A340-600 airspeed oscillations

[1a sound asleep]

http://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/ePublication/admin/iradmin/Lists/Incidents%20Investigation%20Reports/Attachments/37/2013-Preliminary%20Report%20A340-600%20-%20A6-EHF%20Report%2005%202013.pdf

Aircraft encountered moderate to heavy turbulence and experienced significant airspeed oscillations on the captain’s and standby indicators. The autopilot, autothrust and flight directors were disconnected automatically. The Aircraft’s flight control law changed from “Normal” to “Alternate” Law, which caused the loss of some of the flight mode and flight envelope protections. The change from Normal to Alternate Law occurred twice,
thereafter the Alternate Law stayed until the end of the flight. Autothrust and flight directors were successfully re-engaged, however, both autopilots (autopilot 1 and 2) could not be re-engaged thus the Aircraft was controlled manually until its landing. Associated with that, the Aircraft experienced high N1

[beardy]

Interestingly in the synopsis it is stated that:

The flight crew decided to divert to Singapore Changi International Airport since the Aircraft had lost the capability to maintain Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM).

and yet in the history of the flight

In coordination with the MCC, the flight crew decided to divert to Singapore (WSSS15) due to the availability of maintenance and parts


There seems to be ....ah......a little confusion?

[MASTEMA]

Buster

"...but the -600 is such a snorter."

But surely you mean "a shlonger!" :O

[MASTEMA]

The A330-300 and A340-300 are pigs also.

A330-200 and A340-500, nice!

Bring on the A350! :ok:

[Buckshot]

Young tech crew! Commander 39, FO 24, Relief crew 43 and 31.

(Just an observation not suggesting anything more than that - although just as well the FO didn't have to hand-fly to WSSS on his 500 hours TT :} )

[ButFli]

Interestingly in the synopsis it is stated that:

Quote:
The flight crew decided to divert to Singapore Changi International Airport since the Aircraft had lost the capability to maintain Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM).
and yet in the history of the flight

Quote:
In coordination with the MCC, the flight crew decided to divert to Singapore (WSSS15) due to the availability of maintenance and parts

There seems to be ....ah......a little confusion?

My interpretation is that the crew decided to divert (rather than continue the flight) because the aircraft had lost the capability to maintain RVSM. Singapore was chosen as the diversion airport (over other, presumably closer suitable airports) because of the availability of maintenance and parts at Singapore.

There isn't any confusion. The two quotes are describing different decisions.