Qantas emergency landing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Darwin
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blasted Computers!
According to "The Australian: newspaper this morning a "computer malfunction in the elevator system" was - if not the whole story - at least a factor in the incident.
Seems that the aircraft pitched sharply nose up, climbed 300' then pitched nose down.
thekite
Seems that the aircraft pitched sharply nose up, climbed 300' then pitched nose down.
thekite
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Taree NSW Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pax Inflight Laptop Computer Use suggested as cause.
Qantas autopilot blamed for jet plunge
Paul Bibby
October 9, 2008
A computer malfunction involving Qantas Flight 72's autopilot system has emerged as the likely cause of the passenger jet's plunge that left 20 people seriously injured.
As Qantas disclosed yesterday that more passengers and crew had been injured than first thought when the Airbus A330 dropped from 37,000 feet on Tuesday, investigators said an "irregularity" in the jet's computer system occurred at the time.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau safety investigations director, Julian Walsh, said QF72's pilots received electronic monitoring messages indicating there was a problem with the plane's elevator control system, the device that controls a plane's up-and-down movement.
Mr Walsh said that as the crew tried to act on the alerts, the aircraft climbed about 300 feet before "abruptly" pitching nose-down, sending passengers - particularly at the rear - slamming into the cabin's roof and walls.
"There was a period of time where the aircraft performed of its own accord," Mr Walsh said.
Qantas management has refused to comment on the cause of the incident, but a source within the airline told the Herald the plane's autopilot system was to blame.
The Australian and International Pilots Association president, Captain Ian Woods, said that, based on investigator's statements, a problem auto-flight control was "a likely explanation".
"When an auto-flight system exceeds its authority - goes beyond what it is designed to do - it sends a message to the pilots. The pilots acted exactly as they should have done in that situation."
Qantas and Airbus did not respond yesterday when asked who had responsibility for installing and maintaining the A330's flight control systems.
Mr Walsh said he was confident the flight data record - contained in the aircraft's instrument and cockpit voice recorders that were removed yesterday - would provide clearer answers.
Speculation laptop use caused Qantas flight plunge
October 9, 2008 - 9:53AM
Air safety investigators say it is too early to blame passenger laptop computers for causing a Qantas jet to abruptly nose dive on a flight from Singapore to Perth.
The Airbus A330-300, with 303 passengers and a crew of 10, experienced what the airline described as a "sudden change in altitude" north of its destination on Tuesday.
The mid-air incident resulted in injuries to 74 people, with 51 of them treated by three hospitals in Perth for fractures, lacerations and suspected spinal injuries.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has said an "irregularity" in one of the plane's computers may have caused the dramatic altitude change which hurled passengers around the cabin.
Laptops could have interfered with the plane's on-board computer system, it has been reported.
But the bureau says it's too early to make that judgment.
A spokeswoman said the bureau had not yet received an update from its investigators at Learmonth, near Exmouth in WA's north, where the plane was forced to land.
The flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder had only just arrived at the ATSB's Canberra headquarters and were yet to be analysed.
AAP
This story was found at: Speculation laptop use caused Qantas flight plunge - News - Travel - smh.com.au
Qantas autopilot blamed for jet plunge
Paul Bibby
October 9, 2008
A computer malfunction involving Qantas Flight 72's autopilot system has emerged as the likely cause of the passenger jet's plunge that left 20 people seriously injured.
As Qantas disclosed yesterday that more passengers and crew had been injured than first thought when the Airbus A330 dropped from 37,000 feet on Tuesday, investigators said an "irregularity" in the jet's computer system occurred at the time.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau safety investigations director, Julian Walsh, said QF72's pilots received electronic monitoring messages indicating there was a problem with the plane's elevator control system, the device that controls a plane's up-and-down movement.
Mr Walsh said that as the crew tried to act on the alerts, the aircraft climbed about 300 feet before "abruptly" pitching nose-down, sending passengers - particularly at the rear - slamming into the cabin's roof and walls.
"There was a period of time where the aircraft performed of its own accord," Mr Walsh said.
Qantas management has refused to comment on the cause of the incident, but a source within the airline told the Herald the plane's autopilot system was to blame.
The Australian and International Pilots Association president, Captain Ian Woods, said that, based on investigator's statements, a problem auto-flight control was "a likely explanation".
"When an auto-flight system exceeds its authority - goes beyond what it is designed to do - it sends a message to the pilots. The pilots acted exactly as they should have done in that situation."
Qantas and Airbus did not respond yesterday when asked who had responsibility for installing and maintaining the A330's flight control systems.
Mr Walsh said he was confident the flight data record - contained in the aircraft's instrument and cockpit voice recorders that were removed yesterday - would provide clearer answers.
Speculation laptop use caused Qantas flight plunge
October 9, 2008 - 9:53AM
Air safety investigators say it is too early to blame passenger laptop computers for causing a Qantas jet to abruptly nose dive on a flight from Singapore to Perth.
The Airbus A330-300, with 303 passengers and a crew of 10, experienced what the airline described as a "sudden change in altitude" north of its destination on Tuesday.
The mid-air incident resulted in injuries to 74 people, with 51 of them treated by three hospitals in Perth for fractures, lacerations and suspected spinal injuries.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has said an "irregularity" in one of the plane's computers may have caused the dramatic altitude change which hurled passengers around the cabin.
Laptops could have interfered with the plane's on-board computer system, it has been reported.
But the bureau says it's too early to make that judgment.
A spokeswoman said the bureau had not yet received an update from its investigators at Learmonth, near Exmouth in WA's north, where the plane was forced to land.
The flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder had only just arrived at the ATSB's Canberra headquarters and were yet to be analysed.
AAP
This story was found at: Speculation laptop use caused Qantas flight plunge - News - Travel - smh.com.au
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas Airbus Incident
Just seeing on TV, an animation of the Qantas Airbus going straight down nose first.
Was this really the case ???
If it was I would say there were a heap of passengers from the back piled up against the flightdeck door.
Talk about a fast upgrade.
Was the TV animation accurate ?
And what are your thoughts, could a PC really have buggered up the electronics ? normally you are allowed to use them during flight, so why has this never happened before ?
Thanks
Was this really the case ???
If it was I would say there were a heap of passengers from the back piled up against the flightdeck door.
Talk about a fast upgrade.
Was the TV animation accurate ?
And what are your thoughts, could a PC really have buggered up the electronics ? normally you are allowed to use them during flight, so why has this never happened before ?
Thanks
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Amidst the dust and the flies, somewhere in Western Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TyreCreep - I fully agree that legislation on the mandatory wearing of seatbelts be introduced. However, there is an aside to that on long sectors in the shape of DVT, with pax being encouraged to get up and 'walk' regularly.
Given the majoritively unpredictable nature of CAT (or other unforseen upsets), there is always going to be the risk (however small) of pax being 'glued to the bins' or getting rag-dolled around the cabin.
We certainly don't want to risk a DVT related death on the back of insisting pax only unbuckle to use the toilet, there has to be a very careful balance of both risks, and whilst the DVT risk is certainly lesser, it still exists and must be considered.
Regards,
1-11
Given the majoritively unpredictable nature of CAT (or other unforseen upsets), there is always going to be the risk (however small) of pax being 'glued to the bins' or getting rag-dolled around the cabin.
We certainly don't want to risk a DVT related death on the back of insisting pax only unbuckle to use the toilet, there has to be a very careful balance of both risks, and whilst the DVT risk is certainly lesser, it still exists and must be considered.
Regards,
1-11
if passengers drank a lot more water or juice and/or squirmed around in their seats a lot more , then DVT wouldn't be a problem.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To help prevent DVT all you have to do is drink plenty of non alcoholic or non caffeinated drinks and once every 30 minutes or so go for a walk.....However,when seated ensure that your seat belt is loosely fastened to guard against any sudden turbulence.
If the seat belt sign is on then fasten your seat belt....it's in all the PA's and safety cards...Not really rocket science yet how many people get caught out.The cabin crew are doing their job and one in which has a certain amount of inherent danger which cannot be helped but minimised by not working during times when the seat belt sign is on.
If it is neccessary to have the seat belt sign on for pax safety then it is also required for cabin crew.Their necks and limbs are not any different from the pax.
The problem is that common sense is not common at all and that most pax do not have any idea of the environment in which they are travelling and the potential for incidents.
If the seat belt sign is on then fasten your seat belt....it's in all the PA's and safety cards...Not really rocket science yet how many people get caught out.The cabin crew are doing their job and one in which has a certain amount of inherent danger which cannot be helped but minimised by not working during times when the seat belt sign is on.
If it is neccessary to have the seat belt sign on for pax safety then it is also required for cabin crew.Their necks and limbs are not any different from the pax.
The problem is that common sense is not common at all and that most pax do not have any idea of the environment in which they are travelling and the potential for incidents.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not questioning the chosen landing field here, all done properly as Captain on the day saw fit... but a pax was quoted on a news program (sorry forgot which channel) as saying that at the time of the event one of the flight crew was in the galley getting a drink. Can anyone confirm this? If so, the possibility of an injured f/d member thrown into the mix would sure as hell necessitate getting to a landing site asap! Just mentioning this as some seem to think taking a leisurely trip down to Perth the better option. *If* one of the tech crew were in the galley at the time, I can imagine they'd be pretty shaken up and in no condition to spend more time behind the controls than necessary...
I know a little bit about the whole aerodynamics/circraft control thing (lowly CC here
) I just had a question regarding how the whole autopilot thing on the Airbus works... I know that when AP is on it will try to compensate through turbulence to maintan the chosen heading/alt etc... I know there would be a limited amount of speed/turbulence that it could be used in (someone give me the correct term please it's escaped me!)
My question is *If* an extremely severe CAT was involved, could it have been a case of computer just not coping? I know they would have tested those kinds of scenarios during manufacture but is it likely that turbulence could have CAUSED the failure in the first place, if there was a failure?
I know a little bit about the whole aerodynamics/circraft control thing (lowly CC here
) I just had a question regarding how the whole autopilot thing on the Airbus works... I know that when AP is on it will try to compensate through turbulence to maintan the chosen heading/alt etc... I know there would be a limited amount of speed/turbulence that it could be used in (someone give me the correct term please it's escaped me!)My question is *If* an extremely severe CAT was involved, could it have been a case of computer just not coping? I know they would have tested those kinds of scenarios during manufacture but is it likely that turbulence could have CAUSED the failure in the first place, if there was a failure?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Up to now everything is speculation only, based on accounts from the passengers, which will get more and more alarming as time goes on.
The real intesity of the dive will not be known until the DFDR is opened and read, and then the findings made public (if at all).
As for the laptop, it depends...if the laptop user turned wireless internet on, then it would start emitting signals and they can interfere with radio equipment. If you dont believe it, put a wireless modem or mobile phone next to a working radio and see what happens to the radio signals.
The real intesity of the dive will not be known until the DFDR is opened and read, and then the findings made public (if at all).
As for the laptop, it depends...if the laptop user turned wireless internet on, then it would start emitting signals and they can interfere with radio equipment. If you dont believe it, put a wireless modem or mobile phone next to a working radio and see what happens to the radio signals.
Turbulence information is readily available, but the problem of course is how to get people to read & obey...Even the Australian CASA has a good passenger safety page about it here:
Safer air travel - Turbulence
Should the language be stronger, or would it scare customers away?
Safer air travel - Turbulence
Should the language be stronger, or would it scare customers away?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Singapore
Age: 45
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i always have my seatbelt fastened whenever i'm in my seat, you never know when you might run into some CAT or some autopilot malfunction as in this case.
it's just really bad luck for the people that got injured while they were likely waiting for the toilet. and a "serves you right" for passengers not having your seatbelts on when in your seat. it doesn't have to be tight, just as long as it holds you down in case the plane gets into an UA situation.
how many seatbelts do you hear unbuckling immediately after the pilot turns the fasten seatbelts signs off? lots!
lesson learnt...wear your seatbelt when seated!!!!
it's just really bad luck for the people that got injured while they were likely waiting for the toilet. and a "serves you right" for passengers not having your seatbelts on when in your seat. it doesn't have to be tight, just as long as it holds you down in case the plane gets into an UA situation.
how many seatbelts do you hear unbuckling immediately after the pilot turns the fasten seatbelts signs off? lots!
lesson learnt...wear your seatbelt when seated!!!!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DanAir1-11
TyreCreep - I fully agree that legislation on the mandatory wearing of seatbelts be introduced. However, there is an aside to that on long sectors in the shape of DVT, with pax being encouraged to get up and 'walk' regularly.
Given the majoritively unpredictable nature of CAT (or other unforseen upsets), there is always going to be the risk (however small) of pax being 'glued to the bins' or getting rag-dolled around the cabin.
We certainly don't want to risk a DVT related death on the back of insisting pax only unbuckle to use the toilet, there has to be a very careful balance of both risks, and whilst the DVT risk is certainly lesser, it still exists and must be considered.
Given the majoritively unpredictable nature of CAT (or other unforseen upsets), there is always going to be the risk (however small) of pax being 'glued to the bins' or getting rag-dolled around the cabin.
We certainly don't want to risk a DVT related death on the back of insisting pax only unbuckle to use the toilet, there has to be a very careful balance of both risks, and whilst the DVT risk is certainly lesser, it still exists and must be considered.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good job it happened in the cruise and not at 1000' on finals.
Regarding wearing of seat belts, an insurance underwriter is very likely to reduce any pay out to the injured by up to 50% if they are not wearing a seat belt as they will be judged as having contributed their own injury by not using the supplied safety equipment that is recommended.
Regarding wearing of seat belts, an insurance underwriter is very likely to reduce any pay out to the injured by up to 50% if they are not wearing a seat belt as they will be judged as having contributed their own injury by not using the supplied safety equipment that is recommended.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: still in bed
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the laptop, it depends...if the laptop user turned wireless internet on, then it would start emitting signals and they can interfere with radio equipment. If you dont believe it, put a wireless modem or mobile phone next to a working radio and see what happens to the radio signals.
Willowz 269:
don't worry!! There is already a study about these interferences. They will be not able to prove that a lap top was the problem or a phone.. How can they accept that radio frequency can interfere with the super complex computer architecture of the modern aircraft?
some "smart" are now shouting requesting a law that will chain you down! Why don't incluede also a fine for these passengers that still read the newspaper when the safety PA is done? and Then they law suit the airline because they did not find the door quickly..
Service Carts is another problem: it would be easy to make them safely "grounded" at the aircraft floor. and the airline industry should compensate those hit by the carts indeed.
the others should have learned a lesson: an Aircraft is NOT A RESTAURANT or a nice high platform to WALK AROUND! Airplanes Flyes! By keeping your seat belt unfasten is just play idiot.
However how many CAT or In flight upset can you count in one year? Just keep these pictures of the injured stupid passengers on the safety video and I will guarantee people will unbuckle only to go to the lavatory.
Your lap top is safe unless you have put into unauthorized certified battery that could explode and start the most serious problem of all when airborne: fire!
Willowz 269:
don't worry!! There is already a study about these interferences. They will be not able to prove that a lap top was the problem or a phone.. How can they accept that radio frequency can interfere with the super complex computer architecture of the modern aircraft?
some "smart" are now shouting requesting a law that will chain you down! Why don't incluede also a fine for these passengers that still read the newspaper when the safety PA is done? and Then they law suit the airline because they did not find the door quickly..
Service Carts is another problem: it would be easy to make them safely "grounded" at the aircraft floor. and the airline industry should compensate those hit by the carts indeed.
the others should have learned a lesson: an Aircraft is NOT A RESTAURANT or a nice high platform to WALK AROUND! Airplanes Flyes! By keeping your seat belt unfasten is just play idiot.
However how many CAT or In flight upset can you count in one year? Just keep these pictures of the injured stupid passengers on the safety video and I will guarantee people will unbuckle only to go to the lavatory.
Your lap top is safe unless you have put into unauthorized certified battery that could explode and start the most serious problem of all when airborne: fire!
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this was a result of a computer glitch then can you imagine what might have happened if it was one of the RAAF's new airbus refuelling tankers and it was refuelling another aircraft at the time?
if passengers drank a lot more water or juice and/or squirmed around in their seats a lot more , then DVT wouldn't be a problem.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Atsb Media Release
MEDIA RELEASE
Adjust font size:
2008/40a
ATSB Airbus investigation update
09 October 2008
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation is progressing.
The aircraft's Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) arrived in Canberra late on Wednesday evening. Downloading and preliminary analysis overnight has revealed good data from both recorders. Data from the FDR has been provided to Qantas, the French Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA) and Airbus as parties to the investigation.
While the full interpretation and analysis of the recorded data will take some time, preliminary review of the data indicates that after the aircraft climbed about 200 feet from its cruising level of 37,000 feet, the aircraft then pitched nose-down and descended about 650 feet in about 20 seconds, before returning to the cruising level. This was closely followed by a further nose-down pitch where the aircraft descended about 400 feet in about 16 seconds before returning once again to the cruising level. Detailed review and analysis of FDR data is ongoing to assist in identifying the reasons for the events.
In addition, the on-site investigation activity is continuing and includes:
The ATSB will provide further media releases when significant new factual information comes to light, ahead of a Preliminary Factual Report in 30 days time.
Media Contact: George Nadal: 1800 020 616
Adjust font size:
2008/40a
ATSB Airbus investigation update
09 October 2008
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation is progressing.
The aircraft's Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) arrived in Canberra late on Wednesday evening. Downloading and preliminary analysis overnight has revealed good data from both recorders. Data from the FDR has been provided to Qantas, the French Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA) and Airbus as parties to the investigation.
While the full interpretation and analysis of the recorded data will take some time, preliminary review of the data indicates that after the aircraft climbed about 200 feet from its cruising level of 37,000 feet, the aircraft then pitched nose-down and descended about 650 feet in about 20 seconds, before returning to the cruising level. This was closely followed by a further nose-down pitch where the aircraft descended about 400 feet in about 16 seconds before returning once again to the cruising level. Detailed review and analysis of FDR data is ongoing to assist in identifying the reasons for the events.
In addition, the on-site investigation activity is continuing and includes:
- recording and photographing cabin damage
- removing panels to examine wiring for damage prior to restoring power to the aircraft
- preparation for downloading data from the aircraft's on-board computerised systems
- arranging interviews with the pilots and cabin crew.
The ATSB will provide further media releases when significant new factual information comes to light, ahead of a Preliminary Factual Report in 30 days time.
Media Contact: George Nadal: 1800 020 616
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual, it is "stupid passengers" who are to blame for their own problems.
BA Advice:
Following our advice to reduce the risk of DVT:
drink adequate fluids (BUT DON'T STAND AROUND WAITING FOR THE LAST LOO WORKING ON A 12 HOUR FLIGHT)
avoid smoking
avoid beverages which contain alcohol and/or caffeine both before and during the flight
avoid crossing legs when seated
walk around the cabin whenever you can (ER...BUT DON'T, OR PRUNE REGULARS WILL CALL YOU STUPID)
stand up in your seat area and stretch your arms and legs (IF YOU'RE A FOOL!)
carry out the foot and leg exercises advised in the Well Being section of the Highlife in-flight magazine, on the in-flight entertainment system and the Well Being section on ba.com
wear loose fitting comfortable clothes when travelling
BA Advice:
Following our advice to reduce the risk of DVT:
drink adequate fluids (BUT DON'T STAND AROUND WAITING FOR THE LAST LOO WORKING ON A 12 HOUR FLIGHT)
avoid smoking
avoid beverages which contain alcohol and/or caffeine both before and during the flight
avoid crossing legs when seated
walk around the cabin whenever you can (ER...BUT DON'T, OR PRUNE REGULARS WILL CALL YOU STUPID)
stand up in your seat area and stretch your arms and legs (IF YOU'RE A FOOL!)
carry out the foot and leg exercises advised in the Well Being section of the Highlife in-flight magazine, on the in-flight entertainment system and the Well Being section on ba.com
wear loose fitting comfortable clothes when travelling
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bali, Indonesia
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laptops
The Health and Safety brigade would just love another opportunity to make flying even more inconvenient. ECAM systems are fully redundant so I fail to see how a laptop could have caused such a problem. And if so, why now after Trillions of flight hours without incident. Is there any hard data whatsoever to support this allegation or is it simply more wild speculation from a narrow minded and mean spirited Australian media?