Voyager Plummets (Merged)

[red zebra]

cessnapete They wouldn't ground Voyager it's a mature civil airframe??

They have now after the incident yesterday, fleet is grounded as I understand it. A lot of folks having an unscheduled holiday in Turkey :uhoh:

[Wander00]

So do we take it Voyager has a "problem"?

[cessnapete]

Presumably,as AirTanker a civil company and some Voyagers operating on UK civil registration, it has to promptly report serious incidents to UK CAA for the info of civil operators of similar types. So there should be a prompt interim report soon?
Similar civil types do not appear to have been grounded.

[red zebra]

So do we take it Voyager has a "problem"?
8000ft decent in 30 secs, pax injuries, counsellors on scene, yep I think there was a problem

[lj101]

Similar civil types do not appear to have been grounded.

They've not been modified though.

[Wander00]

That does not sound good- hope quick recovery for those hurt

[tubby linton]

"8000ft decent in 30 secs"- 16000ft/min, that is more than AF447 achieved when fully stalled..
The story is now out in cyberspace.
Voyager Aircraft Grounded after plane plummets | British Forces News (http://web202.ssvc.com/news/articles/raf/2166)

[WE992]

I'm led to believe that the civy registered one that goes to the Falklands is still flying and that its the ones with mil regs that are grounded. Either way it's another case of all your eggs in one basket and when it goes wrong your left with nothing.

[Just This Once...]

8000ft or 2000ft?

[rockape2k7]

The latter.

[BEagle]

Such masterly understated prose from the MoD!

According to the statement, several passengers received 'minor injuries' and all military Voyager flying has been 'temporarily suspended' whilst this incident is 'fully investigated'.

Something serious enough to have caused passenger injuries and subsequently for the fleet to be grounded sounds to me to have been rather more than 'an in-flight issue'................

Perhaps we'll be seeing the TriShaw around for a while longer yet?

[Blue Bottle]

This issue seems to have not made the news as far as Air Tanker are concerned..

Archive | AirTanker (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/news-centre/archive/2014/02)

[pma 32dd]

The 330 does have previous if it's this kind of event..

Qantas Flight 72 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_72)

[red zebra]

From someone who was onboard, they were told 8000ft at the time, so severe was the sudden descent her ipad was ripped from her grasp and the screen smashed on the overheads. Told it was an autopilot issue at the time

[TheWizard]

, so severe was the sudden descent her ipad was ripped from her grasp and the screen smashed on the overheads.


Along with numerous laptops, expensive camera equipment, designer watches..... :}

[BEagle]

red zebra, perhaps it was a rate of descent of 8000 ft/min? Which would have meant an event of around 15s, before the aircraft could be recovered from the descent.

Blue Bottle, see: Incident 9/2/14: Flight between RAF Brize Norton and Camp Bastion (http://www.airtanker.co.uk/news-centre/news-item/2014/02/12/incident-9-2-14-flight-between-raf-brize-norton-and-camp-bastion) although it doesn't say very much. But so far, only MoD has stated that the military Voyager fleet is grounded....

TheWizard, I doubt whether those injured and scared witless in this air incident would find your 'humour' particuarly welcome.

No doubt this news won't be terribly welcome at the Singapore Air Show SINGAPORE: Airbus defence unit targets new sales, then airlift rival - 2/12/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-airbus-defence-unit-targets-new-sales-then-airlift-395850/) :uhoh:

[Blue Bottle]

BEagle - Thanks that was added quick then, maybe they do read this site..:ok:

[airsound]

BBC News - RAF plane 'grounded' due to 'in-flight issue' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26157641)
Only those Voyagers fitted with military Defensive Aid Suites or air-to-air refuelling have been affected.

[airsound]

Thanks Beags - I hadn't realised (obviously). Perhaps the mentions of this event are a bit, shall we say, oblique in the Trimotor thread?

Was going to close this, but perhaps I'll wait and see....

[Wholigan]

Best I can do I think.

[airsound]

Thanks Dr W - good job!

[freshgasflow]

BBC report: The RAF has "grounded" its fleet of military Voyager transport planes following, what the Ministry of Defence calls an "in-flight issue" .

The BBC has been told a Voyager carrying British troops back to Afghanistan dropped a few thousand feet while in Turkish airspace.

More details:
BBC News - RAF planes 'grounded' after 'in-flight issue' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26157641)

[kristofera]

Any similarities with QF72...?

[Minosavy Masta]

Sounds similar doesn't it, the QF 72 incident was pinned down to miss matched ADC ,s. Being installed. Apparently batch numbers are critical .

[Redcarpet]

At least the RAF's TriStar fleet, which for all it's faults doesn't have a habit of falling out of the sky, isn't due to be retired in a few weeks. Doh :ugh:

[jackharr]

Deliberate rapid descent due pressurisation issues perhaps?

[cornish-stormrider]

Rule one glad the pax are ok, ish.

Rule two all eggs in over expensive basket means much egg on face as well as hat when issue bites you on the bum

[enola-gay]

The Voyager on the Civilian Aircraft Register is apparently not grounded. That is the one that does the twice weekly airbridge BZZ to ASI and MPN. What is the difference? Refuelling pods?

[OafOrfUxAche]

Are the shares in Airw*nker now plummeting at a similar rate?

[airsound]

I do wonder if, when those bright-eyed beancounters and marketing young turks decided on Airtanker as a name, they even considered what the brutal and licentious aircrew might make of it at the first sign of a cockup.

Welcome to this planet, dears.

[Uncle Ginsters]

The Voyager on the Civilian Aircraft Register is apparently not grounded. That is the one that does the twice weekly airbridge BZZ to ASI and MPN. What is the difference? Refuelling pods?


The answer to that surely depends on how cynical you want to be?

The Mil registered ac have different software to include AAR calculations, so it could be particular to those ac.

If Airbus Mil ground the G-reg fleet as well, then that's a tacit admission of a wider problem (Quantas QF72?) and your share price takes a hit...you choose :ok:

[higthepig]

They are not grounded, they are just conducting an operational pause............

[Always a Sapper]

Have they scrapped all the 10's yet or is there any left sat in a hanger / corner of an airfield somewhere?

[BEagle]

The Mil registered ac have different software to include AAR calculations, so it could be particular to those ac.


Not so, Uncle Ginsters! By now, Voyager certainly should have a Mission System, which delivers AAR planning and management, but as the system still doesn't work, it hasn't yet been incorporated.

Whereas the A310MRTT had a specifically mandated requirement for the Mission System to be standalone and emphatically not to be capable of interfering with the (non-FBW) core aircraft software. As a result, it works well - as does the A310MRTT, of course.

The A330MRTT has, as I understand it, a modified AFS whereas the 'green' civil A330 aircraft operated by AirTanker are simply normal A330-243 aircraft painted grey.

If only Airbus Military had taken a leaf out of Airbus (Hamburg)'s book and simply converted the A330 to include minimum necessary modifications (such as the A310 Mission System) - preferably NOT in Spain, the RAF would by now have had a more reliable, simpler and more effective tanker. But someone let clever-devil engineering geeks loose on the design and the current bolleaux is but one result....

It will be very interesting to learn how software assurance will be provided to MAA concerning the audit trail of the A330 Mission System if/when it is ever considered ready....:rolleyes:

[mr snow]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Airbus/Airbus Military have not grounded the Voyager Fleet. The RAF have. As far as I am aware, the other nations flying the MRTT are still operating.

[Saintsman]

I've not been involved with AirTanker for a number of years, but the original intension was to modify all the aircraft and then remove (de-role) the military equipment for those on the civil register.

If the civvy version is still flying, has it undergone the conversion or is it an 'original' A330?

[El_Presidente]

The vicious rumour mill at BZN was 11000 ft/min - lost 8000ft over 45 seconds before the handling pilot pulled himself off the cockpit ceiling and managed to regain control.

It's a rumour, but is certainly persistent.

Similar rate of descent to that of Air France.

[Al R]

Good drills, well done him/her.

[Willard Whyte]

before the handling pilot pulled himself off the cockpit ceiling and managed to regain control.


One wonders why (s)he wasn't strapped in...

(Although I've no doubt the rumours are just that)

[Onceapilot]

It is a pity the Scottish AF have already bought the TriStars ! ;)

[greenhornet]

Keep the information flowing if you have any. Lets not allow Airbus Military to keep hiding things like they have with the boom departures.

[captplaystation]

Not stirring the sh1t (god forbid) but given the number of A330's in military service versus civil use, shouldn't this (perhaps) have been left in "Rumours & News" ? for the wider A330 driver population. . . guessing here that it is an A330 issue & not a dirty dive to avoid an errant refuelling wallah ? ?

[awblain]

I hope there are some swingeing penalty clauses in the PFI contract.

[GreenKnight121]

As for the Q72 incident: an inflight accident[/URL] featuring a pair of sudden uncommanded pitch[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_%28aviation%29"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accident)-down manoeuvres that resulted in serious injuries to many of the occupants.

Just what you want for your air-tanker when you have an A400M "plugged in"!

[Capn Bloggs]

bfhJaPVQ-Iw

[Dr Schlong]

In case there is still any confusion, the Voyagers that fly towlines and Herrick airbridge are grounded but the A330s that aren't Voyagers, fly the MPA airbridge, don't fly towlines but still use the callsign "Towline" are still flying...

Glad all are safely home. It's a good job this happened now whilst the TriMotors are still around to help out and not a few months down the line when we really will only have the one basket for egg storage. When's the 216 disbandment due again?

[Swiss Cheese]

The QF72 incident arose from the Northrop made ADIRU not filtering out signal spikes. A software/algorithm error was suspected. The ATSB did an in-depth investigation and their several reports make interesting reading. The problem was supposedly fixed, although the QF 330 fleet apparently switched ADIRU units to the competitor product fairly swiftly.

The QF72 legal cases settled on confidential terms with Airbus and Northrop in Chicago, Illinois.

[BEagle]

The QF72 report can be viewed at http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3532398/ao2008070.pdf .

awblain wrote:I hope there are some swingeing penalty clauses in the PFI contract.

While I consider the whole concept of PFI for primary military requirements to be utter folly, this event seems to have been a technical issue which, short of any maintenance error, would surely be outside the control of the PFI service provider.

As compared with the civil A330, Voyager has a modified AFS. Whether or not the software modifications, installation and certification have any relevance in this incident will doubtless be considered during the investigation.

I would imagine that decisions regarding TriStar are being made at high level - just as they were when the last VC10K3s had to soldier on beyond their intended OSD due to delay in the Voyager programme.

[orgASMic]

At the risk of injecting some facts into a rumour site, for those at work on Dii with access to ASIMS the initial report from the Captain is now at this URL:

http://www.asims.r.mil.uk/viewfsor.html?fromList=&id=176979

[tubby linton]

Stop teasing orgASMic tell us what you know please.

[Winnerhofer]

RAF grounds all Voyager planes after one aircraft plummets several thousand feet during flight to Afghanistan | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2557880/RAF-grounds-Voyager-planes-one-aircraft-plummets-thousand-feet-flight-Afghanistan.html)

[1stspotter]

Another post here:

UK’s new Aerial Refueler grounded after Voyager plane plummets 2,000 feet
The Aviationist » UK?s new Aerial Refueler grounded after Voyager plane plummets 2,000 feet (http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/13/raf-voyager-stand-down/)

Seems notorious for incorrect info Daily Mail added 3000 feet to the drop.

[silverstreak]

Really?

Would welcome the Tristar anyday. Solid and reliable and its still going strong...

Long live the Tristar

[BEagle]

From Flight:

AirTanker, which provides the Voyager fleet via the UK’s Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme, describes the incident as having involved “an unscheduled change of flight level”, which occurred while the transport was above Turkey en route to Afghanistan.

An 'unscheduled change of flight level' indeed......:rolleyes:

[Sandy Parts]

An 'unscheduled change of underpants' more like! Amazing how these spin-doctors get away with such cr*p. Perhaps they could be used to describe the current floods "an unscheduled change of river level"? :ugh:

[ShotOne]

Tristar "solid and reliable...."?? Really? In its day, certainly, but of late it's unreliability has been widely reported due to the very publicly-expressed fury of soldiers burning their precious leave waiting for one to become serviceable.

[Capn Bloggs]

it's unreliability has been widely reported due to the very publicly-expressed fury of soldiers burning their precious leave waiting for one to become serviceable.
What sort of a miltary are you guys running over there that burns personal leave 'coz a transport is U/S? :confused:

[Roland Pulfrew]

but of late it's unreliability

Really Shotone? Definition of "of late" please? Maybe 3 years ago, but "of late", not sure.

Oh, and just to clarify, any R&R leave "lost" due to delays in getting home is added to post tour leave, so not actually lost. :=

What sort of a military A very small one. With limited resources and with ever reducing capability.

[jessum1466]

We were told by the pilot that the co pilot had got up to get a drink when the aircraft dropped at an angle of between 20 and 40 degrees, some one said 60 degrees.
At the time we were at 33,000ft flying on auto pilot. I was sitting right at the back of the aircraft and was suddenly lifted out of my seat as far as my belt would allow me, but others ended up on the ceiling. Apparently we were at negative 1.6g The whole event lasted around 40 seconds I think

[BEagle]

Good grief, jessum1466 - that sounds utterly horrendous. Some 'unscheduled change of flight level'.....:eek:

-1.6g (as recorded at the centre of gravity) would mean an even greater negative g value at the back of the aircraft. It must have been very close to structural failure.

A terrifying event which you were lucky to survive - I hope that you won't suffer any lasting trauma.

[Sandy Parts]

wise person - keeping lapbelt 'fastened at all times' ! - maybe that should be mandatory (except while leaving seat to go to the loo)?

[StopStart]

Sorry, but I very much doubt it was "close to structural Failure".
Instantaneous -1.6g against a normal operating limit of -1g isn't a particular structural drama. Severe turbulence encounters can put unsecured occupants on the ceiling without the aircraft falling apart. Obviously very distressing for the passengers and crew but some way off from the aircraft disassembling itself.

The subsequent investigation should make for interesting reading though. I'll be interested to see what particular autoflight/component failure would allow the protection limits to be exceeded like this....

If it ain't Boeing I ain't going.......

[BEagle]

Well, perhaps Stoppers, but this must have been a sustained negative G excursion to have achieved the pitch attitude described. Rather different to an isolated instance of turbulence.


If it ain't a Boeing 787 it ain't going to catch fire.......

[jessum1466]

I don't know about structural failure but the pilot informed us that it took two of them to get the aircraft level again. We did a kind of double dip so had a second very brief 0g.
I have nothing but praise and the greatest admiration for the pilots and cabin crew and have no doubt that they saved our lives. I can only hope that they receive the recognition that all of us believe they should get

[oilygreasemonkey]

First post here, but as a person close to the voyager project i would like to point out a few errors

1) Not sure were the 1.6 g figure is plucked out from but its not quite right

2) AFS itself is not modified, however it receives extra inputs from other black boxes fitted during the mod. However these black boxes were not powered at the time (details from voyager FCOM)

3) The MAA grounded the fleet, so therefore have no say over the civil reg A/C, however all information is being passed to the CAA/EASA

When i can say more, i will, however i will not compromise my job.

[Bob Viking]

Isn't it funny how, before the Voyager entered service, everyone used to say how crap the Tristar was. Now it's all of a sudden viewed as a wonder jet that could single handedly save the RAF AT fleet.
Just an observation.
BV:E

[Onceapilot]

No Bob, it could only save the RAF widebody AT tasks and, it is the total AAR capability as of now!:ok:
TriStar is not a wonder-jet, it was under-resourced and operated in a an undersized fleet by the RAF. However, it is still a very capable airframe and, it could have provided another decade of cheap AT/AAR if a small investment had been made 15 years ago instead of spending £ Billions on FSTA.

OAP

[SteveTonks]

I don't know about structural failure but the pilot informed us that it took two of them to get the aircraft level again.

How could it take both pilots to level a fly by wire aircraft, surely the side stick isn't that heavily weighted?

[Onceapilot]

Well, three pilots failed to fly AF447. RIP:(.

OAP

[BEagle]

oilygreasemonkey, the Voyager certainly does have a modified AFS, which incorporates 'bank angle mode', for example. The modification and installation of the 'other black boxes fitted during the mod.' were completed in Getafé, so the Voyager's AFS is emphatically not the same as that of a 'green' Toulouse A330.

Why would it take 2 pilots? The only reason I can think of is that one pilot might have doubted whether his sidestick was functioning correctly, so might perhaps have handed over control to the other pilot?

[haltonapp]

One can only say that the BOI report will make interesting reading. I am glad all my flying was done in a mandraulic aircraft, and FBW referred to control cables!

[jessum1466]

How could it take both pilots to level a fly by wire aircraft, surely the side stick isn't that heavily weighted?

I'm only going by what the the pilot told us the following day

[oilygreasemonkey]

The A330MRTT has, as I understand it, a modified AFS whereas the 'green' civil A330 aircraft operated by AirTanker are simply normal A330-243 aircraft painted grey.

So first you say you 'as I understand it'

Then you quote something very exact

oilygreasemonkey, the Voyager certainly does have a modified AFS, which incorporates 'bank angle mode', for example.

You clearly know more then you let on.

However I still maintain the that the afs itself is not modified. The bank angle mode you refer to is indeed an extra function which is fitted to the FCU for use during aar. However it's fuction can only be used when the aircraft is in air tanker mode and the signal is generated by the modifications fitted to the mil ac and then sent to the AFS system.

[silverstrata]

haltonapp:
I am glad all my flying was done in a mandraulic aircraft, and FBW referred to control cables!



It it aint Boeing, it aint going...


Cobblers to both comments.

I used to fly a hydraulic Boeing that did the same thing on numerous occasions (not quite to the same degree). Yet another untraceable autopilot error.

Quote: "Tested, found serviceable." "Tested, found serviceable." "Tested, found serviceable." "Tested, found serviceable." "Tested, found serviceable."

The only difference being, our little problem never got into the papers. (Probably did not reach the relevant authorities either, knowing that bunch.)

.

And regards the resulting dive in this particular Airbus airtanker case, how far through MMO did the aircraft go??

And regards the excessive speed, to what degree would mach-tuck exaccerbate the dive on this type? The old Boeing appeared to have a strong desire to meet up with terra firma when it went through MMO, so what are these new fancy Airbus wings like?

Silver

[BEagle]

oilygreasemonkey, various AFS components will have been disturbed and new wiring installed for the MRTT modification. Even just the modified FCU amounts to AFS modification - and was discussed with the AAR community well over 10 years ago now.

The KC-30A AFS modifications probably include the tailstrike prevention, AAR CG protection and RCVR FCTL modifications. Whether these software modifications are resident, but inactive in the Voyager AFS, I do not know. But the AFS cannot be considered to be identical to the 'green' aircraft.

Barring aircrew or maintenance error, an AFS software bug or some form of installation error (wiring....perhaps) seem the likely culprits.

The QF72 incident led to significant modification and additional procedures long before Voyager appeared on the scene, so it is unlikely that any parallels can be drawn with that incident.

[StopStart]

I too have plenty of current experience on Boeings of various sizes thanks and yes, I've witnessed the AFDS transition into incorrect modes on the odd occasion. I have not, however, had the pleasure of seeing my aircraft transition from steady state cruise in PATH or ALT to a sudden 20 degree+ nose down descent at a rate that put people on the ceiling. Couple that with the Airbus exceeding several of it's much-vaunted protections all at once (over speed, G limits, pitch rate) I'll just refer you to my original statement.

Yes, BEags, I'd accept new-technology physical problems (lithium batteries) over weird computer controlled autoflight/flight control behaviours any day of the week.

[beardy]

Barring aircrew or maintenance error, an AFS software bug or some form of installation error (wiring....perhaps) seem the likely culprits.

Or weather combined with mishandling e.g. using alt as a goal gather than att following an episode of severe turbulence. BEagle, you seem to have judged already, this is not like you to be so partisan:)

[BEagle]

beardy, it is you who is being judgemental, I would say. Your speculation concerning (unreported) weather / turbulence and incorrect upset recovery is entirely without substance.

StopStart, I agree that quite why such an extreme manoeuvre could have been caused, given the Airbus flight envelope protection features, is highly worrying. The QF72 incident, though similar, led to significant modification - so should have no bearing on this incident.

Presumably there'll be a Service Inquiry?

[Just This Once...]

Presumably; I know the MilAAIB became involved straight away and have consulted their civilian equivalents. The first statement on the ASIMS was the consideration of an SI.

[lj101]

There will be a SI.

[Easy Street]

If the Voyager build standard had already diverged from baseline A330 by the time of the QF72 incident, is it possible that modifications stemming from that incident might not have been embodied in Voyager? So could it be the same snag?

[rjtjrt]

In QF72 the aircraft did not respond to side stick pitch command for 2 seconds on each of the 2 pitch excursions, so if this turns out to be similar cause it may explain why pilot said to have reported both pilots acting to correct the upset.

[Onceapilot]

So, nearly a week and no mention of what actually happened. Reports seem to range from "unplanned change of flightlevel" to, "-1.6G, 40 degrees pitch-down". :\
Anyone?

OAP

[SteveTonks]

All information is embargoed TFN. Only the initial ASIMs report is available for wider distribution - Sorry

[MrBernoulli]

In QF72 the aircraft did not respond to side stick pitch command for 2 seconds on each of the 2 pitch excursions, so if this turns out to be similar cause it may explain why pilot said to have reported both pilots acting to correct the upset. I really don't give a ****e what the Airbus 'experts' say about this sort of thing, but 'stuff' happens in Airbus fly-by-wire that isn't supposed to, but it does, and it causes mayhem and soiled underwear or destruction and death. And Airbus rarely know why.

Designed by geeks with barely any pilot input, "Wouldn't eet be nize eef ze compootair could do zis? Or zat? Or zome uzzair stupeed zing which weel frighten ze pilots and pazzengairs?

Airbus ****e, ****e, ****e and more ****e with an extra helping of ****e! :ugh:

[Biggus]

While I can quite rightly be accused of pre judging the outcome, I expect it will eventually turn out to be a software related fault.


Thankfully the F-35 only has 8.5 million lines of code in its software - what could possibly go wrong.....



I once knew a FJ mate who, when being shown over a couple of the latest generation of fast jets, only ever asked the manufactures rep one question, and that was? Whether or not the bang seat sequence was hard wired, purely mechanical and totally independent of any software!

[tubby linton]

Is the information embargoed for opsec or because it is commercially sensitive?

[BEagle]

Tourette's still afflicting you, Mr.B :p

I used the term 'inappropriate automation' with AiM once - suggesting that a clever-devil, over-complicated, fully-automated solution wasn't always the best. For example, "Open the pod valves, Hal" is not what you want in a tanker when some Air Refuelling Computer decides it knows better.....:rolleyes:

Totally integrated systems aren't necessarily the best. As I once discovered when trying to reset the clock in a Merc I'd been lent. 20 minutes of non-intuitive hunting through menus - whereas in my MG Midget 50 years ago I just pressed and turned the spindle attached to the hands of the excellent Kienzle electro-mechanical car clock I'd fitted.

Engineers need Subject Matter Experts to tell them "No - that's bolleaux!" before spending €/£/$ M on some pointless geekery which is neither essential nor desirable. And which the aircrew probably don't want.

Take Selcal. As we all know, unless you've got a nice SatCom, you check in with Oceanic and ask for a Selcal check. You hear a double pulse of carrier, followed by the Selcal tones, then check that your system has registered them by whatever method is included on the flight deck. After which you advise Oceanic that you've had a positive check, then go on Selcal watch so you don't have to listen to hiss, crackle and pop for hours on end. But A Certain Designer, never having had to use the system himself, cleverly arranged for it to mute the receiver audio whenever Selcal was selected on - making it impossible to check....AR$E!!

As I asked one - "Would you trust a software-controlled fire extinguisher?"

Computer assistance is one thing, computer dominance quite another!

[Haraka]

From my simple standpoint Beags it seems that the history of aviation has been the ever continued distancing of the pilot from direct control of the aeroplane
Muscle control of surfaces by cables, pulleys, cranks and rods , was first broken by PFCU's , invoking artificial "feel", Then such devices as stick shakers and pushers, autothrottling, artificial stabilisation, fly by wire leading to the aircraft computers actually rejecting the pilot' input all are seen as having been desirable along the path of evolution.
This has been accepted.
It was not so long ago that people would not go in a lift without a lift attendant being present. Our reliance upon , and acceptance of, technology eclipsing the human in a lot of tasking will one day I am sure find people happily flying in aircraft without aircrew on board.
But not me :)

[MrBernoulli]

Tourette's still afflicting you, Mr.B http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Tourettes, my 4rse! :E I blame the barely-4 hours of kip after the near-midnight arrival back in the UK, itself after a 11hr 30mins flog from the steaming environs of islands various in the Indian Ocean. Nah ....... actually, it really is the Frogbus nonsense that I blame. :cool:

Engineers need Subject Matter Experts to tell them "No - that's bolleaux!" before spending €/£/$ M on some pointless geekery which is neither essential nor desirable. And which the aircrew probably don't want.
Amen, brother, amen!

When will Frogbus ever learn that their ****ty little pointless streams of malevolent ones and zeros are not appreciated? Gits. :rolleyes:

[Yellow Sun]

When will Frogbus ever learn that their ****ty little pointless streams of malevolent ones and zeros are not appreciated? Gits.

Now I have flown "Fifi the Wonderjet" am familiar with her ways. I do tend to agree that some of the features that the designers incorporated seem to be there solely because they could be done, not because they are necessary or even desirable.

My principal reservation about the 'bus is the relative ease with which a lateral PIO can be induced on approach, particularly in turbulent conditions. A colleague once put it most succinctly:

"Landing a 767 in a crosswind is like chucking a sack of spuds on the runway but landing an Airbus in similar conditions is akin to w***king an ungrateful pig in a rowing boat"

Quite apt I felt:rolleyes:

YS

[jessum1466]

How do I find this report as whenever I try my browser tells me that there is no such page?

[Chris Griffin]

I'll put you down as a maybe for the minibus command in 10 yrs time Mr B....:E

[Dengue_Dude]

"Landing a 767 in a crosswind is like chucking a sack of spuds on the runway but landing an Airbus in similar conditions is akin to w***king an ungrateful pig in a rowing boat"


I'm not sure that's a mental image I can cope with on a Sunday night in my living room . . .

[gr4techie]

landing an Airbus in similar conditions is akin to w***king an ungrateful pig in a rowing boat

But how does he know?

[MrBernoulli]

I'll put you down as a maybe for the minibus command in 10 yrs time Mr B....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif
I beg to differ! I really do not have any plans of subjecting myself to the foibles of 'operating' the Pigbus, and that includes attempting any "w***king an ungrateful pig in a rowing boat". So there! :p

[proteus6]

5000+, selling them faster than we can make them, a european success story which would not have happened without the UK, although dominated by mainland Europe Airbus still does have a very important UK part.

[ShotOne]

Whatever people get up to with pigs in rowing boats I can state from personal experience that all the fbw airbuses, especially the 330, land very nicely in crosswinds if operated correctly. Even by pprune standards there's a lot of tosh here; I'm hoping this includes the quote attributed to the incident pilot about it taking both pilots to get it level. For the benefit of non airbus chaps here, side-stick inputs are algebraically added so such a comment would betray a fundamental lack of understanding.

[PapaDolmio]

So is it flying again yet?

[Herod]

While we have some airbus people on here, please excuse a bit of thread drift, but....in the event of a suicidal pilot deciding to dive the thing into the ground, what can the other pilot do? I know there is a little button which says "I have control", but then the other guy simply pushes his button again. You can't even break his arm, since it's on the opposite side of his body. Just asking, I was a Boeing (among others) man.

[tubby linton]

It will become a battle over who pressed the red button last Herod.
As the stick positions are algebraically summed if somebody was holding full nose down an opposite input of full nose up would cancel the order.

[mr snow]

Nope. MAAIB have full control. I hope that they don't mess it up.

[ShotOne]

Your suicidal fellow, Herod would have to reconfigure the flight augmentation computers if he wanted to pitch down over 20 deg. Even then the other guy could cancel out his inputs. Not a great day out but far better, surely, than a simple trial of strength?

[Danny42C]

I hardly dare to trespass on matters so technical that they are beyond my comprehension (cue voice from the back: "So shut up !"). But, speaking as one who dates from an era when the only things which worked without pilot input were the clock and the compass, it occurs to me that:

(a) "side-stick inputs are algebraically added" - so were our twigs in former times; keeping an asymmetric Meteor 7 from plunging to perdition was often a two-man (or to be exact, a two-leg) job.

(b) " A Black Box has No Fear of Death" (and it is well not to forget it). :=

D.

[Cows getting bigger]

Danny, Hal wasn't too happy with the thought of death. :)

[Haraka]

Well I doubt if I'll go out singing"'Daisy Maisy" :hmm:

[ShotOne]

Danny, the difference is that even if one pilot were very much stronger than the other, opposing inputs would cancel. The other difference is that attempting to control a "plunge to perdition" with dual inputs would likely result in wild overcontrol. So even from very first sim, this is probably the biggest airbus no-no.

[gr4techie]

(b) " A Black Box has No Fear of Death"

It did in the Terminator films. A story of what happens when you let computers think for themselves and make the decisions. in the film its a Strategic Air Command - North American Aerospace Defense Command computer.
Skynet (Terminator) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_(Terminator))

Hasta la vista, baby.

[BEagle]

Inappropriate automation - an Air Refuelling Operator faced with a recalcitrant Mission Computer System:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/HAL_zpse5075e66.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/HAL_zpse5075e66.jpg.html)

:hmm:

[Sandy Parts]

aha - Dark Star - one of my favourite films - I claim my pint!

[gr4techie]

I'm sure Dii, JPA or MOSS (or what ever computer system the RAF has for this week) is out to my my life a misery. I just want three things... email, leave pass and expense claim. Why can't the computer simply do that without going wibble?

http://www.renegadeguild.net/images/pirates_keyboard.jpg

[BEagle]

Sandy Parts, not Dark Star. It's based upon Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey*




* Which I first saw in 'Cinerama' some 45 years ago....:eek:

[Haraka]

Yup! Moi aussi! Saw 2001 in Cinerama in Old Compton Street in Mayfair Dec 68 IIRC in my case.
Stayed the night in the Union Jack Club-full of tramps, sweaty hot and rubber under sheets! Unforgettable.

[BEagle]

Haraka wrote:Stayed the night in the Union Jack Club-full of tramps, sweaty hot and rubber under sheets! Unforgettable

I never realised you indulged in such night-time games, mate...:eek:

Meanwhile, what news of Voyager? Is it still grounded?

Did other A330MRTT users ground theirs too? If not, why not.....:confused:

[TheChitterneFlyer]

More importantly... is the TriStar Hangar Party still scheduled for the 27th of March?

[silverstrata]

Stopstart:

I have not, however, had the pleasure of seeing my aircraft transition from steady state cruise in PATH or ALT to a sudden 20 degree+ nose down descent at a rate that put people on the ceiling.



I think you are rather prejudging the cause of the incident.

It could have been a minor computer glitch, exaccerbated by an incorrect humanoid input.

It could have been the overly muscular and hairy hostie dropping a box of RAF inflight magazines on the stick.

It could have been a gangly and brain-dead f/o trying to get back into his seat, and placing his size 14 boot in the wrong place.

Who knows? But to say Boeing is best on the back of this incident is hugely premature. Our Boeings were so notorious at inflight excursions, that a proposal was put forward to charge the pax for 'fairground entertainment'. A quid for each zero-g bunt. We could have made a fortune.... :)


Silver

[GreenKnight121]

If it were any of those they wouldn't have grounded the whole fleet.

[Willard Whyte]

There was nothing very much wrong with the 'hairy string and coathangers' autopilots/control linkages on proper multi-engine aircraft.

[Onceapilot]

Quote TCF:
"More importantly... is the TriStar Hangar Party still scheduled for the 27th of March?"

Who can tell? Anything remotely positive about FSTA is given top billing and glossy PR. But TriStar, "nah... too cheap, paid for decades ago, no money to make in it, no promotion in it, no retirement cushy job for senior officer's in it, for Gods sake talk it down-we have wasted all these Billions on FSTA".

Despite the D notice on anything to do with this, you can be sure that everyone working on or with 216 is pulling out all the stops and, without all the restrictive practices of the FSTA project! :oh:

OAP

[BEagle]

OAP, remind me how much time, money and effort was wasted on:

The failed project to include wing AAR pods on the TriStar.
The ZD949 'glass cockpit' fiasco.


If both projects had been completed on time and on budget and if a modern AAR mission planning/management system had been included, the TriStar would have probably had a better chance of remaining in service. It would have been an extremely capable tanker, with considerable AT capability.

But who knows what will be the knock-on effect of the Voyager having been grounded?

[Onceapilot]

Beagle, depends what you call wasted? The budget for the TriStar wing pods was donated to the VC10! :eek: That was, of course, in the days when there was a tanker force.
The real politics behind the MMR development are unknown to me. However, it did work and, if the TriStar fleet had received only a tiny fraction of the investment on FSTA, we could have had 2 squadrons of updated TriStar and kept Nimrod and Harrier and have 5 Billion £ change!*

* Numbers estimated;)

OAP

[Bigpants]

Rather than ground the aircraft the RAF should order the Co Pilot to fly the aircraft manually in the cruise and the Captain should shout at him/her if the aircraft deviates much from the flight path...a small stick could be issued to aircraft Captains if shouting fails to have the desired effect.

Of course the Captain will need to have natural breaks and the odd snooze so we will need to re introduce the Flight Engineer onto the Voyager flight deck to do the shouty hitty stuff when the skipper is unavailable.

Flight Engineers quite handy to have about. Perhaps the RAF have forgotten that.

[sharpend]

That brings us to the pilot and dog method of flying. The pilot watches the instruments and the dog is there to bite him if he touches anything.

[Bigpants]

Most Flight Engineers that I met had a hang dog sort of expression are you suggesting we need to look for a special kind of hound for the job?

[BEagle]

Still grounded, I gather?

No doubt the contracts people are wondering how to sort out the compensation for failure of service provision....:hmm:

:uhoh:

[Onceapilot]

Compensation old chap? No, no, no. At our prices, you are doing quite well enough with the Falklands charter for £ 1,500,000 per day old chap. :oh:

OAP

[Top West 50]

If they are all grounded, presumably, nobody is getting paid?

[Capt Scribble]

Sharpend, you needed a Nav in a Tornado as well.... To feed the dog.

[mole man]

With the A/C grounded I hope they are using British Charter Aircraft and not paying for overseas Aircraft

Mole Man:ok:

[tubby linton]

I am led to believe one UK airline is doing some of the flying.

[hello1]

It would have been an extremely capable tanker, with considerable AT capability.

On the handful of occasions each month that it actually worked! I remember trying to get to Iraq in it once:

Outbound - First attempt aborted at around 100KIAS, second attempt got us to Basrah.

Return - First attempt failed to depart from Brize, 2 hours later the spare ac also went U/S.

That's an impressive 25% success rate. Still, maybe it worked first time every other day of the month.... Great aircraft in its day but that day has quite definitely passed.

[Onceapilot]

Hello 1,
great, wow, what else?

OAP

[Duplo]

A combination of Tristar, VC10 and C130 once delivered a Tornado sqn to Adelaide at an average speed of 49 mph. Genius...

[AR1]

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't..... got a choice. And like millions of others I'm still alive. :bored:

[lj101]

A combination of Tristar, VC10 and C130 once delivered a Tornado sqn to Adelaide at an average speed of 49 mph. Genius...

Sounds like a great trail.

[BEagle]

lj101 wrote: Sounds like a great trail.

Yup, plenty of time off in nice places and no doubt quite a few Brenda-blatts to sweeten the delays - although I was never fortunate enough to be delayed in nice places! More like Incirlik, Akrotiri or Goose Bay....or perhaps Lajes. But a couple of extra days at El Toro was nice....:ok:

Do I hear whispers that the cause of the mighty Plummeter's recent Stuka-like incident has yet to be found? I guess the jets will have to stay grounded a while longer, if that's the case.

Couldn't you just imagine the headlines if the MoD decided 'NFF' was adequate and cleared the aircraft for further flight.....:eek:

[ShotOne]

Why should NFF make headlines if it was true, beagle.? If you know the cause, why not tell us ?

[Party Animal]

ShotOne,


Why should NFF make headlines if it was true


I think in todays climate, the Daily Mail would find it easy to cook up a story that painted the MOD, RAF, Defence Minister etc in a very bad position with respect to risk, which would be significantly worse if (God forbid), the event ocurred again.

[Nantucket Sleighride]

With the A/C grounded I hope they are using British Charter Aircraft and not paying for overseas Aircraft

I'd actually rather they went out and found the best value solution, so long as the aircraft and crew are fit for purpose, this isn't the 1970's.

[tubby linton]

If the aircraft are wired the same as a civvy one then the data available from the aircraft systems is enormous. The civvy ones also have a QAR which helps with an initial snapshot of what occurred , but the FDR has a higher sampling rate.The question is what was recorded and who is looking at it? As this is a major incident I would imagine the AAIB and Airbus will also be involved.

[BEagle]

ShotOne wrote: If you know the cause, why not tell us ?

I do not know the cause. But if nothing has yet been found, the search must go on in as great a depth as necessary until the cause is found.

60 years ago, after no clear reason was identified for the first Comet to have plummeted out of the sky in January 1954, government pressure led to flying being resumed without further inquiry. A further fatal accident occurred less than 3 weeks later.

[Haraka]

Beags , the first Comet to drop out of the sky was actually G-ALYV climbing out of Calcutta May 2 with the loss of 43 Lives. 2 May 1953.
Coincidentally this was the registration chosen for the " Dinky Toys" toy Comet which went on to be sold well into the late 50's without change. ( Obviously no PR queens in those days)
You will recall that these events were preceded by Comets going "through the hedge" on take -off, due to not being able to accelerate to flying speed if the nose was held too high ( leading to the adoption of drooped leading edges).

[BEagle]

Yes, I know mate. I was referring to the two 1954 accidents (Yoke Peter and Yoke Yoke).

[Haraka]

Interesting point Beags is that the May 2 53 Calcutta ALYV accident findings fundamentally were that the aircraft was over stressed in severe turbulence.
However it was the retrospective personal opinion of an AIB Investigator ( TR Nelson)involved in all three , i.e ALYV, ALYP Elba Jan 10 54 and ALYY Naples Apr 8 54, that the basic cause was probably the same.

[brakedwell]

Maybe it is software related. I experienced two uncommanded descents in the very early days of the B757. (Summer 1983). Both happened in approximately the same geographical position during flights from Gatwick to Palma, half way into the two hour flight. Vnav was not approved or used during the first year of B757 operation. The A/T and altitude hold were engaged on the first incident, when the thrust levers retarded and the nose went down as in a normal descent. The "descent" was cancelled and we continued on the Palma. On the second incident the A/T had been disengaged because it was slow to react to speed changes and tended to over correct. Consequently the alt hold dropped out, but we didn't descend. Boeing suggested a fluke pairing of Tacan,VOR and IRS positions had fooled the FMC into thinking it had reached the TOD position.

[BEagle]

Meanwhile, Boeing's yet-to-fly KC-46A Frankentanker has been given an official name: KC-46A tanker gets new name: Pegasus | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com (http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140220/NEWS04/302200040/KC-46A-tanker-gets-new-name-Pegasus)

The newly-named Boeing Pig'sArse is due to fly in June. Though quite which June remains to be seen.

:\

[brakedwell]

The same June Voyager gets sorted out? :p

[mr snow]

brakedwell. Do you mean the Mil Voyager currently bashing the Brize circuit?

[brakedwell]

Has it got a Typhoon attached to it?

[gr4techie]

Do you mean the Mil Voyager currently bashing the Brize circuit?...

... Like a Blackpool roller coaster.

http://uberhumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ZaZEf.jpg

[mr snow]

Look, no hands!

[BEagle]

According to Reuters:

Britain has lifted a flying ban on its fleet of Airbus-made Voyager military aircraft more than a week after it grounded the planes, with the planes to resume flying this afternoon, a spokesman for the AirTanker consortium said.

So - what was the cause and what was the solution?

And why is there nothing on the ATr website....... :hmm: ??

[mr snow]

You will have to ask the military. Their team of expert investigators, with full knowledge of the Airbus flight control system, will have made a decision based on the facts.
I can only guess that they have decided that it is an issue not connected with the Mil modifications. If that is the case, it is now an issue that the whole Airbus community should be made aware of?

[Onceapilot]

I'll hazard a guess on the release..."that particular airframe might have a problem and, it is restricted non-RVSM for six months. Rest of mil fleet released from restriction. NFF". :eek:

OAP

[ShotOne]

You'll have to explain the logic of your last para, mr snow. There's more than a thousand A330's happily flying about. Why, at this point (but not last week) should they be being "made aware" of anything?

[mr snow]

last week it was assumed to be a problem with the Mil Mod aircraft but now the goalposts have been moved and the Mil aircraft are allowed to fly again. Therefore it's not a Mil mod issue. Therefore it's an issue that needs to be shared, in the interests of flight safety, with the airbus community.

[hoodie]

last week it was assumed to be a problem with the Mil Mod aircraft but now the goalposts have been moved and the Mil aircraft are allowed to fly again. Therefore it's not a Mil mod issue.

I've no knowledge at all of the incident, investigation or background, but that statement is logically inconsistent, and "therefore" is the wrong word.

It could be a Mil mod issue that has now been identified and mitigated sufficiently to allow flying to continue.

[ShotOne]

There have been no restrictions or bulletins concerning civil A330's and they've been carrying hundreds of thousands of pax since the incident. The CAA most certainly don't have balls of granite concerning risk. What's the logic in doing so now the Voyager is back in the air.?

[silverstrata]

ShotOne

The CAA most certainly don't have balls of granite concerning risk. What's the logic in doing so now the Voyager is back in the air.?


Yes, but the CAA also do not have balls of granite concerning safety.

"We need to ground all A330s and A340s?? Shiiite. Errr. Cynthia, can you book me in for that hernia operation I have been talking about - make sure it lasts for 2 weeks, minimum....". ... The CAA does not give a rats ar*** about safety, as long as they keep their jobs.


I am reminded of a clip from the 911 movie.
ATC to USAF: "We need someone to make a decision on a shoot-down policy."
USAF to ATC: "Err, everyone just left the room, I'll call you back....."


And regards Airtanker. Well, it would be nice to have some info about what their conclusions were. Was it software? Was it hardware? Was is a size 14 boot being stuck in the wrong place??


Silver.

[Onceapilot]

CP, I do not think we can presume much. On the sooper-dooper "private-raf" site, it says they have "resumed flights". Maybe they have introduced a third pilot, or a Loady trained as a cruise-pilot:eek:? Who knows?

OAP

[lj101]

As no incident reports change of procedures etc or rectification,released by EASA/AirTanker, presume crew finger trouble?

Just culture at its finest - no fault found this blame the crew. How about the multi billion pound organisation that have had a few 'incidents' like this. Or is it always easier to brush under the table and bury it.

[BEagle]

Well, given the rumours that the autopilot wouldn't disconnect, I would strongly suspect a problem in the left hand sidestick system. But surely there's redundancy built in to the sidestick design? Or is that supposed to be achieved by having 2 sidesticks?

As for blaming the crew, if anyone was stupid enough to try that they'd soon wish they hadn't.....:mad:

Is there something else we haven't been told? From the local rag: More people spotted fireball falling from sky (From Witney Gazette) (http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/11029641.More_people_spotted_fireball_falling_from_sky/?ref=var_0) :E

[thefodfather]

On the point of blaming flight crew, it is vital that any aviation organisation has the culture that allows people to admit mistakes however large. It very much depends on the Sqn culture and I have seen situations where a lot of technical investigation was needed because the culture prevented a crew fessing up to a mistake. I point out that as I have no knowledge of the facts in this case I am not making a judgement of this situation, just making a general point.

[ShotOne]

Heard a rumour, beagle or starting one? I only ask because in 19 years operating fbw Airbuses I've never seen a bulletin or reported instance of an autopilot refusing to disconnect.

[beardy]

If true that Voyager has returned to flight and there are no safety bulletins, nor engineering action, it must be very frustrating for those who have been peddling their pet prejudices concerning Airbus, FBW and AirTanker.
Still, never let a lack of facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. After all this is a rumours network.

[cessnapete]

Thats the initial recent "informed rumour" from crew reports, as no offical word being released by AirTanker. All being kept very close to chests.
From the above, the crew error conjecture incorrect.

[lj101]

On 7 October 2008, an Airbus A330-300 being operated by Qantas on a scheduled passenger flight from Singapore to Perth, Western Australia was in the cruise at FL370 with the AP engaged when one of the air data inertial reference units (ADIRUs)[1] malfunctioned and two sudden uncommanded pitch downs followed. A PAN, later upgraded to a MAYDAY after the extent of occupant injuries became apparent, was declared to ATC and a diversion to Learmonth initiated with an approach and landing there about an hour later. Of the 315 occupants, 11 passengers and 1 cabin crew member were seriously injured and a further 99 passengers and 8 cabin crew received minor injuries.

Investigation

An Investigation was carried out by the ATSB. FDR, Quick access recorder (QAR) and CVR data was all successfully replayed to support the Investigation. A Preliminary Report and two Interim Factual Reports were published whilst the Investigation was in progress.
The aircraft commander had been PF when, after a previously uneventful flight, an uncommanded AP1 disconnect occurred followed by a series of caution messages on the EICAM and transient activation of obviously false stall and over speed warnings. These cautions and warnings occurred frequently and continued for the remainder of the flight. The airspeed and altitude indications on the left main PFD (only) were also fluctuating. Although numerous ECAM caution messages were annunciated, none of them required urgent action, and none of them indicated any potential problems with the aircraft’s flight control system. Two minutes after the AP1 disconnect, the aircraft abruptly pitched nose down. FDR data showed that this was due to a sudden change in the position of the aircraft elevators, and that the aircraft reached a maximum nose-down pitch angle of 8.4°. The flight crew described the pitch-down movement as very abrupt, but smooth. It was considered not to be like turbulence-related movements and was solely in the pitching plane. Side stick back pressure to counteract the pitch was applied and after about 2 seconds the aircraft responded normally and recovery to the assigned altitude was accomplished. Overall, the aircraft descended 690 ft over a period of 23 seconds before regaining FL370.
During the upset, the FDR recorded a peak vertical acceleration of -0.8g and a significant number of occupants were thrown around the cabin, resulting in both personal injuries and damage to cabin overhead fittings. The operating co pilot switched on the seat belt signs soon after the upset and made a PA announcement for passengers and cabin crew to return to their seats and fasten their seat belts immediately.
Two and a half minutes after the first pitch down event, a second less severe one occurred while the crew were responding to the ECAM messages. The aircraft reached a maximum pitch angle of about 3.5° nose down and side stick back pressure to counter this was promptly applied. As with the first case, the action initially had no effect but soon afterwards, the aircraft responded normally. The aircraft descended 400 feet over a period of 15 seconds before regaining FL370.
The aircraft commander noted that the auto trim was no longer working and decided to fly the aircraft manually with both AP and A/T disconnected, believing the aircraft flight control system to have reverted to Direct Law[1]. In fact, although absence of auto trim is a feature of Direct Law, in this case, it had been lost as a consequence of the specific sequence of fault messages associated with the Flight Control Primary Computer (FCPC) and only reversion to Alternate Law[1] had occurred.
Soon after recovery from the second upset, the decision to make an en route diversion was made and a ‘PAN’ declared to ATC. The diversion to Learmonth was accomplished without further event other than the discovery that the extent of cabin injuries amongst unsecured passengers and crew was greater than had at first been appreciated. A descent was accomplished in the vicinity of the airfield before positioning for a visual approach and landing.

I am not sure if this incident has been posted on this thread already. It's discussed here Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Qantas A330 Incident (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t15086.html)

[BEagle]

lj101, that is the previously-mentioned 'QF72' incident. Caused by faulty hardware in an ADIRU and a software characteristic which (at that time)hadn't been designed to cope with the specific nature of the ADIRU fault.

Back to the Voyager plummet, what I find very perplexing is that, even though Airbus state
• Regardless of pilot inputs, the (EFCS) computers will prevent :
- excessive maneuvres
- exceedance of the safe flight envelope. it seems that, in this case a spurious pitch demand was received which subjected the aircraft to both an excessive manoeuvre and exceedance of the flight envelope. Whereas in the QF72 incident, though alarming, both pitch attitude and peak vertical acceleration remained within the protected envelope.

[Onceapilot]

beardy, what matters is, what happened?! BTW, please do not brand other peoples opinions as prejudiced.

OAP

[tubby linton]

When a certain airline was in the early days of operating the A320 they suffered a spate of incidents with autopilots disconnecting and also an uncommanded roll. The engineers scratched their heads and it started occurring on different aircraft. The problem could not be replicated by the engineers but following a lot of component replacements and trouble shooting the problem was narowed down to one particular pilot.It transpired that he was crossing his legs and knocking the stick with his foot. He was completely unaware that he wss doing it, but once he was made aware the problem never reappeared.
There have also been problems with crews placing teas etc on the pedestal next to the stick, and the contents being dislodged into the mechanism underneath it.
Side Stick Controller Photo by Jetdoc1 | Photobucket (http://s658.photobucket.com/user/Jetdoc1/media/SideStick.jpg.html)

[lj101]

Beags, heard of this?

In the past Airbus has insisted its use of Kapton is safe, because it coats it in a thin layer of ‘FEP’ – fluorinated ethylene propylene – making it less likely to crack. But other experts disagree, and in 2008 the Federal Aviation Administration, America’s rule-making body, stated that even when coated with FEP, ‘Kapton wire insulation materials should not be used in airborne applications.’ But didn’t ban its use, aware perhaps that to do so would call into question the safety of any aircraft using Kapton – as many as 14,000 planes.
The introduction of fly-by-wire aircraft has furthered the frequency of these situations,’ he says. ‘But as with QF72, the anomalies often can’t be reproduced on the ground by maintenance personnel, because there the vibrations and humidity experienced in flight are no longer an issue.’
For four years from 1999, a special investigation group set up by the FAA stripped down six ageing passenger aircraft, including a Kapton-wired Airbus A300, the predecessor of the A330. It found widespread evidence of wire bundles that had become charred, cracked, brittle and prone to arcing, as well as contaminated by dust, lint and fluid from leaking toilets. Yet when its report was produced, the Bush White House took no action.
Arcing may not only cause fires or systems to fail: it can also lead to ‘uncommanded inputs’, such as the sudden plunges experienced by QF72.
There’s still no effective way to test wires’ integrity while they remain in use. Nasa would not have to be retiring the Space Shuttle fleet if there were a simple test. On the other hand, if there were a test, and it showed the Kapton in individual planes is dangerous, thousands of planes might have to be retired.’

[mr snow]

BEagle, how do you know that the aircraft exceeded it's flight envelope?

[BEagle]

That's interesting, lj101. But I don't know whether Kapton wiring is used extensively in the A330?

I assume that the fleet grounding has only been lifted if the cause of this event has been conclusively identified beyond all reasonable doubt. And if it was indeed a faulty side-stick system, I would assume that all other Voyagers have been checked...and rectified.

Are commercial pressures influencing the return to flight status? Surely not.

Both MoD and ATr have used mealy-mouthed terms such as a 'pause' in operations and an 'unscheduled change in flight level'. They both seem terrified of using the term 'grounded' - why?

tucumseh, it would be interesting to hear your opinion....

mr snow, see post #59....

[ShotOne]

Post #59 that you refer to, beagle, contains a report from a passenger in the rear cabin (interestingly making his first ever pprune post five days after the incident). He gave the descent angle as "20 to 40 degrees, or maybe 60".With respect, how could he possibly have known whether the envelope was exceeded?

[BEagle]

ShotOne, the post actually read We were told by the pilot that the co pilot had got up to get a drink when the aircraft dropped at an angle of between 20 and 40 degrees, some one said 60 degrees.

As someone with 19 years operating fbw Airbuses doubtless you'll be able to tell us the pitch attitude and g protection limits in Normal Law?

Or was the excursion sufficiently extreme to have caused the aircraft to degrade to Abnormal Attitude Law?

[tucumseh]

Both MoD and ATr have used mealy-mouthed terms such as a 'pause' in operations and an 'unscheduled change in flight level'. They both seem terrified of using the term 'grounded' - why?

tucumseh, it would be interesting to hear your opinion...

Beagle

The reluctance to say "grounded" MAY have something to do with the cost and hassle associated with re-certifying a civilian registered aircraft. But I concede I don't know much, if anything, about the Voyager programme. Nobody in his right mind volunteered for a PFI job because it would entail making a false declaration that the proposed expenditure passed requirement scrutiny rules!

[oilygreasemonkey]

The reluctance to say "grounded" MAY have something to do with the cost and hassle associated with re-certifying a civilian registered aircraft

FSTA aircraft are not on the civil register, they are just maintained to the same standard and the release to service statement reflects that. CAP 562 leaflet B40 refers.

Because the incident happened on a mil registed aircraft during operations, all the information is being dealt with by the MAA and RAF. This is why there is a lack of information coming from airtanker as they bound by the military system. Although the MAA and RAF will have consulted with other parties, CAA/EASA etc as this is best practice.

[ShotOne]

"The pilot told me this", "someone else said that" relating to wildly diverging figures is hardly a solid basis for your claim, beagle. Not that it stopped you making a tabloid-worthy response about being "lucky to survive!"

"Abnormal attitude law?" What on earth are you talking about?

[BEagle]

Shot One, I'm puzzled as to your unreasonably hostile netiquette. Not for the first time either...

Are you really telling me that you have never been taught about Abnormal Attitude Law?

I find that surprising. But then again, a ba training captain with whom I was talking recently simply wouldn't believe that an A320 can be stalled if it is not in Normal Law.

Anyway:

The abnormal attitude law is a subset of alternate law on the aircraft. It is triggered when the angle of attack exceeds 30° or when certain other inertial parameters - pitch and roll - become greater than threshold levels.
• Pitch (50 ̊ up, 30 ̊ down)
• Bank (125 ̊)
• AOA (30 ̊, -10 ̊)
• Speed (440 kt, 60 kt)
• Mach (0.96, 0.1).
In pitch it is alternate law without protection (except load factor protection) or auto trim. There is no upgrade to the control law once it has been triggered.

In the AF447 accident, after stalling, the angle of attack remained above 35°. But while this exceeded the threshold for the abnormal attitude law, the flight control computers had already rejected all three air data reference units and all air data parameters owing to discrepancy in the airspeed measurements.

[oilygreasemonkey]

"Abnormal attitude law?" What on earth are you talking about?

ABNORMAL ATTITUDE FLIGHT LAW

A completely different law emerges automatically when the aircraft is in an extreme upset as follows:

* pitch attitude > 50 deg nose up or > 30 deg nose down
* bank angle > 125 deg
* AOA > 30 deg or >-10 deg
* speed > 440 kts or < 60 kts
* mach > M0.96 or < M0.1

The abnormal attitude law is:

- PITCH ALTERNATE with no protection except LOAD FACTOR protection. No automatic pitch trim.
- ROLL DIRECT with full authority
- YAW ALTERNATE

After recovery the flight law reverts to:

- PITCH ALTERNATE law
- ROLL DIRECT law
- YAW ALTERNATE

The aircraft returns to a degraded mode (not normal law as usual) because there is a certain level of suspicion about its ability to control the aircraft (that is how could it have got to the extreme flight state in the first
place? The protections should have intervened well before the pitch, bank, AOA, speed and mach limits above).

[VinRouge]

Is there any way in which the pilots can induce alternate law without pulling cbs or leaving the seat?

[ShotOne]

For my part I'm baffled by your determinedly hostile stance to everything about this operation and dislike of being challenged on it. Nothing personal!

From the limited facts I couldn't say what law it was in -you're the one hearing the rumours -but any change would likely be the result rather than the cause of this excursion. Trainers aren't supposed to make statements like "it can't stall" since none of the very impressive protections make an airbus invulnerable.

I don't see parallels with AF 447 here, but a principal reason its pitch remained so high was an erroneous full back stick input by the RHS pilot until shortly before impact.

[tubby linton]

The civvy A330 has all of the cb located under the cockpit floor. There are however some reset buttons for various systems. You can downgrade the FBW by turning off some of the fbw computers or messing with the hydraulics. The hydraulic panel is next to the fuel panel on the overhead panel and i believe many years ago an A340 crew (system architecture is virtually identical)managed to turn off most of the hydraulics when they thought they were turning off fuel pumps to balance the fuel.

[Biggus]

ShotOne,

Will you admit that, having never having heard of "abnormal attitude flight law", your technical expertise on this matter is obviously considerably less than some of those that are posting?

Nothing personal you understand!

[BEagle]

Even if the event was triggered by a fault in the left hand sidestick, what I find perplexing is that the extreme manoeuvre was seemingly not contained within the Normal Law flight envelope protection limits.

In theory, if a pilot were to make a deliberate full nose-down demand, the aircraft should not exceed Normal Law limits.

The wall of silence over this and the prompt resumption of flight operations reminds me of the behaviour of the managers in the movie The China Syndrome....

An 'unscheduled change of flight level' indeed......:rolleyes:

[VinRouge]

Are there any scenarios where the system won't let the autopilot disconnect or allow pilot input? The crew might have perceived the ap wouldn't kick out, but there was a lot going on at the time. As they will have the QAR data, I'm sure all of this will be apparent!

[Biggus]

I would suggest that there is likely to be a massive difference between knowing what happened, which should be relatively simple, and why it happened - which is the real crux of the matter.





Especially if the "why" involves determining why a computer controlled system didn't behave in the way it is designed/intended to...




But I'll fully admit now that I have limited technical knowledge in this area - before anyone points it out on my behalf! I do have some experience in software design and testing however.....

[beardy]

In theory, if a pilot were to make a deliberate full nose-down demand, the aircraft should not exceed Normal Law limits.

Ah, not quite. Should the aircraft remain in normal law, it will attempt to modify control inputs to attempt to remain within normal law limits, ie override control inputs. Environmental factors can upset the aircraft to put it outside normal law limits despite the best efforts of the aircraft. Failures can remove normal law protections, some of the symptoms on the PFD can be quite subtle, a simple removal of small green tags which can be easily missed.
I first saw abnormal attitude law on the A330 on my convex in the sim and that was a long time ago. I have seen it subsequently, again in the sim, when looking at recovery from high altitude stalls. It is a non-event as far as control of the aircraft goes, you don't notice it kicking in nor reverting out.

There is a wealth of difference between quoting from the FCOMs and understanding how the system works. I have seen some very experienced pilots flounder in the sim because they have been seduced by the seemingly complexity of the systems and have in some circumstances overanalysed events in others they have forgotten the basic rule of "fly the aircraft." The latter comment does not support the viewpoint of skill erosion due to fly by wire, in my opinion, knowing the individuals, their skill level peaked early in their career and waned because time pressures meant that they couldn't indulge their love of flying by widening their experiences beyond 'the job.'

The possibility of CM1 control input problems appears to have sneaked in to the discussion. Where did that come from? If that did happen was CM1 PF or PNF at the time?

[wiggy]

Interesting discussion but aside from the arcane aspects of Airbus FBW does anybody have a handle on what attitude was really achieved -I've seen nothing other than 20/40/60 degrees nose down (the later of which I must admit sounds close to terminal to me) mentioned in an early post?

I'm a Normal/Secondary/Direct person myself so I've nothing to add to the technical stuff.

[GreenKnight121]

The US military gave over on Kapton decades ago (the USN banned it in 1987)- to the point they sent aircraft with Kapton-coated wiring to rework to have it removed, and properly-insulated wiring installed!

The USN, in 1983, rewired its F-14s that had a very similar wiring insulation - Poly-X.

[Top West 50]

If the temporary suspension of operations, or whatever they called it, only applied to the military registered aircraft, why not return the military registered aircraft to the civil register? QED!

[Biggus]

What happens if a UK military passenger refuses to get on one because they consider the aircraft 'unsafe'. The fact that they stopped flying, and the basic reason why, was reported by the BBC, so is widely known in the community. By contrast the reasoning behind the resumption of flying doesn't appear to have been published, or if it has, not widely.



No doubt any such above action by someone subject to military law would be considered as 'refusing an order' and could result in an interesting military court case...

[Just This Once...]

The US military gave over on Kapton decades ago (the USN banned it in 1987)- to the point they sent aircraft with Kapton-coated wiring to rework to have it removed, and properly-insulated wiring installed!

The USN, in 1983, rewired its F-14s that had a very similar wiring insulation - Poly-X.

I wish the RAF/MoD had done the same - we have a multi-engine fleet manufactured after that date which is absolutely stuffed with miles of Kapton and yes, it does suffer from rather alarming carbon arc incidents.

[BEagle]

beardy wrote:

Ah, not quite. Should the aircraft remain in normal law, it will attempt to modify control inputs to attempt to remain within normal law limits, ie override control inputs. Environmental factors can upset the aircraft to put it outside normal law limits despite the best efforts of the aircraft. Failures can remove normal law protections, some of the symptoms on the PFD can be quite subtle, a simple removal of small green tags which can be easily missed.


Well yes. You are of course correct - I was trying to keep things simple.

[Onceapilot]

The TriStar has kapton. Built c1978.

OAP

[beardy]

Oversimplification can be misleading which, I am sure, was not your intent, but was the result.

As an example ADR problems can lead to false indications of over/under speed. Normal law inputs would try to prevent the perceived over/under speed and could lead to a real stall, or normal law could drop out and be unnoticed whilst dealing with the overspeeed. All of which sounds a bit radical and busy, indeed the QRH makes it sound like a big deal. It's not. Fly the aircraft, which AP is in? If it's the one linked to the PFD that is giving the false inputs, use the other one, job done aircraft under control. Check indications from all inputs, the other PFD, STBY inst and GPS readout, identify which ADR is faulty and turn it off. Crisis over without having to understand the inner working of the ADIRU, nor control law rules.

Where did the possibility of CM1 control input errors come from?

[BEagle]

The latest Reuter's article deepens the mystery further:

Britain lifts flying suspension on Airbus-made Voyager fleet | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/uk-britain-voyager-idUKBREA1K18L20140221)

:confused:

[beardy]

No it doesn't.



Where did the possibility of CM1 control input errors come from?

[BEagle]

beardy wrote:

Where did the possibility of CM1 control input errors come from?

Sorry, but for now ICATQ. In any case, a deliberate CM1 error is not postulated.

[Onceapilot]

Notwithstanding the details of this event, which seem to be top-secret, this quote from the link above is worthy of consideration...

"The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it was inappropriate to speculate on the cause of the incident but, following critical safety advice, the RAF chain of command had been reassured that the likelihood of a repeat was negligible."


Why is speculation inappropriate? Also, if reassurance can be given do we assume the cause is identified? Surely the risk of the event was classed as negligible before it happened?


Smacks of NFF.


OAP

[ShotOne]

What's a deliberate error?

Beagle you've repeated your claim about normal law envelope being exceeded without saying why. Ditto for your postulation of. a LHS side stick fault. This may be the case on both counts but nothing so far publicly aired supports such specifics. Are you speculating or basing on an inside information, ?

[VinRouge]

Surely the risk of the event was classed as negligible before it happened?

a Six-Seven Sigma event so early on in fleet life? Really?

[Onceapilot]

Yes VinRouge, I understand your point too:ok:. But, it seems the definition of "negligible risk" is somewhat vague in the "private raf"? :ooh:

OAP

[lj101]

Are you speculating or basing on an inside information

Lets just say many of us have spent months/years crewed up together on previous tours and are still friends now.

[Arty Fufkin]

So is it ok to leak information regarding an ongoing service inquiry to a friend so he can post it on pprune for you?

How very professional.

The facts will be published in the SI, in the mean time the jet is back flying because people who's job it is to make such a decision have done so based on facts, not leaked rumours.

Time to move on perhaps?

[Chugalug2]

AF:-
The facts will be published in the SI
That will be a first then!

[lj101]

Not at all Arty - I never said Beags had inside information and his speculating is just that - speculating.

[Onceapilot]

Here is another thought: The "private raf" might not have to satisfy commercial risk oversight for insurance? How could that effect things?

OAP

[Arty Fufkin]

I must admit, I'm a little confused by all this "private RAF" banter. What do you mean?

[lj101]

Maybe they mean the PFI?

[mr snow]

All this 'Private RAF' banter is wrongly implying that ATrS have some sort of influence over the decision to fly the Mil Voyager again.
AOC 2 Group decided to ground the fleet and AOC 2 Group decided to allow the aircraft to fly again. The MAAIB are investigating and the event is the subject of a full service investigation. Seems to me the that the RAF are pulling the strings in this case?

[MAD Boom]

MAAIB

You gotta love 'em!

[Arty Fufkin]

Ok, I get it. It seems to me that some folk on this forum have a bit of an axe to grind with Airtanker.

Bul***it filter duly adjusted!

[lj101]

Bul***it filter duly adjusted!

At last - do keep up Arty.

[BEagle]

Arty Fufkin wrote: It seems to me that some folk on this forum have a bit of an axe to grind with Airtanker.

Apart from the rather inadequate news release on your....their website, I don't think that the company has come in for any significant criticism, Arty? Why should they have? That'd be like Avis being criticised because a hire car they'd provided in good faith had an unknown manufacturer's steering system fault.

I'll freely admit that I consider PFI to be a completely ridiculous way of providing core AAR assets, although it might be just about adequate for mere trash-hauling AT provision. Just as MFTS is a crazy way of providing military flight training. Nevertheless, ATrS are contracted to run with this PFI nonsense.

If there are any ar$es which deserve to be kicked, I suspect they're elsewhere....

[beardy]

And what makes you posit that there may be ar$es to be kicked at all?

[MAD Boom]

And what makes you posit that there may be ar$es to be kicked at all?


You can't kick ar$es in this Just Culture we're adopting.........

[BEagle]

beardy, don't you understand conditional sentences?

[beardy]

BEagle, yes very much so. I want to understand why you made your 'conditional sentence.' You seem to have preceded it with your own verdict after a trial by innuendo.
You now seem to believe that AirTanker are at no fault ( so it can't possibly be the commercial pressure you implied) and the fault must lie somewhere else. You seem to have that somewhere else in mind. So, go on, tell us all your conspiracy. There only seems to be The RAF in the form of AOC 2GP, the MOD and Airbus, or is there another villain hiding in the dark, you seem to have something in mind so who is it to blame BEagle? Come on, stop beating about the bush, spit it out.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Come on, stop beating about the bush, spit it out.

First paragraph in Post 216?

[beardy]

So it's not AitTanker's fault nor is it Avis's fault. Come on the jury has obviously returned, is the verdict secret, or is there insufficient evidence? Not proven, but still guilty?

[gr4techie]

Not proven, but still guilty?

This outcome does not exist in law.

The outcomes are...

1). Proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
2). If there is any doubt they are acquitted.

[beardy]

Try Scottish law for 'not proven':

the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary. In popular parlance, this verdict is sometimes jokingly referred to as "not guilty and don't do it again"

[tubby linton]

All I am seeing is the opposition using deception and obfuscation so that the truth is not discovered. Why this is taking place is not yet clear apart from protecting peoples livelihoods and pensions.

[gr4techie]

Try Scottish law for 'not proven'

Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty"). As things stand, not proven is seen as a safeguard against wrongful conviction.

During the 2007 consultation, the Law Society of Scotland questioned the need to reform [their] three verdict system.

But it said if the third verdict were to be abolished, the two remaining would be "proven" and "not proven" since it was up to the Crown to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

BBC News - Verdict on 'not proven' sought from Scottish public (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18632680)

[beardy]

Gr4techie your quote is quite correct, interestingly before the union with England there was no 'guilty' verdict, it was proven or not proven. Not proven does not mean 'not guilty', under current law (although there being no conviction there is no sentence); hence my interrogative concerning guilt.

[ShotOne]

The position of the "anti's" has become pretty unreasonable; either they have grounds to believe there is a safety fault with this aircraft or they don't. If they do, how can they in all conscience leave their quite specific and repeated assertions hanging in the air? If this is the case (note use of conditional), I fully agree with them that it shouldn't be flying!

On the other hand, if a toxic trickle of innuendo is allowed to create a general belief that there is a serious problem with the type, then there IS a serious problem. As has been stated, our forces are relying heavily on Voyager for the Afgan drawdown. A needless grounding would throw this into disarray and cause serious damage to our wider defence capability. Some people here need to have a serious think about what they are saying.

[XV208 SNOOPY]

Is it flying again?


Britain lifts flying suspension on Airbus-made Voyager fleet | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/uk-britain-voyager-idUKBREA1K18L20140221)

[Biggus]

We live in a more open society than we did 20 or 30 years ago, with such things as FOI requests giving the public far more access to information than in the past.

The "grounding" to use the BBC phrase, and the basic reason why, was given widespread coverage:

BBC News - RAF planes 'grounded' after 'in-flight issue' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26157641)

The closest the public has to an information regarding resumption of flights is the following article:

Britain lifts flying suspension on Airbus-made Voyager fleet | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/uk-britain-voyager-idUKBREA1K18L20140221)

In it we have such comments as:

"An AirTanker spokesman, who told Reuters that the suspension had been lifted, said an investigation was ongoing and he was unable to comment on the cause of the incident."

The use of the word "ongoing" implies the investigation is not yet complete.

"The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it was inappropriate to speculate on the cause of the incident but, following critical safety advice, the RAF chain of command had been reassured that the likelihood of a repeat was negligible."

What exactly does this mean? Critical safety advice from who? If it is inappropriate to speculate on the cause, and the MOD knows what it is, why doesn't it say simply say what the cause was?

If I had a 20 year old son or daughter about to fly out on such an aircraft I would be concerned for their safety, and why shouldn't any other concerned parent feel the same.

I'm afraid MOD saying something to the effect of "it's ok, you can take our word for it, we know best" doesn't wash these days - they have previous form in this area!!








.....and I did think seriously about what I wrote above, and if you want me stopped from writing it, what sort of society are we becoming?

[The Helpful Stacker]

A needless grounding would throw this into disarray and cause serious damage to our wider defence capability. Some people here need to have a serious think about what they are saying.

Come on 'ShotOne', why would those who once served care about such things, when they can instead fall over themselves in a rush to prove that they still occasionally bump into operationally relevant people at the golf club?

[beardy]

I think some people are Jeremiads by nature, bad news is good for them.

[Biggus]

..... and some people have lost good friends and colleagues in previous examples of MOD "form" on airworthiness issues.....




Personally I never find attending funerals "good" for me!











It's not a difficult concept, all that is required is for MOD to say "why" the aircraft has been cleared to resume operations!

[beardy]

Biggus,

You are not alone in having lost friends and colleagues in the RAF.

Wailing and moaning here does nothing to improve anything. Some people seem to enjoy that sort of thing as though they are doing some good. They are not.

Airbus have a very good reputation for investigating incidents and circulating the results and advice. They have a vested interest in establishing and maintaining safe aircraft that operate to specification. But it doesn't happen quickly unless it has to.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Airbus have a very good reputation for investigating incidents and circulating the results and advice.

Air France 296?

[beardy]

You seem to have ignored the last sentence.

But it doesn't happen quickly unless it has to.


Air France 296 performed exactly how it should when operated as it was. It worked to specification and did nothing that should have surprised a well briefed crew. What more do you expect Airbus to say other than tested satis? Oh and by the way if you want to display the aircraft to the public talk to our display pilots first.

Unless, of course you subscribe to conspiracy theories, in which case I would advise you to line your colander with turkey strength tin foil when you wear it to use your mobile phone.

[BEagle]

Biggus, that is an excellent post and I agree wholeheartedly.

Roly, AF296 was an utter goat. The crew made a complete pigs' of a simple manoeuvre and bought the farm as a result. Unfortunately the subsequent inquiry hardly covered itself in glory.

AF seem to have something of a reputation nowadays....:rolleyes:

Back to the recent RAF Voyager serious incident, I gather that rumours* are now circulating about injured passengers taking legal action. Perhaps* that's why the Ministry of Truth is keeping schtum?




*nothing more, nothing less.

[Biggus]

beardy,

You say..

But it doesn't happen quickly unless it has to

I have no problem with that, indeed I would expect a thorough investigation to take a considerable amount of time. However, such a statement implies you believe that the investigation into the cause of the incident is quite probably not yet complete, in which case why are the aircraft flying again?

I have no issue with Airbus.

I have no issue with the basic A330 aircraft.

As I have already stated, I have issue with the (my words not theirs) "it's ok, you can take our word for it, we know best" attitude of MOD. Simply because, as has been proved time and again, MOD can't be trusted in this area.

[beardy]

Back to the recent RAF Voyager serious incident, I gather that rumours* are now circulating about injured passengers taking legal action. Perhaps* that's why the Ministry of Truth is keeping schtum?

Rumours and speculation; I suppose that will have to substitute for news.

in which case why are the aircraft flying again?

Probably because

" the likelihood of a repeat was negligible."

Or is that part of the conspiracy?

[Easy Street]

From the statement that the "likelihood of a repeat is negligible" I infer that technical fault had been ruled out. A single occurrence of a "negligible" technical fault causing the reported injuries would surely undermine the safety case to an extent which even DE&S couldn't miss. So, human factors? But if no proof, it suggests the crew aren't talking....

Doesn't say much for Spry's much-vaunted Just Culture if so....

[Roland Pulfrew]

Air France 296 performed exactly how it should when operated as it was. Ah yes of course, the much vaunted computer knows best. Not perhaps how the crew described it, nor (was it?) the Horizon programme of a few years later. What more do you expect Airbus to say other than tested satis?But, you know, it'll be fine; computers are infallible and Airbus wouldn't want any damage done to their all new electric wonderjet!:hmm:

But then this is way off topic, so back to the Voyager.

[beardy]

You brought it up; probably because you don't understand what happened.

Still if it helps feed your conspiracy theory that's fine.

[ShotOne]

Roland, if you feel the AF 296 investigation was a conspiracy then read beagles last post as he sums it up perfectly. The only difference is the crew didn't buy the farm but in fact spent years acrimoniously blaming the aircraft for the accident. All but the most determined Elvis-spotters accept it was not caused by any fault with the aircraft. Why are we even discussing AF 296 in connection with this event?

[Roland Pulfrew]

You brought it up; probably because you don't understand what happened.

Still if it helps feed your conspiracy theory that's fine.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Yeller_Gait]

Doesn't say much for Spry's much-vaunted Just Culture if so....

Anyone over there ever heard of the next step, a generative culture?

[beardy]

Airbus have advised airlines that there is no technical issue from this incident that requires specific recommendations to be made to them.

[cessnapete]

Why then is incident Voyager still grounded in Turkey pending a ferry back.(allegedly)

[beardy]

I have no idea.

You seem to be alleging that it is still on the ground in Turkey (is it?), perhaps you know more and would like to enlighten us all?

[Top Bunk Tester]

According to Plane Finder Voyager ZZ335 / RRR2724 was squawking 7600 over Bristol today at 1254z, was only for a short while so poss switch pigs.

[gr4techie]

According to Plane Finder Voyager ZZ335 / RRR2724 was squawking 7600 over Bristol today at 1254z, was only for a short while so poss switch pigs.

I was looking up IFF codes on wikipedia. 7600 = Comms failure.

There's some very unusual allocations, such as 4442 to 4446... Reserved for operations above FL600 for Lockheed from Air Force Plant 42 (USA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aviation)

[BEagle]

TBT, if it was pukka, it wouldn't have been the first Voyager total radio failure....:uhoh: