Zags, As-Salāmu `Alaykum (السلام عليكم); the KaiTak A320 PIC is a close personal friend of mine, and I did the flight data reconstruction for his action against various parties.
There is no prima facie link between these events, HDA323 and QFA072 in essence, HDA323 was a mismatch of flight control laws due to the sensing logic used by the manufacturer to manage roll authority (OEB 117 infers). This resulted in unforseen flight control gains occurring due the effectiveness of the roll spoiler being commanded fully up with a CONF FULL TE flap deflection. The most notable issue was the term of "PIO" used in the official report and by the other parties, to obfuscate responsibility, when it was readily apparent that the aircraft was unstable in roll following an initial perturbation while the auto pilot was engaged. Apparently we can have a new term "AIO" (to sit along with PIO) and that was/is fine by the authorities and manufacturer....
I had the opportunity to discuss the reprehensible handling subsequent to the event by the then DO of the company, who was prepared to at least concede regret and a belated apology for the outcome. The investigative body and manufacturer never did offer an apology for their incompetence.
Now roll is bad enough to deal with, but a pitch issue such as MAS had with the B777 out of Perth a while back is going to make it uncomfortable for all, as appears to have been an issue on this A330.
The root cause will naturally be of interest, but will require informed and systematic investigation, rather than rumor, speculation & sensationalism. The investigative report and any subsequent OEB by the manufacturer will be worth awaiting for operators of FBW Airbus, and of at least passing interest to Boeing/Emb E series operators and SMS programs.
Rumour from an "insider" is that CB's were cycled under instructions/suggestions from engineering in an attempt to correct the flight control problem
Are we really talking "CBs" (of which, I think most in the A330 are not in the flight deck, unlike the A320), or "Computer Reset" buttons (which look CBs to the uninitiated, but are very different animals in action and when they can/should be cycled)?
Like most others, I can only assume the nearest Jonny Suave Trousers has been to an aircraft is as a Pax...
It is obvious I have no airbus time.
Do checklists call for the use of these "computer reset" switches?
I still think the scenario mentioned is plausible (remember the SQ guy who mistakenly cycled the hydraulic pumps not too far from Learmonth - similar albeit lesser consequences).
I'm curious about the control logic (If applicable) that could command an aircraft manuever like reported here. Are there rate of change laws available by computer that can cause this? or does it have to be a mechanical failure?
Another day, another article. Raising the possibility that elevator control "hydraulic O-ring seals" might have had something to do with the inflight upset... which would mean mechanical failure. For what it´s worth:
of course you did the right thing. if pieces fall off the plane, land, do the paperwork.
I am reminded of "Fate is the Hunter" when a problem over the pacific caused the engines of a DC4 to quit.
Finally, EK Gann took THE ENGINEERS UP and said: you work the throttles, I'll just steer.
All 4 engines quit and the ENGINEERS started screaming.
The QANTAS pilots did the RIGHT, SAFE,PRUDENT thing in landing at the first available field. At that moment, those passengers were no better or worse off than if they had been in an auto accident in that city. I would like to think that methods of stabalizing a spinal injury patient were available there.
Had they continued to Perth, there was a small chance the plane could have come apart in flight...if that had happened, how would someone rectify that problem.
I am not a fan of airbus. The A330 and the A300, while having different flight control systems, are of the same heritage. If I were captain, the tragedy at KFJK would have flashed through my mind.
Jet upsets, flight control irregularities and the like are a damn good reason why a pilot shouldn't have anything on his lap and his attention constantly, CONSTANTLY focused on keeping the plane right side up.
Air Canada had one of their A320s or something like drop 'a lot'. Computer problems were also suspected in that case, although I don't know what the official conclusion was.
BTW – to lay some of the Learmonth Airport speculation to rest. The runway is big, long and strong. The place is built to cope with, amongst other military things, B747 aircraft. I know because I’ve designed some of the parking procedures.
It’s a reasonable choice for an emergency landing. I was last there on a stopover a couple of weeks ago, and looked closely at the airport condition. It’s in good condition.
Yes, the terminal is [nice but] too small for a 747 (and A330), the facilities are very limited, there is no ARFF, the nearby town is very very small, the hospital and emergency services are very limited, and the hotel accommodation in the area probably won’t cope with 300 pax. But for PPRuNe readers around the world, most of Australia is like that. That is why we have the Flying Doctor to deliver medical services in outback areas [and to emergency landings of A330s]. Learmonth is not the Antarctic where passengers die of exposure. The passenger comfort issues at Learmonth are flies, lousy cappuccinos and sunburn while waiting for the aircraft to come up to ferry them out.
It doesn't take much sense to know that an aircraft full of hurting passengers with a suspected flight control problem is better off on the ground at a remote field than in the air.
The know-it-all Capt. decided to balance the fuel [ showed his lack of knowledge] by turning the hyd. pumps off[ 2 at a time]. They were not protected in those days as Airbus thought no one would be that stupid.
With no hyd to the stab. it caused a violent pitchup. Quick thinking F/O grabed his side-stick and commanded a full down imput. while k-i-a realised his mistake and quickly put the hyd. pumps back on.
Result was a wild ride with some injuries,don't know how many, but not as bad as this A330 upset.
Is there an ATSB Report on this? Looked but cannot locate. SQ A340-300 I'd imagine.
This Airworthiness Directive concerning A330 elevator servo controls mentions O-rings on solenoid valves of each servo, and the timing of the AD is the same as in the Herald Sun article
This Airworthiness Directive concerning A330 elevator servo controls mentions O-rings on solenoid valves of each servo, and the timing of the AD is the same as in the Herald Sun article
So what was the background info supporting the need for this AD?
Julian Walsh, director of aviation safety at the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, said an on-board electronic centralized aircraft monitoring system indicated there was "some irregularity with the elevator control system."
The aircraft departed from its normal flight at 37,000 feet, climbed 300 feet, "then as the crew were responding, the aircraft pitched down quite suddenly and rapidly," he said.
"Certainly, there was a period of time when the aircraft performed of its own accord," Mr. Walsh said.
The aircraft, built in 2003 and operated by Qantas since then, made an emergency landing at a remote airfield at Learmonth, an Australian defense force air base, near Exmouth, in Western Australia state.
....In both cases, this situation if not detected could lead to the loss of an
elevator on takeoff and, in the extreme case, reduce the controllability
of the aircraft which is potentially critical.
The aim
Thanks very much for the link above.
My initial read suggest to me that this failure mode mentioned in the AD only affects a failure to respond to a commanded input rather than forces an unwanted input.
Well done for the ATSB to include this in each press release:
Quote:
Without pre-empting any findings in relation to cabin safety issues and the wearing of seatbelts, this accident serves as a reminder to all people who travel by air of the importance of keeping seatbelts fastened at all times when seated in an aircraft
As some SLF postings earlier indicate, there needs to be some better way of getting this message across...
As some SLF postings earlier indicate, there needs to be some better way of getting this message across...
Legislate it, and fine passengers who do not have the seat belt on within 10 seconds of post-loo visit (or other good reasons to stand up) or who do not stand up to go for a loo visit (or attempt to achieve some other tasks that are reasonable) within 10 seconds of unbuckling, unless they have a really, really good reason. Fines collected should be divided equally between all crew members.
Let's face it, wearing a seat belt in a car is compulsory in a lot of country, carrying fairly heavy fines.
Despite the fact that Qantas flights do state "It is a Qantas REQUIREMENT that...", I hear far too many people unbuckling as soon as the seat belt sign is extinguished. Consequently, I would think that legislating it and imposing a fine for not doing so would be the only way of persuading SLFs to wear a seat belt at all times they are seated - that should put people off leaving the seat belt unbuckled.
Although this post is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I really feel that it is quite important for passengers to buckle up when they are seated. Not only can they injure themselves, but they can also injure others if they happen to 'go flying' in an unexpected event.
(to sit along with PIO) and that was/is fine by the authorities and manufacturer.... 
Linear Mode
