Qantas understatement?

[Dilligaf10]

40 people injured in Australia when a Qantas plane came down.

Qantas said the incident was the result of a "sudden change in altitude".

I thought all crashes were a result of a "sudden change of altitude"

[Fer]

Not if you pile it into the side of a mountain.

It is like saying that people who commit suicide by jumping off high buildings die by deceleration trauma.

ETA.

Edited by Fer on Tuesday 7th October 08:27

[Eric Mc]

Is this the 747 decompression incident of a few months back or a new one?

[MrVelox]

They probably hit a nasty pocket of clear air turbulence... planes can hit it and drop thousands of feet suddenly, it has caused many a crash over the years.

[deviant]

http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,26058,244609...

I just heard on the local news that a sudden altitude change caused those that were not wearing seatbelts to get chucked around the cabin...early reports though so lets see what comes out about it.

[fatboy b]

With alll those "things" happening over the past few months, you'd be forgiven for thinking they've been cutting back on maintenance.

[Eric Mc]

Not an unusual type of incident, to be honest. It seems that the media are now on a "Qantas Watch" and every incident will get reported.
Encountering turbulence is not related to any shortcomings with maintenance issues. Obviously, the media (as part of their overall plan to keep people scared) will be picking up every single little incident involving Qantas.

Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 7th October 08:49

[Monki]

My sister has just come back from Australia and according to the news out there, the Qantas maintenance staff have been striking over wages and so all maintenance work has been carried out at non-Qantas facilities where the work is suspected to be sub-standard.

I had a friend in aircraft maintenance, and he was out in Malaysia training up the new British Airways maitnenance crews.......one shocking story of many was that they confused BAR with PSI when filling the tyres

[thehawk]

MrVelox said:

They probably hit a nasty pocket of clear air turbulence... planes can hit it and drop thousands of feet suddenly, it has caused many a crash over the years.

Has it? Show me one example.

[TimJMS]

thehawk said:

MrVelox said:

They probably hit a nasty pocket of clear air turbulence... planes can hit it and drop thousands of feet suddenly, it has caused many a crash over the years.

Has it? Show me one example.

Off the top of my head is caused the loss of a BOAC 707 off Mount Fuji in 1966.

[thehawk]

TimJMS said:

thehawk said:

MrVelox said:

They probably hit a nasty pocket of clear air turbulence... planes can hit it and drop thousands of feet suddenly, it has caused many a crash over the years.

Has it? Show me one example.

Off the top of my head is caused the loss of a BOAC 707 off Mount Fuji in 1966.

Well OK, there may be a couple of examples but it is incredibly rare and I can't think of any modern airliners that have structurally failed or crashed due to CAT.

Edited by thehawk on Tuesday 7th October 09:06

[MrVelox]

That 707 in Japan was one, but I got beaten to it

The Air Force lost a B52 in New Mexico in the 60s, a Delta Lockheed L1011 slammed into the runway in Dallas back in the 80s.. those are a few that come to mind. Another one back in the 80s happened during takeoff in New Orleans, think it was a 727 or DC9.

When you're at FL360 or so (FL10 = 1,000 feet) and you hit nasty CAT, you might drop 5-10k feet. When it happens during takeoff or landing.. you have a serious problem.

CAT = Wind Shear aloft.

[HRG]

thehawk said:

TimJMS said:

thehawk said:

MrVelox said:

They probably hit a nasty pocket of clear air turbulence... planes can hit it and drop thousands of feet suddenly, it has caused many a crash over the years.

Has it? Show me one example.

Off the top of my head is caused the loss of a BOAC 707 off Mount Fuji in 1966.

Well OK, there may be a couple of examples but it is incredibly rare and I can't think of any modern airliners that have structurally failed or crashed due to CAT.

Edited by thehawk on Tuesday 7th October 09:06

We had quite an event over the Rockies, we hit some and anything that wasn't nailed down became airborne, even the food trolleys There were bottles in the air, even my young daughter who was fast asleep in a basinette at the time started floating.

It's the only time I've ever seen the entire cabin crew drop to the floor, turn sideways in the aisles and brace themselves across the seats. The problem isn't the plane, it's the loose stuff in the cabin that does the damage

[Eric Mc]

As I said, it's not THAT unusual an occurence.

It is extremely rare that it actually causes a crash - especially if the plane is flying at its normal cruise altitude.

[MrVelox]

I've encountered it a few times.. mainly over the North Atlantic, but never anything that severe... the plane seems to fall to its knees, stuff falls everywhere and makes a mess and a few of us Americans start screaming.

10 minutes later everyone's back to watching their TV screens and sucking down booze.

[MrVelox]

Eric Mc said:

As I said, it's not THAT unusual an occurence.

It is extremely rare that it actually causes a crash - especially if the plane is flying at its normal cruise altitude.

Rare for a commercial airliner, not so rare for a GA aircraft. Most commercial airliner crashes caused by it are on approach or takeoff.

A bunch of Lockheed 188s were downed by it, but that was due to a structural design flaw, they hit CAT, the plane fell apart.

[mechsympathy]

Monki said:

My sister has just come back from Australia and according to the news out there, the Qantas maintenance staff have been striking over wages and so all maintenance work has been carried out at non-Qantas facilities where the work is suspected to be sub-standard.

Suspected by who? The Qantas ground crew are hardly going to admit that their replacements do a great job

[Eric Mc]

MrVelox said:

Eric Mc said:

As I said, it's not THAT unusual an occurence.

It is extremely rare that it actually causes a crash - especially if the plane is flying at its normal cruise altitude.

Rare for a commercial airliner, not so rare for a GA aircraft. Most commercial airliner crashes caused by it are on approach or takeoff.

A bunch of Lockheed 188s were downed by it, but that was due to a structural design flaw, they hit CAT, the plane fell apart.

Those accidents (nearly 50 years ago) were caused by unexpected engine resonance effects which weakened the wing spars. The crashes effectively ruined any chance of commercial success for the Lockheed L188 Electra.

Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) is very different to turbulence associated with terrain, thermals or weather. It is caused when high speed jetstreams intersect each other. Where the airflows cross, the air becomes very disturbed and bumpy. Because this type of turbulence is not associated with any visible features (mountains, clouds etc) it can take an aircraft by surprise and often hits without prior warning.

[HundredthIdiot]

This is why I keep my belt buckled when seated on an aircraft in flight.

[deviant]

It should be pointed out that this plane did NOT crash! It landed early because some people on board were injured.

Also turbulence is not caused by maintenance!