The 'safe' airline

Travel International Travel
21

[quote=“igorveni”]We live in a cynical world. If the plane had crashed they would have been outrage, when the pilot and the flight attendants do an awesome job and everyone is saved, there is still outrage.
If I were on that flight I would have sent a card to Quantas and thank them, only vultures would think of degrading the crew or thinking of a law suit.
What a world we live in![/quote]

And what would you call a person who calls another member of an online community a “vulture” while posting anonymously?

My view on this situation is that the pilots and crew indeed deserve accolades for the way they handled the situation.

However, if some of the news reports are true, and the oxygen masks weren’t working properly and the hole in the plane was the result of poor maintenance, then this airline should be sued on whatever legal grounds exist (endangerment? negligence?). My reasoning is that you can’t wake a company’s directors up from complacency by slapping them on the wrist. You have to hurt their pocketbooks.

I don’t ask for perfection when I go to a restaurant, or a bookstore, or even when I ride the subway. But when I get on an airplane, I expect the company who sells me the ticket to have performed its maintenance to perfection, because my life hangs in the balance.

So if advocating that measures be taken to protect the lives of passengers makes me a vulture, then Caw Caw.

22

[quote=“Tomas”][quote=“igorveni”]We live in a cynical world. If the plane had crashed they would have been outrage, when the pilot and the flight attendants do an awesome job and everyone is saved, there is still outrage.
If I were on that flight I would have sent a card to Quantas and thank them, only vultures would think of degrading the crew or thinking of a law suit.
What a world we live in![/quote]
So if advocating that measures be taken to protect the lives of passengers makes me a vulture, then Caw Caw.[/quote]
I never said that. reread my post and don’t put words in my mouth.

23

[quote=“Truant”]I haven’t seen outrage at the crew or attendants, quite the opposite.

So, if a plane you were flying on had a 10ft hole blown in a side of it due to suspected maintenance issues, you’d send a thank you card?[/quote]

Who Knows? lol

24

An exploding bottle would leave brownish marks in the undies of most of the pax.[/quote]

I realize that.

However, would the investigators be able to tell the 2 different incidents apart, and where are they currently?

25

[quote=“Truant”]That is an interesting question. Currently, the media are saying that the airline is checking all 747 crew oxygen bottles. But the main point at this stage is they don’t know what actually caused the explosion, only that one of the bottles is missing. The assumption is that the bottle exploded.
The engineers checking all the crew oxygen bottles probably have nothing specific they are looking for, other than to see if any of the others are in any way defective as far as they can tell.

My guess about this situation relates to scuba tanks. There have been occasions where a scuba tank has had it’s valve knocked off and Newtons 3rd law (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) has come into play resulting in the tank shooting thru concrete walls etc before coming to a rest. It’s not technically an explosion in that case.

So, coming back to the crew oxygen bottle. The bottle has 2000 psi of pure oxygen in it (media report). If the tank fitting were to be knocked to the point of breakage, then I would think that it would depart very rapidly out the side, and no amount of primary structure would really slow it down. I also heard on the media that there have been concerns in the past regarding the attachments of these bottles and specific instructions exist to check these. So thinking about the scenario, it is possible that if the bottle wasn’t secure in it’s attachment, turbulence may have been enough to bang the end fitting to the point of breakage. That’s just a theory I thought about just now.

However, consider this: Pure oxygen under pressure combined with any oil or grease results in spontaneous combustion. Having intense Oxygen under pressure (as in 2000 PSI would be enough to support a combustion of anything (literally) even traditionally fireproof type items such as metal structure.
It appears that there was no combustion during this incident, so if my theory above is plausible and the tank blew out the side of the aircraft as a result of propulsion of the escaping gas, they were very lucky.[/quote]

I am not so sure it is something as simple as an oxygen bottle going through the side of the aircraft, although it is obviously a possibility. The section that is missing apart from an area towards the top of the section, has come away cleanly along the rivet lines. IMHO a gas bottle going through would leave far more damage in the form of a hole even if it hit sideways on.

26

Qantas Airlines: Repair Division

In case you need a laugh:
Remember, it takes a college degree to fly a plane but only a high school diploma to fix one.

After every flight, Qantas pilots fill out a form, called a ‘Gripe Sheet’ which tells mechanics about problems with the aircraft.
The mechanics correct the problems; document their repairs on the form, and then pilots review the Gripe Sheets before the next flight.

Never let it be said that ground crews lack a sense of humour. Here are some actual maintenance complaints submitted by Qantas’ pilots (marked with a P) and the solutions recorded (marked with an S) by maintenance engineers.

By the way, Qantas is the only major airline that has never, ever, had an accident.

P: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
S: Almost replaced left inside main tire.

P: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
S: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.

P: Something loose in cockpit.
S: Something tightened in cockpit.

P: Dead bugs on windshield.
S: Live bugs on back-order.

P: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute descent.
S: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.

P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
S: Evidence removed.

P: DME volume unbelievably loud.
S: DME volume set to more believable level.

P: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
S: That’s what friction locks are for.

P: IFF inoperative in OFF mode.
S: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.

P: Suspected crack in windshield.
S: Suspect you’re right.

P: Number 3 engine missing.
S: Engine found on right wing after brief search.

P: Aircraft handles funny… (I love this one!)
S: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious.

P: Target radar hums.
S: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.

P: Mouse in cockpit.
S: Cat installed.

And the best one for last…
P: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer.

S: Took hammer away from midget.

27

An exploding bottle would leave brownish marks in the undies of most of the pax.[/quote]

I realize that.

However, would the investigators be able to tell the 2 different incidents apart, and where are they currently?[/quote]
The point I was making earlier is it appears that there is a distinct lack of fire/combustion. An explosion would burn things.

28

[quote=“Traveller”]

I am not so sure it is something as simple as an oxygen bottle going through the side of the aircraft, although it is obviously a possibility. The section that is missing apart from an area towards the top of the section, has come away cleanly along the rivet lines. IMHO a gas bottle going through would leave far more damage in the form of a hole even if it hit sideways on.[/quote]

A couple of things. The aircraft was pressurized, so a significant part of the damage may have resulted after the bottle was gone (assuming the bottle was the cause). If you liken an aircraft skin to a sheet of stamps, if you apply significant force to an area of the broken skin, it will bend along the rivet lines and eventually shear off. However,the pic that I saw (below) actually shows less primary structural damage than is being reported. The real damage is on the pressurized area, but it looks worse due to a wing root fairing getting blown off also, which is not primary structure, but shows different paint (green) etc and looks a lot worse that it is. This gives the impression of structural breakage along rivet lines, but is actually it was where the fairing was.

29

I’m not so sure that it is all that unusual for some masks not to drop or for others not to function properly. When my wife went through cabin crew training at Cathay, they were all told that if the cabin lost pressure, there would be a fair chance that some masks would not fall or work properly. They were told not to worry because in most cases the pilots would bring the plane down extremely fast-perhaps not fast enough to prevent a maskless passenger from getting light-headed and passing out, but definitely fast enough to prevent all but the physically frail from having lasting effects from hypoxia. The cabin crew also had portable bottles with buddy masks in case they needed to get up and help someone having problems. I’m not saying that this excuses Quantas from responsibility if the equipment didn’t work properly, but most decompressions at cruising altitude mean the end of passengers and crew before they even have a chance to think about putting on masks.

30

[quote=“Tyc00n”]Qantas Airlines: Repair Division

In case you need a laugh:[/quote]

:laughing: That was pretty funny, thanks!

31

Well if lil Johnny were still PM, it would have been the fault of Muslim terrorists and he’d be calling up Bush looking for a new war to join.

32

Don’t tell anyone, but I miss the little carnt.

HG

33

Did they fail to drop, or did some not work? The news articles I’ve read seemed to indicate that both problems occurred. The former was trivially fixable, and besides, there’s supposed to be a surplus of masks falling out of the ceiling anyway, since sometimes passengers are carrying small babies on their laps. I’ve been wondering if the latter is because the oxygen tank that should have fed them was the one that popped off.

34

Looks like a cylinder, and they’re saying ‘exploded’. [quote]An air safety investigator confirmed Wednesday that an exploding oxygen cylinder in the hold of a packed Qantas jetliner caused the large hole in the fuselage that forced the plane to make an emergency landing…Australian Transport Safety Bureau director of aviation safety Julian Walsh said part of the oxygen tank blasted into the passenger cabin through the floor, smashed into a door handle and embedded in the ceiling.[/quote]

35

Well, I guess the definition of “explode” is different to different people. I’ve always felt that combustion was a key part of defining an explosion, but in this case it appears very much like I was mentioning earlier that the end fitting has departed from the tank, and embedded itself into the cabin. The resulting propulsion has sent the tank out the side.
The pics I have seen just now on TV from the inside of the damage do not show any combustion, but yeah if they want to call the end fitting coming out of the end of a tank an “explosion” then sure.
The implication is that the tank exploded into pieces (i.e. grenade style) but I believe it was intact minus the end fitting.

This still avoids the real question which is: What caused the end fitting to come off? My guess is the known problem of insecure tank attachment + turbulence.

Qantas are lucky on this on 3 accounts now:

  1. That the fitting did not hit any passenger(s)
  2. That when the tank propelled out, it went the way it did and not into the cabin.
  3. That the oxygen didn’t support rapid ignition and combustion.
36

And where the hell is that oxygen bottle that went scooting out the side of the plane? Anyone splashing around in the South China Sea now wondering what happened to their fishing boat?

HG

37

Yeah, which is why I put it in quotes. After reading your earlier posts, which as usual were more informed and informative than those from anyone else, I was assuming that what happened was similar to what you had envisioned, a violent failure of a pressurized canister, which even without combustion would be ‘explosive’ in the sense of “to burst violently as a result of internal pressure”, the more general meaning of explode, as opposed to the common perception of the same involving combustion.

38

[quote=“Truant”]Qantas are lucky on this on 3 accounts now:

  1. That the fitting did not hit any passenger(s)
  2. That when the tank propelled out, it went the way it did and not into the cabin.
  3. That the oxygen didn’t support rapid ignition and combustion.[/quote]
    I think they were even more lucky that the resulting hole didn’t bring down the plane and kill everyone.
39

[quote=“Rascal”][quote=“Truant”]Qantas are lucky on this on 3 accounts now:

  1. That the fitting did not hit any passenger(s)
  2. That when the tank propelled out, it went the way it did and not into the cabin.
  3. That the oxygen didn’t support rapid ignition and combustion.[/quote]
    I think they were even more lucky that the resulting hole didn’t bring down the plane and kill everyone.[/quote]
    that’s what 2 & 3 would have resulted in.
40

Ah it’s just a slight flesh wound. Patch up that plane in no time with a bit of carpet, carpet glue, aluminium siding, tin snips and some new pop rivets.

Structurally the was not affected. No big deal really. No explosion just a bottle blowing it’s top.