Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Qantas 747 Evacuated After Heavy Landing  
User currently offlineWirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1
Posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6082 times:

News Com au

Qantas wheel on fire, two hurt
July 2, 2003

TWO passengers were slightly injured after a Qantas jumbo jet made an emergency landing and was evacuated at Sydney airport this morning.

Police said the right hand side wheel of QF6 from Singapore caught fire and passengers were evacuated down the emergency chute.

"The plane was evacuated using the chute, all the passengers came down the chute," she said.

"Two passengers sustained injuries during that procedure, one has been taken to Prince of Wales Hospital," she said.

All the passengers were undergoing "disaster victim register" to ensure everybody has been accounted for, she said.
====================================================


50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6037 times:

from YSSY Message board

Morning all,

Shortly after 5am this morning at Sydney Airport, Qantas 6 VH-OJU arrived from Singapore. The 747 landed very heavily on the runway thus causing a fire in the two left brake mains.

An emergency was declared. QF6 was assigned Bay 33 and pulled up just short of the gate when all the emergency slides were deployed and a full evacuation of the aircraft occurred. It seems that operations went well and all pax were evacuated safely and directed to the terminal.

Apparently there were numerous amounts of Fire Vehicles, Police Rescue Vehicles, APS and other service vehicles surrounding the 747 as the below gear area was sprayed with foam.



User currently offlineSccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5507 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5892 times:

You know, of course, that this event never happened.

Ask Dustin Hoffman.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineQantaspower From Australia, joined Aug 2002, 516 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5835 times:

Scuttler,

QF evacuated people as a precautionary measure demonstrating once again their 100% commitment to passenger safety. This was a very minor incident. Please lets not blow it out of proportion.

Qantas has never lost a passenger in the jet age.

Regards

QFP


User currently offlineWirraway From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5788 times:

YSSY Message Board
Kurt Ums Wrote:

I've heard further. The fire didn't start from the initial impact of the 747 on the runway. All ops were normal until the aircraft taxiied to its gate. An engineer was conducting a walk-around of the QF 747 when he saw smoke from the gear bay and reported an emergency.

Passengers were already de-boarding the aircraft through the front left door when it was announced in the cabin that all remaining pax were to exit via the slides.

All 5 injuries reported were slide associated. Nothing serious. I'm sure the wet weather played a part however


User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5767 times:

Was that a 747-400? I wonder what caused the heavy landing. If the fire didn't start straight away then perhaps it was caused by excessive braking.

User currently offlineFloris From Netherlands, joined Jun 2003, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5725 times:

This is so funny:

"The plane was evacuated using the chute. All 5 injuries reported were slide associated."

And then:

"This was a very minor incident."
"Nothing serious"

I wonder if Qantaspower and Wirraway would react in the same way if they or there loved ones would have been on the plane and would have gotton injured.

An evacuation via the chute is never a minor incident in my humble opinion!


User currently offlineDon From Japan, joined Jun 2003, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5665 times:

The brakes don't get overheated and catch fire just for heavy landings.

This is pure (educated) speculation on my part but It is probably because the crew had to land with a tail wind with a high landing weight. (ATC will give them the best RWY for noise prevention that early in the morning and that RWY may have a tail wind.) The heavy landing (upto a point of course) is safer than a soft touchdown in those conditions.


User currently offlineQFTJT From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 278 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5650 times:

(Educated speculation)

The aircraft landed before the curfew and was not allowed to use reverse thrust, or full reverse. High brake temperatures that caused the fire, may have been due to excessive barking in the absence of reverse thrust???


User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2389 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5566 times:

Excessive barking? - I leave that alone.

Brakes often smoke, and sometimes spark after landing.
I am sure the crew would not evacuate the aircraft unless they were on good advise.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6688435%255E27477,00.html


User currently offlineTekelberry From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1459 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5550 times:

They could have easily evacuated via stairs. That way, NO ONE would have gotten hurt.

User currently offlineSyncmaster From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 2027 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5530 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Qantas has the upmost concern for passenger safety, it kills me to see people say they shouldn't have used the chutes, 5 people getting minor injuries, is nothing compared to the 347 people on board. For god sakes, even though it was only a landing gear, the plane was STILL ON FIRE.

Qantas has never lost a passenger, and had no intent to start now.


User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2389 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5529 times:

What stairs? Are you suggesting that everyone should have waited for stairs to be obtained, driven to the aircraft and positioned at a door? To use the slides the Captain must have wanted his passengers off the aircraft immediately!

User currently offlineSyncmaster From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 2027 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5525 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Exactly AJ, I agree. There was a reason, and it was a damn good one too.

User currently offlineAWspicious From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5524 times:

Bit off topic, but, I noticed the reg # was stated for the Singapore-Sydney aircraft. I'm wondering how would I obtain the reg# of the SYD-LAX flight on Sat. 29th. Aug.?
Thanks.

A.W.


User currently offlineChrisrad From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 1068 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5442 times:


From
ninemsn.com.au

An aircraft evacuation chute appeared to have malfunctioned during the emergency evacuation of a Qantas jumbo jet in Sydney early Wednesday, an airport chief said.

Five passengers were injured when a fire in landing gear forced the emergency evacuation of the Qantas 747 after it landed.

A Qantas spokeswoman said flight QF6, from Frankfurt via Singapore, landed without incident at Mascot around 5.15am, and had taxied up to the gate when a ground engineer noticed smoke coming from one of the aircraft's 16 brakes.

The spokeswoman said the engineer advised the captain of the aircraft, who requested that the 347 passengers disembark by an emergency chute at the rear of the plane.

Sydney Airport chief executive Max Moore-Wilton said one of the emergency evacuation chutes appeared to have malfunctioned.

"I understand there was a problem with one of the emergency chutes," he told reporters at the airport.

"That will be looked at, it may well have been a malfunction.

"That will be looked at by the (Air Transport) Safety Bureau," he said.

Five passengers were taken to hospital with minor injuries - including friction burns, grazes and a bumped head.

One passenger, Gordon Garratley, 51, told AAP he'd seen one of the chutes collapse as people were evacuating the plane.

"There were about two or three people coming down. They would have had a fall of about ten feet (to the ground)," Mr Garratley said.

A spokesman for the Ambulance Service said two of the passengers had been taken to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, two to Sydney Hospital and one to St Vincent's Hospital.

All were currently in a stable condition, the spokesman said.

An English passenger on the flight, Jasper Byrne, 27, said there was panic on the plane when they were told to evacuate.

"People were literally crying when they got off," Mr Byrne told AAP.

"Someone was having an asthma attack when she got off ... it was quite traumatic really, definitely for the older people I think," he said.

The passengers were not told why they had to evacuate and he said they could not tell that anything was wrong from inside the plane although from outside he said, "we could see something".

Mr Moore-Wilton said passengers were being allowed back on the plane to collect passports and valuables and were being cleared by customs.

He said other baggage would take longer to clear but a plan was being put in place for it to be delivered to passengers by the airline, he said.

He said the airport emergency plan had been immediately put into action, involving the NSW police, airport, the airline and emergency services.

"Since approximately 5.30 in the morning we've been working very hard to clear the aircraft.

"That depends on the Aircraft Transport Safety Bureau which has to declare the aircraft safe," Mr Moore-Wilton said.



©AAP 2003



Welcome aboard Malaysia Airlines! Winner of Best Cabin Staff 2001,2002,2003,2004,2007,2009,2012
User currently offlineKevi747 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1058 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5401 times:

It seems like it would be hard to evacuate an airplane parked at the gate. There are lots of things around the airplane that would get in the way of the deploying slides and the people coming down them. Plus they would have had their doors disarmed (or in the "manual" mode) by then. No that its so hard to rearm them, but it takes a few extra seconds.

I'm surprised more people weren't hurt. Evacuations are no joke. During our training at AA we had to jump down a 767 slide. You don't slow down at the end, you just sort of come shooting off the foot end of the slide. It wasn't bad because we landed on a padded surface, but concrete would hurt.

Anyway, kudos to the flight attendants. Once again proof that QF cabin crew are some of the best in the world.



"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert
User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5392 times:

"People were literally crying when they got off," Mr Byrne told AAP.

"Someone was having an asthma attack when she got off ... it was quite traumatic really, definitely for the older people I think," he said.



That is rediculous. This is a minor incident and people were reacting like that? I'm mean sure it's serious but not worth tears over. I don't understand some pax sometimes how they carry on over something small.



User currently offlineB-HXB From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 745 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5377 times:

"People were literally crying when they got off," Mr Byrne told AAP.

"Someone was having an asthma attack when she got off ... it was quite traumatic really, definitely for the older people I think," he said.


That is rediculous. This is a minor incident and people were reacting like that? I'm mean sure it's serious but not worth tears over. I don't understand some pax sometimes how they carry on over something small.


I don't see anything ridiculous about it all. Keep in mind that the passengers would have been instructed only to evacuate. Particularly for elderly or unwell passengers, this could have been quite distressing.

There was a clip of the plane at the gate on the news; from what I could see all slides, including the upper door ones (at least on the right side of the aircraft) had been deployed.


User currently offlineKevi747 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1058 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5361 times:

I agree with B-HXB.

Evacuations can be very stressful for the crew and the PAX as well. It's not like the crew would have been politely asking people to exit the aircraft. No, you shout commands and push people out if they try to sit or hesitate at the top of the slide. It can get very chaotic. Plus, those slides aren't designed for comfort, they're made for speed. Standing at the top you feel like you're looking straight down. I can see how it could freak people out.



"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13740 posts, RR: 19
Reply 20, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5326 times:

Well truly shocking, but at least no one died so that's OK.

Anyway.
---
Qantas evacuation chute 'failed'
By Toni Allan
July 2, 2003

FIVE people were injured and two evacuation chutes malfunctioned when passengers were forced to abandon a Qantas jumbo jet after its brakes caught fire on landing in Sydney today.

QF6, from Frankfurt via Singapore, had landed at Sydney's Kingsford Smith Airport at about 5.15am (AEST) when a ground engineer noticed smoke coming from one of its 16 brakes.

"What happens in an emergency deployment of the slide raft or the chute is that obviously not all of them necessarily work the way you want them to," Qantas aircraft operations executive general manager David Forsyth said.

"As I understand it, there was a problem with two of the chutes."

One passenger, Gordon Garratley, 51, told AAP he had seen one of the chutes collapse as people were evacuating the plane.

"There were about two or three people coming down. They would have had a fall of about ten feet (to the ground)," Mr Garratley said.

An English passenger on the flight, Jasper Byrne, 27, said there was panic on the plane when they were told to evacuate.

"People were literally crying when they got off," Mr Byrne said.

"Someone was having an asthma attack when she got off ... it was quite traumatic really, definitely for the older people I think," he said.

"This landing was not unusual in that it used idle reverse thrust instead of full reverse thrust, so more energy would have been absorbed on an aircraft landing," Mr Forsyth told reporters.

More at News.com.au
----

Qantas have a non use of reverse thrust policy. Bangkok Golf course and now this? Just wondering what people make of this policy now and if it should be changed..?



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineAussiePete From Australia, joined May 2003, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5256 times:

Quote from "Singapore Air"
Qantas have a non use of reverse thrust policy. Bangkok Golf course and now this? Just wondering what people make of this policy now and if it should be changed..?


Well, maybe you should check your facts. Yes, Qantas and MANY OTHER OPERATORS used/use this method for landing as it provides for better serviceability for thrust reversers, brakes, and other systems. This is a characteristic of carbon brakes.

However, if you look into the history of the BKK incident and the report issued, it was used as a scapegoat for the runway departure despite the fact that the pilot in that incident didn't meet the intent of any procedures. In fact, no thrust reversers were deployed at all, even to idle at BKK. How you can blame a procedure that wasn't followed is beyond me, but I'm not in a pilot's union so what would I know.

The fact is this landing procedure is safe, it provides for safety by placing the ultimate decision for throttled up thrust reverse on the pilot, and it has worked well at many operators.

As mentioned by another member above, SYD airport places restrictions on TR use before 6am. However, if the pilot believes that he needs to use TR he has the ultimate discretion.

Qantas do not, by their own policy, use idle reverse landings anymore.

[Edited 2003-07-02 10:08:43]

User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10694 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5251 times:

Two chutes malfunctioned on a 747 just 3 years old? That´s pretty serious in terms of technical issues, even if the evacuation event itself is minor.

As for people crying: I can understand this. None of the passengers is aware whats going on in such a moment, whether its just a precautionary matter or if there´s a reason to think the plane might blow off or burn down. There are always people who are afraid more than others and go panic.

The reverse thrust issue indeed reminds of the Bangkok incident a few years back (that was far more serious) and gives reason to ask if Qantas shouldn´t change their policy here. I don´t know though if this is general practice with airlines to apply just idle reverse thrust. Full reverse thrust can
be a stress factor for uninformed passengers as it gives you the feeling something´s going wrong. I once experienced it on a 744 and its impressive.


User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2389 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5216 times:

"The reverse thrust issue indeed reminds of the Bangkok incident a few years back (that was far more serious) and gives reason to ask if Qantas shouldn´t change their policy here"

Although these remarks are unqualified I will rise to the bait. Qantas policy is to use full reverse thrust on all landings unless prohibited by local procedures, maintenance requirements or at the Captain's discretion.

In this case full reverse thrust was not used as it is prohibited under the Sydney Airport Curfew Act. A fully serviceable B747-400 can decellerate on wheel brakes alone, and has thousands of times before. Runway 34L is a long runway and the aircraft is certified for up to 15 knots of tailwind. There was nothing to indicate that this morning's landing was anything but routine with spoilers, idle reverse and autobrakes used to slow the aircraft. The aircraft was taxied to the terminal before any sign of a problem became apparent, with the flaps, speedbrake and reversers stowed.

Brake fires can be cause by a malfunction in one of many systems, autobrakes, antiskid, tire failure and brake discs to name a few. It is too early to identify why the fire started in the undercarriage. Armchair expertise is expected but not welcomed on an industry forum.


User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10694 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (11 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5195 times:

Armchair expertise, nice phrase.

I have to take this bite. Reading my words again it doesn´t sound very "professional". But from what I read about this incident it sounded as if could have been avoided by applying "some" reverse thrust. I´m not informed about local procedures as well although I´ve been to Sydney and are aware about the local residential conditions.
So the reason seems to be just an undercarriage problem.


25 Marara : A woman wearing high heels is meant to be the reason for the slide deflating.
26 Syncmaster : Posative Rate- Any way you look at it the plane was still on fire, they had every right to cry about it. Honestly, what the hell did you expect them t
27 AWspicious : From what I've gathered, the was only signs of visible smoke. Whether actual flames were present or not hasn't been made clear, has it? Was the slide
28 Mr.BA : While I agree with what AJ has said but are there any apparent reasons for the chutes to fail? Imagine one day the evacuation is critical...
29 Post contains links Heavierthanair : G'day Here's a pic http://www.justplanes.net/images/030715_QF_MBaker.jpg Cheers Peter
30 QANTASFOREVER : A woman wearing high heels is meant to be the reason for the slide deflating. Stupid b****. God - Is it too much to ask people to actually READ the sa
31 Post contains links and images WLG-Spotter : This seemed a bit off topic (or very off topic), but I was just browring thru JetPhotos web site the and came across this picture http://www.jetphotos
32 Singapore_Air : No one reads safety cards because they are not interesting and do not have relevance to people. Really, if airlines want people to read safety cards,
33 777236ER : Problem here is that people were deplaning, meaning they're up and walking. Even a very seasoned flier wouldn't stop and take their pointy shoes off w
34 AussiePete : 777236ER: A very valid point. This was an unusual situation (when is an evac a normal situation?) in that the passengers were already up and out of th
35 777236ER : Why did the crews allow pax to carry their bags down the chutes? If you had the passengers with hand luggage in their arms, stood up in the aisles the
36 Chrisrad : The high heels explains one of the chutes, but what about the other chute that failed?
37 Aviasian : AWspicious : Ever heard of "No smoke without fire". If you wait to investigate further, find the fire before initiating emergency procedures, you coul
38 Positive rate : Ok i can understand it was distressing but what i'm trying to say is that people tend to overreact whenever anything goes wrong with an airplane- whet
39 Nickofatlanta : I find the curfew rules interesting to say the least. Surely, the airlines should land properly or not at all. So, in this case, why don't they just s
40 Aviasian : Positive Rate : For an elderly person (or for that matter, for any person who has no clue what sort of emergency this is . . . or its severity), it is
41 Positive rate : Aviasan you're quite correct. I do understand how an elderly passenger may become distressed in a situation like this one. Perhaps i'm just too used t
42 PER744 : I don't think you can expect an 18 year old flight attendant who was winding down and looking forward to their nice hotel room after a long flight to
43 777236ER : Qantas are not VirginBlue, they actually have capable f/a's, and I am always happy to have my safety in their hands. Obviously they don't have capable
44 Miami1 : PER744 - Here in Australia I believe it is safe to say that ALL airlines train their FAs to the highest possible standards. FA ground schools and trai
45 Buckfifty : From what I've read so far (rumours and all), the slides failed not because of pointy shoes, but doors that were disarmed and not rearmed (and therefo
46 Post contains images Marara : What has been said on some of the radio stations is that some exits were not manned by at the start of the evac, some exits were operated by passenger
47 Hmmmm... : The irony in these situations is that the only people injured are those injured while sliding down the slides. We see this over and over again in the
48 Positive rate : PER744 i think you're comment was out of line dude. Why do you think Virgin Blue's FA's are any less capable than the almighty QF's? I've flown DJ a f
49 Nitro500 : PER744 - How can you turn a 747 evacuation topic in to an opportunity to 'have a go' at Virgin Blue? Very odd behaviour indeed. CASA issue both carrie
50 L-188 : Well, it would make sense that several of the doors would be disarmed, especially if they had allready started deplaning. The Catering truck has to pu
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Qantas 747-400 Makes Emergency Landing At Bangkok posted Fri Feb 16 2001 13:02:10 by Singapore_Air
Qantas 747 Aborted Landing, LHR 09R 06.45 Today posted Fri Sep 8 2006 21:41:52 by Sarnie
Excel 747 Evacuated At SSH (Engine Fire) posted Thu Aug 24 2006 20:46:50 by Horus
Qantas 747 Surrounded By Cops At LAX posted Mon Aug 14 2006 22:30:18 by Freakfor747
New Zealand Flight Evacuated After Hoax Note Found posted Fri Jul 7 2006 13:40:45 by NZ560
Qantas 747-300'S To Stay Until 2011 posted Mon Apr 17 2006 15:40:50 by Jetfuel
Qantas 747 In TOL Tonight? posted Tue Apr 11 2006 05:08:12 by N8334W
Aircraft Lands Safe In BAQ After Emergency Landing posted Wed Jan 25 2006 06:04:51 by MATURRO727
Qantas 747 At Stansted posted Sun Jan 22 2006 22:00:28 by LHRneighbour
Why So Many Qantas 747 At LAX? posted Thu Dec 1 2005 19:23:29 by Boeing 747-311