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

[luckizuchinni]

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.

[newermonkey]

I am guessing (BTW only guessing) this artical mentions the precautionary shutdown of one engine out of the four, linking the incident with available fuel on board because running with three engines would be less economic so they might not have sufficient fuel to get to London.

The article also mentions increased monitoring by RR, the monitoring would not cause the problem as inferred but would highlight a potential problem earlier.

The article is not explaining much and is vague & misleading.

[foxteen]

I guess Qantas has been lucky so far,so many engines problems

[tolsti]

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...

[Bakseedaa]

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...

They were still building the new 747s last year and have made over 1400 of these wonderful aircrafts.. Engines can vary.... Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7A, General Electric CF6-50, or Rolls-Royce RB211-524, depending on the customer..

However , the engines are controlled by a FADEC system which allows full computer control.. This plane can also fly on 2 engines quite safely... The best aircraft ever built after the 707.....

[dunkin2012]

no one knows the meaning of 7=? 4=Engines 7=?

[Kanchalee]

As far as I`m aware Qantas is still an Aussie Owned Airline..(would you still fly them if they were not??).. But if its not you can always change to Air NZ , Granted though, you`ll need to go to HK to get a plane.

As an Australian,who has always flown with Qantas (frequent flyer) i can only say, i feel very safe with them, the service is great,movies too , just wondering,are they still Australian owned?

[normac44]

I frequently fly between Australia and New Zealand (My Birthplace) and have always tried to avoid Qantas as much as possible. Apart from rude staff and dirty planes they are sometimes the cheapest.

I understand from local newspaper reports in Melbourne that Qantas now have their planes serviced in Singapore to world standards. so why all the problems with them lately?

I will stay with Emirates until further notice.

[IMA_FARANG]

I may be wrong but I don't think QANTAS has a 100% flight safety record TODAY. That I believe came from a movie some years ago...and may have ben true then but it isn't still true today. Anyhow I'm sure someone will post soon to correct me if I'm wrong.

But what I DO know for certain is this. In May 1977, when I first came to Thailand, I took a taxi with two Australian men to a hotel...can't remember the name of that hotel now...on Suriwongse Road. At that time the airport was still at Don Muang. The QANTAS plane had to stay overnight for repairs...I don't think I ever knew why...and these two Aussies were put in the same hotel as I was in by the airlne. So we shared a taxi to the hotel from Don Muang.

I have all this in my mind clearly because after we checked into the hotel, we sat downstairs at the bar and proceeded to get stinking drunk. I was tired from my trip. and excused myself to go to bed just after midnight. About an hour later someone was knocking on my door. It turned out to be this Thai-Chinese "professional" girl who had been drinking with the two aussies and myself. Apparently she had struck on on the final negotiation of price with one of them, remembered my room number, and took a chance on seeing whether I was interested or not.

Further details and events will be witheld to protect the (not so) innocent.

So I am VERY sure QANTAS had at least one previous breakdown on it's flight into Bangkok.

[MaiChai]

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!

[rotary]

Ha ha

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.

[Wallaby]

Qantas is having real issues on domestic flights as well. Apparently they are 'grading' pilots by how much fuel they take on board. 2 Planes have already been diverted because they didn't have enough fuel to circle the airport waiting for better weather.

I have flown with them a number of times in the past but never again. I just can't stand the pompous attitude of the trolley dollies and other staff that think we should get on our knees and be forever grateful to be allowed on their planes.

[dunkin2012]

Qantas is having real issues on domestic flights as well. Apparently they are 'grading' pilots by how much fuel they take on board. 2 Planes have already been diverted because they didn't have enough fuel to circle the airport waiting for better weather.

I have flown with them a number of times in the past but never again. I just can't stand the pompous attitude of the trolley dollies and other staff that think we should get on our knees and be forever grateful to be allowed on their planes.

try Thai airways.....

used an old fleet..

the wheels got stuck and had to fly around Jakarta airport..... 45 mins

Horrible?

[SPIKECM]

It is not a question of risking running out of fuel mid air. It is about unjustified surplus reserves of fuel. The main problem is that there may be a necessary unscheduled stop on route for refueling which is very expensive for the airline. It is not a question of heightening the risk of running out of fuel mid air with a load of passengers on board. Even from a purely economic point of view this would be an absurd risk to take. That pilots are never reprimanded for over fueling, but certainly would be if they were caught under fueling, if you want to protect your own ass, then always fly over fueled. It would then be justified for any airline to make some subtle point to pilots that they are perhaps wasting resources and money by flying over fueling. I don't think it is a safety issue at all.

"running low on fuel"

dam_n ! how cheap can u be ?

note to self ; continue NOT to fly QA

Edited May 20, 2011 by SPIKECM

[Wallaby]

It is not a question of risking running out of fuel mid air. It is about unjustified surplus reserves of fuel. The main problem is that there may be a necessary unscheduled stop on route for refueling which is very expensive for the airline. It is not a question of heightening the risk of running out of fuel mid air with a load of passengers on board. Even from a purely economic point of view this would be an absurd risk to take. That pilots are never reprimanded for over fueling, but certainly would be if they were caught under fueling, if you want to protect your own ass, then always fly over fueled. It would then be justified for any airline to make some subtle point to pilots that they are perhaps wasting resources and money by flying over fueling. I don't think it is a safety issue at all.

"running low on fuel"

dam_n ! how cheap can u be ?

note to self ; continue NOT to fly QA

You may want to check out the latest about the under fuelling.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/20/3222209.htm

[sydneyjed]

And they are on about outsourcing even more maintenance overseas from Australia according to reports.....Qantas are trying every trick in the book to protect their bottom line with 3 fuel surcharge hikes in record time to justify their high fares!!Their onboard service is a reflection of overall moral right now....no one cares a 'flying red rats'!

[Wallaby]

And they are on about outsourcing even more maintenance overseas from Australia according to reports.....Qantas are trying every trick in the book to protect their bottom line with 3 fuel surcharge hikes in record time to justify their high fares!!Their onboard service is a reflection of overall moral right now....no one cares a 'flying red rats'!

And just imagine it if the dollar wasn't doing so well.

[creck]

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

Does it glide down?

Or dive?

Or spin out of control?

[jimbeam1]

It is not a question of risking running out of fuel mid air. It is about unjustified surplus reserves of fuel. The main problem is that there may be a necessary unscheduled stop on route for refueling which is very expensive for the airline. It is not a question of heightening the risk of running out of fuel mid air with a load of passengers on board. Even from a purely economic point of view this would be an absurd risk to take. That pilots are never reprimanded for over fueling, but certainly would be if they were caught under fueling, if you want to protect your own ass, then always fly over fueled. It would then be justified for any airline to make some subtle point to pilots that they are perhaps wasting resources and money by flying over fueling. I don't think it is a safety issue at all.

"running low on fuel"

dam_n ! how cheap can u be ?

note to self ; continue NOT to fly QA

Please correct me if I am wrong. But surely any etra fuel on board would not be wasted. Also If the Airline is concerned about the amount of fuel carried. They should specify how much fuel a Plane needs to carry to complete it's journey. After so many years experience they should know how much fuel an Aircraft uses on a specific route.

jb1

[Payboy]

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

Does it glide down?

Or dive?

Or spin out of control?

Depends on whether the pilot's in a hurry to get home to his missus. I'm guessing QANTAS pilots married to Ozzie sheila's would just spin out of control.

[dunkin2012]

Please correct me if I am wrong. But surely any etra fuel on board would not be wasted. Also If the Airline is concerned about the amount of fuel carried. They should specify how much fuel a Plane needs to carry to complete it's journey. After so many years experience they should know how much fuel an Aircraft uses on a specific route.

jb1

i read a book they know exactly how much fuel to fill in the tank(s).

and calculate the extra to fly around when the weather is not permitted or else.

don't know in details.

fuel = distance + extra is the formula

[Payboy]

Please correct me if I am wrong. But surely any etra fuel on board would not be wasted. Also If the Airline is concerned about the amount of fuel carried. They should specify how much fuel a Plane needs to carry to complete it's journey. After so many years experience they should know how much fuel an Aircraft uses on a specific route.

jb1

i read a book they know exactly how much fuel to fill in the tank(s).

and calculate the extra to fly around when the weather is not permitted or else.

don't know in details.

fuel = distance + extra is the formula

There's got to be some weight in that theory somewhere.

[Wallaby]

It is not a question of risking running out of fuel mid air. It is about unjustified surplus reserves of fuel. The main problem is that there may be a necessary unscheduled stop on route for refueling which is very expensive for the airline. It is not a question of heightening the risk of running out of fuel mid air with a load of passengers on board. Even from a purely economic point of view this would be an absurd risk to take. That pilots are never reprimanded for over fueling, but certainly would be if they were caught under fueling, if you want to protect your own ass, then always fly over fueled. It would then be justified for any airline to make some subtle point to pilots that they are perhaps wasting resources and money by flying over fueling. I don't think it is a safety issue at all.

"running low on fuel"

dam_n ! how cheap can u be ?

note to self ; continue NOT to fly QA

Please correct me if I am wrong. But surely any etra fuel on board would not be wasted. Also If the Airline is concerned about the amount of fuel carried. They should specify how much fuel a Plane needs to carry to complete it's journey. After so many years experience they should know how much fuel an Aircraft uses on a specific route.

jb1

I don't know too much about it but would think that if they have more fuel then they have more weight, so burn more fuel.

At this stage I think management are of the belief that the savings by having less fuel will not be offset by the cost of having a few flights diverted.

Must be doing a lot of praying to the weather gods.

[dunkin2012]

Please correct me if I am wrong. But surely any etra fuel on board would not be wasted. Also If the Airline is concerned about the amount of fuel carried. They should specify how much fuel a Plane needs to carry to complete it's journey. After so many years experience they should know how much fuel an Aircraft uses on a specific route.

jb1

i read a book they know exactly how much fuel to fill in the tank(s).

and calculate the extra to fly around when the weather is not permitted or else.

don't know in details.

fuel = distance + extra is the formula

There's got to be some weight in that theory somewhere.

yep.......... Payboy i think you are correct.

I don't really know much... I just read a book ... a pilot said he need to calculate the fuel

i think you know the meaning of 7=? 4=Engines 7=?

what are they? Please

Edited May 20, 2011 by dunkin2012

[JulianLS]

I may be wrong but I don't think QANTAS has a 100% flight safety record TODAY. That I believe came from a movie some years ago...and may have ben true then but it isn't still true today. Anyhow I'm sure someone will post soon to correct me if I'm wrong.

But what I DO know for certain is this. In May 1977, when I first came to Thailand, I took a taxi with two Australian men to a hotel...can't remember the name of that hotel now...on Suriwongse Road. At that time the airport was still at Don Muang. The QANTAS plane had to stay overnight for repairs...I don't think I ever knew why...and these two Aussies were put in the same hotel as I was in by the airlne. So we shared a taxi to the hotel from Don Muang.

I have all this in my mind clearly because after we checked into the hotel, we sat downstairs at the bar and proceeded to get stinking drunk. I was tired from my trip. and excused myself to go to bed just after midnight. About an hour later someone was knocking on my door. It turned out to be this Thai-Chinese "professional" girl who had been drinking with the two aussies and myself. Apparently she had struck on on the final negotiation of price with one of them, remembered my room number, and took a chance on seeing whether I was interested or not.

Further details and events will be witheld to protect the (not so) innocent.

So I am VERY sure QANTAS had at least one previous breakdown on it's flight into Bangkok.

QANTAS have had many (10?) fatal crashes, the last one being in 1951. They have never lost a JET aircraft.

The issue at Dong Muang you mention was a collapsed nose wheel after if overran the runway...

[Oink]

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!!

[dunkin2012]

any Frank Abagnale Jr.,?

[FOODLOVER]

"running low on fuel"

dam_n ! how cheap can u be ?

note to self ; continue NOT to fly QA

"They certainly say to us they would prefer not to carry extra fuel because it's outrageously expensive," he added.

Maybe just enough fuel to take off? :jap:

Guess you really dont need fuel for landing with gravity and all.

[dunkin2012]

"running low on fuel"

dam_n ! how cheap can u be ?

note to self ; continue NOT to fly QA

"They certainly say to us they would prefer not to carry extra fuel because it's outrageously expensive," he added.

Maybe just enough fuel to take off? :jap:

Guess you really dont need fuel for landing with gravity and all.

[newermonkey]

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

Does it glide down?

Or dive?

Or spin out of control?

It really depends, for instance if the pilot was a SexPilot he would most likely go up and down for a few minutes then make a water landing.