Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sid280

Qantas plane

Recommended Posts

Ahh SR, there you go again ruining a healthy debate with facts :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who f**king cares, its an aeroplane ffs, if ur worried about crashing dont get in a car or anything.

 

once in a blue moon something f**ks up, who gives a shit? move on with ur life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who f**king cares, its an aeroplane ffs, if ur worried about crashing dont get in a car or anything.

 

once in a blue moon something f**ks up, who gives a shit? move on with ur life.

 

well its kind of a safety issue, would you care if it happened to you on your way to bali or something? all this attention will only prompt these people to get a fix for the problem, whereas no attention will lead them to ignore the problem.

 

personally i would like to see it fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who f**king cares, its an aeroplane ffs, if ur worried about crashing dont get in a car or anything.

 

once in a blue moon something f**ks up, who gives a shit? move on with ur life.

 

well its kind of a safety issue, would you care if it happened to you on your way to bali or something? all this attention will only prompt these people to get a fix for the problem, whereas no attention will lead them to ignore the problem.

 

personally i would like to see it fixed.

Wether the media said anything or not, CASA would make sure something was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who f**king cares, its an aeroplane ffs, if ur worried about crashing dont get in a car or anything.

 

once in a blue moon something f**ks up, who gives a shit? move on with ur life.

 

well its kind of a safety issue, would you care if it happened to you on your way to bali or something? all this attention will only prompt these people to get a fix for the problem, whereas no attention will lead them to ignore the problem.

 

personally i would like to see it fixed.

Wether the media said anything or not, CASA would make sure something was done.

 

not always if they believed that it was a minor problem than an advisory would be put up, if its an expensive fix most airlines probably wont fix it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who f**king cares, its an aeroplane ffs, if ur worried about crashing dont get in a car or anything.

 

once in a blue moon something f**ks up, who gives a shit? move on with ur life.

 

 

Yes, and according to distance travelled, aviation IS still the safest form of travel when you consider the number of aircraft movements around the world every day and from that, it's phenomenal that there are so few accidents/fatalities.

 

BUT, I think you need to factor in that it's not exactly an airbus, it's an A380 that is capable of carrying 525 passengers, and if one were to go down, the number of casualties wouldn't be too far shy of the KLM and Pan Am collision in 1977 killing 583 passengers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who f**king cares, its an aeroplane ffs, if ur worried about crashing dont get in a car or anything.

 

once in a blue moon something f**ks up, who gives a shit? move on with ur life.

 

well its kind of a safety issue, would you care if it happened to you on your way to bali or something? all this attention will only prompt these people to get a fix for the problem, whereas no attention will lead them to ignore the problem.

 

personally i would like to see it fixed.

if it was happening to every plane? yes. if it just so happened to happen to 1 plane once in a blue moon? i'd expect it to be looked at, i wouldnt throw my hands up in the air and declare that the world was ending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who f**king cares, its an aeroplane ffs, if ur worried about crashing dont get in a car or anything.

 

once in a blue moon something f**ks up, who gives a shit? move on with ur life.

 

well its kind of a safety issue, would you care if it happened to you on your way to bali or something? all this attention will only prompt these people to get a fix for the problem, whereas no attention will lead them to ignore the problem.

 

personally i would like to see it fixed.

if it was happening to every plane? yes. if it just so happened to happen to 1 plane once in a blue moon? i'd expect it to be looked at, i wouldnt throw my hands up in the air and declare that the world was ending.

 

its happened more than once.. now what happens if a turbine blade flies off puncturing the fuel tanks or the hydraulic lines? are we going to cry c'est la vie or are we gonna cry murder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who f**king cares, its an aeroplane ffs, if ur worried about crashing dont get in a car or anything.

 

once in a blue moon something f**ks up, who gives a shit? move on with ur life.

 

well its kind of a safety issue, would you care if it happened to you on your way to bali or something? all this attention will only prompt these people to get a fix for the problem, whereas no attention will lead them to ignore the problem.

 

personally i would like to see it fixed.

if it was happening to every plane? yes. if it just so happened to happen to 1 plane once in a blue moon? i'd expect it to be looked at, i wouldnt throw my hands up in the air and declare that the world was ending.

 

its happened more than once.. now what happens if a turbine blade flies off puncturing the fuel tanks or the hydraulic lines? are we going to cry c'est la vie or are we gonna cry murder?

So there has been multiple cases of A380's having engine explosions in mid air?

Please elaborate :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who f**king cares, its an aeroplane ffs, if ur worried about crashing dont get in a car or anything.

 

once in a blue moon something f**ks up, who gives a shit? move on with ur life.

 

well its kind of a safety issue, would you care if it happened to you on your way to bali or something? all this attention will only prompt these people to get a fix for the problem, whereas no attention will lead them to ignore the problem.

 

personally i would like to see it fixed.

if it was happening to every plane? yes. if it just so happened to happen to 1 plane once in a blue moon? i'd expect it to be looked at, i wouldnt throw my hands up in the air and declare that the world was ending.

 

its happened more than once.. now what happens if a turbine blade flies off puncturing the fuel tanks or the hydraulic lines? are we going to cry c'est la vie or are we gonna cry murder?

So there has been multiple cases of A380's having engine explosions in mid air?

Please elaborate :lol:

 

meh i cant remember my point anymore, i thought there were two a380's that had the same thing that happened oh well. but there have been cases of incident/accidents that have been overlooked more than once leading upto a major accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is always problems with aircraft but unlike cars they are fully trouble shooted at even a small problem, so many parts get changed out etc to make sure the aircraft is 100%.

SR180 is correct that nearly all airplane operators have a pay per hour agreements with the OEM, either Rolls Royce, Pratt and Whitney, Honeywell etc where they change all life limited parts, and inspect the engines every 5000-15000 hours of flight.

An aircraft always has two engines with different life left on them before overhaul, enough power so even if 1 engine totally fails they can get home safely.

Fuel tanks etc are alot better protected than they used to be aswell, they can shut off each tank (they use multiple tankes) if something went wrong too.

 

This is an engine fault and now Rolls Royce is working overtime determining what went wrong exactly and issuing a mantitory SB to all operators that they aircraft wont be able to fly until that is fixed.

 

People are stressing about nothing, usually its Human error that contributes more to the crash than purely a mechanical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meh i cant remember my point anymore, i thought there were two a380's that had the same thing that happened oh well. but there have been cases of incident/accidents that have been overlooked more than once leading upto a major accident.

Now you are just talking through your arse.

 

There was only one incident of the A380's Rolls Royce engine suffering a mid air failure.

This has since been found to be a design flaw and no fault at all of Qantas.

Rolls Royce are now replacing all of the engines which have this flaw.

 

Again, this issue was caused by a design flaw in a Rolls Royce engine. It was not an issue with Qantas's maintenance.

 

After this incident, the media went over Qantas with a fine tooth comb and started reporting on every-single incident they experienced. Despite all the other incidents being small, trivial issues that happen on a daily basis for all airlines. The only reason Qantas had to cancel the other flights was because of their strict safety rules that require them to land for the smallest issue just to be safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meh i cant remember my point anymore, i thought there were two a380's that had the same thing that happened oh well. but there have been cases of incident/accidents that have been overlooked more than once leading upto a major accident.

Now you are just talking through your arse.

 

There was only one incident of the A380's Rolls Royce engine suffering a mid air failure.

This has since been found to be a design flaw and no fault at all of Qantas.

Rolls Royce are now replacing all of the engines which have this flaw.

 

Again, this issue was caused by a design flaw in a Rolls Royce engine. It was not an issue with Qantas's maintenance.

 

After this incident, the media went over Qantas with a fine tooth comb and started reporting on every-single incident they experienced. Despite all the other incidents being small, trivial issues that happen on a daily basis for all airlines. The only reason Qantas had to cancel the other flights was because of their strict safety rules that require them to land for the smallest issue just to be safe.

 

 

and how many rolls royce engines had to be replaced? i dont think you fully understand what im trying to portray here. i had already admitted i was misinformed of the a380 cases but there have been cases where minor incidents have been overlooked and have lead to a major accident where an a380's engine was NOT included.

 

and i dont blame qantas' maintenance neither, i dont care who is to blame as long as the problem is fixed and not glanced over as minor once in a blue moon luck of the draw thingy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and how many rolls royce engines had to be replaced? i dont think you fully understand what im trying to portray here. i had already admitted i was misinformed of the a380 cases but there have been cases where minor incidents have been overlooked and have lead to a major accident where an a380's engine was NOT included.

 

and i dont blame qantas' maintenance neither, i dont care who is to blame as long as the problem is fixed and not glanced over as minor once in a blue moon luck of the draw thingy.

Lots have been replaced, all at the cost of RR.

It was never going to be overlooked, even if the media blood suckers hadn't dived in for a feed. (besides, how exactly is the media bagging out the wrong company going to help).

Qantas has a maintenance agreement with RR, so any issues that may have been "looked over" (which i think you are just plucking out of thin air anyway) would have been at the cost of RR.

 

The engine failure caused Qantas to have major flight delays world wide, so no matter how much or little attention the issue got, Qantas would have still handed RR a massive bill to compensate for the mess it caused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and how many rolls royce engines had to be replaced? i dont think you fully understand what im trying to portray here. i had already admitted i was misinformed of the a380 cases but there have been cases where minor incidents have been overlooked and have lead to a major accident where an a380's engine was NOT included.

 

and i dont blame qantas' maintenance neither, i dont care who is to blame as long as the problem is fixed and not glanced over as minor once in a blue moon luck of the draw thingy.

Lots have been replaced, all at the cost of RR.

It was never going to be overlooked, even if the media blood suckers hadn't dived in for a feed. (besides, how exactly is the media bagging out the wrong company going to help).

Qantas has a maintenance agreement with RR, so any issues that may have been "looked over" (which i think you are just plucking out of thin air anyway) would have been at the cost of RR.

 

The engine failure caused Qantas to have major flight delays world wide, so no matter how much or little attention the issue got, Qantas would have still handed RR a massive bill to compensate for the mess it caused.

 

i understand that about 50% have needed to be replaced, the media just creates awareness, which is fine by me in these cases. if you are worried about issues being 'looked over' than research about the space shuttle columbia, its the only one i can think of off the top of my head. there may have been one also regarding a cargo door that opens outwards, and have to be secured, locked on properly before take off. unfortunately it was possible to close and lock without being secure and the handlers figured yep looks closed to me sent the plane off and one fell down. im not exactly sure of what happened before hand but the governing body told them they had to put warning signs up after they found out that it could be closed without being secure than another plane fell down from the same problem, design flaw, do you get what im kinda suggesting yet?

 

 

oh and its sort of human nature to overlook problems if high costs are involved, such as the ford pinto.

Edited by lucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i understand that about 50% have needed to be replaced, the media just creates awareness, which is fine by me in these cases. if you are worried about issues being 'looked over' than research about the space shuttle columbia, its the only one i can think of off the top of my head. there may have been one also regarding a cargo door that opens outwards, and have to be secured, locked on properly before take off. unfortunately it was possible to close and lock without being secure and the handlers figured yep looks closed to me sent the plane off and one fell down. im not exactly sure of what happened before hand but the governing body told them they had to put warning signs up after they found out that it could be closed without being secure than another plane fell down from the same problem, design flaw, do you get what im kinda suggesting yet?

Dude how old are you?

And try to use some paragraphs, that massive wall of text is just painful to read.

 

WTF has the columbia got to do with the airline industry?? That was a totally different case entirely.

 

Furthermore, WTF has a design flaw (a very old one) with an airplane door got to do with this issue? The "governing body" you so generally refer to would not have been aware of the problem until after the crash. It was not even identified as a problem until after the crash, there was nothing overlooked.

 

Again, what the hell is the media "awareness" about a faulty engine going to do to fix the problem?

All the involved parties were quite "aware" long before the media got involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i understand that about 50% have needed to be replaced, the media just creates awareness, which is fine by me in these cases. if you are worried about issues being 'looked over' than research about the space shuttle columbia, its the only one i can think of off the top of my head. there may have been one also regarding a cargo door that opens outwards, and have to be secured, locked on properly before take off. unfortunately it was possible to close and lock without being secure and the handlers figured yep looks closed to me sent the plane off and one fell down. im not exactly sure of what happened before hand but the governing body told them they had to put warning signs up after they found out that it could be closed without being secure than another plane fell down from the same problem, design flaw, do you get what im kinda suggesting yet?

Dude how old are you?

And try to use some paragraphs, that massive wall of text is just painful to read.

 

WTF has the columbia got to do with the airline industry?? That was a totally different case entirely.

 

Furthermore, WTF has a design flaw (a very old one) with an airplane door got to do with this issue? The "governing body" you so generally refer to would not have been aware of the problem until after the crash. It was not even identified as a problem until after the crash, there was nothing overlooked.

 

Again, what the hell is the media "awareness" about a faulty engine going to do to fix the problem?

All the involved parties were quite "aware" long before the media got involved.

 

it promotes awareness, i guess you didnt read it properly than and ill write it out again.

 

regarding the cargo doors, one aircraft fell out of the sky. the governing body, faa i believe put up notices that the doors had to be locked and secured properly because they found out that it was possible to close without being secure.

 

few weeks or months later another plane falls out of the sky same problem as the first one again cargo door was to be blamed. thus a design flaw. i gotta go out for a bit so this will do for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it promotes awareness, i guess you didnt read it properly than and ill write it out again.

 

regarding the cargo doors, one aircraft fell out of the sky. the governing body, faa i believe put up notices that the doors had to be locked and secured properly because they found out that it was possible to close without being secure.

 

few weeks or months later another plane falls out of the sky same problem as the first one again cargo door was to be blamed. thus a design flaw. i gotta go out for a bit so this will do for now.

Nice one, do you get all your facts from Air Crash Investigation?

 

You don't know the full story on why the other airline did not heed the warning, they may not have even recieved it.

The warning could have been a low priority one.

 

Anyway, let's see if i can summarise your point.

 

Because an airlier had a cargo door accidentally open in mid flight, you think it is a good idea to have a media circuis every time an aircraft has a mid air emergency.

Not because it will help fix the problem (on the contrary, the mass of hearsay and sensationalism will more likely unfairly hurt the airlines reputation) but because it will raise "awareness"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it promotes awareness, i guess you didnt read it properly than and ill write it out again.

 

regarding the cargo doors, one aircraft fell out of the sky. the governing body, faa i believe put up notices that the doors had to be locked and secured properly because they found out that it was possible to close without being secure.

 

few weeks or months later another plane falls out of the sky same problem as the first one again cargo door was to be blamed. thus a design flaw. i gotta go out for a bit so this will do for now.

Nice one, do you get all your facts from Air Crash Investigation?

 

You don't know the full story on why the other airline did not heed the warning, they may not have even recieved it.

The warning could have been a low priority one.

 

Anyway, let's see if i can summarise your point.

 

Because an airlier had a cargo door accidentally open in mid flight, you think it is a good idea to have a media circuis every time an aircraft has a mid air emergency.

Not because it will help fix the problem (on the contrary, the mass of hearsay and sensationalism will more likely unfairly hurt the airlines reputation) but because it will raise "awareness"?

 

 

it was the only one i could think of really but they did have warnings on it i think stickers and a light were added and just like you said it was a minor warning even though a major accident had already occurred, a media circus would have been nice after the first incidents before the first major accident it may have prevented the second major accident.

 

and i dont demand a media circus i demand the authorities to take all incidents seriously and follow up on their demands to ensure the airliners follow through with the directives. awareness just forces them to do something as there is a constant eye on them now to do something rather than shrug it off saying once in a blue moon rolls royce probably gave us a lemon, and rolls royce going hmmm weird must be a once off. dont know if it happens but atleast i know they have done something and found the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airlines ARE under constant scrutiny, a lot has changed since that incident you keep using as an example. It happened decades ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airlines ARE under constant scrutiny, a lot has changed since that incident you keep using as an example. It happened decades ago.

 

 

and good on them for that. would be sad if they relaxed now wouldnt it. i dont care how long ago it happened as long as something is done about it. hopefully they will no longer design doors that open outwards in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airlines ARE under constant scrutiny, a lot has changed since that incident you keep using as an example. It happened decades ago.

 

 

and good on them for that. would be sad if they relaxed now wouldnt it. i dont care how long ago it happened as long as something is done about it. hopefully they will no longer design doors that open outwards in the first place.

They haven't relaxed anything.

And you will never have an air liner with 100% of it's doors opening inwards, it's just not possible.

I have never seen an airliner with cargo doors that open inwards, and i doubt i ever will.

 

Passenger doors yes, but cargo is a completely different story.

 

You know very little about aviation, that is very clear. Please stop making bold statements on a subject you know so little about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airlines ARE under constant scrutiny, a lot has changed since that incident you keep using as an example. It happened decades ago.

 

 

and good on them for that. would be sad if they relaxed now wouldnt it. i dont care how long ago it happened as long as something is done about it. hopefully they will no longer design doors that open outwards in the first place.

They haven't relaxed anything.

And you will never have an air liner with 100% of it's doors opening inwards, it's just not possible.

I have never seen an airliner with cargo doors that open inwards, and i doubt i ever will.

 

Passenger doors yes, but cargo is a completely different story.

 

You know very little about aviation, that is very clear. Please stop making bold statements on a subject you know so little about.

 

i do realise they havent relaxed, i was stating that it would be bad if they did. it is also possible to have inward opening cargo doors it is just not efficient.

i dont know a whole lot no but atleast every now and than there is media articles i can read up on. plus i do have flying experience and they have taught me alot about human factors and shit like that but that was a while ago anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is also possible to have inward opening cargo doors it is just not efficient.

Not efficient = not economically viable = not possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is also possible to have inward opening cargo doors it is just not efficient.

Not efficient = not economically viable = not possible

 

 

half my point from earlier, not efficient too costly therefore i cant be bothered fixing it properly and try patching it up instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop making bold statements on a subject you know so little about.

:lol: Like you at the top of the page...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop making bold statements on a subject you know so little about.

:lol: Like you at the top of the page...

WTF are you on about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is also possible to have inward opening cargo doors it is just not efficient.

Not efficient = not economically viable = not possible

 

 

half my point from earlier, not efficient too costly therefore i cant be bothered fixing it properly and try patching it up instead.

We are not talking about fixing existing aircraft

 

We are talking about the concept of even making new ones, or about why the aircraft are the way they are to begin with.

 

If an aircraft has serious limitations to cargo space (such as with inward opening doors) they are not worth buying and so will be a failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is also possible to have inward opening cargo doors it is just not efficient.

Not efficient = not economically viable = not possible

 

 

half my point from earlier, not efficient too costly therefore i cant be bothered fixing it properly and try patching it up instead.

 

 

You "lucky" are retarded. I work for an airline company and if you had any idea how picky pilots and engineers are when even a hint of something is wrong you would understand. But clearly you have no idea. There is CASA which follows up all even small incidents that could have caused a safety issue.

 

I think you should stay out of things you have no idea about.

 

Human error > design flaws.

Those doors should have been checked by the crew loading the aircraft. The guy might have wanted to go get his iced coffee you never know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×