Having an interest in aviation, like many people yesterday I took great interest in the developing story in regards to the incident involving an engine of a Qantas Airbus A380 aircraft shortly after takeoff from Singapore as flight QF32 to Sydney yesterday. Brilliantly, nobody was hurt, and the plane safely returned to Singapore.
Of course, the Australian media immediately went on the attack – and as they often do – have produced a completely unbalanced response to the situation. For example:
| Qantas Engine Explosion |
“Qantas, Singapore Airlines and Lufthansa are the only operators of A380s powered by the Trent 900 engine, the biggest and newest aviation engine built by the renowed British firm at its factory in Derby.”
Firstly, of the 37 A380’s currently in service, 20 of them are with those particular airlines – (six for Qantas, eleven for Singapore Airlines, and three for Lufthansa) – so more than half of the flying examples of the aircraft are fitted with the possibly suspect Trent 900 engine.
To suggest they are in the minority by saying that these three airlines are the “only” ones running this particular engine on the A380 is either just bad research or – (more likely) – an attempt to sensationalise the report by suggesting these airlines have “gone against the grain” in “foolishly” choosing this engine. Only two other airlines – (Emirates and Air France) – have taken delivery of the other 17 Airbus A380’s.
“He said the Lufthansa engineers who serviced the A380 involved in yesterday’s emergency landing in Singapore did not even have the same aircraft in their fleet.”
Wait a minute!
If the first quote suggests that “Qantas, Singapore Airlines and Lufthansa are the only operators of A380s powered by the Trent 900 engine” – that is, these 20 aircraft are basically the same – (certainly in respect to the engines) – across these three airlines, so how can the second quote claim that “Lufthansa engineers who serviced the A380 involved in yesterday’s emergency landing in Singapore did not even have the same aircraft in their fleet”?
In actual fact, they have three of them!
Seems the story has been added to and changed enough times by different writers, that the contents of the story now actually contradicts itself. Does anyone proof read this stuff?
Of course, the worst part of the whole media response to the emergency was that almost nobody seems to want to highlight the fact that the flight crew landed a plane with a screwed up engine and a hole in the wing, with no injuries or casualties.
Undoubtedly they are trained to handle emergency situations like this, but equally they have done a fantastic job in carrying out their duties and keeping the situation under control, and should therfore be praised for doing so. I have barely seen a single media report that makes any comment on the positives to come out of the situation.
Of course, the positives don’t make good press, but fortunately at least one passenger had good words for how the situation was handled by Qantas.
| We Heard the Boom and I Saw a Fire |
“”Everyone was surprisingly calm on the plane. We are not going crazy at all. The crew helped tremendously. I felt in good hands. Qantas did a great job in keeping us safe.”
Others of course were only too willing to stick the boots in.
| White-knuckle Ride, Then Smooth Landing |
“Those passengers later left Changi Airport last night some five hours after the incident. A few made comments as they were rushed through by airport authorities. ”It was terrible,” said one woman. A man said, ”Give me a Boeing any time.””
“Give me a Boeing any time”, hey?
Clearly not aware of an almost identical incident involving a Qantas 747-438 out of San Francisco only three months ago, an incident that curiously was not as rabidly covered by the Australian media as this latest incident has been.
Which is probably why the chap who made the comment wasn’t aware of it.
So it’s attack the “new kid” A380, but support the “proven” 747? Two basically identical incidents, with two completely different responses from the media – the only difference being the brand of aircraft involved.
The true common link here is Rolls-Royce – and Qantas, Singapore Airlines, Rolls-Royce and Airbus have moved rapidly to investigate/mitigate the situation. Qantas and Singapore Airlines have both grounded their A380 fleets until any potential common problem with these engines is eliminated – as should have been done in a “safety first” industry.
So what more does the media want?
Blood it seems.
(UPDATE: 10:55am – further to the sterling effort by the flight crew, this recording from on-board the flight via @3AW693 shows just how well they handled the situation.)