Qantas A330 Emergency Landing in Learmonth
Guest
Posts: n/a
CASA have issued an urgent AD to handle the fault operationally.
http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airw...0/a330-095.pdf
Seems the manufacturer has some debugging to do..
http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airw...0/a330-095.pdf
Seems the manufacturer has some debugging to do..
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Melbourne, ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Age: 74
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No-fly Zone!?
I can hardly believe it, but another event....
A Qantas jet was forced to abort its flight on Saturday following problems with its navigation system near a military installation in Western Australia.
Qantas said yesterday that flight QF71, bound for Singapore with 277 passengers, returned to Perth soon after taking off.
A cockpit alert said there was a problem with the plane's navigation system near Carnarvon.
The incident has raised fresh questions about whether electrical interference from signals is to blame.
(snh: January 2, 2009 - 10:22AM)
A Qantas jet was forced to abort its flight on Saturday following problems with its navigation system near a military installation in Western Australia.
Qantas said yesterday that flight QF71, bound for Singapore with 277 passengers, returned to Perth soon after taking off.
A cockpit alert said there was a problem with the plane's navigation system near Carnarvon.
The incident has raised fresh questions about whether electrical interference from signals is to blame.
(snh: January 2, 2009 - 10:22AM)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Toowoomba Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSB report on latest incident
MEDIA RELEASE
Adjust font size:
2009/01
Qantas Airbus A330 incident, 480km North West of Perth on 27 December 2008
02 January 2009
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau was advised on 27 December 2008 of an occurrence that day involving a Qantas Airbus A330-300 aircraft while in cruise at FL360 (36,000 ft) enroute from Perth to Singapore.
At about 0829 UTC (1729 Local Time), the autopilot disconnected and the crew received an ECAM message (NAV IR 1 Fault) indicating a problem with ADIRU Number 1. The crew actioned the Airbus Operations Engineering Bulletin (OEB) procedure by selecting the IR 1 push-button to OFF and the ADR 1 push-button to OFF. Both OFF lights illuminated. The crew elected to return to Perth and an uneventful overweight landing was conducted. At the time that the autopilot disconnected, the aircraft was approximately 260 nautical miles (NM) North-West of Perth airport and approximately 350 NM South of Learmonth airport.
It is very early in the investigation and too soon to draw any conclusions as to specific causal factors involved in this incident. As it appears to be a similar event to a previous event involving an A330 aircraft (AO-2008-070 on 7 Oct 2008) it will be included as part of the earlier investigation. The ATSB investigation will explore all aspects of the operation of the aircraft, including examination of recorded data, and any commonalities with past occurrences.
While the investigation is likely to take a number of months, the ATSB has been working with a number of national and international parties on this investigation and plans to release an Interim Factual report by about mid-February 2009.
Should any critical safety issues emerge that require urgent attention, the ATSB will immediately bring such issues to the attention of the relevant authorities who are best placed to take prompt action to address those issues.
ADIRU = Air Data Inertial Reference Unit
ECAM = Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor
IR = Inertial Reference
ADR = Air Data Reference
NAV = Navigation
Media Contact: 1800 020 616
Adjust font size:
2009/01
Qantas Airbus A330 incident, 480km North West of Perth on 27 December 2008
02 January 2009
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau was advised on 27 December 2008 of an occurrence that day involving a Qantas Airbus A330-300 aircraft while in cruise at FL360 (36,000 ft) enroute from Perth to Singapore.
At about 0829 UTC (1729 Local Time), the autopilot disconnected and the crew received an ECAM message (NAV IR 1 Fault) indicating a problem with ADIRU Number 1. The crew actioned the Airbus Operations Engineering Bulletin (OEB) procedure by selecting the IR 1 push-button to OFF and the ADR 1 push-button to OFF. Both OFF lights illuminated. The crew elected to return to Perth and an uneventful overweight landing was conducted. At the time that the autopilot disconnected, the aircraft was approximately 260 nautical miles (NM) North-West of Perth airport and approximately 350 NM South of Learmonth airport.
It is very early in the investigation and too soon to draw any conclusions as to specific causal factors involved in this incident. As it appears to be a similar event to a previous event involving an A330 aircraft (AO-2008-070 on 7 Oct 2008) it will be included as part of the earlier investigation. The ATSB investigation will explore all aspects of the operation of the aircraft, including examination of recorded data, and any commonalities with past occurrences.
While the investigation is likely to take a number of months, the ATSB has been working with a number of national and international parties on this investigation and plans to release an Interim Factual report by about mid-February 2009.
Should any critical safety issues emerge that require urgent attention, the ATSB will immediately bring such issues to the attention of the relevant authorities who are best placed to take prompt action to address those issues.
ADIRU = Air Data Inertial Reference Unit
ECAM = Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor
IR = Inertial Reference
ADR = Air Data Reference
NAV = Navigation
Media Contact: 1800 020 616
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Near the defence base?
I've picked up three reports on the latest incident.
The first was of pilots calling for a no-go zone around the naval base suspected of jamming the computers in the Sydney Morning Herald.
The second was on Plane Talking, which seemed to rubbish the jamming angle since the flight was much closer to Perth than the base.
The third was in the IT section of The Australian, claiming Qantas suspects military involvement but doesn't back it up with any statement to justify that.
So can I get this clear. How close is close. If the signals can jam a flight 600 kilometers away, why can't they jam them in Perth. Wouldn't there have been lots more jets between the Qantas Airbus and the naval base when the latest incident occurred? Sandilands says thousands of jets have flown closer to the base since it opened but doesn't say when it opened but if it was around the time Holt got taken by a Chinese sub, yeah, right, I guess it would have been thousands.
I get the impression there is a big screw up in the Airbus computers not some sort of weird military interference that is making them go crazy half way across Western Australia.
How close to the base do flights get anyhow?
The first was of pilots calling for a no-go zone around the naval base suspected of jamming the computers in the Sydney Morning Herald.
The second was on Plane Talking, which seemed to rubbish the jamming angle since the flight was much closer to Perth than the base.
The third was in the IT section of The Australian, claiming Qantas suspects military involvement but doesn't back it up with any statement to justify that.
So can I get this clear. How close is close. If the signals can jam a flight 600 kilometers away, why can't they jam them in Perth. Wouldn't there have been lots more jets between the Qantas Airbus and the naval base when the latest incident occurred? Sandilands says thousands of jets have flown closer to the base since it opened but doesn't say when it opened but if it was around the time Holt got taken by a Chinese sub, yeah, right, I guess it would have been thousands.
I get the impression there is a big screw up in the Airbus computers not some sort of weird military interference that is making them go crazy half way across Western Australia.
How close to the base do flights get anyhow?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it would be reasonable to suspect denabol that an aircraft at FL370 could conceivably pick up signals from the base even hundreds of miles away.
In theory an aircraft, or a car, or a refrigerator, or an escalator, or a pen-knife could 'pick up' signals from the other side of the universe... but
It is the strength of the signal at the receiver (distance from transmitter), and how efficient the receiver is at turning that signal into a current (is the receiver suceptible to interference at that frequency) that determines if the transmitter will have any effect on the electrical systems in the receiver. (Pls correct me if I'm wrong).
Since:
1. the singal strength drops off with the square of the distance from the transmitter (conservatively not accounting for directional variation in signal strength, signal polarisation etc), and
2. the aircraft is not specifically designed to be a flying VLF antenna,
...then I would think that the chances are remote.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: never anywhere longer than 36 hours
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll believe that the VLF station is causing the problem when you can explain to me how the VLF station is causing problems to aircraft in other parts of the world.
This problem is occurring in aircraft north of the equator. It's just those aircraft havn't had jet upsets like the QF did. The problem as described by AIrbus's OEB is occurring in other parts of the world. Fortunately its still a fairly rare event.
My View the VLF station has absolutely nothing to do with it.
This problem is occurring in aircraft north of the equator. It's just those aircraft havn't had jet upsets like the QF did. The problem as described by AIrbus's OEB is occurring in other parts of the world. Fortunately its still a fairly rare event.
My View the VLF station has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Shadow, although that link is quite interesting it is nothing to do with this incident.
Most airline pilots would read that report and conclude rather quickly that the crew entered icing conditions without the ice protection on, the auto pilot held it as long as it could then let go. That was followed by the ice-protection being turned on as shown on the FDR. The captain saying that it was too warm for icing doesn't tie in with a freezing level of 12,000ft (they were at 23,000ft) and the severe icing forecast.
So although interesting, it is a waste of time if you are wanting to discuss this topic.
Framer.
Most airline pilots would read that report and conclude rather quickly that the crew entered icing conditions without the ice protection on, the auto pilot held it as long as it could then let go. That was followed by the ice-protection being turned on as shown on the FDR. The captain saying that it was too warm for icing doesn't tie in with a freezing level of 12,000ft (they were at 23,000ft) and the severe icing forecast.
So although interesting, it is a waste of time if you are wanting to discuss this topic.
Framer.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
vlf signals
Its not only reasonable for vlf to be picked up hundreds of k's away its actually needed to do that and penetrate water for sub's.
VLF bends around the globe.Airbuses all over the world could be receiving signals at anytime.Exmouth isnt the only one in operation
Whilst anything is possible I seriously doubt it has anything to do with it.
VLF bends around the globe.Airbuses all over the world could be receiving signals at anytime.Exmouth isnt the only one in operation
Whilst anything is possible I seriously doubt it has anything to do with it.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too warm for anti-icing.......
Shadow, although that link is quite interesting it is nothing to do with this incident.
Most airline pilots would read that report and conclude rather quickly that the crew entered icing conditions without the ice protection on, the auto pilot held it as long as it could then let go. That was followed by the ice-protection being turned on as shown on the FDR. The captain saying that it was too warm for icing doesn't tie in with a freezing level of 12,000ft (they were at 23,000ft) and the severe icing forecast.
So although interesting, it is a waste of time if you are wanting to discuss this topic.
Framer.
Most airline pilots would read that report and conclude rather quickly that the crew entered icing conditions without the ice protection on, the auto pilot held it as long as it could then let go. That was followed by the ice-protection being turned on as shown on the FDR. The captain saying that it was too warm for icing doesn't tie in with a freezing level of 12,000ft (they were at 23,000ft) and the severe icing forecast.
So although interesting, it is a waste of time if you are wanting to discuss this topic.
Framer.
Cannot see any mention of that 717-200 crew actually having failed to switch on pitot-static heaters. Think that they're talking about airframe anti-icing here: ".....the crew felt they did not need to utilize airplane anti-icing because the outside temperature was still too warm to require it."
.
see also this link from this thread
.
The A330 is '15 Years Young'
(December 30, 2008) -- Airbus today marked the 15th anniversary of its first A330 delivery, which opened a highly successful career for the twin-engine family of medium/long-range widebody jetliners that will continue to serve operators for years to come.
The no. 1 aircraft - an A330-300 version - was provided on 30 December 1993 to Air Inter, which operated it on the airline's high-capacity domestic route network within France. This aircraft subsequently joined the fleet of Brussels Airlines - which continues to use the milestone jetliner on regular service to numerous African destinations, accumulating a total of more than 50,000 flight hours.
There are some 250 A30-300s in service today, with more than 130 firmly-ordered aircraft still to be delivered.
From its original Air Inter routes with an average sector length of no more than 400 nautical miles, the A330-300 has spread its wings around the world, and now serves such long-haul routes as Frankfurt, Germany to Seattle, Washington on the U.S. West Coast - a still-air distance of over 4,400 nautical miles.
A growing proportion of the A330-300 fleet is now employed on extended-distance regional routes, such as those linking Middle East destinations with European capital cities. Similar flight lengths characterise the segments flown between Australia and Asia or from Europe to North America.
A330-300s convey large numbers of leisure travellers to the winter snow and summer sun every year. With the start of deliveries to Air Asia X in October 2008, the A330-300 is now providing low-cost services from Malaysia to China, Australia and other Asian destinations.
The A330-300 also is firmly established as the 300-seat aircraft of choice for operators in China (including Hong Kong), with almost 80 aircraft in service or on order.
Operators who will receive their first A330-300s beginning in 2009 are Etihad, Gulf Air, Oman Air and Saudi Arabian Airlines - as well as Aeroflot, Finnair and Swiss. The first of the new operators will be Singapore Airlines, with deliveries commencing in January.
Overall, more than 1,000 A330s have been ordered in the aircraft's various versions, including the new A330-200F freighter, which was launched by Airbus in January 2007. The A330's versatility also is demonstrated by its evolution as an aerial tanker for the in-flight refuelling of military aircraft and the airlift of troops and cargo.
Source : Airbus
For an aircraft program that is this mature, you wouldn't normally expect to encounter the problems that Qantas (& others) have experienced lately.
The no. 1 aircraft - an A330-300 version - was provided on 30 December 1993 to Air Inter, which operated it on the airline's high-capacity domestic route network within France. This aircraft subsequently joined the fleet of Brussels Airlines - which continues to use the milestone jetliner on regular service to numerous African destinations, accumulating a total of more than 50,000 flight hours.
There are some 250 A30-300s in service today, with more than 130 firmly-ordered aircraft still to be delivered.
From its original Air Inter routes with an average sector length of no more than 400 nautical miles, the A330-300 has spread its wings around the world, and now serves such long-haul routes as Frankfurt, Germany to Seattle, Washington on the U.S. West Coast - a still-air distance of over 4,400 nautical miles.
A growing proportion of the A330-300 fleet is now employed on extended-distance regional routes, such as those linking Middle East destinations with European capital cities. Similar flight lengths characterise the segments flown between Australia and Asia or from Europe to North America.
A330-300s convey large numbers of leisure travellers to the winter snow and summer sun every year. With the start of deliveries to Air Asia X in October 2008, the A330-300 is now providing low-cost services from Malaysia to China, Australia and other Asian destinations.
The A330-300 also is firmly established as the 300-seat aircraft of choice for operators in China (including Hong Kong), with almost 80 aircraft in service or on order.
Operators who will receive their first A330-300s beginning in 2009 are Etihad, Gulf Air, Oman Air and Saudi Arabian Airlines - as well as Aeroflot, Finnair and Swiss. The first of the new operators will be Singapore Airlines, with deliveries commencing in January.
Overall, more than 1,000 A330s have been ordered in the aircraft's various versions, including the new A330-200F freighter, which was launched by Airbus in January 2007. The A330's versatility also is demonstrated by its evolution as an aerial tanker for the in-flight refuelling of military aircraft and the airlift of troops and cargo.
Source : Airbus
For an aircraft program that is this mature, you wouldn't normally expect to encounter the problems that Qantas (& others) have experienced lately.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Past the rabbit proof fence
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vlf signals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not only reasonable for vlf to be picked up hundreds of k's away its actually needed to do that and penetrate water for sub's.
VLF bends around the globe.Airbuses all over the world could be receiving signals at anytime.Exmouth isnt the only one in operation
Whilst anything is possible I seriously doubt it has anything to do with it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not only reasonable for vlf to be picked up hundreds of k's away its actually needed to do that and penetrate water for sub's.
VLF bends around the globe.Airbuses all over the world could be receiving signals at anytime.Exmouth isnt the only one in operation
Whilst anything is possible I seriously doubt it has anything to do with it
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naval base denies interference with Qantas A330s
Here's what today's edition of Air Transport World are reporting . . .
Joint US/Australia naval communications base in Exmouth, Western Australia, is not to blame for two air data inertial reference unit failures on Qantas A330s (ATWOnline, Jan. 6), according to the base manager. Russell Levine told The Sydney Morning Herald that it was "highly, highly unlikely" that radio signals from the base could scramble a commercial aircraft's navigation systems because the two use completely different frequency bands.
Levine said the very low frequency signals from the Harold E. Holt naval base probably are unable to penetrate an aircraft fuselage. "We [also] operate in the kilohertz range and the aviation computers operate in megahertz, so there's a big difference," he said. "If we affected planes like that, we would have a lot more issues," he told the paper. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating both recent incidents and has not ruled out interference from the communications base.
Joint US/Australia naval communications base in Exmouth, Western Australia, is not to blame for two air data inertial reference unit failures on Qantas A330s (ATWOnline, Jan. 6), according to the base manager. Russell Levine told The Sydney Morning Herald that it was "highly, highly unlikely" that radio signals from the base could scramble a commercial aircraft's navigation systems because the two use completely different frequency bands.
Levine said the very low frequency signals from the Harold E. Holt naval base probably are unable to penetrate an aircraft fuselage. "We [also] operate in the kilohertz range and the aviation computers operate in megahertz, so there's a big difference," he said. "If we affected planes like that, we would have a lot more issues," he told the paper. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating both recent incidents and has not ruled out interference from the communications base.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Melbourne, ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Age: 74
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737 plunge
To pick up on quacker's line (3rd Jan), not just happening to other Airbus' elsewhere either. Just looked at an article in Flight safety news where the NTSB is assisting the UKAAIB investigate an Easyjet 737-700 non-revenue lease handback test flight plunge of some 10,000ft and exceeding VMO over 100kt, link...
EasyJet Boeing 737 plunge being investigated by AAIB and NTSB
EasyJet Boeing 737 plunge being investigated by AAIB and NTSB
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The QANTAS A330 Upsets
Maybe look at:
The QANTAS Airbus A330 Inflight upsets
.
Seems like a credible explanation for ADIRU happenings
The QANTAS Airbus A330 Inflight upsets
.
Seems like a credible explanation for ADIRU happenings