All
← Back to Squawk list
Qantas jumbo makes emergency landing in Singapore
SINGAPORE (AP) — A Qantas superjumbo jet made an emergency landing Thursday in Singapore with 459 people aboard, after one of its four engines failed over western Indonesia and following witness report . . . (flightaware.com) More...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Here we go again, Rolls Royce engines giving a hard time. Not too long ago one of the new Boeing 787 had to land right away from a test flight towards its certification because of the RR engines had a bad malfunction.
I have always felt the Airbus was a "poor mans Boeing" since I stepped on one of the first ones to fly. I have also wondered why Rolls-Royce was in the jet engine business as a small car manufacturer. No one is sure why the engine had a problem fifteen minutes into the flight, but It could have been dust in the air from the volcano. Winds aloft can carry that sand around the world. I don't believe the spokesman that said it was too far.
I was wondering why it took two hours to get the passengers off the plane? Were they in the middle of a meal service? The passengers wanted to finish the movie? Was the top step of the portable stairs 6 ft below the bottom of the door? The airport should have equipment and people that can properly service such situations. They charge each passenger (through facility usage fees) enough to have gold plated handrails on the steps. I would have found such a delay unacceptable.
I was wondering why it took two hours to get the passengers off the plane? Were they in the middle of a meal service? The passengers wanted to finish the movie? Was the top step of the portable stairs 6 ft below the bottom of the door? The airport should have equipment and people that can properly service such situations. They charge each passenger (through facility usage fees) enough to have gold plated handrails on the steps. I would have found such a delay unacceptable.
Roic, sorry for disagreeing with you, Airbus makes excellent aircraft, and not only that, if they did not exist good ole Boeing, which makes wonderful airliners too, would have held the airlines by the through extracting whatever the hell they wanted for their planes taking advantage of their monopolistic position. Why Rolls Royce makes jet engines and small cars too, too complicated to discuss here, try Wikipedia or the Google. No, the Quantas jet did not fly through volcanic ash clouds, they are still investigating what happened. I subscribe to your amazement as to why in hell’s name they evacuated the stricken plane in two long hours, suppose that flames erupted, nobody would have survived. Maybe whoever wrote that piece meant to say that the luggage was extracted two hours after the plane landed, or whatever; but the jury is still out.
Anyone have a tracking link for that flight. Can't find one.
I agree with chalet on the need for Airbus being in the market. As for Rolls Royce it is largely a seperate company for the car maker and again the need for competition keeps the B... honest.
This flight was not in USA air space so will not be covered by Flightwise or others.
Interesting the map in the articale indicates a place called Port Headland or near abouts, which is some 3000Km SE of SGP. Glad the writer is not a navigator.
However I disagree with chalet on the spelling of Qantas. Quaint but incorrect.
This flight was not in USA air space so will not be covered by Flightwise or others.
Interesting the map in the articale indicates a place called Port Headland or near abouts, which is some 3000Km SE of SGP. Glad the writer is not a navigator.
However I disagree with chalet on the spelling of Qantas. Quaint but incorrect.
Hi,
since when is an A380 called 'Jumbo'? ;-)
since when is an A380 called 'Jumbo'? ;-)
chalet, Rolls Royce has been making aircraft engines since World War 1. Their engines powered many of the most successful Allied aircraft during WWII (Remember the Merlin? it powered such planes as the Spitfire and the P-51 Mustang.) They built the first truly successful and reliable turbine engine. This was the Nene, which was built under license in the US by Pratt & Whitney to power the Grumman F9F Panther, and was reverse-engineered by the Soviet Union (after being given 25 engines by the Brits as a "good will" gesture!) to power the Mig 15. The automobile manufacturing company is totally seperate from the aircraft engine company. All they share is the name.
I am an aircraft mechanic, and while I have not worked on the A380, I do have some experience on othe Airbus models, as well as Boeings. I much prefer working on Boeing aircraft. It seems like Airbus designs by the "stick it there - it'll work!" philosophy, with no thought as to what is behind it or how you might need to get at it. Boeing's planes are much more logically and thoughtfully laid out. They seem to ahve given some thought to the idea that someday some poor schmuck is gonna have to work on that equipment!
I am an aircraft mechanic, and while I have not worked on the A380, I do have some experience on othe Airbus models, as well as Boeings. I much prefer working on Boeing aircraft. It seems like Airbus designs by the "stick it there - it'll work!" philosophy, with no thought as to what is behind it or how you might need to get at it. Boeing's planes are much more logically and thoughtfully laid out. They seem to ahve given some thought to the idea that someday some poor schmuck is gonna have to work on that equipment!