The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

QF14 Buenos Aires to Darwin

Old 7th Oct 2021, 03:48
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 25
QF14 Buenos Aires to Darwin

Just wondering what the furthest the 787 was from a diversion during the flight. As a government sponsored repatriation flight, did standard ETOPS apply.
Nuasea is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 05:21
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,889
Yes it was a commercial flight as they sold seats on it.
QF 787’s have 330 min ETOPS, they didn't follow the great circle track exactly as they needed to 1/ stay within 330 mins and 2/ also avoid the head winds….
ACMS is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 10:19
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: sierra village
Posts: 401
330 minutes ETOPS? Five and half hours on one engine across inhospitable terrain. It’s a sobering thought.
lucille is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 10:49
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,769
5 ½ hours to the nearest airport. Great if you are on fire!

But you can always put the aircraft down somewhere. Oh, that’s right… Antarctica.

Someone will be along soon!

I can’t believe flights over such remote areas can be approved by any sane authority.
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 11:49
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Victoria
Age: 74
Posts: 97
I reckon many would agree with you Capt Fathom.
good old CASA insist on the MOS covering alternates, both enroute and off route, and ETPs and PNRs the same. And yet a light twin can plan 5.5 hours OEI
Brave dispatching by QF too
Flingwing47 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 17:41
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 104
*Old man yells at cloud

Probably the most technologically advanced mass produced aircraft ever built, reliable beyond belief.

How typically Boomer Australian of you to find the negatives in something and ask CASA for more overreach.

Sir HC is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 20:06
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,356
Which shows how little the general people on here understand regulation and certification, really.
Checkboard is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 20:20
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: sierra village
Posts: 401
Originally Posted by Sir HC View Post
Probably the most technologically advanced mass produced aircraft ever built, reliable beyond belief.

How typically Boomer Australian of you to find the negatives in something and ask CASA for more overreach.
After that jibe , I simply couldn’t resist Googling. Amazing the the things you learn, hey?

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...t-over-cracks/


Out of curiosity, does anyone know what S.E. TAS that QF uses in calculating ETPs? Asking for a friend.😜
lucille is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 20:59
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,072
Originally Posted by Sir HC View Post
Probably the most technologically advanced mass produced aircraft ever built, reliable beyond belief.

How typically Boomer Australian of you to find the negatives in something and ask CASA for more overreach.
They probably said that about the A380 and I’m thinking QF32.

You don’t have to be an old man to realise that it’s all good, until something goes wrong.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 21:39
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
They probably said that about the A380 and I’m thinking QF32.

You don’t have to be an old man to realise that it’s all good, until something goes wrong.
From Wikipedia: Up to March 2016, it has a dispatch reliability of 99.9 percent and four in-flight shutdown (IFSD) gave a rate of 2 IFSD per million flight hours.[48]

Pretty good odds to me. I personally would feel safer in a 787 that loses an engine over Antarctica than in any DC-3 in the 60's. Even your ridiculous QF32 example resulted in how many fatalities?
Sir HC is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 21:52
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,072
Originally Posted by Sir HC View Post
From Wikipedia: Up to March 2016, it has a dispatch reliability of 99.9 percent and four in-flight shutdown (IFSD) gave a rate of 2 IFSD per million flight hours.[48]

Pretty good odds to me. I personally would feel safer in a 787 that loses an engine over Antarctica than in any DC-3 in the 60's. Even your ridiculous QF32 example resulted in how many fatalities?
Ridiculous?

Do you realise how close they came to losing all souls on board? A lesser experienced pilot would not have ended up with the same result.

99.9% means nothing when your family members are onboard and there’s a flameout over Antartica.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 22:11
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 3,959
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
Ridiculous?

Do you realise how close they came to losing all souls on board? A lesser experienced pilot would not have ended up with the same result.
.
out of respect for the others on the flight deck too humble to go on speaking circuits … you should replace “pilot” with “crew”.

And the same observation of lesser experience can be made of any incident / near accident / accident.
compressor stall is online now  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 22:33
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
Ridiculous?

Do you realise how close they came to losing all souls on board? A lesser experienced pilot would not have ended up with the same result.

99.9% means nothing when your family members are onboard and there’s a flameout over Antartica.
Per the IFSD numbers, the probability of a 'flameout' over Antarctica (or anywhere enroute) would be in the order of 0.0002%. It's basically a certainty that the second engine would get my family to Melbourne/Hobart safely.

We obviously approach risk differently but I'd encourage you to keep emotion out of your decision making.
Sir HC is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 22:46
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,911
Originally Posted by Sir HC View Post
Per the IFSD numbers, the probability of a 'flameout' over Antarctica (or anywhere enroute) would be in the order of 0.0002%. It's basically a certainty that the second engine would get my family to Melbourne/Hobart safely.

We obviously approach risk differently but I'd encourage you to keep emotion out of your decision making.
What he said.

But far out, what a flight. Too long for me thanks
morno is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2021, 23:32
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,370
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
They probably said that about the A380 and I’m thinking QF32.
Ironic that you'd bring up the A380 and QF32 when talking ETOPS. I'm reasonably sure the A380 has four engines and as noted, that really didn't help.
A big part of the statistical argument for ETOPS is that - given today's engine reliability - having more than two engines doesn't improve safety because more engines means a greater probability of a catastrophic engine failure that endangers continued safe flight and landing (e.g. uncontained failure or uncontrollable fire). QF32 was a result of an uncontained engine failure - and since it has four engines it's twice as likely to experience an uncontained engine failure than a big twin.
tdracer is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2021, 01:27
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,096
There is always an outlier, 777 about to reach TOD into Honolulu, had the fan blade penetrated the fuselage resulting in a decompression they would have been facing a ditching, fortunately it hit a stringer which prevented penetration. Had it happened at a ETOPS, once again a ditching.

Interview with the Captain.


NTSB report.

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/a...port/96738/pdf
megan is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2021, 01:31
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,922
Good on them I say.
I always used to wonder when I was at NZ about AKL - LHR non-stop.
Straight up the meridian and over the top.
Now that would be a flight.
tartare is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2021, 02:06
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 187
Megan,
Can you let us know why you think a depressurisation would definitely result in a ditching (whether ETOPS or not)?

Every flightplan has to take into account the worst case fuel scenario of normal cruise/OEI/OEI depressurised (if more critical than AEO depressurised) and use the most critical scenario as the minimum fuel uplift. So if there is a depressurisation, with or without an engine failure, right at the 5.5 hour point, then the aircraft will have enough fuel to make its ETOPS adequate airport.

So if fuel is no issue, what then is the reason behind your assertion?

Even the NTSB classified the damage to this B777 as 'light', so it can't be due to catastrophic damage - and a hole in the fuselage caused by an errant fan blade isn't necessarily going to bring down the aircraft (see UA811 where the entire forward cargo door came off, but it still landed safely).

Capt Fathom,

What would a B744 crew have had as choices if they were to suffer an uncontrollable fire at the CP between SYD and JNB, or EZE? No different to the modern twins really, is it?
RAD_ALT_ALIVE is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2021, 02:34
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,096
Watch the video, all is explained.
megan is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2021, 04:07
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 3,522
Wonder how the Flat Earthers rationalise this flight taking only 15 hours and going via Antarctica?
Ascend Charlie is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.