Breaking news - Qantas A380 in trouble near Singapore

Quote from post three. "Qantas has never suffered a fatal crash."

I have never heard this before. What I have heard is "Qantas have never lost a plane"

This is why Qantas repaired the plane that had a mid air explosion a few years ago. This plane was a (repairable) write off but they fixed it to maintain their reputation of never losing a plane.

Dave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Whippy

Quote from post three. "Qantas has never suffered a fatal crash."

I have never heard this before. What I have heard is "Qantas have never lost a plane"

This is why Qantas repaired the plane that had a mid air explosion a few years ago. This plane was a (repairable) write off but they fixed it to maintain their reputation of never losing a plane.

Dave.

---

Qantas have had a number of fatal crashes and have lost aircraft as well. The claim that no fatal crashes have occured and no aircraft have been lost refer specifically to jet airliners. That is, Qantas has not had a fatal jet airliner crash or incurred a jet airliner hull loss.

You're probably thinking of QF1 which overran a runway in Bangkok in 1999. That aircraft was repaired and returned to service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeanoH

On this mornings ABC News the pilot is shown telling passengers that he couldn't shut down down an engine.

I don't understand why this is so, inability to shut down engine, maybe the engine control system decided that it was too hot to shut down and went to plan B all by itself for safety reasons or is it that engine management had failed, scary. Either way pouring copious amounts of water into the engine, presumably the one that wouldn't shut down, I would have thought is not likely to do it much good.

Deano:)

---

Wouldn't do it much good at all, but then IF it caught fire it wouldn't do the aircraft ANY good at all. Mind you I doubt the engine is much good anyway.


Martyn

dont forget that a jet engine is like a diesel, once you get it going so long as you feed fuel and air into it it will keep running.

so lets hypothesize that whatever caused the problem also caused a return line from the "fuel injector" to lock open a check vavle or whatever and that was allowing fuel back into the combustion chamber outside of the control of the electronics or in a worse case scenario that the damage that you can see in the wing was also through a fuel tank and the fuel was leaking down into the intake of the engine.

I do wonder what would have happened had the firey's decided to spray AFFF into the intake. But I suspect that they were more trying to keep the burning engine from flaming up any further.

And TODAY , 6/11 a 747 with an engine failure :(

I think that I would be changing my fly to Tasmania from Qantas to a crop duster :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chucaro

And TODAY , 6/11 a 747 with an engine failure :(

I think that I would be changing my fly to Tasmania from Qantas to a crop duster :D

---

:o i was on that flight qf6 last friday.... happy to be sat at home now. :)

It's funny. Passengers get totally freaked out when they see fire coming from an engine, but never give any thought to that fire at over 1000 degrees Celcius when it's INSIDE the engine just METRES from a wing LOADED with HIGHLY VOLATILE jet fuel. Someone ought to put a stop to it https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...011/05/284.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VladTepes

It's funny. Passengers get totally freaked out when they see fire coming from an engine, but never give any thought to that fire at over 1000 degrees Celcius when it's INSIDE the engine just METRES from a wing LOADED with HIGHLY VOLATILE jet fuel. Someone ought to put a stop to it

---

It's a fengshui thing ... fire inside metal is good for engines, fire outside metal is bad.
For cooking, it's the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSi

It's a fengshui thing

---

:D :lol: :lol2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSi

It's a fengshui thing ... fire inside metal is good for engines, fire outside metal is bad.
For cooking, it's the other way around.

---

Unless of course it's a Stirling engine.......................

Saw one of these at RMIT in the 70's. It was a Philips portable generator. Fascinating.

Deano:)