View Full Version : Merged: A330 safety beatup on SUNDAY

15th Oct 2009, 21:56
Just saw an ad for Channel 7s SUNDAY program, which will have a beatup about the Qantas A330 incident. Informative journalism to be sure, couldn't be scaremongering... :rolleyes:

Best Speed
15th Oct 2009, 23:06
Sunday Night Videos - Yahoo!7 TV (http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/-/watch/16068641/)

16th Oct 2009, 01:32
"Pilots don't want to fly it". Any A330 drivers beg to differ?

16th Oct 2009, 01:59
Would running a story like that have any effect on a 'commercial relationship' Jetstar might have with 'The Morning Show'? We'll lift your $ and run a 'possibly' poor PR story. :ugh:

16th Oct 2009, 02:18
I can't stand channel 7 and their ridiculous over dramatising shows. They say "it was almost Australia's first air disaster", what about the Emirates A340 incident in MEL? I'm sure that was probably closer than this, but of course it doesn't have a kangaroo on its tail does it? :ugh: :hmm: :rolleyes:

16th Oct 2009, 03:09
"Would running a story like that have any effect on a 'commercial relationship' Jetstar might have with 'The Morning Show'? We'll lift your $ and run a 'possibly' poor PR story. :ugh:"

More to the point, enhance the commercial relationship 'SUNDAY' has with it's program sponsor - Virgin Blue. Ironic? :hmm:

:mad: Channel 7 over dramatise everything. 'Altimeters' is right, a story on the the EK A340 incident would've have been much more rewarding, but perhaps not for Channel 7 and it's sponsor.

Dropt McGutz
16th Oct 2009, 03:42
I love the A330. It's so easy to fly. Go Airbus!

Capt Kremin
16th Oct 2009, 04:27
Are they also going to feature the MAS B777 that had an almost identical incident?

16th Oct 2009, 06:07
The Qantas 330's are safe. But I wouldn't fly in the Jetstar 330's for quids!:ok:

16th Oct 2009, 07:37
They say "it was almost Australia's first air disaster",

I'd back in the Jiwani VOR 707 personally.

But the promotional people are not industry specific experts.

They are the people who left first when Dennis Adams evacuated Earth.o

16th Oct 2009, 10:40
back play of the story has some merit however ...............without both sides the pitch is unbalanced. (pardon the airbus pun)

QF Media/Comms have yet again proved their lack of value and experience as any credible action would have seen the story parked/mitigated/ ...or at best killed - esp as Ross had the bones of the story ready to roll before Sunday was axed.

Media M'ment QF30 styled but in a different disguise

FYI- QCC: I was not involved

Tim Hamilton
16th Oct 2009, 11:49
I am flying to Singapore next week aboard an Airbus - A-330 and after reading a lot of articles, forums and seeing Channel 7’s teaser for their Sunday Night program that will be screened this Sunday saying pilots don’t want to fly A-330's I am beginning to get worried.

Un commanded software actions for aircraft to dive, pitot tube problems, carbon fiber tails that may be design faulty etc etc The A-330 is beginning to look like the early days of the DC-10 - all over again

Would like to get input from A-330 pilots and other heavy jet pilots about my concerns.

Looking at re booking via Sydney on a trusted real aircraft - 747.

Capt Fathom
16th Oct 2009, 12:17
I doubt it will be hard hitting journalism!

Airbus will be taking a keen interest in what is said! :E

Tim Hamilton
16th Oct 2009, 12:20
I A W you say its a beatup before you have even seen the program :rolleyes:

So I suppose this is you opinion right ?

16th Oct 2009, 12:37
I A W you say its a beatup before you have even seen the program
Timmy,are you defending the programs credibility before you have seen the show either.

I think we all have to consider the possibility of a journalist fishing for some info here for a follow up story on Monday!

404 Titan
16th Oct 2009, 12:37
Tim Hamilton

As an A330 pilot not working for an Australian carrier, I can quite categorically say it is a beat up as is all things aviation on the media, particularly in Australia. I have no hesitation in flying an A330 or A340 for that matter. My wife even flew in one of QF’s finest from Perth to Sydney earlier this weak. :ok:

16th Oct 2009, 12:48
Airbus - the Hyundai of the sky.

Tim Hamilton
16th Oct 2009, 12:55
Thanks for your words of re-assurance 404 Titan

A big vote of confidence from you, even with all the known and suspected problems the A-330 has.

Tim Hamilton
16th Oct 2009, 12:57
Just like to keep an open mind till I see the program RedTBarDo you think these journos will also include the American Airlines A-300 tail breaking off out of Le Guardia. The Air France crash en route to Paris with bad weather, pitot problems and may be tail stress Hmmmm interesting stuff but I am sure Air France would be totally transparent especially when the aircraft is built in France and has a back orders of over 100 aircraft's with their associated value not to mention national prestige at stake

Capt Fathom
16th Oct 2009, 13:20
even with all the known and suspected problems the A-330 has.

And they would be ..... ?

404 Titan
16th Oct 2009, 13:41
Tim Hamilton

If you actually have a read of the accident investigation into the American Airlines crash you will find it was caused by the pilot flying using the rudder incorrectly during a wake turbulence encounter which resulted in it exceeding design load limits. This is a gotcha in any aircraft not just Airbuses. As for the Air France accident, information is unfortunately very thin as the Flight Data and Cockpit Voice recorders haven’t been located but the most likely cause was because of European made pitot tubes fitted at the time to Air France A330’s that had a know safety problem. All of Qantas’s A330’s as well as my own carrier’s have upgraded pitot tubes made by an American manufacturer that have a very good safety record.

The A330/340 has no more or less problems than any other airliner that has been in service for 15+ years.

16th Oct 2009, 14:28
Mr Hamilton.

Letting a Channel 7 promo tempt you to change your plans puts you right up there in the 'Gullible Fool' stakes. Clearly you're part of the great unwashed and uninformed that advertising execs dream of.

Must dash - have to buy the latest worthless exercise machine from Danoz Direct. Mind you, since they all convieniently fold away for storage under my bed, things are getting cluttered. You'll know Tim - which is the best one to buy?

Tim Hamilton
16th Oct 2009, 20:11
I don’t think the report said this Titan It may of said it contributed to the catastrophic failure of the tail.

American Airlines say that they were never . . .informed by Airbus that they could not do double rudder reversals in the A-300 ..

If you did it in say a Boeing- 767/777 under the same circumstances, I do not think the same thing would happen – aircraft break up.

The reason Airbus adopted Carbon fiber tails is - to save weight and the airlines can carry more passengers. It is a “Commercial” not a engineering consideration. :suspect:

Tim Hamilton
16th Oct 2009, 20:16
You Boys seen to have blind faith in this aircraft but I suppose the DC-10 drivers did also when they went into service with all their design faults ...

An open mind is ALWAYS, a good thing.

End of my posts on this subject.

16th Oct 2009, 20:25
I think we all have to consider the possibility of a journalist fishing for some info here for a follow up story on Monday!
I think Tbar might be right.....

Remember not everyone who posts on PPrune is involved in aviation...

16th Oct 2009, 21:46

If you did it in say a Boeing- 767/777 under the same circumstances, I do not think the same thing would happen – aircraft break up.

I think you will find that Boeing issued a operational bulletin shortly after the investigation into the Airbus crash that stated that rapid rudder reversals were not part of the design criteria and could lead to structural failure in Boeing aircraft.

To quote from the tech bulletin A full or nearly full authority rudder reversal as the aeroplane reaches an "over yaw" sideslip angle may be beyond the structural design limits of the aeroplane. There are no Boeing flight Flight Crew procedures that would require this type of rudder input.

16th Oct 2009, 21:50
Airbus - the Hyundai of the sky.
thats not a fair analogy, Hyundais have proven themselves to be Very reliable.

as for the A330, they have been around long enough to have any design flaw show its head.

17th Oct 2009, 00:19
I think Tim Hamilton might actually be that tart that does the weather with her hand parked across her belly - they are really trying to boost her profile lately.

17th Oct 2009, 00:52
If you did it in say a Boeing- 767/777 under the same circumstances, I do not think the same thing would happen – aircraft break up.

I don't think Lady Gaga is a hermaphrodrite, does that make it true? :rolleyes:

Im sick of people buying the crap that comes out of the media. Do your research and come to a conclusion with your own findings. Stop being told what to think and think for yourself!


404 Titan
17th Oct 2009, 01:55
Tim Hamilton

Blind faith in the A330? No. I base my opinion on an aircraft from a technical point of view, not some media beaten up emotional point of view. You asked for an A330 pilot’s point of view and I gave it. I’ve been flying it now for 9 years and know the aircraft very well. It has its faults but it is a safe aircraft period. Unlike the DC10 which had a series of accidents caused by design faults with the cargo door locking mechanism not long after entry into service, the A330/340 has been in service for 15 years and has an excellent safety record.

It is a fact that aircraft aren’t designed or tested for rapid rudder reversal. I have read the American Airlines accident in detail and this is what caused the accident and as Capt Snafu has pointed out Boeing has also said its aircraft aren’t designed for this type of control input and could lead to structural failure.


As others have said I suspect Tim Hamilton is the media.

17th Oct 2009, 07:21
Tim Hamilton.

Hamilton pub on the river near BNE airport.

Favoured by airport workers, and crew.

Just a thought.:E

17th Oct 2009, 07:40
Sunday Night Videos - Yahoo!7 TV (http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/-/watch/16068641/)

17th Oct 2009, 08:10
If Airbus is the Hyundai Excel of the sky,which I agree means a very reliable product, then Embraer 170/190s are the Daewoo Lanos of the sky.

17th Oct 2009, 08:11
Golly, so much truth I can barely stand it!

I wonder which 'pilot' they got to say he didn't want to fly an A330?

17th Oct 2009, 08:13
This was T Hamilton's only post prior to this thread. Work it out.


17th Oct 2009, 08:44
chuboy - A 744 Captain possibly?? :oh:

Good to see the media have found themselves a new side of the story to butcher... :yuk:

17th Oct 2009, 08:50
so what exactly were the problems with the DC-10 that made them "unsafe" Ralph N.? plane hits Mt Erebus, engine falls off due maintenance, uncontained engine failure knocks out controls, Paris [not good]....hardly a poor record.:confused:

The 59 KC-10's still pumping gas for warfighters don't seem to have problems.

Airbus is in my opinion the Leyland P-76 of aircraft but look at the devlpment of nearlt every post WW2 airliner and they had a few issues to deal with...

17th Oct 2009, 08:55
Could not agree more. Having experience with "media enquiries" before, this is exacatly the way they work..... drop a line and see what they get.

17th Oct 2009, 09:23
"Airbus is in my opinion the Leyland P-76 of aircraft" - TBM Legend.

Yerr but the P-76 didn't go into un-commanded dives - at any time

Airbus and the airlines STILL can't work out why the A-330 is faulty/doing this.

Its a dud !! same as the P-76. Its only good thing is it makes money for the airline but - for how much longer.

I will stick to my proven B738 :ok:

17th Oct 2009, 09:31
Didn't the 737-800 have problems with tailplane flutter when they came out?
Couldn't use speed brake above 300kts until the problem was solved.:bored:

17th Oct 2009, 09:43
Yerr but the 737 didn't go into un-commanded dives - at any time :eek:

17th Oct 2009, 11:33
Flyboy737800.....Un-commanded dives at any time....? Maybe not....un-commanded rudder hard overs though....?
And Airlines and Airbus have worked out what the problem was, whether or not its related to the AF accident will probably never be known. I fly it, its a safe and reliable aircraft.

17th Oct 2009, 19:39
Ahhh, 737 rudder hardovers were proven. A major design flaw.

Flyboy737, to what nosedives do you refer?

17th Oct 2009, 20:02
An open mind is ALWAYS, a good thing.

Good one that, Tim. :rolleyes::ugh::suspect:

The Bunglerat
17th Oct 2009, 21:42
Flyboy, I'm B737-800 & A330 endorsed - and can tell you which one I'd much rather fly. Hint: it ain't built in Seattle.

It seems to me that often the most vocal opponents of Airbus - and those who continually love to tear strips off it - are those who have no experience with the type, and therefore have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

Going Boeing
17th Oct 2009, 22:02
Hint: it ain't built in Seattle.

Hate to be picky but B737-800's are built in Witchita (& Boeing's HQ is in Chicago).

Of course you are comparing the worst Boeing single aisle type against a much newer Airbus wide-body type. I've said for a long time that the A320 is a far superior aircraft to the B737 (all variants) but as far as widebody's go, I believe that the Boeing product is way ahead of Airbus.

17th Oct 2009, 22:08
Talk to the guys involved in the above incident.
They will tell you which aircraft they'd rather fly.
Not only did the event frighten the stuffing out of of them but the treatment and lack of support from Qantas was appalling

Capt Kremin
17th Oct 2009, 22:17
Fishers Ghost, I'd delete that post if I were you. You are obviously ignorant of many things...even down to the callsign of the aircraft involved. The treatment of the crew from Qantas and the support they received certainly was not how you portray it.

By George
18th Oct 2009, 00:02
Both Boeing and Airbus have their good and bad points and you can go around in circles for ever. I flew back to Singapore last week on the 330 and was quite impressed with the comfort and noise level, but for long-haul it's terribly slow. 8 hours 15 for BNE to SIN. My last flight from SYD to SIN on the 744 was only 7 hours and 10. ( I know the winds were probably different). To be stuck behind a 330 coming out of Japan is plain agony, like watching paint dry. What is it, the wing or lack of power? You blokes are not flying around with the gear down are you??

18th Oct 2009, 00:35
Sure reference to QANTAS flight QF 072 Uncommanded dive off N.W.

Cape W.A. will feature on this tonight.

Sunday Night Videos - Yahoo!7 TV (http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/-/watch/16068641/)

Your flight aboard SQ A-330 may of been slow and comfortable By George, which is fine but the tail staying in place and no un commanded dives, would also of been worthy of note. . .

18th Oct 2009, 02:10
Flyboy, I sure as hell hope your just a wannabe after those posts...:ugh:

18th Oct 2009, 02:51
I am licensed (eng) on lots of boeings and also the A330 - if you 737 pilots new what the 737 wiring looked liked maybe you'd consider flying the vastly superior airbus product.
As for the wings - how many vortex generators do they have to stick on to make it fly somewhat right. Look at the airbus wing - not one, must be superior design by the poms.

Some of you boeing guys need to take a look next time some of the panels are off - I'm sure you'd be interested.:ugh:

The Bunglerat
18th Oct 2009, 03:08
Thanks, Going Boeing, for correcting me on that point. However if you want to split hairs, it was always my impression that the fuselage was manufactured in Wichita, whilst the final assembly was at Renton in Seattle. And whilst their HQ may be in Chicago, for me Seattle has always been Boeing Town.

Fair point also about the seemingly unfair comparison between a Boeing narrow vs Airbus widebody type, but I'm afraid they're the only two jets I have any practical knowledge of. I've never had the pleasure of flying any of Boeing's widebodies, but I know they are well loved by most/all who fly them. With that in mind, my post was directed specifically to FlyBoy737-800, because his implication is that his namesake is a better aeroplane than the one being pissed on in this thread - which would be fine if he's qualified to comment on both, but I suspect he's not. On the other hand, I am.

18th Oct 2009, 03:45
FlyBoy737-800, because his implication is that his namesake is a better aeroplane than the one being pissed on in this thread - which would be fine if he's qualified to comment on both, but I suspect he's not. On the other hand, I am.

Do I detect a touch of self-righteous, Judgmentally and a good measure of arrogance here - bunglerat ?

Perhaps there are very good reason reason that there are comments (pissed on in your language) on the A-330, Uncommanded dives without warning is one !! :ugh:

18th Oct 2009, 03:49
You dont reckon a 737 has ever had an autopilot go haywire and stick the nose down. Or up. Or sideways.

I reckon you will be surprised.

Capt Kremin
18th Oct 2009, 04:17
The 737 has killed many more people with uncommanded flight control excursions than the A330. In fact the A330 has killed none that we know of via that type of event.

The A330 has had one fatal accident in 15 years of revenue operations. I doubt the 737, one of the safest aircraft ever built, could lay that claim.

18th Oct 2009, 04:30
Airbus A-330
600 in service
Introduced 1992

Boeing 737
6000+ in service
Introduced 1969

Fatal crash rates per million flights

Boeing-737 0.19

Airbus – A330 0.53


Douglas DC-10 0.66

Source -


For your referance Capt Kremin

Fatal Plane Crashes and Significant Events for the A330 (http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/a330.htm)

404 Titan
18th Oct 2009, 05:30

Sorry they are meaningless statistics when there are 10x the number of B737 compared to A330’s and the B737 has been in service since 1969 versus 1993 for the A330. The mere fact there are considerably less A330’s and the aircraft has been in service only ⅓ the time severely distorts any figures.

Somehow I get the feeling “FlyBoy737800” may be the same troll as “Tim Hamilton”. Date joined 17-10-09, 7 posts all on this thread. As one signed off the other started up.

Qantas 787
18th Oct 2009, 06:29
Whether the story has an merit or not, as an earlier poster mentioned, the fact the program is heavily sponsored by DJ says a lot.

If DJ were operating the 330 or Qantas was the main sponsor, would this story get a mention? No. Meanwhile, the EK near miss largely escapes a lot of mainstream media coverage.

The Bunglerat
18th Oct 2009, 06:56
Do I detect a touch of self-righteous, Judgmentally and a good measure of arrogance here - bunglerat ?

Simple answer: Yes - for reasons I have already stated.

18th Oct 2009, 07:33
wow- "World Exclusive" she says. Sounds promising.

Qantas 787
18th Oct 2009, 07:41
I am trying not to laugh........"Sacarebus"....how original! :rolleyes:

And the reporter is at Perth Airport right near A330 which operated the 72 and he said "it could possibly be the same aircraft from the 2008 incident". Fair dinkum, do your research! You know those letters on the tail, and the front wheel doors mean something.........

Capt Kremin
18th Oct 2009, 08:12
FlyBoy737800 you simply prove my point that the A330 has had ONE fatal accident in 15 years of revenue service.

Comparing accident rates per flight doesn't mean much when one is a short-haul aircraft and one is a long haul aircraft. I suspect that comparing accident rates on sectors flown wouldn't put the 737 in as good a light, but that doesn't take into account that short-haul aircraft spend much more of their life in the critical landing and take-off phases.

One fatal accident in 15 years is a phenomenal record. People forget that even with things going so wrong, the aircraft still landed safely and very few would have been injured if they had been strapped in.

FYI... The modern airliner with the worst statistical record is the Concorde; due to having one fatal accident coupled with a low fleet number and low utilisation. You telling me you wouldn't fly a Concorde if you had the chance?

Its a beat-up and you sir, are a lightweight.

18th Oct 2009, 08:19
Top notch reporting there! After all the times ive flown in there, I was unaware that YPLM had a CAT III ILS, because they had to do a manual landing instead! :eek:

18th Oct 2009, 08:29
All that being said Capt K the A-330 has one fault . . . we know of.

Performing uncommanded dives.

I am also suspect of the carbon fiber tails integrity

Let time be the litmus test

18th Oct 2009, 08:30
what happened with this story ?? i didnt hear about it ?

Qantas 787
18th Oct 2009, 08:36
Dazza.........read this:

Emirates Flight 407 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Flight_407)

18th Oct 2009, 08:44
No hi-viz vest or 'visitors pass' on either. That should be a lay down misere for a fine I would have thought! :E

18th Oct 2009, 08:47
Journo = Coulthard

Airbus Rep = Fernando Alonso

QF72 Passenger = McLaren

FL170 = Amused


18th Oct 2009, 08:52
Dazza - Not QF so our media dont care, end of story... :hmm:

FL170 - Lmao, nice pickup, I only spotted Fernando Alonso! :D

18th Oct 2009, 09:09
What was the actual rate of descent the two times the a/c in question "plunged" anyway?

18th Oct 2009, 09:23
I agree Keg - I noticed both and thought there should be no exceptions for journalists - even if he had approved QF and or WAC tarmac access what of the requirement to display ID at chest height?? Hope an example is made.

I think the use of the movie footage from 2001 was a bit odd for an apparently 'hard hitting' investigative journalism series... and also the question where Mr. Alonso - who obviously does not have English as his first language struggled to form an answer to a question posed but then was edited before actually creating a response was a low blow - reminiscent of A current affair / Today tonight tactics.

Said reporter usually has some dignity to his filings but maybe his shift to this program has forced him to lower his standards - for shame.

18th Oct 2009, 09:28
I thought it was a lame report - you could learn more by reading the ATSB report in 5 minutes.
At least he got a junket to France and a ride in the sim! Just hope it wasn't a "scarebus" that took him over there (business class I'm sure).

18th Oct 2009, 09:48
came across as a story pushed to a journo disgrungtled ex-boeing pilot wanting to sell more of his new book.

yawn... nothing to see here

18th Oct 2009, 09:52
At end of report it said that QANTAS has new procedures to follow if a uncommanded dive re occurs

Like to know what they are and how the pilots that fly these "aircrafts" feel.

Are they in the back of their mind consciously/subconsciously waiting for it to dive.

404 Titan
18th Oct 2009, 10:04

What do you think? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out what should be done if one of the ADIRU’s starts giving duff gen and the automatics fail to isolate it.

Capt Kremin
18th Oct 2009, 10:14
I fly the aircraft. If necessary I'll do the procedure just like any other emergency checklist.

And no, I don't sit there waiting for an event that has happened once in 15 years.:ugh:

BTW... your media troll credentials loom ever larger!!

18th Oct 2009, 10:32
Thanks for info Capt K.

You are obsessed and off the mark ref media troll :confused:

18th Oct 2009, 10:32
404 Titan/ Capt Kremin
I am thinking the same about media trolling on this thread.

Arnold E
18th Oct 2009, 10:33
Have to agree Captain K. I think this "guy" is Tim Hamilton.
Waddaya say Flyboy?:suspect:

18th Oct 2009, 11:01
I assume this troll is aware of the 777 uncommanded climb events from a couple of years back. From memory they were Adiru related too.

Still, lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story. :yuk:

Arnold E
18th Oct 2009, 11:04
Well come on Flyboy, I can see you are on line, how is Tim today:cool:

18th Oct 2009, 11:07
I doubt if Flyboy is a media troll. If he was, I would hope his grammar and spelling would be somewhat superior.:rolleyes:

18th Oct 2009, 13:26
Tim / Flyboy or whoever has been played by TT like a finely tuned fiddle.

Mate, you've probably got more chance of getting yourself T-Boned by a drunk driver on the way to the airport than something untoward going wrong on your flight.

18th Oct 2009, 13:41
despite their best efforts they still included a boeing in the footage - looked like a 737 on finals...

also loved the bit about pilots avoiding flying airbus types...

what a pile of crap...

Ozzie Mozzie
18th Oct 2009, 15:01

18th Oct 2009, 22:14
At end of report it said that QANTAS has new procedures to follow if a uncommanded dive re occurs

Like to know what they are and how the pilots that fly these "aircrafts" feel.

Are they in the back of their mind consciously/subconsciously waiting for it to dive.
Doesn't sound like someone fishing at all......:yuk:

I'm sure a lot of journo's would like to get that story.....:E

Two newbies suddenly turn up when this story breaks...mmmmm

18th Oct 2009, 22:44
Whilst a good channel 7 beat up, there is unfortunatly some truth to the underlying story. Ie that there is some fault which hasnt been removed and/or positively identified. At this stage airbus has coped the flack because of it design ie computers have ultimate control, but as we have seen boeings can be affected too, just that the pilot has a bit more control in the washup.

19th Oct 2009, 00:53
The biggest issue that arises from all this is Channel 7's inability to report anything worth watching regarding aviation. Anyone see their attempt at the "overseas" student language issues at Moorabbin about a year ago?

That time they had a great chance to highlight some of the issues going on at GAAPs and failed (they couldn't even get some of the radio transmissions' subtitles correct); and this time they should've reported on something news-worthy like the EK incident at Tulla and fatigue (an actual problem) but I dare say no one would be interested because it didn't involve everyone's favourite scapegoat.

Anyone know any history behind the 'pilot' who's writing that ridiculous book that was mentioned in the show? I would look it up but don't want to give his confidence/arrogance any more of a boost by adding to his website hit count.

Blueloo, yes Airbus desiged the FBW technology in general terms but they don't make the ADIRUs - the one that suffered the 'erroneous data' issue was made by Northrop Grumman. Refer http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/pdf/AO2008070_interim.pdf page 57 - also note the corrective action which now sits in paper form in every applicable A330/340's QRHs.

Bit of research from the scaremongers wouldn't go astray - even the rudimentary information mentioned above isn't hard to find.

19th Oct 2009, 01:38
Unfortunately once again not only does the media portray Australians as mindless fools but so do you amateurs on this web site. Boeing is bettter, no Airbus is blah blah bah. One horriffic commercial accident to date.

I am appalled and embarrassed by the moronic ramblings posted here.

19th Oct 2009, 01:39
I sort of tend to agree with bluloo. It's definitely shoddy reporting, but what else would you expect from that bastion of quality "journalism".

The core question should have been "Is there an undiagnosed fault in aircraft where computers have the final say in how an aircraft should fly?". It shouldn't single out Airbus or Boeing as both manufacturers have aircraft that are FBW, both manufacturers have had issues related to garbage ADIRU inputs with, in one case catastrophic results, the rest just soiled trousers.

That is a thread that has raged on PPRuNe for a while now, and will probably continue on for some time. Pointing out one manufacturer doesn't make sense when the type of technology is shared.

I for one don't like it when a sophisticated AP just goes "Biddup, biddup, biddup. Your plane buddy, I am out of here". :}

19th Oct 2009, 02:32
..also loved the bit about pilots avoiding flying airbus types...

That's actually true but not for any of the reasons stated in the program! :ok:

19th Oct 2009, 07:19
Then why are they avoiding it?

AN Flyer
19th Oct 2009, 08:36

The Qantas 330's are safe. But I wouldn't fly in the Jetstar 330's for quids!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Other than the coat of paint and the Int J class config on the QF op 332 versus the "borrowed" QF 332 in Jetstar W class / QF Dom J class config with leather covers, what's the difference? :)

As far as I can tell from casual observation at the gate, all the J* 330's are in mainline rego, with mainline engineers doing the pushbacks, and mainline engineers doing the line maintenance when the birds are parked - or has something changed?

19th Oct 2009, 08:36
I think what Keg is referring to, is that a lot of QF pilots like flying antique aircraft, so are more willing to stay on the 767 and 747 then pop off to the bus. There cant be many more years left in these classic aircraft so why not get as much time on the museum pieces as you can before they are taken to the desert and scrapped. Then there will be no choice but to move onto something modern.

Are Jetstar taking all the 787s? It would be nice to see a modern era Boeing in QF colours. Lets just hope it flies some day.:E


19th Oct 2009, 08:38
I believe that the program was an absolute disgrace and was shoddy as hell even by Sunday on Seven's standards (if that's possible). :*

The repeated reference to the Air France crash as an A330 when it was an A340 suggests either normal media inaccuracy or deliberate attempt to associate and add credence to a very poorly thought out story.

What peeves me about these programs is a total disregard of the other side of the argument.. ie How many accidents have the system prevented?
Well, we may never know, because of course, they are never documented.

As for the poor sods chucked against the ceiling, not a nice feeling, but was there ANY suggestion that there plight might have been alleviated had they have had their SEAT BELT fastened ??? No, that might have diluted the DRAMA. :mad::yuk:

The defense by FlyBoy (terrific name , by the way,NOT) aka Tim ham reeks of association with the program that I would be doing my level best to distance myself from. :*:*

Capt Kremin
19th Oct 2009, 08:51
err ZeeBee?... actually it was an A330.

Nice rant though... ;)

ditch handle
19th Oct 2009, 08:56
As for the poor sods chucked against the ceiling, not a nice feeling, but was there ANY suggestion that there plight might have been alleviated had they have had their SEAT BELT fastened ??? No, that might have diluted the DRAMA.

Cabin crew suffered multiple injuries.

One poor fellow requiring twin full knee reconstructions and still off work as far as I know.

19th Oct 2009, 09:41
Thats a touch embarrassing ZeeBee I hope you get back to edit your post soon.

19th Oct 2009, 10:16
Actually me thinks ZEEBEE is getting the Emirates Melbourne incident confused with the Air France disappearance.

19th Oct 2009, 10:16

It was an A330.

19th Oct 2009, 10:47
Air France also lost a 340 landing in YYZ. That was due to long landing on very wet runway. Aeroplane written off all on board got out.


19th Oct 2009, 12:14
I am appalled and embarrassed by the moronic ramblings posted here.


It's not just me; I think that most readers here are always "appalled and embarrassed" about ALL your moronic ramblings! :ok:


19th Oct 2009, 15:25
Lets be honest,

Yes, very unlikely an A330 will crash. Yes, they are very safe. Yes, I have and would fly Qf330's when they have the cheapest tickets.

But...... The incident is very serious. Many people were injured. You have to understand the media has to dumb it down for Joe average. Journalist are not pilots so their interpretation of the facts will not always be 100%.

I think it is good that this program brought to light the serious nature of the glitch/bug/problem/whatever you want to call it. It reduces the chance of the problem been putting in the "too hard basket" and then coming back to bite some poor bastards in the bum. They need to find out what went wrong and stop it from happening again. I don't think the attitude that "A330s have a comparable safety rating to a 737 so its ok" is good enough. It won't be good enough when you or a family member is sitting on the one that statistically has to crash.

It was very dramatised but they must do this to keep their ratings. What would you prefer, program like this to keep the Qf management and airbus team on the toes or it to be swept under the rug and forgotten until the next one goes splash. Can't have it all your way.

404 Titan
19th Oct 2009, 15:59

No one has said the incident wasn’t serious. You have completely missed the point. Airbus together with their suppliers are working around the clock to fix this problem. I think I am now on at least my third OEB regarding this issue so people are working on it tirelessly. All this program did was grossly over sensationalise an issue for their own pathetic ratings war. In the process they have probably scared the crap out of the general public who now thing they will die if they hop in an A330 when if the truth be know they are considerably more likely to die driving to the airport to catch that said A330. It is irresponsible journalism at its finest and your support for such journalism is mind-blowing. :ugh:

19th Oct 2009, 17:51
over sensationalise an issue

yeah it's an issue. How many passengers and crew were seriously injured? Was the bit where the people hit the roof over sensationalised? Or did they not hit it that hard?

In the process they have probably scared the crap out of the general public who now thing they will die if they hop in an A330

yeah, well I am sure the pictures in every newspaper in the country didn't do that the day after the actual incident. Especially the ones with the bloodied/ destroyed interior, or the one of the passengers/crew being carried off on a stretcher. Hey, even I thought holy [email protected]

I didn't like the story, I thought is was dramatised. However, as I tried to point out, the media will do this as they must keep the ratings, so they can keep their station profitable. What would you prefer? Go live in North Korea or China if your not happy to accept that when you have a serious incidents with one of your jets the media is going to report it. And it will be dramatised so the viewers don't switch to channel nine.

I think the problem isn't the report, I think the problem is that the incident occurred, and they still don't know how to fix the issue.

19th Oct 2009, 20:28
Mikk 13 you have got to the essence of this post better than anyone else - well done !! :D

It is refreshing to see there is someone here, with a brain amongst many cynical, mono thinking “ BOZOS ” :ugh:

Bet this will get a reaction from them, you know who I am talking about when they begin to spit their venom at me . . :ok:

19th Oct 2009, 20:52
The story would have had more credibility if they had found a Qantas A330 pilot (or ex-pilot) willing to face the camera and say they don't want to pilot A330s ever again due to the computers. Instead, they interviewed an American ex pilot trying to drum up interest for his next book. My bet is they just couldn't find a Qantas pilot to do so, or if they did his interview lies on the editing suite floor because it wasn't dramatic enough.

(Could you imagine doing your job with a voice yelling at you in the background? :ugh::ugh::ugh: )

19th Oct 2009, 21:03
The story would have had more credibility if they had found a Qantas A330 pilot (or ex-pilot) willing to face the camera

Well they did have the qantas chief of ops. In journalism world that's as good as a QF bus driver. I don't think A330 Qf captains are easy to come by for the average journo, especially if they wish to keep their job.
I am sure the blokes flying the beast on the day have a story to tell.

19th Oct 2009, 21:45

You seem ignorant to the un-commanded rudder hardovers on the 737 that others have refered you to. Here is a link you might like to follow if you would like some further information. The Seattle Times: Safety at issue: the 737 (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/737/)

This might also show you the difference between a well researched, un-biased and rational piece of journalism and the [email protected] that is the topic of this thread.

19th Oct 2009, 21:51
Unfortunately for SUNDAY their promo sold the story based on "pilots don't want to fly them". The book toting pilot they interviewed was akin to me giving safety recommendations about Fords when I have always driven Holdens. All I'm saying is if this was such a big problem then surely there would be an A330 driver somewhere (ANYWHERE?) willing to go on record that they don't want to fly an A330 again due to one weird ADIRU glitch in 15 years.

19th Oct 2009, 22:56
Does anyone have a link to the actual program; I can only get the promo video with the advert re adolescent drinking hazards!

20th Oct 2009, 02:45
From Tim Hamilton;

The reason Airbus adopted Carbon fiber tails is - to save weight and the airlines can carry more passengers. It is a “Commercial” not a engineering consideration

I don't think you got a clue about aircraft design. You haven't exactly revealed any insider Airbus secret there. EVERYTHING in an aircraft is made as light as possible. Of course it still has to meet the regulatory structural requirements regardless of the material used. Weight considerations are why they've been building aircraft out of aluminium alloys rather than cast iron or house bricks. To put it in simple terms for you; Aircraft built lighter = better aircraft from engineering AND commercial point of view.

404 Titan
20th Oct 2009, 02:57

I never said it wasn’t an issue. Just like the journalist that made this report, you have conveniently left out one of my quotes:
No one has said the incident wasn’t serious.
The reality is there is responsible journalism and irresponsible journalism. Responsible journalism tells the whole story, not just the bits that suit them so as to spice it up. Did it mention that it is the only time since the aircraft was launched that this has happened? No. Instead they show the Air France accident which is totally unrelated. One caused by an unheard of before ADIRU problem and the other by a known pitot problem that most airlines were aware of back in 1996 but Air France chose to ignore. Did it mention that Airbus has produced a procedure for pilots so they can deal with this problem if it is to on the very unlikely chance happen again? No. Instead they produce some dim witted idiot who is trying to peddle his book and in the process scare the crap out of the general public by screaming “STALL, STALL”.

The reality is that Airbus and their suppliers of the relevant components are working around the clock to fix this problem. In the mean time though we now have a procedure to deal with it. That is the story but it was never told.

As a former Aussie ATC’er you should know better than most how bad the Australian media is at reporting serious issues.


Are you really a B737-800 pilot? If you are you would know what the ACN is for the B737-800 and its relationship to PCN. If you can answer this question then we can all presume you are as you say. If you can’t then I suspect you are a journalist trolling this forum and therefore can be ignored.

404 Titan
20th Oct 2009, 03:15

And our little mate Tim keeps glossing over the point the tail on the American Airlines A300 failed not because of a fault with its construction but because the rudder inputs were mishandled by the pilot flying and subjected the tail to loads for which it wasn’t designed to bare. Maybe he should have a read of the Lauda Air 004 crash in 1991 and see what happens to a B767 when load limits are exceeded.

20th Oct 2009, 03:24
Too true Titan

404 Titan
20th Oct 2009, 03:25

Try this link:

Sunday Night Airbus Video (http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunday-night/)

20th Oct 2009, 04:03
Not sure why everyone mentions A300s, 737, 777s or any other jet/fleet (why not mention lockeeds, avros, or comets aswell!) .

Yes they all have or have had problems - the information and reports on most are freely available from the respective air investigation units around the world.

The report (dramatically over sensationalised as it was and full of the preverbal channel 7 crap) was on the A330.

All these comparisons reek of a holden vs ford debate - and airbus vs boeing debates on this website get tiring at the best of times.

The A330 has an unsolved problem. It needs to be rectified. The story essentially said that. The delivery method of the story was cra.p.

404 Titan
20th Oct 2009, 04:48

No one here would argue that the problem doesn’t need rectification. Of course it does. What most of us object to is that the story didn’t mention the important stuff like what is being done by Airbus and the fact we as pilots now have a procedure in place to deal with it if it should, in the unlikely event ever happen again. In this world of instant gratification many expect an instant fix. The media thrive of it. The reality is that instant fixes are very rare especially when it comes to aviation.

The point is we as pilots have now been given the tools to deal with it and Airbus are working tirelessly on a permanent fix which won’t happen overnight.

20th Oct 2009, 05:56
The reason Airbus adopted Carbon fiber tails is - to save weight and the airlines can carry more passengers. It is a “Commercial” not a engineering consideration.

Are you aware that most a/cs, including Boeing's, 777 to be specific, have carbon fibre tails as well. What is their reason then ?
The A330 is a safe a/c. Period. It has flaws, but so do other a/cs flying out there in the same age group as the 330. Just one uncommanded drop and a show is dedicated to the " unsafeness" of the A330.:ugh: As many ppl have mentioned in this thread, the 737s had several uncommanded rudder hardovers killing many ppl. Was any show dedicated to the "unsafeness" of the 737 in Australia ?
The 777s, esp the GE90s powered ones, had a spate of IFSDs a few years ago. Was anyone baying for its blood or having shows to show its unreliabilty then.

Ppl seem to have forgetten that two other near disasters involving Q,s a/c were Boeings'. (744 runway overun in BKK and 744 incident over MNL skies last year.)
It just seems to me that ppl's concerns for safety are suddenly heightened when an A is involved but not so when it involves other a/c manufacturer.:=

20th Oct 2009, 10:47
ABC TV is promoting their up coming foreign Correspondent program next week, which I am sure you all will be interested in viewing with - an open mind :)

“There must be a better way to track aircraft “ with visual of the tail section of the Air France Airbus - A330 that crashed, with the loss of 228 people, into the Atlantic ocean.

Foreign Correspondent 8 PM Tuesday

Air France Flight 447 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447)

20th Oct 2009, 11:04
This hasn't been mentioned as of yet, however, the following morning the Journalist who put together this particular story was on Sunrise backing up his feature on the 'scarebus'. The ironic thing is, though, that Sunrise is sponsored by Jetstar who only use Airbus aircraft. Surely this would be opposed by Jetstar as primary sponsor or are people so naive that they will not even think twice about this?

404 Titan
20th Oct 2009, 11:53

I notice you have conveniently ignored answering my question in post #114. Are you afraid of being discovered as a fraud?

20th Oct 2009, 12:14

I don't quite understand your reference to the tail being found but from your own link,

the aircraft did not break up in flight

Despite some of the media and internet-forum drivel the initial investigation showed that the tail did not come off in-flight. Any attempted link of this accident to that of the American Airlines A300 is not valid.

You are out of your depth in this discussion. It might be better if you revert to writing the horoscopes for whatever low-grade tabloid you work for. You're much more likely to write something accurate that way.

20th Oct 2009, 15:39
This is another dark dark day for aviation reporting in this country.

The Emirates COVER UP in melbourne just shows us that the media is a FARCE

Some facts

I love flying A330s (nice red tail with white Roo), they are safe even in the JQ colours (glad that was ignored previously).

I am interested in the QF72/EK407/AF477 reports. All pilots from all types & makes can learn something from these reports.

FlyBoy737800 - keep posting please :ugh: I enjoy the arogance of ignorance. Any update on the ACN/PCN Q?................................ didnt think so!

http://api.ning.com/files/QFQfA-b3OkRbhHWSVLL3SQzLfRiJ4FzmSjVxSm6prqV0jw0YQz5gbmORqg*0lWOF*n yNyo8mTPAhBp5CHx9bOIC4wSPsNQun/clown025.jpg
FlyBoy737800 is this you?

404 Titan
20th Oct 2009, 16:41
Skip Undo

You posts are a waste of band width. Go away.:mad::ugh:

20th Oct 2009, 20:29
even with all the known and suspected problems the A-330 has.
And they would be ..... ?
Hint 1 - see Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation into the subject of this thread - an Airbus A330.

Hint 2 - see French BEA Investigation into the disappearance of Air France Flight AF447 - an Airbus A330.

Do try to keep up . :rolleyes:

Yep I couldn’t of said it better myself Skip Undo.. !!

It’s hard having to constantly inform the uninformed but it is my continuing crusade as it seems it is also yours . .

Don’t give up educating these Bozos, my friend :ok:

P.S. "There is a certain Karma which seems to ensure that those who try to get too cute finish up getting bitten on the bum themselves" Yep a vote of Thanks to Capt K :ok:

Skip Undo
You posts are a waste of band width. Go away"404 Titan is so aggressive and arrogant ALL the time but I am sure he is not like this in REAL life, well I hope so anyway :) just imagine what being his FO would be like :eek:

20th Oct 2009, 21:39
It’s hard having to constantly inform the uninformed but it is my continuing crusade as it seems it is also yours .

You're kidding me, right?

You have not provided a single bit of factual evidence. You accuse others of not having an open mind. I'll consider all evidence and then reach a conclusion based on logical and knowlegable interpretation of the information. The trend in this kind of media report is to make a juicy headline and then try and piece together any sort of junk they can to back it up. Hopefully the Foreign Correspondent segment will be better than the last media disgrace.

As for you FlyBoy737800, I repeat, you're out of your depth. You don't know what you're talking about and anyone here who does can see that from a mile away. Give it up.

Nose wheel first
20th Oct 2009, 22:19
Re your post #123, Flyboy737800 is no doubt furiously trying to find someone who can explain it to him and then pass the answer on..... thus giving the appearance of NOT being a troll.

drshmoo; great photo.... must be him..... a clown AND full of hot air.

FlyBoy737800..... :ugh::ugh::ugh:!!!!!

20th Oct 2009, 22:56
Flyboy, don't you have anything better to do with your time than bringing nonsense to an informed discussion? :ugh:

Maybe youp0rn is down or something :confused:

Anyway, IAW laid it out perfectly - one ADIRU glitch in FIFTEEN YEARS and suddenly pilots don't want to go near an A330?

It's called sensationalism.

21st Oct 2009, 01:35
skip undo ably demonstrates with two successive posts that they have no idea about satire and sarcasm! :rolleyes: What's even more impressive is that they demonstrate it within the first couple of lines of each post! :E

The rest of those posts just demonstrates that skip undo generally has no idea. :ok: I've heard the 'scarebus' occasionally referred to as the 'Sacre-bus' (as in sacre bleu) and so perhaps it was just a play on words. Either way, skip's contribution has been 'interesting'. :zzz:

21st Oct 2009, 01:41

Are you really a B737-800 pilot? If you are you would know what the ACN is for the B737-800 and its relationship to PCN. If you can answer this question then we can all presume you are as you say. If you can’t then I suspect you are a journalist trolling this forum and therefore can be ignored.
Come on Flyboy ... I dont want to be RIGID more FLEXIBLE on your behalf, believing that you are a fellow flyboy. But it seems that this simple question is not HIGH on your agenda. No PRESSURE or anything.

21st Oct 2009, 01:59
Flyboy737800 is absolutely correct. The A330 is a particularly difficult and dangerous aircraft. Pilots of these machines should be compensated accordingly. These men and women risk their lives every time they go to work. The pressure and responsibility for so many lives would be difficult to measure in dollar terms. I trust CEOs and other financial managers pay these professionals accordingly.

21st Oct 2009, 03:11
The way the Aussie media have grabbed hold of the A330 might mean it'll go the same way as the Nomad..

Just wait until they get their hands on Toll's ATRs and the Roselawn accident, QANTASLink's Q400s and Colgan, of course don't forget the Manly Ferries and Titanic. :rolleyes:

Aviation is still safer to travel than anything else (Motor Vehicle, Boat, Donkey)

Nose wheel first
21st Oct 2009, 03:22
You could even have a date with FlyBoy737800 if you want to..... just google Flyboy737800 and take a look at the third option.... The page even comes complete with a photo.

Happy dating :}

21st Oct 2009, 03:55
Looks like my hunch on Tim Hamilton and the Hammo pub might have been right; and now there is a photo.

21st Oct 2009, 04:13
Ewww yuck. I feel so unclean.:}

Capt Fathom
21st Oct 2009, 04:56
FlyBoy737800 .... "Skip Undo is Right !! Listen and Learn Capt K"

If you're going to bounce off Skip Undo to bag someone, make sure you bag the right person!

It's Capt F, not Capt K!

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/animated/anim_03.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-aim-smileys.php)

PS. That's Captain Fathom and Captain Kremin to you! :E

21st Oct 2009, 04:58
Was due to a A/P Pitch computer if memory serves.Lucky the pilots didn't refuse to fly that model.:E Pax hair and scalp were found in the ceiling panels.
Once again some well trained QF pilots saved the day.:ok:

Eugene Register-Guard - Google News Archive Search (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19890602&id=v2sVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m-EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3662,189175)

Capt Kremin
21st Oct 2009, 05:33
Thanks Captain Fathom. I was going to answer myself but I have instituted a policy of no longer replying to ill-informed wannabees masquerading as airlines pilots.

I just can't decide on the acronym for my policy. All Cretins Nullified or Particular Cretins Nullified? I am happy to take advice however from my peers....;)

21st Oct 2009, 07:17
The way the Aussie media have grabbed hold of the A330 might mean it'll go the same way as the Nomad.. - empacher 48

There may be a shocking similarity,.lets see who's first to get this :hmm: it may take a while :) and I am sure lots of :ugh: again.

21st Oct 2009, 07:25
Captain K, in that delightful film "A Fish Called Wanda" the truly evil character (played by Kevin Kline) was ultimately planted into wet concrete by the really nice character (Michael Palin).

Wonder what that did to pavement strength?

Perhaps [email protected] ([email protected]) And Numbnuts Discouraged Away is your acronym?

21st Oct 2009, 07:48
There may be a shocking similarity

Then again, there actually isn't.

The Nomad and the A330. Lots in common there. :ugh:You're the aeronautical genius and we don't get it.

21st Oct 2009, 07:53
Have the mods gone on strike? This drivel has gone on far too long!

21st Oct 2009, 11:06

I see they cut you off before you could get your homework done for my learned colleague.

Try this:

Airport Engineering (http://www.geocities.com/profemery/aviation.html#Design%A0)

Now see if you can answer Titan404 ....in English please.

And as was said, the 330 has had some issues like all other types. We in fact had the fleet grounded in the early days with engine related problems. We also replaced all the pitots. The MD told Airbus to come and take them all away or fix them. They did.

Have a good day:ugh:

21st Oct 2009, 12:02
... likes this