Qantas

[dynamytedave]

As I stated, I recieved this as an email. Which I got on Friday just gone.
I did have my suspicions of it's accuracy or timing of the event as it states that the A340-600 being the largest passenger plane ever built, obviously they haven't heard of it's bigger brother the A380.
Everyone knows of the cycle of chain emails, this one came a bit late. Anyway it's good for a laugh.

 

[Pub247]

Heard on the radio this morning there was another "incident" with qantas something about plane just about to take off after been passed only to find it had a cracked wing flap.

EDIT: here's a link
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,24691166-2,00.html

Love the comments underneath

 

[STEALTHY™]

Heard on the radio this morning there was another "incident" with qantas something about plane just about to take off after been passed only to find it had a cracked wing flap.

I hear alot of things from the media.


In my job, if something is broken, you fix it. An engineer spotted it as it was taxi'ing, job well done in my books.

 

[BANKS]

Its as thou they (the media) have now got a stardard "Qantas incident article" where they only have to fill in the first couple of lines, cus i've noticed that they all have the oxygen bottle and the perth a330 in there. and as "Anthony of Sydney" said:

hate it how every Qantas bashing article i read has to mention something along the lines of: "The aborted flight is the latest mishap in recent months to plague the flying kangaroo." I mean far out, come on - why do u keep reminding us. You remind us enough on a daily basis with new articles reporting minor details about Qantas. No doubt the next Qantas article I read will remind me yet again..."This is the latest incident in a bla bla bla to plague Qantas in recent time".

****ing losers...

 

[greggy85]

Thats the bottom line here, safest bird in the sky. Personally i cant see QANTAS going bust, the government would surely intervene with the flavour of the month, the "rescue package" and rightly so, i think the flying roo is an important part of Australia and its history.

The federal governemnt own 50% of Qantas...



In my personal opinion, coming from the aviation industry and knowing many engineers at Qantas, they are becoming too complacent, they are stretching their maintenance too thin, pushing engineers to cut corners, although they are still doing everything to the minimum CASA requirements, they are not doing things to their old standards where they went 'overboard' on maintenance (which undoubtedly saved many an incident) you can never be too safe with aviation! They WILL lose an aircraft if their maintenance standards continue to be lowered in favor of stock prices. Their main problem when this happens is they are the only major airline that can claim to have never had a fatal crash, therefore their main marketing advantage will have crumbled (along with X amount of lives)
If they heed the warning bells they may avoid this, as a pilot i would, to be honest, much rather fly virgin domestically, i believe their maintenance standards to be much greater. But internationally i still believe Qantas to be better/safer than 90% of other airlines, even with their apparent lapses in maintenance they still maintain their aircraft much more stringently than else-where around the world as our minimum standards are much higher than those even the USA.

Wow, ranted on a little there didn't i.. sorry :whistling

 

[HAZZA-VN]

I just been to the states Qantas from adelaide to melb to La to New york no problems there and back although im claustrophobic

 

[dynamytedave]

I would like to clarify the misnoma that QANTAS has never had a fatality.

During WW2, the Army and RAAF commisioned QANTAS to run evacuation flights out of PNG due to the advancing Japs. They were flying Catalina's, which were a twin engine flying boat. Unfortunately, a few of these aircraft were lost at sea during the night, never to be seen again. Catalina's were notoriously slow flyers, so in order to avoid detection by Jap radar, Pilots took the dangerous manouver of flying close to the sea.

Where the claim that QANTAS has never had a fatality comes from, is the fact that they have never had a fatality during the Jet age. Which in itself is a testament to the dedication that QANTAS engineers had to their jobs.

I still would not fly with any other carrier than QANTAS.

 

[commsirac]

Do you believe eveything the media reports?

And its Qantas, you call yourself an Australian.

Is it required on the citizenship test?

 

[commsirac]

I would like to clarify the misnoma that QANTAS has never had a fatality.

During WW2, the Army and RAAF commisioned QANTAS to run evacuation flights out of PNG due to the advancing Japs. They were flying Catalina's, which were a twin engine flying boat. Unfortunately, a few of these aircraft were lost at sea during the night, never to be seen again. Catalina's were notoriously slow flyers, so in order to avoid detection by Jap radar, Pilots took the dangerous manouver of flying close to the sea.

Where the claim that QANTAS has never had a fatality comes from, is the fact that they have never had a fatality during the Jet age. Which in itself is a testament to the dedication that QANTAS engineers had to their jobs.

I still would not fly with any other carrier than QANTAS.

Im am too concerned about the latest rash of incidents involving Qantas planes. Sure I prefer to fly Qantas, however, I do think people do attach too much importance on great service in the plane rather than what is going on on the mechanical front. Great meals and good looking hosties doesnt make the plane any safer.

The safety record of Qantas is obviously first rate, but doesnt necessarily mean it is the safest. There are other airlines all over the world that are yet to kill anyone.

A lot of the excellent track record of Qantas is more to do with the nature of the service they are providing and where they fly to. Its worth noting that no other airline(large passenger plane) has had a fatality in Australia either. Australia is a very safe place to fly in and out of: high visibility at airports, no snow ice , tornadoes, mountains surrounding airports, relatively low airport traffic etc. While they fly to international destinations, they are the major airports and dont include many of the trickier smaller airports.

Qantas is also a predominantly long haul airline, risks of incidents are highest at take off and landings.....other short haul airlines have incredible numbers of take offs/landings per day compared to Qantas.
Most fatigue issues/ faults show up on the short haul fleet first, Qantas is often the beneficiary of flaws found out from this.

 

[greggy85]

I would like to clarify the misnoma that QANTAS has never had a fatality.

During WW2, the Army and RAAF commisioned QANTAS to run evacuation flights out of PNG due to the advancing Japs. They were flying Catalina's, which were a twin engine flying boat. Unfortunately, a few of these aircraft were lost at sea during the night, never to be seen again. Catalina's were notoriously slow flyers, so in order to avoid detection by Jap radar, Pilots took the dangerous manouver of flying close to the sea.

Where the claim that QANTAS has never had a fatality comes from, is the fact that they have never had a fatality during the Jet age. Which in itself is a testament to the dedication that QANTAS engineers had to their jobs.

I still would not fly with any other carrier than QANTAS.

My bad your right, but they were not really civil flights, but still your right.
I do agree that they are still one of the safest, i just worry when every week i hear a new story from one or more of my mates, telling of their frustration from hitting brick walls with maintenance issues (admittedly 2 of them are avionics tech's and deal mostly with cockpit gadgets).. i think to get the best perspective on all this "744driver" could give some valuable insight, he does fly for the big red roo..