Qantas' Series of Problems...

[AZ_to_AU]

The latest in Qantas news was that a take-off was aborted...
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5164721/qantas-takeoff-aborted-damaged-wing-spotted/ :mg:

"It was a technical issue with the wing prior to departure,"

WHY and HOW could they be so indecisive about something like this and then freak passengers out? Especially just before taking off?

I don't mind flying even tho I'm hearing all this about Qantas but it's like knowing something bad about a particular car model and you "avoid" it.

I don't think I"ll EVER get on a Qantas plane again... but I'm doomed if I ever have to go back to the states unless Jetstar or Virgin can give me a lift. :confused:

[MathFox]

The article does not even mention that the plane got near the runway... was it an aborted take off or just "taxi back to the gate due to a mechanical problem".

And what would you prefer, going back to the gate to fix the problem or taking off with a potential serious issue?

[AZ_to_AU]

It's to my understanding that this was an issue *before* departure. "It was a technical issue with the wing prior to departure,"

Is it or isn't it a broken wing? They decided, no it's fine, then taxi'd until another engineer (or someone) saw it and said "NO, bring them back."

The New Zealand-bound Boeing 747-300 was taxiing towards the runway when damage to a right wing flap was noticed by an engineer on the ground and the pilot was alerted, Qantas said.

My question is... why debate over whether a wing is broken or not? If it has to be "thought over" then it's a fault! I wouldn't second guess a wing problem.

[Captain Hutch]

As usual the newspaper account leaves a lot to be desired, so my comments come with the usual caveat that the real story will come out later on. The comment about "technical issue with the wing prior to departure" sounds like a classic remark by the pr people who have no idea what actually transpired and are stalling for time until they get the facts. I don't know what they mean by "engineer"--a company related employee or what? But if the 747 was taxiing out and someone noticed it, as they pulled out of the gate perhaps, the flap damaged could have been caused by some ground vehicle that drove by too closely to the wing while the aircraft was parked at the gate and unknowingly caused some damage. This event probably would have occurred after the pilot did his walk-around preflight. Possibly the driver even knew that he might have caused some damage and didn't want to own up to it and figured someone else would find it and attribute it to "unknown causes". Damage done to planes by vehicles is a very real problem and costs great amounts of time and money. So with all that said, I'm not familiar with how high above the ground the flaps are on a 747, which could mean either the leading edge or trailing edge flaps, that is, the flaps on the front side of the wing or the rear.

Another possible scenario: almost any aircraft will have a certain amount of scratches and small dents in the skin of the aircraft that have no effect on safety or the flying ability of the aircraft. These defects will have been noted in the aircraft's log after being thoroughly checked by an engineer as being flight worthy. Occasionally I will have alert ground personnel, maybe a baggage handler, come up to me and say "did you notice the small dent back by the aft fuselage?" I may not know whether the dent has been written up before and so I will have the person show me what he is talking about and then go check to see if the log book already has it noted. If it is not in the book I will notify maintenance and have an engineer check it out. If I am taxiing out and someone outside the aircraft says something about possible damage, I can't be certain if he is talking about some thing already noted or not so I have no choice but to taxi back to the gate and have it checked out.

I can understand your concern about flying an airline with continuing problems, but it would be best to get all the facts before drawing a conclusion here.

Hutch :tiphat:

[peterfriend@bigpond.com]

I am a retired Qantas Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. My understanding of this incident is that one of the torque tubes driving the variable camber (VC) leading edge slats became disconnected between the inboard and outboard drive arms. This would have caused one end of the VC slat to be driven out and the other end held firm by the internal brake in the rotary actuator. Ths would have distorted the variable camber slat panel and possibly caused it to shatter. Each drive arm has a set of proximity sensors so this type of failure would have caused the Green LE extended light in the flight deck not to illuminate and would have activated a take off warning if the thrust levers were advanced. The problem was detected on the ramp as the flaps were selected for take off prior to push back. It s a requirement now for there to be visual confirmation of all LE devices prior to push back.

[AZ_to_AU]

:welcome:
Glad to have you aboard and glad you caught my thread. Your response (tho 30,000 ft over my head) helped. :D

Hope you'll stick around!

[Captain Hutch]

Great answer Peterfriend! It sounds like a good procedure to have the position of the Leading Edge and Trailing Flaps in the proper position verified prior to pushback. Although in our case we don't select takeoff flaps until after engine start and engine driven hydraulic pumps are on, and most of the time we don't start engines until well away from the gate into the pushback. We have two different lighting systems to determine if the flaps/slats are in position, either of which would alert us to improper positioning.

Hutch :)