Qantas landing filmed by passenger!

Qantas landing filmed by passenger!

Amateur footage has captured the moment a Qantas flight carrying more than 300 passengers was forced to land.

This video was filmed by one of the passengers just before the emergency landing.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Gazbom.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by gazbom56]

[edit on 26-7-2008 by gazbom56]

Thanks for posting the link. I'm looking forward to hearing what happened with this aircraft. My understanding is that decompression above 10,000 feet sounds like an explosion but that doesn't necessarily mean it is an explosion.

The Al Qaeda terrorists are coming to eat us all will be the official story more than likely. Id be surprised they say it was just a malfunction.

From the looks of the picture it was a failure along the rivet line of the panel. Most likely caused by corrosion. The break is too clean to be an explosive or explosion. The panel probably failed, it bent out a little bit from the airflow going over it, and that let the air get under it and peeled it back.

reply to post by Zaphod58

I agree with you. It is a very clean break and in a likely location. It's kind of scary to think that you could be flying wherever and parts of your aircraft fall off. I'm glad I'm done travelling.

Most airlines have very good corrosion control procedures to prevent things like this from happening. But if it starts deep in the airframe then you can't find it without doing a deep check and removing skin.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Most airlines have very good corrosion control procedures to prevent things like this from happening. But if it starts deep in the airframe then you can't find it without doing a deep check and removing skin.

They did a corrosion check straight after the aircraft landed and it was clean.

Gazbom.

There are different levels of corrosion checks. There's a general check that looks things over, and then there's a more detailed check that takes skin off and looks at ribs and framing. And the corrosion could have been on the panel that came off as well. We used to do corrosion checks on the skin, and not find anything, then find horrible corrosion on the ribs, and deeper in the airframe. We had two aircraft that were grounded because the corrosion was too expensive to fix, but if you did a general corrosion check you wouldn't have found anything.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There are different levels of corrosion checks. There's a general check that looks things over, and then there's a more detailed check that takes skin off and looks at ribs and framing. And the corrosion could have been on the panel that came off as well. We used to do corrosion checks on the skin, and not find anything, then find horrible corrosion on the ribs, and deeper in the airframe. We had two aircraft that were grounded because the corrosion was too expensive to fix, but if you did a general corrosion check you wouldn't have found anything.

Hy Zaphod58,

Here's the report.
link

Gazbom.

From the report (emphasis mine):

"Our PRELIMINARY checks on this indicate there was no corrosion anywhere near where this hole occurred in the aircraft," he told ABC news in Australia.

"We really can't speculate on how this happened or causes, but certainly there's going to be a very thorough investigation."

"The most recent maintenance check on this aircraft were for a 'D' [most thorough] check in Qantas's Sydney facility in 2004 and two 'C' [regular] checks in Qantas's facility in 2006 and 2008," she said.

In an online planespotters' forum in February, participants referred to the detection of "serious corrosion issues" in the 17-year-old Boeing 747-438 Longreach during a maintenance check at Avalon airport in March.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The PRELIMINARY checks after landing showed no corrosion. To do a true check you have to slap it into a hangar and peel the skin back. That takes MONTHS to do. When we had a bird go in for PDM it wasn't uncommon to have them gone 4-6 months.

The comments were also made by the Chief Executive of Qantas. Of course he's going to put a positive spin on things and try to put them in the best light possible.


[edit on 7/26/2008 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
From the report (emphasis mine):

"Our PRELIMINARY checks on this indicate there was no corrosion anywhere near where this hole occurred in the aircraft," he told ABC news in Australia.

"We really can't speculate on how this happened or causes, but certainly there's going to be a very thorough investigation."

"The most recent maintenance check on this aircraft were for a 'D' [most thorough] check in Qantas's Sydney facility in 2004 and two 'C' [regular] checks in Qantas's facility in 2006 and 2008," she said.

In an online planespotters' forum in February, participants referred to the detection of "serious corrosion issues" in the 17-year-old Boeing 747-438 Longreach during a maintenance check at Avalon airport in March.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The PRELIMINARY checks after landing showed no corrosion. To do a true check you have to slap it into a hangar and peel the skin back. That takes MONTHS to do. When we had a bird go in for PDM it wasn't uncommon to have them gone 4-6 months.

The comments were also made by the Chief Executive of Qantas. Of course he's going to put a positive spin on things and try to put them in the best light possible.


[edit on 7/26/2008 by Zaphod58]

Qantas boss Geoff Dixon has denied corrosion caused a hole in the body of the plane that was forced to make an emergency landing in Manila.

Gazbom.

Did you bother reading ANYTHING I said before this? It's entirely possible for them to find NO corrosion around the hole, on a preliminary check, but still have corrosion be the cause. The only way to be SURE is to put it in a hangar, strip the skin off, and go bit by bit through it.

Has anyone seen this?

www.newsonfeeds.com...

A cup of coffee is to blame for this one,although i think otherwise.

Different link to the same page.


[edit on 26-7-2008 by tracey ace]

Your link doesn't work. It cut off the link so it goes to a 404 page.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Your link doesn't work. It cut off the link so it goes to a 404 page.

A spilled cup of coffee that went undetected is among possibile causes of the emergency landing of a Qantas flight in Manila, experts say.

Yes!
The link does work.

Gazbom.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
From the report (emphasis mine):

"Our PRELIMINARY checks on this indicate there was no corrosion anywhere near where this hole occurred in the aircraft," he told ABC news in Australia.

"We really can't speculate on how this happened or causes, but certainly there's going to be a very thorough investigation."

"The most recent maintenance check on this aircraft were for a 'D' [most thorough] check in Qantas's Sydney facility in 2004 and two 'C' [regular] checks in Qantas's facility in 2006 and 2008," she said.

In an online planespotters' forum in February, participants referred to the detection of "serious corrosion issues" in the 17-year-old Boeing 747-438 Longreach during a maintenance check at Avalon airport in March.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The PRELIMINARY checks after landing showed no corrosion. To do a true check you have to slap it into a hangar and peel the skin back. That takes MONTHS to do. When we had a bird go in for PDM it wasn't uncommon to have them gone 4-6 months.

The comments were also made by the Chief Executive of Qantas. Of course he's going to put a positive spin on things and try to put them in the best light possible.


[edit on 7/26/2008 by Zaphod58]

And by the way you pretentious ponce,
A bird is an organic thing with feathers and a beak, it will never rust!

Gazbom.

And by the way you know it all, a "bird" is another name used by crew and maintenance personnel to describe an AIRCRAFT. Obviously you know NOTHING about them except what you read, and you believe everything that the news tells you. Try spending almost 30 years around them then come back and try to tell me that I know nothing about what I'm talking about.

And again if you had bothered to READ and COMPREHEND, the article says that it was either caused by CORROSION that could have been caused by liquid spilled in the cabin (or by flying near the ocean since salt water tends to do the same thing, go figure), or by damage that was badly repaired. So yet again, I stand by what I said.

[edit on 7/26/2008 by Zaphod58]

reply to post by Zaphod58


And by the way you know it all, a "bird" is another name used by crew and maintenance personnel to describe an AIRCRAFT.

You don't say!

Gazbom.