Qantas Airliners Gets A Hole

[FSTargetDrone]

Stuff it!

Qantas 747 Makes Emergency Landing on Fuselage Hole (Update5)

By Robert Fenner and Francisco Alcuaz Jr.



July 25 (Bloomberg) -- A Qantas Airways Ltd. Boeing Co. 747 carrying 365 passengers and crew made an emergency landing in Manila after a fuselage section came off, leaving what a U.S. safety board said was a 5-foot hole.

No one was injured on the aircraft, which was on the Hong Kong-to-Melbourne leg of a flight that originated in London, Qantas said in a statement on its Web site. The crew, flying at 29,000 feet, made an emergency descent to 10,000 feet before diverting to Manila, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said in a statement.

The crew reportedly heard a loud bang and the plane lost pressure, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said in a statement. The hole is in a forward cargo area, and a wing was also damaged, the U.S. board said. The Australian and U.S. agencies said they are sending investigators to Manila.

Qantas, which has never had a fatal plane accident in its 87- year history, is sending engineers to Manila to examine the plane and has also dispatched a replacement aircraft to collect the passengers. The carrier's safety record was made famous in the movie ``Rain Man'' in which Dustin Hoffman's character insisted on flying with the airline.

``This was a highly unusual situation and our crew responded with the professionalism that Qantas is known for,'' Qantas Chief Executive Officer Geoff Dixon said in the statement.

The plane landed at 11:10 a.m. local time, Manila International Airport Authority General Manager Alfonso Cusi said in an interview.

Boeing Assistance

Boeing, which manufactured the 747-400 involved in the incident in 1991, is sending representatives to assist the team from the U.S. safety board with the investigation, said Liz Verdier, a spokeswoman for the Chicago-based company.

The incident follows an event in January, when a Qantas 747 lost electrical power while landing in Bangkok. The power failure was linked to a crack in a tray designed to shield equipment from drips of water.

Qantas shares fell 9 cents, or 2.5 percent, to A$3.49 at 4:10 p.m. in Sydney. The stock has slumped 36 percent this year.

The possibility of fuselage sections falling from airplanes became a particular concern of aviation regulators after an 18- foot roof section of a 737 tore off during an Aloha Airlines flight at 24,000 feet in 1988. One person died and 64 were hurt in that plane, which had made more than 90,000 flights.

U.S. regulators instituted additional crack inspections of older planes after that incident.

China Airlines Incident

In 2002, a China Airlines 747-200 broke apart in flight at 34,900 feet, and all 225 passengers and crew were killed or presumed dead. Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council concluded that a rear fuselage section had failed, and that a skin repair had not been done to Boeing specifications following a 1980 tail strike. China Airlines is Taiwan's biggest carrier.

Qantas, known for its kangaroo logo, last week reached a new four-year labor agreement with engineers, ending a long-running dispute that had forced it to cancel some flights and delay others. The carrier operates more than 213 aircraft, including 30 747-400s. The airline started receiving the Boeing jets in 1989.

In September 1999, a Qantas 747-400 with 410 occupants onboard ran off the end of a runway after landing in Bangkok, according to the Flight Safety Foundation, a not-for-profit body that tracks and analyses global aviation. The group doesn't list any fatal Qantas accidents on its Web site.

To contact the reporters on this story: Robert Fenner in Melbourne rfenner@bloomberg.net; Francisco Alcuaz Jr. in Manila at falcuaz@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: July 25, 2008 14:51 EDT

[FSTargetDrone]

Whoops, that should be "Qantas Airliner." Not Airliners.

Frightfully sorry.

[bobalot]

Is it just me or has this stuff been occurring more frequently ever since they outsourced some of their maintenance overseas?

[Broomstick]

More like it's because of aging airplanes. The Aloha Airlines blowout was caused by metal fatigue over time, and it's possible that this was a similar situation.

Still, it's a good illustration that airplanes can take considerable damage and still be controllable and safely landed.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Is it just me or has this stuff been occurring more frequently ever since they outsourced some of their maintenance overseas?

Possibly. But I'd await for the report from the relevant agencies (assuming no politics involved) before saying anything.

[Mr Bean]

Considering their Eighty plus years of perfect safety I'm perfectly willing to give them a pass on them, I'd admoish them to double down on the maintence for awhile and aggressively update and replace the older airframes but damn it how many airliners can claim a safety record that good and that long? Give you a hint, probably none.

[FSTargetDrone]

More like it's because of aging airplanes. The Aloha Airlines blowout was caused by metal fatigue over time, and it's possible that this was a similar situation.

Still, it's a good illustration that airplanes can take considerable damage and still be controllable and safely landed.

The inflight fuselage skin failure of that Aloha flight was a remarkable was a remarkable incident, namely because there was just one (unfortunate) fatality. I thought of it too when I saw the above story.

Here's a quick bit of info on that, for anyone who is unfamiliar with that 1988 accident:

...

The flight was conducted in visual meteorological conditions. There were no advisories for significant meteorological information (SIGMET) or airman's meteorological information (AIRMET) valid for the area along the planned route of flight.

No unusual occurrences were noted by either crewmember during the departure and climbout. As the airplane leveled at 24,000 feet, both pilots heard a loud "clap" or "whooshing" sound followed by a wind noise behind them. The first officer's head was jerked backward, and she stated that debris, including pieces of gray insulation, was floating in the cockpit. The captain observed that the cockpit entry door was missing and that there was blue sky where the first-class ceiling had been. The captain immediately took over the controls of the airplane. He described the airplane attitude as rolling slightly left and right and that the flight controls felt "loose."

Because of the decompression, both pilots and the air traffic controller in the observer seat donned their oxygen masks. The captain began an emergency descent. He stated that he extended the speed brakes and descended at an indicated airspeed (IAS) of 280 to 290 knots. Because of ambient noise, the pilots initially used hand signals to communicate. The first officer stated that she observed a rate of descent of 4,100 feet per minute at some point during the emergency descent. The captain also stated that he actuated the passenger oxygen switch. The passenger oxygen manual tee handle was not actuated.

When the decompression occurred, all the passengers were seated and the seat belt sign was illuminated. The No. 1 flight attendant reportedly was standing at seat row 5. According to passenger observations, the flight attendant was immediately swept out of the cabin through a hole in the left side of the fuselage. The No. 2 flight attendant, standing by row 15/16, was thrown to the floor and sustained minor bruises. She was subsequently able to crawl up and down the aisle to render assistance and calm the passengers. The No. 3 flight attendant, standing at row 2, was struck in the head by debris and thrown to the floor. She suffered serious injuries including a concussion and severe head lacerations.

...

Damage to Airplane

A major portion of the upper crown skin and structure of section 43 separated in flight causing an explosive decompression of the cabin. The damaged area extended from slightly aft of the main cabin entrance door, rear ward about 18 feet to the area just forward of the wings and from the left side of the cabin at the floor level to the right side window level.

The value of the airplane was estimated at about $5 million. As a result of the accident, the airplane was determined to be damaged beyond repair. It was dismantled on the site and sold for parts and scrap.

[MichaelFerrariF1]

[quote="Broomstick"
Still, it's a good illustration that airplanes can take considerable damage and still be controllable and safely landed.[/quote]

In WWII a P-47 couldn't maneuver and had an FW-190 empty its entire load of ammunition into it. The P-47 took the hits and kept flying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK609jJ3 ... re=related

[Chris OFarrell]

Considering their Eighty plus years of perfect safety I'm perfectly willing to give them a pass on them, I'd admoish them to double down on the maintence for awhile and aggressively update and replace the older airframes but damn it how many airliners can claim a safety record that good and that long? Give you a hint, probably none.

Actually they've lost that record.

They've been heavily cutting back of maintenance for the better part of a decade now. The number of 'acceptable faults' on an aircraft they allow has increased by about a factor of 5 IIRC, they have been making huge cutbacks to their spending on maintenance including some rather ridiculous decisions. Like after spending tens of millions of dollars to upgrade the Sydney jetbase to perform all the work on the next generation of bigger aircraft, they shut it down and fire people to save cash.

They have been outsourcing something stupid to China as well.

Its one of the most flabergasting decisions in the aviation industry. Quantas had a PERFECT safety record, 100%, never crashed an aircraft, EVER. Then they had a 747 crash at Bancock in a way that would have probably burned the aircraft at 99% of the airports around the world, its just luck it had room to slide out at THIS airport that made sure no-one died. If you read the accident report about the incidient, it shwos how fucking lucky they were and how avoidable it was.

I mean the PILOTS were operating under new rules that they are not allowed to land with reverse thrusters, had been loaded up with less then a full tank of gas so they couldn't divert or wait for the weather to clear, they had instructions about very specific use of their flaps, all 'designed' to save money by reducing maintenance costs.

And their perfect safety record, something they couldn't buy anywhere, was lost. They still had this whole PR campaign blaming the crash on everything but their micromanagement and cost cutting, to the point that they spend an obscene amount of money to get that 747 back into service -though its now restricted to short domestic runs- so they can claim 'they have never lost an aircraft'. Amusingly, the amount of money they had to spend to DO this was an order of magnitude greater (or more) then the savings they had been able to skim off.

And of course, Quantas used to make a great deal of money by servicing aircraft from other airlines because their standards were so ridiculously high, but that aint happening anymore.

There have been more then a few 'incidents' recently that could have been disastrous, right up to engines falling off aircraft in mid flight and frankly the increasing frequency makes me VERY wary of flying Quantas these days. As has been pointed out, their fleet is aging steadily, so they NEED to perform more maintenance, NOT less.

[tim31]

From wikipedia:

It is often claimed, most notably in the 1988 movie Rain Man, that Qantas has never had a fatal accident.[74] This statement only relates to the fact that the company has never lost a jet airliner. Between 1927 and 1951, Qantas had eight fatal accidents with the loss of 62 people. Half of these accidents occurred during World War II, when the Qantas aircraft were operating on behalf of the Royal Australian Air Force.

* On 7 April 1949, Avro Lancastrian VH-EAS swung on landing at Dubbo during a training flight, causing the gear to collapse. The aircraft was destroyed by fire.
* On 24 August 1960, Super Constellation VH-EAC crashed on take off at Mauritius en route to the Cocos Islands. Take off was aborted, the aircraft ran off the runway, and was destroyed by fire. There were no fatalities.

* On September 23, 1999, Qantas Flight 1, a Boeing 747-400 (VH-OJH), overran the runway while landing at Bangkok, Thailand, during a heavy thunderstorm. The aircraft ended up on a golf course. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau criticised numerous inadequacies in Qantas' operational and training processes.
* On July 25, 2008, Qantas Flight 30, a Boeing 747-438 (VH-OJK), suffered an explosive decompression as a result of in-flight structural damage. The aircraft, at crusing altitude, made emergency descent and landed uneventfully in Manila. No one was injured. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau initially referred to the occurrence as a "Serious Incident", while the National Transportation Safety Board (a USA agency; the aircraft is of USA manufacture) initially called it an accident. Scotland Yard dismissed the possibility of a bomb exploding, although the possibility of an exploding oxygen supply tank is being investigated.

They just let go another chunk of their workforce too, because they were anticipating a blowout in fuel costs and needed to make ends meet

Yeah, the kudos to the skipper, but fuck Qantas management; they thought they were untouchable after driving Ansett out of the market, but they've got another thing coming.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Was there a reason given for the crack in the fuselage for the Aloha Flight 243? It looks like a complete structural failure in the fuselage due to stress and cracks.

[Teebs]

The cutting of maintenance seems like an insane business decision for an airliner. With the way people tend to be nervous of flying, reputation is everything there.

Is there any general consensus on what is the safest airline these days?

[Broomstick]

Was there a reason given for the crack in the fuselage for the Aloha Flight 243? It looks like a complete structural failure in the fuselage due to stress and cracks.

Stress fractures and metal fatigue. It's really that simple.

Every time an airliner is pressurized it stretches the fuselage slightly. After enough such cycles metal fatigue sets in. Many short trips will cause this to occur more quickly than fewer, longer trips.

Non-pressurized airplanes are not subjected to that particular form of metal fatigue but all aircraft experience stress over time from aerodynamic forces acting on them.

Is there any general consensus on what is the safest airline these days?

Quantas is still up there. Southwest has had only one fatality (not a passenger but a bystander). Big and first world are usually good indicators but both US and European carriers have had accidents.

The cutting of maintenance seems like an insane business decision for an airliner. With the way people tend to be nervous of flying, reputation is everything there.

Aviation is an insane business and the current business model, with continual fare cutting, is not sustainable long term. You can get away with cutting corners in maintenance for awhile, and that's where the danger lies - you become more and more accustomed to sub-standard maintenance because nothing bad has happened yet, then one day it catches up to you.

[Starglider]

Every time an airliner is pressurized it stretches the fuselage slightly. After enough such cycles metal fatigue sets in. Many short trips will cause this to occur more quickly than fewer, longer trips.

I read somewhere that this is because aluminium (and its common alloys) doesn't have a lower fatigue limit; cracks will propagate even for low loadings (very slowly). Steel and titanium both have considerable lower fatigue limits and will not propagate cracks as long as the material isn't loaded beyond that limit. Sadly it's too expensive to make airliners out of titanium, though stainless steel was considered for SSTs.

I'd appreciate if a mechanical engineer could confirm that because I don't recall the source.

[[R_H]]

Jet probe turns to oxygen bottles

A possible oxygen cylinder blast is a main focus for investigators looking into what caused a hole mid-flight in the fuselage of a Qantas passenger jet.

Investigator Neville Blyth said a cylinder was missing from the plane but it was "too early to say whether this was the cause of the explosion".

Qantas has been told to inspect every oxygen bottle on its Boeing 747 fleet.

The plane was flying to Melbourne when it had to make an emergency landing in the Philippines on Friday.

Passengers reported a loud bang and then rapid decompression of the cabin.

'No evidence of explosives'

"At this stage, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is a security-related event," Mr Blyth, a senior investigator from the Australian Transport and Safety Bureau, told a news conference in Manila.

"This is being treated as a safety investigation."

Philippine bomb-sniffing dogs had gone through the cargo hold and found no indication of explosives, and there was no evidence of bomb residues, Mr Blyth said.

He added: "It is too early to say whether this was the cause of the explosion, but one of the cylinders which provides back-up oxygen is missing."

The initial inquiry is likely to take two to three days and a preliminary report on the findings should be released in two to three months, Mr Blyth said.

Passengers described hearing a large bang and feeling a rush of wind and debris through the cabin about an hour after Flight QF30 left Hong Kong at 0900 local time (0100 GMT) on Friday.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said the aircraft made an emergency descent from 29,000ft to 10,000ft before stabilising. It said initial information indicated that a section of the fuselage had separated in the area of the forward cargo compartment.

[Broomstick]

If it was an oxygen bottle then they're lucky that the worst damage was a hole in the fuselage - malfunctioning oxy bottles have been known to take down an airliner. There was that ValueJet crash in the Everglades, for instance...

[JointStrikeFighter]

Just a bit of trivia its the same airliner that the pope flew out on.

[tim31]

The Valujet crash was a much smaller plane though, Broom?

[Broomstick]

Until the A380 comes out there aren't any civilian airliners bigger than the 747, so yes, the ValueJet 592 DC-9 was smaller. However, the size difference wasn't as significant as a fire fueled in part by pure oxygen burning through the control lines for the ValueJet (among other problems), rendering the airplane completely uncontrollable. And, oh yes, the entire fuselage was probably one fire before they hit the ground. The NTSB concluded that the fire started when an emergency oxygen canister packed in the hold (contrary to regulations, improperly labeled, and improperly safetied against accidental activation) ignited, generating heat greater than 260 C and, of course, providing oxygen for combustion. If a fire fueled by pure oxygen got loose in the cargo hold of a B-747 there is a high probability of similar results.

Of course, we do not know what went wrong on the Quantas flight and what we've heard so far is preliminary speculation at best. However, if it WAS an O2 canister fire then having it blow out the side of the airplane, as scary as that sounds, was likely one of the best potential outcomes of such an accident. By exiting the airplane, and diluting the oxygen with normal air, it vastly reduces the chances of a fatal fire. As demonstrated, a B-747 is quite controllable despite a sizable hole in its side, and it's controllability that gets you safely back on the ground.