LATAM upset SYD-AKL Mon 11 Mar
FYI the issue wasn't caused by "erronious sensor inputs" - it was caused by one of the ADIRUs sending invalid outputs to valid sensor inputs, and it being accepted due to some incredibly unfortunate timing. Off memory there was a reasonably good case to argue that it was playing "mix and match" with data labling; specifically, labeling altitude data as AoA data, which the flight envelope protections subsequently acted on. Again, from memory, Airbus changed the AoA algorithm, made improvements to the BITE (Built In Test Equipment) and introduced the procedure to degrade the active flight law. May have been one more thing but I can't remember.
the only reason that 330 didn't spear into the ground precisely as the Max did was luck. At least the Max pilots had a memory item specifically designed to address the trim runaway in the 737. No such procedure in the 330 back in 2008, unless I"m mistaken?
If anyone is interested, the official report gives a facinating insight into Airbus design philosophy and system detail - especially on the A330 (also applies to A340 I believe). The official report can be found here: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...ir/ao-2008-070
I remember at the time counting about 7 "holes" in safety nets that just happened to line up; it was incredibly "unlucky" but - none-the-less - shouldn't have happened, but did. In a comparison study of the official report of a similar Boeing event that resulted in an uncommanded pitch-up I was left with the impression that whereas Airbus engineer in a gobsmacking amount of fault-tolerance, safety, and redundancy to the flight control systems, Boeing lagged somewhat behind; they too had redundancy & fault-tolerance, but by my observation, just not as much; and after their design decisions regarding MCAS on the MAX came to light it reinforced to me that they still have a long way to go to catch up.
The following 4 users liked this post by Needle Knocker:
At least half a decade late and many many green X’s sitting around in the rain at Paine Field.
And some rather dodgy inflight issues during test flying that the Seattle Times are trying to get to the bottom of.
The FAA are deeply embarrassed by the fraudulent Max certification and will not be pencil whipping this one.
The 767 tanker, full of problems with some being returned.
The Max, nothing needs to be added.
The Dreamburner, ongoing inflight and significant manufacturing issues.
The question remains, what exactly does Boeing do well these days?
Oh thats right, running a zombie business in a finacialised economy propped up by tax payer money.
The following 4 users liked this post by Orange future:
System redundancy at Airbus at least means that: redundancy. Different systems. At Boeing, it's misinterpreted to mean "more of the same".
.... You might get a hint of why that matters right about when all three GCUs fail at the same time in a 787 because of a coding error.
.... You might get a hint of why that matters right about when all three GCUs fail at the same time in a 787 because of a coding error.
I'm also noting that Boeing did another booboo with their integrated IRSs in the 787 that can no longer operate independently of GNSS. That's (really) bad news when you're being spoofed.
When I flew Airbii, I recall the 330 had a wonderful feature that disabled its flaps once retracted inflight, if a monthly inspection had been overlooked. Requiring a flapless landing. Was that because it was programmed for redundancy in different languages by different teams?
Back on topic, it will be interesting to see what caused this event.
The following 2 users liked this post by Roo:
FROM THE AUSTRALIAN
Last edited by dragon man; 13th Mar 2024 at 07:23. Reason: Add comment
Maybe the seat adjustment and the presence of the FA in the cockpit are related...
Was this jet powered up for more than 248 hours?
Are all 787 s grounded until this incident is checked out
at LL it would have crashed ?
computers - are there any more ‘computer glitches ‘ out there hidden under the carpet waiting to pounce?
bring back fly by wire - thick wire!
I think I’ll travel by boat! or at least keep my seat belt firmly fastened.
Are all 787 s grounded until this incident is checked out
at LL it would have crashed ?
computers - are there any more ‘computer glitches ‘ out there hidden under the carpet waiting to pounce?
bring back fly by wire - thick wire!
I think I’ll travel by boat! or at least keep my seat belt firmly fastened.
The following users liked this post:
Dont look for signed or unsigned integer overflow any further. The flat-earthers predicted it: If you fly past the edge of the world, the nose will drop sharply. And New Zealand is probably near the end of the world.
The following 6 users liked this post by clearedtocross:
Re the seat theory.
IIRC the RAF did similar with a 330 tanker. PIC had a camera between the armrest and the stick. Pushed the seat forward and pushed it into a nosedive.
IIRC the RAF did similar with a 330 tanker. PIC had a camera between the armrest and the stick. Pushed the seat forward and pushed it into a nosedive.
The following users liked this post:
Wouldn't it be crazy if the "trouble with the seat ..mechanism" was because the alleged F/A had leant against the fore/aft switch on top of the seat back, perhaps with an elbow, and pushed the Captain (possibly sitting in a relaxed position) forward so legs came into contact with the the control column resulting in A/P disconnect?
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Usually firmly on the ground
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
If it was a, um, seat malfunction, the pilot's account that all the instrument panels blacked out before mysteriously reappearing was devised very quickly and will not hold water very long?
The following users liked this post:
That really stands out when you look at the A350 program. Sure, Airbus didn’t get everything right, few issues about, but they did a damn good job and I’ve not seen such a flawless entry into service for a new type. It’s a brilliant machine also, crew and passenger favourite.
777X is the next problem child on the horizon. I don’t even need to check the crystal ball to tell me that is going to become a problem also.
777X is the next problem child on the horizon. I don’t even need to check the crystal ball to tell me that is going to become a problem also.
The 787 has six Generators not three, but hey, you know what you are talking about !
I am noting that you have NFI. 787 GPS NAV can be & is set to off in areas of known spoofing. It then operates independently of GNSS (IRS with radio updates), but whatever you reckon.
When I flew Airbii, I recall the 330 had a wonderful feature that disabled its flaps once retracted inflight, if a monthly inspection had been overlooked. Requiring a flapless landing. Was that because it was programmed for redundancy in different languages by different teams?
Back on topic, it will be interesting to see what caused this event.
I am noting that you have NFI. 787 GPS NAV can be & is set to off in areas of known spoofing. It then operates independently of GNSS (IRS with radio updates), but whatever you reckon.
When I flew Airbii, I recall the 330 had a wonderful feature that disabled its flaps once retracted inflight, if a monthly inspection had been overlooked. Requiring a flapless landing. Was that because it was programmed for redundancy in different languages by different teams?
Back on topic, it will be interesting to see what caused this event.
The A330 has also had repeated incidents of losing all GPS nav for the remainder of the flight after the GPS gets jammed. Happened to me departing out of TLV. No GPS for next 12 hours.
The following 2 users liked this post by Sailvi767:
I suspect based on the lack of any short term recommendations or even concerns about the 787 from this incident they already know exactly what happened.
All manufacturers are always quick to pin the blame on crews as a matter of commercial and marketing imperative.