Qantas Boeing 747 Stranded At Suvarnabhumi After Mid-Air Engine Shut Down

[Elfin]

Plus it is not Qantas but QANTAS.

Does Qantas know that? These are direct quotes from its own website -

"Imagine travelling in your own private Qantas 747 to explore the great icons of Asia and Africa"

"Qantas are now the only airline to fly directly from Australia to a United States port beyond the West Coast"

"Qantas Classic Award flights to various domestic destinations"

"+Indicates Qantas Frequent Flyer points apply"

Queers

And

Nancys

Trained

As

Stewards

QANTAS Easy!!

Queers

And

Nymphomaniacs

Together

As

Stewards

[tartempion]

Details on the Qantas Don Muang landing in heavy rain, September 23, 1993, nick named the Golf Buggy

Qantas Flight 1 (QF1, QFA1) was the flight number of the flagship Sydney to London route of Australia's Qantas (Airways), travelling via Bangkok. On 23 September 1999 a Boeing 747-438 jumbo jet overran the runway while landing in heavy rain for a stop over in Bangkok.

Qantas flights travel between London and Australia on a route known as the "Kangaroo Route". They normally make the journey in two "hops" with an intermediate landing at either Bangkok, Singapore or Hong Kong for refuelling. This flight began in Sydney earlier that day at 1645 local time, and after more than eight hours flying was approaching Don Mueang International Airport at 2245 local time.

[edit] Incident

The Qantas Boeing 747-400 that was involved in the accident has since been returned to service. Seen here at Singapore Changi Airport operating the "Kangaroo Route" service from Melbourne During the approach to Bangkok the weather conditions deteriorated significantly, from 8 km visibility half an hour before landing to 750 m at the time of landing.^[1]:1 The flight crew observed a storm cloud over the airport and ground reports were that it was raining heavily. However these conditions were common at Bangkok. Seven minutes prior to landing a Thai Airways Airbus A330 landed normally, but three minutes before landing another Qantas aircraft (QF15, a Sydney-Rome via Bangkok service), a Boeing 747, conducted a "go around" due to poor visibility during final approach.^[1]:3 The crew of Qantas Flight 1, however, were unaware of this.

The first officer was flying the plane during final approach. The aircraft's altitude and airspeed were high, but were within company limits. The rain was now heavy enough that the runway lights were visible only intermittently after each windscreen wiper stroke. Just before touchdown the captain, concerned about the long touchdown point (over a kilometre past the runway threshold) and unable to see the end of the runway, ordered the first officer to perform a "go-around" and the first officer advanced the throttles to TO/GA power. Seeing that visibility had increased markedly and the landing gear contacted the runway, the captain then decided to cancel the go-around by retarding the thrust levers even though he was not flying the plane. This caused confusion as he did not announce his actions to the first officer who was still flying the plane. When overriding the first officer's actions, the captain inadvertently left one engine at TO/GA power and as a result canceled the preselected auto-brake settings.

The landing continued, but manual braking did not commence until the aircraft was over 1600 metres down the runway. Company SOP mandated that idle reverse thrust should be used for landings and that flaps should be set at 25 degrees,^[1]:17 not the maximum of 30 degrees. The combination of flaps 25, no auto-braking, idle reverse thrust, a high and fast approach, a late touch down, poor Cockpit Resource Management and the standing water on the runway surface led to an inevitable runway overshoot.

The aircraft in fact accelerated for a few seconds after touchdown. Then it proceeded to hydroplane and skid its way down the runway, departing substantially from runway centreline. It gradually decelerated, but far too slowly to save the aircraft, which proceeded past the runway end, over a stretch of boggy grassland, colliding with a ground radio antenna as it did so, and came to rest with its nose resting on the perimeter road.

[edit] Investigation

This incident was Qantas' most significant incident in fifty years of jet aircraft operation.^{[citation needed]} The aircraft was returned to service, and is now nicknamed the "Golf Buggy".

[edit] Damage

The collision with the antenna caused the nose and right wing landing gear to collapse, the nose landing gear being forced back into the fuselage. The aircraft slid along in a nose-down, right wing low attitude, causing some further damage to the nose and damage to the two right engines and their mountings.

The intrusion of the nose landing gear also caused the failure of the cabin intercom and public address system.

There were no significant passenger injuries during an orderly evacuation of the aircraft ordered some 20 minutes after the rough landing. Thirty-eight passengers reported minor injuries. The aircraft was repaired and was returned to service.

[edit] Thai newspaper comments

The Bangkok Post mentioned the accident again in their 24 September issue. They reported that the Royal Thai Army has a golf course positioned at the end of the runway. The Thai army is not known for their sense of humour, but according to the Bangkok Post, they renamed the nearest putting green 'The Qantas Approach'.

More details here:

http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/flightops/flyingtechnique/Landing_Overruns.pdf

Edited May 20, 2011 by tartempion

[dunkin2012]

When a 747 loses an engine mid-flight, it is automatically downgraded to a 737.

and who knows the meaning of 7*7?

From this link:

http://www.aerospace...nes/q0134.shtml

It was just a sexy number scheme that started with the 707 and stuck. the middle digit is just a continuing model number, not an indication of number of engines.

707 first Boeing jet

717 (renumbered MD-80 after Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas)

727 3 engines in tail

737 2 under wing engines, very popular jet

747 first "heavy" aircraft, first flew 1969, new 747-8i coming soon)

757 Twin engine 707 "replacement"

767 Wide body mid distance airliner

777 Big wide body international (more economical than 4 engines)

787 New advanced composite mid to long distance airliner

797 Not official, possible 737 replacement

2707 1970's proposed supersonic airliner (never built)

Hope this helps..

wow very interesting.... thanks

clear now...

good on you!!!!!!

Edited May 20, 2011 by dunkin2012

[Crushdepth]

Their last fatal accident was in 1951. Criticise them all you like. You think Air Asia is better?

[moe666]

It doesn't matter what airline you fly, they are only as good as the people they hire and the procedures in place for safe operation of the craft. One knuckle head is all it takes to bring a plane down, be it a mechanic, pilot, or ground support.

[moe666]

The airplane body has nothing to do with it its the engines Rolls Royce seem to be going thru a bad patch. The airplanes have been airbus and now a boing.

Good old English quality fly 1 hour, 10 hours in the shop.

What a stupid thing to say. The Airbus engines were relatively new, this 747 would have been years old with many engine changes since new.

And why was this "stupid?" Moe555 pointed out that the airframe had nothing to do with this but rather the Rolls Royce engine. And do you really know just how old this 747 is? Did you check up on Qantas purchases of 747's? It could have been one delivered in 2009, for example.

And it was a Rolls Royce engine which blew up in flight last year on a Qantas A380.

I don't think his post was "stupid" at all.

Having a good dig at U.K. are we ??(Rolls Royce). Fine if you actually think they are bad engines, so name better jet engines equiv-to this one. Don't say Prat and Whitney--or general electric please, have a look at their safety records.

It WAS a stupid remark about English Quality. Where are you from, does your country make aero engines????

There has been more than one reported problem with the Rolls Royce engine in the past year. There seems to be a oil leak issue, their just taking a page from the old Triumphs and Austin Healeys.

Yes my country produces aircraft engines and if they where having a problem that could kill people I would take the piss out of them as well. get over the false pride thats what killed over 800 at the Charge of the Light brigade

[dickyknee]

nothing an extra engine won't fix.

[diehard60]

Qantas 747s seem to be going through a rough patch with their engines -- about 2 weeks ago a Sydney - Singapore QF flight had an engine shut-down over Bali, but the crew decided to carry on to Singapore as it was only 2 hours to go.

It seems to me that good old Qantas Air lines is having big problems. I personally think that maybe their inspection procedures need to be revised? With proper inspections they should be able to find any and ALMOST all possible problems before something happens.

[albymush]

The airplane body has nothing to do with it its the engines Rolls Royce seem to be going thru a bad patch. The airplanes have been airbus and now a boing.

Good old English quality fly 1 hour, 10 hours in the shop.

What are the moderators doing letting you post? strikes me Thai Visa is going to the Moes oops I mean Dogs

[aussieguy130]

[Qantas 747s seem to be going through a rough patch with their engines -- about 2 weeks ago a Sydney - Singapore QF flight had an engine shut-down over Bali, but the crew decided to carry on to Singapore as it was only 2 hours to go.

May I suggest to the FAA an urgent security audit of Qantas Airline before their africanization is complete.

May I suggest you compare the number and severity of incidents with Qantas to those of the other major airlines and base your analysis on facts rather than sensationalist, ill informed media reporting much of which is being driven by unions in pay negotiations

[dunkin2012]

comparing with other airlines,Qantas's Quality is fine.

Except I don't like their staff.

Edited May 21, 2011 by dunkin2012

[IanPrince99]

That's why I fly Thai, and not Qantas.

[Wallaby]

Dare I say it that I even prefer Air Asia over Qantas.

[tropo]

comparing with other airlines,Qantas's Quality is fine.

Except I don't like their staff.

That's what you get in equal opportunity countries - they cannot hire staff by looks and age. I'm sure Qantas would like to, but their hands are tied.

The situation is worse for similar time zone flights (Australia to Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, KL etc) as the senior staff are more likely to work on these flights whereas the younger staff tend to work on the longer flights which cross many time zones.

Back when I used to fly Qantas I always got the feeling I was imposing upon the flight attendants when ordering anything outside scheduled meal times.

Asian airlines have a distinct advantage when hiring staff. They can get away with only hiring young, attractive female staff.

[VictorOne]

yeah seems the airline with the NO CRASH record is making sure it keeps it that way...

QANTAS does not have a 'no crash' record. They have lost aircraft and had fatalities. It is just that none of them have been 'jets'.

Incorrect. They have not had a fatal in the jet age so get your facts right. "jet or prop"

[backsoon]

When a 747 loses an engine mid-flight, it is automatically downgraded to a 737.

I say, a 707 should be the safest model: a) nothing to lose; never to fly.

Did anybody hear about this model?

[barryofthailand]

Qantas 747s seem to be going through a rough patch with their engines -- about 2 weeks ago a Sydney - Singapore QF flight had an engine shut-down over Bali, but the crew decided to carry on to Singapore as it was only 2 hours to go.

Thanks for telling and I will urge everyone to be careful about 747 Airplanes. I recalled when I took 747 China Airline back to US in 1975, it flew so smooth and now 36 years later 747 airplanes needs to replace and I see no one does anything yet? Help? and explain to me please. The week before I heard the New airplane that carried 535 passengers came to San Francisco but, I was too busy to visit the Airport. Hope to see it in service soon. I will report to you all...

/.

You are implying that the Boeing 747's they are using today are 36 yrs old, which is not true. The 747 is still in Production, and are being sold today.

Barry

[softgeorge]

Qantas a tragedy just waiting to happen. You won't catch me on one of the flying coffins. To many shortcuts and cutbacks making them a very unsafe airline. I feel much safer with Thai or Singapore airlines

[Estrada]

yeah seems the airline with the NO CRASH record is making sure it keeps it that way...

QANTAS does not have a 'no crash' record. They have lost aircraft and had fatalities. It is just that none of them have been 'jets'.

Incorrect. They have not had a fatal in the jet age so get your facts right. "jet or prop"

What is the purpose of your reply, he stated that Qantashas not had fatalities in the jet age! Then you say incorrect and post the same statement.

The truth is that they have had 99 fatalities from 1927 until 1951, all in the propeller aircraft era. Some were due to aicraft design flaws and some during World War II due to the aircraft being shot down. The last fatal accident was in 1951 and was a very small passenger airccraft seating 7 persons. I would agree that this is hardly relevant to today's situation.

[Crushdepth]

comparing with other airlines,Qantas's Quality is fine.

Except I don't like their staff.

True - not the friendliest bunch of people. And they don't suffer fools gladly.

[Moza]

To All

Does this make any airline safe, with talk on who has the best airline???????. But lets all of us hope they find all the failures on the ground and not in the air.

But Thank you for the posting.

[ballpoint]

comparing with other airlines,Qantas's Quality is fine.

Except I don't like their staff.

True - not the friendliest bunch of people. And they don't suffer fools gladly.

They seem to hire plenty of them though.

[ginjag]

It doesn't matter what airline you fly, they are only as good as the people they hire and the procedures in place for safe operation of the craft. One knuckle head is all it takes to bring a plane down, be it a mechanic, pilot, or ground support.

Or even Knuckled heads bashing U.K. Quote-- false pride/light brigade/ Austin H/Triumph?? get real-R.R are attending to any problems that occur, they have to, Jealous of Concorde were we ???...R.R. are preferred to other engines by the worlds TOP airlines. this is an answer to your last reply to me, don't get clever and personal about other than your own country.

[Diablo Bob]

Qantas 747s seem to be going through a rough patch with their engines -- about 2 weeks ago a Sydney - Singapore QF flight had an engine shut-down over Bali, but the crew decided to carry on to Singapore as it was only 2 hours to go.

Thanks for telling and I will urge everyone to be careful about 747 Airplanes. I recalled when I took 747 China Airline back to US in 1975, it flew so smooth and now 36 years later 747 airplanes needs to replace and I see no one does anything yet? Help? and explain to me please. The week before I heard the New airplane that carried 535 passengers came to San Francisco but, I was too busy to visit the Airport. Hope to see it in service soon. I will report to you all...

/.

You are implying that the Boeing 747's they are using today are 36 yrs old, which is not true. The 747 is still in Production, and are being sold today.

Barry

Even if the aircraft was/is 35 years old there shouldn't be much of a reason for concern, IF the aircraft was properly maintained and serviced it stii has many more years of service life. The main concern is metal fatigue which during an aircraft is x-rayed and anayzed for fatigue. When issues like the Southwest Airlines 737 appear, a service bulletin is sent out and the maintainence crews look specifically for that service problem. Properly mainained aircraft can be around a long time......

Boeing 40C its first ever commercial passenger airplane (1927), is still flying today, not commercially though........

[Diablo Bob]

Thanks for telling and I will urge everyone to be careful about 747 Airplanes. I recalled when I took 747 China Airline back to US in 1975, it flew so smooth and now 36 years later 747 airplanes needs to replace and I see no one does anything yet? Help? and explain to me please. The week before I heard the New airplane that carried 535 passengers came to San Francisco but, I was too busy to visit the Airport. Hope to see it in service soon. I will report to you all...

/.

You are implying that the Boeing 747's they are using today are 36 yrs old, which is not true. The 747 is still in Production, and are being sold today.

Barry

Even if the aircraft was/is 35 years old there shouldn't be much of a reason for concern, IF the aircraft was properly maintained and serviced it stii has many more years of service life. The main concern is metal fatigue which during an aircraft is x-rayed and anayzed for fatigue. When issues like the Southwest Airlines 737 appear, a service bulletin is sent out and the maintainence crews look specifically for that service problem. Properly mainained aircraft can be around a long time......

Boeing 40C its first ever commercial passenger airplane (1927), is still flying today, not commercially though........

A few more.....

[tolsti]

Once again shoddy reporting. The issue of fuel economy and a mid-air engine 'incident' are not related. Why conflate the issues? Now if Qantas are found to be taking short-cuts on maintenance well that is a more serious issue though given their impeccable safety record I suspect not.

How much fuel required for the flight?

In my early days of flying the A and B Morse signals in combination with the magnetic compass, 10,000 Ft. altitude was very high causing a lot of flying in and out of the clouds and dodging Thunderheads.

Fuel required for the flight: Civil Aviation requirement:

• Departure to Destination to Alternate plus 1½ Hour at cruise.

To my knowledge this rule has never been rescinded and/or changed.

Today flights are at FL-41 – FL-42 (40,000 + Ft.) with worldwide weather forecasting constantly updated 24/7 and computer flight planning the old fuel requirement nobody seems to bother with anymore because on a 4-jetengine airplane the amount of extra fuel – to alternate plus1½ Hour at cruise - amounts to a 18-wheel tank truck load of nonrevenue earning load. Airlines are in the business of hauling revenue paying passengers and/or cargo, not flying tankers.

As for the QANTAS AB running short of fuel there seem to be something amiss in the weather forecasting of its flight before departure. Of course there are always exceptions, and this case maybe an exception of some unusual weather phenomenon all of a sudden appearing in the flight path/altitude. But no problem, just divert to Adelaide, put in some more fuel, and then on to destination. Nothing to get exited about. Captain/Copilot showed they were doing their job and were right on top of the situation developing and took care of it.

Of course then there is the case of the Canadian Airliner with the AB Aircraft fuel system in Liters and the tank truck metering in US Gallons. Captain/Copilot not doing their job of checking fuel load figures when accepting the aircraft for flight and during flight monitoring systems and so ran the tanks DRY and crash-landed the aircraft in a large field. Luckily for everybody, nobody got injured.

I do not fly anymore as a passenger; it annoys my relatives because I do not come visit in my retirement years. I’m not afraid to die, but I do not want to get mangled up and have to live as an invalid during the remainder of my years here on mother earth through some cowboy on the flight deck not doing for what he is paid for. Like these two guys on the flight deck of the Canadian Airliner running out of fuel.

That'll be the Gimli Glider then.....Gimli Glider

[normac44]

Anyone remember the Quantas 747 that had a collapsed nose wheel at Don Meung? They left it at the end of the runnway for weeks; talk about bad advertising!

As far as I can see Quantas has had alot of near misses when it comes to a fatal accident. I am not comfortable about flying with them. Maybe its offshoring their maintenance to neighboring countries in Asia?

That'll be this one then...

Its name is 'Longreach'; unfortunate name for a plane, since it overreached the runway!

Longreache I think is the name of an outback station somewhere in Queensland. I am talking thousands of acres of land with the nearest neighbour some 2 or 3 hundred kms away.

I think it was also used in a movie.

[dickyknee]

Longreach is the name of the town in Queensland where qantas started.

It is also the title qantas gave ALL their 747-400 series aircraft.

The 747 that skidded off the end of the runway in Bangkok was called "The City of Darwin", rego VH-OJH.

[Wallaby]

Let me guess, a Hey Hey it's Saturday fan. :D

[Crushdepth]

comparing with other airlines,Qantas's Quality is fine.

Except I don't like their staff.

True - not the friendliest bunch of people. And they don't suffer fools gladly.

They seem to hire plenty of them though.

You obviously haven't flown Virgin. The staff are so inept it scares me.