Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12166 posts, RR: 35 Posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2226 times:
It's been reported by the BBC that a 747-400 operating Qantas's flight QF 1 from Sydney to LHR (via BKK) has suffered a nosegear failure at BKK, while landing on the shorter of the two runways. The aircraft slithered along the runway and off to the side, ending up with a third of it in the golf course (between the two runways).
The aircraft was landing during an electrical storm.
So, in the last month or so, the following aircraft have either been damaged or destroyed while landing in bad weather :
CAL/Mandarin MD11, Qantas 747 (PER), World MD11 (Shannon), Britannia 757 (Gerona) and now, this one.
Another Qantas accident - in the space of two weeks. Hmm . . .
LH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 55 Reply 2, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1765 times:
in the 80 years QANTAS has been around, and to never have had a serious accident, this is really startling. What's next the Concorde (which also has never suffered a major accident) plummets out of the sky from 60.000 ft. Where's the aviation world going to if a safe airline like QANTAS has an accident. I now that accidents are bound to happen, but really, QANTAS?
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Cathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, RR: 16 Reply 4, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1741 times:
I am appalled at the above posting. You make it sound as if an airline can somehow be exempt from incidents. It is a shame that this incident occured, however in over 75 years of service I am sure this incident will not tarnish QF's image at all.
As for the Concorde, a couple of years back one lost half of it's rudder inflight at Mach 2.0 enroute from New Zealand to Sydney.
In the aviation business, anything can happen, anywhere and anytime. Next time before making such a comment as "I now that accidents are bound to happen, but really, QANTAS?" take into consideration that there is no real information available on the incident yet so it is FAR TOO EARLY to make assumptions.
Please, am I the only one slightly offended by the above post?
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 13 Reply 5, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1724 times:
C'mon, guys...seems to me what happened with the QANTAS plane can be called an incident rather than an accident. Nothing serious, if I understand correctly! Hell, a Concorde suffered some burst tyres once on landing, and no one thought much of it. Nose-wheel collapse may be a bit scarier and more serious, but is the plane considered a hull loss? No. Were there any fatalities? No. Planes are machines, operated by humans. They are subject to failure, accident and incident...whatever you want to call it.
RA001 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1659 times:
Thank you CX111, Ilyushin96M and FLY777UAL....a realistic perspective.
From what I have heard BKK ATC did not inform QF1 of the very wet runway conditions. Not saying they are to blame but I wouldn't put it all down to QF either. Incidents happen. Maybe a little bit of tall poppy....given that QF has not had a major airframe write-off.
Ravi From Singapore, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1643 times:
Reason why the incident has higher consequence for QF than other airlines is because it happens so rarely and because of the myth (and hype) in the world that QF is the world's safest airline (thanks to Dustin Hoffman and Rainman).
An incident for Qantas will not tarnish their reputation. In deed, the best of sensationalism has suggested that this incident "is the worst in the history of Qantas" (which is actually false, not that anyone will take the time to note it).
QF lost a Constellation to fire in 1959 (about). A few years later a 707 dug its nose into the runway at Singapore. In 1927 a piston-engined airplane was lost with loss of life.
This is not the worst day in QF's history, nor the best. An incident it is, however, and an incident it shall remain. Also, it is not a hull loss, so QF insurance premiums remain intact!
A330 From Belgium, joined May 1999, 649 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1632 times:
Every airline suffers an incident every 20 years or so.
You can expect something to happen after so many years of luck.
Mostly, and these are observations made by IATA, a major incident is the finale of several minor incidents (indeed, QF has suffered some during the last year)
Last year, Sabena (the Safest airline of Europe) suffered a major incident with the sudden collapse of the right main gear of an A340 (Faulty construction).
At that moment, airmanship and luck will determine the fate of pax and plane.
September is the BLACK MONTH in aviation, with the most accidents.
This is known by airline insiders and pilots.
After the busy and stressing holidays, Sept. is a month where everything gets normal again, tension is away, but so can concentration . There tends to be a more "relaxed" feeling, and this in all departments. Weather is also detoriating.
Look at the number of accidents, and you will agree.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12166 posts, RR: 35 Reply 16, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1622 times:
The World aircraft was operating an Aer Lingus flight to Shannon last Saturday morning (18/9) when it ran off the runway; only minor damage, but atrocious weather at the time; all 317 escaped without injury.
Apologies to any posters who took my opening line the wrong way. Having flown over 25,000 miles with QF, I have nothing but the highest respect for the airline. However, I do think it is worthy of note that an airline should have two accidents in similar circumstances within a month - particularly one as reputable as Qantas.
Finally, I am happy to say that the crew of the 747 which had the landing accident at Perth have now been returned to line flying. I was particularly sorry for the captain, who was having his first flight after completing line training on his conversion.
Gardermoen From Australia, joined Jul 1999, 1520 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1623 times:
Remember the same sort of thing that happened to Ansett Australia back in October 1994? One of its spaceship 747s had to turn back to Sydney on its Kansai run and upon landing the nose wheel collapsed.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12166 posts, RR: 35 Reply 19, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1609 times:
Gardermoen, I remember that accident well. I think it was due to a large extent to the crew's inexperience, the 747 being very new to AN at that stage. Thankfully, again, non fatal, and the aircraft returned to service. (I'm not entirely sure if the nosegear was locked or even fully down when it landed - Australian commentators, comments?)
Leading edge, that comment was below par. Anything else like that and we may have to give you the birdie!
XQF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1571 times:
The Captain was a check and training captain for QF, therefore one of the most experienced in the industry, so pilot error can be pretty much ruled out. From what i hear BKK ATC did not advise the crew as to the severity of the runway conditions at the time of the electrical storm. In my humble opinion i think the crew should be applauded for keeping control of the 744, they were able to keep it dead straight down the runway. The nose gear collapsed when they hit a light at the end of the runway.
How many incidents in poor weather have there been lately without such a casulty free and relatively damage free ending? Well done Qantas, still the world's safest airline (IMHO anyways!)
A330 From Belgium, joined May 1999, 649 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1570 times:
I'm not saying the crew made a mistake here, but beeing a training/check captain or Chief pilot of a major airline does not rule out errors.
The Capt. of the AA MD80 in Little Rock was Chief pilot MD80 for AA and Capt. Van Zanten who was the "Star" pilot of "the reliable Airline" KLM led his B747 into disaster in Tenerife!
Human error can happen to ANYONE.
By the way, when not adviced about the runway conditions during a storm, a REQUEST about the runway conditions and braking effectiveness are a proof of good airmanship.
Anticipating is always better than a reaction.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12166 posts, RR: 35 Reply 24, posted (14 years 2 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1548 times:
Vey good point, A330. I didn't know about the AA captain, but Captain Jacob Louis Veldhuizen Van Zanten was not only the "star pilot", he had also featured in a number of KLM ads in Time magazine (and similar) in the mid 1970s.
Indeed, it was said that this very fact contributed to the accident, in that the first officer, Klaas Meurs, was relatively new to the 747 and on that day, Van Z. was quite tetchy, due to the need to get back to AMS before his flying hours were up. Meurs questioned him once about clearance, but the irritable reply prevented him from doing so again. Only the flight engineer, whose last - perhaps now immortal - words, "Is he not clear, that Pan American?" spoke up as the 747 began its roll.
25 Thai747: Good evening from Bangkok, this is an extract from The Nation Newspaper exactly for today Minor accident forces closure of runway THE Bangkok Internat
26 RA001: For the critics...the captain was a SENIOR check & trainer.....I've done a few sectors with QF in the jump seat in my time and the request for weather
27 Ice Cream Man: About this being an accident or an incident, there seems to be quite some confusion on this subject. If I remeber correctly (long time ago), an incide
28 Thai747: The Nation has reupdated their picture in the homepage ... the new picture is here Or Click Here!!
29 Cathay111: The 747 picture in one fo the above messages features what looks to be a specially painted Boeing 747 aircraft.......who's is it? Craig
30 Thai747: That is Thai 's new 747-400 special scheme .. called "Supunhong" or royal barge.. the aircraft's name is Haripulchai.. although after today ( 26 of Se
31 F27: What goes around comes around Qantas have now got there own back after the the incident in 1995 and now the foot is on the other shoe
32 Kaitak: Can't agree at all, F27. I presume you mean the Ansett incident in 1994. There is not - and NEVER should be - competition between airlines when it com
33 Mrfixit747: Hey dont knock Qantas about saftey, they are one of the most strigent airlines when it comes to maintainance. I usedto work for them and i was actuial
34 Ravi: What??? QF didn't murmur a thing when AN dropped the nose at SYD!!! How can they therefore "get their own back?"
35 Gardermoen: Just to add something to the QF/AN thing, when the Ansett nose wheel collapse occured, one QF exec sent a Christmas card to AN that said "Merry Crashm
36 Ravi: Any executive that sent any such Christmas card now does not have a job.