Qantas A330 Emergency Landing in Learmonth
Isn't it nice to see the good old RFDS coming to the rescue, thus revisiting historical ties between Qantas and the RFDS.
Qantas CEO announces that all executive bonuses will be revoked and given to the RFDS.
Qantas CEO announces that all executive bonuses will be revoked and given to the RFDS.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kremin is right. The QF72/71 is run as a shuttle SIN-PER-SIN.... Totally common for tech crew to come get their own drinks as a mean to stretch the legs and use the lav.
Again, the pax stating that one of the tech crew was in the galley at the time was seen by more than one crew member Ive flown with since this whole thing happened- so it's not a rumour. Also we're talking business class galley, not at the back of the a/c. And as for comments about crew going to 'talk up the F/As', not all flight crew are there for that reason. Some see it as good CRM as they might not have had the chance to say g'day during boarding.
Agree that if anything except FACT was taken out of this forum we wouldn't have one!! Fair call to the mods if they think something doesn't belong- it just ticks me off a bit that I get told off for asking a question and answering someone else's- nothing I said about Learmonth airport was not a fact- I have been there. Yet people are making other comments and nothing. Sorry if I can't figure out how to post a question without it being 'speculating'
Back on topic. I was asking in the other thread, is it possible for a significant CAT/turbulence event to cause an 'in flight upset' (i.e. the computer simply couldn't cope, for whatever reason, or in conjunction with an elevator problem- if there was one)
Not speculating, just after some FACTS
Again, the pax stating that one of the tech crew was in the galley at the time was seen by more than one crew member Ive flown with since this whole thing happened- so it's not a rumour. Also we're talking business class galley, not at the back of the a/c. And as for comments about crew going to 'talk up the F/As', not all flight crew are there for that reason. Some see it as good CRM as they might not have had the chance to say g'day during boarding.
Agree that if anything except FACT was taken out of this forum we wouldn't have one!! Fair call to the mods if they think something doesn't belong- it just ticks me off a bit that I get told off for asking a question and answering someone else's- nothing I said about Learmonth airport was not a fact- I have been there. Yet people are making other comments and nothing. Sorry if I can't figure out how to post a question without it being 'speculating'
Back on topic. I was asking in the other thread, is it possible for a significant CAT/turbulence event to cause an 'in flight upset' (i.e. the computer simply couldn't cope, for whatever reason, or in conjunction with an elevator problem- if there was one)
Not speculating, just after some FACTS
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 64
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why the focus on the computer?
This whole thing has happened before, with the 737.
That had nothing to do with the computer. It was basic electronics / mechanics.
A passenger's laptop causing a sudden pitch down? Give me a break!
Something shat itself down the back, with the result that the skipper followed suit - and he did a great job.
This whole thing has happened before, with the 737.
That had nothing to do with the computer. It was basic electronics / mechanics.
A passenger's laptop causing a sudden pitch down? Give me a break!
Something shat itself down the back, with the result that the skipper followed suit - and he did a great job.
Why the focus on the computer? Because computers have been known to cause an aircraft to pitch-up through the autopilot before. An MAS 777 did 10000'/min RoC due to just that reason in 2005.
If I was to have a guess at what has happened here and it is only a guess, I would say this has everything to do with a certain “OEB” i.e. “UNDETECTED ELEVATOR CONTROL LOSS IN CASE OF DUAL FAILURE” that is well known to Airbus and operators than any pax using an electrical devise or turbulence. This leads one to ask was the OEB followed exactly by the crew and if it was then Airbus will have to revisit this problem and find a solution once and for all before an airframe is lost.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I imagine the RAAF will be looking very closely at this seeing that they have selected this aircraft as the basis for their new re fuelling tankers.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAAF won't have anything to worry about as the maintenance is to be carried out in Australia. Unlike Qantas they don't lose control of their maintenance by outsourcing to the cheapest MRO they can find. The QF A330's are maintained in Manila and Hong Kong. Its called "worlds best practise"- (for increasing management bonuses).
CAVEDWELLER
This “OEB” if it is at the centre of this incident has nothing to do with where the aircraft is maintained. Are you suggesting all CX’s aircraft are maintained poorly because they are maintained in Hong Kong and Xiamen? I hope not. The RAAF will be drawn into this long running problem just like all A330/340 operators world wide have been. The question that needs to be asked by the investigators and regulators alike is when does Airbus intend fixing what I and many others consider a serious problem, once and for all?
This “OEB” if it is at the centre of this incident has nothing to do with where the aircraft is maintained. Are you suggesting all CX’s aircraft are maintained poorly because they are maintained in Hong Kong and Xiamen? I hope not. The RAAF will be drawn into this long running problem just like all A330/340 operators world wide have been. The question that needs to be asked by the investigators and regulators alike is when does Airbus intend fixing what I and many others consider a serious problem, once and for all?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF Maintenance
Cavedweller, maybe you should come out into the light. Having worked for CX and having operated as a F/E on their aircraft I can assure you that there was absolutely no justification for your denigration of the maintenance carried out there. Aircraft reliability and 'on time' departures was a feature of the fleet, added to which ADD's were minimal and always addressed in quick time. Unless you have first hand knowledge of something to the contrary I suggest you apologise to HAECO.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If airplane systems are so fragile and easily interfered with by electrical devices then how come they are allowed on board?
And if they have such a profound affect why isn't it used by extremists today? Several people with concealed laptops turned on would be very dangerous!
And if they have such a profound affect why isn't it used by extremists today? Several people with concealed laptops turned on would be very dangerous!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: downunder
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting - from ATSB website.
While the full interpretation and analysis of the recorded data will take some time, preliminary review of the data indicates that after the aircraft climbed about 200 feet from its cruising level of 37,000 feet, the aircraft then pitched nose-down and descended about 650 feet in about 20 seconds, before returning to the cruising level. This was closely followed by a further nose-down pitch where the aircraft descended about 400 feet in about 16 seconds before returning once again to the cruising level. Detailed review and analysis of FDR data is ongoing to assist in identifying the reasons for the events.
While the full interpretation and analysis of the recorded data will take some time, preliminary review of the data indicates that after the aircraft climbed about 200 feet from its cruising level of 37,000 feet, the aircraft then pitched nose-down and descended about 650 feet in about 20 seconds, before returning to the cruising level. This was closely followed by a further nose-down pitch where the aircraft descended about 400 feet in about 16 seconds before returning once again to the cruising level. Detailed review and analysis of FDR data is ongoing to assist in identifying the reasons for the events.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 37,000ft
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd bet $$$ that there's more than one person closely perusing the tech logs from a certain month earlier this year... would make for relevant reading and hopefully give some insight into things, if the direction they're taking is in fact the right one.
" .. If I was to have a guess at what has happened here and it is only a guess, I would say this has everything to do with a certain “OEB” i.e. “UNDETECTED ELEVATOR CONTROL LOSS IN CASE OF DUAL FAILURE” .."
I'm not sure whether the QF Airbuses have the OEB reminder function enabled, or whether the crew referred to the OEB during the event, but in any case the OEB says to "apply normal ECAM procedure and STATUS" if the malfunctions occur in flight, so it would not have altered the outcome.
The vertical speeds which ensued only equate to around 2 - 2.5 deg change in pitch, although the rate of pitch change was obviously large to cause injury.
I'm not sure whether the QF Airbuses have the OEB reminder function enabled, or whether the crew referred to the OEB during the event, but in any case the OEB says to "apply normal ECAM procedure and STATUS" if the malfunctions occur in flight, so it would not have altered the outcome.
The vertical speeds which ensued only equate to around 2 - 2.5 deg change in pitch, although the rate of pitch change was obviously large to cause injury.
