QF94 Turned Back - Burst Water Pipe

[jb747]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

Jokes about european plumbing aside, have any other A380 operators experieced a lot of problems with A380 fresh water and toilet systems? I don't think that it is a coincidence that the airline which fiddled the most with a refit to more seats and less toilets is having numerous problems with water systems now. I can see these being hangar queens in a few years time.

I think you'll find that all of them are.

 

[Clivem]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

.......
And at the risk of being told to lighten up a bit I just find it so difficult to see humour in any problem experienced by a commercial aircraft or any aircraft for that matter in flight - maybe there is seriously something wrong with me?

(Frederick) What a filthy job.
(Igor) Could be worse
(Frederick) How



(Igor) Could be raining





Sorry ...... couldn't resist

 

[eastwest101]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

I think you'll find that all of them are.

Sorry - should have clarified that as "all the QF A380's were modified" - my question is more along the lines of "have the LH SQ or EK A380s had modifications similar to the refit of the QF A380s" - and by that I mean refits which involve plumbing and relocating water services like galleys and toilets, not just different seats.

 

[harvyk]

<snip>I'm amazed that a Qantas were so quick to state that "there were no safety concerns for passengers on-board." </snip>

Well you can't exactly expect QF to come out and say "the passengers where in extreme danger, in fact it was a miracle they survived the ordeal at all". Rule 1 of PR, always play bad stuff down...

 

[mannej]

Well you can't exactly expect QF to come out and say "the passengers where in extreme danger, in fact it was a miracle they survived the ordeal at all". Rule 1 of PR, always play bad stuff down...

In all seriousness, apart from slip hazards, was there any danger of the 380 coming down due to this? What else do you expect QF to say?

 

[DC3]

So where is all the electrical wiring placed on an A380?

Where are the power cables (from the APU at the tail end) for operating the instruments, aircraft flaps, rudder, landing gear, lights, seats, etc, located?

Would any of these be subject to water through the top floor/lower floor/ceiling/walls? I heard that electricity and water is a bad mix on aircraft.

 

[SFSC]

I think water any place that it shouldn't be in an aircraft is a potential hazard. I recall a galley sink problem caused severe electrical outages (in a 747) a few years ago.

Found the report ( Investigation: AO-2008-003 - Electrical system event - Boeing 747-438, VH-OJM, 25 km NNW of Bangkok International Airport, Thailand, 7 January 2008 ). It was longer ago than I had thought.

 

[FrustratedQP]

I think water any place that it shouldn't be in an aircraft is a potential hazard. I recall a galley sink problem caused severe electrical outages (in a 747) a few years ago.

I think I'd be more worried about the quite rapid C of G change, I heard (on the TV admittedly) that it was about 2000 litres.

 

[DC3]

2000 kg sloshing around?

I hope that those carpets and cushions are very absorbent.

 

[harvyk]

In all seriousness, apart from slip hazards, was there any danger of the 380 coming down due to this? What else do you expect QF to say?

Perhaps more a question for JB, but I'd hazard a guess not.

 

[TomVexille]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

Unfortunate on so many fronts - unfortunate for the pax who will have their flights and plans disrupted - unfortunate for QF as any problem with equip they use imm becomes THEIR prob regardless of reason or cause - unfortunate for QF as again somehow someway they will be painted / highlighted by the media as airline who just keeps experiencing problems - so unfortunate on so many fronts.

And at the risk of being told to lighten up a bit I just find it so difficult to see humour in any problem experienced by a commercial aircraft or any aircraft for that matter in flight - maybe there is seriously something wrong with me?

I think you summed it up

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Well you can't exactly expect QF to come out and say "the passengers where in extreme danger, in fact it was a miracle they survived the ordeal at all". Rule 1 of PR, always play bad stuff down...

Well - that's a tricky issue. PR incident management should try and be as direct as possible. While I'm not saying this is the case here, there is no point 'down playing' too much (ie spin) in case something contrary comes to light later. That makes the situation potentially worse in the long run (you can lose credibility).

 

[samh004]

Just saw this on the news, not a good look for Qantas, and the sooner they can sell those A380's and move to a 748 and 789 fleet, the better

 

[breakNegg]

Lakes on a Plane
Qantas sais it was not dangerous, but hello water and electrics is not a good mix at 35000 feet

 

[Dmac6345]

JB, what are your thoughts on the actions of the Captain and crew? Maybe also your thoughts on this issue in general.
I would have thought there was zero option to continue.

 

[BD1959]

Well you can't exactly expect QF to come out and say "the passengers where in extreme danger, in fact it was a miracle they survived the ordeal at all". Rule 1 of PR, always play bad stuff down...

How about "safety us Qantas' primary concern and the aircraft was returned at the earliest opportunity. We will comment no further until a full assessment of the Aircraft had been made."

This would instill in me the confidence if the crew and the seriousness with which QF were treating the incident."

Regards,

BD

 

[jb747]

JB, what are your thoughts on the actions of the Captain and crew? Maybe also your thoughts on this issue in general.
I would have thought there was zero option to continue.

I didn't realise we had the shower and bath system flying yet.

Turning back or diverting was the only reasonable course. I see nothing wrong in what the crew have done here. I expect that they would also have turned off virtually everything in the aircraft, involving water or power. The actual system is well protected, and any electrics of interest to me are almost all in the forward roof area. The pilots can shed pretty well every electrical passenger item with one switch.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I didn't realise we had the shower and bath system flying yet.

Turning back or diverting was the only reasonable course. I see nothing wrong in what the crew have done here. I expect that they would also have turned off virtually everything in the aircraft, involving water or power. The actual system is well protected, and any electrics of interest to me are almost all in the forward roof area. The pilots can shed pretty well every electrical passenger item with one switch.

I don't think anyone has suggested any wrong doing by the crew. Although we now seem to have two different outcomes based on 'passenger comfort'. QF94 returns, but QF1 flies with no water for 11 hours. How do we know which captain we are going to get if something similar happens again?

 

[whatmeworry]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

Unfortunate on so many fronts - unfortunate for the pax who will have their flights and plans disrupted - unfortunate for QF as any problem with equip they use imm becomes THEIR prob regardless of reason or cause - unfortunate for QF as again somehow someway they will be painted / highlighted by the media as airline who just keeps experiencing problems - so unfortunate on so many fronts.

And at the risk of being told to lighten up a bit I just find it so difficult to see humour in any problem experienced by a commercial aircraft or any aircraft for that matter in flight - maybe there is seriously something wrong with me?

Has their ever been any statistical analysis of whether Qantas is plagued by more on board problems, then other Airlines?

 

[OzEire]

Re: QF94 (1 July) return

Rumour going around that Richard Dean Anderson was on the flight.

Surely MacGyver could have fixed that leak with a J amenities kit and a cafe style breakfast pack!!