Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

15 injured in ‘serious’ stall alert incident on Qantas flight

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

15 injured in ‘serious’ stall alert incident on Qantas flight

Old 16th Apr 2017, 10:45
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 202
So if Vs at FL220 is around is 180-190 what would the holding speed be, 240? In this incident turbulence has nothing to do with it. The stick shaker and the airframe buffeting seemed to occur at the same time. Possibly the A/T has not maintained the hold speed and the crew had taken their eyes off the ball.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 10:54
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sydney Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 97
For the Vref, ask the crew, for the MCP selected holding speed, ask the crew, for A/T engagement/serviceability, ask the crew,for weather, other aircraft in the hold, ask the crew.
An enquiry perhaps and wait for the results.
PW1830 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 15:15
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: M.I.A.
Posts: 143
Most of you are as bad as Today Tonight / A Current Affair / Geoffrey Thomas.

Show a little professionalism and STFU until the final report is released. Until then, all this conjecture makes you sound like a pack of idiots.
Bug Smasher Smasher is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 20:43
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 100
Agree totally BSS. You have got to love these Monday morning quarterbacks who come out with some outrageous suggestions. I'd suggest the closest most have come to the flight deck of a Boeing (anything) is an after landing visit. Google is their friend, they hide behind a PPRuNe handle and pretend to be airline pilots.
Autobrakes4 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 23:07
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Couch
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by crosscutter View Post
Book says to leave autopilot in...unless speed, altitude or attitude deviations dictate otherwise.

VS mode would make no difference. In level flight thrust controls speed in both VS and other level flight autopilot modes.
Interesting.
Isn't that what I want? THR commanding 280kts or M.82 (SPD INT, of course), or whatever that second line says (I never read it anyway), and the auto flight system commanding a pitch, rather than an altitude.
RubberDogPoop is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2017, 23:25
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 202
Are you boys new to PPRuNe then? If you want to wait for the final report then see you in 2020 when it is released. Even then a lot of people won't agree with its findings. Until then a discussion about the facts that have been released is what this particular bulletin board is for. Do you have any ideas about how to avoid airframe buffeting and a stick shaker activating when in a holding pattern? What do you think the A/T was doing and why did it not prevent the speed decaying to the stall speed? Or do you just occupy a control seat with your mind in neutral?
Lookleft is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2017, 00:56
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 296
You can bet they were descending at near minimum clean speed the significance being they were above FL200 where minimum clean speed is not displayed on the PFD.
Entered the hold, thrust at idle (speed on elevator) autopilot possibly reduced the bank angle to protect itself from the slow speed thus didn't follow hold, crew disconnected rolled pulled G and bingo stick shaker. Thrust takes time to advance from idle to something decent at high altitude. Crew does stall recovery maneuver.
Avinthenews is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2017, 01:03
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Couch
Posts: 91
Lookleft, imagine what PPNe would look like....
RubberDogPoop is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2017, 01:11
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Couch
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by Avinthenews View Post
...autopilot possibly reduced the bank angle to protect itself from the slow speed thus didn't follow hold, crew disconnected rolled pulled G and bingo stick shaker.
Assuming that happened, an UNABLE HOLD AIRSPACE, or the like (don't have a 747 rating), at FL240 with nothing to hit terrain-wise, should this be an overpower or otherwise disconnect AP situation anyway? Practically, what is the implication of straying outside the confines of a hold (but unlikely outside the protected airspace of the hold) in a radar environment?
RubberDogPoop is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2017, 07:11
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sydney Australia
Age: 70
Posts: 97
Look Left - there are many here who have been around longer than you, actually fly the aircraft in the scenario involved - don't think any of them have been rushing to conclusions.
After 50 years, 20 years Cat B on 767/747, I'm not.
PPRuNe is a rumour network - however it is not an alternative truth network. The danger is that rubbish written here may be taken as fact by some of the armchair aviators -( nothing wrong with armchair aviating -interesting subject to take an interest in) but "facts" peddled often enough are mistaken for the truth.
PW1830 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2017, 11:31
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 202
The scenario involved is that the aircraft experienced buffeting and a stick shaker activation whilst in the hold at FL220. They are the facts as stated by the ATSB. The alternative truth as peddled by QF media and others here is that the aircraft encountered severe turbulence which the caused the stick shaker to activate Feel free to correct me where I am wrong in the statement of the facts. So how often have you found yourself in the scenario as described, regularly get the aircraft to the stick shaker do you?

I made it quite clear that my discussion about the autothrust was entirely my conjecture.Given all your experience maybe you could provide some insight as to what may have occurred whereby a 747 enters a holding pattern and then nearly stalls?

I have a feeling that had this occurred to an Asian carrier then the calls for "wait for the report" would not be so prevalent and that plenty of experienced pilots would be posting about where the crew went wrong.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2017, 14:37
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: australia
Posts: 10
There is lots of talk about the stick shaker activation and the crew taking over------ but no mention of the -- last resort , [ bugger the crew ] the stick pusher activating to save the aircraft , that will stick heads in the ceiling panels-------did it activate --
bigal cessna is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2017, 15:08
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 168
Originally Posted by bigal cessna View Post
---- but no mention of the -- last resort , [ bugger the crew ] the stick pusher activating to save the aircraft , that will stick heads in the ceiling panels-------did it activate --
Haha, a B747 stick pusher, that gave me a good laugh. Reminds me of the old saying: 'Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool than to open it and have it confirmed'.
Bleve is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2017, 19:17
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 23
Haven't the time to sift through the submissions but has anyone mentioned FLCH?

Last edited by Nuasea; 17th Apr 2017 at 19:36. Reason: PC
Nuasea is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2017, 19:31
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11
Lookleft, relax.

I take your point about "facts", but I never said they were facts, I said:
This seems to be what we know:
My comments about wake turbulence, and severe turbulence didn't come from the ATSB but I didn't make them up, they "apparently" came from the crew:

I was on this flight, severe vibration and a loud vibrating whooshing sound and then plummeting turbulence came out of no where, many passengers and crew hit their heads on the roof, overhead compartments opened and our bags from under the seat in front of us ended up behind us. There were also smoke alarms going off at the rear of the plane.Crew were initially running down the isles to see if there was any fire but said it was a false alarm due to turbulence, it would turn off and then start again the whole way into landing. It was very scary to say the least. Crew said we hit the wake of another plane, I don't know but I'm thankful we landed safely.
… CC & pax were told it was turbulence.
The passengers on board experienced what felt like severe turbulence. (from QF PR)
One source says the "crew" told them it was wake turbulence. Three sources use the word "turbulence", and one uses the word "severe".

So how often have you found yourself in the scenario as described, regularly get the aircraft to the stick shaker do you?
Never had a stick shaker in an aircraft, but I've had a few in the simulator when practicing turbulence, aircraft upsets and other non-normal manoeuvres.

I just find it hard to imagine that an approach to stall recovery manoeuvre would cause anything like the mayhem in the cabin as described. Would applying forward elevator really set off smoke alarms and open overhead compartments? Sounds more like turbulence to me. Hence my conjecture that it may have been turbulence which caused the stick shaker rather than the other way around.

As for the "conjecture police" - thinking about real aircraft incidents and discussing all the possible reasons it may have happened, and how it may be avoided in future makes us all better aviators. If you don't like it, don't read it.
Derfred is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2017, 21:18
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 202
Derfred point taken regarding the origin of the reported turbulence. Passenger reports of turbulence are not inconsistent with the ATSB statement of airframe buffeting but the two are very different in origin. I could imagine that a distracted crew would experience a fair bit of a WTF moment if their first indications of a problem was buffeting and the stick shaker. They would have realised that the aircraft was about to do something nasty and reacted accordingly.

A significant application of forward elevator would have resulted in the chaos down the back of the aircraft as reported. Not dissimilar to the A330 incident off WA where a sudden nose down pitching manoeuvre led to injuries in the rear of the cabin.

Completely agree with your last statement.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2017, 01:57
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 141
Having heard the FACTS now, as related by the CAPTAIN of the aircraft, I can confirm that 95% of what gets written on PPRuNe is complete tripe! 5% excellent, but I'm sorry, the other 95% need a reality check.

Stick pusher on a B747..... for heaven's sake....
Ushuaia is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2017, 02:08
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,013
Originally Posted by Ushuaia View Post
Having heard the FACTS now, as related by the CAPTAIN of the aircraft, I can confirm that 95% of what gets written on PPRuNe is complete tripe! 5% excellent, but I'm sorry, the other 95% need a reality check.

Stick pusher on a B747..... for heaven's sake....
Well then... cough it up!
Rumours and BS only really develop well in lieu of facts. So out with it

Please
maggot is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2017, 02:30
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hunter Valley NSW
Posts: 169
Originally Posted by Lookleft View Post
So if Vs at FL220 is around is 180-190 what would the holding speed be, 240? In this incident turbulence has nothing to do with it. The stick shaker and the airframe buffeting seemed to occur at the same time. Possibly the A/T has not maintained the hold speed and the crew had taken their eyes off the ball.
Why don't you just sell it, to Sixty Minutes? To make a ststement like that, in public, when you are assuming, is not cricket. Perhaps next time you will give it some thought, first.
Ida down is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2017, 03:35
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 202
To make a ststement like that, in public, when you are assuming, is not cricket.
"Not cricket", really? What does that even mean Once again had this happened to anyone else then I don't think the indignation would be so righteous.

In case anyone is in any doubt this aircraft was about to stall. The crew responded in an appropriate way but how did it get to that point in the first place? In TEM terms, this aircraft was in an UAS after an undetected threat and/or error occurred. I have now idea of the sequence of events that allowed it to get to an UAS but I do know that if the attitude was appropriate then the only thing not providing the required performance was the thrust. it applies to any aircraft.

If you actually know something about the incident then more than happy to be set straight.
Lookleft is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.