Qantas Airbus A330 incident

URL: … aM&topic=w

Date: 22nd June 2009
Route: Hong Kong (H.K) to Perth (Australia)
Airline involved: Qantas
Model: Airbus A330-300
Passenger Number: 206
Incident location: Borneo (Indonesia)

I saw the news when I was watching prime time TV, the reporter say its exactly the same model as the Air France plane that broke up mid-air the other day… so sad…

The incident happen so quick the crew didn’t even have time to announce over the speaker to get everyone fasten their seat belt, and people start flying within the cabin and hitting roofs and breaking or hurting their body parts…

It’s two incident with Airbus this months, not a good sign for the company… and sorry for those passenger whom was caught in this near fetal incident… hope they’ll be okay… :unamused:

Obviously, people are not happy with Airbus … with the newspaper digging in Airbus fetal history… … 02,00.html

QANTAS always seems to be having problems. How many have they had in the past year, 5-6. I’ll probably never fly QANTAS not because they’re a bad airline, but they always seem to have bad luck.

This is why the FA always says “even when the seat belt sign if off, please leave it on in case we hit unexpected turbulence.”

hehe, i flew with them around this time last year, it was a near miss! we almost crash landed at the airport… on the last moment the pilot push the throttle and pull the plane up… if he hasn’t done that i’ll be on the news that night…

things can get choppy with Qantas since they change their strategy and now focus on cut costs… and everyone knows where they cut it from… maintenance! silly people on the top!

Ok so from the top the QF a/c is an A330-300
the AF is an A330-200 different models.

Second, people are not going to be happy with any product the media drags up every ounce of dirt on daily, weekly… The fact on 2 occasions an Airbus had the misfortune of flying into brutal wx, one surviving its incident the other we all know. I can’t speak for the rest of the forum, but I’m not writing off the A330 family of any other 'bus for that matter.

p.s. There was a NW B744 a couple months ago which encountered turbulance inbound to NRT tossed a few pax around. You know why we didn’t hear any more about it…no other incidents with that particular a/c happened. Lets not help the media stir the pot.

That’s called a go around and it is quite common mate.

oh yeah? have you been on one? or a few? :laughing:

7 slightly injured as Qantas plane hits turbulence

A Qantas flight struck turbulence over Malaysia and suddenly lost altitude, leaving seven people with minor injuries, the airline said Monday.

The Airbus A330 with 219 passengers and crew aboard was flying from Hong Kong to the Australian west coast city of Perth overnight when it struck “severe turbulence” over Malaysian Borneo, Qantas said in a statement.

Six passengers and a crew member were treated for minor injuries on board as the airplane continued to Perth, Qantas corporate affairs manager David Epstein said.

The captain reported minor damage to two overhead panels in the cabin, and two oxygen masks were dislodged, he told Fairfax Radio.

An uninjured passenger, who identified himself only as John, said he heard a loud bang before the jet suddenly lost altitude.

“I was sitting at the exit door and I had this lady, [who] was waiting at the restroom and she flew up and hit the ceiling and came crashing down to the floor,” John told Fairfax Radio.

“It was just a matter of a few seconds, but it [the turbulence] was really sudden and things went flying,” he added.

Australian government safety officials were investigating the incident.

Qantas said there is no reason to link the incident to other recent inflight incidents involving A330 aircraft.

A computer malfunction on a Qantas A330 flying from Singapore to Perth on Oct. 7 last year caused the jet to nose-dive twice, leaving 12 passengers and crew seriously injured.

The Australian airline underwent a safety review last year after a series of problems, including an oxygen tank explosion on a Boeing 747-400 that ripped a hole in the jet’s fuselage last July, forcing it to make an emergency landing in the Philippines. No one was injured.

And common to the point that I was on a flight that did 3 consecutive go-arounds. It is VERY common indeed.


OK, so, what does the article prove? Wasps or bees in several aircraft…did they come from the factory like that? I don’t think so…So, just how is this Airbus’ fault?

Several noted that hit unexpected rough air. Is that Airbus’ fault as well? I don’t think so.

There were a couple that had engine problems…Last time I checked Airbus did NOT manufacturer engines. Just like your car, from time to time, there are going to issues with an aircraft. Hell, with anything mechanical. It is bound to happen.

Thankfully most problems with aircraft end without making the news in a big way. Right now, after the AF crash, if an Airbus so much as smokes too much on start up it is liable to make the news.

I am sorry that there wer pax injured on the Qantas flight involved. If they had simply kept their seatbelts on as requested they would not have been injured. It appears that the aircraft stayed in one piece. It underwent extreme structural forces and stayed together. Isnt it about time some one praises the aircraft and the crew instead of blaming the aircraft for all problems…

I’ve been on at least 7 or 8 of them, 3 on the same flight. With those three on the same flight, all would have resulted in a runway incursion/operational error (‘deal’, in ATCspeak) because of loss of separation. they happened at LAX.

On the first one, the Brasilia we followed did their best on the max forward speed, but we came in two fast.

The second time on final, the aircraft we were following missed the highspeed Tower wanted them to use. So back around we went again.

The third time, an Air China heavy jet didn’t hold short of the runway as ATC directed them to. So we went around again.

By this time, we were low fuel, and and the FO mentioned that we’d have to declare emergency and land if we had to go around again. Either way, we ended up getting 25L while our company sidestepped for 25R.

I had a very long talk with the FO after that one. very informational.


Nothing really. From the article I can say:

  1. Airbus is becoming ever and ever more popular
  2. Airbus has higher chances of going through incident than Boeing
  3. I’ll buy travel insurance if I fly with Airbus
  4. I’ll make sure my seat belt is secure when I fly with Airbus
  5. If I crash while flying with Airbus I know nobody to blame, I’m just as unlucky as all others on the plane.


Airbus has been popular, and to be honest, is almost needed, as while there may be other makers, for large/long range/widebody aircraft, if Airbus weren’t around, there would be a monopoly.

  1. Airbus has higher chances of going through incident than Boeing

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Boeing has just as much of a chance of going through an incident as Airbus, as McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, or any other manufacturer. Good case in point: There is nothing wrong with an aircraft when an incident is caused by pilot error, like Tenerife, or Gimli, or the ANZ DC-10 in Antarctica. I haven’t seen an airbus completely lose its hull, like the AAH B732 did.

Have a look here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

If you compare those to Airbus, with the exception of Lockheed, in number of aircraft loss and fatalities, Boeing has more of a chance of having an incident than Airbus!

Either one is prone to the same thing happening, and that is the risk everyone takes stepping onto an aircraft. One does not have any higher or lower of a chance of an incident.

  1. I’ll buy travel insurance if I fly with Airbus

By your reckoning, travel insurance won’t do you any good especially if you’re dead. But I digress.

  1. I’ll make sure my seat belt is secure when I fly with Airbus
  2. If I crash while flying with Airbus I know nobody to blame, I’m just as unlucky as all others on the plane.


How about this; if you’re that worried about Airbus, go Greyhound, unless you’re worried about the buses being Drive-By-Wire… :unamused:


you so pro-airbus, do you work for them? :unamused:

Settle down, girls. It’s just as easy to die on a Boeing as it is an Airbus. Maybe you should go fly on one of Aeroflot’s Ilyushins or Tupeolovs for a little perspective.


This is my whole entire point! thank you for backing it. Like I mentioned in the FBW thread, the same things could happen on a Boeing, Airbus, Ilyushin, Sulkhoi, Tupolev, Yakovlev, Nihon, Embraer, Bombardier, Hawker, Lochkeed Martin, McDonnell Douglas, or even the paper airplane sitting next to me. It doesn’t matter. They are all subject to the elements and powers-that-be, and can have incidents.

To be honest, I prefer the E-Jets; E175 and Lineage 1000, to be exact. But it sounds like someone wants this to be an Airbus v. Boeing war…


I’ll take a chevy over a ford any day!

oh wait, wrong forum.

same discussion, different location…same logical argument


You might enjoy this thread…if you have not seen it already:

As for our newest friend all I can say is :open_mouth: are you serious with your points? Come on now I want to like you but it is becoming difficult :confused:

Actually, there would not be a monopoly because McDonnell-Douglas would probably still be around if Airbus didn’t exist.

Can someone come up with a (pickup truck, rear window)sticker of Calvin pissing on an Airbus logo???

That’s what this thread reminds me of.