QF52 turns back to SIN last night - gear wont retract

[markis10]

Normally I would not publish this as news but since its only the 4th flight since the aircraft was in Maintenance in HKG, I suspect we will be hearing more come Monday when the unions are back at work.....

A QANTAS jumbo carrying more than 340 passengers was forced to return to Singapore after its wheels refused to retract early this morning. An airline spokeswoman confirmed flight QF52, which had been scheduled to land in Brisbane at 6.30am today was forced to return to Changi airport 48 minutes after take-off, reports the Courier Mail.
She said passengers had been briefed on the mishap aboard the Boeing 747-400 jumbo and were put up at hotels overnight.

Read more: Wheel problems force Brisbane-bound Qantas jumbo to return to Singapore | News.com.au
​

 

[Nigelinoz]

A bit rich to call it a "mishap"in my opinion,I would call it a "Technical issue".
As usual sounds like the pilots handled the problem professionally and Qantas looked after
the passengers well.
Cheers
N'oz

 

[medhead]

Not sure about the handled professionally. My brother was in the flight and mentioned that it took an hour or so before the pilot said anything to the passengers. After they noticed that the aircraft was flying in circles on the in flight tracker. Also had a go around on landing due to the aircraft in front not clearing quick enough.

Anyway, my brother managed to get himself on a SQ flight. So the drama will continue with original routing request.

 

[markis10]

Not sure about the handled professionally. My brother was in the flight and mentioned that it took an hour or so before the pilot said anything to the passengers. After they noticed that the aircraft was flying in circles on the in flight tracker. Also had a go around on landing due to the aircraft in front not clearing quick enough..

Huh, do you think it would be more professional for a pilot to chat to the passengers rather than give his full attention to the issues at hand? Flying a relatively fully loaded dirty aircraft that wont go clean is a big issue, I would have thought most frequent flyers would appreciate that, along with the fact a pilot has no control over a go round when the runway is not clear, so that titbit is irrelevant as well!

 

[medhead]

Huh, do you think it would be more professional for a pilot to chat to the passengers rather than give his full attention to the issues at hand? Flying a relatively fully loaded dirty aircraft that wont go clean is a big issue, I would have thought most frequent flyers would appreciate that, along with the fact a pilot has no control over a go round when the runway is not clear, so that titbit is irrelevant as well!

Huh yourself. For a start have another read. I offered additional information regarding the go around. As in, if the gear wasn't enough they also had a go around. Never said it had anything to do with the gear issue. Rather than getting on your high horse try to take in the information that is presented.

Secondly, I'm raising an issue about when the passengers were briefed. I didn't say anything about chatting away to the passengers. The pilot obviously had time to brief the passengers as they did so according to the qantas spokesperson. I'm questioning the conclusion that they handled it professionally (as per the post I quoted), as they only did the briefing once they had been flying in circles for a while and were dumping fuel. That does niot mean I am suggesting the pilots should be have little fireside chats with the passenger and it is ridiculous for you to pretend that was my suggestion.

 

[markis10]

I'm questioning the conclusion that they handled it professionally (as per the post I quoted), as they only did the briefing once they had been flying in circles for a while and were dumping fuel. That does niot mean I am suggesting the pilots should be have little fireside chats with the passenger and it is ridiculous for you to pretend that was my suggestion.

So your saying its less professional to deal with the issue rather than brief the passengers via a chat (fireside being your word not mine so dont attribute it to me), I find that farcical!
'
I am surprised they had a chance to alert the passengers at all to be frank, to do so once the situation was under control in an hour is commendable, what do you think they were doing in the meantime??

Huh yourself. For a start have another read. I offered additional information regarding the go around.

In the same sentence as the questioning of the professionalism of the pilots, "separate items should be in a new paragraph" is what I was taught, which is why I linked the two .

For the record, as someone with professional aviation experience, I see nothing from the press reports to indicate the matter was handled in anything but a professional manner, sometimes the passengers are better off not knowing, hence the saying "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing"!

 

[LiamR]

I have to agree with Markis10 here, I'm sure jb747 would agree, the pilots need to fully focus on the problem at hand, flying a fully loaded 747 with a stuck gear is not as easy as it sounds. Even stopping for just a few moments could cause additional problems.

I don't see this as a major safety issue. They took off, the gear wouldn't go up, they circled, they landed. There was no excessive danger and the crew managed to safely land. No huge fireball or explosion.

I'm new here, but can I offer a suggestion to some of the more 'senior' members...
Can we try and reduce the amount of news.com stories we promote on this website.

Maybe try to source other news sources rather than promoting a site we don't like.

 

[Awesom Andy]

The general rule of flying is: aviate, navigate, communicate. And unfortunately for the pax, other parties such as the ATC has priority over you, so I'm not surprised that pax are the last ones to be told about things.

 

[laffer]

I have to agree with Markis10 here, I'm sure jb747 would agree, the pilots need to fully focus on the problem at hand, flying a fully loaded 747 with a stuck gear is not as easy as it sounds. Even stopping for just a few moments could cause additional problems.

I don't see this as a major safety issue. They took off, the gear wouldn't go up, they circled, they landed. There was no excessive danger and the crew managed to safely land. No huge fireball or explosion.

I'm new here, but can I offer a suggestion to some of the more 'senior' members...
Can we try and reduce the amount of news.com stories we promote on this website.

Maybe try to source other news sources rather than promoting a site we don't like.

Make up your mind

 

[medhead]

So your saying its less professional to deal with the issue rather than brief the passengers via a chat (fireside being your word not mine so dont attribute it to me), I find that farcical!

No, actually I'm not saying that at all. "Chat" was your word. For the third time, I did not and am not suggesting they have a "chat" (to use your word). I'm raising an issue of the timing of briefing the passengers. If the aircraft has been flying in circles long enough for passengers to notice and ask questions, then I think that is a long time to wait before deciding to inform passengers.

Huh, do you think it would be more professional for a pilot to chat to the passengers

I am surprised they had a chance to alert the passengers at all to be frank, to do so once the situation was under control in an hour is commendable, what do you think they were doing in the meantime??

I'm not saying that they do something immediately. That is just you putting words into my mouth, no need to misrepresent my views. As for having time to do anything - How long were they flying in circles? - I'm sure you've reached into your professional kitbag and found that out. I have an eyewitness account for how long it was, but since everyone is more interested in what News Ltd has to say I'll keep that to myself.

In the same sentence as the questioning of the professionalism of the pilots, "separate items should be in a new paragraph" is what I was taught, which is why I linked the two .

That would work if it was separate information. You might have got that if you read what I wrote rather than jumping to conclusions. But thanks for the grammar lesson.

For the record, as someone with professional aviation experience, I see nothing from the press reports to indicate the matter was handled in anything but a professional manner, sometimes the passengers are better off not knowing, hence the saying "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing"!

You believe news ltd over an eye witness? :shock: That's you're choice. Just remember that choice the next time you get on here and stick the boot into News Ltd.

Make up your mind

Umm, indeed, such a massive issue that someone can't jump on and say "problem gotta go back to Singapore". But not a safety issue. At the very least I would have thought there would be some questions about the gear upon landing again.

 

[nlagalle]

Not sure about the handled professionally. My brother was in the flight and mentioned that it took an hour or so before the pilot said anything to the passengers. After they noticed that the aircraft was flying in circles on the in flight tracker. Also had a go around on landing due to the aircraft in front not clearing quick enough.

Sorry but not communicating with pax does not show that it wasn't handled professionally.

The rule you are taught as a pilot is "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate". In that order. Seems to me that's what they did. Yes it may have taken an hour to tell the pax what had happened, but I'll bet all 3 pilots would be too busy on the flight deck running checklists to get on the PA.

 

[pshepvic]

A landing gear not retracting in itself isn't a safety issue, but having to land with a full aircraft and fuel tanks probably is, and therefore there is a fair bit that has to happen before they can land, and that would require a fair bit of the pilot's attention.

Surely by the extra wind noise and no sound of closing landing gear after take off would have been a bit of a clue for at least the seasoned travellers on board.

Anyway, I'd much rather be on a plane circling for an hour with landing gear that won't go up, than circling for a hour on a plane with landing gear that won't go down...

 

[docjames]

It has been emphasised many times before, here and elsewhere, whenever QF get questioned about "why werent the pax told sooner", the steps are:

1. Keep the plane flying.
2. Comunicate with ground and make arrangements to land.
3. Tell pax.

Steps 1&2 can take variable amounts of time. The fact you could see the circling on the IFE is, IMO, irrelevant. Once the pilots have a set plan, the plane is safe, the ground knows what's happening, then the pax get told. An hour is pretty good going IMO.

Whilst I dont doubt everyone was wondering what was happening (due to the IFE), and is somewhat interesting (not something that happens regularly), this bears no influence on when the pax get told what's going on.

I'd rather the captain fly the aircraft and get it down safely, than lose focus for even a few seconds to tell pax what's going on.

Have you considered also for the first part of the "hour", they were probably attempting to retract the landing gear, and if so, possibly could have continued on to BNE? And then decided they couldnt resolve it, and had to make plans to return. An hour goes by pretty quickly.

 

[Robert K]

Why does the pilot need to inform the pax of anything? What could the pax possibly do to help the situation? jump off the plane lighten the weight?

 

[Sifor]

As discussed in the "Ask the Pilot" thread, it looks like someone forgot to take out the landing gear pins!

(joke... or maybe not?)

 

[LiamR]

Make up your mind

Would you rather the pilot think "Eh, not a major issue. I won't focus on it"

I would expect a pilot to give his full attention to the aircraft, not to tell the passengers whats going on. They can't really do much afterall.

If he had a quick 20seconds and jumped on the PA and said "Gear not working, were going back to Singapore" that would proabley do more bad then good. Sometimes not knowing is better.

 

[Robert K]

It's totally unprofessional for pilots to welcome pax onboard once the plane is at cruising altitude. Thats like almost an hour after pax board the aircraft. What are they doing in there. Surely they have time to say hi for a minuet.

i'm being sarcastic.

 

[docjames]

As discussed in the "Ask the Pilot" thread, it looks like someone forgot to take out the landing gear pins!

(joke... or maybe not?)

When I first saw the article on news.com.au, that thread sprung to mind.

Profetic much? If it turns out to be that, jb747 can add "fortune teller" to his (already) impressive repertoire. :shock:

 

[samh004]

I'm new here, but can I offer a suggestion to some of the more 'senior' members...
Can we try and reduce the amount of news.com stories we promote on this website.

Maybe try to source other news sources rather than promoting a site we don't like.

They're the only site where we hear about things... and most news stories published there are reprinted elsewhere later anyway. If you're looking for a better site, AVHerald would be the one.

As discussed in the "Ask the Pilot" thread, it looks like someone forgot to take out the landing gear pins!

(joke... or maybe not?)

Exactly what I thought too. Funny how things turn out.

 

[Nigelinoz]

Speaking of the Av Herald this is there report on the problem.

Incident: Qantas B744 at Singapore on Jun 3rd 2011, could not retract gear
​

By Simon Hradecky, created Saturday, Jun 4th 2011 06:58Z, last updated Saturday, Jun 4th 2011 06:58ZA Qantas Boeing 747-400, registration VH-OJI performing flight QF-52 from Singapore (Singapore) to Brisbane,QL (Australia) with 344 passengers, could not fully retract the landing gear after departure from Singapore and returned to Singapore for a safe landing about 50 minutes after departure.

The airline said a defective part needed to be replaced. The passengers were taken to hotels overnight, the aircraft is estimated to reach Brisbane with a delay of 14.5 hours.

Cheers
N'oz