Inaugural JQi 787 international service nearly diverts

[mannej]

Yes, flying it into a forest doesn't really help, but the DC 10's reputation didn't seem to recover like the A320s did...

Indeed not, the DC10 does have a tainted history doesn't it.

 

[JohnPhelan]

The DC 10 had a pretty rough introduction didn't it??

The DC-10 had a cursed life, period.

 

[Jamesl]

Having a backup is a commercial policy, not a safety one, so others just fly without a backup. Just because VKB has yet to fly a commercial flight is not relevant, they are delivered ready to go, and not flying could well be a crewing issue or maybe JQ have learnt from their HNL issues, no QF backup in DPS.

Key example recently was TT and VHVNR, not scheduled to enter service until the 24th but went into service last Friday due to an aircraft going tech with a busted APU...

 

[eric2011]

The DC-10 had a cursed life, period.

Yes indeed, I had a number of friends on board when AirNZ flew one into the side of a snow covered mountain

 

[drewbles]

No news stories about the terror yet? They're practically Qantas aren't they?

Only when it suits them

 

[RooFlyer]

The DC-10 had a cursed life, period.

Going from imperfect memory, but wasn't one of the reasons for a good chunk the DC-10's crash history was that after the first, cargo-door related crash, the US regulators didn't issue a 'mandatory-fix' directive (sorry for the non tech terms!) but relied on voluntary actions by airlines? This resulted in an identical cargo-door related crash later ... ?Turkish? with a very large number of fatalities? Ensuing scandal was the cosy relationship between the US regulators and the airlines?

I know there were many more incidents, but that's my main memory about the DC-10.

 

[Austman]

I'd imagine it would have been very embarrassing for both Jetstar and Boeing if JQ's first international 787 flight had to divert due to technical issues. Especially as the flight was given wide media coverage.

And it was very clear from the captain's first announcements that he considered the issue serious enough (although, he stressed, not safety related) to do exactly that. We then looked at the flight path to see where the nearest airport was. It was only after consultation with JQ maintenance, Boeing and the affected pax that the decision to continue to MEL was made.

We were seated in row 29 and thought the noise was OK. It was just that the JQ 787 seemed just as or even more noisy than the JQ A330 we were on a few days earlier. The problem was back around row 44. I took a walk back there later in the flight. Standing near the door at 44G was an experience! Really noisy and very strong vibration on the floor. It would have been near torture for nearby pax to have to endure both for 5+ hours. It seemed to me (it's a guess) to be caused by some out-of-balance rotating equipment under the floor. A seat map is here: The JetStar Source - JetStar Boeing 787-8 Seat Map If it wasn't for the fact that affected pax could be moved (due to a light load) a diversion is what would have happened. The captain was also very apologetic and after landing at MEL he thanked pax for putting up with the issue and hoped it hadn't dissuaded them from flying the 787 again.

Whatever the problem was, it seems it was fixed in MEL because the same aircraft, VH-VKA, operated the next MEL-DPS flight some 16 hours later.

Whether JQ has its second 787, VH-VKB, as a standby or not I don't know. But the media stated (on Dec 18): "Last week Jetstar took delivery of its second 787-8 aircraft, which will undergo an ‘‘entry-into-service’’ program". The ‘‘entry-into-service’’ program seems to take some weeks not days.