PDA

View Full Version : QF72 Story


Saintly
2nd Jun 2019, 21:28
I recommend everyone watch this story:

https://7plus.com.au/sunday-night

It's in regards to QF72 and that flight in 2008 when the Airbus A330's computer systems went haywire and how the captain, Kevin Sullivan and his crew saved the lives of the passengers. The aircraft had to land at Learmonth due to an emergency landing. Many passengers and crew were injured. Also please sign the petition (link can be found below) sk that Kevin and his crew can be formally recognised and awarded meaning: The Qantas Chairman's Diamond Award for displaying such extraordinary valor, selflessness, and remarkable courage, which was crucial in protecting the aircraft and the safety of all 315 passengers and crew on board in circumstances of extreme peril and Australia's highest civilian Bravery award, the 'Cross of Valor" for acts of the most conspicuous courage in circumstances of extreme peril, here is the link for the petition:

https://www.change.org/p/qantas-group-forgotten-heroes-of-qantas-flight-qf72?fbclid=IwAR1yqsoBgVQBex3_G_ZJQNepXEI19RF0qe_qTJU-wBZBbx1uVIxQElKafks

As we know a lot of passengers whinge and complain about aviation such as flights being late etc etc but we should never ever forget that crews prior, during and after flights do everything they can to ensure passengers are safe and I for one alwa y s thank them once the flight is over. A simple "Thank you" - more passengers should say it.

Cheers.

dr dre
3rd Jun 2019, 00:00
Australia's highest civilian Bravery award, the 'Cross of Valor" for acts of the most conspicuous courage in circumstances of extreme peril,


It was a good act of professionalism and flying by the crew, but the suggestion of awarding the Cross of Valour is too much.

The CV has only been awarded to 5 Australians since inception, and is pretty much limited to those who have consciously and deliberately chose to put their lives at risk to save the lives of others.

It includes someone who touched a high voltage electricity wire and copped severe electrocution in order to save a child, another who saved a childís life by going into a raging stormwater drain during a torrential flood, and two whom went into the nightclub after the Bali bombings without protective clothing and sustained severe burns in order to drag people out.

CROSS OF VALOUR RECIPIENTS (http://www.forbravery.org.au/cross-of-valour-recipients/)

Again taking nothing away from the crew, but the Channel 7 story was overly sensationalised, typical of current day tabloid media. Labelling it as the ďuntold story no one has ever hear ofĒ when the ATSB report was released 8 years ago, and a quick google search shows dozens of articles written about the incident when it occurred and in the following years. Maybe ďthe story that hasnít been given the sensationalist Channel 7 tabloid trash treatmentĒ would be a more accurate descriptor.

And heavy on the QF bashing. Jealousy from the network at not being QFís broadcaster of choice?

rjtjrt
3rd Jun 2019, 02:15
It was a good act of professionalism and flying by the crew, but the suggestion of awarding the Cross of Valour is a little too much.

The CV has only been awarded to 5 Australians since inception, and is pretty much limited to those who have consciously and deliberately chose to put their lives at risk to save the lives of others.

It includes someone who touched a high voltage electricity wire and copped severe electrocution in order to save a child, another who saved a child’s life by going into a raging stormwater drain during a torrential flood, and two whom went into the nightclub after the Bali bombings without protective clothing and sustained severe burns in order to drag people out.

CROSS OF VALOUR RECIPIENTS (http://www.forbravery.org.au/cross-of-valour-recipients/)

Again taking nothing away from the crew, but the Channel 7 story was overly sensationalised, typical of current day tabloid media. Labelling it as the “untold story no one has ever hear of” when the ATSB report was released 8 years ago, and a quick google search shows dozens of articles written about the incident when it occurred and in the following years. Maybe “the story that hasn’t been given the sensationalist Channel 7 tabloid trash treatment” would be a more accurate descriptor.

And heavy on the QF bashing. Jealousy from the network at not being QF’s broadcaster of choice?

Absolutely agree with the above. Respect for crew performance, but not appropriate an award for courage/valour.
Crew should receive an airmanship award. Very professionally handled, and they should be proud of themselves.

airdualbleedfault
3rd Jun 2019, 02:43
Good points Dr Dre

machtuk
3rd Jun 2019, 08:26
We gotta remember the grubby media with these sorts of "Hollywood" style trashy reports are aimed at the general public not so much professional pilots doing the same task daily, we know better, the public lap up this garbage!
The crew did a great job and oddly enough the most important person on ANY plane is the pilot/s, they don't wanna die so they do their very best for them first, the SLF behind them just happens to benefit from their actions!
That all said must have been a hell of a rde! Initially thoughts might have been damned it. now we will have to have tea and bickies then it escalated to hell we are in a fight to say our asses!

Rated De
3rd Jun 2019, 09:44
Was interesting that the crew/employees were not permitted to speak of the incident.
A stark contrast to another cringe-worthy episode with another Airbus.

Disappointing, but not surprising that the compensation 'offered' to at least one employee appeared to be an amount, completely at odds, with what ought be considered a duty of care payment. An employer with an seriously injured employee ought be required to compensate.

TempoTCu
4th Jun 2019, 02:02
And heavy on the QF bashing. Jealousy from the network at not being QFís broadcaster of choice?

Catastrophising incidents and accidents for the sake of TV ratings does nothing for anyone - especially those involved. Maybe its a case of Kerry Stokes missing out on an invitation to the Chairmans Lounge?

KRUSTY 34
4th Jun 2019, 09:51
The latest series of Air Crash Investigation did a reasonable job on this. Especially interesting we’re the extraordinary lengths the ATSB went to in trying to replicate the fault.

Without a definitive answer if I recall correctly?

Pearly White
4th Jun 2019, 12:55
Catastrophising incidents and accidents for the sake of TV ratings does nothing for anyone - especially those involved. Maybe its a case of Kerry Stokes missing out on an invitation to the Chairmans Lounge?
Pretty sure Kerry has his own lounge and his own jet.

WingNut60
5th Jun 2019, 02:33
The latest series of Air Crash Investigation did a reasonable job on this. Especially interesting we’re the extraordinary lengths the ATSB went to in trying to replicate the fault.

Without a definitive answer if I recall correctly?


As I recall, they (ATSB) were not able to induce or replicate an erroneous output from the suspect ADIRU.
However from the flight data downloads they were able to see that the ADIRU had been sending intermittent corrupt output, skipping a data segment and sending AOA data, for example, where there should have been airspeed data.
I forget which data in particular.

It seems that 60 Minutes just took the ACI program and gave it the "Jana Wendt touch".
You know, ample use of "horror", "terrified", "blood", and away you go.

Tankengine
5th Jun 2019, 09:51
As I recall, they (ATSB) were not able to induce or replicate an erroneous output from the suspect ADIRU.
However from the flight data downloads they were able to see that the ADIRU had been sending intermittent corrupt output, skipping a data segment and sending AOA data, for example, where there should have been airspeed data.
I forget which data in particular.

It seems that 60 Minutes just took the ACI program and gave it the "Jana Wendt touch".
You know, ample use of "horror", "terrified", "blood", and away you go.

Also: that ADIRU had been out of the aircraft and into the workshop about four times previously due ďissuesĒ!
Sometimes electrical things ate just duds.

ausworld
2nd Jul 2019, 23:03
If you have not read Captain Kevin Sullivan book on QF72. I would suggest you get a copy. It is an easy book to read and an amazing story. A very courageous crew

Pinkman
5th Sep 2019, 20:01
I read the book today - I couldn't put it down. Its well written and the humility and honesty of it comes through... I don't see any conscious self-aggrandisment in there. Yes, he says he was an ace at fighter school. Well.... he was.

The question I would ask detractors is "given the avalanche of warnings, failures, and conflicting information how would you stack up?" The point about Kevin Sullivan is that its not really about what he did on that flight as much as that he had the qualities that enabled him to qualify as a Top Gun at the US Navy Fighter Weapons School in the first place AND the subsequent F-14 and Mirage training were the same qualities that equipped him to sort it then fall apart AFTER it was all over. He's very candid about that and the subsequent PTSD in the book. Those passengers were damned lucky there wasn't a child of the magenta line up front.

The only slightly weird thing is that he refers constantly to his daughter, but never his wife - whom he presumably had the daughter with; but thats his prerogative if he wants to keep his private life, well, private,

Sunfish
5th Sep 2019, 22:55
I read it too. I’m particularly concerned about the ADIRU failure not being able to be replicated. that means either the hardware or software doesn’t have the right hooks in it for debugging. That means it’s a bad design that cannot be fixed, which is what I think Qantas must have concluded before replacing them.

BTW, Boeing is getting flak for still using an 80286 processor in the B737 FCC. I was told many years ago that they did this purely for hardware reliability reasons. I’m not sure what processor the failed ADIRU used, but leading edge processors have bugs that take years to discover.

morno
5th Sep 2019, 23:12
One of the things Iíve always kept in the back of my head after this and a few other incidents, as an absolute last resort, if the aircraft starts pitching itself around uncommanded, ADR 2&3 OFF, get the thing into alternate law. At least then the protections are turned off and I have a somewhat more controllable aircraft.

rjtjrt
5th Sep 2019, 23:48
One of the things Iíve always kept in the back of my head after this and a few other incidents, as an absolute last resort, if the aircraft starts pitching itself around uncommanded, ADR 2&3 OFF, get the thing into alternate law. At least then the protections are turned off and I have a somewhat more controllable aircraft.

Morno.
I admit I am completely unqualified, but I have always wondered if Ďwhatís it doing nowĒ goes through crew mind, then getting it into Alternate Law, or Direct Law if possible, would at least put pilot back in charge.
I have been reluctant to ask this given my lack of real knowledge.

ConfigFull
6th Sep 2019, 01:38
I admit I am completely unqualified, but I have always wondered if Ďwhatís it doing nowĒ goes through crew mind, then getting it into Alternate Law, or Direct Law if possible, would at least put pilot back in charge.
I have been reluctant to ask this given my lack of real knowledge.

rjtjrt - ask away mate. The problem was, at the time, no one really knew how to drive it into alternate law. There's still a temporary fix where you turn off 2 ADRs if the plane inexplicably pitches down.

Blueskymine
6th Sep 2019, 02:07
I read it too. Iím particularly concerned about the ADIRU failure not being able to be replicated. that means either the hardware or software doesnít have the right hooks in it for debugging. That means itís a bad design that cannot be fixed, which is what I think Qantas must have concluded before replacing them.

BTW, Boeing is getting flak for still using an 80286 processor in the B737 FCC. I was told many years ago that they did this purely for hardware reliability reasons. Iím not sure what processor the failed ADIRU used, but leading edge processors have bugs that take years to discover.

Not at all.

Airbus logic is it it has three ADRs. It compares the data and if one is found to be outside of limits via a statistical algorithm, it discounts that source and goes with the good data.

The flaw was two ADRs were giving the same faulty data, so it discounted the good data of the single non malfunctioning unit, the flight protections kicked in and acted on the bad.

The fastest way to regain control of an airbus is turn 2 ADRs off. A lot of people say 3&1. My personal preference would be the PNFs and the backup.

If it gets away from you, three off and fly the BUSS.

mrdeux
6th Sep 2019, 02:33
Why the ADRs? If you turned the PRIMs off, you’d still get direct law, but you wouldn’t need to fall back to the BUSS?

mrdeux
6th Sep 2019, 02:38
It was a good act of professionalism and flying by the crew, but the suggestion of awarding the Cross of Valour is a little too much.

The most appropriate award would probably be IFALPAís Polaris.

It was strange though, that internally at the airline QF30 and QF32 crews were given the Chairmanís award, but 72 seemed forgotten.

Blueskymine
6th Sep 2019, 02:59
Why the ADRs? If you turned the PRIMs off, youíd still get direct law, but you wouldnít need to fall back to the BUSS?

Prims receive their information from the ADRs (in a round about way) If sheís doing weird things, youíd want to isolate the corrupt data source.

morno
6th Sep 2019, 03:17
Morno.
I admit I am completely unqualified, but I have always wondered if Ďwhatís it doing nowĒ goes through crew mind, then getting it into Alternate Law, or Direct Law if possible, would at least put pilot back in charge.
I have been reluctant to ask this given my lack of real knowledge.

I ask whatís it doing now every single day :}. However if Iím starting to say ďWTF is it doing now?!?!Ē, then yes, by turning 2 ADRís off, it puts it into alternate law and nearly all your normal protections are turned off. It puts the pilot mostly back in charge of the thing and should act only from inputs from the pilot.

The safety in turning off the ADRís, is theyíre reversible. So if you want to venture down the trouble shooting path and restore some normality to the system, itís only the press of a button. The aircraft only needs 2 ADRís to restore normal law.

Iím not type rated on the 330, only the 320, but essentially they are mostly the same. Perhaps the 330 is just slightly different in its flight control computers (PRIMS?), being a bit newer than the 320.

On the 320, and I assume itís the same on the 330, Direct Law only occurs when you have selected gear down. So itís normally only in those last few minutes of flight. And itís a pain in the ass (in the sim at least) to fly, because the deflection of the flight controls is directly correlated to the control input from the side stick (itís been a while since Iíve read this, so excuse me if itís incorrect. Might be time to refresh my knowledge). Unlike Normal and Alternate Law, which still goes through the computers and deflects the controls an appropriate amount to meet the demand that we input through the side stick. So it will do it smoother and better. Unfortunately the side stick has zero connection to any flight control system, only a computer. So we have no feel at all.

When everything is running swimmingly, the Airbus is easy and quite nice to fly. When it starts going bad, itís a pain in the ass. Almost as if Airbus couldnít work out a better way to deal with abnormal situations, so itís like a bunch of problems and checklists stacked on top of one another. Unlike the apparently easier way that Boeing has done it, whereby you have a problem, you run a checklist that deals with the situation from start to finish.

FlightDetent
6th Sep 2019, 03:28
For instance the UNDUE MCAS ACTIVATION NNC.

Miles Long
6th Sep 2019, 08:09
One of the things Iíve always kept in the back of my head after this and a few other incidents, as an absolute last resort, if the aircraft starts pitching itself around uncommanded, ADR 2&3 OFF, get the thing into alternate law. At least then the protections are turned off and I have a somewhat more controllable aircraft.

So what happens if you turn 2 and 3 off and it turns out number 1 is stuffed.
Why donít you look up first and check if one has an amber light illuminated before you rush in and turn two good ones off.
3 ADRs off results in a world of hurt/BUSS.
And when youíre looking up switching 2&3 off the F/O loses his instruments.

morno
6th Sep 2019, 09:16
So what happens if you turn 2 and 3 off and it turns out number 1 is stuffed.
Why donít you look up first and check if one has an amber light illuminated before you rush in and turn two good ones off.
3 ADRs off results in a world of hurt/BUSS.
And when youíre looking up switching 2&3 off the F/O loses his instruments.


Under most situations, Iím going to get an ECAM if I have a faulty ADR (that has been detected). Why do I need to bother looking for amber lights on the overhead when Iím plunging to the earth, when even if it is stuffed, itís still going to stop the aircraft from putting in nose down inputs that I canít stop.

The problem is when none of the systems detect a fault, like in the QF72 case. But again, alternate law will stop the abrupt nose down pitching.

As for the FO losing his instruments, big whoop. Thereís still a set on my side.

No Instruments on the FO side, or plunging into the ground, I know what Iíd choose.

Finally Miles, itís a procedure that is an absolute last resort when nothing else is working and still lets you fly the aircraft.

cattletruck
6th Sep 2019, 09:40
There's an old well worn adage by computer engineers that still holds since computers were invented and it goes like this:

"We put the bugs in the system."

So why carp on about all the "what-if's"?
The software is never perfect - only tested to a common standard.
The plane is never perfect - only tested to a common standard.

Just as well Cpt Sullivan being ex US Mil had seen imperfection in aircraft before and was the smoothing interface between a smoking hole in the ground and a safe return for all.

And to think some people want to remove that filter out of the flying equation.

mrdeux
6th Sep 2019, 16:38
Prims receive their information from the ADRs (in a round about way) If sheís doing weird things, youíd want to isolate the corrupt data source.
But this may or may not isolate the corrupt source. Youíve got a fair chance of turning off the two good ones.

Your real aim is to stop the aircraft reacting to any dud data, and to do that you want a law change. Turning off the PRIMS will drop it to direct law, but all of the ADRs will still be available for you to try to resolve which is the bad source.

My AB time is only on the 380, so Iím just extrapolating from it to the other types.

FlightDetent
6th Sep 2019, 18:20
Youíve got a fair chance of turning off the two good ones. The smaller kites have only 3 ADRs. In case of two delivering good data (identical by necessity), it is the corrupt third that will get flagged. No need to deactivate two, a single one - the bad apple - would suffice.

Chris2303
6th Sep 2019, 21:20
And when youíre looking up switching 2&3 off the F/O loses his instruments.

Are there not standby instruments as well?

Blueskymine
7th Sep 2019, 14:07
The smaller kites have only 3 ADRs. In case of two delivering good data (identical by necessity), it is the corrupt third that will get flagged. No need to deactivate two, a single one - the bad apple - would suffice.

The aim of the game is to turn two off ADRs for alternate law and thus preventing crazy flight protection inputs from HAL.

Once youíve got control over the situation and worked out the faulty one, it can be isolated and HAL can be brought back to the negotiating table.

If you turn the two two good ones off youíll work it out pretty quick. Youíve still got 5 mins of the ADR being off before itís incapable of being reactivated.

dr dre
7th Sep 2019, 14:16
Just as well Cpt Sullivan being ex US Mil had seen imperfection in aircraft before and was the smoothing interface between a smoking hole in the ground and a safe return for all.

And to think some people want to remove that filter out of the flying equation.

Do you think a civilian trained pilot in that situation would have crashed and burned?

Not to take anything away from the crew on the day but the good training and level headedness that ensured a successful outcome were not specific to military trained pilots only. They are the good skills and habits that all good pilots develop and hone over the course of their careers.

FlightDetent
7th Sep 2019, 22:14
The aim of the game is to turn two off ADRs for alternate law and thus preventing crazy flight protection inputs from HAL.
Once you’ve got control over the situation and worked out the faulty one, it can be isolated and HAL can be brought back to the negotiating table.

If you turn the two good ones off you’ll work it out pretty quick. You’ve still got 5 mins of the ADR being off before it’s incapable of being reactivated. Think again, please. If you had two good ones (out of three) - which the previous post was so afraid of turning off - the HAL is happy an so is everyone onboard. :D

The specific lifesaving trick discussed needs to be used only if TWO are wrong supplying incorrect but identical data, so the poor third correct bugger gets voted out of business. But then there's no fear of turning two good ones off, because you only had 1 to begin with. ;)