Qantas jet returns

[codash1099]

Saturday, February 3, 2007. 1:27pm (AEDT)
Engine problem forces Qantas 747 to return to Sydney

A Qantas flight with 274 passengers on board has been forced to dump fuel and will return to Sydney Airport.
The Boeing 747 was on its way from Sydney to Los Angeles, and had travelled only as far as Sydney's northern beaches, when it is believed a compressor blew out in one of the engines.
The pilot turned around the plane and headed to sea so it could safely dump some fuel.
Qantas says the jet will return to Sydney Airport before 2:15pm AEDT, when it has dropped enough weight to land safely, and the passengers will be allowed to disembark.






I wonder if they will rebate the passengers' fuel surcharge

 

[xa-coupe]

I'll bet they will refund nothing .. Qantas come across as one of the tightest airlines I have come across. Right or wrong, it's the perception I get.
On a separate note, driving past MEL ( Tullamarine ) yesterday I swear I saw a wave off / touch - go from a domestic Qantas passenger jet. I was concentrating on driving and saw one come down, then a literally a second later there was one coming up at a very acute angle. Doubt it was anything too intersting or it would have made the news.
Oh, 1st post... hello world :mrgreen:

jeff

 

[serfty]

On a separate note, driving past MEL ( Tullamarine ) yesterday I swear I saw a wave off / touch - go from a domestic Qantas passenger jet. I was concentrating on driving and saw one come down, then a literally a second later there was one coming up at a very acute angle. Doubt it was anything too intersting or it would have made the news.

Yep, QF617 ... around 14:10. My BIL was on it. ...

 

[xa-coupe]

Yep, QF617 ... around 14:10. My BIL was on it. ...

was it for anything interesting or did the pilot's coffee spill ??

 

[Dave Noble]

was it for anything interesting or did the pilot's coffee spill ??

It's not that uncommon an occurrence, often caused if the previous aircraft hasn't cleared the runway for example

No reason why it would be mentioned ( other than to passengers onboard to apologise for the delay and the inconveniance this may cause to your journey )

Dave

 

[serfty]

No mention of anything from the coughpit ... BIL had a good view from 29F on a 73H (He was in 29D, but the row was empty).

 

[xa-coupe]

It's not that uncommon an occurrence, often caused if the previous aircraft hasn't cleared the runway for example

No reason why it would be mentioned ( other than to passengers onboard to apologise for the delay and the inconveniance this may cause to your journey )

Dave

Thanks Dave. Whilst I am not a high volume traveller I do a few trips a year. I have never seen it before and thought it was unusual.

 

[NM]

was it for anything interesting or did the pilot's coffee spill ??

The most common reason for a go-around (and they occur very regularly) is that the previous aircraft has not yet cleared the runway. In these cases, it is generally air traffic control that tells the approaching aircraft to go around. In such situations, it is not the fault of the aircraft that actually performs the go-around.

I have been on several aircraft that have had to go-around for this reason. Last one was a BA 737 arriving into LHR.

I'll bet they will refund nothing .. Qantas come across as one of the tightest airlines I have come across.

The last time I was on an aircraft that was forced to return soon after takeoff (indication of high temps where they should not be in an engine of a 767), I ended up missing a connection at LAX and had to spend 12 hours at LAX awaiting the next spare seat to HKG. I did not expect anything from AA by means of compensation and did not approach them. However, a few weeks later I received an email from the AA operations manager at MIA (where the flight was forced to return) apologising for the inconvenience and telling me know he had deposited a number of AA miles into my AAdvantage account. That was unexpected but welcome.

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

Thanks Dave. Whilst I am not a high volume traveller I do a few trips a year. I have never seen it before and thought it was unusual.

They happen infrequently but are not unusual. In several hundred flights I've had maybe half a dozen.

 

[Evan]

Apart from endless touch and go's in a Cessna 172 years ago when learning to fly amazingly i have had only a few go arounds happen to me when a passanger, maybe 2 i can think of.

Rather the reverse expereinces of some others, pilots have done an amazing job actualy getting the plane on the ground (And you know your on the ground :shock: ), like in a typhoon at NRT late last year, the rain was so bad the Narita-Express to Tokyo had to stop and was cancelled ! (So i never got to Tokyo until 3am, and missed my connecting trains, but i did thankfully make it to the Formula 1 in time for qualifying)

 

[acampbel]

It's not a nice feeling when you are expecting the thump (+ thump?) of langing gear hitting the runway, but instead hear the engines rising to max revs and the nose comes up at a rakish angle.

But it's a lot better than ending up in the bunker on the 3rd hole!



Cheers,


Andrew

P.S. Does anyone want to be a chum and get me another champers? I don't think my legs work anymore .....

.

 

[Reggie]

I had a very quick flight in early Jan, PER-ZNE. It was an early morning and I was snoozing, but realised the sun was on the wrong side, literally we took off did a series of turns and the pilot announced we were landing back at PER "due to minor techincal problem that couldn't be dealt with in ZNE). In the end they changed planes and we got into ZNE around 3 hours late

 

[Shano]

I was on a 767 from SYD to MEL about 18 months ago that did a touch and go at MEL airport.

Explanation from the pilot was due to poor visibility on touching down (was heavy rain / storms in MEL that night). My concern was if visibility was that poor why did they try and land in the first place :shock:.

And this was after the plane had to return to SYD to refuel about halfway into the flight due to the presence of storms in MEL and the light fuel load. So what should have been a 1 hour flight turned out to be over 3 hours

 

[NM]

And this was after the plane had to return to SYD to refuel about halfway into the flight due to the presence of storms in MEL and the light fuel load. So what should have been a 1 hour flight turned out to be over 3 hours

And I bet they did not give you 3 x FF points for the trip :evil: . Then again, I guess they also only charged a single fuel fine and not 3 .