An instantaneous fall at 48,000 fpm equates to 480 kts vertically. :shock:
Not going to happen :!:
I thought it sounded a bit fast!
An instantaneous fall at 48,000 fpm equates to 480 kts vertically. :shock:
Not going to happen :!:
AAP
7 October 2008
MORE than 60 per cent of Australians believe the safety standards of Qantas have slipped, according to a poll released on the same day as another incident involving the national carrier.
Thirty-six people were hurt, 20 seriously, when a Singapore to Perth international Qantas flight suddenly lost altitude over Western Australia today throwing passengers from their seats.
UMR Omnibus, one of Australia's leading research and polling companies, said it surveyed 1000 people two weeks ago on people's attitudes towards the national carrier.
The results, published on the UMR website, show 63 per cent of Australians believe the airline's safety standards have become worse over the last few years.
This compared with a figure of 52 per cent when a similar poll was conducted in early August.
Women, older Australians, low-income earners and Queenslanders were particularly concerned about Qantas's safety, the study found.
But two in three Australians still believed Qantas was a safe airline to fly with.
The August poll was carried out after two incidents involving Qantas in the previous month.
An exploding oxygen bottle punched a huge hole in the side of a Qantas Boeing 747-400, forcing an emergency landing in the Philippines, while a Qantas Boeing 737-800 returned to Adelaide after a landing gear door failed to retract.
The September poll followed an incident in August involving a Manila-bound Boeing 767, which was turned back to Sydney after developing a hydraulic fluid leak.
UMR managing director John Udding, who was waiting at Perth airport at the time of the incident, had his Qantas flight cancelled because of the Airbus incident.
A UMR spokesman said Mr Udding would have liked to comment but was unavailable as he had been forced to take a late flight to Melbourne rather than his booked Sydney destination.
The runway at Learmonth is concrete. Sorry, just being a smartarse![]()
It appears that 767-300 VH-ZXC is heading to Learmonth as QF6122 (one of the aircraft that will rescue stranded pax)
YPLM = Learmonth (ICAO code)
![]()
Subsequently, QF566 PER-SYD has a delayed departure of 23:15 (scheduled 15:15) due to the -ZXC flying to Learmonth.
Jetstream image from earlier today
![]()
My thoughts are with everyone involved :-|
THe news articles this morning have all the important information:
Just watching sunrise, an aviation expert on there stating maybe more then just turbulence
Do roof panels move easily in these situations?
AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements
My thoughts are that the Pilot was very concerned with getting on ground medical assistance for the injured ASAP.... i.e. there was something else wrong (or the pilot suspected something else was wong)
My thoughts are that the Pilot was very concerned with getting on ground medical assistance for the injured ASAP.
My thoughts are that the Pilot was very concerned with getting on ground medical assistance for the injured ASAP.
And its been reported that some of the injuries were crew, so the ability to provide the required assistance in the air may have been reduced. I would expect an immediate diversion would be standard operating procedure under a situation where so many passengers and crew have been injured.My thoughts are that the Pilot was very concerned with getting on ground medical assistance for the injured ASAP.
I made an assumption that the actual site of the incident would have been more over the Indian Ocean and that Learmonth was the nearest suitable airfield for the forced landing.
Gotta love how the media jumps all over the maintenance program as the cause already.
You could have a hijacking and they would probably blame poor maintenance...![]()
They do when slammed by passenger and crew bodies and other "floating" objects in the cabin.Do roof panels move easily in these situations?