's staff where the hell was the air plane and I gave my friend full name and fly number but nobody helped me, they were just "cold" and unfriendly.

They told me that "for private reasons they were not allowed to tell me"!

They left the Qantas Customer Care stand "see ya" while I was struggling where the hell was my friend!

Just another reason to avoid Qantas.

[keymaker]

These things are mechanical, unforeseen problems are very likely to occur, no matter how good the maintenance schedule is.

Yes go for it enjoy Qantas' flying coffins.....

[warfie]

Don't get me wrong... I still prefer Thai or just about any other Asian airline over QANTAS... but for 'other' reasons...

[keymaker]

Qantas denies problems

Link

[fantuzi]

"The Qantas flight detected a mechanical problem shortly after it took off from Suvarnabhumi airport and the pilot drained the plane's fuel before turning back," he said

I wonder where all the fuel goes?

you are breathing it now...dont smoke!

[asiawatcher]

..... I don't understand why people still fly on Qantas coffins.

The fact that Qantas has not had a fatal accident since 16th July 1951 may be a contributory factor.

They may not have killed anyone since 1951 bit their service record is subject to it being only a matter of time! They used to run maintenance here in Thailand but closed this down. But perhaps the main issue for many not flying the 'jing-jo" is due to shitty service, poor food and certainly a lower standard than most airlines. But the issue of this article - trying to stay a little more on topic - is the fact the aircraft turned back 2 hours out. They did it in the interest of safety of passengers and possibly because there are more Qantas aircraft in BKK than Singapore which was much closer. But the choice to dump fuel would indicate the problem was more than simple so the pilots would have been right in their decision and safety to passengers..

[lingyaiyai]

..... I don't understand why people still fly on Qantas coffins.

The fact that Qantas has not had a fatal accident since 16th July 1951 may be a contributory factor.

They may not have killed anyone since 1951 bit their service record is subject to it being only a matter of time! They used to run maintenance here in Thailand but closed this down. But perhaps the main issue for many not flying the 'jing-jo" is due to shitty service, poor food and certainly a lower standard than most airlines. But the issue of this article - trying to stay a little more on topic - is the fact the aircraft turned back 2 hours out. They did it in the interest of safety of passengers and possibly because there are more Qantas aircraft in BKK than Singapore which was much closer. But the choice to dump fuel would indicate the problem was more than simple so the pilots would have been right in their decision and safety to passengers..

If you had read the OP you would know that the problem was identified shortly after take off, not 2 hours into the flight; the aircraft was airborne for 2 hours.

I imagine it takes some time to dump a full fuel load, which was undoubtedly done to reduce the weight of the aircraft to a safe level for landing, rather than because "the problem was more than simple".

[kolohe]

I imagine it takes some time to dump a full fuel load, which was undoubtedly done to reduce the weight of the aircraft to a safe level for landing, rather than because "the problem was more than simple".

You're right, it does take time to dump fuel on a large jet in order to get below the maximum landing weight. Depending on the fuel load it can take nearly an hour.

When deciding where to land the pilots have to evaluate a number of things to include the suitability of the airport. An airport where the company regularly operates out of brings a lot in the determination of suitability. It will have their own maintenance people available, spare aircraft and personnel that will enable them to better accommodate the passengers. Not to mention generally passengers are better off at the airport at the airport they came from over some other airport.

Provided the weather was good and it wasn't a time sensitive emergency, might as well spend that extra fuel and fuel dump times to get to the most useful airport nearby rather than spend the time circling waiting to land at a less useful airport.

[softgeorge]

Qantas were always considered the safest airline in the world. As an Australian you will not get me on one of these planes even if you drugged me. Thier track record over the last couple of years is appalling. Qantas is a disaster waiting to happen. They are one of the most expensive to use, thier service is absolutely crap, thier is no eye candy to look at most of the attendants are in the late 40's 50's and apart from that you will probably die. I would feel much safer walking around Afganistan unarmed than I would be on a Qantas plane.

Things were great until they outsourced thier maintenance and servicing to Indonesia and we all know good Garuda airlines are. Qantas is now considering moving thier home base to Sth East Asia as a part of a cost cutting plan. They plan to hire more Sth East Asian pilots to replace Aussie pilots and crew to cut more costs. They have the shareholders dollars to think of.

Give me Thai Airways over Qantas anyday.

Oh thats interesting, and here's silly ole me thinking that Thai Air employed asian pilots.

Thai Airways does employ Asian Pilots. I wasn't saying anything about Thai Airways I was talking about Qantas who employ Aussie pilots (amonst the best in the world) not Thai airways. Qantas want to move thier base ofshore where the cost of employing staff and crew from Asia is far less than employing staff from Australia. A lot of large companies worldwide have already done this to reduce labour costs and it is not a new concept. A certain Qantas employee was quickly shown the door when he leaked this. He was concerned about jobs of Aussie pilots and crew not to mention safety of passengers. It is all about dollars and if Qantas can dramitically reduce overheads and not reduce the costs to consumers then the shareholders will be very happy. I fly Thai and singapore and have no concerns about thier pilots.

[philhal2]

"The Qantas flight detected a mechanical problem shortly after it took off from Suvarnabhumi airport and the pilot drained the plane's fuel before turning back," he said

I wonder where all the fuel goes?

I guess if you were feeling a little more frisky or had a bit more acceleration the next day you would then be able to assume it was discharged into the atmosphere and drifted your way > More power to Quantas who make problems public knowledge , land aircraft quickly and safely and dont win any contests in who killed the most passengers each year . Worry far more about airlines who have the death tolls and do not admit to the causes or the issues .

[philhal2]

Qantas were always considered the safest airline in the world. As an Australian you will not get me on one of these planes even if you drugged me. Thier track record over the last couple of years is appalling. Qantas is a disaster waiting to happen. They are one of the most expensive to use, thier service is absolutely crap, thier is no eye candy to look at most of the attendants are in the late 40's 50's and apart from that you will probably die. I would feel much safer walking around Afganistan unarmed than I would be on a Qantas plane.

Things were great until they outsourced thier maintenance and servicing to Indonesia and we all know good Garuda airlines are. Qantas is now considering moving thier home base to Sth East Asia as a part of a cost cutting plan. They plan to hire more Sth East Asian pilots to replace Aussie pilots and crew to cut more costs. They have the shareholders dollars to think of.

Give me Thai Airways over Qantas anyday.

Oh thats interesting, and here's silly ole me thinking that Thai Air employed asian pilots.

Thai Airways does employ Asian Pilots. I wasn't saying anything about Thai Airways I was talking about Qantas who employ Aussie pilots (amonst the best in the world) not Thai airways. Qantas want to move thier base ofshore where the cost of employing staff and crew from Asia is far less than employing staff from Australia. A lot of large companies worldwide have already done this to reduce labour costs and it is not a new concept. A certain Qantas employee was quickly shown the door when he leaked this. He was concerned about jobs of Aussie pilots and crew not to mention safety of passengers. It is all about dollars and if Qantas can dramitically reduce overheads and not reduce the costs to consumers then the shareholders will be very happy. I fly Thai and singapore and have no concerns about thier pilots.

FACTS NOT FICTION

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson later told The Daily Telegraph serious problems were clearly evident in the way Qantas was managing maintenance.

He denied the safety problems were due to Qantas' decision to outsource some aircraft maintenance to Malaysia ( THIS IS NOT INDONESIA )and said there was no link between the plethora of incidents.

I am guessing that Thai and Singapore airlines are not having their maintainence done in Australia ??? Some excerpts from Australian statements !!

Mr Joyce said last year 92 per cent of Qantas' heavy maintenance work was done in Australia, and that figure would be over 85 per cent this year.

Qantas says it will not go ahead with its planned maintenance and repair deal with Malaysian Airlines (MAS).

A Qantas spokeswoman says the company will not be pursuing any joint ventures with MAS.

The two airlines first signed a memorandum of understanding in late 2007 to establish a joint venture company in Malaysia to provide aircraft maintenance services.

Qantas chief executive officer Alan Joyce said the company had reached agreement with the Brisbane employees about the future of the A330 work.

"The flexible arrangements we have come to, as well as the growing scale of aircraft type in the Qantas fleet, mean that we can now establish A330 heavy maintenance operations in Australia that will be globally competitive and of the highest quality," Mr Joyce said.

The outcome would provide steady work for the facility, which currently carries out maintenance of the Boeing 767 fleet, he said.

Qantas Engineering in Brisbane is expected to begin conducting A330 heavy maintenance checks in early 2010.

The Qantas Group has 22 A330 aircraft and it expects to take delivery of another two of the planes in the next 12 months.

Qantas says between 80 and 90 per cent of Qantas aircraft heavy maintenance is carried out in Australia, and the work that is carried out offshore is mainly overflow work.

I AM MORE CONCERNED AS AN AUSSIE THAT THIS MAINTAINENCE IS BEING CARRIED OUT IN AUSTRALIA BY AUSTRALIANS . The work ethic in most companies in Australia has left a lot to be desired for many years . Has it now become the same in life and death industries where they dont give a dam_n about the quality of the work carried out here in Australia on our planes?Or worse still ? is it even more sinister and is this the result of actions by people who have said that Australia and other countries were the targets for sabotage and terrorism due to their involvement in invasions and wars overseas ?

I can only say that it isnt a time for talking rubbish , but is time to DEMAND some answers and that some very strong security checks and safety testing is put in place to find out what the hell is really going on ? Why ? because whish other airlines using the same aircraft and the same maintainence services ARE NOT APPEARING TO HAVE THE SAME ISSUES . The Question is WHY ?????????????????????????????????????

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/story-0-1225710803323#ixzz1CChIWQ1V

[NanaFoods]

Sad to see what was once recognized as "the world's safest airline" decline to the point of being just any other. It was their supreme competitive advantage that no other airline could touch... the world of flying and travelers all knew it.

They should have kept maintenance in their own hands and jealously safeguarded their reputation.

I am sure there are multiple factors and other pressures (such as rising fuel costs) for subcon'ing their maintenance, but chasing market share and trying to keep prices low is a common mistake. Sometimes CEO's forget that "market share" doesn't always pay the bills. Sometimes its better to be the "premium" brand with higher prices than to compete in the low-margin game.

[midas]

Qantas was already forced to comply with an understanding act: in Sydney was "discovered" that some shift engineers whom are responsible to aircraft maintenance (and they get overtime pay!) had no the right "qualification" to do this very important task, yet they can save people's life!

Months ago a Qantas 1st. pilot blamed the employer for outsourcing air jets' maintenance to overseas, his aim was to alert media and consumers regarding the widespread risk for people's life because the outsourced facilities have no sufficient capabilities.

He was immediately SACKED!

I'm Australian and Qantas was a very very reliable and trustfully carrier and all Australians were proud of it.

Now the new CEO and following puppets still play on this role by taking advantage on people who still believe in this crap carrier.

I collected many points and I could spend on Qantas routes but I decided to just avoid Qantas, I take my life very seriously and I don't understand why people still fly on Qantas coffins.

I'm sure that if all Australians stop using Qantas, for sure Qantas (and Government) will do something to fix their problems.

What a shame ! All those years to build a good reputation and a lot of effot to keep it

during the 1970's up until he last few years and now reputation destroyed because of cost cutting

Someone said it was BA that changed the culture about safety first.