QF32 Book – Corrections & Reprints

Thank you to the readers who have contacted me to highlight errors or omissions in QF32.

We had great difficulty compressing the QF32 story into a form to suit a wide audience.  Too much happened on the flight to fully document in a broad-appealing book.  I need more than two and a half hours to tell the details of  the QF32 flight and aftermath to a rated and current A380 pilot.   My initial 130,000 word submission was too long and technical.  The editor (correctly) amputated chapters and massive blocks of text.

Please submit any errors or omissions – all correspondence is appreciated.

Reprints

Print Runs:   (See also:  Book Versions, Availability & Ratings)

About 120,000 copies of QF32 has been purchased.  (August 2017)

  • QF32 on shelf – 25 July 2012
  • first reprint ordered – 30 July 2012
  • third reprint ordered – 13 August 2012
  • fourth reprint ordered – 20 August 2012
  • fifth reprint ordered – 28 August 2012
  • sixth reprint ordered – 13 September 2012
  • seventh reprint released – 21 November 2012
  • eighth reprint released – 18 December 2012  (incorrectly shown as reprint 7.  This edition includes the page titled  “More Acclaim for QF32”  that appears just before the title page.)
  • ninth reprint released – 1 January 2013  (First reprint for 2013)
  • tenth reprint released – 25 February 2013 (Second (massive) reprint for 2013)
  • eleventh reprint released – 14 June 2013 (Third reprint for 2013)
  • twelfth reprint released – 1 January 2014 (First reprint for 2014)
  • thirteenth reprint released – December 2014 (Second reprint for 2014)
  • fourteenth reprint – June 2016
  • fifteenth reprint – June 2017

The reprint status is shown on the third line on the page following the QF32 title page.

Corrections

Page 7

4th last line.  Replace “France at Poperinghe” with “Belgium at Poperinge”  (thanks Jean-Robert Blanc)  (corrected in seventh reprint)

Page 14

Last line.  Replace “Maldon France to England” with “France to Maldon, England”   (thanks Jean-Robert Blanc) (corrected in seventh reprint)

Page 29

Line 10.  My use of “electrocuted” is wrong, because had I been electrocuted, then I would be dead.   So change that sentence to begin: “Like anyone who has suffered a severe electrical shock …..”  (corrected in seventh reprint)

Page 41

Line 5.  Replace ” Tarpini” with ” Tapini”  (also pages 42, 86, 246)  (Thanks John)    (corrected in seventh reprint)

Line 5.  Replace ” middle of the New Guinea Highlands at 8000″ with With: “Owen Stanley Ranges in New Guinea at 3100”  (Thanks John)      (corrected in seventh reprint)

Line 17.  Replace “8000 feet” with “altitude”  (Thanks Wolfgang Mann)   (corrected in twelfth reprint)

Page 45

Line 5 replace “Cassebohn” with “Cassebohm” (corrected in first reprint)

Page 75

Change title from “20 Seconds of Fame” to “20 Minutes of Fame”.   Also change the Table of Contents to match.  (corrected in first reprint)

Page 77

Replace “Gibbs” with “Gibbes”. (Found at lines 10 and 15)  (Thanks to  Ken Davis) (corrected in seventh reprint)

Page 82

7th last line. Change “The Smart Investor” to “Australian Investor”  (Thanks John Wasiliev)  (corrected in seventh reprint)

Page 102

8th line from the bottom.  Replace “never” with “ever”  (corrected in first reprint)

Page 111

Para 3, line 4, word 5 “was” to be replaced by “were”, as the conjunction “if” takes the conditional form of the verb.  (Thanks Mariea! (WSM – QF32 page 12))   (corrected in third reprint)

Page 134

In the fourth page of photos section after page 134. The caption for the top photo will be changed from “Wings Parade, 1979” to:  (corrected in sixth reprint)

Wings Parade, 1979. It’s a small world. Air Chief Marshal Sir Wallace “Digger” KYLE GCB, KCVO, CBE, DSO, DFC, KSJ – a West Australian rose to become the Vice Chief of the Air Staff (RAF) and later the Governor of Western Australia (1975-1980). He served in the RAF Flying Training Command in May 1940 under my great uncle, Air Vice Marshal H.V. “Vivian” Champion de Crespigny (see Chapter 2).

Page 144

line 7, replace “30” with “twelve” (corrected in third reprint)

Page 150

6th last line, replace “landing” with “take off”  (thanks Tom Frisch)  (corrected in eighth reprint)

Page 152

Line 18.   Replace “horsepower turbochargers.” with “horsepower, 14 stage compressors (turbochargers).” (corrected in tenth reprint)

Page 157

Line 15 (middle of the page). Replace “100” with “80” (corrected in first reprint)

Page 185

Line 1, replace “hoard” with “horde”  (corrected in seventh reprint)

Second line of last paragraph:  Replace “degraded engines and one engine registering revs but no thrust.” with  “degraded engines registering revs but no thrust, and one engine operating with a reduced maximum thrust.”  (corrected in eleventh reprint)

Page 186

line 9, replace “remote” with “ram”   (thanks Tom Hughes)  (corrected in third reprint)

Page 189

line 7, replace “quality” with “quantity”   (thanks Tom Hughes)  (corrected in third reprint)

Page 197

line 6, replace “quality” with “quantity”  (thanks Tom Hughes) (corrected in third reprint)

Page 201

line 9. Change “intruction” to “instruction”  (corrected in first reprint)

Page 204

Page 204, 4th last line, replace “flight desk.” with “flight deck.”  (thanks to Mike Sharpe) (corrected in eleventh reprint)

Page 207

lines 3 & 4, replace “every pilot” with “all pilots” (thanks Jean-Robert Blanc)  (corrected in sixth reprint)

line 11, replace “tenant” with “tenet” (thanks Linda Emery) (corrected in sixth reprint)

Page 235

2nd last line, replace “is” with “are”  (thanks Jean-Robert Blanc)  (corrected in eighth reprint)

Page 241

4th last line. Change “affect” to “effect”  (thanks Anthony Ryan)  (corrected in fourth reprint)

Page 248

Third paragraph.   Replace “Finally I realised I had not warned the cabin crew that we were about to start the approach, so” with “Mark had more concerns: ‘Rich the landing performance data might be wrong and we might touch down too far down the runway. I suggest I brief the cabin crew.’  So   (corrected in thirteenth reprint)

Page 249

Para 3    (corrected in thirteenth reprint)

Page 252

line 10, replace “remote” with “ram”  (thanks Tom Hughes)  (corrected in third reprint)

Page 256

10th line from bottom, replace  “Kai Tac” with “Kai Tak”  (thanks Stephen Phillip)   (corrected in eighth reprint)

Page 269

Line 7, replace “thought that was” to “thought that it was” (corrected in twelfth reprint)

Page 273

Lines 10 and 11,  Replace: “fuel or foam, or could become confused and walk in front of Engine 1 that was still running and be sucked into it.”, With: “fuel or foam.”  (thanks Tom Frisch)  (corrected in eighth reprint)

Page 276

Line 15,  Replace: “engine fire switch” with “engine master switch”    (corrected in twelfth reprint)

Page 278 (second photo section)

Second page of photos, top image, caption, fifth line:  Replace “Luka” to “Luca”   (corrected in sixth reprint)

Page 13 of photos.  Caption for middle image.   Third line.  Replace “Remote” with “Ram”   (corrected in sixth reprint)

Page 281

 12th line from bottom:  Replace: “Engine 1”  with: “Engine 1 that was still running”  (corrected in eighth reprint)

Page 283

9 lines from bottom.  Replace “faulted” with “faltered”   (thanks Ian Hughes)    (corrected in seventh reprint)

Page 293

6th line from top. Last word. Change “my” to “Michael’s” (corrected in fourth reprint)

Page 295

2nd line. Change “Charlie 32 (C32)” to “Charlie 23 (C23)”    Thank you Valeriya M.  (current)

Page 304

7th line from bottom, Change “melancholy” to “melancholic”   (corrected in fourth reprint)

Page 305

Line 12, replace “remote” with “ram”   (thanks Tom Hughes)  (corrected in third reprint)

Page 317

Line 6, replace “lead” with “led”   (corrected in seventh reprint)

Last line, Replace: ” almost 600″ with ” 650″    (corrected in eleventh reprint)

Page 322

Line 12 replace “spare” with “spar” (corrected in first reprint)

Page 323

Second paragraph, last sentence.  Replace sentence starting with “Spraying form …”  with “Spraying foam into the engine stopped it.  However in a sad twist, the corrosive foam then slowly destroyed the engine while the aircraft sat for months under investigators’ control.”  (current)

Page 327

Line 8, last word, Change “safety.” to “safely.”  (corrected in first reprint)

Page 329

Line 12, Replace “been recognised in” with “received this award in”  (thanks Rick Darby, FSF)   (corrected in seventh reprint)

Page 349

line 10, replace “Remote” with “Ram”  (thanks Tom Hughes)   (corrected in third reprint)

Page 350

Line 12. Replace “High compression” with “High (14 stage) compression”   (corrected in tenth reprint)
Line 13. Replace “twin turbo-charged” with “triple spool”   (corrected in tenth reprint)

Page 352

Four Years Later” page added (added in thirteenth reprint)

Page 354

6th line from bottom. Change “Raef” to “Rafe”  (sorry Rafe!)   (corrected in first reprint)

Page 355

Second paragraph:  Replace “John Conelly” with “John Connolly”  (corrected in first reprint))

After “Mentors and support: ” add “Jan Chesterfield-Evans” (corrected in sixth reprint)

61 comments

  1. Good day Captain,
    I’ve only just now noticed a little detail here. On page 149, when Matt is requesting pushback clearance, it says Bay Charlie 23. But at the top of page 295, it says “…bay Charlie 32, the gate we’d departed from more than four hours earlier”. That’s not the same number.
    Regards,
    Valeriya

    1. You are correct Valeriya. The correct bay is C23. Thank you for finding this error. It will be fixed in the next reprint. Rich

  2. Malcolm Young · · Reply

    On page 334 of Richard’s wonderful book QF32 it states David didn’t pass Richard’s route check. I cannot understand why given Richard’s outstanding leadership qualities displayed and actions taken on this flight. Maybe I have missed the point somewhere but would appreciate if this decision could be explained please.

    1. When the check crew joined the flight team, this effectively cancels the flight check, as the check crew are now active members on the flight deck. So Richard didn’t actually fail, the cheek wasn’t completed A big difference. This comment has been made on several forums

    2. I would love an explanation of this too. I imagine it will be some ‘technicality’ like ‘did not complete flight to planned destination’ – despite doing the most amazing flying in its place!

  3. Peter Swan · · Reply

    Richard, I agree with you. I don’t believe the use of the term ‘joystick’ commenced in the computer era as my brother learnt to fly on a Victa Airtourer in the 1960’s which had a joystick instead of the normal flight controls which were used on Cessna 150’s etc.

  4. Peter Finlay · · Reply

    Its seems that French pilot, Robert Esnault-Pelterie, the inventor of the single control column system for aircraft in the early 1900s, may have used the term. However, Robert Loraine apparently coined the term in his diary when he went to Pau to learn to fly at Blériot’s school. The name came via the term “George Stick” from A.E. George.

  5. Wolfgang · · Reply

    Page 3, bottom: “I turned back (…) my hands around the joystick.” It’s about the Winjeel, designed and build in 194x. To my knowledge, the term “joystick” comes from computer lingo, and I doubt that it was 34 years ago already used as a synonym for “control stick”.

    1. Thanks for your feedback Wolfgang.

      I will research it further back in time, but suffice to reply that I and my compatriots used the term “Joy Stick” throughout my time in the RAAF in the 1970s and 1980s.

      Best Regards

      Rich

    2. Wolfgang · · Reply

      Self correction to “joystick”: The name “joystick” is thought to originate with early 20th century French pilot Robert Esnault-Pelterie. The use of the term “joystick” in connetcion with the Winjeel is correct.

  6. Mike Dunn · · Reply

    Great read Richard!

    I have always been an ‘Anti Airbus’ armchair pilot! I have heard so many negative comments from close relatives who fly for airlines about Airbus products…the pick of the comments is “In Boeing the computer helps the pilot fly the aeroplane – In an Airbus the poor blahdy pilot helps the pilot fly the aeroplane”.

    Subsequent ‘incidents’ with Airbus all over the world seem have born this out…there have been some real horror stories about ‘computers taking away control from pilots’ or on board computers being compromised by ‘sticky’ pitot heads etc.

    Consequentially, I have avoided Airbuses like the plague!!!

    Your great work on QF32 (plus a few other incidents with QANTAS A330s etc. has changed all that for me)

    Previous ‘incidents’ with QANTAS 330s etc. have reiterated my firm belief that the Boys & Girls who fly for QANTAS will always get errant airplanes back on the ground, right way up, passengers safe & sound!

    I am now a convert to Airbus, but I will stick to flying with QANTAS…just in case!

    Kind regards

    Mike Dunn
    Breakfast Point

    I was an honorary member of 77 Squadron and AVIOR for a while. I am a Military Historian. Ex Artillery and Armour.

    1. Dear Mike,

      I am glad after reading my book, that you have improved your impressions of, and reduced criticisms about automation on Airbus aircraft .

      Having flown and researched both Boeing and Airbus aircraft for 27 years, I understand the history and legacy designs for jet aircraft.

      I also appreciate why passengers and pilots can be skeptical of aircraft designs that they have not researched nor flown.

      Boeing aircraft evolved from cockpit standards and designs proven during the second world war.

      Airbus took advantage of being a late entrant into aviation. Airbus designed truly revolutionary aircraft using the latest disruptive technology – computers. If I was given access to 1,000 computers and told to design a new aircraft, then I would probably build an aircraft very similar to the Airbus designs. Many of my aviation friends also share these views.

      All complex high technology machines that operate in a high risk environment MUST be flown and commanded by well trained, knowledgeable and experienced pilots working in effective teams. Thus the best reviews and comparisons of Boeing and Airbus designs come from professionals who have flown both types.

      At the end of the day I hold the highest regards for all Boeing and Airbus aircraft. All new Boeing and Airbus designs now incorporate similar and impressive automation capabilities that have made aviation progressively safer for the flying public. Indeed my Big Jets book will explain why (despite the stories from FBW skeptics) Boeing and Airbus Fly-By-Wire aircraft are both about nine times safer (based on hull losses) than non FBW aircraft.

      Best Regards

      Rich

  7. Rupert Hewison · · Reply

    Fantastic read!

    I love the A380 and couldn’t wait for them to be cleared to fly asap after the QF32 event as I was booked to fly on one to London in mid-December 2010.

    Pity the CVR only looped the last 2 hours of last running engine. Why can’t a modern aircraft like the A380 have a CVR that records from first person in cockpit to last person out? Surely there is technical ability/capacity? Is it some kind of privacy thing agreed with pilots? The 2 hour ‘limit’ has foiled several air crash/incident investigations. When will it / can it / be extended?

    I hope you and yours are well and happy.

    1. Dear Rupert, thanks for your kind words.

      All the pilots and passengers were very keen to get back into the A380. In fact I think that the A380 has now been stressed tested more than any other aircraft, so it’s reputation of redundancy has been proved. Indeed I imagine that Airbus sales people do not get asked how resilient the A380 is any more!

      I believe that the industry is now moving to multi-channel CVRs that must cover the entire flight duration. This is no longer a technological challenge so we should see improved CVRs fitted soon.

      Best Regards, Rich

  8. Hi Rich,
    Thanks for your definitive reply about the correct technical name for the Trent 900 – (RB 211 Trent 900).

    I was previously more suspicious of Wikipedia but use it more often these days but only with a proper sense of skepticism. Their entry on Rolls Royce is much more historical and informative for general reading than the Rolls Royce website.

    Indeed, a search of the Rolls Royce website would probably lead a “reasonable person” to conclude that the RB211 and the Trent 900 are not the same engine and as you point out the RB -211 prefix has finally been dropped with the advent of the Trent 1000.

    As a lapsed private pilot who likes to “fly the computer” your book (QF32) was very helpful during our session on the A-320 simulator at Bankstown recently in describing certain aircraft features such as auto trim.

    Regards, Mark

  9. Leona Ross · · Reply

    I too, loved Richard’s book. And I too, would love to know why he “failed” his route check! Huh? If that’s failure, the Qantas standards must surely be set too high.

    Also, Richard’s consideration of the climb to 10,000 feet may have been the only thing to save the aircraft if all engines had failed.

  10. Hi Rich,

    p 126, Chapter 12 is where you refer to “the latest Rolls Royce engine, the RB 211 Trent 900.”

    Wikipedia says the RB 211 was officially superseded in the 1990s by the RR Trent family of engines, the conceptual offspring of the RB 211. What amazing machines they are anyway !!

    1. Hi Mark,

      Thanks for your feedback.

      I will never trust Wikipedia as a valid reference.

      I also never want to be convicted of being overconfident. So here are a few references to support my case that the Trent 900 is indeed an RB211:

      1. EASA RB211 Trent 900 TYPE-CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET

      2. FAA RB211 Trent 900 TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET

      3. The Rolls-Royce marketing department also adds that:
      “The Trent 900 is designated as an “RB211 Trent 900”. The Trent 1000 is the first Trent to drop the RB211 designation. The RB211/Trent is an evolutionary transition. There is no design philosophy change that differentiates a Trent from an RB211.”

      So in summary, the RB211 is a three spool specification (first bench tested in 1968 and flown in 1972) that has persited to this day. The Trent is just a development from that spec.

      Again, thanks for your comments Mark.

      Rich

  11. John Whitehead · · Reply

    Hello Richard.

    A truly remarkable feat and an incredible story making a great read!

    I’m not an avid reader, but couldn’t put QF32 down on a recent holiday in Bali.

    I’m actually a Captain, be it of the Marine kind, and your book brings similar incidents to mind. Although I’m not in danger of falling out of the sky, similar issues arise and I’ve been confronted with being lost at sea.

    My sister has been a dedicated Qantas employee for 29 years now, still going strong, so I have a soft spot for the company.

    Well done with the recent success of the book, and may the future bring you and the team of QF32 lots of happiness.

    1. Dear John,

      Thank you for your kind thoughts.

      We aviators, astronauts and nautical types all share a common bond – for we are a band of brothers having fate as the hunter and we understand that our survival relies on the other extraordinary people in our crews pooling their knowledge, training and experience such that we can survive the unexpected and unthinkable events that nature and high technology occasionally thrusts at us, usually at the worst times when the checklists have been “sucked out the window on a dark and stormy night” and when our friends and support are too far away.

      I’ve had allegiance to sea-air-space my whole life. Coral and I created our first company in 1986 “Aeronaut” (Aero.. Naut..) that persists today.

      Safe travels and good health … Rich

  12. Dear Richard,

    Congratulations on the book award and to you and your team for averting a disaster in the first instance!!

    I thought that while the Trent series engines are descendants of RB-211’s they are not the same…..

    Regards,

    Mark Cameron

    1. Hi Mark, Thanks for your kind words.

      What page are you reading re the RB211?

      To make this more clear:

      • All Trents are of the RB211 (three spool) design,
      • The “Trent” to an “RB211” is like a Ford “XF” car is to a “Falcon”, or in software speak
      • The Trent 900 is one of five Trent instances of the RB211 object (specification).

      Does this description satisfy you? You’ll have to wait for my big jets book if you want to go deeper.

      Best

      Rich

  13. Mike Sharpe · · Reply

    QF32 was a fantastic read.

    Thank you very much for the insights it contains and the openness with which it was written! I’m looking forward to the blog update about your route check.

    One very small correction – P204 line 7, I assume “flight desk” should be “flight deck”?

    1. Absolutely correct Mike! Thank you for your help correcting the errors!

      Rich

  14. Mike Barker · · Reply

    I’m interested to hear in the follow-up report about the “I didn’t pass” comment! Great flight! Great book!

  15. Great read.

    This comment is a bit trivial but at page 145 you said “I don’t wear a watch”. Then at page 293 you wrote: “I looked at my watch”.

    1. Thanks for the kind words.

      Well done for finding my obvious error in the first three editions. Please read above (on this page) Corrections – page 293

  16. As a retired Aviation Fire officer I was very interested in the whole event. When I heard the story on “60 Minutes” I could not understand why the passengers were not evacuated immediately. As a firie this is the understanding that once the aircraft stops then the passengers normally are expected to evacuate immediately. When I received and read the book I understood your decision. I appreciate that it is the captains decision when to do so but I consider that in these circumstances that control of the evacuating passengers would have been in the hands of the cabin crew on the ground and airport staff. But as is stated the decision was made and it worked out well so who could ask for more.

    1. Thanks for your comments. It’s a judgement call, using every bit of knowledge, experience and dynamic situation awareness. Others might have done a better job. It’s good to study all evacuation events – for example the evacuation of VS27, an A330 at Gatewick on 14 Apr 2012 bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17736438

  17. Mike Cuming C Eng MRAeS - retired · · Reply

    There was a sequel to this “incident” when we wanted to reproduce the incipient failure on the test bed, with temperature and vibration instrumentation installed on the No 5 bearing. The bearing cage had been cut to make it happen and the test instructions were to shut down immediately the temp went above a certain figure. But the test crew must have gone to sleep on this one. So the failure was fully reproduced, the turbine wheel came out sideways and ran around the cell until it broke through into the adjacent cell and smashed a Sapphire engine to pieces! As they say, “.. the best laid plans of mice and men”!

  18. Mike Cuming C Eng MRAeS - retired · · Reply

    In about 1964, when I was still an Engineering Cadet with Bristol Siddeley Engines, the RAFs Vulcan bomber was powered by four twin spool Olympus engines. Aft of the combustion chamber, an intershaft (number 5) bearing was located between the HP and LP shafts. This bearing was lubricated from the very end of the shafts, a marginal situation by any standards. When the lubrication failed one time, the bearing overheated and the shafts went plastic, resulting in a turbine wheel (I forget which one) exiting the aircraft through a big hole! Some Vulcans had a periscope for the flight deck to view aft, but not this one, so they were unaware of the damage. The crew attempted unsuccessfully to re-light the engine, before landing safely. There was negligible secondary damage to the aircraft. Just thought you might find this interesting.

    1. Thanks Mike, this is very interesting. There is a lot of thought put into engine design using every bit of knowledge and experience gained since Frank Whittle fired up his first jet engine in 1937.

      I’d like to think that we learn from every event – the statistics show the jet engine to fail only one in every 300,000 hours (civil). That’s a remarkable achievement

  19. Stephen Phillip · · Reply

    On page 256, it should be “Kai Tak”, not “Kai Tac”.
    Thanks for writing such a thoroughly engrossing account of this incident!

    1. Thanks Stephen. This will be corrected in the next reprint. Rich

  20. Ian Hughes · · Reply

    Thank you Captain de Crespigny (and your crew) for your remarkable effort, and thank you for a wonderful refreshingly frank book. I predict many reprints. Page 283 9 lines from bottom may have an example of misinterpreted dictation – “faulted” for “faltered”.
    Best wishes, Ian Hughes

    1. Ian thank you for your kind thoughts.

      I have to agree with you re “faulted” versus “faltered”. Thank you! Rich

  21. A fantastic read and a wonderful story of CRM as well as supreme pilotage. I am unsure by what you mean by “Twin turbo-charged” when referring to the Trent 900 in the appendices p. 350. In the narrative on p. 152 you say “…each engines’ bleed valves closed to engage the 113,000 horsepower turbochargers.” Would not they be classified as “Turbo fan” engines and the fans were engaged by the bleed valves?

    1. Hi Peter,

      The Trent 900 is a three spool engine.

      The Low Pressure shaft is driven by the LP Turbine, and drives the Fan. There is no engine compression benefit from the fan.

      The intermediate and high pressure compressors are driven by their respective turbines mounted on independent shafts. These two compressors have bleed valves (called wastegates on turbocharged cars) to match the inter-compressor flows at low speeds and to prevent the engine surging during deceleration. So, if the bleed valves are open whilst the engine is at idle prior takeoff, then they close (and the Variable Inlet Guide Vanes (VIGVs) open) as the thrust levers are advanced and the engine spins up to achieve takeoff thrust.

      The bleed valves remain closed and the VIGVs remain open when the engine is in a steady state above medium thrust levels. I hope this helps.

      The following graphs are a more complex, but summarise the effects of Bleed Valves and VIGVs on the “working” and “surge” lines.
      Bleed Valve and Variable Inlet Guide Vane effects (Compressor Map)
      (From “The Jet Engine”, by Rolls Royce, p 80)

      Rich

  22. Brendan McConnell · · Reply

    Dear Richard,
    What a fabulous book, I thought it was inspiring. You managed a extremely difficult situation and delivered a first class result. As a dedicated Qantas flyer, reading your book reinforces my belief’s that I always fly Qantas because you know the the “guy” up front is the best trained pilot in the world. It was great to see that some of your RAAF training also kicked at the right time.

    The outcome you delivered will no doubt be recogonised a one of the greatest aviation feats as the damage to the aircraft is really difficult to appreciate with so many systems out or degraded.

    Congratulations to you and the other team members.

    Regards Brendan McConnell

    1. Hi Brendon, thanks for your kind thoughts. I am very proud of the crew and will pass on your comments.

      The answer to your question will be published later. Please follow the answers by completing the info at “FOLLOW BLOG VIA EMAIL” at the top right side of this page.

  23. Linda Emery · · Reply

    Dear Richard,

    I have just finished reading QF32 – a wonderful read, particularly for a nervous flyer. I have taken a lot away from your account but mainly: unreserved praise for the whole crew, I will not be afraid of flying again and always fly Qantas if I can.

    QF32 should be a compulsory ‘text’ for media commentators to show them why we should all support our national carrier.

    Best Regards Linda Emery

    1. Linda thank you very much for your kind words. I am thrilled that nervous fliers can get some relief from my book.

      Thanks also for the correction. Just when I thought it was almost correct!

      Kind Regards

      Rich

  24. Oliver Descoeudres · · Reply

    A rivetting read – didn’t realise from the media at the time how many systems were impacted by the engine failure. One puzzling fact: on p.334 you state that you “didn’t pass” the route check. You also stated “Either Dave or Harry could end my career that day with a “fail” on the route”. Yet six days later you were cleared to fly and I believe continued to fly? Was the comment made in jest… and if not, on what was basis did you fail the “route check”? (I note a similar question was posed above with a possible reason.)

    1. I will post the complete answer to this shortly. Please register for the answers by selecting: “FOLLOW BLOG VIA EMAIL” at the top right of this page.

  25. David Newport · · Reply

    I’m a former editor, and I didn’t pick up any of the items listed here. I was too engrossed in the story. Thank you for this brilliant account. I am in awe of the professionalism of you, your crew, all involved in this event, and the designers and engineers at Airbus and Rolls-Royce.

    1. Dear David. Thanks for your feedback. You acknowledged what was my chief goal in my book; to ensure that the reputations of all parties were correctly reflected and protected, and that that the QF32 story be perceived as a story of personal and team success for:

        Passengers (and the travelling public),
        Airbus,
        Rolls-Royce,
        My Airline, and the
        Pilots and Cabin Crew.
  26. Ken Davis · · Reply

    Page 77.

    Peter Gibbes, not Peter Gibbs

    1. Thanks Ken, of course you are correct. I hope you have read “The forgotten giant of Australian Aviation” – a great story about ANA (with lessons for others). Rich

  27. Graham Taylor · · Reply

    Page 334, last sentence re flight check “I didn’t pass.” I assume that was because the check captain had to take part in the flight, thus relinquishing his check captain status, rather than you failing what was a flight test beyond compare. Loved the book, read it in one long sitting, couldn’t put it down. PPL & amateur aircraft builder

  28. Hello Richard,

    I was fascinated to read your account as I have spent a large part of my working life as one of the many software engineers working on various incarnations of Trent EEC.

    I was staggered to read of your inability to shut down engine 1; having written some code for the master lever and knowing that it’s available via discretes to both EEC channels AND over ARINC AND it’s directly wired to the HPSOV anyway…incredible that so much redundancy should be wiped out. So many questions; so little time!

    I think another reader has suggested a similar idea on the website but a more detailed account would be fascinating – a “director’s cut” if you like or even a detailed audio version of it, narrated by your good self, would be fascinating to listen to.

    Above all though, congratulations to all involved; you all richly deserve the praise you are receiving.

    Best wishes to you all…

    1. Anthony thank you for your kind thoughts. Perhaps the full extent of the damage has not been fully exposed yet. As per page 318 “[the ATSB report is] guaranteed to be a fantastic read with many surprising revelations”.

  29. Steven Cook · · Reply

    As a ex RAAF Medical Assistant i worked out that there were a few places where we may have crossed paths in the past. Your book is an outstanding read. A thing that the RAAF taught me is preparedness to put steely focus into critical situations. Thanks for inserting your comments re PTSD. No person should feel without help when it is needed.

  30. Great read!!!! Thankyou!!
    Just wondering about airspeed limits page 348.. Vmo/Mmo 310/0.89? should that be 510/M0.89?
    regards
    Peter

    1. Hi Peter. Thanks for your feedback. The 310 limit is in knots (nautical miles per hour). The unit is shown at the top of the grid on that page. In case you are interested, the reduction of VMO from 340 kts to 310 kts is to provide an increased margin to the overspeed condition. Rich

  31. Bernard (Bernie) Samms · · Reply

    Hi Richard, I just love the book. Been flying lighties for 20 years now and represented Australia in formation flying (not in Macchi jets though). I noticed some of the errors above and just wanted to point out what is not an error but is more a spelling argument. I think the most accepted spelling in English (not US) is “ageing” not “aging” as spelt in P86 in regard to B747 Classic engines.

    Regards

    Bernie

    Hi Bernie,
    I am a pilot not an Grammarian. So I have passed this to Pan Macmillan for consideration.
    Their verdict – you are correct. THANKS FOR YOUR FEEDBACK!
    Best Regards – Rich

  32. Ian Bartley · · Reply

    Last photo before p279. Not an error per se, but it would be good if the aircraft was a Qantas A380 rather than SQ.

    1. Ian I understand and share your passion for Qantas, however a good photo is a good photo. I am intentionally pleased to have this photo in the book, and I do not consider it a mistake needing a correction. Rich

  33. Michael Baker · · Reply

    Richard,

    There is no ‘100’ on page 162 !

    Michael Baker

    1. Thank you Michael – my mistake. It was meant to be page 266, but in another twist, that correction was made just before the first print, so the mistake never appeared. Thank you for your feedback! Rich

  34. Grge Michael · · Reply

    Great book about a fantastic feat of flying. I don’t have page ref at moment but towards the end of the book, “spare” is used when I believe “spar” is what was meant. I think it was in reference to damage to wing “spar”

    1. Thanks Grge. We had found the error earlier but I had forgotten to included it in the Errors & Omissions list. All fixed now! Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s