Qantas A330 Emergency Landing in Learmonth
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The QF requirement for all crew to be seated when the seat belt sign is on may well be due to the company's obligation to provide a safe working environment. ie. If the pax need to be seated, so should the cabin crew etc etc.
The QF pa's specifically say that all pax must (repeat must) keep the seat belt fastened when seated.
The unfortunate by product of the above is exactly the situation that many QF flight crews go through every day - possibility of turbulence, but nothing untoward as yet - do we or don't we turn on the seat belt sign?
It would be interesting to see where QF stands legally in a court action with this scenario - ie seat belt sign off, turbulence possibility - some pax / cabin crew out of their seats.
As far as the 330 goes, it would have to be an extreme upset for the control laws to translate into abnormal attitude protection. (The actual numbers are reported elsewhere)
If the vertical excursion was in the order of some hundreds of feet, then any loose object would be subject to significant displacement, particularly towards the rear of the aircraft.
If the autopilot remained engaged, and normal control law remained active, the associated flight control ('g' loading) inputs should provide the best protection.
If the autopilot was disconnected manually as an instinctive reaction to the initial onset, then the crew has the capability to generate significant elevator input (with obvious results at the rear of the cabin) during the recovery process.
This will be an interesting investigation.
The QF pa's specifically say that all pax must (repeat must) keep the seat belt fastened when seated.
The unfortunate by product of the above is exactly the situation that many QF flight crews go through every day - possibility of turbulence, but nothing untoward as yet - do we or don't we turn on the seat belt sign?
It would be interesting to see where QF stands legally in a court action with this scenario - ie seat belt sign off, turbulence possibility - some pax / cabin crew out of their seats.
As far as the 330 goes, it would have to be an extreme upset for the control laws to translate into abnormal attitude protection. (The actual numbers are reported elsewhere)
If the vertical excursion was in the order of some hundreds of feet, then any loose object would be subject to significant displacement, particularly towards the rear of the aircraft.
If the autopilot remained engaged, and normal control law remained active, the associated flight control ('g' loading) inputs should provide the best protection.
If the autopilot was disconnected manually as an instinctive reaction to the initial onset, then the crew has the capability to generate significant elevator input (with obvious results at the rear of the cabin) during the recovery process.
This will be an interesting investigation.
short flights long nights
Geoff Thomas is speaking on radio 6pr at the moment. He says he has a source inside Qantas that has told him it was a "computer malfunction".
This may get interesting.
This may get interesting.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: With Ratty and Mole
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Computer Problem
Brings back memories of the "tree lopper"
Airbus wants to design the pilot out of the cockpit.
Imagine this situation without competent airmen?
It would have a less than a satisfactory outcome.
Airbus wants to design the pilot out of the cockpit.
Imagine this situation without competent airmen?
It would have a less than a satisfactory outcome.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
4 pages of crap on this board from all the armchair experts.
And we laugh at the media for their ill informed reporting of these events.
For chrissakes read up on jet upset if you need to. And wait for the real story to emerge.
And we laugh at the media for their ill informed reporting of these events.
For chrissakes read up on jet upset if you need to. And wait for the real story to emerge.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: AU
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the FMGEC's did fail, there is indeed 5 of these box's, but its the process of these switching over that may be of concern, anyone who has done this ops test like i have knows the aircraft makes some interesting noises, airbus says there is no flight control movement, I have felt something, but not being able to see the flight controls from the flight deck i cant speculate further.
Never say never with the possibility for a computer to go nuts in a FBW aeroplane. Boeing said that the 777 could never have a simultaneous overspeed/underspeed indication yet one did (off the coast of WA ironically). The ATSB has sent a team of 8 (according to the media) which is more than they sent to Manila. The media is quoting a spokesman from the ATSB saying they are looking at similar events. There is possibly more to this than a straight forward CAT encounter. And for those saying that people should stop speculating, then maybe they should start the "Absolutely Factual No Speculation Pilots Network".
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Past the rabbit proof fence
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the FMGEC's did fail, there is indeed 5 of these box's, but its the process of these switching over that may be of concern,
I think you mean flight control primary and secondary computers (3xprims, 2xsecs) there are 2 fmgec's.
I think you mean flight control primary and secondary computers (3xprims, 2xsecs) there are 2 fmgec's.
That MAYDAY was in order. Seriously injured POB needing immediate treatment not available on the aircraft would constitute "Grave & imminent danger". As for the CAT, JT's post looks very similar to a Morning Glory type wave. If it was something like that It would have been very severe and sudden.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
As much as I hate to say it, suspicion is starting to grow that this may not have been a CAT event. I heard the QF Chief pilot on the radio this morning and he was stressing very much the "wait until the investigation is complete", line. Very strange for a CAT event. That and the mayday call are a bit of a worry. A pan call would have been enough for injured passengers.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dropped plane had computer 'irregularity'
Not the most accurate news website but interesting ....
Dropped plane had computer 'irregularity' | NEWS.com.au
AIR safety investigators say there was an "irregularity" in the onboard computer equipment of a Qantas plane involved in a mid-air incident between Singapore and Perth.
The Airbus A330-300, with 303 passengers and a crew of 10, struck what the airline described as a "sudden change in altitude'' north of its destination yesterday.
The plane landed at Learmonth, about 40km from Exmouth, without any further incidents.
West Australian police said at least 20 passengers and crew aboard QF72 were seriously injured - some with spinal injuries and others with broken bones and lacerations.
Two Air Transport Safety Bureau investigators are on the ground at Learmonth and five more are expected to arrive there later today.
The Airbus A330-300, with 303 passengers and a crew of 10, struck what the airline described as a "sudden change in altitude'' north of its destination yesterday.
The plane landed at Learmonth, about 40km from Exmouth, without any further incidents.
West Australian police said at least 20 passengers and crew aboard QF72 were seriously injured - some with spinal injuries and others with broken bones and lacerations.
Two Air Transport Safety Bureau investigators are on the ground at Learmonth and five more are expected to arrive there later today.
Bottums Up
One can't win in oz aviation. Declare a Mayday and be told it should be a pan. Declare a pan and be told it should be a mayday.
Buggered if you do, and buggered if you don't, it seems.
Buggered if you do, and buggered if you don't, it seems.
Evertonian
Still not a big fan of the Rat, but they appear to be playing with a straight bat on this one. It would be nice & easy to let the punters think it was severe turbulence & let the facts come out after the dust has settled.
I think after all their recent publicity, if you go with the truth, there's no chance you can be crucified for a cover up later.
I think after all their recent publicity, if you go with the truth, there's no chance you can be crucified for a cover up later.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ML
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
303 passengers hey? The Rat's magazine itself says it only fits 297.
Maybe 303 - 6 seats curtained off for crew = 297.... ??
Or maybe it wasn't 100% full and they're making it up again. Nah, they wouldn't do that surely.
Maybe 303 - 6 seats curtained off for crew = 297.... ??
Or maybe it wasn't 100% full and they're making it up again. Nah, they wouldn't do that surely.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
flt computers ie prim's etc should handover but A/P's FMGC's doubt it.
Fault detected it should drop out if significant.need to re-engage or try another after appropriate procedures.
767's have had a habit of jerky a/p inputs too but that is another issue..
Fault detected it should drop out if significant.need to re-engage or try another after appropriate procedures.
767's have had a habit of jerky a/p inputs too but that is another issue..
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Prob same boxes on all modern buses with pin programming and or software (OBRM) differences for the type.
Theres alot of buses flying and have been for 20 years with similar tech.
It would appear to be one of those left field events.
Theres alot of buses flying and have been for 20 years with similar tech.
It would appear to be one of those left field events.