15 injured in ‘serious’ stall alert incident on Qantas flight
Sounds quite sensationalised, but... a close call?
Qantas incident, Melbourne to Hong Kong, serious stall alert "FIFTEEN passengers were injured on a Qantas flight from Melbourne to Hong Kong after a serious stall alert last Friday, it has just emerged. Authorities will now begin a serious incident investigation after a ‘stick shaker’ warning activated on the QF29 service on April 7. Stick shaker is an industry phrase used to describe a stall warning, where the controls shake to warn the flight deck of an imminent stall. Details of the in-flight incident, which took place at the end of the Boeing 747’s 9.5 hour flight, some 110 kilometres south of Hong Kong, have only just emerged." |
"Geoffrey Thomas, an aviation expert, told The Australian that such an incident was.."
|
With or without Geoffery Thomas's "expert" testimony, Stick Shaker + 15 injured = smoke + fire
|
On autopilot???
According to the report in the Sydney Morning Herald (from newswire AAP...) which got it from the ATSB https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2017-044/ the aircraft was in the Hold at 22,000 feet and on autopilot at the time.
My question is "How is it that the autopilot could get the aircraft into this condition?" Does this suggest it may have been in the wrong mode? |
15 Injured After Stick Shaker Incident QF29
15 Injured after a Melbourne to Hong Kong Flight.
Reportedly on Apr 7th. QF29 - Boeing 747, 110kms south of HK. "The flight crew disconnected the autopilot and maneuvered the aircraft in response,” the Australian Transportation Safety Bureau (ATSB)..." “Fifteen passengers received minor injuries. As part of the investigation, the ATSB will interview the flight crew and gather additional information.” |
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.
|
Oh bugger. Qantas was going to keep this one hush hush
|
How does 15 people get injured from a stall alert? Or did the plane actually stall and I'd guess there might be a period of 0g? And the recovery might be a bit strange?
|
Aviation Herald is saying the aircraft was just entering a hold at FL220 when stick shaker activated. Autopilot was disconnected and the altitude fluctuated almost 2000ft in the recovery.
Accident: Qantas B744 near Hong Kong on Apr 7th 2017, stick shaker activation in holding pattern injures 15 passengers |
My question is "How is it that the autopilot could get the aircraft into this condition?" Does this suggest it may have been in the wrong mode? How does 15 people get injured from a stall alert? |
Fairfax gets the soft story drop
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 |
I don't know the details but I can see a scenario where min speed entering a hold and wake turbulence could cause a combination of jet upset, 'turbulence', pax injuries, etc. I got caught in some wake behind another Dugong into DXB. We ended up at 25 degrees AoB very quickly before the A/P let go. There was little time to react as it occurred.
|
A report will be released within several months. |
How does 15 people get injured from a stall alert? |
Originally Posted by Cralis
(Post 9738100)
How does 15 people get injured from a stall alert? Or did the plane actually stall and I'd guess there might be a period of 0g? And the recovery might be a bit strange?
|
A 747 getting into trouble from wake turbulence?
Okay..... Bit low for a jet stream, but if they are at min speed to avoid flying a heap of circles I'm assuming a sudden wind change can cause some issues. Will be an interesting read. |
I'm assuming a sudden wind change can cause some issues. |
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
(Post 9738362)
A 747 getting into trouble from wake turbulence?
Okay..... Bit low for a jet stream, but if they are at min speed to avoid flying a heap of circles I'm assuming a sudden wind change can cause some issues. Will be an interesting read. Wake turbulence is not a jet stream issue, it's caused by another aircraft, presumably 1000' above burning circles with you. And yes a 747 is very susceptible to it. :ok: |
I know that FR24 doesn't have a great deal of data resolution, but the minimum IAS as they enter the hold seems to be around 226 KIAS. I haven't flown the 747 for a long time, but I'd have thought that was nowhere near the stick shaker activation.
|
Given the weird winds with wake turbulence (if thats what it was) i would guess its pretty easy to get to an AoA limit in a short period of time.
|
A 747 getting into trouble from wake turbulence? 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. |
Originally Posted by airtags
(Post 9738180)
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 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. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by AerialPerspective
(Post 9738428)
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.
|
So has anyone got any temperature and wind information ( presumably from online) so the above post can be used meaningfully?
|
Had to laugh when Ch 9 annouced that "the stick shaker alerts the cabin crew to an impending stall". I hope the cabin crew remember to tell the pilots. . . .:ugh::ugh::ugh:
|
Yeah, maybe... at the 20 min check in
|
Well said keg..
|
So has anyone got any temperature and wind information ( presumably from online) so the above post can be used meaningfully? http://i.imgur.com/lB0nFtRl.png 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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by Metro man
(Post 9738282)
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 |
|
Originally Posted by unobtanium
(Post 9738513)
A country of zero tolerance to defamation and nil free speech, journalists have been hauled up for inaccurate articles, JT would be in jail for daring to tarnish the image of the national carrier.
|
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 ????? |
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.:confused: Be surprised if wake turbulence had much to do with it. |
Originally Posted by Eyes only
(Post 9738996)
The only A380 operator that flies into Hong Kong from the south is Qantas.
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....
Originally Posted by Eyes only
(Post 9738996)
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.
Originally Posted by Eyes only
(Post 9738996)
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. |
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. |
Heard the crew operated back the next day. Is this normal following a serious incident?
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:06. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.