36 hurt in Qantas mid-air incident, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 7-10-2008 @ 04:59 AM by tezzajw

36 hurt in Qantas mid-air incident

www.news.com.au

THRITY-SIX people were hurt, some seriously, when thrown from their seats as an international Qantas plane suddenly lost altitude over Western Australia today.

WA police said at least 12 passengers were seriously injured, with broken bones and lacerations, when the Airbus A330-300 flying from Singapore to Perth struck what Qantas described as a "sudden change in altitude".

(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 04:59 AM by tezzajw

QANTAS, one of the world's most famous and longest running airlines... until recently, it has been fairly trouble free and has not had a single death.

Yet, lately, they've been hit with some bad luck!

What can make a passenger Airbus experience a 'sudden change in altitude'? Turbulence? I guess we'll have to wait for the report.

It makes me wonder if there's more behind the QANTAS bad luck than meets the eye? Who knows! I'll still fly them!

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 05:20 AM by crackerjack

Yep, they have had some really bad luck, reason???

Offshore maintenance is one of the things, the Civil aviation authority has already slapped them on the hand. I think last incident they had some oxygen bottles blow up or it might have been one of the jets cut out.

Anyway the big Q is well known for cutting corners where possible.

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 05:24 AM by mungodave

Originally posted by crackerjack
Yep, they have had some really bad luck, reason???

Offshore maintenance is one of the things, the Civil aviation authority has already slapped them on the hand. I think last incident they had some oxygen bottles blow up or it might have been one of the jets cut out.

Anyway the big Q is well known for cutting corners where possible.

I agree

One liner... but the truth is just that

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 05:26 AM by leearco

Thats what happens when you outsource maintenance overseas. Sure Qantas are saving money, but safety is what is being comprimised. If it continues it wont be too long before a Qantas plane crashes and kills people.

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 05:28 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by leearco
If it continues it wont be too long before a Qantas plane crashes and kills people.

The odds are, that in the long-run it will happen. Try as much as they like, QANTAS can't fight the central limit theorem and the law of averages!

I hope I never see it happen, nor have family on the plane that comes down...

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 05:32 AM by mungodave

So take the time, and email the Aussie Icon.....and lets keep
the planes maintained by us.... aussies... with the perfect record.

Mungo

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 05:33 AM by leearco

reply to post by tezzajw

Agreed, its a terrible thing to consider, but cutting costs on maintenance will speed a disaster up. I dont understand why Qantas continues with this...
Well I do see why = $$$.

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 05:35 AM by Zaphod58

This has happened before many times, to many airlines. It has nothing to do with the maintenance. It's clear air turbulence, and it can't be predicted. They've been working on new ways to try to see it before the plane gets to it, but they so far don't have a reliable system in place. It usually happens over the Southern Pacific, or out near Japan. I've seen planes lose as much as 10,000 feet when they hit CAT.

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 05:38 AM by mungodave

This has happened before many times, to many airlines. It has nothing to do with the maintenance.
Unquote.

Not to us... up until "they" decided w could do it cheaper o'seas.

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 05:42 AM by Ivar_Karlsen

Originally posted by leearco
Thats what happens when you outsource maintenance overseas.

I would say that's what happens when you hit severe turbulence not properly strapped in.

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 05:42 AM by Zaphod58

Would you care to bet on that? When I get home tonight I'll research all the accidents that Qantas has had over the years. Qantas has had MANY accidents, even before they outsourced maintenance, just that none of them were "crashes". And you CAN'T say that Clear Air Turbulence is caused by outsourcing maintenance because it's a natural phenomenon.

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 05:49 AM by Melbourne_Militia

thread already started here -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 05:50 AM by leearco

reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen

That may be true, but Qantas has had a number of incidents since outsourcing maintenance, and I do agree it could be due to the altitude. But I see a pattern here and guess imo its related.
Plus this quote in the article. Why wouldnt you confirm its turbulence if its turbulence?

Neither the ATSB or Qantas would confirm that turbulence was responsible for the aircraft's sudden drop.

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 05:50 AM by C0bzz

reply to post by leearco

reply to post by mungodave

Zaphod was talking about clear air turbulence which, although rare, is not unheard of. Why don't pilots tell us? One thing you must understand, pilots and airlines never, ever, talk about accidents to the press - usually out of fear of prosecution, or simply because it hasn't been investigated. Besides, stories like this happen every few weeks or months and it's always turbulence. Furthermore, maintainence don't cause aircraft to suddenly drop like that.

[edit on 7/10/2008 by C0bzz]

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 05:56 AM by Ivar_Karlsen

Originally posted by leearcoPlus this quote in the article. Why wouldnt you confirm its turbulence if its turbulence?

Because standard procedure is not to confirm anything before a accident/incident is properly investigated.

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 06:01 AM by Areal51

I've flown in Airbus jets before. The one in the OP incident seems to be one of the larger models. The smaller models, the ones that I've flown in, seem to bounce around a whole lot in turbulence. Just drop however many feet with ease.

I guess I've had the wrong impression about the size of planes being a factor when it comes to turbulence. I thought smaller planes were more susceptible. Guess not.

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 06:34 AM by peacejet

The most possible reason is that it might have stalled, the pilots must have either accidentally deployed the flaps or the air brakes, which would have caused the aircrafts speed to reduce less than that of rotation speed causing it to stall.

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 06:36 AM by JDN24

Just saw this on the news update, unbelievable! Qantas better get there act together before the new Airbus A380 arrives.....

We wouldn't want any accidents on the A380 now would we?

reply posted on 7-10-2008 @ 06:51 AM by C0bzz

Originally posted by JDN24
Just saw this on the news update, unbelievable! Qantas better get there act together before the new Airbus A380 arrives.....

We wouldn't want any accidents on the A380 now would we?

Please read the thread. A380 is in service.

www.airliners.net...

The most possible reason is that it might have stalled, the pilots must have either accidentally deployed the flaps or the air brakes, which would have caused the aircrafts speed to reduce less than that of rotation speed causing it to stall.

Negative. Aircraft at cruise altitude are on autopilot & autothrottle - even if speed brakes or flaps were powerful enough, which they are not, the autoflight system would adjust. Furthermore, Airbus fly-by-wire makes stalling the aircraft impossible.

The most likely cause was clear air turbulence which the airline has no control over.

I've flown in Airbus jets before. The one in the OP incident seems to be one of the larger models. The smaller models, the ones that I've flown in, seem to bounce around a whole lot in turbulence. Just drop however many feet with ease.

It is very difficult if not impossible to gauge the susceptibility of an aircraft to turbulence, because external factors, like weather, skew the results - Airbus aircraft are unlikely to be any more susceptible than any other aircraft of similar design. Aircraft susceptibility to turbulence is usually a function of wing loading ( How much weight a given area of wing lifts ), so obviously gliders are the worst and... a plane like the F-104 would be the best.

Other examples of Clear air turbulence...:

On December 28, 1997, at 1340 UTC, a United Airlines Boeing 747-122, N4723U, experienced an episode of what the captain described as wave action (see footnote 1) followed by severe turbulence (two closely spaced turbulence encounters) about 870 nautical miles east southeast of New Tokyo International Airport, Narita, Japan (NRT) on Pacific Ocean navigation track 12 (see footnote 2). The airplane was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121 in VFR conditions at the time of the accident and was bound for Honolulu, Hawaii (HNL). Of the 374 passengers (including 5 infants) and 19 crewmembers on board, 15 passengers and 3 flight attendants received serious injuries and 1 passenger was killed. Also, 161 minor injuries were sustained by flight attendants and passengers. Following the turbulence encounter, the airplane returned to New Tokyo Airport for an uneventful landing.

www.ntsb.gov...

DENVER -- United Airlines said that 10 people were injured when a Los Angeles-to-Chicago flight encountered severe turbulence early Monday.

United Flight 1028 was diverted to Denver International Airport at 2:55 a.m. and the injured were taken to Denver hospitals to be checked out. Their conditions have not been released but a DIA spokesman said at least six passengers had minor injuries.

www.thedenverchannel.com...

Turbulence related incidents

The following are recent jet airliner mishaps from around the world. In each event, at least one passenger/flight attendant was injured during an unexpected turbulence encounter.

During a flight from Singapore to Sydney with 236 passengers and 16 crew, the airplane encountered turbulence over central Australia. The plane hit an "air pocket" which caused it to drop 300 feet. Nine passengers including one pregnant woman and three crew members suffered various neck, back and hip injuries, with one of the passengers requiring surgery. Those who were injured were not wearing seat belts.

During a flight from Japan to Brisbane 16 passengers were injured when a large aircraft encountered turbulence. Passengers had been advised to keep their seatbelts fastened while seated. The pilot in command reported that flight conditions were smooth prior to encountering the turbulence. The weather radar did not indicate adverse weather, so the crew did not turn on the seatbelt signs. A number of the passengers who were not wearing their seatbelts were injured when they were thrown from their seats.

A jet hit air turbulence shortly before it landed at a Hong Kong airport, injuring 47 people, seven of them seriously. "It happened very suddenly and everything was very chaotic," one of the 160 passengers aboard the flight said. "The plane just dropped and I saw things flying all over."

www.casa.gov.au...