As per someones post below, I was on a plane about 8 weeks ago SYD to LAX (SFO) Qantas 747 400, and there was this terrific banging sound, outside, like thunder, and serious turbulance, and cap’ain came on to say that it was the other Qantas flight 747 infront. i mean, jesus christ, how far can a plane get close, like a 747 and how long does the remains of power from an engine hang about after a plane has used ‘that bit of space/air’
AND
on the flight because it was packed (apparently) they were refulling at the start of the runway and also i thought it was never going to take off, so much runway used, but harbour looked gorgeous as usual, bit closer tho! haha.
Stables.
By: monster500 - 13th April 2002 at 19:23
RE: Qantas SYD – LAX Excitement. Recommended!!!!
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 13-04-02 AT 07:25 PM (GMT)]also the transcript says they had to tow the a/c to the runway before starting it,dont know that they refuelled it there would take a rather long time
By: monster500 - 13th April 2002 at 19:12
RE: Qantas SYD – LAX Excitement. Recommended!!!!
I work for Emirates actually and the Captain of the 747-400 LHR- SYd was captain Brian Massie Greene
i fly the B777-200/300 and i know for a fact that refuelling with PAX on board is a no no and QANTAS would never do it
i will make some calls to some friends who are captains ad f/o with QANTAS to clraify this
By: Stables - 13th April 2002 at 09:52
RE: Qantas SYD – LAX Excitement. Recommended!!!!
I know Its the most ridiculous thing i have heard to, although i had to believe it as i was on board.
If anyone works for Qantas, it was QF 107 17th Feb 2002, Sydney to LAX
1125 depart from gate 25 and i was in 2K to clarify i was there.
also, im sorry ive completely forgotten the ‘person’ who has decided that this isnt true, such an impact there, but on a web chat to that person on airport on the bbc site maybe AHA, here we are ‘John Cull’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/airport/transcripts/questions/transcriptq1.shtml
A 1: what is the longest flight you have been on?
John Cull: We operated the maiden flight of our 7-400 series from Heathrow direct to Sydney non-stop. It was the first time it had ever occurred and it hasn’t been done since. It took about eighteen hours, and to achieve maximum uplift of fuel we had to tow the aircraft to the end of the runway and start the enginges at the end of the runway.
slightly different, but its qantas! and i remember the captain saying about how much the maximum takeoff weight was and they reached this to within xxx.
actually the person before says ‘It is not acceptable to refuel with Pax onboard and would never ever happen least of all from QANTAS’
perhaps we have found our rep from Qantas???!!!
Stables.
By: monster500 - 13th April 2002 at 02:31
RE: Qantas SYD – LAX Excitement. Recommended!!!!
How you going to refuel at the runway there are no tanks out there and what do you think they are going to close a runway for a 747 to fuel up thats BS
i have flown in and out of sydney countless times and thats the most ridiculous thing i have heard.
It is not acceptable to refuel with Pax onboard and would never ever happen least of all from QANTAS
By: mongu - 12th April 2002 at 18:26
RE: Qantas SYD – LAX Excitement. Recommended!!!!
I have been on a BAE 146 a number of times (always at LHR, oddly enough) when it was refuelled. True about seatbelts being undone, but I don’t recall the door being opened on any occassion.
Also in the 80’s I recall refuelling on a 747-200 at Kai Tak – no doors, not even the seatbelts announcement. In fact, they even gave everyone a small box of raisins to make up for the delay.
The airline was Cathay Pacific.
So – how well regulated is this thing and who is ultimately responsible? The airline, the Captain, the refueller, the dispatcher?
By: EGNM - 12th April 2002 at 16:04
RE: Qantas SYD – LAX Excitement. Recommended!!!!
yeah i think for the re-fuelling that’s correct – airbridge or airstairs, and the non-open doors to have the chutes armed
also other than the AA A300 – the B737 inccidents in the early 1990’s were caused by wake turb
By: Saab 2000 - 12th April 2002 at 15:49
RE: Qantas SYD – LAX Excitement. Recommended!!!!
Yeah thats what I heard abut the AA A300 crash in New York,this is what that turbulance was caused by.
As the wings of the aircraft pass through the air,lift occurs when the high pressure under the wing tries to fill a vacuum of the low pressure on top of the wing. As a product of this lift, some air will circulate causing a rolling effect to take place behind the wingtips. What happens is two vortices (the left wing clockwise and the right wing counterclockwise as viewed from behind the airliner looking forward) develop and continue to spin until their energies are reduced. Most of the energy is within a few feet of the center of each vortex but pilots are should avoid a region within 100 feet of the vortex core. Airliners which are heavy give off the most intense vortices.If you ever wondered why sometimes it takes such a long time for an aircrft to take off it may be because of this wake turbulance effect.
By: jumbolinoguy - 12th April 2002 at 14:06
RE: Qantas SYD – LAX Excitement. Recommended!!!!
If i remember correctly wasnt the cause of the american airline’s crash because a 747 had just taken off before them and they had taken off within the wake of the plane?
Also refuelling with passengers on board is forbidden. Unless the passengers have their seatbelts undone and the doors are open with crew standing by the doors incase of an emergency.
Any one else agree with this?
Sign In
April 12, 2002 at 1:32 pm