Qantas A330 Emergency Landing in Learmonth
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not CAT?
Everyone assumes it's CAT (as did I). I was bothered by the QF statements of an "upset". I would've thought that spin doctors would've been shouting CAT from the highest mountains, in light of their recent media drubbing. Then this from the police spokesman
Mr O'Callaghan said he understood the incident was caused by "some sort of systems failure".
from here
Dozens injured in Qantas mid-air incident - News - Travel - theage.com.au
Mr O'Callaghan said he understood the incident was caused by "some sort of systems failure".
from here
Dozens injured in Qantas mid-air incident - News - Travel - theage.com.au
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Job
What ever the cause (speculation by armchair/sim pilots aside) I say well done to the flight and cabin crew for getting the aircraft down in one piece. 
Still they were flying an Airbus, you know that French built junk
Still they were flying an Airbus, you know that French built junk
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Glade
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Truth
A mechanical problem rendering control of the aircraft "difficult"
Outstanding airmanship prevented a possible disaster.
The word "difficult"is not mine.It was used in a conversation bewtween two company spin doctors.
An understatement if ever there was one.
No more from me
Outstanding airmanship prevented a possible disaster.
The word "difficult"is not mine.It was used in a conversation bewtween two company spin doctors.
An understatement if ever there was one.
No more from me
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: YMML
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry unless there was multiple inflight failures of redundant computers which basically never fail then a flight control induced overg is not possible on the 330.
With loadfactor controlled automatically to +2.5 through to -1G in the clean config it will only be a CAT encounter which can generate such large and massive loads that will throw people around the cabin.
Great job by the crew and excellent decision on diversion destination by the tech crew.
Just glad i wasnt steering that one today...
With loadfactor controlled automatically to +2.5 through to -1G in the clean config it will only be a CAT encounter which can generate such large and massive loads that will throw people around the cabin.
Great job by the crew and excellent decision on diversion destination by the tech crew.
Just glad i wasnt steering that one today...
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: InDahAir
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or somebody moved something in the cockpit to cause the whole thing in the first place. It happened on an American Airbus going into Miami years ago with a similar result.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: YMML
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Kangaroo there is "NOTHING" you can accidently move on the A330 flightdeck that will permit you to exceed these limits.
Read my lips "NOTHING"..
Oh and AMerican operate the A300 not the A330..totally different aircraft..
Read my lips "NOTHING"..
Oh and AMerican operate the A300 not the A330..totally different aircraft..
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Sai Kungah
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Kangaroo there is "NOTHING" you can accidently move on the A330 flightdeck that will permit you to exceed these limits.
Read my lips "NOTHING".
Read my lips "NOTHING".
SQ did it over Oz quite a few years ago with what sounds like a similar result.
They were trying to balance up the fuel. That's why the HYD pump switches are now guarded (they werent then).
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: YMML
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Jed your saying the crew accidently turned off 4 guarded Hyd systems...
Let me think about that for .1 of a second..
Did you need read the part about accidently?
Oh if you dont fly bus ALL guarded switches must be confirmed prior to operation..so we are now saying that the crew did that 4 times confirmed by two crew members....mmmmmmm..
Let me think about that for .1 of a second..
Did you need read the part about accidently?
Oh if you dont fly bus ALL guarded switches must be confirmed prior to operation..so we are now saying that the crew did that 4 times confirmed by two crew members....mmmmmmm..
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: InDahAir
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough about the American Airlines reference, which I think had more to do with suddenly deploying and stowing speed brakes at high altitude after spilling a meal tray, but all we can say is that the event here is highly unusual.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: YMML
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day as per normal people start saying rubbish about the crew involved...this looks for all purposes like a straight forward CAT encounter.
Words overheard by WA police about a systems failure on one of the safest aircraft in world service by people who have not the slightest idea about this aircraft or the incident for that matter.
Sorry but the crew acted at this stage it seems in a highly professional manner dealing with a nasty incident that hopefully i will never have to face.
So how bout we say well done to the crew...rather than make what appear to be rumour based on crap attacking them based on no knowledge what so ever...
Words overheard by WA police about a systems failure on one of the safest aircraft in world service by people who have not the slightest idea about this aircraft or the incident for that matter.
Sorry but the crew acted at this stage it seems in a highly professional manner dealing with a nasty incident that hopefully i will never have to face.
So how bout we say well done to the crew...rather than make what appear to be rumour based on crap attacking them based on no knowledge what so ever...
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ramjager...
Your post interests me. Are you a QF spin doctor? Your post smacks of it. I haven't seen many posts bagging the crew.
On one hand, you berate people for speculation...
, yet you make exactly the same observation
Do you have any information to suggest your hypothesis, other than your opinion?
There have been any number of system-based incidents resulting in "upsets" around the world, and I even recall an incident with an ANZ aircraft mid-ocean which flew thru a cold front; instant pressure change left the FMS thinking it was suddenly at the wrong altitude (or was it an overspeed?), suddenly tried to recapture the cleared level (or correct speed by climbing), traffic conflict, TCAS RA, crew overide, upset ensued, can't remember injuries etc. So there doesnt even have to be a malfunction- just a set of circumstances hitherto unencountered. Trying to deflect any idea that this might not have been CAT just looks like spinning.
The most obvious thing to me is that the spin doctors would've been telling all and sundry it was CAT, very loudly, thereby instantly turning this into positive press (great job by the crew etc). It's what isn't being said that speaks volumes.* Lets face it, QF doesnt need another maintenance/reliability issue right now (or does it???). It certainly doesnt need the press that would ensue (unless it resulted in some chickens coming home to roost on certain people).
*no axe to grind- just don't like it when people who think they are clever try to mislead (spin doctors are lower than lawyers, IMHO).
Your post interests me. Are you a QF spin doctor? Your post smacks of it. I haven't seen many posts bagging the crew.
On one hand, you berate people for speculation...
rather than make what appear to be rumour based on crap attacking them based on no knowledge what so ever...
this looks for all purposes like a straight forward CAT encounter.
There have been any number of system-based incidents resulting in "upsets" around the world, and I even recall an incident with an ANZ aircraft mid-ocean which flew thru a cold front; instant pressure change left the FMS thinking it was suddenly at the wrong altitude (or was it an overspeed?), suddenly tried to recapture the cleared level (or correct speed by climbing), traffic conflict, TCAS RA, crew overide, upset ensued, can't remember injuries etc. So there doesnt even have to be a malfunction- just a set of circumstances hitherto unencountered. Trying to deflect any idea that this might not have been CAT just looks like spinning.
The most obvious thing to me is that the spin doctors would've been telling all and sundry it was CAT, very loudly, thereby instantly turning this into positive press (great job by the crew etc). It's what isn't being said that speaks volumes.* Lets face it, QF doesnt need another maintenance/reliability issue right now (or does it???). It certainly doesnt need the press that would ensue (unless it resulted in some chickens coming home to roost on certain people).
*no axe to grind- just don't like it when people who think they are clever try to mislead (spin doctors are lower than lawyers, IMHO).
It didn't fall, it plummeted. Ten thousand feet in 8 seconds or similar is what we'll hear.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas proceedures are that cabin crew will be seated and service stops
if turbulence is encountered and the seatbelt signs are turned on.
This leads to a reluctance to actually turn the seatbelt signs on.
Most airlines allow the cabin crew to continue service with the seat belt
signs on, the cabin crew are exposed but at least the pax are secured.
Perhaps the mighty red rat should consider their world's safest airline
proceedures in this area.
if turbulence is encountered and the seatbelt signs are turned on.
This leads to a reluctance to actually turn the seatbelt signs on.
Most airlines allow the cabin crew to continue service with the seat belt
signs on, the cabin crew are exposed but at least the pax are secured.
Perhaps the mighty red rat should consider their world's safest airline
proceedures in this area.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't fly aircraft I fix them so can some tech crew answer a few questions.
Would a CAT encounter lead to a Mayday call?
If the CAT lasted a few seconds and then aircraft stabilized (assuming not enough time yet to call the mayday) would they call Mayday because they had injured pax on board?
Is CAT of the nature that could have caused this incident often followed by another incident shortly after?
Would a CAT encounter lead to a Mayday call?
If the CAT lasted a few seconds and then aircraft stabilized (assuming not enough time yet to call the mayday) would they call Mayday because they had injured pax on board?
Is CAT of the nature that could have caused this incident often followed by another incident shortly after?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course they "dropped"! The guys would have descended to get out of the CAT area!
Every time I read this board I just shake my head and wonder at the ignorance of some people.
And Ferris? Possibly, just possibly, Ram might know what he is talking about. I don't fly the -330, I'm a bit of a Boeing man, but he seems to know what he is saying. You on the other hand, seem like an "anti-QF spin doctor".
The ATSB will decide, wont they?
Maybe everyone should just chill a tad. Jeezus.
Every time I read this board I just shake my head and wonder at the ignorance of some people.
And Ferris? Possibly, just possibly, Ram might know what he is talking about. I don't fly the -330, I'm a bit of a Boeing man, but he seems to know what he is saying. You on the other hand, seem like an "anti-QF spin doctor".
The ATSB will decide, wont they?
Maybe everyone should just chill a tad. Jeezus.