Qantas Airbus A380 makes emergency landing

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Boris3098, Nov 4, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I flew back from Singapore last week on a Quantas A380 and it was fantastic. Thank Fu-k it didn't happen then as I would never get senior management on a plane again.
  2. Sadly this looks to be one of the Rolls Royce powered versions.
    Mind you, each engine is packed with all sorts of black box data transmission that is recorded at RR in Rugby.
  3. This is nothing new - Qantas grounded all of their Boeing 747-400s shortly after they came into service because of safety concerns. This is just an unfortunate incident that will be investigated to death and a safer aircraft will come out of it. Suffice it to say that there is a reason why Qantas have never had a crash and I know that their Licenced Aircraft Engineers are top notch.
  4. Sorry, mnairb, have to disagree there. Qantas have had no fatal crashes of jet powered aircraft.

    'Qantas has never lost a jet plane to an accident. Although its safety record is impressive, having not had a fatal crash since the pre-jet 1950s, a recent bout of maintenance outsourcing was dogged by reports of sub-standard work. CASA's review of the Qantas maintenance system found that it had been falling short of Qantas' own benchmarks. At the time of that report, CASA was itself under scrutiny from an Australian Senate inquiry was specifically critical of CASA's response to the Qantas maintenance issues.'

    Not too clever...
  5. Yes, Pongo6863, my mistake, glad you clarified it as 'jet powered aircraft' (I never learn about not believing what you read in the papers). I was involved in training Qantas technicians when we put a number of simulators into their building at Mascot in the '80s and there appeared to be issues between the LAMEs (aircraft engineers) and the government at that time.

    Qantas like to push this 'never had a crash' marketing bullshit without saying it only applies to the jet age. A number of Qantas flying boats were shot down/destroyed by the Japanese (a painting depicting one of these incidents hangs in the Qantas headquarters), although they ran a long-distance service between Perth and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) from 1943, apparently without loss.

    Considering that Qantas started out running prop jobs to remote parts of Oz (Queensland And Northern Territories Air Service) it is inconceivable that they didn't have any accidents using unreliable (poorly maintained?) aircraft into outback airstrips.
  6. It's still an enviable record.

    When Qantas started their operations I think the ground state of aircraft was unreliability! My only brushes with aviation manufacture was working for Jetstream Aircraft (they built and maintained the Jetstream between the collapse of Handley Paige and the buyout by Scottish Aviation) working on the head-up display for Kestral.
  7. It's not just Qantas procedure, but general procedure following an incident on your fleet. My father works for Airbus and at the moment it is Qantas only being examined and no more news than 1 engine failure (catastrophic apparently), but had no problems making a 3 engine transfer to singapore and landed safely. just shows redundancy in the system - if you've seen the A380 demonstrator at an airshow, they throw that mother around like it was a Pitts Special, it is that overpowered!!

    Agreed though, if it happened on your flight, you'd be a bit 5p-50p...
  8. There was a lot of poorly informed comment and questions on BBC Breakfast Time this morning (as there was on the Astute a few weeks ago). The truth is, aircrew practice engine loss regularly on flight simulators and if they don't know what to do in such an occasion, well, then they shouldn't be flying the thing.

    There was a great deal of fuss a few years ago about flying non-stop across the pond with two-engined aircraft and the FAA were insisting that an aircraft that lost an engine should be able to still fly to its' destination. I believe that when Boeing came up with a two engine airliner that had the range then the objections miraculously vanished.
  9. Ah simulators ... when we had to use the F4 simulator, if possible one of us would land it inverted. It used to take hours reset the gyros!

    Like most things Septic, the FAA is so 'Not-Built-Here' biased it's barely believable.
  10. That's true - remember the crap and bullshit that they raised to stop Concorde landing? NIH indeed.
  11. And don't expect a headline grabbing Boeing dreamliner 7XX announcement - apparently they're having BIG trouble with their next airliner (787?), so can't jump on this to their usual advantage. Which must sting a little...
  12. Component fails on a man made machine. Shocker. I take it all the dullards on the news rabbiting on about being "glad to be alive" forgot about the other three that were still working properly.
  13. 'forgot about the other three that were still working properly' And could still have gone on to Australia, if necessary.
  14. Maybe... ... or it may have gone another 100 miles before the next one went.

    If the investigation attributes the failure, even if only in part, to volcanic ash, expect some major restrictions on flying across most of the globe.