Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
QF 744 Problem Over The Pacific  
User currently offlineThreeFourThree From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 215 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 13961 times:

*sigh* Yet another problem, this time its with their radar.

Quote:
A Qantas 747 was forced to rely on another jet to guide it to safety this morning after its radar failed and the crew had to "fly blind" in darkness over the Pacific Ocean.

Source : http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=657309

And yet more poor reporting, calling a 777 a 747.

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSpeedbird0125 From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 184 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 13280 times:

what happened to QF recently? They're having many problems.

User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5590 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 13253 times:



Quoting Speedbird0125 (Reply 1):
what happened to QF recently? They're having many problems.

I'm guessing - yes, guessing - that it's a combination of bad luck, media hyperawareness, and perhaps smidge of Qantas carelessness. But I would think that the vast majority of issues we're hearing are not necessarily Qantas issues, per se, but rather things that can and do happen but because Qantas is in the spotlight, they are all being thrown into the headlines.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineSpeedBirdA380 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 539 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 13206 times:

Flying blind?

If I understood the article correctly the weather radar failed. Thats hardly flying blind as they report. Flying blind would suggest they had no idea where they were and no navigation equipment working. Typical Media  Yeah sure

I like the picture of the 2 engined 747. What an idiot I am. Myself a huge aviation enthusiast and I did not even know Air New Zealand operated 747's on two engines.  ashamed 


User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1966 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 12870 times:

I aasume Air New Zealand's 747 had its own emergency when it lost two engines??? Who guided IT in?


My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17067 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 12842 times:



Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 4):
aasume Air New Zealand's 747 had its own emergency when it lost two engines???

And its winglets and its upper deck and so on.

How a stupid mistake.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6398 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 12812 times:



Quoting SpeedBirdA380 (Reply 3):



Flying blind?

If I understood the article correctly the weather radar failed. Thats hardly flying blind as they report. Flying blind would suggest they had no idea where they were and no navigation equipment working. Typical Media

Not to give the media any credit here, but, I would imagine that going trans-pacific, you would need a working radar (to avoid blundering into Towering Cumulonimbus tops-thunderstorms to the general public  Wink ). Wonder if anyone more knowledgeable than me could chime in on that, like what the requirements are for a working WX radar on a trans-pacific flight (both ICAO and airline rules, perhaps) ?



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10901 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 12768 times:

Qantas jet 'flew blind' across Pacific

A Qantas airliner had to follow an Air New Zealand jet across the Pacific after its weather radar broke down leaving it 'flying blind'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...jet-flew-blind-across-Pacific.html



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineArcrftLvr From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 826 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 12749 times:



Quoting ThreeFourThree (Thread starter):
And yet more poor reporting, calling a 777 a 747.



Quoting SpeedBirdA380 (Reply 3):
I like the picture of the 2 engined 747. What an idiot I am. Myself a huge aviation enthusiast and I did not even know Air New Zealand operated 747's on two engines.

If you read the article, you would find that the story accurately references the 772 as the plane that guided QF12 to Auckland. I don't understand what you guys are referring to? The author never incorrectly refers to the Qantas aircraft as a 772. It indicated that a Qantas 744 was guided by an Air New Zealand 777-200 over the Pacific to Auckland, NZ. Also, the photo of the 772 is correctly labeled. Surprisingly, in this case, the media was spot on.


User currently offlineHb88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 816 posts, RR: 31
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 12699 times:



Quoting ArcrftLvr (Reply 8):
If you read the article, you would find that the story accurately references the 772 as the plane that guided QF12 to Auckland. I don't understand what you guys are referring to? The author never incorrectly refers to the Qantas aircraft as a 772. It indicated that a Qantas 744 was guided by an Air New Zealand 777-200 over the Pacific to Auckland, NZ. Also, the photo of the 772 is correctly labeled. Surprisingly, in this case, the media was spot on.

I was thinking the same thing. The article seemed to get everything pretty well right - apart from the "flying blind" bit of hysteria. Perhaps a.netters getting a little trigger-happy with pounding the media?

Lack of WX radar wouldn't have been a huge issue really. Good to have the ANZ 777 there for sure, but it isn't as if QF didn't know where they were as is implied by the article.


User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 12675 times:



Quoting Hb88 (Reply 9):
Lack of WX radar wouldn't have been a huge issue really. Good to have the ANZ 777 there for sure, but it isn't as if QF didn't know where they were as is implied by the article.

Lack of weather radar can be a huge deal. It is one of the most underappreciated pieces of equipment discussed here at A.Net. Losing it in an area of convective activity would be very nerve wracking.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17067 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 12595 times:



Quoting ArcrftLvr (Reply 8):
If you read the article, you would find that the story accurately references the 772 as the plane that guided QF12 to Auckland. I don't understand what you guys are referring to? The author never incorrectly refers to the Qantas aircraft as a 772. It indicated that a Qantas 744 was guided by an Air New Zealand 777-200 over the Pacific to Auckland, NZ. Also, the photo of the 772 is correctly labeled. Surprisingly, in this case, the media was spot on.



Quoting Hb88 (Reply 9):
I was thinking the same thing. The article seemed to get everything pretty well right - apart from the "flying blind" bit of hysteria. Perhaps a.netters getting a little trigger-happy with pounding the media?

He, he. Guys take it easy. Seems they have changed and corrected their mistake. It said actually from the beginning (the text under the ANZ 772) The Air New Zealand Boeing 747



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineSpeedBirdA380 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 539 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 12321 times:



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 6):
Not to give the media any credit here, but, I would imagine that going trans-pacific, you would need a working radar (to avoid blundering into Towering Cumulonimbus tops-thunderstorms to the general public Wink ). Wonder if anyone more knowledgeable than me could chime in on that, like what the requirements are for a working WX radar on a trans-pacific flight (both ICAO and airline rules, perhaps) ?

I totally agree with you. I was just making the point that describing an aircraft that has lost its weather radar as "flying blind" is a bit over the top.

Quoting ArcrftLvr (Reply 8):
If you read the article, you would find that the story accurately references the 772 as the plane that guided QF12 to Auckland. I don't understand what you guys are referring to? The author never incorrectly refers to the Qantas aircraft as a 772. It indicated that a Qantas 744 was guided by an Air New Zealand 777-200 over the Pacific to Auckland, NZ. Also, the photo of the 772 is correctly labeled. Surprisingly, in this case, the media was spot on.



Quoting Hb88 (Reply 9):
I was thinking the same thing. The article seemed to get everything pretty well right - apart from the "flying blind" bit of hysteria. Perhaps a.netters getting a little trigger-happy with pounding the media?

Well I just clicked the article and yes they have corrected their mistake. Before it referred to the Air New Zealand aircraft as a 747. Thats why we were getting hot under the collar and no we were not being trigger happy.  Wink


User currently offlineArcrftLvr From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 826 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 11726 times:



Quoting SpeedBirdA380 (Reply 12):
Well I just clicked the article and yes they have corrected their mistake. Before it referred to the Air New Zealand aircraft as a 747. Thats why we were getting hot under the collar and no we were not being trigger happy.

Understood. Admirable to see that the media actually took the initiative and corrected their mistake. Helps with the credibility of the article.


User currently offlineF27friend From Australia, joined Feb 2008, 29 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 11728 times:

Read on ... http://www.avherald.com/h?article=40f158c2&opt=0


F27 & F28 Fan
User currently offlinePH-TVH From Netherlands, joined May 2001, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 11020 times:

Weird... the 747-400 has a pair of Weather Radar Antennas (Left and Right).
One can switch between them whenever you want.

Both Radar Antennas are stabilized by a pair of IRU's (Left & Center IRU's stabilize the Left Radar Antenna and Center & Right Stabilize the Right Radar Antenna)

So far for the technical background of weather radar in the 747-400...

I find it hard to believe both of them have failed at the same time... however there's always a possibility for some failure in the weather radar panel or on the ND display itself...

Anyways, the statement flying blind is - indeed - a little far fetched....


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 10957 times:

They didn't "have" to do anything.

If it were an emergency, they would have put down safely at any one of dozens of diversion points.

All they did was fly like so many planes used to, without weather radar. But to be "safe" they followed after the NZ bird for updates re: turbulence, etc. to make things smoother for the passengers.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDrExotica From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 10619 times:

In the Telegraph, they have a picture of a QANTAS A388:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...jet-flew-blind-across-Pacific.html

Classic stuff...



N707PA - Best looking commercial aircraft ever.
User currently offlineSpeedBirdA380 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 539 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 10120 times:



Quoting DrExotica (Reply 17):
Reply 17,

I am so annoyed at this "Flying Blind" nonsense that the media keeps printing.

As far as I know all of the aircrafts navigation systems were working properly. The media try to have you believe this plane had no idea where it was and if it were not for the Air New Zealand 777 that "guided" it home it would have crashed into the Pacific Ocean.

However I do find it a bit strange that according to the report the Captain came on the Aircraft PA and announced that they were flying blind.

Is there more to this story or was it just a bad choice of words from the Captain?


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 9794 times:



Quoting SpeedBirdA380 (Reply 12):
Thats why we were getting hot under the collar and no we were not being trigger happy



Quoting SpeedBirdA380 (Reply 18):
I am so annoyed at this "Flying Blind" nonsense that the media keeps printing.

Why?? What's the point in getting "annoyed" over virtually nothing?


User currently offlineSpeedBirdA380 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 539 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 9541 times:

Because it hurts the airline involved.

I know and you know this is no big deal.

But your average "Joe Public" picks up a paper and reads "Qantas jet is rendered helpless and has to rely on another aircraft to guide it home" and the whole thing is blown out of proportion.

I would have no problem if the press said "Qantas jet loses weather radar in flight and diverts to Sydney". Thats the the truth.

But to say "The plane was flying blind" is ridicoulous.

[Edited 2008-10-29 17:26:28]

User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4836 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 9238 times:



Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 10):

Quoting Hb88 (Reply 9):
Lack of WX radar wouldn't have been a huge issue really. Good to have the ANZ 777 there for sure, but it isn't as if QF didn't know where they were as is implied by the article.

Lack of weather radar can be a huge deal. It is one of the most underappreciated pieces of equipment discussed here at A.Net. Losing it in an area of convective activity would be very nerve wracking.

 checkmark 
Especially across the Pacific Ocean.... Aircraft fly through the ITCZ on both sides of the equator with 90% of the time there being big kickass CBs! With a weather radar it is often possible to avoid a lot of it, but without it is very hard, they are often the type that make them hard to climb over the top of also... often exceeding FL410... I've been at FL410 before looking out the side with CBs at least another few thousand feet above! The crew did the right thing and yes this is just another media QF beatup, but it is still worthy of being reported in the media unlike half the crap that they have been writing about QF lately



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4836 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 9040 times:

Anyway here are the 3 pictures that have been seen so far... I sure hope more surface!!




and here are two of my own pics air-to-air with an NZ 763.




56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2180 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 8821 times:



Quoting ThreeFourThree (Thread starter):
And yet more poor reporting, calling a 777 a 747.



Quoting SpeedBirdA380 (Reply 3):
I like the picture of the 2 engined 747. What an idiot I am. Myself a huge aviation enthusiast and I did not even know Air New Zealand operated 747's on two engines.



Quoting B747forever (Reply 5):
And its winglets and its upper deck and so on.

How a stupid mistake.

"stupid mistakes" are all yours ... when the figure caption is explicitely mentioning a NZ 777-200!

Quoting SpeedBirdA380 (Reply 20):
I would have no problem if the press said "Qantas jet loses weather radar in flight and diverts to Sydney". Thats the the truth.

Nope. Truth is that they diverted to Auckland. Almost there when you come from LAX but not exactly there yet...

Quoting SpeedBirdA380 (Reply 18):
The media try to have you believe this plane had no idea where it was and if it were not for the Air New Zealand 777 that "guided" it home it would have crashed into the Pacific Ocean.

I will give you that. Bottom line is that there is almost always an aircraft nearby that can assist you, but the average reader does not know that...



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineSpeedBirdA380 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 539 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 8434 times:



Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 23):
"stupid mistakes" are all yours ... when the figure caption is explicitely mentioning a NZ 777-200!

Guess someone did not read the whole of the thread.  Yeah sure

As I said before the aircraft HAS BEEN CHANGED since the news was first brought out and has been changed to the correct aircraft.


25 777STL : Try reading the whole thread before you start shooting your mouth off with the snarky comments.
26 PanAm788 : n00b I don't understand how hard it is for the media to identify aircraft. I know we give them a bit more grief then they deserve, but seriously, hav
27 B747forever : Do you even care about reading the whole thread before making such comment ??
28 Post contains links Flyjetstar : I think you might be giving the media a hard time re the flying blind comment: The Qantas pilot who reportedly told passengers he was "flying blind" a
29 Jetjeanes : The flying blind kind of stretching it a bit. yes the weather readar is important but if they could not have found another plane they could have safel
30 Norcal773 : " target=_blank>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl....html LOL. They have a picture of a QF A380 in the picture on this article.
31 GFFgold : Hear hear! There is a lot of potential for CB on that route. Might I also suggest that the P.A. is similarly underappreciated, as an appropriate and
32 Zkpilot : Not in this part of the world there isn't.... there are only a handful of flights per day between the USA and NZL/AUS. Sometimes there are a few airc
33 Qantas787 : If no other aircraft was around to assist, would the Captain have taken it up to 43000 to maybe help to avoid weather related issues? Just asking.
34 PH-TVH : Most of the time somewhere half-way the 747-400 simply can't fly FL430...
35 Jgarrido : This happened to another qantas a few months back, and weather was actually less then idea. It was one of their a330's and he had to do a couple figur
36 Zkpilot : Not at standard cruise cost index, but if you bump up the speed a notch to a higher cost-index then the aircraft has often burned enough fuel by then
37 PH-TVH : There are several things to increase your max level, like increasing speed/cost index or changing you MAC ZFW. Both of them usually don't give you en
38 TristarSteve : Which B744 is this. ARE the QF ones different? Ours have two TRs but only a single flat plate antenna, the round plate under the radome. The signal f
39 Post contains links Readytotaxi : Reported by the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7699712.stm
40 PH-TVH : This is what my FCOM 2 says about the weather radar.... Aircraft i'm referring to is the 747-400 in KLM configuration. Disclaimer: you might be right
41 Zkpilot : QF does have the only pax 744ERs...not sure if this aircraft was or not but they usually do fly from LAX-SYD. There are some differences but I don't
42 Allrite : More details of the flight.
43 Norcal773 : It was in the news again today and they described it as a 'radar problem' and conveniently left out 'weather'. Made it sound like it was a life and de
44 QFFlyer : VH-OEB was the rego, so not the ER
45 TristarSteve : OK, this is how it works. There are two Weather Radar Transceivers. They are mounted in the nose just behind the radome. There are two on B744, but o
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...
Reus Is Not Barcelona - Oh Dear posted Sun Jan 28 2007 18:32:59 by Standby87
Another A310 Problem For Sibir/S7 posted Mon Aug 21 2006 00:43:09 by Afay1
Oh Dear. Problems At Alpha1... posted Sat Apr 9 2005 17:04:22 by Backfire
Another JL Problem........... posted Tue Mar 8 2005 19:37:06 by Ktachiya
Yet Another Labor Problem On UA's Plate posted Wed Aug 11 2004 19:11:33 by Alphascan
Another Concorde Problem posted Tue Jun 24 2003 18:03:02 by Planespotterx
Another Concorde Problem Today posted Mon Mar 10 2003 01:24:48 by Pshifrin
Here We Go Again, Another Radar Problem In CA posted Tue Oct 24 2000 00:08:39 by Tripleseven
Qantas - Another Problem (not) posted Thu Aug 7 2008 02:12:47 by ZKEYE
Another AA Airbus Problem Today posted Thu May 3 2007 21:41:12 by N62NA
Another AA Airbus Problem Today posted Thu May 3 2007 21:41:12 by N62NA
Another Concorde Problem Today posted Mon Mar 10 2003 01:24:48 by Pshifrin
Here We Go Again, Another Radar Problem In CA posted Tue Oct 24 2000 00:08:39 by Tripleseven
Qantas - Another Problem (not) posted Thu Aug 7 2008 02:12:47 by ZKEYE
Another AA Airbus Problem Today posted Thu May 3 2007 21:41:12 by N62NA
U-turn Contrail West Of TIJ Over The Pacific posted Thu Mar 13 2008 19:44:52 by Marcus
America West 757 Engine Shutdown Over The Pacific! posted Tue Jul 31 2007 00:49:11 by ShootTheMoon
First Non Stop Flight Over The Pacific posted Fri Sep 1 2006 14:12:13 by Deaphen
The Future Of Etops Over The Pacific? posted Mon Aug 11 2003 11:38:33 by Noelg
MD-11 Over The Pacific posted Tue Jul 29 2003 04:23:40 by L.1011
A 727 Over The Pacific Flight? posted Wed Apr 30 2003 05:34:06 by Big777jet
767 Over The Pacific? posted Sun Jan 12 2003 09:07:29 by Gigneil
Flying Over The Pacific..... posted Fri Aug 2 2002 20:57:33 by Jamesag96
Flying Over The Pacific posted Mon Apr 10 2000 19:39:26 by Gopal
QF 744's After The A380 posted Sun Oct 12 2008 23:09:39 by Ben175
Flying Over The Pacific posted Mon Apr 10 2000 19:39:26 by Gopal
QF 744's After The A380 posted Sun Oct 12 2008 23:09:39 by Ben175