Qantas 747 forced to return to Bangkok after engine problem

[Slats7]

HOURS after a Qantas jet plunged almost 8000m during an emergency descent yesterday a Sydney-bound flight was forced to return to Bangkok because of engine problems.

Flight QF2 carrying 352 passengers was about 30 minutes into its flight from Bangkok International Airport when one of its engines began "consuming fuel more quickly than normal'' a Qantas spokesman said.

It was forced to return to Bangkok where it landed safely about 7pm local time (11pm AEST).

Affected passengers are expected to spend a second night in temporary accommodation with Qantas scrambling to send a replacement engine from Sydney for the troubled Boeing 747 today.

"As far as possible we will try and get passengers who need to return to Sydney urgently on other flights but that will be dependant on availability on other airlines,'' the spokesman said.

"It was not actually an engine failure, [the pilots] did not shut the engine down they just reduced the thrust.''

However one passenger on the flight says the engine "blew"

Read more: Qantas 747 forced to return to Bangkok after engine problem | News.com.au


Hey at least No News got the right photo for once! I can't believe the last line after the QF spokesman said there was no engine failure - no news found a passenger who said the engine "blew". Pathetic journalism no news.
​

 

[Mal]

Well I have my random comment posted by NoNews:

This is the equivalent of a car backfiring at 3am in the morning. A couple of people might get scared, but it's not an issue. Can we stop the fear and smear campaign against Qantas please?

 

[Sprucegoose]

I won't dignify the report with a reply.

 

[nlagalle]

I won't dignify the report with a reply.

I couldn't help myself.. and my comment was posted too!

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Must admit the nonews title did catch me at first.

"SYDNEY-bound flight forced to return to Bangkok due to engine problems hours after a Qantas jet plunged 8000m."

 

[drron]

Must admit the nonews title did catch me at first.

"SYDNEY-bound flight forced to return to Bangkok due to engine problems hours after a Qantas jet plunged 8000m."

The 747 was just going out in sympathy with its little brother.
Good to see at least half the comments so far are not the OMG we are going to die kind.

 

[tipsy.skipsy]

Given the state of media articles regarding Qantas , Qantas will have to triple its budget for increasing customer confidence in the brand -

let alone just hire about 400 apprentice AME's and positive media all the way.

Or even better open a new facility to just wash planes somewhere in OZ with a "maintenance / inspection facility" as a title and all dust will settle.

Attention:- Red Roo.

 

[Nigelinoz]

Hey at least No News got the right photo for once!

And Yahoo have started using No News photo sources:!: they are using a photo of an A380.
Yahoo!7

Cheers
N'oz

 

[JohnK]

I worry when I see misleading headlines such as this one.

 

[PineappleSkip]

Hello, hello, hello, whats all this then?

Qantas jet plunged almost 8000m

I haven't heard anything of this, although I missed last night's nonews.

Beseiged airline? Yeah sure

Cheers skip

 

[Mal]

Well I have my random comment posted by NoNews:

And I love the return comments (my comment was signed as "Fred"):

Fred, comment 5. When you are at 36,000 feet and you have engine problems, its not really the same as a car back firing !!! Hope you never have to find out the difference !!!

Hey Fred if you think this is like a car back firing at 3.00am in the morning you obviously know nothing about what makes a plane tick. Let me tell you that if that plane could not be repaired the same day and they had to put the passengers up for a second night and send another plane to pick them up.. believe me it's no backfire at 3.00am.

Aaah the joys of armchair commentary

 

[JohnK]

Aaah the joys of armchair commentary

You pot stirrer....

 

[medhead]

"Fred" seems to have been expunged from the record. :shock: At least they didn't delete my comment.

 

[Mal]

"Fred" seems to have been expunged from the record. :shock:

Nah, "Fred" is still visible on the couriermail's version of the article..

 

[medhead]

Whoops, I was looking at the Tele.

 

[munitalP]

We make fun of the articles, but I have just spent the last 3 days with a commercial pilot who was accepted into the 747 programme ( but declined ) who's comment to me today was, "they (QF) are due for a major incident. Not because of recent activity, but because stastics say they will" sent a shiver down my spine. A chilling fact, has QF dodged the bullet or is this event another in. Line of events that will ultimately end in a catastrophe?

I won't stop flying with QF but it does make me think a little harder about air travel with the roo...

 

[Mal]

"they (QF) are due for a major incident. Not because of recent activity, but because stastics say they will"

- You may be due for a car crash tomorrow (based on statistics), are you going to leave the beast in the garage?
- You might be hit by a car as you cross the road for lunch (based on statistics). Are you going to skip lunch?
- You might be due to win the lotto (based on statistics). Do you have your entry in?

 

[oz_mark]

We make fun of the articles, but I have just spent the last 3 days with a commercial pilot who was accepted into the 747 programme ( but declined ) who's comment to me today was, "they (QF) are due for a major incident. Not because of recent activity, but because stastics say they will" sent a shiver down my spine. A chilling fact, has QF dodged the bullet or is this event another in. Line of events that will ultimately end in a catastrophe?

Everything we do in life contains some risk - driving to work etc. You can argue that you can only go on having near misses for so long, and Qantas have had some quite close shaves. They have been going on a while:

From 1990:

A Qantas Boeing 747-400 and a US Air Force Lockheed Galaxy missed each other by 50ft (15m) in cloud over coughet, Thailand. They were under procedural air traffic control, and the cause may be that the Galaxy gave its coughet ETA as 0913 instead of 0931

 

[straitman]

We make fun of the articles, but I have just spent the last 3 days with a commercial pilot who was accepted into the 747 programme ( but declined ) who's comment to me today was, "they (QF) are due for a major incident. Not because of recent activity, but because stastics say they will" sent a shiver down my spine. A chilling fact, has QF dodged the bullet or is this event another in. Line of events that will ultimately end in a catastrophe?

I won't stop flying with QF but it does make me think a little harder about air travel with the roo...

The odds are the same for every flight. It is irrelevant to say an accident is due because they have not had one for a long time.

 

[munitalP]

The odds are the same for every flight. It is irrelevant to say an accident is due because they have not had one for a long time.

I didn't say odds, said stastic due. A big difference.

Mal, I didn't even infer I was not going to fly them, so no need for the what ifs.

Number crunch and I'm sure that using available data from other airlines, hours flow/AC/types/age etc, there will be results that say QF is probability high of an incident happening.

And as I said, his comments to me were not based on the current maintenance issues facing QF.

Who knew QF landed a 738 on it's nose wheel on Monday at ISA? I do, i saw the damage and the above mentioned pilot was on that flight. Put the AC unserviceable until the repairs made. How many more cough ups go unreported?

Every incident (mechanical or other) QF have increases the chances of a catastrophic failure of one of their mechanisims, we just hope that mechanism that fails is not one that stops passengers safely alighting the aircraft. This is simple risk modeling not scare mongering.