Qantas A388 at Sydney and Dallas on Jan 7th 2026, maintenance light forgotten in left wing

Last Update: August 31, 2026 / 14:06:02 GMT/Zulu time

Bookmark this article

Photo of Qantas VH-OQK, Airbus A380-800 — Qantas VH-OQK, Airbus A380-800 (Photo credit: ATom.UK / Flickr / License: CC by-sa)

Incident Facts

Date of incident
Jan 7, 2026

Classification
Incident

Airline
Qantas

Flight number
QF-7

Departure
Sydney, Australia

Destination
Dallas Ft. Worth, United States

Aircraft Registration
VH-OQK

Aircraft Type
Airbus A380-800

ICAO Type Designator
A388

A Qantas Airbus A380-800, registration VH-OQK performing flight QF-7 from Sydney,NS (Australia) to Dallas Ft. Worth,TX (USA) with 485 passengers and 26 crew, departed Sydney's runway 34L and landed on Dallas' runway 18L about 14.5 hours later after a seemingly uneventful flight.

Subsequently the aircraft performed the return flight QF-8 also seemingly uneventful for a safe landing in Sydney.

However, the ATSB reported prior to the flight to Dallas the aircraft had arrived from Los Angeles into Sydney and needed maintenance on one of the air conditioning systems requiring access to the left wing. A maintenance light was forgotten inside the wing and travelled to Dallas and back to Sydney before being discovered. The occurrence was rated an incident and is being investigated.

The ATSB released their final report concluding the probable causes of the incident were:

Contributing factors

- The aircraft maintenance engineers and licensed aircraft maintenance engineer did not observe a work light that remained in the left wing during their foreign object clearance inspections following maintenance on the aircraft air conditioning system.

- In part due to the type of tool used during the temperature sensor change, and the follow-on troubleshooting needed on the auxiliary power unit, the aircraft maintenance engineer returned the tools to the tool crib without realising that the work light was still signed out and not returned.

- The licensed aircraft maintenance engineer issued a certificate of release to service with a tool unaccounted for. As a result, the aircraft flew 2 sectors with the work light in the left wing.

- Qantas Engineering’s maintenance information system did not have an
automated way to identify to the certifier, prior to issuing the certificate of release to service, that tools used on the aircraft were unreturned or that the unreturned tool report had not been actioned. (Safety issue)

Other factors that increased risk

- At the end of the shift, it was not identified that a tool had not been returned and remained signed out to the aircraft maintenance engineer.

The ATSB analysed:

Foreign object clearance inspections and tool return

At the conclusion of the maintenance task to change the outlet temperature sensor on the air generation unit inside the left wing of the Airbus A380, aircraft maintenance engineer (AME) 1, AME 2 and the licensed aircraft maintenance engineer (LAME) did not observe the work light that remained in the left wing during their foreign object clearance inspections. It’s likely that the work light was not identified in part due to:

- The work light had been selected off when the crew went to the cockpit to run the air conditioning unit.

- The confined workspace within the wing with low lighting combined with the work light colours making it difficult to visually identify.

- The high temperature within the confined workspace likely reducing the time spent conducting the clearance inspections.

Given the unplanned interruption and additional maintenance activity related to the auxiliary power unit (APU), it is likely that when AME 1 later returned the tools to the tool crib, they had reduced ability to recall all items used during the outlet temperature sensor replacement. Additionally, this ability to recall the tools used in the task was likely also influenced by the work light not being a tool physically used in the task, but rather a passive tool used to illuminate the workspace.

At the conclusion of the shift, neither AME 1 or their supervisor identified that the work light had not been returned and remained signed out to AME 1. The ATSB was unable to identify if the unreturned tool report was reviewed at the conclusion of the shift or the light was missed during the review. While the CRS had already been issued and the aircraft had departed for Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) prior to the end of the shift, the end of shift tool return check represented another opportunity where the work light could have been identified as missing and removed while on the ground at DFW.

Unreturned tool report check

At the completion of maintenance, following the clearance inspections and prior to issuing the certificate of release to service (CRS), the unreturned tool report was the preferred means for the certifier to account for all tooling used during maintenance. While this process was well known and routinely performed by the LAME, they later realised that on this occasion they had not generated and reviewed the unreturned tool report for the aircraft prior to issuing the CRS.

This omission, within a routinely performed task, was likely influenced in part by attention being diverted during the departure preparations for the aircraft, whereby the LAME had an unexpected maintenance task, and they were supervising the AMEs while concurrent pre-flight activities were being conducted. Consequently, the CRS was issued with the work light unaccounted for and the aircraft flew 2 sectors with the work light in the left wing.

The action of checking the unreturned tool report, prior to issuing a CRS, was documented within the engineering procedures and was well known to the LAME. This procedure did, however, create the requirement for engineers to manually initiate and review the unreturned tool report within the maintenance information system (MXI). This made the process vulnerable to omissions whereby a CRS could be issued without review of the unreturned tool report. Furthermore, the design of the MXI system meant that there was no way to prompt or identify to the certifier that either tools were still signed out to the aircraft or that the unreturned tool report had not been reviewed.