QF9- 8hrs MEL-SYD

[hutch]

Well the engine was vibrating above what it should have been. I'm no engineer but maybe it didn't need to be replaced. I accept that it was and maybe that was the only solution(ie a full engine change out required on the aircraft). if so then yeah SYD would be the only logical place to go.


not great at all. Still everyone was safe and well and seems QF will be down a 380 for a bit perhaps while this is sorted out

I would always prefer QF to be more cautious with these things than otherwise... flying to SYD where there is a spare A380 appears to be the quickest way of dealing with the issue, whilst erring on the side of caution.

 

[miggidy]

Funny this made the news but the 14 hour delay of QF94 last week didn't....

 

[JohnPhelan]

SMH version has a photo caption in the story "A Qantas A380 was forced into an emergency landing in Sydney".

Quality journalism.

Always.

Fearfax. Always. (And I used to work for them!!)

 

[Quickstatus]

Sorry Ive come into this thread with the luxury of being late. Have been in the Delays thread which discussed the same issue.

VHOQJ which was flying the QF9 route when it turned around was replaced by VHOQL in SYD allowing a quicker turnaround than replacing an engine

An Emergency?. An aircraft which has to shut down the 4th is not necessarily in an emergency situation as JB747 has alluded to. Nonetheless it was prudent to return to base. Flying to DXB with 3 engines would be range limiting and not very smart even if the computer says range is ok.

Luckily for QF, there was no scheduled QF7/8 on Tuesday 5 April (thanks Melburnian1) and QF127 is a 744. So the only A380 operating are QF1,2,9,10,11,12,93,94. With one generally in maintenance there would be 2 A380 sitting somewhere. The A380 bases are SYD and MEL. Maybe there was one "shovel ready' A380 in SYD and the presence of a spare A380 at SYD would have been part of the decision to divert there. Additionally SYD has mainatenance facilities for the A380

Again poor journalism. The fact that an airplane has to divert and land does not make it an emergency. If it was an emergency it would have landed at the nearest capable runway.

I would think the F,J,WP,WP1,CL,SG passengers would have 2 lounge experiences - a dinner, excellent cabin service for those lucky enough to be in the pointy end (caveat below), and then a breakfast with showers/spa in SYD. I feel sorry for the Steerage passengers. They would be extending their non shower status by at least 12 hours.

JB747 or other pilots: in such a engine problem scenario would the seat belt sign come on when problem was detected until landing which would eliminate any possibility of meaningful cabin service.



Correction: QF9 engine vibration above norms does not mean the pilots had to shut it down. Journalist like error....

 

[SuzieQ68]

I heard the story this morning and, as per usual, some creative journalistic licence was used. (Off topic, I love how they use 'breaking news' for every news slot on the breakfast shows only to tell the same story over and over and over again - note to the stations - it stopped being 'breaking' after the first news run!). Anyway, back on topic. Didn't realise until later today that the flight had to cruise around for 8 hours before landing in Sydney. First thought, wow, glad I put my father on the EK flight from MEL-DXB last night, not the QF one. Not that I could have changed what happened, but probably would have heard about it for weeks!!! Then thought, wow, 8 hours without really going anywhere, but kudos to QF. I'm definitely of the ilk that I'd rather err on the side of caution rather than take a chance that all might work out ok .... maybe, hopefully. I would really be hoping that I was in J as a minimum in this situation. Dad has to fly home from DXB on QF to MEL later this week, so my fingers are crossed that the stars align and all goes smoothly.....

 

[jb747]

An Emergency?. An aircraft which has to shut down the 4th is not necessarily in an emergency situation as JB747 has alluded to. Nonetheless it was prudent to return to base. Flying to DXB with 3 engines would be range limiting and not very smart even if the computer says range is ok.

Pilots should always be worried about the next failure. Once you've shut one down, you're that much closer to having two shut down. The FMC would not be saying the range was ok if the engine was actually shut down. BTW, I see nothing on FR24 to make me think the engine was shut down.

In such a engine problem scenario would the seat belt sign come on when problem was detected until landing which would eliminate any possibility of meaningful cabin service.

As it was most likely cruising on all 4, there's no reason for the seat belt sign at all. An actual failure in the cruise may lead to it being put on initially, but I see no reason for it to be kept on.

 

[mannej]

Interesting to note Steve Purvinas' comments on one of the FB groups...

 

[bismarck]

Always interesting that QF delays/incidents deliver trumped up headlines, but similar incidents from other airlines don't spark boo.

 

[OzEire]

Steve P's responses could be predicted off a simple flow chart...

Company identifies a safety issue -> Bad Company isn't properly resourcing engineering / line staff, imagine what COULD happen -> was bound to happen with offshoring maintenance jobs because (insert mildly racist reason here).

Company fixes safety issue -> recap above but add "look at how they prioritise profit over safety" because they are back operating again without a 100% guarantee everything will work.

Company makes a profit -> recap above but add "fat cat shareholders / underpaid staff." Call for strikes until company no longer makes a profit (see below).

Company makes a loss -> recap again (imagine what could happen to YOUR flight) inept management don't listen to workers on the coalface. Decry lay-offs (whether or not they have occurred). Call for govt bailout as patriotic duty (mild racism optional).

I'm fairly sure you could write the management response version too.