QF72 the aftermath
Thread Starter
QF72 the aftermath
A startling and frank account of the long term effects on a pilot, following a loss of control of QF 72 at 35,0000ft
mjb
https://www.smh.com.au/national/i-ve-become-very-isolated-the-aftermath-of-near-doomed-qf72-20190514-p51n7q.html
mjb
https://www.smh.com.au/national/i-ve-become-very-isolated-the-aftermath-of-near-doomed-qf72-20190514-p51n7q.html
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Age: 65
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: dublin
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like the triple AOA inputs had one false input which the other two did not vote out, so the plane reacted. Not much the pilot could do since it was all over in a very short time. But for readers of ET and Lionair who are banking on triple or double AOA inputs solving the MCAS event, it looks like at the end of the day, no amount of automation is going to ensure a safe flight in every situation. Things can happen that nobody had anticipated or just plain go wrong. As in this case.
Here things called pilots are used. Now, if you don't train those pilots to hand- fly in RAW DATA and MANUAL CONTROL, as seems increasingly to be the case, we enter a dystopian world where if the computers cannot cope in every possible situation - clearly an impossibility, then the outcome is not good to contemplate. I believe that following ET and Lionair there is going to be a rip roaring battle between the automators and the hand flyers. It is much cheaper and easier to stuff in some more software and avoid 100 hours plus EXTRA initial training (although this cost is usually borne by the trainee) and longer Type Ratiing Courses probably involving 15 x 4 hours sessions versus the current 9 x 4 hours sessions. Then perhaps 5 full days of recurrent training per annum versus the current 3 - in some airlines 4. A day in the sim. spent doing nothing else but manual interventions and hand flying would be a good start. But then if the airline has a policy of almost banning manual flight above 400 feet as is often the case on the line, that gets us nowhere.
Oh dear here we go............Took off from Tokyo for Moscow and autopilots would not engage. At all. Flew to Moscow no problem whatsoever. But that was when Pontius was a pilot and of course nobody needs those skills these days, do they!
Happy Flying
Y
Here things called pilots are used. Now, if you don't train those pilots to hand- fly in RAW DATA and MANUAL CONTROL, as seems increasingly to be the case, we enter a dystopian world where if the computers cannot cope in every possible situation - clearly an impossibility, then the outcome is not good to contemplate. I believe that following ET and Lionair there is going to be a rip roaring battle between the automators and the hand flyers. It is much cheaper and easier to stuff in some more software and avoid 100 hours plus EXTRA initial training (although this cost is usually borne by the trainee) and longer Type Ratiing Courses probably involving 15 x 4 hours sessions versus the current 9 x 4 hours sessions. Then perhaps 5 full days of recurrent training per annum versus the current 3 - in some airlines 4. A day in the sim. spent doing nothing else but manual interventions and hand flying would be a good start. But then if the airline has a policy of almost banning manual flight above 400 feet as is often the case on the line, that gets us nowhere.
Oh dear here we go............Took off from Tokyo for Moscow and autopilots would not engage. At all. Flew to Moscow no problem whatsoever. But that was when Pontius was a pilot and of course nobody needs those skills these days, do they!
Happy Flying
Y
Not to diminish what the pilots did on QF 72 in any way - they performed brilliantly.
But they were damn lucky it happened at 35k. Had HAL decided it wanted to kill them at 10k instead of 35k, it's unlikely they could have done anything about it.
Boeing isn't the only airframer that occasionally gets it wrong...
But they were damn lucky it happened at 35k. Had HAL decided it wanted to kill them at 10k instead of 35k, it's unlikely they could have done anything about it.
Boeing isn't the only airframer that occasionally gets it wrong...
It's reminiscent of another QF loss of control, when a B707 - I forget the model - went out of control in the cruise en route to Bahrain, late '60s/early '70s.
There were signs that while out of control the aircraft had experienced up to +3G to -3G, and may have been inverted at some point.
The reasons were quite complex, but I vividly remember the Captain saying, after we had got the passengers off and into a hotel, that he had only managed to regain control at 6,000 ft (I think it was) by using primary instruments, throttles, "stick and rudder", and doing exactly what he would have done in the Tiger Moth he had learned in.
There were signs that while out of control the aircraft had experienced up to +3G to -3G, and may have been inverted at some point.
The reasons were quite complex, but I vividly remember the Captain saying, after we had got the passengers off and into a hotel, that he had only managed to regain control at 6,000 ft (I think it was) by using primary instruments, throttles, "stick and rudder", and doing exactly what he would have done in the Tiger Moth he had learned in.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: U.K
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to diminish what the pilots did on QF 72 in any way - they performed brilliantly.
But they were damn lucky it happened at 35k. Had HAL decided it wanted to kill them at 10k instead of 35k, it's unlikely they could have done anything about it.
Boeing isn't the only airframer that occasionally gets it wrong...
But they were damn lucky it happened at 35k. Had HAL decided it wanted to kill them at 10k instead of 35k, it's unlikely they could have done anything about it.
Boeing isn't the only airframer that occasionally gets it wrong...
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ontario
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about being a drama queen!
That Capt needs to remember that QF hasn't had an accident for many decades, unless you of course count that Bangkok 747 or A380 Titanic of the Skies.
That Capt needs to remember that QF hasn't had an accident for many decades, unless you of course count that Bangkok 747 or A380 Titanic of the Skies.
Unless you have been confronted with a dynamic life threatening situation where you shoulder the immediate responsibility for the welfare of some hundreds of other people, I would hold your own counsel in mute ignorance.
Talk about being a drama queen!
It's reminiscent of another QF loss of control, when a B707
http://www.aussieairliners.org/b-707...formation.htmlt
Currently flying with the 116th Air Control Wing, Warner Robins Air Force Base
Last edited by megan; 19th May 2019 at 03:31. Reason: Added info
I expect we’ll eventually get to read about Mr 320ECAM in a crash comic. Unless you’ve been there, and you very obviously haven’t, you can keep your comments to yourself.
PTSD is very real, and following on from a major aviation event, is a likely outcome. We can be as capable as we like in flight, but once we get back on the ground, and away from the aircraft, pilots are as likely to have issues as anyone else. Perhaps more so, as they are less likely to say anything because of our fear of medical involvement.
This was a nasty event, that was well handled. It does not need to be compared to any other QF event, in an attempt to devalue it.
PTSD is very real, and following on from a major aviation event, is a likely outcome. We can be as capable as we like in flight, but once we get back on the ground, and away from the aircraft, pilots are as likely to have issues as anyone else. Perhaps more so, as they are less likely to say anything because of our fear of medical involvement.
This was a nasty event, that was well handled. It does not need to be compared to any other QF event, in an attempt to devalue it.
Most pilots flying airliners today did come through ab-initio schemes. That particular airline itself has run ab-initio schemes for over 50 years which have produced hundreds of successful pilots, Captains, Chief Pilots and Training Captains on aircraft as large as the A380.
The incident didn’t take extreme skills or knowledge to recover from. The crew did a great job, but I’m sure any well trained crew (ab-initio background or not) would have successfully handled this incident.
Talk about being a drama queen! That Capt needs to remember that QF hasn't had an accident for many decades, unless you of course count that Bangkok 747 or A380 Titanic of the Skies.
This has nothing to do with PTSD..... just ask members of the armed forces who are suffering from it.
It's not in anyway my place to chastise people on here but, that is an ill-informed and insolent comment and...... miserably inadequate.