Qantas emergency landing
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas probe laptop link after 300 foot plunge - 09 Oct 2008 - NZ Herald: International and World News
Passenger laptop computers are now being investigated as a possible cause of the Qantas mid-air emergency off Western Australia on Tuesday.
In July, a passenger clicking on a wireless mouse mid-flight was blamed for causing a Qantas jet to be thrown off course, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's monthly report.
Passenger laptop computers are now being investigated as a possible cause of the Qantas mid-air emergency off Western Australia on Tuesday.
In July, a passenger clicking on a wireless mouse mid-flight was blamed for causing a Qantas jet to be thrown off course, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's monthly report.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
travolta's G2 problem was over washington, dc, not new york...at least the landing was in dca.
and you can learn from any pilot, good or bad.
I know at least two instructors who taught him...in santa barbara many years ago.
why not read his book? something like: ''one way, night, coach prop''
and you can learn from any pilot, good or bad.
I know at least two instructors who taught him...in santa barbara many years ago.
why not read his book? something like: ''one way, night, coach prop''
Last edited by sevenstrokeroll; 9th Oct 2008 at 20:06.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autopilot Runaway Perhaps?
The incident raises the question about the flight test approved authority of the autopilot within the aircraft's flight envelope.
Having spent many flight testing hours ensuring that autopilots could not overstress military aircraft by means of auto cut outs I trust that due attention has been given to the potential for a max rate runaway of autopilots to break your aircraft or result in an unacceptable violent manoeuvre.
Hopefully auto trim failures are also currently covered to prevent a pilot from having a big surprise when the autopilot is disconnected.
Can anyone give reassurances?
The incident raises the question about the flight test approved authority of the autopilot within the aircraft's flight envelope.
Having spent many flight testing hours ensuring that autopilots could not overstress military aircraft by means of auto cut outs I trust that due attention has been given to the potential for a max rate runaway of autopilots to break your aircraft or result in an unacceptable violent manoeuvre.
Hopefully auto trim failures are also currently covered to prevent a pilot from having a big surprise when the autopilot is disconnected.
Can anyone give reassurances?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
legal action
It seems Q are fairly worried about the potential for legal action and compensation claims given what they are reported to be offering in the way of refunds, travel vouchers and payment for medical expenses. Australian papers report packages of up to $AUD9000 for first class passengers. With 70 people reported injured a class action payout could be expensive for the airlines and lucrative for the lawyers
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
News | Bloody wreck | News.com.au
Pretty disturbing pictures.
Pretty disturbing pictures.
couple of PSU dropped out, probably after being hit by a pax head. Broken toilet seat, probably caused by a bouncing pax bum. Couple of panels come loose in the roof and a mess in the galley. Not disturbing at all. I think this incident is being blown out of all proportion.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bali, Indonesia
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuses and easy explanations
Passenger laptop computers are now being investigated as a possible cause of the Qantas mid-air emergency off Western Australia on Tuesday.
There is a mean-spiritedness about the media, in particular the Australian media, which needs to be kept in mind. Many of these spotty little journos from Broom don't understand why business folks should be able to sip champagne at 8500M and play with a laptop. Of course, the reality is that catching up, often offline, with hundreds of email messages is not exactly the pinacle of relaxation.
It's important to keep a balance here and not speculate about causes until the very competent Australian investigators have been given time to report. In the meantime, let's keep in mind that the basic cause for the injuries was the simple expedient of not applying common sense and fastening a seat bellt whilst seated. If you need to leave your seat, even if to implement the advice of the airlines themselves to minimise the risk of DVT, then do so but also keep in view the CAT possibilities side of the equation. Get back to your seat and buckle up as soon as possible.
A lot of this remains common sense and doesn't really benefit from being sensationalised in the immediate aftermath of an incident.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PhilipPat
I don't believe that the laptop per se is implicated, but rather the wireless component that if not explicitly turned off will continuosly broadcast "where am i ?" messages.
The airlines state that any designated transmitters must be disabled during the entire flight. I say "designated" because even without wireless, most laptops transmit R/F quite copiously. However, the wireless transmitters are specifically designed to reach as far as their specs permit.
These transmissions DO have implications for security and it only takes a bad shield on one of the critical cables to allow the signals to be coupled into components that don't deserve them.
In fact just such a scenario occurred in an A320 in Minnesota where a mobile phone was responsible for shutting down the port engine several times during pushback startup sequence.
So, it behooves us as laptop users to ENSURE that the wireless component is disabled BEFORE getting on board.
This is OK for those that know how, but half the population don't even know they HAVE a wireless built in, let alone how to close it down.
Some others do know, but are reluctant because they possibly fear not being able to reset it subsequently.
It;s a long shot, but most accidents are caused by several "long shots" coinciding.
I truly hope that the inability to isolate the true cause will not result in the blame being placed on laptop usage. In 2008, the need to use laptops onboard by Business (Premium) travellers is essential and, unless there is real hard evidence to the contrary, limitation of their use would be problematic for all, including the airlines.
The airlines state that any designated transmitters must be disabled during the entire flight. I say "designated" because even without wireless, most laptops transmit R/F quite copiously. However, the wireless transmitters are specifically designed to reach as far as their specs permit.
These transmissions DO have implications for security and it only takes a bad shield on one of the critical cables to allow the signals to be coupled into components that don't deserve them.
In fact just such a scenario occurred in an A320 in Minnesota where a mobile phone was responsible for shutting down the port engine several times during pushback startup sequence.
So, it behooves us as laptop users to ENSURE that the wireless component is disabled BEFORE getting on board.
This is OK for those that know how, but half the population don't even know they HAVE a wireless built in, let alone how to close it down.
Some others do know, but are reluctant because they possibly fear not being able to reset it subsequently.
It;s a long shot, but most accidents are caused by several "long shots" coinciding.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One passenger being interviewed on telly remarked on all the broken glass on the floor. Did not comment on its source but wonder if it may have been all that duty free booze. If so, wonder if the carriage of same on aircraft will get a revisit.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian
I believe that it was the glasses from the "trash trolly" that pax fell on and smashed.
I understand that a lot of the cuts and lacerations were from those also.
Coming from Singers, I don't think there would have been much in the way of duty free alcahol, since it's cheaper to buy it on arrival I've found.
One passenger being interviewed on telly remarked on all the broken glass on the floor. Did not comment on its source but wonder if it may have been all that duty free booze. If so, wonder if the carriage of same on aircraft will get a revisit.
I understand that a lot of the cuts and lacerations were from those also.
Coming from Singers, I don't think there would have been much in the way of duty free alcahol, since it's cheaper to buy it on arrival I've found.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is news.com.au a parody site?
mutant fish: Mutant fish 'killing people in river' | NEWS.com.au
canada hates me: Canada hates me, says bear bite victim | NEWS.com.au
teaching standards: Students missing out on basic literacy, numeracy skills | NEWS.com.au
there was one about the Beckham kid's common sense too!!
I mean, how many laptops, cd players etc are used every day on nearly every flight world-wide without problems? Sounds more like someone either in the ATSB or Qantas (not sure which...anyone got a source on the original comment) is trying to shift blame - sounds like the claim that a mobile phone (or whatever) in Gordon's Brown car caused the BA 777 accident....
fc101
E145 driver
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden.
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZEEBEE wrote:
"So, it behooves us as laptop users to ENSURE that the wireless component is disabled BEFORE getting on board.
This is OK for those that know how, but half the population don't even know they HAVE a wireless built in, let alone how to close it down.
Some others do know, but are reluctant because they possibly fear not being able to reset it subsequently."
You are absolutely right, and that goes for many pilots too, using their laptops in the cockpit...
"So, it behooves us as laptop users to ENSURE that the wireless component is disabled BEFORE getting on board.
This is OK for those that know how, but half the population don't even know they HAVE a wireless built in, let alone how to close it down.
Some others do know, but are reluctant because they possibly fear not being able to reset it subsequently."
You are absolutely right, and that goes for many pilots too, using their laptops in the cockpit...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bali, Indonesia
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Said!
You are absolutely right, and that goes for many pilots too, using their laptops in the cockpit
Incidentally, from hereon out, all passengers (Including First and Business Class) will:
1. Have NO inflight entertainment (Swissair)
2. Have no inflight service (Qantas, or, well Ryanair!!) because the trolleys are too dangerous. Bringing your own on board is also prohibited by security.
3.Not be able to use latops, CD players, game machines NOTHING!!! Some airlines plan on offering Bingo to Premium passengers on flights of over 4 hours.
4. Cannot carry or consume duty free alcohol because this is too dangerous and, in any case:
5. There will be NO bathroom breaks because there will be no bathrooms because:
6. Passengers must remain locked in their seats by flight attendents for the duration of the flight. The locks will only be opened upon landing and after the aircraft has parked on the stand and engines all shut down. Adult size Pampers will, however, be available free of charge IF requested on boarding AND ONLY before being locked in.
Etc. Etc.
Isn't flying fun?
Trains and boats and..........................?
Last edited by philipat; 10th Oct 2008 at 08:45. Reason: Typo/Afterthoughts
attitude...>>> alt deviation
= not weather,
= flight control causation...
= flight control causation...
Some more info from today΄s media conference here, including downward pitch angles during the two upsets:
MEDIA RELEASE : 10 October 2008 - Qantas Airbus Accident Media Conference
MEDIA RELEASE : 10 October 2008 - Qantas Airbus Accident Media Conference
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's somewhat disappointing given the number of times this discussion has been had on Pprune that there are some decrying the possibility of passenger electronics interfering with aircraft systems. New comers forgiven.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP756.PDF
Over the past ten years, the CAA has received 65 MORs relating to interference experienced with one or more of the aircraft systems that cited PEDs as a factor, which were not subsequently found to be caused by a system's malfunction.
PEDs will radiate RF emissions from their internal components such as poorly filtered oscillators, processor clocks, unsuppressed electric motors, and power supply converters. These emissions are referred to as unintentional because they occur as a by-product of the PED's operation.
In addition, some PEDs will also need to transmit RF signals at specified frequencies as a part of their functionality. These transmissions are referred to as intentional transmissions.
PEDs fall into two main categories:
a) those that only emit radio signals as a by-product of their operation (unintentional transmitters); and
b) those that transmit radio signals as a part of their functionality (intentional
transmitters).
Examples of PEDs classified as unintentional transmitters include:
a) personal computing equipment such as laptops, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) etc.;
b) electronic cameras;
c) radio receivers;
d) audio and video reproducers;
e) electronic games and toys; and
f) time measuring equipment.
Examples of PEDs classified as intentional transmitters include:
a) mobile phones;
b) personal computing equipment (laptops, PDAs, etc.) with wireless network
devices (plug-ins or embedded);
c) two-way pagers;
d) two-way radios;
e) radio transmitters; and
f) remote control equipment, which may include some toys.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.PDF
Effects of Interference from Cellular Telephones on Aircraft Avionic Equipment
The tests covered the cellphone transmission frequencies of 412 (Tetra), 940 (GSM) and 1719MHz, including simultaneous exposure to 940 and 1719MHz. The applied interference field strengths were up to 50 volts/metre for a single frequency, and 35 volts/metre for dual frequencies.
The following anomalies were seen at interference levels above 30 volts/metre, a level that can be produced by a cellphone operating at maximum power and located 30cms from the victim equipment or its wiring harness.
Compass froze or overshot actual magnetic bearing.
Instability of indicators.
Digital VOR navigation bearing display errors up to 5 degrees.
VOR navigation To/From indicator reversal.
VOR and ILS course deviation indicator errors with and without a failure flag.
Reduced sensitivity of the ILS Localiser receiver.
Background noise on audio outputs.
Most anomalies were observed at 1719MHz.
The reports linked interference with effects including:
False warnings of unsafe conditions (e.g. baggage compartment smoke alarms);
Distraction of the flight crew from their normal duties;
Interrupted communications due to noise in the flight crew headphones;
Increased work load for the flight crew and the possibility of invoking emergency drills;
Reduced crew confidence in protection systems which may then be ignored
during a genuine warning;
Malfunctioning of multiple systems essential to safe flight.
The difficulties experienced in trying to reproduce the events have led many (including pilots) to question whether a genuine problem exists. The degraded navigation precision could result in an inability to meet required navigation performance with potential adverse effects on aircraft separation and terrain clearance. However, the potential adverse impact on flight safety and the need to keep that risk to tolerable levels have led to restrictions on the use of cellphones in aircraft.
Bolding mine.
Our operation experienced a baggage compartment fire warning put down to a phone in a passengers bag. System itself could not be faulted.
Also remember the stories from a Red Flag (reliably reported) where the F-16 and F-15 were unable to start engines due to, ahem, jamming.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP756.PDF
Over the past ten years, the CAA has received 65 MORs relating to interference experienced with one or more of the aircraft systems that cited PEDs as a factor, which were not subsequently found to be caused by a system's malfunction.
PEDs will radiate RF emissions from their internal components such as poorly filtered oscillators, processor clocks, unsuppressed electric motors, and power supply converters. These emissions are referred to as unintentional because they occur as a by-product of the PED's operation.
In addition, some PEDs will also need to transmit RF signals at specified frequencies as a part of their functionality. These transmissions are referred to as intentional transmissions.
PEDs fall into two main categories:
a) those that only emit radio signals as a by-product of their operation (unintentional transmitters); and
b) those that transmit radio signals as a part of their functionality (intentional
transmitters).
Examples of PEDs classified as unintentional transmitters include:
a) personal computing equipment such as laptops, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) etc.;
b) electronic cameras;
c) radio receivers;
d) audio and video reproducers;
e) electronic games and toys; and
f) time measuring equipment.
Examples of PEDs classified as intentional transmitters include:
a) mobile phones;
b) personal computing equipment (laptops, PDAs, etc.) with wireless network
devices (plug-ins or embedded);
c) two-way pagers;
d) two-way radios;
e) radio transmitters; and
f) remote control equipment, which may include some toys.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.PDF
Effects of Interference from Cellular Telephones on Aircraft Avionic Equipment
The tests covered the cellphone transmission frequencies of 412 (Tetra), 940 (GSM) and 1719MHz, including simultaneous exposure to 940 and 1719MHz. The applied interference field strengths were up to 50 volts/metre for a single frequency, and 35 volts/metre for dual frequencies.
The following anomalies were seen at interference levels above 30 volts/metre, a level that can be produced by a cellphone operating at maximum power and located 30cms from the victim equipment or its wiring harness.
Compass froze or overshot actual magnetic bearing.
Instability of indicators.
Digital VOR navigation bearing display errors up to 5 degrees.
VOR navigation To/From indicator reversal.
VOR and ILS course deviation indicator errors with and without a failure flag.
Reduced sensitivity of the ILS Localiser receiver.
Background noise on audio outputs.
Most anomalies were observed at 1719MHz.
The reports linked interference with effects including:
False warnings of unsafe conditions (e.g. baggage compartment smoke alarms);
Distraction of the flight crew from their normal duties;
Interrupted communications due to noise in the flight crew headphones;
Increased work load for the flight crew and the possibility of invoking emergency drills;
Reduced crew confidence in protection systems which may then be ignored
during a genuine warning;
Malfunctioning of multiple systems essential to safe flight.
The difficulties experienced in trying to reproduce the events have led many (including pilots) to question whether a genuine problem exists. The degraded navigation precision could result in an inability to meet required navigation performance with potential adverse effects on aircraft separation and terrain clearance. However, the potential adverse impact on flight safety and the need to keep that risk to tolerable levels have led to restrictions on the use of cellphones in aircraft.
Bolding mine.
Our operation experienced a baggage compartment fire warning put down to a phone in a passengers bag. System itself could not be faulted.
Also remember the stories from a Red Flag (reliably reported) where the F-16 and F-15 were unable to start engines due to, ahem, jamming.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bali, Indonesia
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Statistics and fate
It's somewhat disappointing given the number of times this discussion has been had on Pprune that there are some decrying the possibility of passenger electronics interfering with aircraft systems. New comers forgiven.
Am I the only one who just gets sick of the constant erosion of freedom based on tenuous cr*p to suit the health and safety PC brigade. See above post.
Don't get me wrong. I've flown RTW at least 100 times and I care about safety. If there is proof that actual accidents have occured as a result of PED's then I am all for a complete ban. I am a responsible passenger. I don't drink on flights because I want to remain alert and I ALWAYS fasten my seatbelt when seated. It's just that I get so SICK of the B/S and P/C that has the ultimate objective of making travelling life even more miserable than it has already become, even up the front.
My view is that, beyond the PROVEN facts, and beyond the behaviours already noted above, I am prepared to take my chances from burning inflight entertainment systems, flying meal trolleys etc.
Last edited by philipat; 10th Oct 2008 at 10:17. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With, say, 150 to 200 pax on a typical commercial flight, that would mean that on every second or third flight a pax gets off the aircraft with an injury from DVT.
Also, the quoted "3 to 5%" means about 5 to 10 pasengers per flight experience some form of DVT.
It does seem a lot... Can you quote any links to research, that would save us going off on a wild goose chase? Thanks in advance!
Also, the quoted "3 to 5%" means about 5 to 10 pasengers per flight experience some form of DVT.
It does seem a lot... Can you quote any links to research, that would save us going off on a wild goose chase? Thanks in advance!
Airhealth has a list that may be a useful starting point - Airhealth.org - Science - Research - but bear in mind this is pretty much a campaign site on one "side" of the debate, so apply some caution. Plenty of anecdotal evidence to scare you there should you choose...
A couple of recent literature review papers are:
http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php...ol10n1/dvt.xml
and
Venous thromboembolic complications following air ...[Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006] - PubMed Result
Some studies look at DVT victims and their history and work back to assess air travel involvement. I am always a little sceptical on studies like this as I don't think you can ever really get round your sample being selected from the general population by a process you may not understand (and may be linked to what you are trying to measure). As an example the MEGA study is available here PLoS Medicine - Travel-Related Venous Thrombosis: Results from a Large Population-Based Case Control Study (MEGA Study). It used DVT victims as case group and their partners as controls. I can think of plenty of variables that might not get taken into account by that.
I prefer population sample studies like the LONFLIT series, where they take sample of travellers and look for DVT. See here for one summary of these papers Development of blood clots following long-haul flights prevented with single dose of enoxaparin sodium, or google for planty of citations. Many of the studies now are acutally looking at change in risk from eg. using compression stockings. They aren't directly trying to measure risk of DVT but effectively they do anyway for the control group. When you see that they can measure around 20times reduction in risk by using stockings, that tells you there is a definite associated risk in the first place.
One complication is that a lot of the research tries to separate people into "at risk" and "normal" groups - but without agreement on criteria... So you might see 5% risk for "high risk" travellers and 1% for "everyone else".
Be wary of assessing your risk assuming you will be in "everyone else", as the list of frequently quoted risk factors is quite long:
Older people (over 50, or over 45 or 40 in some)
On the pill or hrt or pregnant
Any history of heart/circulation or diabetes problems
Overweight
Anyone with a particular genetic mutation
(factor V Leiden - about 5% of caucasians)
Very tall, or very short
On the pill or hrt or pregnant
Any history of heart/circulation or diabetes problems
Overweight
Anyone with a particular genetic mutation
(factor V Leiden - about 5% of caucasians)
Very tall, or very short
And if you believe AirHealth.org anecdotal evidence: fit / athletic
That'll cover most people then...