15 injured in ‘serious’ stall alert incident on Qantas flight
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Earth
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 747 getting into trouble from wake turbulence?
Okay.....
Okay.....
Yes - the 747 very much get's affected from wake turbulence. Especially from a 380, and also from a 777. A 777 can get badly upset by wake turbulence from other 777s and 380s.
Certain very busy airports are applying minimum separation standards behind 380s, and have them stacked very high in holding patterns. Anybody who has flown into these places knows exactly how badly, and very, very quickly that wake turbulence can affect a Heavy.
I am tipping something greater than an 'Incident' will occur at one of these places due to wake turbulence, and then the regulators will make the changes that should be in place now.
Well I've never flown a jumbo, so it's interesting to find out a different perspective. I would have thought when you're one of the bigger birds in the sky, you're reasonably safe.
I wasn't suggesting it was a jet stream, I was discounting it as it was at F220. I was suggesting it could perhaps have been stronger upper winds and a change in the turn. However from some experience in Asia you don't usually see more than 30 kts of wind below about F250 unless there's something going in. Particular closer to the equator.
Yes I agree with the trippler, the worst encounter I had with wake was one.
The 380 has been an issue a few times crossing its path north south as it heads west.
Anyway as I said it'd be an interesting read.
I wasn't suggesting it was a jet stream, I was discounting it as it was at F220. I was suggesting it could perhaps have been stronger upper winds and a change in the turn. However from some experience in Asia you don't usually see more than 30 kts of wind below about F250 unless there's something going in. Particular closer to the equator.
Yes I agree with the trippler, the worst encounter I had with wake was one.
The 380 has been an issue a few times crossing its path north south as it heads west.
Anyway as I said it'd be an interesting read.
Still a lot of questions which is probably why Fairfax was given a soft drop almost a week later in an effort to flatten the story - the 'say nothing' lessons learned ex QF32 clearly have been forgotten
Crew operated back although at least one CC suffered injuries. Understand that crew de-brief didn't happen and CC & pax were told it was turbulence.
If Avionics and FMS was the cause of a/c condition then I would want more than an LAME ramp check in HKG
Report v data will be very interesting
AT
Crew operated back although at least one CC suffered injuries. Understand that crew de-brief didn't happen and CC & pax were told it was turbulence.
If Avionics and FMS was the cause of a/c condition then I would want more than an LAME ramp check in HKG
Report v data will be very interesting
AT
So, Alan Joyce fronting media and being broadcast all over the world within an hour of the QF32 incident (once the aircraft had landed safety) and grounding the entire A380 fleet was 'saying nothing'. Further, after the whole thing had been dealt with Qantas allowed crew to speak openly about the incident to Four Corners, as did Joyce and senior engineering people.
Again, how is that 'say nothing'.
I believe the Qantas reaction to QF32 was lauded as an excellent example of how a company should respond and the Rolls-Royce reaction was used as an example of the complete opposite.
On top of that, the media glossed over the fact that another prominent and supposedly 'untouchable' carrier based in Asia had their A380s back in the air within days in circumstances that couldn't possibly have provided enough time for the proper inspections to be done but as they are a media darling and don't have a kangaroo on the tail, this was completely ignored by the media at the time.
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 13th Apr 2017 at 04:35. Reason: addition
Data off the ADS-B capable transponder of the aircraft suggest the aircraft was descending to enter the hold at about 340 knots over ground on a track of 315 degrees, when descending through FL229 at 17:47L (09:47Z) the speed decayed to 290 knots over ground still on a track of 315 degrees before increasing to above 400 knots over ground in altitude fluctuations between FL214 and FL230 before levelling off at FL220 at 390 knots over ground subsequently reducing to 340 knots over ground.
On top of that, the media glossed over the fact that another prominent and supposedly 'untouchable' carrier based in Asia had their A380s back in the air within days in circumstances that couldn't possibly have provided enough time for the proper inspections to be done but as they are a media darling and don't have a kangaroo on the tail, this was completely ignored by the media at the time.
Well said keg..
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So has anyone got any temperature and wind information ( presumably from online) so the above post can be used meaningfully?
Blue line is wind speed and red line is direction. X-axis is atmospheric pressure and this incident happened somewhere around 430hPa (a little to the left of centre). Of course, this data is slightly uncertain (it's from a forecast model, not an actual observation) but I don't see anything to suggest there'd be a much windshear at their altitude.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A380 is a menace to anyone flying behind it or through its wake. Was recently shaken up pretty badly while flying through the wake of a 380 10NM in front of us (and we were in a heavy).
Unfortunately, instead of increasing separation margins ATC is pushing to reduce them and in Europe have done that with the recent RECAT minimums.
Was reading a recent article in the Airbus safety magazine that more or less defended the reduced minimum by saying that they had never seen any major incident on approach as a result of wake turbulence and hence no one had anything to worry about. As for enroute, no one should be worried as the turbulence is sudden and only lasts 10 seconds or less.
Unfortunately, instead of increasing separation margins ATC is pushing to reduce them and in Europe have done that with the recent RECAT minimums.
Was reading a recent article in the Airbus safety magazine that more or less defended the reduced minimum by saying that they had never seen any major incident on approach as a result of wake turbulence and hence no one had anything to worry about. As for enroute, no one should be worried as the turbulence is sudden and only lasts 10 seconds or less.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because they were not using their seat belts. QF announce on the PA that it is a requirement to have your seat belt fastened when seated even if the sign is switched off. Obviously some people would be moving around, especially cabin crew, but the injury toll would almost certainly have been lower if everyone in their seat was properly restrained.
Others might be avoiding DVT. Then CC.
On an aircraft with 364 pax and up to 16 CC. The fact only 15 were injured is some sort of miracle.
As for enroute, no one should be worried as the turbulence is sudden and only lasts 10 seconds or less.
Accident: Emirates A388 over Arabian Sea on Jan 7th 2017, wake turbulence sends business jet in uncontrolled descent
Nor these:
Jumpseat: Assaulted by an A380
I don't know who JT is supposed to be but I wasn't talking about media on the island, but media here... they just love this offshore carrier and they wouldn't dare mention anything derogatory about it even when it does something dodgy.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sector C
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only A380 operator that flies into Hong Kong from the south is Qantas.
There is an appearance that Qantas has covered up the evidence here, the CVR and FDR should have been quarantined in the Hong Kong to the investigators, not waiting for it to be overwritten by flying it back to Australia.
Stall warning events are required reporting events in Hong Kong, just like in Australia. Qantas failed to follow its mandatory reporting requirements to the Hong Kong authorities.
What are they hiding ?????
There is an appearance that Qantas has covered up the evidence here, the CVR and FDR should have been quarantined in the Hong Kong to the investigators, not waiting for it to be overwritten by flying it back to Australia.
Stall warning events are required reporting events in Hong Kong, just like in Australia. Qantas failed to follow its mandatory reporting requirements to the Hong Kong authorities.
What are they hiding ?????
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: S.O.E.
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From memory, buffet speed at MLW clean is about 200 KIAS (straight flight path). This will increase significantly if the aircraft is turning.
TAS around FL 220 ISA+10 with that indicated airspeed is about 290 KT
Looking at the FR ground speeds and even allowing for some error, these speeds tend to support the stall event scenario - what the events leading up to it were will be very interesting.
Be surprised if wake turbulence had much to do with it.
TAS around FL 220 ISA+10 with that indicated airspeed is about 290 KT
Looking at the FR ground speeds and even allowing for some error, these speeds tend to support the stall event scenario - what the events leading up to it were will be very interesting.
Be surprised if wake turbulence had much to do with it.
Nunc est bibendum
As at this stage we don't even know if wake was to blame but writing it off as a possibility due to the lack of QF A380s in the area at the time seems particularly daft unless you have an agenda to push.
But wait....
You know this event wasn't reported? You base this assessment on what? Given the event appears on the ATSB website it appears it was reported IAW current procedures.
Dale your figures are close to the mark but I would have thought a more typical weight arriving on that run would be much lower, say around 240 ton. With a Vref around 140 adding 80 kts up to FL250 would give a rough holding speed of 220 something. Don't have any charts in front of me but I would have thought buffet would pop up around 185kt.
Descending in V/S, turning and with a subtle A/T failure you could get into the brown stuff very quickly. The main thing is, they caught it. As for the injuries, the poor old F/A's are always at risk. The idiot passengers without seat-belts never cease to amaze me. I don't know how you fix that, apart from chaining them to the floor.
As for wake turbulence, I got rocked about quite badly after take-off in LHR by a 757. That aeroplane punches above its weight for some reason and I am still very wary of them.
I feel sorry for the tech Crew, can happen to anybody.
Descending in V/S, turning and with a subtle A/T failure you could get into the brown stuff very quickly. The main thing is, they caught it. As for the injuries, the poor old F/A's are always at risk. The idiot passengers without seat-belts never cease to amaze me. I don't know how you fix that, apart from chaining them to the floor.
As for wake turbulence, I got rocked about quite badly after take-off in LHR by a 757. That aeroplane punches above its weight for some reason and I am still very wary of them.
I feel sorry for the tech Crew, can happen to anybody.