Qantas “nosedive” on Sunday...

zrs70 · Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:24 am

Sounds pretty scary:

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/qantas- ... ce-1867188

scbriml · Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:36 am

zrs70 wrote:
Sounds pretty scary:

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/qantas- ... ce-1867188

Sounds like normal tabloid sensationalism when it comes to any aviation related incident.

What's a "freefall nosedive"?

Zaf · Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:31 am

Better written one:
https://thewest.com.au/news/aviation/ed ... b88866098z

Noshow · Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:37 am

There will be no incident investigation so nothing serious happened.
Did they really encounter A380-vortex or other light chops along the route?

F100Flyer · Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:38 am

Normal rubbish from click-hungry news outlets. Sure, it was probably a point of turbulence where you feel like your arse isn't on the seat, but to say it was a "free-fall," they may as well hashtag crash while they're at it.

neomax · Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:42 am

Yeah this is sensationalized as hell.

Max Q · Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:58 am

Can’t take it seriously if they didn’t plunge

Channex757 · Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:01 am

Disappointing for a tabloid report. No orphanages run by nuns for disabled children missed by a matter of inches. Must be silly season for news if this is as good as it gets

rivervisual · Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:26 am

Just to be clear, that article, other than the title, comes from a syndicated news feed from Bloomberg. So assign responsibility for the tabloid quality reporting to the correct source.

Having said that, the title was created from the quote of a passenger so not the best source of information.

ben175 · Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:09 pm

I know somebody who was on the flight... this is most definitely the tabloids milking a non-existent story. The aircraft did encounter bad wake turbulence for about thirty seconds or so from another 380 but the plane most definitely did not “nosedive” or “spiral towards the ground”

xxD328xx · Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:40 pm

3 degrees nose down for 10 seconds.

Incident: Qantas A388 and Qantas A388 over Pacific on Jun 10th 2018, wake turbulence causes altitude deviation
http://avherald.com/h?article=4b9da5b2

SGSnow · Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:35 pm

Wake turbulence from another plane that causes a 'free-fall' nose dive, perhaps some sort of air pocket?

cskok8 · Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:21 pm

What they meant was that it was not a tail-dive

melpax · Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:44 pm

And having Eddie Everywhere as a passenger also doesn't help.....

smokeybandit · Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:20 pm

xxD328xx wrote:
3 degrees nose down for 10 seconds.

Incident: Qantas A388 and Qantas A388 over Pacific on Jun 10th 2018, wake turbulence causes altitude deviation
http://avherald.com/h?article=4b9da5b2

Three degrees? That doesn't exactly sound like much

fishmeal · Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:22 pm

I thought QF12 was the 747 flight from JFK via LAX???

cloudboy · Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:30 pm

So how much actual change in Altitude occured?

bzcat · Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:34 pm

fishmeal wrote:
I thought QF12 was the 747 flight from JFK via LAX???

QF12 is JFK-LAX-SYD with a change of equipment at LAX on most days.

So JFK-LAX is operated with 747, which goes on to BNE; and LAX-SYD is operated with A380.

JayinKitsap · Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:41 pm

This is the Bloomberg article.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... turbulence

Strong enough to be noticed, but sounds pretty much like turbulence in a thunderstorm, just starting out of the blue. Not worth the story.

EricAY05 · Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:51 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
This is the Bloomberg article.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... turbulence

Strong enough to be noticed, but sounds pretty much like turbulence in a thunderstorm, just starting out of the blue. Not worth the story.

...until you are onboard yourself and your plane starts to fall above the Pacific for no apparent reason.

ilovelamp · Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:57 pm

smokeybandit wrote:
xxD328xx wrote:
3 degrees nose down for 10 seconds.

Incident: Qantas A388 and Qantas A388 over Pacific on Jun 10th 2018, wake turbulence causes altitude deviation
http://avherald.com/h?article=4b9da5b2

Three degrees? That doesn't exactly sound like much

Most airliners cruise at 1-3 degrees nose up depending on their cruise speed. It doesn’t take much lowering of that angle to get fast descent rates.

ACDC8 · Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:11 pm

EricAY05 wrote:
...until you are onboard yourself and your plane starts to fall above the Pacific for no apparent reason.

Planes go bump everyday, there are reasons, they're called turbulence.

reltney · Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:47 pm

scbriml wrote:
zrs70 wrote:
Sounds pretty scary:

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/qantas- ... ce-1867188

Sounds like normal tabloid sensationalism when it comes to any aviation related incident.

What's a "freefall nosedive"?

It ALWAYS is a tabloid sensationalism when the word"nosedive" is used. The infrequent "tail dive" or "wing dive" doesn't get the attention of the press.

Love making fun of the non aviators who make up aviation words...... Nose dive.. Too funny. The nose dove but the rest of the plane kept flying along strait and level.

Media=brainless.

Q · Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:42 pm

Nose dive shouldn't be on topic. Just say "Dip drop by wake turbulence".

I thought nosedive just like Blue Angels jet steep diving showing it off. A380 can't do that and it will break up wings or engines.

Q

Okie · Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:44 pm

Damn lucky the captain dodged the errant orphanage that was cruising at that altitude. :eyepopping:

Okie

TVNWZ · Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:48 pm

I’ve flown in a lot of turbulence, but the drops and bumps have been milliseconds. 10 seconds at three degrees would scare the crap out of many people. I would be very freightened.

EChid · Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:28 pm

fishmeal wrote:
I thought QF12 was the 747 flight from JFK via LAX???

If you look up QF12 it's kinda funky, because two different flights with different aircraft are called 'QF12'. JFK > LAX is QF12 and usually a 747 (although, I think that it might soon be a 787), which is essentially a feeder route for QF's three flights out to Australia within quick succession of each other (BNE, SYD, MEL). QF12 LAX > SYD is an A380. Lord knows why they do it this way, since in my experience trying to reserve seats for the second leg of the flight is a royal pain (it required 3 hours of back-and-forth with a rep on Twitter for me), as their site is does designed to handle it.

Motorhussy · Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:40 pm

‘Nose dive’ officially more of a ‘no dive’…

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/qantas-wake-turbulence-incident-not-warrant-safety-investigation/

RyanairGuru · Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:08 pm

EChid wrote:
fishmeal wrote:
I thought QF12 was the 747 flight from JFK via LAX???

If you look up QF12 it's kinda funky, because two different flights with different aircraft are called 'QF12'. JFK > LAX is QF12 and usually a 747 (although, I think that it might soon be a 787), which is essentially a feeder route for QF's three flights out to Australia within quick succession of each other (BNE, SYD, MEL). QF12 LAX > SYD is an A380. Lord knows why they do it this way, since in my experience trying to reserve seats for the second leg of the flight is a royal pain (it required 3 hours of back-and-forth with a rep on Twitter for me), as their site is does designed to handle it.

Next time don’t use Twitter and just call. Yes, it’s annoying the website does not allow you to select seats on both segments. It is however really easy to get around and will take any experienced agent no more than 30 seconds to do seat allocation. The social media kid though will have no idea what to do. They are probably doing no more than sitting on hold for you.

Etheereal · Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:21 pm

So another case of fake news eh?

aklrno · Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:16 pm

Max Q wrote:
Can’t take it seriously if they didn’t plunge

Airplanes don't plunge, they nosedive or plummet. Buses plunge. Check any news article where a bus has descended any distance. The verb "plunge" will be used.

BobbyPSP · Fri Jun 15, 2018 12:18 am

aklrno wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Can’t take it seriously if they didn’t plunge

Airplanes don't plunge, they nosedive or plummet. Buses plunge. Check any news article where a bus has descended any distance. The verb "plunge" will be used.

Not to nitpick but it can plunge: per definition ' dive quickly and energetically'.

DocLightning · Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:00 am

Bit disconcerting when an aircraft the size of an office building suddenly drops out from under you. I remember back in 1994 or so so flying a NW744 from SYD to ITM (this was about a month before KIX opened...and was also the very last NW flight out of SYD) when we passed through a line of thunderheads, threading between the storms. Recall that at the time the 744 was the largest passenger aircraft in the world, so it was a bit disconcerting when we suddenly were thrown around like a leaf in a gale.

The whole event didn't last 30 seconds, but it felt like a week. So don't discount just how frightening these events can be to passengers who don't really understand the physics and mechanics of flight.

fishmeal · Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:05 am

bzcat wrote:
fishmeal wrote:
I thought QF12 was the 747 flight from JFK via LAX???

QF12 is JFK-LAX-SYD with a change of equipment at LAX on most days.

So JFK-LAX is operated with 747, which goes on to BNE; and LAX-SYD is operated with A380.

Thanks for that: I've watched the 747 going back and forth to JFK on FlightRadar many times.

EChid · Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:45 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
EChid wrote:
fishmeal wrote:
I thought QF12 was the 747 flight from JFK via LAX???

If you look up QF12 it's kinda funky, because two different flights with different aircraft are called 'QF12'. JFK > LAX is QF12 and usually a 747 (although, I think that it might soon be a 787), which is essentially a feeder route for QF's three flights out to Australia within quick succession of each other (BNE, SYD, MEL). QF12 LAX > SYD is an A380. Lord knows why they do it this way, since in my experience trying to reserve seats for the second leg of the flight is a royal pain (it required 3 hours of back-and-forth with a rep on Twitter for me), as their site is does designed to handle it.

Next time don’t use Twitter and just call. Yes, it’s annoying the website does not allow you to select seats on both segments. It is however really easy to get around and will take any experienced agent no more than 30 seconds to do seat allocation. The social media kid though will have no idea what to do. They are probably doing no more than sitting on hold for you.

Yes, calling is obviously superior but not as easy when you're on the other side of the world, in the office, and just trying to do a friend a favour.

speedbird52 · Sat Jun 16, 2018 5:20 am

8/10 chance it was a -4000fpm decent

XAM2175 · Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:57 am

EChid wrote:
Lord knows why they do it this way

Because the continued flight number makes it a "through flight" and lets them show this:

(The route description does note that it's via LAX)

IPFreely · Sat Jun 16, 2018 3:15 pm

EricAY05 wrote:
...until you are onboard yourself and your plane starts to fall above the Pacific for no apparent reason.

I agree. I always get a kick out of the posters who dismiss every incident like this as nothing that would phase them because of their vast levels of knowledge, experience, and overall coolness. I think most of us realize the "I'm so cool" posters in this thread would have wet themselves had they actually been on the flight in question.

EChid · Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:25 pm

XAM2175 wrote:
EChid wrote:
Lord knows why they do it this way

Because the continued flight number makes it a "through flight" and lets them show this:

(The route description does note that it's via LAX)

Interesting, I figured it had something more to do with 5th freedom rights since the flight was taking off and landing in the country, but that makes more sense.

XAM2175 · Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:27 pm

EChid wrote:
Interesting, I figured it had something more to do with 5th freedom rights since the flight was taking off and landing in the country, but that makes more sense.

A reasonable suspicion, but not the case. Particularly because fifth-freedoms don't apply here - they relate specifically to flights between the airline's home country and a foreign country with an intermediate stop in a third country (such as QF's SYD-SIN-LHR service - the fifth-freedom right allows them to carry passengers between SIN and LHR only).

The LAX-JFK-LAX service on the other hand isn't conducted under any of the defined freedoms. From a rights perspective this is the same as all the QF codeshares on AA flights - they can only be sold as part of an onward flight to Australia with QF. If, though, they were permitted to carry domestic traffic inside the US it would be an eighth-freedom flight.

EChid · Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:59 pm

XAM2175 wrote:
EChid wrote:
Interesting, I figured it had something more to do with 5th freedom rights since the flight was taking off and landing in the country, but that makes more sense.

A reasonable suspicion, but not the case. Particularly because fifth-freedoms don't apply here - they relate specifically to flights between the airline's home country and a foreign country with an intermediate stop in a third country (such as QF's SYD-SIN-LHR service - the fifth-freedom right allows them to carry passengers between SIN and LHR only).

The LAX-JFK-LAX service on the other hand isn't conducted under any of the defined freedoms. From a rights perspective this is the same as all the QF codeshares on AA flights - they can only be sold as part of an onward flight to Australia with QF. If, though, they were permitted to carry domestic traffic inside the US it would be an eighth-freedom flight.

Which makes me wonder what the load-factor is like on the 747s QF12 JFK > LAX. Right now, it's the smallest plane they can operate between those airports until they start flying something smaller from Australia. I have to wonder if that flight is pretty darn empty on some days.

777PHX · Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:24 pm

EChid wrote:
fishmeal wrote:
I thought QF12 was the 747 flight from JFK via LAX???

If you look up QF12 it's kinda funky, because two different flights with different aircraft are called 'QF12'. JFK > LAX is QF12 and usually a 747 (although, I think that it might soon be a 787), which is essentially a feeder route for QF's three flights out to Australia within quick succession of each other (BNE, SYD, MEL). QF12 LAX > SYD is an A380. Lord knows why they do it this way, since in my experience trying to reserve seats for the second leg of the flight is a royal pain (it required 3 hours of back-and-forth with a rep on Twitter for me), as their site is does designed to handle it.

Direct flights with stops all under one flight number aren't that uncommon. QF does it so they can say they serve JFK "direct" from SYD, when the reality is, yes, it's all one flight number, but there's a stop and an aircraft change in LAX.

777PHX · Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:32 pm

EChid wrote:
Which makes me wonder what the load-factor is like on the 747s QF12 JFK > LAX. Right now, it's the smallest plane they can operate between those airports until they start flying something smaller from Australia. I have to wonder if that flight is pretty darn empty on some days.

Safe bet.

QF was flying the LAX-JFK tag with the A330 for a while after they downgauged AKL-LAX to the A330. It’ll be interesting to see if the 787 takes over LAX-JFK when they start running it on LAX-BNE.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net