Another Qantas Scare - tonight take off of QF41 to Jakarta

[one9]

Just spoke to someone who was on the aborted take off of this flight.

Apparently the plane was midway down the runway when the plane experienced technical problems and braked hard to abort the take off.

The passengers are now waiting for a new airplane (or possible for the plane to be fixed?).

I wonder if this incident will make it to the QFF loving journalists?

 

[Skoogle]

The passengers are now waiting for a new airplane (or possible for the plane to be fixed?).

Sydney Airport website has an estimated departure of 20:15.

 

[file51]

Just spoke to someone who was on the aborted take off of this flight.

Apparently the plane was midway down the runway when the plane experienced technical problems and braked hard to abort the take off.

The passengers are now waiting for a new airplane (or possible for the plane to be fixed?).

I wonder if this incident will make it to the QFF loving journalists?

That is not the half of it... I just wonder how long it will be before the real potential of what could have happened hits the media... QF41 was only 40-60 seconds from having another Qantas aircraft firmly embedded in its back end.

I only wish I had my camera as it could have been one heck of a shot...

Every Sunday my partner and myself go for a walk from Ramsgate right up past Brighton towards the airport. We were on the airport side of Brighton when we saw a Qantas A330 proceed up the taxiway heading south before it turned back on the main runway (34L if I recall). It waited for about 3-5 minutes as other aircraft landed, then on to the runway, engines full throttle, and no more than 1000-1500 feet down the runway the aircraft came to a sudden halt. Nothing other than an aborted take off at that stage, only then after it stood there motionless for close to 1-2 minutes a Qantas prop jet was noticed only 100-200 feet off the end of the runway, about to touch down.

Given the low landing speed that the prop jets come in at, plus the length of time it took for the A330 to get off the runway I would consider that a very close call. You could hear the prop engines being pushed harder at the last few seconds before touchdown just in case a rapid ascent was needed.

Because of where the A330 pulled off, on the wrong side of the runway 4-5 x 737's & A320's then had to swap sides to continue to where they needed to enter the runway for takeoff...

The flight controllers must have been pulling there hair out for a little bit I would say.

 

[Mal]

QF41 was only 40-60 seconds from having another Qantas aircraft firmly embedded in its back end.

ATC should allow enough separation to ensure that this wouldn't happen. What makes you think it could have happened in this case?

 

[oz_mark]

Given the low landing speed that the prop jets come in at, plus the length of time it took for the A330 to get off the runway I would consider that a very close call. You could hear the prop engines being pushed harder at the last few seconds before touchdown just in case a rapid ascent was needed.

A landing clearance would not have been given till the A330 was off the runway. There are occassional go arounds due to planes not clearing the run way in time, and sometimes even these make the news.

 

[file51]

ATC should allow enough separation to ensure that this wouldn't happen. What makes you think it could have happened in this case?

What makes me think this could happen is my own eyes and the 10 or so people that were also watching from the same spot, ALL agreeing that was a close call.

The fact that the A330 was still pulling off the runway when the turbo-prop was on the ground goes against all ATC rules regarding seperation, the runway is meant to be totally clear.

As I said, a photo would have painted a better picture, heck, video would have been better.

Oz Mark, the A330 was still moving to a position were it held between the runway and taxiway when the turbo-prop actually went past the A330.

Nothing ended up going wrong which is the best result, however by the simple virtue that you could here the turbo-prop engines go to full power, plus the close distance that both aircraft were to each other is something I am sure will be looked into. If not by ATC by Qantas themselves as I am sure one of the pilots had a few nervous moments.

Unless you saw what happened I suggest the armchair expert comments be kept to a minimum and stick to the facts, not what you think happened.

 

[futaris]

Just left at 20:14. I've been on this flight a number of times, but not on the A330. Family will be on the flight next Friday.

 

[oz_mark]

Nothing ended up going wrong which is the best result, however by the simple virtue that you could here the turbo-prop engines go to full power, plus the close distance that both aircraft were to each other is something I am sure will be looked into. If not by ATC by Qantas themselves as I am sure one of the pilots had a few nervous moments.

If there was a breakdown in standards, and it will come down to whether there was a breakdown in standrards, then perhaps even the ATSB.

 

[straitman]

file51,

I don't disagree with what you saw but there are a few comments that need to be made:

What makes me think this could happen is my own eyes and the 10 or so people that were also watching from the same spot, ALL agreeing that was a close call.

Were any of the people aviation experts :?:

I ask this only to get some perspective on the situation.

The fact that the A330 was still pulling off the runway when the turbo-prop was on the ground goes against all ATC rules regarding seperation, the runway is meant to be totally clear.

What you saw is very abnormal but suffice to say that this goes against the normal rules of separation but not all the rules of separation. I have landed with as many as 6, 8 or 10 other aircraft on the runway. The last time I landed with one on was last Friday.

As I said, a photo would have painted a better picture, heck, video would have been better.

Absolutely.

Oz Mark, the A330 was still moving to a position were it held between the runway and taxiway when the turbo-prop actually went past the A330.

Nothing ended up going wrong which is the best result, however by the simple virtue that you could here the turbo-prop engines go to full power, plus the close distance that both aircraft were to each other is something I am sure will be looked into. If not by ATC by Qantas themselves as I am sure one of the pilots had a few nervous moments.

The Turbo prop would have powered up to land longer. If it had gone to full power it would have made a go around.

Unless you saw what happened I suggest the armchair expert comments be kept to a minimum and stick to the facts, not what you think happened.

It's easy to say but harded to back up. On too many occasions I have seen/heard of casual onlookers, spectators who become instant experts making such comments that ultimately don't stand-up to scrutiny. No intent but without the aviation knowledge and experience and all the facts it's easy to come to the wrong conclusion.

Let's let the ATSB follow this up and see where it goes. If there is no ATSB report it means that none of the aviation experts were as concerned as you. I assure you that something like this does not get covered up.

 

[straitman]

A bit OT but quite relevant I believe.

The attached link is to the ATSB web site and lists all 'Occurrences Entered into the ATSB Aviation Safety Database Between 7 March 2009 and 13 March 2009.

There are 150 items listed most are something nothing but some are worth the read. This sample is indicative of the number of reports every week. If we wait a week or two we should be able to read about tonight's' occurrence.

 

[file51]

file51,

I don't disagree with what you saw but there are a few comments that need to be made:

Were any of the people aviation experts :?:

I ask this only to get some perspective on the situation.

Whilst not an expert, having worked at Sydney Airport for 10 years, and for several of those with an airline I know what I saw should not have occurred.

If I had to guess what may have occurred I think the A330 might have communicated that it would clear the runway a lot quicker than it did, with the expectation plenty of separation would have been allowed for the other flight to land.

It should also be noted that as the A330 was making it's way back to the terminal the left engine cowling (reverse thrust covers) stayed open the entire way, whereas the right retracted as normal. Maybe an engine issue could have been a cause in the plane taking so long to get off the runway, and forcing it to exit on the wrong side.

 

[straitman]

Whilst not an expert, having worked at Sydney Airport for 10 years, and for several of those with an airline I know what I saw should not have occurred.

If I had to guess what may have occurred I think the A330 might have communicated that it would clear the runway a lot quicker than it did, with the expectation plenty of separation would have been allowed for the other flight to land.

It should also be noted that as the A330 was making it's way back to the terminal the left engine cowling (reverse thrust covers) stayed open the entire way, whereas the right retracted as normal. Maybe an engine issue could have been a cause in the plane taking so long to get off the runway, and forcing it to exit on the wrong side.

Thanks.

As I said, I'm just trying to get the perspective.

 

[markis10]

The fact that the A330 was still pulling off the runway when the turbo-prop was on the ground goes against all ATC rules regarding seperation, the runway is meant to be totally clear......Unless you saw what happened I suggest the armchair expert comments be kept to a minimum and stick to the facts, not what you think happened.

I did not see what happened and as a holder of both fixed wing and rotary commercial pilots licence I do consider myself something in the area of an expert when it comes to separation, but that is probably because I have held an ATC licence as well

In this case the following criteria for the Dash 8 to cross the threshold appears to have been met:

"the departing aircraft is beyond the point on the runway at which the landing aircraft could be expected to complete its landing roll and there is sufficient distance to enable the landing aircraft to manoeuvre safely"

As you can see it does not go against the ATC rules, thats from the manual of standards - Part 172 - Air traffic Services, runway separation minima. Did someone mention facts :mrgreen:

 

[file51]

It should also be stressed I would be the last person to bash Qantas, and if an issue did occur ATC would be the ones that may need to answer some questions.

With 6 QF flights in the next 4 days, plus a flight to SFO this weekend I am far from concerned about my safety, and business as usual as far as I am concerned.

I saw something out of the norm, and have commented on it, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[straitman]

Thanks markis10,

Interesting that post #1 states the A330 was half way down the runway and post #3 says 1000 - 1500 ft. A huge difference at somewhere like SYD.

 

[straitman]

It should also be stressed I would be the last person to bash Qantas, and if an issue did occur ATC would be the ones that may need to answer some questions.

With 6 QF flights in the next 4 days, plus a flight to SFO this weekend I am far from concerned about my safety, and business as usual as far as I am concerned.

I saw something out of the norm, and have commented on it, nothing more, nothing less.

Absolutely. That's why we are having the continuing discussion.

 

[file51]

Thanks markis10,

Interesting that post #1 states the A330 was half way down the runway and post #3 says 1000 - 1500 ft. A huge difference at somewhere like SYD.

The aircraft was well short of the roadway overpass (or underpass if you want) still over the water (for those that know, runway 34 only protrudes a short distance over water).

1000-1500ft mark would be pretty much spot on.

It looked like the aircraft took the 2nd exit/entry to the taxiway, well short of 1/2 way down the runway.

 

[straitman]

The aircraft was well short of the roadway overpass (or underpass if you want) still over the water (for those that know, runway 34 only protrudes a short distance over water).

1000-1500ft mark would be pretty much spot on.

It looked like the aircraft took the 2nd exit/entry to the taxiway, well short of 1/2 way down the runway.

file51,

I'm assuming from your description that you are referring to runway 34L. That being the case I assume you are saying that he exited at taxiway A5. I measure that as approx 650M or approx 2200ft. See Air Services Australia Link to Sydney airport attached.

SYD Aerodrome Chart.

 

[file51]

file51,

I'm assuming from your description that you are referring to runway 34L. That being the case I assume you are saying that he exited at taxiway A5. I measure that as approx 650M or approx 2200ft. See Air Services Australia Link to Sydney airport attached.

SYD Aerodrome Chart.

As per one of my previous replies, yes, it was 34L (or to make things easy, main runway, north).

1000-1500ft is pretty much spot on the money as well for where the aircraft originally came to a stop, proceeding then to A5 where it made a tight left turn where is had to wait till other aircraft cleared taxiway A, heading south.

 

[straitman]

As per one of my previous replies, yes, it was 34L (or to make things easy, main runway, north).

1000-1500ft is pretty much spot on the money as well for where the aircraft originally came to a stop, proceeding then to A5 where it made a tight left turn where is had to wait till other aircraft cleared taxiway A, heading south.

Thanks file51.

Good to be working with facts to help keep the doom & gloom merchants under control.