Talk:Qantas Flight 32/Archive 1

Archive 1

Map of Flight QF32

Simple map showing incidents and path of flight QF32. Approximate locations based on available sources so far. To add/correct locations or geo-location of events, add the details below or provide a link to a reference/source, and the map will be amended.--Advanstra (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, thanks for making the effort. Thewinchester ^(talk) 04:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has the time (and ability), please update this map as per the flight track plot on the ATSB page [1] or high-res version [2] -- Rob.au (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

French article

If an article in French is posted, it needs:

• Vol QF 32 du 4 novembre 2010 Airbus A380, immatriculé VH-OQA - Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Links to archive

Airbus:

• Qantas Flight QF32 Engine Failure / Inflight turnback to Singapore Media Information (Issue 2)
• Qantas Flight QF32 Engine Failure / Inflight turnback to Singapore Media Information (Issue I)

Qantas:

• Media Releases - Qantas
• Qantas Refutes Engineer’s Union Claims
• Qantas Update on QF32 and Qantas A380 Operations
• Qantas Update on QF32 and Qantas A380 Operations
• Statement on QF32 Air Return to Singapore - Aircraft has Landed Safely

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dangers with this article

Non-Australian editors of this article need to be aware of possible undeclared motivations among some Australian editors. There is, for some unclear reason, a tendency to criticise Qantas by some people. It's an ongoing issue, over many years, possibly because it is the most expensive Australian airline.

In particular, more currently, there have been attacks on Qantas because of its choice to outsource maintenance on its planes. This upsets firstly the relevant union, and secondly, more nationalistically inclined Australians who don't like foreigners getting the work. (Yes, elements of racism at times.)

So, we need to be aware of edits which are really point-scoring rather than attempts to create an objective article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There may also be possible undeclared motivations of an opposing view (a patern some editors are deleting blocks of text that appears unfavourable to the airline while claiming irrelevance). It is wrong to assume that editors have an association with an organisation or a competitor and it is wrong to assume anyone is point scoring.

Remember, it is best to first Assume Good Faith among editors, and this is not shown by deleting a block of text or engaging in Edit Warring. Overseas editors should bear in mind that media coverage inside Australia (and many other countries) and outside may differ, they may raise differing aspects of the incident and highlight differing point of view.

Wikipedia is written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Where there are issues or concerns raised by a large number of people, as a reaction to an incident, they become relevant, these people need not be involved in Aviation or even be fanatics. Similarly, there may be an opposing point of view, and where it exists, it is also relvent and should be included. A neutral point of view is not achieved by simply deleting a block of text that one editor may feel (correctly or incorrectly) is a particular view. And a widely held view (as evidenced in the media - read the actual content in references) may still be relevent even of it is incorrect. You can improve an article by explaining why a widely held view is baseless or incorrect by adding the appropriate content and references.

As the template suggests "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses". Things may still change particlurly reactions and investigation results. All editors should remember to Revert Only When Necessary. --Advanstra (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 6

This addition is about a 747, a different plane, designed 30 years earlier, from Boeing, a different company, in the USA, a different continent. I suspect it's a clear example of the danger I mentioned above. The connections might be that both are Qantas planes, both with Boeing engines. (Maybe it should be in a Boeing article.) Really, any suggestions that the incidents are connected is pure speculation, which doesn't belong here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! Boeing doesn't make the engines - they are both maded by Rolls-Royce in the UK. WHile they are different models RB211 vs Trent 900), it's notable in that it occured soon after the other incident. - BilCat (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Dumb me. Careless. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

QF6 is hightly relevant. First, the space-time proximity of the events and their similarity lead ordinary people (as opposed to aviation enthusiasts and even fantatics) to conclude a connection. Even if theres no technical connection, it still exists in the psyche of the passengers and others. Evidence of this can be found with almost all media reports relating to both incidents simultaneously, so its relevent to emphasise that they are indeed not technically related if thats the case. Even the pilot and crew were on board the second flight. Second, there may well be a connection that we have not though of. For example, the sinister connection between AA11 and UA93 despite being different aircraft, airlines and destination was not immediately apparent. Many other airline crashes occur because someone didnt see a connection with one or more earlier incidents, even 20 years earlier. Third, both may be relvent because they are tied to maintanance issues, either Qantas or Rolls Royce in the minds of many people including passengers both had Rolls Royce engines (even if not the same model). --Advanstra (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there might be a connection. And there might not. That's my point. It's speculation. And we don't write articles about what is in people's psyche. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree its speculation at the moment, but terorism was speculation for several days after 9/11 as were other causes, and theyre all notable and relevant, even as part of a process of elimination. You can improve the article by adding the words to that effect, but remember to make it verifiable. What is not speculation is the fact that there is a widely held view or a widely held speculation, as this was properly referenced and verifiable (many sources in the media). In due course (a few months), words such as "That speculation/view later was shown to be wrong by/when.." + reference, might be appropriate. Remember that Qantas may bend the truth in press releases too, its not unexpected for any company to do it.

Also remember this is part of the "Reaction" to the incident. It does not have to be technically connected to be here (thats for "incident"). Wikipedia is also not an Aviation manual/textbook either so this is part of broader matters relating to the incident. Its the reactions from a wide cross-section of the public joins these two events together. --Advanstra (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with Qantas press releases. I can see your point that this speculation is widely reported, but I feel uncomfortable with the idea that some speculation is OK while other speculation is not. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The press releases will likely try to douse or rebutt the speculation, so will be a likely source to show the speculation is incorrect, as were the comments by the spokeswoman and CEO. Both are relevant. If Rolls Royce or ATSB reveals an engine design flaw that would likely end much speculation in relation to the A380 (but not the 747), though its still a verifiable fact that the incidents have raised concerns and speculation by people right up until that time.

Some guidance under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball eg "It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses" and "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation" but " It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.". Perhaps elsewhere (there so many guidelines that theyll contractict each other anyway, which is why i actually dont like quoting them ... theres way too many of them and a discussion could go on forever - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 32). I think the simple key is a widely held view or specualtion that been verified. --Advanstra (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that view. In fact, you have led me to change my vote on deletion of this article to KEEP, not because I think the incident is any more notable, nor because of possible links with other incidents, but because so many people are making so much fuss about it. To me, the notable aspect is the fuss, not the incident, but I guess that's real enough, so long as we document it well. HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this article going to be deleted?

Reminder: Please direct discussion on the article's proposed deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 32 -- Rob.au (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Flight International

Flight International has coverage of the ongoing investigation, and other matters related to Qantas A380s and engines being changed. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Further coverage shows that this was the first uncontained RR engine failure since 1994. Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You must be making up those links, MJR. Such articles would indicate "continuing significant media coverage", and that's obvioulsy not the case, as the incident is obviously not notable. ;P - BilCat (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "making up", the links are genuine and I have no connection with Flight International other than as a visitor of their website. I'm still not convinced that the incident is Wikinotable yet, but will say that the case for notability has strengthened since I posted my !vote at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was sarcasm, not aimed at you, but at our AFD-infatuated friends who will never admit "that the case for notability has strengthened"! Sorry I wasn't a more clear. - BilCat (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, this has just tipped the balance. Now affecting all RR Trent 900 engines. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

relevance that this is the second uncontained engine failure

Let me suggest a solution regarding the discussion on stating that this is the second uncontained engine failure at Qantas. It is clear that this is the second failure (see ref, which is removed and added a couple of times now), but we don't agree whether this is notable with regards to this wiki. What I would regard a treshhold for inclusion is the statement of the fact that this is the second failure as a relevent fact in a reliable source: in other words a reliable source stating both failures and placing them into context. I have no idea if this available; and until then, I suggest to leave the info out... L.tak (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The incident with QF74 is totally unrelated to QF32, different engine, age, type of aircraft and damage caused. ATSB class the QF72 damage as minor (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-066.aspx) and the QF32 as serious (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-089.aspx) but yes both are serious. QF72 belongs in the Qantas article but not this one IMO. 139.168.75.8 (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes L.tak, good approach. If a source connects the two, then we can. Otherwise it's WP:SYNTHESIS. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to add some balance, apparently these uncontained failures are "extremely rare" yet Qantas has had two in a couple of months. If nothing else, it adds some balance to the quote. hree engine failures in 3 months (only two serious, uncontained though), Rolls Royce engines and the Qantas airline are the common denominators. There have long been rumours surrounding maintenance (mostly stirred up by the unions I suspect) but you have to wonder if the incidents are linked. However, I accept that it's quite likely that they aren't linked and in the absence of a reliable source to actually suggest that the spate of engine failures are connected, I guess it's best left out. 84.9.36.187 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the unions are definitely behind some of this material. Not sure where you're from, but on TV news in Australia over the past few days, union officials have made regular appearances condemning the outsourcing of maintenance. Also, for reasons I cannot understand, there has been anti-Qantas sentiment in parts of Australian society for many years. More recently, I have seen elements of racism in the criticism when it is pointed out that foreigners are doing some of the servicing, implying that they cannot be trusted. (Not sure why such critics would even be interested in air travel to foreign places, given their bigotry.) Of course Qantas, Airbus, and Rolls Royce will all be doing their best to convince us all that all is well in their respective necks of the woods. Lot's of interested parties here. Hard to totally assume good faith and neutral POV for every comment made. HiLo48 (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

All ways going to get the those using Wikipedia for there political ways as well as those who are anti-Qantas and Fanbois who think it is the best airline in the World. Whether or not overseas servicing on QF72, QF32 or QF6, which wasn't and engine failure like QF72 and QF32 played a role will not be known until the ATSB releases its preliminary and final report, so any assumption on the cause is just that. What ever the cause, we can only hope it doesn't occur again to any airline. 139.168.75.8 (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Focus on Rolls-Royce Trent 900

That is the engine having issues. Much of the editing in relation to it should happen there. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Article name

So looks like this article is here to stay a while longer. At the risk of kicking off another stormy debate, I'd like to propose that it be renamed to reflect its content. Maybe something like "Airbus A380 engine issues"? Yes, I'm aware of the naming standards for aviation articles, but the article scope has expanded beyond Qantas, so this is now a bigger issue for Airbus and Rolls Royce. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree a rename would help.lets make some sections for arguments:

Do we need a rename?

• I agree 'renaming is preferred, As an addnl argument: a flight number is normally retired after a crash. this was not a crash, so in this case it will (probably....) not be.L.tak (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• do not rename' It seems this incident will merit it's own article. See this pprune post for a list of failures that resulted from the flying engine parts. The inability to use even the fire suppression system in the #1 engine to shut it down, the inoperability of fuel crossfeeding from certain tanks and the total knock out of one of the hydraulic systems will probably have lasting effects on the 380 design from this point on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.152.254 (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the argument for not renaming essentially that it's a Qantas-centric issue? (as opposed to Airbus/Rolls Royce) Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not in the least. The article is centred around the uncontained engine failure event that occured on QF32 last week and is titled following appropriate convention. In time the article will cover the lead-up to the event and the aftermath of the event, but that doesn't change what the article is about. -- Rob.au (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose rename - This incident has always been more than just an engine failure. There was also major damage to control systems, the full extent of which is only now starting to be made public. See, eg, [news.com.au "flying wreck" article]. It now seems that the most notable thing about the incident itself may have been the feat of airmanship involved in landing, stopping and shutting down the plane safely. The present name for the article therefore seems more appropriate than ever before. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose rename The incident occured on a named Qantas Flight - QF32. Convention is not to use IATA designators in titles. Therefore the article is correctly title as it is. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose rename per above, there is no evidence currently that the name Qantas Flight 32 is to be kept, the aircraft in question was also a Qantas aircraft. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose rename This article is about the incident. The incident was the catlyst for focus on the Trent 900. While out of that focus we are seeing emerging details indicating that problems were known about prior to the event, that will simply take its place in the article as coverage of the incident, ie. the leadup, just as much as in due course information will be added about the outcomes of the investigation and rectification. However, this does not mean the article is about Trent 900 problems. What's made this notable is that the Trent 900 problems led to an actual serious incident, where there was an uncontained failure in flight causing significant airframe damage and that's the core connecting factor of what this article is about. Accordingly, this article should follow the Wikipedia naming convention for such articles - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Aviation accidents and incidents. Even if Rolls Royce is assessed to be responsible (which, it should be noted, is a premature WP:CRYSTAL of the outcome of the ATSB investigation), it doesn't change what this article is about, which is what happened on board QF32 last Thursday. -- Rob.au (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  I just thought I would add some examples - take Boeing 737 rudder issues for instance. There are still articles on United Airlines Flight 585, USAir Flight 427 and Eastwind Airlines Flight 517. From September 11 attacks there are American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 93 and United Airlines Flight 175. Probably an even better example from the "no-one died" category is British Airways Flight 38. There are many other examples. None of these articles appear to be accused of neutrality issues against the airlines involved and I just don't see what is different here. With regards to the case of Dash 8 landing gear incidents - as noted it was a merger of individual incident articles. In this case there only has been one incident. If there are multiple Trent 900 incidents, then it might be appropriate to have that merge discussion and I'm sure for many editors it would depend on the circumstances - but there is no string of incidents at the moment. -- Rob.au (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What names are acceptable

• If we are rename I would suggest to be as specific as possible. Some ideas: Trent 900 issues A380 Trent 900 issues, or the main trigger first: [2010] [A380/Trent900] Uncontained Engine Failure (with between [ ] can be left out....). L.tak (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• If we had a consensus to rename it then the relevant naming conventions would give us Rolls-Royce Trent 900 accidents and incidents as it would then be a child article of Rolls-Royce Trent 900. MilborneOne (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I support this suggestion. A similar article is Dash 8 landing gear incidents, which covers several accidents/incidents, and was actually a merger of 3 accident articles with additional minor incidentnsand aftermath info added. - BilCat (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What procedure should be followed to come an eventual agreement

For procedure, I suggest a short discussion here on ideas and arguments; after which a more formal RfC (or whatever is most suitable) should be followed; otherwise we're bound to have name-reverting going on... L.tak (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The usual proceedure is a formal Move discussion, but if a clear consensus is achieved, this probably wouldn't be necessary. - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Port side inboard"

What does "port side inboard" mean? HeyMid (contributions) 18:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

on the left side nearest the fuselage I have changed the text not to use technical terms. MilborneOne (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you don't think fuselage is a technical term. A better non-technical wording would be "left hand engine nearer the main body of the plane", but that's a lot of words. The reason for such jargon is usually to reduce the number of words used. How much can we assume readers know? HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It had actually been OK for me if an article had existed for "port side inboard", but apparently there isn't. I accept MilborneOne's edit. Also, how is "fuselage" a technical term? HeyMid (contributions) 22:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Just created Aircraft engine position number to explain the convention and names although it could do with some more references. MilborneOne (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. HeyMid (contributions) 09:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1