Australian aviation authorities have announced a special review of airline Qantas, after three safety scares in little more than a week.
A Qantas 767 was forced to return to Sydney on Saturday after a fluid leak. It followed another plane’s emergency landing in Manila caused by a hole in its side, and a problem with a landing gear cover on a domestic flight.
Officials said they had no evidence of falling safety standards, but added it was “prudent” to take a closer look…
Safety officials now say an exploding oxygen cylinder was the most likely cause of the hole in the side of the plane which made an unscheduled detour to Manila.
At least the power-that-be are sensible enough to respond to statistical probabilities which are beginning to stretch Qantas’ reputation.
When you have a track record for safety as long as Qantas, the law of averages will catch up to you sooner or later. Their safety record is amazing in this day and age.
Since one appears to have been an exploding oxygen bottle in the cargo bay, I’m not sure that counts against maintenance.
I’ve been on SWA at FL 310 and have seen a hydraulic leak on the right wing. The pilot was informed but since it was only 15 mins. from destination he continued the flight. Still rather unsettling, only 10 degrees flaps at touchdown.
Come on Bubbaray it not the law of law averages at work here. This what you get when you cut back on maintenance the way Qantas has.
That could be. But their safety record to date is quite good. The aircraft has a good safety record, too. I hope Qantas followed all the ADs for the hydraulics.
I haven’t seen any documentation on Qantas cutting back on maintenance, but if so, shame on them.
I’m going with gasbag here. Seems to me the “Law of Averages” is most properly about random or chance events which should not be part of planned maintenance?
Referencing law of averages is a conclusion and should not enter the discussion until all other issues are covered and resolved.
OK, Bobbo, ever had tails come up 10 times in a row?
Let me know when you get the results of their maintenance failures (both of them). Until then, there’s no evidence of any slack.
Sometimes stuff happens, even with the best of maintenance. I’ve had brand new bearings fail for a robot telescope with tolerances of 1/10,000″ that sport a record of 10Mn revs to tolerance mtbf. The rest have been in service for at least 25 years, still in tolerance.
Don’t ask about the 4 iPod nanos that failed under warranty, they suck.
I didn’t even know oxygen cylinders were legal to put on a plane.