Qantas in a hole

[Yada Yada]

Not sure if any info has been posted on AFF about this - apologies if it has. I've been following the story in the news for the past few days...

Qantas in a hole
January 11, 2007 - AAP

While concerns grow over the $11 billion privatisation bid for Qantas, the airline has also had to deal with allegations this week of a cover up after it emerged that a packed passenger jet flew with a huge hole torn in its side.

This picture shows the damage sustained by Qantas flight QF5 on March 8 last year after it was damaged by a blown tyre short after take-off.

The flight was travelling from Singapore to Frankfurt with 408 people on board.

Qantas chief Geoff Dixon denied there was any cover up, or danger for staff and passengers.

"There was no risk to passengers or crew at any time," he told the Seven Network.

More...

:shock: :!:

 

[Evan]

It happens !
Assuming the tyre was in good condition (not to old, correctly inflated etc) then it could have been a manufacture defect or just chance i guess.
E

 

[straitman]

It happens !
Assuming the tyre was in good condition (not to old, correctly inflated etc) then it could have been a manufacture defect or just chance i guess.
E

It's not the tyre that would worry me as they have plenty of them. It's the hole in the fuselage as they only have one of them under substantial pressure. :evil:

 

[serfty]

I'm not certain, but I get the feeling that is an image of the unpressurized wheel well with the damage done by pieces of a shredding tyre rotating at or near takeoff speed.

 

[NM]

It's not the tyre that would worry me as they have plenty of them. It's the hole in the fuselage as they only have one of them under substantial pressure. :evil:

Not all the fuselage is pressurised. I think Mr Boeing has done a reasonable job at ensuring the fairing in the region behind the wings that is most likely to take the brunt of the impact from a disintegrating tyre is not going to result in a major safety issue if it is breached (i.e. does not contain fuel, control systems, or pressurised cabin components). This incident shows that although the skin was torn, the aircraft did not suffer loss of pressurisation or aerodynamic inconsistency.

In fact, the crew were not even aware there was a problem until they landed.

I would expect the most common cause of blow tyres on takeoff is runway debris. Now we do know from the AF Concorde accident that runway debris can cause tyre disintegration, which in turn can damage the aircraft in a manner that causes catastrophic failure. It would appear that the 747 designers got it right, while the Concorde had a serious design flaw.

 

[straitman]

Not all the fuselage is pressurised. I think Mr Boeing has done a reasonable job at ensuring the fairing in the region behind the wings that is most likely to take the brunt of the impact from a disintegrating tyre is not going to result in a major safety issue if it is breached (i.e. does not contain fuel, control systems, or pressurised cabin components). This incident shows that although the skin was torn, the aircraft did not suffer loss of pressurisation or aerodynamic inconsistency.

With the utmost respect NM this is a huge over simplification. The torn area may/may not have control systems etc (though it probably does) however the other significant problem is the ice build up, then loss from the jagged edges. Where does this ice go and what damage could it do? This also would have impact upon the aerodynamics of the a/c. With regard to pressurisation components the issue here is the inner components that aren't designed to have high airflows and excessive temperature and prssure changes have now become the prime areas of support/strength when they are only designed with these as a secondary application. Remember the primary strength is the aircraft skin.

In fact, the crew were not even aware there was a problem until they landed.

Correct and had they know there was a problem they would not have continued to destination.

I would expect the most common cause of blow tyres on takeoff is runway debris. Now we do know from the AF Concorde accident that runway debris can cause tyre disintegration, which in turn can damage the aircraft in a manner that causes catastrophic failure. It would appear that the 747 designers got it right, while the Concorde had a serious design flaw.

More to do with engine location in relation to fuel tanks and power available against power required (two seperate issues) rather than a design flaw. I've seen a KC135 tanker (707 type) very nearly come to grief on takeoff with only a part power loss on one of the 4 engines.

 

[oz_mark]

Purely conjecture on my part, but given that the various authorities decided there was nothing to investigate suggests that just maybe they have seen this all before, and have decided that it is not a problem.

 

[N860CR]

The crew would have been aware that the tyre had burst on takeoff, and apparantly cabin crew and passengers heard the bang and it was reported to the flight deck, but obviously a blown tyre is hardly enough of a reason to turn back (they're going to have to land with the tyre out regardless of the airport they do it at).

I did read somewhere that about half way into the flight there was a problem with one of the aircrafts hydrolic systems, but that in itself isn't a huge drama either (a 747 has 4) and by that stage the best action to take was continuing on to Frankfurt.

All in all it wasn't a massive issue (potentially could have been, but wasn't) and Channel 7 have just made a big thing out of it because they got their hands on some pretty nasty looking photos. Planes blow tyres all the time, in most cases its just the tyre/wheel that is damaged, other times something like this can happen (or in the case of the AF Concorde, it can be much worse), but its hardly an indication of any safety problems with the airline or aircraft.

 

[straitman]

The crew would have been aware that the tyre had burst on takeoff, and apparantly cabin crew and passengers heard the bang and it was reported to the flight deck, but obviously a blown tyre is hardly enough of a reason to turn back (they're going to have to land with the tyre out regardless of the airport they do it at).

All in all it wasn't a massive issue (potentially could have been, but wasn't) and Channel 7 have just made a big thing out of it because they got their hands on some pretty nasty looking photos. Planes blow tyres all the time, in most cases its just the tyre/wheel that is damaged, other times something like this can happen (or in the case of the AF Concorde, it can be much worse), but its hardly an indication of any safety problems with the airline or aircraft.

Agreed. Perspective is eveything :!:

This is the type of instance that airline trainers use for their what if scenarios for their CRM and associated training.

 

[frequent aviator]

From a number of contacts that i have in the aviation community, mainly engineers fo the major airlines. Is it true that quantas elected to transit the aircraft back to australia in the damaged condition with a full load of pax

 

[Flying Fox]

I don't see this as being a problem as surely the B747 has numerous safety systems that would -

1. Indicate a depressurised cabin
2. Exploded tyre
3. Loss of hydraulic pressures
4. Loss of other systems

I am sure that if the crew felt that the aircraft and hence its passengers were in any danger, they would have returned to SIN immediately.

 

[NM]

From a number of contacts that i have in the aviation community, mainly engineers fo the major airlines. Is it true that quantas elected to transit the aircraft back to australia in the damaged condition with a full load of pax

Yes, it is true that VH-OJC returned to Sydney operating QF6 with a normal load of passengers.

However, this needs to be understood in the full perspective of the situation. The aircraft had undergone temporary repairs by Lufthansa Engineering services at FRA, including repairs to the damaged Number 4 hydraulic system and temporary fibreglass repairs to the damaged fairings and replacement landing gear doors. These repairs took about 1 week to complete. The aircraft was declared as airworthy for normal passenger service following Boeing approved repairs. The aircraft did not fly back to Australia with holes in the fuselage.

Upon arrival back into Sydney (on March 15th, 2006), permanent repairs were undertaken. This included using some parts from 747-338 VH-EBU at AVV. The repairs were performed at SYD and its next flight was as QF25 on 23th March routing SYD-BNE-AKL-LAX.

 

[QF WP]

Thanks for sharing the outcome, NM - impressive research.

 

[Evan]

747-338 VH-EBU

Good to have a 'spare' in the garage
I assume thats is the plan for this airframe, just spare parts ?

 

[NM]

Good to have a 'spare' in the garage
I assume thats is the plan for this airframe, just spare parts ?

Yep. Its now been cannibalised considerably and is most unlikely to ever fly again. In fact, I think I am safe is saying it won't fly again.