QF1 Incident - the wash up
rha...@scu.edu.au
By Ben Sandilands
Australian Financial Review 16 November 1999
Qantas has removed Bangkok and similar airports from a list of
destinations for which pilots must adhere to strict fuel-saving
guidelines.
The edict was circularised to air crew on November 8, two days after
Qantas received a full readout from the flight data recorder from QF1,
the 747-400 that crashed off a runway at Bangkok and into a golf course
on September 23 while flying from Sydney to London.
The Australian Financial Reviewhas been told that the captain was
concerned at the amount of fuel remaining when he took control of the
plane from a first officer who had initiated a "go-around" procedure
for a second landing attempt.
A spokesman for Qantas said last night: "Qantas rejects any suggestion
that fuel policies impacted in any way whatsoever on the situation in
Bangkok. It is the responsibility of every professional pilot to ensure
that he or she has adequate fuel."
It is believed that QF1 was carrying more than enough fuel at the time
to meet minimum requirements specified under international aviation and
company rules.
The crash extensively damaged the $200million jet which was carrying
403 passengers and crew.
Pilots say the accident is putting Qantas's operating procedures under
the spotlight, none more intensely than the pressure to save fuel.
The notice, issued on November 8, reads: "Poor braking action.
Destinations which reflect runways with poor/reduced braking actions on
NOTAMS (pilot bulletins updating information about flying conditions)
are not to be planned as fuel-saving when runways are forecast wet."
It is believed that when QF1 was approaching Bangkok under the control
of the first officer, it had enough fuel for a landing plus the
absolute minimum requirement of 30 minutes' worth of fuel in normal
flight. But extra fuel reserves, calculated for holding for air traffic
delays or storm avoidance, are believed to have been largely consumed
before the jet began its descent.
Had QF1 gone around as the first officer intended, the remaining fuel
might have been inadequate if air traffic control directed it well away
from the busy airport to await another turn.
A missed approach burns more fuel than normal as the engines are
powered up to climb away from an aborted landing, and the hot dense
atmospheric conditions at Bangkok consume fuel more rapidly than
normal, higher-altitude flight.
The only solution in such a situation is for a captain to declare a
fuel emergency and jump the queue waiting for landing.
On the night in question, long delays in making a second approach to
Bangkok's Don Muang airport would have been expected.
Qantas pilots have complained that the airline's tight fuel policy in
recent years has impinged on their ability to take on board extra fuel
if experience has suggested they should do so.
One senior pilot said: "Every six months we get a printout which
compares how much fuel each of us is using compared to others flying
the same types of aircraft. We are not being asked to do anything
illegal, but we are being put under intense pressure not to load
anything more than is theoretically necessary, or decide to fly a go-
around because something doesn't seem right on approach.
"It comes down to a contest between pilot judgement and bean counting,
and it has a lot of us quite worried."
Australia's Bureau of Air Safety Investigation is likely to make an
initial finding on the Bangkok incident this week.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
davo_f...@my-deja.com
Ben Sandilands has the bull by the wrong horns in one aspect.
>The notice, issued on November 8, reads: "Poor braking action.
>Destinations which reflect runways with poor/reduced braking actions on
>NOTAMS (pilot bulletins updating information about flying conditions)
>are not to be planned as fuel-saving when runways are forecast wet."
The gist of the article is that Sandilands infers that "fuel-saving" is
in fact operating to a destination with the least amount of fuel
possible. This is not correct.
"Fuel-saving" in Qantas parlance is indeed the exact opposite.
"Fuel-saving" is operating to a destination with as much fuel as
possible so the uplift at the destination for the next sector is
minimised.
This occurs where it is cheaper to tanker the fuel in from the last port
because the destination fuel price (uplift for the following sector) is
expensive. Because you tanker the fuel in, the landing
weight/speeds/distance is much higher than normal. Hence the edict to
crews and despatchers via the INTAM to preclude fuel saving sectors when
destinations have poor braking action.
And for the purists;
I do declare, I work for Qantas!
.
Financial Review ??
rha...@scu.edu.au wrote:
> The notice, issued on November 8, reads: "Poor braking action.
> Destinations which reflect runways with poor/reduced braking actions on
> NOTAMS (pilot bulletins updating information about flying conditions)
> are not to be planned as fuel-saving when runways are forecast wet."
>
Ted Harrison
. <.@student.unsw.edu.au> wrote
> And that is again another uninformed newspaper article...
Is that right?
What part, to your certain knowledge, is inaccurate?
> who owns the
> Financial Review ??
That's about as relevant as asking who owns Qantas.
Do you have a problem with the credibility of The Australian Financial Review,
generally?
jacko
"." <.@student.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
>And that is again another uninformed newspaper article...who owns the
>Financial Review ??
>
"Another" uninformed newspaper article??? Which was the other one - Oh
Fearless Dot Defender of the Sacred Cow?
Surely you're not suggesting that the other AFR piece regarding a
looming diplomatic row between Australia and Thailand was uninformed? If
so - do tell.
You know the report - about the removal of evidence from the accident
site (indeed from the country) without authorisation from the Thai
authorities.
In case you've forgotten it was the one which quoted an Australian
aviation industry source
saying that if the action had been taken in Australia it would have been
a breach of Australia's Air Navigation Act, which incorporates annexe
13 of the International Civil Aviation Organisation's protocols on
accident investigations. And that those ICAO rules did not permit the
unauthorised removal of any component or any recording device from an
accident site
Was that the article you referred to or perhaps you are thinking of some
other - as I said - do tell.
Or was it perhaps the one which appeared in the Thai press and was
couched in rather more robust terms such as "If the report is
true……………………. is a flagrant flouting of Thai sovereignty,"
The Thai press were even more scathing regarding data in the allegedly
removed recording device which would have given Qantas very precise
information about the accident, while QF was publicly insisting that
nothing could be determined about the cause until Thai authorities
themselves released their official report.
Or maybe it was some other report please let us know - we do not wish
to be uninformed.
jacko
Phil C
--
http://members.tripod.com/~philcleaver/list.html
Ted Harrison <ha...@nsw.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:nu6Y3.5084$Xo.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Do you have a problem with the credibility of The Australian Financial
Review,
generally?
Ted YES!
Ted Harrison
Phil C <cho...@cheerful.com> wrote
>
> Ted Harrison <ha...@nsw.bigpond.net.au>
> Do you have a problem with the credibility of The Australian Financial
> Review,
> generally?
>
> Ted YES!
>
Can you give an example, Phil?
Ted Harrison
And yet another public relations coup from the Flying Kangaroo ...
Sparks fly over removal of recorder
from mishap plane
By Ben Sandilands and Bruce Cheesman, Bangkok
A row between Qantas and Thai aviation officials is looming over the removal of
a data recorder from QF1 at Bangkok's Don Muang airport to find out how the
747-400 ran out of runway and slid into a golf course.
The Thai Department of Civil Aviation is believed to have begun an inquiry into
the removal of the device known as a QAR (quick access recorder) from the plane
after the incident on September 23.
Qantas claims it had a right to remove the recorder because it is a
non-mandatory safety enhancement, unlike the two black box devices, the cockpit
voice recorder (CVR) and the flight data recorder (FDR).
However, an Australian aviation industry source said that if the action had been
taken in Australia it would have been a breach of Australia's Air Navigation
Act, which incorporates annexe 13 of the International Civil Aviation
Organisation's protocols on accident investigations.
He said ICAO rules did not permit the unauthorised removal of any component or
any recording device from an accident site. "It would be an offence under
Australian laws to remove anything from an accident site, period, or to access
or interrogate any component of a crashed plane except with approval of the
investigators and under conditions set by them," he said.
In a statement issued late on Friday Qantas said the QAR was an additional piece
of equipment that it and some other airlines fitted on a discretionary basis to
enable ready access to important information.
"It is not classified as a flight recorder and only Qantas has the ability to
read the data from this additional source of information. The data obtained has
been provided to BASI (Bureau of Air Safety Investigation)," the statement said.
It is believed Qantas expects BASI to pass the information on to Thai
authorities.
Thai aviation officials declined to comment on the matter on Friday, but it is
believed they are concerned the removal of the recorder was a breach of Thai
sovereignty.
Unlike the flight data and cockpit voice recorder "black boxes", the QAR is not
strengthened to withstand fire or destructive force. It is designed to provide
airlines with a fast diagnostic tool for engine and systems performance.
It should have captured some of the words that passed between the captain, the
first officer, second officer and a female guest occupying the observer's seat
during the final moments of descent.
The data in the QAR would have given Qantas precise information about the
accident. However, the airline has so far said nothing could be determined about
the cause of the accident until the Thai authorities released their official
report.
The Qantas statement said that the release of the flight data recorder by the
Thai authorities last week would help accelerate the investigation.
It quoted Qantas chief executive, Mr James Strong, as saying information from
the FDR was now being compared with data from the QAR.
"Our investigators are now carefully analysing a considerable amount of
technical information relating to critical aspects of the flight, the landing
procedures and the runway conditions,"he said.
.
as wise as you of course Ted but hey i try.
Ted Harrison wrote:
> . <.@student.unsw.edu.au> wrote
>
> > And that is again another uninformed newspaper article...
>
> Is that right?
>
> What part, to your certain knowledge, is inaccurate?
>
> > who owns the
> > Financial Review ??
>
> That's about as relevant as asking who owns Qantas.
>
Jock
It's a special digital cassette recorder that is not specifically
designed to survive a crash. It records similar data that goes to the
Digital FDR - plus some. The airline operator would determine what
parameters they wanted recorded on the QAR. This data is used for
equipment fault finding processes or examining "Wide Band" incidents
that the aircraft has performed outside the airlines / aircraft makers
parameters. Airspeed, rate of descent, that kind of thing. It can be
evidence in a "please explain" type scenario. It doesn't record
voice.
Maximum recording time is 9.5 hours but due to compression techniques
the recorded data is good for some 20 flights.
cheers
--
Jock
t...@tig.com.au
Ted Harrison
. <.@student.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3832195A...@student.unsw.edu.au...
> The owners of the newspaper may have an interest in a competing airline...
Ah, sorry about that.
Hadn't occurred that's what you were driving at.
But no, after the young Fairfax and his mummy finished with the company,
there wasn't much left over for airlines.
Ted Harrison
Craig Welch <cr...@pacific.net.sg> wrote
> >Do you have a problem with the credibility of The Australian Financial
Review,
> >generally?
>
> A pretty good paper, generally. But their QF1 article on November
> 3rd, for example, contained some specific errors of fact. These
> include 'Qantas preferred to emphasise its record of never having a
> fatality', 'presence of first officer's wife' and 'world's safest
> airline'.
For the record, what were the facts, as you see them, on each of these three
issues, Craig?
Gregory Bond
> The owners of the newspaper may have an interest in a competing airline...i am not
> as wise as you of course Ted but hey i try.
No you're not. The AFR is owned by Fairfax. NewsCorp owns half of
Ansett and The Australian.
Rod Speed
Gregory Bond <g...@itga.com.au> wrote in message news:864seky...@hellcat.itga.com.au...
> "." <.@student.unsw.edu.au> writes:
Tad more than just the Australian.
frankl...@my-deja.com
server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Ted Harrison" <ha...@nsw.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
> And yet another public relations coup from the
Flying Kangaroo ...
>
> Sparks fly over removal of recorder
> from mishap plane
>
> By Ben Sandilands and Bruce Cheesman,
Bangkok
>
> A row between Qantas and Thai aviation officials
is looming over the removal of
> a data recorder from QF1 at Bangkok's Don
Muang airport to find out how the
> 747-400 ran out of runway and slid into a golf
course.
>
> The Thai Department of Civil Aviation is believed
to have begun an inquiry into
> the removal of the device known as a QAR (quick
access recorder) from the plane
> after the incident on September 23.
>
Does anyone know who these authors are? They
are unknowns in Bangkok until suddenly writing
three articles on the Qantas crash beginning Nov
12 in the Bangkok Post.. Their reports contin no
direct quotes and the Post will not idnetify these
writers..
FL - BKK
Ted Harrison
<frankl...@my-deja.com>
>
> Does anyone know who these authors are? They
> are unknowns in Bangkok until suddenly writing
> three articles on the Qantas crash beginning Nov
> 12 in the Bangkok Post.. Their reports contin no
> direct quotes and the Post will not idnetify these
> writers..
>
They're undercover Qantas spin doctors.
Their mission: convince the public that Qantas is an "adventure" airline,
which offers landings to rival the world's best amusement park rides
-- and, if you're lucky, fun slides down evacuation chutes.