Qantas A330 Emergency Landing in Learmonth

[Composite Man]

Apparently a Qantas A330 flying from Singapore has made an emergency landing in Learmonth due to problems controlling the aircraft. Several injuries were reported. Nothing further as yet.

[blueloo]

From ABC website:

Police say up to 40 passengers may have been injured in an emergency landing at an airport in Western Australia's north.

West Australian Police say an airbus A-320 carrying up to 300 passengers landed safely at Learmonth Airport in Exmouth this afternoon.

The pilot had put out a mayday call prior to the incident.

[Ndicho Moja]

BBC World Service said just moments ago, 0630Z, that an Airbus had an emergency landing following a mid-air collision. Passengers hurt. The Australian on-line paper has reported some thing similar. Further there were reports of an A320 but also 300 passengers. Doesn't tally.

[Hempy]

Nine.msn and ABC saying its an A-320, sounds like severe turbulence.

There are reports up to 40 Qantas passengers have been injured in a mid-air turbulence incident over Western Australia.
An Airbus A320 has made an emergency landing at Learmonth Airport near Exmouth in the state's northwest.
Qantas has refused to confirm its plane was involved.
The crew of the affected plane was believed to have issued a mayday call before the landing.
Ambulance and emergency crews are now arriving at the airport.

[Section28- BE]

Via the SMH website ex AAP

Reporting a "Mayday"'

Forty passengers injured in mid-air incident

Up to 40 people were injured when a passenger jet carrying more than 300 people made an emergency landing near Exmouth following a mid-air incident, West Australian police say.
Sergeant Greg Lambert said the Airbus A320 landed safety at Learmonth Airport, near Exmouth, this afternoon after a mayday call.
"It is understood up to 40 people were injured during a mid-air incident," Sgt Lambert said.
"The nature of the mid-air incident is unknown."
Emergency services and medical staff were at the airport.
Qantas would not immediately confirm the incident involved one of its aircraft.
AAP

[Comoman]

That Sin-Per service is operated by A330 - the passenger numbers and time of incident correlate to the flight leaving Sin at 09h00 ish.

Qantas mainline doesn't operate A320

Edit to add: QF72 now showing delayed with no ETA

[Little_Red_Hat]

Yes would be the A330. That pattern is the shuttle so I'm guessing the outbound 1530 SIN flight will be delayed as well. Hope all ok!!!! Sounds pretty serious, Learmonth is a RAAF base though so they'd be in good hands with the expertise there!

[PAX67]

Sky news reporting a sudden change in altitude. Broken bones reported.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Perth Radio 6PR reporting that it is QF72 en route to Perth that has landed with some injuries possibly due to turb. 3pm news

[Capt Kremin]

It went to Learmonth, not Exmouth. Learmonth is an Alternate airport for the A330.

[Little_Red_Hat]

Thread on R&N quotes police as stating 10 serious (broken bones/lacerations) and 30 minor, 2 RFDS enroute and QF sending two aircraft to pick up the rest. Suppose that Airbus isn't going anywhere today then. To me that would imply checks needed before it can fly again.

[Jet_A_Knight]

FROM THE ATSB

MEDIA RELEASE

2008/38
Qantas Airbus Incident
07 October 2008

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has been notified of an incident involving a Qantas Airbus A330 aircraft on a flight from Singapore to Perth. While cruising in level flight, the aircraft experienced a sudden in-flight upset, resulting in injuries to a number of cabin crew and passengers, primarily in the rear of the aircraft.

The crew declared a MAYDAY and diverted the aircraft to Learmonth, near Exmouth in WA, where it landed without further incident.

Early reports indicate that three cabin crew and approximately 30 passengers sustained injuries, including about 15 with serious injuries, namely broken bones and lacerations.

The ATSB has initiated a safety investigation and is making arrangements for investigators to travel to Learmonth as soon as possible.

[Victor India]

Airlines like QF have charts which designate certain airfields as "Main", "Alternate", "Adequate", "Emergency" etc, and are specific to certain aircraft or groups of aircraft.

I believe Learmonth is classed as an "Alternate" for a QF A330, whereas Port Hedland and Broome are "Adequate". Not sure what the exact criteria are ("Adequate" for ETOPS?), but am having an educated guess that an "Alternate" is a higher preference than an "Adequate" or an "Emergency".

No doubt the crew balanced the factors at hand, and of course readers at home enjoying a peaceful afternoon may have wide and varied opinions based mostly on lack of information...

:)

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thanks 'Captain',

Perhaps I should have said, ...the nearby town of Exmouth has a hospital...and YPLM has a bloody huge runway. i.e. suitable.
Its on track, and its THERE.

Cheers

[Little_Red_Hat]

Regardless, well done to the crew. Sorry to hear cabin crew were injured (if that is accurate). Return SIN flight now showing departure of 2200. The Qantas-bashing has already started on the news websites. When will people learn that turbulence is not always predictable and is not a maintenance issue??????? :ugh:

[The Voice]

Capt Kremin - yes the jet landed at Learmonth, which I might add is NOT a town for the general populous but a RAAF aerodrome with not much going for it apart from a long bitumen strip.

Learmonth is up there with the other RAAF strips such as at/near Derby and Weipa - they're RAAF owned but only activated as such during exercises .. hey Griffo?!

The nearest town to Learmonth is Exmouth, which is approx a 45 minute drive away - which boasts the Potshot Motel that would be hardpressed to provide accommodation for pax/crew of an airbus.

I understood from a a few years of having to worry about such things that YPLM was deemed suitable as an ALTN AD for all sorts of problems for all sorts of aircraft, and is an ALTN for PER in cruddy weather.

I guess this is just one day when that long runway out in the middle of nowhere has proved its worth ..

[Clearedtoreenter]

the aircraft experienced a sudden in-flight upset, resulting in injuries to a number of cabin crew and passengers, primarily in the rear of the aircraft.


Can anyone define an 'in-flight upset'? Can't seem to find that one in my aviation dictionary.

[Quokka]

...anyone define an 'in-flight upset'?

That is the key phrase... something known that is not being stated publicly.

[pilotdude09]

Learmonth/Exmouth is pretty much the same thing, about a 40 min drive between the town and Airport. Exmouth does have a small strip there for landing but obviously you can land jets there. so the pax and crew will have to be treated in Exmouth or by RAAF/Army staff based at Learmonth.

When people fly to Exmouth you fly into Learmonth.

Certainly sounds like there's more to it......inflight incident etc sounds a bit strange to say the least and makes you wonder what's not being said.

[framer]

Can anyone define an 'in-flight upset'?

Greater than 25 degrees nose up pitch, ten degrees nose down pitch, or 45 degrees angle of bank. Thats what it is for some boeing aircraft anyway, wouldn't know about an A 330.

[pilotdude09]

LRH, cant see the Bus having any trouble getting out of Learmonth!

Runway length: 3078 m (10100 ft)

So one can assume the aircraft will undergo thorough checks then flown to a MX base ASAP.

[Capt Kremin]

A330's don't really suffer from "upsets" as they are classically known. Pilots are not required to practice UA recoveries because the FBW protects the aircraft.
YPLM is plenty long enough to take a full load to Perth. My guess is that they have stood down the crew and are flying a bunch of engineers and a press-ganged crew out of Perth. The engineers will give it the once over, a standard inspection after a severe turbulence event, and then they will fly it back to Perth.

[gyro_topple]

Here's the latest........


UPDATE ON QF72 DIVERSION TO LEARMONTH

SYDNEY, 7 October 2008: Qantas is sending two aircraft to Learmonth from
Perth to collect passengers and crew.

A B767 is due to arrive in Learmonth at 5.10pm local time and a B717 at
5.40pm. The aircraft are due to arrive back in Perth at 7.50pm and 8:35pm
respectively.

Inquiries regarding passengers should be directed to Qantas on 1800 062 241
(in Australia).

Further information will be issued as soon as it is available.



Correction to media release (Q3829) issued at 5.10 pm

The A330-300 aircraft landed in Learmonth at 1.45pm (local time) and had
been due to land in Perth at 2.10pm (local time).


And yes LRH, inspections are required after encountering severe turbulance.

[John Eacott]

Looks like a bit of turbulence in the satpic:

http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/gregski/qf72.jpg

[cheerscheers]

Also there was a Malaysian 777 a few years back had to make a emergency landing at Learmonth after it started diving. Was a computer issue though and not turbulance.

[Icarus2001]

The ATSB just did.:ok:

Putting traumatised passengers on a B717 to fly them home, yep that should finish them off.:rolleyes:

[tail wheel]

Would the arm chair experts who weren't there please desist from questioning the professional pilot's decision, so the rest of us can read the facts without having to sift through the rubbish and bumf?

Whether the aircraft went to Learmonth or Oodnadatta was the Captain's decision alone, the aircraft landed safely and should not be questioned.

Just the facts please!

John at post # 41 may be on the money?

Thanks

:mad: :mad:

[Capt Wally]

I note that the injured pax/crew where mainly at the rear of the plane, damn ""steerage class" partying like that, wayward folk they are:E
I also note that the Aus/Asia/Africa SIGWX showed some CAT at FL370 associated with a westly airflow 120kts+ at or about Learmonth stretching right across this brown land of ours.
Safety, it's all about safety. Get 'em on the ground then let the real fun begin!



CW

[tail wheel]

Dawg and others. The captain made a considered, professional decision, after considering the circumstances he alone faced.

It was his decision and resulted in no loss of life or loss of the aircraft.

Who cares where he went?

Factual updates welcome! :ok:

[Buster Hyman]

Excellent call to land at Learmonth. :D

If he'd landed at Hedland, the punters would've turned on him...I know I would!

[pilotdude09]

Just on the local news

Had some footage of the aircraft and looked 'intact' and they have said it was a severe turbulence incident involving an air pocket, PAX looked pretty shaken as you would.

30 Pax and 3 Flight Attendants injured
1 Person's head actually went through the panels above the seating
10 Pax of the 30 with serious injuries
No life threating injuries at the moment

Qantas flying 2 a/c as we already knew
RFDS organising medical evacuations

That's really all they had about it.

[dijon moutard]

Dear All
this website seems very good : just click on Oceania (for Australia).other world geographical areas are also available.

have used it a far amount and certainly gives a better idea of what's happening re : cat .

www.turbulenceforecast.com (http://www.turbulenceforecast.com/)

it displays severity of turbulence in colour at altitude ; quite neat !

cheers
mustard :ok:

[Lookleft]

The Malysian 777 returned to Perth after its "upset". Since the advent of jet upset training(my wife had images of very sad aeroplanes), its been used to describe an event such as the QF incident. Yesterdays sigwx charts had nothing to suggest that there was anything untoward in the upper atmosphere but the satpic was intriguing.

[Little_Red_Hat]

Just for clarity, as my original posts have been sent into oblivion by the mods, I was not attempting to speculate about why a particular airport was chosen, nor was I trying to stir anything up with my question about inspections, just wanting to have a couple questions answered. Shame we can't discuss that as from a cabin crew perspective it was interesting info that we are not otherwise taught, it's something we tend to pick up on the job or from tech crew when they are happy to answer our questions.

Is it no longer policy to leave the (moderator edited) posts in place so the chronological order of the thread can be seen, it doesn't really make any sense now!

[Streuth]

Perhaps autopilot/computer malfunction could have been the problem. ;)

[tail wheel]

Red Hat.

I'm happy for you to start a speculation thread in our other forum, GA and Questions.

But this thread in Reporting Points Forum is restricted to factual updates.

[Little_Red_Hat]

Thanks, there were two threads running before, I'm confused???

Is there any way we can have those posts back so they can be moved to that appropriate forum to discuss related issues??I don't have those deleted posts saved or anything...

[tail wheel]

There was only ever one thread in Dunnunda Reporting Points and one thread in our international Rumours and News Forum.

There is also a thread in GA and Questions here (http://www.pprune.org/d-g-general-aviation-questions/346056-mid-air-incident.html), which I'm happy to have as a speculation thread for the arm chair theorists. :ok:

"Biggest issue is getting the old man out there to drive the stairs over to the jet. IF the base isn't operational at the time. If it IS, then happy days. Was it operational? No idea? Well then........

In the absence of some sort of structural failure, this is a straightforward case of a diversion followed by medical evacuation of the casualties. The tarts no doubt had to leave the galleys unexpectedly to sort out the wailing punters who'd been without seatbelts so kudos.

Also a lesson for the tarts to be buckled in when sitting in their jumpseats doing nothing. A good idea but rarely seen happening for the same reason the pax don't."

That user's post #6. And you wonder why we need Moderators? :yuk:

[Lookleft]

"Flight within these parameters at airspeeds inappropriate for the conditions."

I would suggest that this incident would be covered by this definition.

[teresa green]

Ok, she has hit some CAT, and run off the rails, it has happened before and will happen again. Training kicked in, the A/C is safe and the pax are a bit knocked around, happened over Belgrade some time ago with the same result, also out of CHC leaving some Japanese Pax hanging from the lockers, A timely reminder to you all, never trust the bastards,for all the glass cockpits, and jesus boxes, they are still aircraft and will turn and bite you when you least expect it, what you learnt at flying school, still stands. Oh and Yodawg, flight attendants are NOT tarts, they are someones child, someones family, perhaps someones mother, think about it.

[ferris]

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 (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/10/07/1223145345200.html)

[b737800capt06]

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. :ok:

Still they were flying an Airbus, you know that French built junk :}

[AlphaLord]

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

[Ramjager]

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...

[Kangaroo Court]

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.

[Ramjager]

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..

[Ramjager]

Exactly A380..not likely the boys/girls are going to be turning off any multiples of three prims two or three adr's by accident...

[jed_thrust]

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".

Sorry: don't agree. Have you tried turning the HYD pumps off?

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).

[Ramjager]

So Jed your saying the crew accidently turned off 4 guarded Hyd systems...
Let me think about that for .1 of a second..:rolleyes:
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..:ugh:

[Kangaroo Court]

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.

[Ramjager]

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...

[ferris]

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...rather than make what appear to be rumour based on crap attacking them based on no knowledge what so ever..., yet you make exactly the same observation this looks for all purposes like a straight forward CAT encounter. 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).

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Having seen the damage first hand, I feel the whole Crew deserve medals the size of frying pans, Well Done !!!!.

[Beer Baron]

It didn't fall, it plummeted. Ten thousand feet in 8 seconds or similar is what we'll hear.

Hahaha, now that would be something. 75,000 feet per minute rate of descent!! Sounds more like re-entry than a descent.

[pilotdude09]

On one of the National News (cant remember which one) a passenger said they dropped 8,000ft.

Don't believe that, and how would he know exactly how much they dropped. :rolleyes:

[Phlap1]

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.

[Hbr]

Don't believe that, and how would he know exactly how much they dropped.


Maybe they worked it out from the moving map on the IFE?

[fordran]

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?

[balance]

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.

[mauswara]

fordran,Mayday = "Grave & imminent danger" so it would be safe to assume structural (or "suspected" structure) damage.

[Led Zeppelin]

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.

[SOPS]

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.

[packrat]

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.

[Ngineer]

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.


I agree totally. Maybe they should find some sort of rumour network to submit their posts to. Some people, geez?!

[BigGun]

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.

[nose,cabin]

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/tropic/real-time/shemi/winds/wgmswvs1.GIF

[Lookleft]

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".

[flypy]

Does anyone know the reg of the incident aircraft?

[aveng]

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.:ok:

[aveng]

Does anyone know the reg of the incident aircraft?

QPA

[OZBUSDRIVER]

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.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

"Kununurra"

[Capt Kremin]

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.

[nafai]

Not the most accurate news website but interesting ....


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.

Dropped plane had computer 'irregularity' | NEWS.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24464882-29277,00.html#)

[Capt Claret]

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.

[Buster Hyman]

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.

[flypy]

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. :hmm:

[Critical Reynolds No]

Infants on laps?

[ampclamp]

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..

[ampclamp]

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.

[flypy]

I see news.com.au is now also reporting the aircraft went to (Exmouth+Learmonth) = Learmouth!

[aulglarse]

cut and pasted from the site;

Air safety investigators say there was an "irregularity" in the onboard computer equipment of a Qantas plane involved in a mid-air incident over Western Australia.

A second team of investigators was travelling to Learmonth, in the state's north, to find the cause of the incident which injured about 20 passengers and crew on board flight QF72 travelling from Singapore to Perth.

The pilots sent a mayday call shortly before making an emergency landing at the regional airstrip, 40km from Exmouth on WA's Gascoyne coast.

Qantas on Wednesday said the cause of the "sudden change in altitude" was speculation.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) director of aviation safety investigation Julian Walshe said the plane was travelling at 37,000 feet when the incident happened.

"The pilots received electronic centralised aircraft monitoring messages in the cockpit relating to some irregularity with the aircraft's elevator control system," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday.

The aircraft then climbed about 300 feet before "abruptly" pitching nose down.
Passengers arriving in Perth on Tuesday night told of their horror as the drop threw them and their personal belongings across the plane.

Jim Ford, of Perth, said he thought he was about to die as he watched people being thrown around the cabin.

"It was horrendous, absolutely gruesome, terrible, the worst experience of my life," he said.

Ben Cave, of Perth, said for a few seconds he had feared for his life and "saw a bit of a flash before me".

"We had a major fall and another fall shortly after.

"I hit the ceiling but I was OK, I only got a few bruises and strains. I just remember seeing that the plane was a mess."

Henry and Doreen Bishop, of Oxford, England, said it was one of the worst experiences of their lives.

"People were screaming but they cut off any panic that might have started...", Mr Bishop said.

"I put it down to life. The titanic hit an iceberg, we hit an air pocket."

A spokesman for Perth's Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital said one of the 20 passengers it treated on Tuesday night was in a serious but stable condition. Eight people were under observation and 11 other patients were discharged, he said. Injuries included fractures, lacerations and suspected spinal injuries.

WA Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan was forced to activate the state crisis centre because of the number of injuries.

"It seems that there might have been some sort of systems failure, we're not sure yet, we're still waiting for further information," Dr O'Callaghan told ABC Radio.

The flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder have been quarantined and sent to Canberra for testing.

Two ATSB investigators were immediately flown to WA, while another five were on their way to the site where the plane landed to interview passengers and crew, Mr Walshe said.

An officer from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has joined the team, as well as an investigator from the Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses (BEA), which is the French counterpart to the ATSB.

The BEA officer has been assigned to the investigation because the plane was manufactured in France.

An investigator from Airbus is also travelling to Australia and will also assist the investigations.

"It is obviously very early in the investigation and too soon to draw any conclusions as to the specific cause of the accident," Mr Walshe said.

The ATSB investigation would explore all aspects of the aircraft's operation, including the flight's black boxes, on-board computer systems, air traffic control and radar warnings and weather conditions, he said.

"The ATSB will also be conducting a range of interviews with the pilots and cabin crew and will also speak with passengers to examine the cabin safety aspects."

The investigation was likely to take some months but the ATSB would release a preliminary report within 30 days, Mr Walshe said.

It was unclear how far in altitude the aircraft dropped during the incident.

The Australian and International Pilots' Association on Wednesday said turbulence was not uncommon on that flight path.

Captain Ian Woods said most modern passenger planes were built to cope with changes in altitude.

"When you cross those jet streams as you do from Singapore to Perth ... you run across the transition boundary," Capt Woods, also a Qantas pilot, told ABC Radio.

"It's at that point where you're crossing from smooth air to fast-flowing air, that there can be quite unexpected and significant turbulence."

This could cause a "jet upset", Capt Woods said.

"So if you're unfortunate enough to run into that, and it sounds like that's what's happened, then certainly it's unexpected and you can get outcomes like this."

Capt Woods said turbulence was nothing pilots "can't cope with".

"Aeroplanes have been ... refined over the years and if we go back to the 50s, then these kinds of events were worse than they are now."

[ANstar]

Qantas plunge: computer 'irregularity' - Travel - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/qantas-plunge-computer-irregularity/2008/10/08/1223145412587.html)


Two Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators are on the ground at Learmonth and five more are expected to arrive there later today.
The bureau's director of aviation safety investigation, Julian Walshe, said the plane was travelling at 37,000 feet and 110 miles (177 kilometres) north of Carnarvon when the incident occurred.
"The pilots received electronic centralised aircraft monitoring messages in the cockpit relating to some irregularity with the aircraft's elevator control system," he told reporters in Canberra.
The aircraft then "departed level flight", and climbed approximately 300 feet.
"The crew had initiated the non-normal checklist response actions.
"The aircraft is then reported to have abruptly pitched nose down."
A number of passengers, cabin crew and loose objects were thrown about the aircraft cabin, primarily in the rear of the aircraft, resulting in a number of injuries to some cabin crew and passengers, Mr Walshe said.
The crew made an emergency broadcast to air traffic control, reporting that some people had been injured.
The pilot also made a request to land the plane at Learmonth.
"A few minutes later, the crew upgraded that broadcast and declared a mayday and advised air traffic control of multiple injuries, including broken bones and lacerations," Mr Walshe said.

[Lookleft]

Obviously Capt. Woods was responding to what was in the media but the phrase "Too early to speculate" stops you looking like a dill when you are conducting a media interview. Speculation on an anonymous forum however is entirely appropriate.

Given the 787 delays and the strike I think it's now "If its Boeing..it aint going!".:ok:

[Matt-YSBK]

Has anyone seen what happends when your trimmed way nose down and some one switches off the A/P When for some reasaon the auto trim is not working.


Could be described as a death plunge ?

[captaintunedog777]

You cannot trim an Airbus (320-340) in normal law airborne.:ugh:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'Day 'Lefty',

"Having seen the damage first hand",

Much visible damage? Any visible to airframe - externally?
Understand cabin is / may be visibly damaged.

Just curious is all....
TA:ok:

[ampan]

In defence of the computer, I ask whether anyone has sighted the jack-screw that controlled the elevator?

[priapism]

It was suggested by a caller on morning radio ( commercial however - grain of salt taken when digesting info) that the Mayday may have been called due to some control problems with the aircraft after the initial sudden drop of altitude and correction of said altitude deviation.
It was also suggested at the time that the cause may not be due to turbulence.
After this afternoon's early reports that an "irregularlty" has been found in the aircraft's computer system , I just wonder where the caller got his info from this a.m. It seemed that the said caller had a fair knowledge of the workings of CASA.....mmmmmmmmmm, this could get ugly for Q/F.

The final report will be very interesting!

[ampan]

I can't accept that any modern autopilot would suddenly send the aircraft into the manouvre described by the passengers.

[AnQrKa]

Twas not turb. Twas not the A/P.

Twas a computer though.

[Old Fella]

It is interesting to note the message (#39) from Tail Wheel (Moderator) to Little Red Hat asking that only FACTS be reported and that SPECULATION is not warranted on this thread. It seems to me that more than a few of the posts on this thread are nothing but speculation and many are plain and simple cheap shots at Qantas and their operations. Worse, the comments regarding where the Captain should have landed and whether or not the emergency warranted a Mayday are being made by those not there. If the Captain considered a Mayday appropriate, and a landing at Learmonth justified, he made the correct decisions. You should all just sit tight and wait for an official report on the event.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Short_Circuit]

OK no more facts...:ouch:

[boardpig]

Enough please of all those "sit and wait for the facts" chest beater types. This is an anonymous internet forum, not the atsb fact files.
Nip down to the local atsb offices and wait outside if that’s what you want. No-one involved in the real incident gives a monkeys what’s posted here, so let’s take it a bit easier eh? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Old Fella]

boardpig. If you hadn't noticed, my post referred to the one by the Moderator which singled out Little Red Hat. Consistency would be appreciated. That said, most of the anonymous posts are just wild speculation which are doing nothing to add to our knowledge of the event. If you have not read Post #39, read it and you will see where I'm coming from.

[captaindejavu]

whaT's tHe bIg fasCination wiTh capItalising evEry wOrd, "oLd FeLla"??

iS yOur OCD geTting woRse? :ugh:

[CAYNINE]

Have flown the 330 and 340 for several years and have conducted PRIM resets in flight on 3 occasions. If the AP is engaged there is a slight and sometimes a moderate "control jerk" when the computer resets to the normal computer configuration for the flight controls. Disconnecting the AP will stop this from being felt through the aircraft.... the guys on this flight (according to reports so far) received an ECAM, this is something that gives credence to a possibility of a computer failure or a flight control disagreement. For the aircraft to descend so rapidly would be very concerning not knowing why, they made a very good and correct decision to go to YPLM. (Just for those that like a niggle at those that were doing the correct thing).

Will be interesting to know what occured....

As a side..... when will passengers start to realise that this isn't the first time that a sudden change of altitude has resulted in injury.....and wear the bloody belt that is provided.

[1746]

"In defence of the computer, I ask whether anyone has sighted the jack-screw that controlled the elevator?"
Actually the only screw jack associated with pitch in the A330 is for the Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer (THS) not the elevators.

[Noeyedear]

Firstly, my best wishes to all injured for a speedy recovery.

Perhaps someone can provide a link, but wasn't there a similar incident in a SQ A340 near Alice Springs over 10 years ago? Human Factors issues led to a pilot turining off the hydraulics instead of transferring fuel from memory, but thats a pretty hazy memory.

I guess the moral to the story is that the SLF need a jolt (pardon the pun) every now and then to realise that there is some risk involved in air travel and that they should perhaps listen to safety briefings and advice like "We recommend you keep your seatbelts fastened unless moving around the cabin".

My sympathy goes to the Cabin Crew who don't have this option in the case of unexpected turbulence.

Sympathy to all the crew as well, most professionals feel heavily the duty of care to their passengers and as such they are bound to carry some level or personal distress over the injuries that have occured.

Safe flying folks.

[ACMS]

Like a lot of you I have travelled thousands of times down the back to and from Oz. I can safely say that if the A/C suddenly dived for the deck I would be wetting my pants not knowing what the F was going on up front!!

And yes a SQ A340 crew turned off all the Hyd pumps by mistake and caused a rapid nose up or down ( can't remeber which ) pitch about 10 years ago over the GAFFA. Injured a few pax and crew if I recall.

Interesting event yesterday, we look forward to the investigation report.

Seems it was well handled by the crew. ( any landing you can walk away from )

[troppo]

The number of times I have seen adults and their children unstrapped in the cabin suggest total oblivion to the risks involved. The seatbelts fastened sign is there for a reason which the paxing public obviously don't fully comprehend. Maybe the you-tube clip on smh should be added into the safety brief?

[ACMS]

I now make a point of asking the cabin crew to ring me if the pax don't follow the seat belt sign. I then make a stern PA TELLING them to stop using the toilets, sit down and fasten their seat belts for their own safety. I further add that CX will not be responsible if they get hurt.

usually does the trick.

[NAMPS]

We all know what a "red eye" flight is.

Would that flight constitute a "black eye" flight?

Boom tish...:}

[ULH Extreme]

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. Can't be done now, but if you try , you split your fingers down the middle into quarters.:ooh:

[Old Fella]

Captaindejavu. Thank you for your insightful comment on my post "Chest beaters". Just to put your mind at rest the uppercase letters on each word was an unintended consequence of having typed the post with the Caps Lock button depressed. Try it and you will see for yourself what happens when the post is submitted. Now, do you have something constructive to add to the thread?

[neil henry]

I heard an interview with a passenger today who stated the F/O was not on the flightdeck, and was injured.

[ct2k]

Is'nt this a web site for professional pilots????? Dont you guys know anything?? It is quite obvious that it was an air pocket. :}

[tail wheel]

Yes Old Fella, so far forty six posts on this thread have been removed by Moderators due to contributing nothing to the thread subject. I noticed similar numbers of posts have also been removed from the thread on the same subject in the Rumours and News Forum.

This news forum is for professional pilots to either constructively contribute or to find facts on the thread subject. No one wants to delve through reams and reams of meaningless, unqualified arm chair speculation, worthless comment or idle thread drift in order to separate the chaff from the facts.

Those wishing to speculate are welcome to open a thread in either GA and Questions or Jetblast.

"I heard an interview with a passenger today who stated the F/O was not on the flightdeck, and was injured."

Source of that information?? :confused:

(In order others may assess it's veracity, as that comment has certainly not be made by any of the authorities in their various releases.)

[skycatcher]

I heard an interview with a passenger today who stated the F/O was not on the flightdeck, and was injured.


Now that is entirely plausible and really scary and why my crew are only allowed to leave the flight deck for as long as a "comfort stop" takes. Of course this could have been what was in fact occuring. Visiting with the FA's or any one else is not on in a 2 crew environment.

It concentrates the mind wonderfully if, for whatever reason the event occured, you are on your own and to be told the FO is US. MAYDAY is a good look for me too.:uhoh:

[stiffwing]

skycatcher,
If the f/o was in the crew rest...
The tech crew were planned sin-per-sin, therefore three pilots (second officer in other seat).

[Teal]

This news forum is for professional pilots....Actually, for "aviation professionals" according to the owners of pprune. That might include one or two other professions in addition to pilots.:ok:


Yes, I accept that. However the news forums is for competent, professional comment and debate on current issues affecting the professional aviation industry. There are other forums for the arm chair experts and Flight Sim brigade.

Tail Wheel

Agreed!

T

[Flying Spag Monster]

The only failure that I can think of that might lead to this would be the Loss of Elevator Redundency following some dual FLCTL failure and then a third failure??

The information posted here is rumour and the ususal wild speculation - FSM

[dirty deeds]

I am not airbus endorsed, but what I have heard is one engine wound back and as this engine went through its relight phase, the second engine wound back too, a total of approx. 10 seconds was achieved with no power. CASA are now indicating that a computer issue seems to be a cause.

Once again, this is all speculation. Deeds.

[ACMS]

Engine re-light at FL370? extremely slow and in my opinion doubtful, even on an Airbus!!

[hongkongfooey]

Engine re-light at FL370?

7000' above max guaranteed altitude

Rollers take a crap load more than 10 secs to re-light, try nearly 2 minutes. FL370 significantly above OEI alt, even for an empty a/c, so I think the engine wind back thing is a crock :eek: It would have lost 1000s of feet.

[PammyAnderson]

MMmmm Interesting, I said early on in this thread that this wasnt simply a cat incident and I had all the pro qantas gurus say what a load of crap, etc etc.
I never said the crew did anything improper, infact I am sure they handled it very well and made the best decision based on the info they had at the time. But maybe some of those who love to vocal themselves on these threads at those who may not agree with their premature predictions should take a look as this as an example of your not always so correct yourselves..:ok:

[Capt Basil Brush]

Quote:
"I heard an interview with a passenger today who stated the F/O was not on the flightdeck, and was injured."

Source of that information??

I also heard it on Sky News. The pax said the Captain or First Officer was in the cabin.

[tail wheel]

The ATSB and Qantas tonight confirmed the incident was caused by a "computer malfunction" leading to an "elevator malfunction" and not CAT.

Source: Sky News

[skycatcher]

Well, win lose or draw, pitch up then rapid loss of altitude sounds like a full on departure from controlled flight to me. That's where it turns from an elegant flying machine to a wet bag of cement. Walks talks and quacks etc.

The whole circus, alpha floor protection et al, is never supposed to go anywhere near that mode of flight for the very reason that it is pretty damn unpleasant, is flight test only and certainly not something you ever want pax to experience.

What caused it is the question. "there it goes again" :eek:

[puff]

Sounds like a hell of a flight for the S/O to perhaps get his first landing in a control seat if the F/O or Capt was injured!

[contrails03]

Imagine if it had happened at 4000' rather than in the cruise.. Glad there were no fatalites and wish a speedy recovery for all involved..

[Ka.Boom]

Qantas was warned about this potential computer problem three years ago.

[SOPS]

ahh??....what problem???

[dicks-airbus]

Published today by German Spiegel-Online:

"Kurz vor dem Beinaheabsturz einer Qantas-Maschine mit 313 Menschen an Bord in Australien hat ein elektronischer Alarm Probleme am Höhenruder signalisiert. Das sagte der zuständige Sicherheitsdirektor Julian Walsh am Mittwoch."

->

"Shortly before the almost crash of a Quantas machine with 313 people on board in Australia, there was an electronic alarm mentioning problems with the elevator. This was said by the responsible security director Julian Walsh on Wednesday"

Is that what was meant with "warned about this three years ago"? Does not make sense, how come only this A330 has this issue and why was it not resolved?

[Kangaroo Court]

So um...Dick,

Do you sell Airbus aircraft for a living? Not bad for a first post.:D

[dicks-airbus]

Not bad eh :{. No, I'm happy that I'm not selling Airbus or planes in general these days.

[SOPS]

6pr.com.au has video from inside the aircraft. Shows damage to overhead panels,

[Ka.Boom]

Qantas was warned by both CASA and Airbus of potential computer glitches 3 years ago.It was also warned about O ring leaks in the elevator mechanism.
The O ring leak is likely not implicated in this event
As has already been mentioned Qantas does not reach its own benchmarks in maintenance.
This is perhaps an example.
Expect the Qantas Airbus fleet to be grounded pending further investigation

[Arm out the window]

7 TV news is doing well - two quotes from them this morning pointing the finger at the aircraft's 'elevation system' and 'the elevator, which controls the plane's tail fin'.
Top notch research!

[peuce]

I would just like to pop my head up and support PammyAnderson (and who wouldn't) and make a few points:


I thought the speed at which the QANTAS protection society jumped up and down at the beginning of this thread was awe inspiring.
I've got no problems with rumour, innuendo and presumptions being thrown about in the "Rumour" network .
If we only published factual information on this site ... well, it would be pretty thin on the ground ... and you should probably go to the Aviation Safety Digest to read such stuff
Admitedly, there's a lot of crap written, but who knows, one day some of the wheat within the chaff might just be the catalyst that leads to some safety improvement




Yes it is a Rumours and News Forum. The removed posts did not fit into either category.

Tail Wheel

[Foyl]

Lastest on Sky News this morning was that they're investigating the possibility that a passenger's laptop interfered with the electronics.

[Jabawocky]

http://file045b.bebo.com/15/large/2007/12/19/23/4525920200a6411184213l.jpg

ANd maybe this data might be added to :uhoh:
Google Docs - DOTARS / ATSB Portable device incidents (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p60h0dN2Vl8X-jcsFsCd_GA)

J:uhoh:

[Transition Layer]

hongkongfooey,

Rollers take a crap load more than 10 secs to re-light, try nearly 2 minutes. FL370 significantly above OEI alt, even for an empty a/c, so I think the engine wind back thing is a crock It would have lost 1000s of feet.

Dunno if it makes a difference, but QF A330s are GE powered.

puff,

Sounds like a hell of a flight for the S/O to perhaps get his first landing in a control seat if the F/O or Capt was injured!

S/Os aren't always carried on the SIN-PER sector. Depends if they're doing it as a shuttle back up to SIN or not I think. Not sure about the flight in question.

[boardpig]

Sounds like they dodged a bullet more than anything. Top job by the crew involved, ac on the ground, all sob alive, good result all round. Now for the why's.....

BP

[Deaf]

Apart from EMC issues involving laptops, games etc there is also the ROHS (lead free) issue to be considered. Airbus is a bit vague about how far they have gone with it but do have the usual green waffle about making progress in that direction.

For those who are not familiar with the ROHS problem basically solder joints are a lot less reliable than they used to be both initially and with cracking over time with vibration. There are also problems with tin whiskers growing and shorting between joints/tracks etc this can lead to them being zapped and disappearing leaving no trace just a one off fault.

[Swift6]

Sky news was reporting last night a malfunction with the aircraft's Tail flap? You gotta love the top notch reporting!

[Capt Kremin]

The crew was doing a shuttle and a SO was onboard.

[RENURPP]

I am not familiar with "flight mode" as my phone doesn't have that deature, so maybe my comment is off the mark?

I also am not convinced that phones etc have an affect, I am no expert so I simply turn my off as instructed.

With all that in mind did you notice the video on TV, from inside the cabin immediately after the incident. Taken with a mobile phone with the reporter making comments about how silly people are for using mobile phones in aircraft and ignoring the fact that their news report is based on exactly that.

[ULH Extreme]

Jabawocky- no Airbus on that list, must have some protection from these nasties. Anyone know ?

[airtags]

ATSB Investigator quoted in Courier Mail today indicated that pax are being quized about their use of electronic devices, particularly laptops with wireles mouse.

Follow up story carried by 9 refers to an incident in July:

ex 9msn news 1300 AESST:
"In July, a passenger clicking on a wireless mouse mid-flight was blamed for causing a Qantas jet to be thrown off course, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s monthly report."

Before the whole debate turns into a Mythbusters episode, I'd be interested in any technical comment on the data integrity of FBW systems and; if the ATSB report is correct (or correctly quoted should I say) - has the situation been able to be replicated on the test bench.

[Sunstar320]

Sorry if already said somehwhere duing the last 8pages, but how old is this A330???

[TWT]

Delivered in 2003 according to someone earlier in this thread

[piston broke again]

Read the book 'airframe' by michael crichton a few years back...the events have a striking similarities to this one. Just a footnote!

[Fris B. Fairing]

Isn't it nice to see the good old RFDS coming to the rescue, thus revisiting historical ties between Qantas and the RFDS.

Qantas CEO announces that all executive bonuses will be revoked and given to the RFDS.

[Willoz269]

"AIRFRAME" is one of the worst books in aviation novel history in my opinion! It is loosely based in a Chinese MD-11 incident of slats deplaoyment mid flight.

[Little_Red_Hat]

Kremin is right. The QF72/71 is run as a shuttle SIN-PER-SIN.... Totally common for tech crew to come get their own drinks as a mean to stretch the legs and use the lav.

Again, the pax stating that one of the tech crew was in the galley at the time was seen by more than one crew member Ive flown with since this whole thing happened- so it's not a rumour. Also we're talking business class galley, not at the back of the a/c. And as for comments about crew going to 'talk up the F/As', not all flight crew are there for that reason. Some see it as good CRM as they might not have had the chance to say g'day during boarding.

Agree that if anything except FACT was taken out of this forum we wouldn't have one!! Fair call to the mods if they think something doesn't belong- it just ticks me off a bit that I get told off for asking a question and answering someone else's- nothing I said about Learmonth airport was not a fact- I have been there. Yet people are making other comments and nothing. Sorry if I can't figure out how to post a question without it being 'speculating' :E

Back on topic. I was asking in the other thread, is it possible for a significant CAT/turbulence event to cause an 'in flight upset' (i.e. the computer simply couldn't cope, for whatever reason, or in conjunction with an elevator problem- if there was one)

Not speculating, just after some FACTS :}

[ampan]

Why the focus on the computer?

This whole thing has happened before, with the 737.

That had nothing to do with the computer. It was basic electronics / mechanics.

A passenger's laptop causing a sudden pitch down? Give me a break!


Something shat itself down the back, with the result that the skipper followed suit - and he did a great job.

[Lookleft]

Why the focus on the computer? Because computers have been known to cause an aircraft to pitch-up through the autopilot before. An MAS 777 did 10000'/min RoC due to just that reason in 2005.

[404 Titan]

If I was to have a guess at what has happened here and it is only a guess, I would say this has everything to do with a certain “OEB” i.e. “UNDETECTED ELEVATOR CONTROL LOSS IN CASE OF DUAL FAILURE” that is well known to Airbus and operators than any pax using an electrical devise or turbulence. This leads one to ask was the OEB followed exactly by the crew and if it was then Airbus will have to revisit this problem and find a solution once and for all before an airframe is lost.:ugh:

[lowerlobe]

I imagine the RAAF will be looking very closely at this seeing that they have selected this aircraft as the basis for their new re fuelling tankers.

[CAVEDWELLER]

The RAAF won't have anything to worry about as the maintenance is to be carried out in Australia. Unlike Qantas they don't lose control of their maintenance by outsourcing to the cheapest MRO they can find. The QF A330's are maintained in Manila and Hong Kong. Its called "worlds best practise"- (for increasing management bonuses).:D

[404 Titan]

CAVEDWELLER

This “OEB” if it is at the centre of this incident has nothing to do with where the aircraft is maintained. Are you suggesting all CX’s aircraft are maintained poorly because they are maintained in Hong Kong and Xiamen? I hope not. The RAAF will be drawn into this long running problem just like all A330/340 operators world wide have been. The question that needs to be asked by the investigators and regulators alike is when does Airbus intend fixing what I and many others consider a serious problem, once and for all?

[Old Fella]

Cavedweller, maybe you should come out into the light. Having worked for CX and having operated as a F/E on their aircraft I can assure you that there was absolutely no justification for your denigration of the maintenance carried out there. Aircraft reliability and 'on time' departures was a feature of the fleet, added to which ADD's were minimal and always addressed in quick time. Unless you have first hand knowledge of something to the contrary I suggest you apologise to HAECO.

[Carlos169]

If airplane systems are so fragile and easily interfered with by electrical devices then how come they are allowed on board?

And if they have such a profound affect why isn't it used by extremists today? Several people with concealed laptops turned on would be very dangerous!

[gameboy1971]

Interesting - from ATSB website.

While the full interpretation and analysis of the recorded data will take some time, preliminary review of the data indicates that after the aircraft climbed about 200 feet from its cruising level of 37,000 feet, the aircraft then pitched nose-down and descended about 650 feet in about 20 seconds, before returning to the cruising level. This was closely followed by a further nose-down pitch where the aircraft descended about 400 feet in about 16 seconds before returning once again to the cruising level. Detailed review and analysis of FDR data is ongoing to assist in identifying the reasons for the events.

[Dragun]

Those rates of descent (1950fpm and 1600fpm respectively) aren't anything out of the ordinary for a pressurised hull so it must've been one violent pitch down!

[Oops...Airbusted]

I'd bet $$$ that there's more than one person closely perusing the tech logs from a certain month earlier this year... would make for relevant reading and hopefully give some insight into things, if the direction they're taking is in fact the right one.

[Ken Borough]

Oops...Airbusted, Are any engineering staff looking for the exits? :ok:

[Veruka Salt]

" .. If I was to have a guess at what has happened here and it is only a guess, I would say this has everything to do with a certain “OEB” i.e. “UNDETECTED ELEVATOR CONTROL LOSS IN CASE OF DUAL FAILURE” .."

I'm not sure whether the QF Airbuses have the OEB reminder function enabled, or whether the crew referred to the OEB during the event, but in any case the OEB says to "apply normal ECAM procedure and STATUS" if the malfunctions occur in flight, so it would not have altered the outcome.

The vertical speeds which ensued only equate to around 2 - 2.5 deg change in pitch, although the rate of pitch change was obviously large to cause injury.

[Capt Kremin]

It wasn't related to that OEB. Thats all I can say.:oh:

[Capt Kremin]

Operations Engineering Bulletin. Airbus speak for "le problem that may take us some time to feex...."

[peuce]

Just in case you haven't seen photos of the damaged interior ...

Bloody wreck | NEWS.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/travel/gallery/0,23607,5035047-5007150,00.html)

[Near Miss]

I would like to know where was the trim (ie CWCG) and what was going on with the fwd/aft transfer of fuel to the THS.

Good job guys. :D You deserve to be praised, not questioned, for you actions.

[MELKBQF]

Im supprised that the media havent reported that all the heavy maintenance on the JQ and QF A330 fleet is carried out in Manilla.

[Ndicho Moja]

MELKBQF: Perhaps the reason that the media have not bothered with the Manilla maintenance topic, is because most Airbus heavy maintenance performed in Manilla is through Lufthansa Teknik (Sp?).

[Keg]

I heard an interview with a passenger today who stated the F/O was not on the flightdeck, and was injured.The F/O was off the flight deck to visit the loo. Apparently suffered a broken arm/wrist and a broken nose (no smart alec comments from the peanut gallery about what may have contributed to the broken wrist!). Hope the F/O (and everyone else) recovers quickly and is back on line ops soon.

TID Edit.

[MELKBQF]

Ndicho Moja: isnt that the same MRO that lockwired the crew oxy closed on a QF group A330 last year?

[Capt Kremin]

Qantas hasn't said anything about the cause. The CAT speculation comes from people in here, guilty as charged yer honour, and the laptop speculation comes from elsewhere on the blogosphere.

TID Edit

[Buster Hyman]

Perhaps they are the right guys to have when the schiesen hits the oscillator?

[hongkongfooey]

Trans Layer, thanks for that, but no I don't think it makes a big difference, anyhow the " engine rollback " theory seems to have been given the attention it deserved ;)

Was'nt the 747 with the oxy bottle problem serviced in avalon ?? ( just while we are finger pointing )

[Lookleft]

Just had a look at the animation that the ATSB have put on their website. One issue that it highlights is the total unreliability of passenger descriptions of how much altitude was lost during the incident. The other interesting aspect is how much cabin damage was caused by ,what appears in the animation,as a minor pitch down. The actual numbers tell more of a story with the maximum pitch down being -8.1 deg but it wasn't sustained. There are no figures for the g load experienced. Worth a look for those who want more than media drivel.

[NSEU]

I wouldn't be surprised if there was an engine rollback as a result of the incident. With negative g's, perhaps all the fuel was at the top of the tanks (and not where the pump inlets are) :}

Too many conspiracy theories here... QF spokespeople were in the dark like everyone else (CAT was only put forward because it seemed like a likely scenario at the time).

Whilst it probably wasn't a laptop or mobile which caused this problem, that's not to say they have never caused problems. Whilst your average laptop might not cause problems, broken ones have been reported to have been interfering with aircraft equipment. Incidentally, even official onboard IFE systems (malfunctioning) have generated problems in unrelated aircraft systems.

As one engineer commented to me today, fly by wire is fine.... when you have an ejector seat. Computers and aircraft will never make a good marriage.

To the person who asked why it took 20 seconds to get the aircraft under control.... What makes you think that was an option? As I understand it, even under direct law, the aircraft is still being controlled by a computer.

[Old Fella]

NSEU I would be surprised if the fuel pumps are not inside a surge tank which allows fuel in, but not back out to the tank, to combat your theory about "all the fuel at the top of the tanks". Have had nothing to do with Airbus, so cannot say for sure, however if the pumps are able to be starved of fuel by negative 'g' it would be a backward step from earlier aircraft.

[peuce]

Capt Kremin ... could you please post a list of your two "unlucky" colleagues' future work schedules. I think I'll plan my bookings around them ... right AROUND them.:}
Lookleft ...Maybe it's not the amount of up or the amount of down ... but the shortness of time between the two actions that embedded passengers in the ceiling

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

Pro Pilots please excuse my ignorance on this subject but i've been following this thread for a while and there are posts riddling at a possible cause but not fully explaining.

I understand a little on the shielding factor on avionics suites and am somewhat suspicious on a laptop/PDA cause, given the required EMF power to cause such an incident. Is there an possible problem in the 330 and if so why no groundings or AD's.

Sorry for the questions but I haven't been able to get close to an answer and when I do it gets way too cryptic for a clown like me. As an aside,I do trust Qantas pilots and engineers and have faith in their training and ability in the worst of situations and feel the handling of this, again proves that trust is well placed.

[Tidbinbilla]

Folks, please refrain from identifying the crew concerned, even in jest. This event has drawn a lot of interest, and we believe it is in the best interest of all concerned that all references to crew identity be removed.

TID

[lowerlobe]

One issue that it highlights is the total unreliability of passenger descriptions of how much altitude was lost during the incident
....Except for the media (with their usual frenzied attitude to reporting a story) who would expect and give any credibility to a pax when asking how much altitude was lost?

[The Mr Fixit]

The aircraft was serviced at the Avalon facility HKF, the oxygen cylinder in question was serviced somewhere else. A little bird also told me that the bottle may have been serviced to 4,000psi anyone know if other airlines (besides QF) use that press. QF uses 3,000psi ?

[The Mr Fixit]

I think in the wash you will find the engines 'rolled back' as a result of an overspeed detection thus the also initial slight rise in altitude

[topend3]

GWN News in WA was still reporting that the aircraft had dropped 8,000 feet on Thursday, after the official facts from the ATSB had been released...not surprising really...

[Kangaroo Court]

Holy crap! 3,000 psi on a O2 bottle? I've only serviced them to 1,850 at sea level at OAT 20 C.

[Brian Abraham]

What Boeing has to say about portable electronic devices, since the subject has been raised..

Interference from Electronic Devices

Operators of commercial airplanes have reported numerous cases of portable electronic devices affecting airplane systems during flight. These devices, including laptop and palmtop computers, audio players/recorders, electronic games, cell phones, compact-disc players, electronic toys, and laser pointers, have been suspected of causing such anomalous events as autopilot disconnects, erratic flight deck indications, airplanes turning off course, and uncommanded turns. Boeing has recommended that devices suspected of causing these anomalies be turned off during critical stages of flight (takeoff and landing). The company also recommends prohibiting the use of devices that intentionally transmit electromagnetic signals, such as cell phones, during all phases of flight. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission already prohibits the use of cell phones during flight. In addition, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration issued Federal Aviation Regulation 91.21 to make operators responsible for governing the use of portable electronic devices on their airplanes.

Electromagnetic interference (EMI) from passenger-carried portable electronic devices (PED) on commercial airplanes has been reported as being responsible for anomalous events during flight. The operation of PEDs produces uncontrolled electromagnetic emissions that could interfere with airplane systems. Airplane systems are tested to rigorous electromagnetic standards to establish and provide control of the electromagnetic characteristics and compatibility of these systems. However, PEDs are not subject to these same equipment qualification and certification processes. Though many cases of EMI have been reported over the years, with PEDs suspected as the cause, it has proven almost impossible to duplicate these events. Boeing has participated in several related activities and has revised its all-model service letter for concurrence with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) advisory circular (AC) on the use of cell phones while airplanes are on the ground. However, operators and their flight crews are ultimately responsible for deciding whether to allow the use of PEDs.

Operators can increase their ability to make proper decisions regarding the use of PEDs by becoming aware of the most current information in the following areas:

1. Testing and analysis of PEDs and airplane systems.
2. Resulting regulations and recommendations.
3. Operator actions for investigating and preventing PED events.
4. Ongoing related activities at Boeing.

1. TESTING AND ANALYSIS OF PEDS AND AIRPLANE SYSTEMS
Boeing has conducted several tests and investigations to better understand the effects of PED use on airplane systems. These include analysis of operator reports, investigation of specific instances of suspected PED interference, ground and airplane tests of in-seat power, and cell phone tests and analysis.

Analysis of operator reports.
Boeing has received many reports related to PEDs from operators. The majority of these reports were inquiries about PEDs in general. The remaining reports involved airplane anomalies and can be grouped into one of three categories of PED events: (1) events where PED interference was suspected (an airplane anomaly occurred when a PED was being operated), (2) events with an apparent correlation between PED operation and the airplane anomaly (the problem disappeared when the PED was turned off, either immediately or shortly thereafter), and (3) events showing a strong correlation between PED operation and the airplane anomaly (the problem disappeared when the PED was turned off, returned when PED use resumed, and disappeared when the PED was turned off again).

Of the reports involving airplane anomalies, only a few showed a strong correlation between the airplane reaction and the suspected PED.

Investigation of specific instances of suspected PED interference.
Some sample cases are included here to illustrate the variety of potential PED events.

1995, 737 airplane.
A passenger laptop computer was reported to cause autopilot disconnects during cruise. Boeing purchased the computer from the passenger and performed a laboratory emission scan from 150 kHz to 1 GHz. The emissions exceeded the Boeing emission standard limits for airplane equipment at various frequency ranges up to 300 MHz. Boeing participated with the operator on two flight tests with the actual PED, using the same airplane and flight conditions, in an attempt to duplicate the problem. Using even these extensive measures to re-create the reported event, Boeing was unable to confirm the reported interference between the PED and the airplane system.

1996/1997, 767 airplane.
Over a period of eight months, Boeing received five reports on interference with various navigation equipment (uncommanded rolls, displays blanking, flight management computer [FMC]/ autopilot/standby altimeter inoperative, and autopilot disconnects) caused by passenger operation of a popular handheld electronic game device. In one of these cases, the flight crew confirmed the interference by turning the unit on and off to observe the correlation. The same unit was used on another flight and on a different airplane, but the event could not be duplicated. Boeing purchased two of the actual suspect units through the airline and tested them in the laboratory, along with three off-the-shelf units. It was determined that these suspect units had emission profiles similar to the off-the-shelf units and that the levels from these devices were below airplane equipment emission limits.

1998, 747 airplane.
A passenger’s palmtop computer was reported to cause the airplane to initiate a shallow bank turn. One minute after turning the PED off, the airplane returned to "on course." When the unit was brought to the flight deck, the flight crew noticed a strong correlation by turning the unit back on and watching the anomaly return, then turning the unit off and watching the anomaly stop. Boeing was not able to purchase the actual PED, but contacted the PED manufacturer and purchased the same model. Boeing laboratory emission testing revealed that the unit exceeded Boeing airplane equipment emission levels by up to 37 dB by demonstrating energy levels in the frequency range of 150 to 700 kHz. In the Boeing navigation laboratory the unit was placed next to the FMCs, control display unit, and integrated display unit, but the reported anomaly could not be duplicated.

As a result of these and other investigations, Boeing has not been able to find a definite correlation between PEDs and the associated reported airplane anomalies. For future considerations and investigations, other factors are becoming significant. Qualification levels related to high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF) for new airplane equipment are higher than almost any level of emissions from passenger PEDs. The size of many PEDs is shrinking and, as a result, these units require less power to operate. Though this can increase the margin between airplane system susceptibility test levels and PED emissions, some PEDs are now operating in new frequency bands and are combining multiple functions, making it more difficult to distinguish between intentionally and non-intentionally transmitting PEDs (see below).

Consequently, some airplane systems that have not been reported as being susceptible to PEDs, such as the global positioning system, weather radar, and radio altimeter, may pick up energy from newer PEDs that operate in the high-frequency bands and whose harmonics or other noise may fall within one of these airplane systems’ operating bands.

Ground and airplane tests of in-seat power.
Operators have asked Boeing to install and certify in-seat power outlets for passenger use of laptop computers. Boeing and the FAA have three related electromagnetics concerns: (1) whether installing the outlets will increase the use of laptop computers and a corresponding number of potential PED events, (2) whether the power cord will introduce additional radiated emission effects, and (3) whether laptop connections will corrupt airplane power by conducting emissions into the airplane power system.

Boeing certifies the in-seat power system but does not certify or control the power cords and what is connected to them. The in-seat power system is qualified to the same standards as any other airplane system. Sufficient attenuation is required within the power supply to ensure that the conducted emissions from laptop computers are not fed into the airplane power system. In addition to the laboratory tests performed by the supplier, Boeing is required to conduct airplane tests where the system is fully loaded with laptop computers.

Boeing has tested in-seat power on eight airplanes: two 737s, one 747, two 767s, and three 777s. The number of laptops operating simultaneously in each test ranged from 32 to 245. Included with the laptops were a mixture of compact-disc players and electronic games. Boeing found no airplane susceptibility in these eight tests, though some emissions were found to be extremely noisy in the laboratory (up to 40 dB over the airplane equipment emission limit). The noise levels were above the airplane equipment emission levels from 150 kHz to 500 MHz. Even though these computers did not cause any airplane system anomalies, Boeing has observed airplane antenna receiver susceptibility from "noisy" systems with levels significantly lower than those recorded by the laptop computers used in the tests.

Cell phone tests and analysis.
Boeing conducted a laboratory and airplane test with 16 cell phones typical of those carried by passengers, to determine the emission characteristics of these intentionally transmitting PEDs. The laboratory results indicated that the phones not only produce emissions at the operating frequency, but also produce other emissions that fall within airplane communication/navigation frequency bands (automatic direction finder, high frequency, very high frequency [VHF] omni range/locator, and VHF communications and instrument landing system [ILS]). Emissions at the operating frequency were as high as 60 dB over the airplane equipment emission limits, but the other emissions were generally within airplane equipment emission limits. One concern about these other emissions from cell phones is that they may interfere with the operation of an airplane communication or navigation system if the levels are high enough.

Boeing also performed an airplane test on the ground with the same 16 phones. The airplane was placed in a flight mode and the flight deck instruments, control surfaces, and communication/navigation systems were monitored. No susceptibility was observed.

Telephones installed and certified on the airplane by Boeing or operators are not actually cell phones, but part of an airborne certified satellite system. These phones are electromagnetically compatible with the airplane systems because their emissions are controlled. In contrast, the emissions from passengers’ cell phones are not known or controlled in the same way as permanently installed equipment.

2. RESULTING REGULATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

All electrical and electronic airplane systems are qualified to meet stringent requirements for electromagnetic susceptibility. They are tested to well-established limits during various modes of operation and with setup configurations that represent the airplane installation in terms of electromagnetic protection. Sufficient margins exist between the qualification susceptibility test level and the expected airplane environment noise levels. Compliance with these requirements provides a high level of confidence that the airplane systems will function as intended in the electromagnetic environment of the airplane. However, susceptibility can occur in the airplane if an uncontrolled source of electromagnetic energy radiates emission levels above the susceptibility level to which the airplane system was tested or if the airplane system protection has been degraded.

In addition, airplane systems with a receiving antenna component have an exception from the susceptibility requirements. The radio frequency (RF) radiated susceptibility test is performed on the system over a full frequency spectrum, but not in the designed operating frequency band of the antenna. No value is gained from performing the RF radiated susceptibility test in the operating band of the antenna because it is designed to respond to signals in this band. PEDs can radiate non-intentional noise within the airplane antenna’s operating frequency band, and this can create EMI. Because the basic function of an antenna-based system is to seek and find low-level electromagnetic signals and to respond to signals in a certain frequency band, the probability of interference to these systems is more likely than interference to systems not connected to an antenna receiver.

As a result of these conclusions, recommendations and regulations regarding PED-related anomalies have been established by several agencies, including the U.S. Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA), the FAA, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Boeing.

RTCA.
The RTCA has focused its attention on airplane system susceptibility with the highest probability of EMI from a PED -- namely, airplane antenna receiver systems. (RTCA document DO-199, "Potential Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment From Devices Carried Aboard," lists the eight conditions that are required for an airplane antenna receiver system to experience interference from a PED.)

The RTCA concluded that the probability of a PED interfering with an airplane receiver system is very low. In the case of an ILS localizer antenna, the probability of PED interference was calculated as one in one million. Based on the total number of flights per year (determined in 1988), the expected ILS localizer receiver disruption is once in any two-year period.

The first national committee that investigated interference by passenger-carried PEDs was created in the early 1960s. Its activities were initiated by a report that a passenger-operated portable FM broadcast receiver caused an airplane navigation system to indicate that the airplane was off course by more than 10 deg. The airplane was actually on course and, when the portable receiver was turned off, the malfunction ceased. A final report from this committee, RTCA DO-119, was issued in 1963 and resulted in the revision of the FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) by establishing a new rule (FAR 91.19, now 91.21), which states that the responsibility for ensuring that PEDs will not cause interference with airplane navigation or communication systems remained with the operator of the airplane.

In the early 1980s, media attention focused on in-flight portable computer use and variations in airline policies. Some computer trade publications suggested that their readers avoid particular operators who restricted the use of portable computers. As a result, one operator requested that a special committee be formed to "generate a Minimum Operational Performance Standards document against which manufacturers (of computers and other portable electronic devices) marketing their products for airborne use, could test and label them as meeting this standard in a manner similar to the Underwriters Laboratories Inc. sign of approval." In 1988, a final report was released (RTCA DO-199) that recommended the following:

* Acceptable limits of radiation and associated test methods for PEDs should be established.
* The FCC should specify a new classification for PEDs that may be operated on board airplanes.
* The FAA should initiate a regulatory project to revise FAR 91.19, providing guidance for acceptable methods of compliance and to develop methods to enhance public awareness.
* Standardized reporting of suspected interference by PEDs should be implemented.

In 1992, the U.S. Government requested that the RTCA resolve outstanding questions on PEDs to ensure air safety, specifying that unnecessary restrictions should not be placed on untested PEDs, and to gain an understanding of multiple effects and those from intentional radiators such as remote control devices and cell phones. For various reasons, intentional radiators were not evaluated. In 1996, the committee issued its report, RTCA DO-233. The recommendations are as follows:

1. The FAA should modify FAR 91.19 (now 91.21), Portable Electronic Devices, so that
1. The use of any PED is prohibited on airplanes during any critical phase of flight.
2. The use of any PED having the capability to intentionally transmit electromagnetic energy is prohibited in an airplane at all times unless testing has been conducted to ascertain its safe use.
2. PED testing efforts should be continued and should include existing and new technology devices such as satellite communications, embedded communications devices, and two-way pagers.
3. A public awareness campaign should be initiated to educate the flying public about PEDs and especially those designed as intentional radiators.
4. More research is needed on the design and feasibility of detection devices.

FAA.
In 1993, the FAA issued AC 91.21-1, "Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft." This circular provides guidance to the airlines in establishing compliance with FAR 91.21, which provides recommended procedures for airlines and test criteria for manufacturers. For the use of cell phones, the AC states that the FCC currently prohibits the use and operation of cell phones while airborne. The reason for this relates primarily to cellular ground base system susceptibility because a cell phone in the air will have greater coverage (transmitting to several cell bases simultaneously on the same frequency) than a cell phone on the ground (transmitting to one cell base). The FAA supports this airborne restriction because of the potential for interference to critical airplane systems. Currently, the FAA does not prohibit use of cell phones in airplanes while on the ground if the operator has determined that they will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the airplane on which they are to be used. An example might be use at the gate or during an extended wait on the ground, when specifically authorized by the captain. A cell phone must not be authorized for use while the airplane is taxiing for departure after leaving the gate. The unit must be turned off and properly stowed; otherwise, a signal from a ground cell could activate it.

FCC.
The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, title 47, part 22, subpart H, "Cellular Radiotelephone Service," section 22.925, "Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones," states that cell phones installed in or carried aboard airplanes must not be operated while such airplanes are airborne (not touching the ground). When any airplane leaves the ground, all cell phones on board that airplane must be turned off, and the use of cell phones while airborne is prohibited by FCC rules. The use of cell phones on the ground and in the airplane is also subject to FAA regulations.

Boeing.
In addition to its active participation on the last two RTCA committees, Boeing released an all-model service letter in 1993 to provide guidance to operators regarding the use of PEDs. The letter included the following statements:

* Use of intentional transmitters should be prohibited at all times.
* Use of non-intentional transmitters should be prohibited during takeoff and landing (critical stages of flight).
* Operation of non-intentional transmitters should be allowed for use during noncritical stages of flight unless the operator of the airplane has determined otherwise.
* Airline procedures should be established for PED termination if problems arise.
* Data should be recorded during a suspected PED-related event.

Boeing has revised its service letter to be in accordance with the FAA AC on the use of cell phones while the airplane is on the ground.

3. OPERATOR ACTIONS FOR INVESTIGATING AND PREVENTING PED EVENTS
Because PED interference is often named as the cause of airplane anomalies, operators should be thorough when confirming a cause-and-effect relationship. Other possibilities should always be considered, including loose cables or other maintenance issues, flight crew activity, and HIRF.

The initial reports that operators submit to Boeing about possible PED interference must contain sufficient detail to allow further investigation, if desired. Follow-up information is difficult to obtain because the passenger and the PED involved in the event are seldom available, details may not have been fully documented, and relevant data may be unknown. To support further investigation, operators should provide the following data:

* Model and make of the PED.
* Identification of peripherals used with the PED.
* Seat location of the PED.
* Operating mode of the PED.
* Name, address, and telephone number of the passenger using the PED.
* Airplane model and tail number or effectivity number.
* Identification of airplane system and description of anomaly.
* Frequency and operation mode of the airplane system, if applicable.
* Length of time between PED shutoff and airplane system recovery, and confirmation of whether the PED was cycled off and on to confirm the cause-and-effect relationship.
* Flight phase and route.
* Copy of flight data recorder output.
* Results of postmaintenance inspection.

4. ONGOING RELATED ACTIVITIES AT BOEING
Boeing continues to monitor its fleet through reports submitted by operators and to investigate these reports when possible. The company continues to share its experience and knowledge of PEDs and airplanes with the industry and the public. Boeing is committed to supporting future committee activity and investigations into PED detection devices.

SUMMARY
Passenger-carried PEDs on commercial airplanes will continue to present a source of uncontrolled emissions and as a result may cause interference with airplane systems. The potential is great that PEDs will continue to be blamed for some anomalies regardless of whether they are the true cause. As a result, regulatory agencies and operators continue to offer the current policy for PED use on airplanes as the best safety measure. Most operators enforce this policy, which calls for no PED operation during takeoff and landing, no operation of intentionally transmitting PEDs during any stage of flight, and allowing the use of cell phones at the gate with operator or flight crew approval and with a termination procedure in place in the case of an anomaly. If an operator or flight crew suspects a PED-related event, further investigation can be initiated if key information was recorded at the time of the anomaly. Whenever a PED is suspected as the cause of an airplane anomaly, the operator should also investigate all other potential causes to validate the cause-and-effect relationship.

CATEGORIES OF PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES

PEDs are classified as either intentional or non-intentional transmitters of electromagnetic signals. Those that intentionally transmit signals outside the device must do so to accomplish their functions. Examples of these PEDs are

* Cell phones.
* Remote-control toys.
* Two-way pagers.
* Two-way radios.

Non-intentionally transmitting PEDs do not need to transmit electromagnetic signals outside the device to accomplish their functions. But like any electrical or electronic device, they will emit some level of radiation. Depending on the characteristics of this radiation, interference with the operation of other electronic devices can occur. For example, operating an AM radio close to a fluorescent light will cause static in the reception of the radio signal. Examples of non-intentional transmitters are

* Audio players and recorders.
* Compact-disc players.
* Electronic games and toys.
* Laptop computers.
* Laser pointers.
* Palmtop computers.

BRUCE DONHAM
PRINCIPAL ENGINEER & DESIGNATED ENGINEERING REPRESENTATIVE

ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECTS AND ANTENNAS
BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES GROUP

[topend3]

have you looked on you-tube and seen how man videos there are posted on there from the cabins of aeroplanes during take-off and landing??

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

Good Post Mr Abraham, I note the testers being unable to replicate the interference from laptops, games etc, on the ground in any of the suspected instances. This is from Boeing so no doubt it would be pretty rigorous testing. Interesting the problem of standards and evolving devices in future suspicious cases. Sorry for the thread drift too...

[NSEU]

A little bird also told me that the bottle may have been serviced to 4,000psi anyone know if other airlines (besides QF) use that press. QF uses 3,000psi ?

As previously stated... 1850psi is the norm for main oxygen bottles. The safety valve on the bottle would have released excessive pressure into the atmosphere long before a serviceable(normal) bottle would have exploded. The safety valve is set at around 2600psi or so.

Normally, when oxygen bottles are topped up on Qantas aircraft, a single aircraft fill point is used for all the bottles, so, in theory, if you put excessive psi into the fill point, all the bottles would be charged excessively and the cockpit oxygen readout would have reflected this.


Anyway, we digress ;) Tell your little bird to stay away from fermenting berries :p

[NSEU]

NSEU I would be surprised if the fuel pumps are not inside a surge tank which allows fuel in, but not back out to the tank, to combat your theory about "all the fuel at the top of the tanks". Have had nothing to do with Airbus, so cannot say for sure, however if the pumps are able to be starved of fuel by negative 'g' it would be a backward step from earlier aircraft.

Whilst my posting was half in jest, Old Fella... actual pump location is not the issue here. Pump pickup (nozzles with filters over them) location, however, is more relevent. The pickups are located in most cases, very close to the bottom of the tanks (and probably at the lowest point on a swept (up) wing aircraft).

I'm sure momentary/short term negative g's wouldn't starve the engines of fuel because of the amount of fuel still in the lines going from the pumps to the engines (I guess this would be the equivalent of your "surge tank"). However, sustained negative g's or flying upside down might prove to be problematic :)

[dunlopdangler]

Just heard that my wifes Aunt and Uncle were on the flight and despite the Qantas spindoctors working overtime, they are still waiting to be contacted by Qantas directly about fare reimbursement, medical issues and of course when they will be getting their luggage:ugh::ugh:
Congrats to the crew in handling their "upset" :D

[cunningham]

Did anyone catch the today show on Friday? The guy who reads the sport Cameron, claimed he spoke to a pilot who flies the A330. Apparently the pilot hates flying them, because "the autopilot always takes over, and when you fly an airbus you move the control stick to the left to turn right and pull the stick back to descend, and so in. This is the complete opposite to normal aircraft" WTF..........made a complete ass of himself.

[Tidbinbilla]

All the more reason NOT to watch trashy tabloid shows, such as Today, Sunrise, Today Tonight and Current Affair.;)

[Old Fella]

NSEU, I have been retired for quite a while now and I cannot remember for sure which aircraft it was, however I do remember operating on aircraft which had the main fuel pumps located within a "Box" with several one way flapper valves which allowed fuel into the box, but not back to the tank. This was to combat pump cavitation with low fuel quantities or under negative "g" conditions. My thought is that it was one, at least, of the Boeings.

[Soho_Sophie]

Does anyone look at the possibility they were flying too close to the 'edge'.:8

[OhSpareMe]

Does anyone look at the possibility they were flying too close to the 'edge'.

Yeah OK I will look at it and dismiss it. On that sector (about 5 hrs) the aircraft would not come close to MTOW out of SIN. Around Carnarvon the flight plan usually has a climb to FL390 and, subject to Jakarta ATC the aircraft would have been at FL370 since departure. There would have been plenty of buffer.

How do I know this? Probably because I spend my life flogging up and down that sector.

[VH-JJW]

Hypothetically speaking (of course), what would happen if the crew were, possibly under advisement, to reset the PRIM's. Crew then carry out said actions ALL 3 AT ONCE?

[OhSpareMe]

Probably because it specifically warns them in the Reset of Computers checklist to reset only one PRIM at a time.

I don't think they were resetting PRIMS anyway.

[Kangaroo Court]

Are we ever going to find out if the crew did something wrong anyway, or will it just be covered up?

[Keg]

So KC, when did you stop beating your wife? :rolleyes: Your statement is classic journo stuff. Implying that it was the crew and that it'll be covered up.

I'm pretty sure the ATSB will release a report. I'm also pretty sure it will detail the crew's actions. I'm 110% sure that there will be plenty of finger pointers on PPRUNE if that report indicates that the crew's actions or inactions in any way resulted in a less than perfect outcome.

[Capn Bloggs]

Saturday's West attributes Julian Walsh from the ATSB as saying "it (QPA) could be flown to France for the manufacturer to examine". Any volunteers?

[OhSpareMe]

What I take from this episode is that if I have to reset anything to do with FCC's then it would be prudent to turn the seatbelt sign on.

[Kangaroo Court]

Keg,

Great to see you defending your fellow crews. No I haven't started beating anyone yet. How would you know if I'm married anyway...maybe she beats me and I like it!

Anyhow, it's been tough for you QF types in the media, even on the international scale. I certainly hope we all find out what happened.

[Capt Kremin]

The crew did nothing wrong.
In other news, the airframe was overstressed due to exceeding the negative g limit. The implications of that, in a FBW aircraft in which that is not supposed to happen, should give all readers pause.

[VH-JJW]

except in Direct Law......

[fruitloop]

VH-JJW.... correct but lets wait till the readings from "all" the recorders is in shall we ??

[Jabawocky]

In other news, the airframe was overstressed due to exceeding the negative g limit.

I am struggling to see it happening...... but would this mean an airframe write off:eek:? Surely not......... but how are these airframes treated in such an event?

J

[Capt Fathom]

exceeding the negative g limit.
I am struggling to see it happening

Most normal category aircraft are limited to -1.0g to +2.5g

Looks like -1.0g may have been exceeded!

[Capt Kremin]

My sources are technical pilots close to the investigation. -1.0g was indeed exceeded.

[rafterman]

I heard yesterday ( Mon 13th ) afternoon that the NTSB have "handed" the aircraft back to qantas so that seems like they have completeted some stage of the investigation. Don't know what the immediate plans for QPA are though.

[blueloo]

lotus are you implying that there will be an ATSB and QF cover up, and if indeed these events did happen, there will be a public inquiry to ascertain whether a rumour network had the truth (ie alleged posts from an inside source?) before the public?

If negative g did occur I think it would be fairly easily validated by the ATSB, and very hard to cover up. (Can't think why anyone would)

[Jabawocky]

Don't know what the immediate plans for QPA are though.

Start another museum perhaps? One for the French!

J:ok:

[Capt Kremin]

Lotus, my information is not "exlusive" or even exclusive, just not widely known at this point. It is however from an impeccable source. The reason I post it here is so that the thread can move away from any intimation that the crew somehow screwed up; they didn't. My concern is also very much for the crew and the sooner any speculation about them ends, the better. The ATSB report will simply confirm what I say here.

[Capt Kremin]

Nice try. The ATSB report will back up what I say. Your curiosity will have to wait.

[Louis Cypher]

Don't know what the immediate plans for QPA are though.

Flown back to SY this arvo

[woftam]

Speaking of spilling the beans A380-800 driver, tell us all what exactly was the little problem that grounded EK's one and only A380 for over a week? :yuk:

[Comoman]

A COMPUTER fault caused the autopilot system to be overridden, sending a Qantas plane into a mid-air plunge over Western Australia last week, authorities said tonight.

The air data computer - or inertial reference system - for the Airbus A330-300 sent erroneous information to the flight control computer causing the autopilot to disconnect, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said.

More than 70 people on Qantas flight QF72 from Singapore to Perth were injured on Tuesday last week when the Airbus, carrying 303 passengers and 10 crew, suddenly dropped altitude.

People were hurled around the cabin and the pilot was forced to make an emergency landing in Western Australia's north

Source: Computer fault caused Qantas plunge | NEWS.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24497514-29277,00.html)

[Lancelot37]

Latest newpaper report. - Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)A COMPUTER fault caused the autopilot system to be overridden, sending a Qantas plane into a mid-air plunge over WA last week, investigators say.
The air data computer - or inertial reference system - for the Airbus A330-300 sent erroneous information to the flight control computer causing the autopilot to disconnect, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said.

[twiggs]

Media release 14 Oct (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_43.aspx)

[woftam]

And that grounded it for over a week? :confused:

[maggotdriver]

I heard it was a fire?

[woftam]

I can recall, and it was more than a week. So it must have been substantial damage.

[Capt Kremin]

-800, the media release broadly confirms what I said.

The crew's timely response led to the recovery of the aircraft trajectory within seconds.

There will be other revelations about what the crew were faced with in due course. They will confirm my point about the crew being in no way responsible for the event, and to be congratulated for their handling of it. The system failures were not limited to just the ADIRU, far from it.

The other point I find interesting is the reference to this being a unique event. I believe the QF 30 incident was also unique in many ways. I don't know why Qantas has been the recipient of two unique aviation events in such short order. Maybe it will simply be a case of ****e happens. Maybe not. Luckily they were both handled in exemplary fashion by both the Tech and Cabin crews involved.

[woftam]

Somehow, glass houses come to mind? ;)

[lambsie]

From the ATSB briefing:
"...it is important to note that in fly by wire aircraft such as the Airbus, even when being flown with the Autopilot off, in normal operation, the aircrafts flight control computers will still command control surfaces to protect the aircraft from unsafe conditions such as a stall."

and

"About 2 minutes after the initial fault, ADIRU 1 generated very high, random and incorrect values for the aircrafts angle of attack.

These very high, random and incorrect values of the angle attack led to:

the flight control computers commanding a nose-down aircraft movement, which resulted in the aircraft pitching down to a maximum of about 8.5 degrees, "

Looks like HAL took over the mothership!

(2001 Space Odyssey reference for those too young to remember).

[Capt Claret]

It's a sad indictment of our profession, that in a country once known for giving a bloke a fair go and the benefit of the doubt, so many are so quick to point the finger. :(

[Lookleft]

This is very similar to what happened to the MAS 777 off Perth in 2005. High value outputs from the ADIRU went to the PFCC and away she went. Fortunately the intial response in that incident was positive g but it had the potential to snap the rudder off. The big issue is the lack of effective testing of the software that controls all these outputs. Mathematical testing of the software is possible but considered expensive and time consuming.

[Mahatma Kote]

If there are three ADIUs onboard - as per the ATSB media release - Why did a fault in one cause a major upset?

I thought perhaps there were three for voting purposes? And that the failure in one would be noticed and the data ignored in favour of the two remaining units.

There has to be something more to the story than released so far.

[ampclamp]

I agree, I think they release only what they do know as fact.Other stuff will come out in due course when facts become apparent imho.
There must be other failures to allow this imho.

[Acute Instinct]

The real concern would now logically be, determining how one wayward ADIRU managed to disable and bypass a multitude of protections designed to prevent such a flight disturbance.

The following protections appear to have been ineffective in this instance,

*Load factor limitation
*Pitch attitude correction
*High speed protection
*Maneuver load alleviation(MLA)
*Turbulence damping function
*System Redundancy

I dare say, the serviceability and DDG relief regarding this component will be reviewed without delay.

[Old Fella]

Have to agree with Capt Claret, especially after listening to ABC AM this morning where the preliminary ATSB report says that the incident was the result of computer malfunctions and that the actions of the pilots were correct in every detail. Furthermore, the attempts by Qantas Engineering staff to blame off-shore maintenance was described as "scurrilious" and that QF off-shore maintenance was conducted by world class facilities. Let's hope the detractors of both the crew and the maintenance say a collective "Sorry". BTW, the aircraft was flown to Sydney overnight.

[Lookleft]

I would think that a software upgrade installed to fix one problem has inadvertantly caused this problem. As I mentioned previously, testing of software is not as precise a science as structural testing where the failure paths are obvious.

[Keg]

Old fella, this is how the Australian said 'sorry' for their previous article about pilot error.

The findings quash any suggestion of pilot error.

A stand alone sentence at the end of the article here (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24498914-23349,00.html?from=public_rss).

[ampclamp]

where and who from Qantas Engineering staff blamed OS maintenance pls?

[ampan]

Bollocks.

Computers either work, or crash. They don't head off into their own little netherworld.

[Old Fella]

ampclamp, I am unaware of any specific Qantas Engineer blaming off-shore maintenance as being the cause of the QF72 incident. My reference was to what was stated on ABC AM today. The report said in part "the scurrilous attempt by Qantas Engineers to blame off-shore maintenance". I have defended off-shore maintainers, namely HAECO particularly. My reference to an apology was to anyone who has pointed the finger at either the flight crew or maintenance staff. That said, anyone who listens to news broadcasts knows Qantas Engineering Union reps have been critical of off-shore maintenance being inferior, a generalisation which I personally think is unjustified.

[Bumpfoh]

I do't wish to enter into a slanging match and I am operating off both first and second hand experiences here.

A very recent conversation with a QF LAME who had extensive periods "liasing" in two off shore MRO's of QF's choosing was aghast at some of the practices he saw and had to have corrected before allowing the job to continue.

He says he lost count of the number of times he had to summons the local Quality representative to right the wrongs and in his words the local tradesmen, invaribly not licensed, would appear to not even know of or use the standard practices as set out in the AMM's.

So I'll agree with some of the other various posts on this site that SOME of the MRO's leave a lot to be desired with SOME of their respective maintenance practices rather than blanket statment that they are all as bad as one another.

And I am in no way suggesting that the latest incident on QF72 was off shore MRO related, lets wait for the investigation to be completed.:ok:

[max autobrakes]

Would the high powered US military VLF transmitter at leamonth have an effect on computers such as these?

[Wod]

To continue the thread drift. I think JetA_OK has nailed it.

Professional LAMEs only trust their own work, and will scrutinise anyone else's with an intense scrute. That is an essential part of the safety net. As it should be, and thank goodness for it.

Problems arise when industrial stoushes raise emotions. In that environment things are said, which should not be said, and the reputations of other MROs are attacked.

Reality is that, rarely, things get overlooked in any hangar, but the net normally catches them because professional LAMEs only trust their own work. (See above)

[IAW]

So when will Channel 7 stop using the horribly innaccurate animation of a A330 making a death plunge? Seriously, I hope at least lame duck Media Watch pulls them up for using such an inaccurate depiction of the event.

Does nothing but give the punters the wrong idea...

[Old Fella]

Bumphfoh, You are not getting into a slanging match. I have much respect for the quality of home grown QF maintenance from my own experience of it. Equally I have the same respect for the maintenance performed by HAECO on Cathay aircraft when employed by Cathay. My point is that it is unfair to generalise in being critical. If the QF LAME with whom you spoke is telling it as it is, then it behoves him to make his case to the Director Engineering, which I am sure he would have done. I would also hope that whomever Qantas engage off-shore, the engineering staff have the final say and not the bean counters. As Wod points out, JetA_OK has hit the nail on the head. Professional jealousy will always lead to one outfit being critical of another. If justified, criticism is OK, if not it is unfair. That is my point.

[Mstr Caution]

Computers either work, or crash. They don't head off into their own little netherworld.


I've flown an Airbus with uncommended right aileron upward extension, took those at Airbus some time to figure out why the problem too.

Also a double MCDU failure but not on the same flight, I must have bad luck.

And NO, they weren't Qantas Aircraft.

MC:8

[lowerlobe]

I was interested the other day in one of the media blurbs about the first QF 380.

It was something like.... if there was a (total?) hydraulic failure there would be no problems because although the pilots might not be able to fix it the computers could still fly the aircraft...everything would be OK.

No we are told that in certain circumstances a computer can cause an incident such as experienced by the 330 from Singapore....

Are we heading for a situation where new aircraft are computer driven instead of computer assisted and if so is this a cause for concern?

[neville_nobody]

Furthermore, the attempts by Qantas Engineering staff to blame off-shore maintenance was described as "scurrilious" and that QF off-shore maintenance was conducted by world class facilities. Let's hope the detractors of both the crew and the maintenance say a collective "Sorry". BTW, the aircraft was flown to Sydney overnight.

That statement on AM was by Geoffrey Thomas an aviation journalist who tends to pop up on ABC radio as their aviation guy.

I reckon media watch should have a listen because to claim that you are independent then spend the whole interview blowing smoke up QF and rubbishing the engineering department you would have to seriously question ones motives. Since when had anyone blamed overseas maintenance on this anyway?

Here is part of the transcript from AM Wednesday 15th October

Geoffrey Thomas is the senior editor at Air Transport World.

GEOFFREY THOMAS: The extraordinary thing about this is that there was a similar failure in a Malaysian airlines 777 in August 2005, off coast of Western Australia and in almost identical position, and it similarly caused the pilots enormous problems and they had to bring the aircraft back to Perth and at one stage they almost lost the aircraft.

RICHARD LINDELL: No decision on the future of the aircraft has been made, although it was flown back to Sydney last night suggesting the incident didn't cause structural damage.

Geoffrey Thomas says the A330 has an excellent safety record and passengers shouldn't fear the Airbus nor maintenance standards at Qantas.

GEOFFERY THOMAS: There has been what I would call a scurrilous campaign run by its engineers, supporting a higher pay rise and job security, and I can understand those issues.

But when they talk about and blame offshore maintenance for these woes, it is absolutely totally incorrect because the offshore maintenance done by Qantas is done at some of the most reputable centres in the world, and there is just no question about the quality of the maintenance done overseas.

[ampclamp]

Thanks OF.
Being inside the tent I have heard absolutely nothing from alaea guys or lame's on the job regarding blaming this event on any maintenance issues either internal or external.Not even heresay let alone anything official
The reports saying these things frankly are crap imho or have been made by some crank without a clue shooting from the hip.
That privilege of course is reserved for us here ;)

[Capn Bloggs]

ampan,
Computers either work, or crash.
The only work properly if they are programmed correctly. In this case, how on earth could one dud ADIRU cause such a dangerous incident? It seems to me because the system ie the other computers hadn't been programmed sufficiently well to cope with a dicky ADIRU. That's not the machine's fault, that's the fault of the human programmers.

[404 Titan]

Funny thing is I had an ADIRU fault on one of our flights to London the other night without a problem. I suspect there is more to this fault than meets the eye and word from our company, "CX" via internal e-mail is that there will be some amendments to the MEL and additional OEB's coming from Airbus is the very near future.

[4PW's]

"It seems almost certain that circuit breakers were pulled prior to the incident when, in conjunction with Maintenance, the pilots were attempting to address an ECAM."

I'll not quote the source.

Just please tell me this isn't so....

[Short_Circuit]

circuit breakers were pulled prior to the incident when
Now there is a realistic scenario at last. I Bet you are correct.

[OhSpareMe]

Errr yeah, really?

The only problem with that is the lack of any 'circuit breakers' on the flight deck of the A330. They were most likely attempting to 'reset' computers.

[404 Titan]

4PW's

Yep as OhSpareMe has stated. Not possible in the A330/340. There are only resest switches on the flight deck. All circuit breakers are in the avionics bay and are strictly not accessable in flight.

[skol]

Maybe the rest of us couldn't have done it.

Ex-fighter pilot saved plunging flight - New Zealand's source for World News on Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4728398a12.html)

[peuce]

In a FBW aircraft such as the A330, can the pilot ever select "full" manual control ... or are his inpurts always "vetted" by the flight control computers?

[404 Titan]

peuce

Yes. If the pilot wants to fly the aircraft in "Direct Law" they can after pushing three buttons.