Is Qantas having more incidents or has there just been more reporting of it?

[mannej]

Yes a serious incident but not as bad as a Trent 900 blowing apart in mid-air, ripping giant holes in the aircraft, damaging control systems and hydraulics, rupturing fuel tanks and showering an Indonesian village with huge pieces of debris. Anyway...nuff said.

They both have the same potential consequences don't they

 

[NM]

Any uncontained jet engine failure is a bad event, whether in the air, on the ground or in a test facility. It shows a failure mode for which the engine design was inadequate. engines are mechanical devices. There will be engine failures from time to time. Uncontained engine failures should be very rare and history shows they are not common events. I expect Qantas is the first airline to experience two uncontained engine failures in such a short period of time. However, at this time there does not seem to be any evidence the two events are related. So while statistically interesting, two events does not make a trend.

Were each of the uncotained engine failures worthy of media reports? Absolutely. Especially the Trent 900 incident as we know it caused significant damage to the aircraft and could easily have resulted in disaster.

Were the other "incidents" involving QF aircraft in the last few weeks also worthy of reporting? Probably not. But in the context of the two uncontained engine failures, its understandable if only from an interest perspective rather than a blame-game perspective.

 

[sadlier]

The question about SQ grounding 3 of their 380's and QF all of theirs intrigues me.

I had the understanding that RR had a problem with this particular unit that they were aware of and were 'managing' by replacements on a gradual basis and SQ had already done more of their engines than QF. Or do I have this wrong?

As for the press it seems that the tall poppy syndrome has been with us for a century or so at all levels and so why not in the press. What bothers me is the difficulty in sorting out the facts from all of the other chaff.

 

[samh004]

The question about SQ grounding 3 of their 380's and QF all of theirs intrigues me.

I had the understanding that RR had a problem with this particular unit that they were aware of and were 'managing' by replacements on a gradual basis and SQ had already done more of their engines than QF. Or do I have this wrong?

As for the press it seems that the tall poppy syndrome has been with us for a century or so at all levels and so why not in the press. What bothers me is the difficulty in sorting out the facts from all of the other chaff.

It cuts two ways, either SQ is getting preferential treatment from RR and so the question is why were their engine swapped before QF. Or CASA has said they don’t want those 'affected’ aircraft flying through Australian airspace until the problem is fixed, so SQ can’t fly their A380 here, but are essentially suffering the same problem and living on the edge.

 

[oz_mark]

You are correct on the others which I missed but Southern Air and Jett 8 are small freight airlines not major passenger carriers. Still QF's record comes in "Stone motherless last" (Bert Bryant) no matter how much we may dislike it or wish to blame the Murdoch media for past hype.

Qantas certainly have had their share of unusual events, and some of them are newsworthy (Oxygen cylinder's, diving A330's, filling oxygen cylinders with the wrong gas, and the recent uncontained failures). However, most of the issues reported are just day to day events in aviation (bird strikes, lightning, blocked toilets), and don't really deserve more than a paragraph or two.

 

[Stealth]

The thing that stands out (to me) is that it's QF getting a panning that in most cases they don't deserve. The A380 engine problem is down to Airbus and RR, not Qantas. The issues with A330 FMS again down to Airbus, not Qantas.

I'm happy to slag QF for things they do control (QF-Link, 737-400s etc.), but I feel that the media is often unfair in their target.