4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 3089 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 16384 times:
...Usually I feel that after an incident there is a quick trigger finger to shout panicked headlines at each minor issue that impacts the same carrier afterwards.
But I gotta wonder if there really is a flurry of unusual events with QF?
peterjohns From Germany, joined Jan 2009, 244 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 16213 times:
I´m beginning to feel sorry for somebody at QF Ops. To have a longrange flight divert can be a bit of a trouble, but to have four in a week (or was it five already?) is a nightmare.
What certainly won´t go down well, is that it wasn´t due to sick passengers or similar, but all due to technical reasons..
The QF spokesman can start learning a few statements!!
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12932 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 15980 times:
Oh yes, you can just wait for the newspapers; shock horror, "we were all scared witless", yada, yada, yada.
As cc2314 says, these incidents happen to a lot of airlines; there is a procedure to follow and if a captain has doubts about engine performance, it's best to shut down and return; a pain for all concerned, but it happens and QF will deal with it in a safe, professional way, as it always does.
alangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 15303 times:
Quoting longhauler (Reply 5): This focus on one airline after a major incident. I have seen it many times in the past. During the same time, the same frequency probably happened at just about every major airline on the earth.
So, just as a statistical thing, how many returns to departure point have BA, United, Air France, Singapore etc had recently that we have not read about, because they were just routine minor "rather safe than sorry" matters? Qantas have now had 6 since SFO
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4992 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 14949 times:
Most likely part of the problem is that the 744 fleet is being worked VERY hard right now (there are less 744s than 2 years ago doing the same amount of flying they did then by covering the A380). Whilst this is still considered safe, it does raise the risk of engine shutdowns due to less time for mx.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 6273 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 14756 times:
Quoting 4holer (Reply 1): I gotta wonder if there really is a flurry of unusual events with QF?
This seems to happen at QF. After the hole appeared in the side of a 744 in 2008 the exact same thing happened: for the next few weeks nothing went right for them and there was incident after incident.
Most are no doubt 'routine' and the media merely jump on them in light of the recent *major* event and bash the story to death (after all, the Australian media love nothing more than a good bit of Qantas bashing).
Quoting Auchmithie (Reply 8): VH-OEI - the same machine that was
involved in the QF17 return to Sydney yesterday.
That says it all: the aircraft was out of service for less than a day after an incident which was *so serious* that it made about the first, second, third and fourth items on the evening news... (Move over Aung San Su Kyi )
They're not quite 'non-events' but try telling that to your average journo...
CabinC From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 14581 times:
There is the old airline saying: "We are only as safe as our last flight". Their previous reputation should not grant them some sort of immunity. I am in no way saying that Qantas is a dangerous airline that is in the practice of flying unsafe planes. I am simply saying that just because they used to take care of their planes a certain way, does not mean they do now. Maybe they need to look at some of the things that they are doing and figure out why they are having so many unfortunate incidents.
kalvado From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 14315 times:
Quoting alangirvan (Reply 11): So, just as a statistical thing, how many returns to departure point have BA, United, Air France, Singapore etc had recently that we have not read about, because they were just routine minor "rather safe than sorry" matters? Qantas have now had 6 since SFO
According to airfleets.net Qantas has 69 long haul jets (excluding grounded A380), powered by 190 engines.
Assuming those are airborn for 168 hours a week non-stop, that's about 32K engine hours weekly.
To keep ETOPS certification there should be less than 1 IFSD per 20K of operation (i.e. 1 per 40K engine hours), with the goal of 1 per 50K hours.
I know, most of those engines are on 747 hence not ETOPS, but that's basic idea of how often IFSD should happen.