Qantas emergency landing
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Indonesia
Age: 59
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Electronic interference, my foot. Care to speculate that they hit the top of a storm cell and tumbled...........like all those who speculated that the CAL plane tumbled near Bali because the pilots obscured the windshields with papers? Years ago ( well b4 911 ) when flying from old Halim airport to Syd on QF, the flight deck door was opened and I could see charts and other odd newsprint covering the windscreen too...........hey not only the Taiwanese do it! Oh dear, that cannot be, better swear on gramp's grave that we skygods never ever do that!!! Deny it a trillion times, spin it like those yankie spin doctors, swear again on great great gramp's grave a quadrillion times that only the Asians do such thing.......now the people really believe only the Asians do it! Any tumbling out of the skies by a western airline must be due to electronic interference.....wow, a so damn high tech explanation! Bah!
If you knew anything about the A330 flight deck, you would realise that it has some of the best and most effective window shades installed. There would be little need to put charts up as sun blockers.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is off topic ... but I think this thread is pretty much done anyway !
This was letter written in to the Sydney Morning Herald .. It could not be put any better ....
Just belt up
Regarding the Qantas passengers seeking compensation (smh.com.au, October 10) , this aircraft thing is pretty simple. It flies at 10,000 metres. It flies at nearly 1000 kilometres an hour. It gets you to the opposite side of the world in less than a day for about a grand (unless you are in business, where it seems your life and your seat are worth more). It's called an aeroplane. Wear a seatbelt, you muppets.
Dean Mayr Lyneham (ACT)
Just belt up
Regarding the Qantas passengers seeking compensation (smh.com.au, October 10) , this aircraft thing is pretty simple. It flies at 10,000 metres. It flies at nearly 1000 kilometres an hour. It gets you to the opposite side of the world in less than a day for about a grand (unless you are in business, where it seems your life and your seat are worth more). It's called an aeroplane. Wear a seatbelt, you muppets.
Dean Mayr Lyneham (ACT)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: still in bed
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear FrequentSLF,
you call these passengers intelligent for fly with out wearing the Seatbelt? I call them Idiots, sorry..In addition to that there passengers will call to court the airline for damages. Sorry, I do not want to insult anybody but can them labeled differently?
I'm sure y agree...Soon we will read something like this: "Our airline insurance policy will no cover injuries by not compliance of the crew safety recomendation during this flight."
regards
ZF
you call these passengers intelligent for fly with out wearing the Seatbelt? I call them Idiots, sorry..In addition to that there passengers will call to court the airline for damages. Sorry, I do not want to insult anybody but can them labeled differently?
I'm sure y agree...Soon we will read something like this: "Our airline insurance policy will no cover injuries by not compliance of the crew safety recomendation during this flight."
regards
ZF
mohdawang,
I don't think so. Before you speculate any further, read the Australian Transport Safety Bureau Media Release here. No mention of tumbling off the top of a CB there.
Care to speculate that they hit the top of a storm cell and tumbled
AHhhhhaaa. In RVSM airspace if the autopilot starts taking you down-uncommanded-shouldn't you disconnect and fly manually. If you were asleep for the first 200 foot excursion you should have been focused by then to disconnect for the next 650' excursion! And even more focussed after that for the next 400' excursion. Believe it or not you can disconnect the autopilot in cruise on a 'bus.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Why on earth is a police investigation underway..
It is standard procedure in Oz for the State Police (or the Feds in major ports once they've arm-wrestled control from the Staties) to assume command in any aircraft emergency, so as a Mayday was declared this would be following the protocol.
I'm not sure of the demarcation for any following investigation, but presumably the ATSB (Aviation Transport Safety Board) will take it on at some stage.
Why on earth is a police investigation underway..
It is standard procedure in Oz for the State Police (or the Feds in major ports once they've arm-wrestled control from the Staties) to assume command in any aircraft emergency, so as a Mayday was declared this would be following the protocol.
I'm not sure of the demarcation for any following investigation, but presumably the ATSB (Aviation Transport Safety Board) will take it on at some stage.
Maisk Rotum
That's a pretty smart comment from a professional pilot... The crew didn't have control of the aeroplane. It was doing it's own thing. The captain told me he was sh!t scared about what was going on. This was not a case of a simple autopilot disconnect and wandering off altitude while both pilots were engrossed in the paper. Don't you realise the first bunt was so violent 50 people got slammed against the ceiling? Do you reckon a pilot would have done that?
If you'd bothered to read the media release, you would have read that the aircraft climbed, then went back to level flight at the assigned level for one minute before doing the first bunt.
if the autopilot starts taking you down-uncommanded-shouldn't you disconnect and fly manually. If you were asleep for the first 200 foot excursion you should have been focused by then to disconnect for the next 650' excursion! And even more focussed after that for the next 400' excursion. Believe it or not you can disconnect the autopilot in cruise on a 'bus.
If you'd bothered to read the media release, you would have read that the aircraft climbed, then went back to level flight at the assigned level for one minute before doing the first bunt.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would George have been that quick with the control deflections? I think not.
This is more into the ELAC and servo realm I would think.
This is more into the ELAC and servo realm I would think.
Care to speculate that they hit the top of a storm cell and tumbled...........like all those who speculated that the CAL plane tumbled near Bali because the pilots obscured the windshields with papers? Years ago ( well b4 911 ) when flying from old Halim airport to Syd on QF, the flight deck door was opened and I could see charts and other odd newsprint covering the windscreen too
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, NY
Age: 64
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thoughts on Electromagnetic Interference
Interested in your thoughts on the Qantas plunge and chance that a laptop might have interfered with nav/flight control gear. Just for background. No attribution. No recriminations. Check out stories at this link:
http://tinyurl.com/qantas1
post here or email: [email protected]
http://tinyurl.com/qantas1
post here or email: [email protected]
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought but the behaviour of QF72 brought back to mind the Turkish A340 in the mid-Atlantic airprox of Oct 2000
From what I can see, this event did not bring any important negative G, at least nothing close to what experienced QF72.
But it should be a report to be read by any bus pilot, and most importantly by any pilot riding close above an Airbus.
Strategic Lateral Offset over the NAT tracks seems to be a very wise move ... and Airbus "protections" should be studied and understood much more carefully by their operators.
Vapilot2004:
Yes, I think so. In fact I posted a long summary of an Airbus OEB on this thread a while back and either can't find it for looking or it's been deleted. The OEB, issued June 2007 and remains in effect until "Corrective Action" takes place as follows; - The OEB is cancelled "upon the installation of [an] F/CTL PRIM (FCPC) and a SEC (FPSC) software standard as follows", and the OEB goes on to state the references which apply.
The OEB discusses certain PRIM1 or servo controller failure modes, (which may or may not be associated with a Green hydraulic system pressure loss), a "dual independant failure" can occur which results in the loss of control of the associated elevator. The OEB states that this fault would normally be seen on the ground during the control check but there is provision for crew response if the messages occur In-flight. The associated in-flight ECAM messages referenced by the OEB are:
F/CTL PRIM1 FAULT
F/CTL PRIM1 PITCH FAULT
F/CTL ELEV SERVO FAULT
HYD G SYS LO PR
The OEB requires that if any of these messages occur, normal ECAM and STATUS procedures are to be applied by the crew.
In normal operation, each elevator is actuated by the Green servo control in active mode and controlled by the FCPC PRIM1 (Flight Control Primary Computer 1) while the other servo control is in "damping mode".
The OEB explains that if a failure occurs with PRIM1, the associated green elevator servo control or the associated hydraulic system, control is transferred to PRIM2 and the associated servo control becomes the "active" servo while the other servo reverts to damping mode.
The "dual independant failure" as a failure of the second servo control to change from the damping mode to the active mode and the failure of PRIM1 to detect this. The result is a loss of control of the associated elevator.
In referencing the QF flight, apparently there were ECAM messages just before the incident. We don't know what those messages were, nor do we know if the above description applies to this incident. The OEB has been effective for more than a year and will likely have long since been enacted. This description of the OEB is only provided for information and interest.
This is more into the ELAC and servo realm I would think
The OEB discusses certain PRIM1 or servo controller failure modes, (which may or may not be associated with a Green hydraulic system pressure loss), a "dual independant failure" can occur which results in the loss of control of the associated elevator. The OEB states that this fault would normally be seen on the ground during the control check but there is provision for crew response if the messages occur In-flight. The associated in-flight ECAM messages referenced by the OEB are:
F/CTL PRIM1 FAULT
F/CTL PRIM1 PITCH FAULT
F/CTL ELEV SERVO FAULT
HYD G SYS LO PR
The OEB requires that if any of these messages occur, normal ECAM and STATUS procedures are to be applied by the crew.
In normal operation, each elevator is actuated by the Green servo control in active mode and controlled by the FCPC PRIM1 (Flight Control Primary Computer 1) while the other servo control is in "damping mode".
The OEB explains that if a failure occurs with PRIM1, the associated green elevator servo control or the associated hydraulic system, control is transferred to PRIM2 and the associated servo control becomes the "active" servo while the other servo reverts to damping mode.
The "dual independant failure" as a failure of the second servo control to change from the damping mode to the active mode and the failure of PRIM1 to detect this. The result is a loss of control of the associated elevator.
In referencing the QF flight, apparently there were ECAM messages just before the incident. We don't know what those messages were, nor do we know if the above description applies to this incident. The OEB has been effective for more than a year and will likely have long since been enacted. This description of the OEB is only provided for information and interest.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good bgd - thnx PJ2
be interested to know what those ECAM msgs were >
reading some posts and some poorly written pieces by journos that should (and one certainly does) know better, it seems that the line between reason and blame has wrongly become a floating absolute. - and to be fair, Q's media unit has been outstandingly below average (yet again) in being proactive and standing up for the crew.
Miles CNN pls note: - mate save the story for the final investigator's report when one can deal with fact rather than tabloid hypothesis. Besides, running it now will only be a 1 minute filler for the Obama McCain title fight mini series and probably will be dropped before the 10pm bulletin.
AT
be interested to know what those ECAM msgs were >
reading some posts and some poorly written pieces by journos that should (and one certainly does) know better, it seems that the line between reason and blame has wrongly become a floating absolute. - and to be fair, Q's media unit has been outstandingly below average (yet again) in being proactive and standing up for the crew.
Miles CNN pls note: - mate save the story for the final investigator's report when one can deal with fact rather than tabloid hypothesis. Besides, running it now will only be a 1 minute filler for the Obama McCain title fight mini series and probably will be dropped before the 10pm bulletin.
AT