Not CAT
 

Police statement that it was a control failure
"Mr O'Callaghan said he understood the incident was caused by "some sort of systems failure".
from here
Dozens injured in Qantas mid-air incident - News - Travel - theage.com.au

systems failure?
 

mmmm, who knows but sounds like CAT to me.
not sure how mr o'callahan would know that already.
maybe a crew member or pax said something like we had clear air turbulence and our systems didnt pick it up.Could be construed as a failure when it actually isnt.Just a thought.
its all just talk for now.I look fwd to hearing some facts from investigators or better still the bush telegraph when on duty next.:hmm:

Let's not read too much into this aspect. The police DO have a role to play. When a Aerodrome Emergency Plan is activated, especially at a non-controlled aerodrome, the police take the coordinating role for the full 'ground response'. They will always 'report/investigate/wrap up any such "event" where they have a major role.

ATSB, who would have been notified by ATC long before the acft landed, will of course conduct the 'aviation investigation' of the actual occurrence itself.

It seems significant that now all news sources, however inaccurate they may be, consistently report 'a sudden change in altitude' and not turbulence. It seems that the event could be a pilot or systems induced upset similar to the China Airlines MD11 some years ago, rather than CAT.

"Plunging 8000 feet in ten seconds", passenger says. Is that credible?

Forced Qantas Airbus plane landing in Exmouth injures 30 passengers

Those carts are leathal.
My wife suffered injuries during an airpocket incident last year on an A310.
Her and the cart were eye level pinned to the celicing at the rear, could of been worse, she had a lucky landing well falling back to the floor.

As for seat belts, the only time i take mine off is for the toilet, but you hear so many unclick as soon as fasten seatbelt sign is turned off.

This is my relatively uneducated PPL level question so don't shoot me down but it seems to me to be more of a pan pan situation? Whats the dfferent criteria? I thought you pretty much had to be out of options before you declare a mayday?
Still as always its QF pilots doing very well in a tough situation.

Well, good job for getting down in one piece.


I've heard that in mountain wave over the USA, a friend had an A320 (that's airbus three twenty) that the plane encountered some sort of overspeed and, instead of jeoparidizing the structure, the plane CLIMBED to reduce speed. Hmmm?

Does anyone know if the plane went UP or DOWN during the control malfunction?

I encourage pilots to monitor the OAT or Static air temp as it can be a harbinger of CAT. If the temp goes up, you go up to avoid cat. Temp goes down you go down.

TO ALL PASSENGERS, stay in your seats with the seatbelt fastened as much as humanly possible...of course using the lavatory or trying to avoid deep vein thrombosis is vital...but have a plan...IF I HIT BUMPS NOW< WHAT AM I GOING TO DO?

RFDS WA website presently showing three aircraft enroute to Perth

RFDS Western Operations: Flight Tracking

Finn47 asked;
When an airliner is cruising normally at say 37,000ft there is, in normal weather conditions, a sensible and safe margin between the aircraft's stall speed and it's critical mach number. It is theoretically possible that a sudden encounter with a jet stream when cruising at high altitude could cause a sudden and significant change in indicated airspeed resulting in either a stall or mach tuck. The higher an aircraft flies, the closer the stall speed gets to the critical mach number and the less safety margin an aircraft has between these limits. An extreme example of this was the U2 which would fly within 5kts of stall speed and 5 kts of the critical mach number when cruising at 70,000ft. It's said that if a U2 performed a tight turn at that altitude it could cause one wing to stall and the other to exceed the critical mach number.

Stalling or mach tuck at cruise altitude caused by a sudden and significant change in wind strength / direction could result in a departure from controlled flight and could cause a significant loss of altitude. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily what happened to the Qantas A333, just pointing out some basic aerodynamic principles.

Does anyone know what altitude the A333 was cruising at and what the margin between stall speed and critical mach number would be at that altitude?

More info here; Coffin corner (aviation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

pan or mayday?
 

If the crew thought they'd lost control mayday maybe the call.
when pax and crew are hurt I'm not sure of the SOP's, prob a mayday on that basis.Maybe flt crew injured , who knows ?

Any qantas drivers here?

8000 ft in 10 secs
 

800 ft per second / 8000 in 10 secs, man that'd be interesting to say the least.I'd hazard a guess and say thats supersonic at altitude.
Gotta be a mistake.

Not sure of the procedures in Oz but I was taught that if you're not sure then declare a Mayday. You can always say after "Ah maybe I should've declared a Pan", but if you declare a Pan then ATC might not realise how serious the situation is.

pan or mayday
 

I've been in several pan pan pan situations one where I thought we were spearing in.Stab control loss.So perhaps folks being hurt was the key?
Last thing qantas needs is another bent airframe on a big jet.

Multiple injuries, some possibly serious, probably an "entertaining" Cabin enviroment, might be airframe implications ....... FWIW I agree with G-BHEN - "Mayday" it, you can always downgrade to "Pan" and sort the paperwork out later.

This article says, the aircraft dropped 350 feet, according to "sources"...
which I find slightly more credible than the previous 8000 ft...

Qantas jet&squo;s nightmare plunge over Western Australia | Herald Sun

at FL3xx , can't we take for sure that the acft was flown with both AP and ATR ON and that these systems on new generation acft like A330 are supposed to cope with CAT without ending up in a spin or a dive bombing run ?? if some part of these sytems was U/S or OFF, that's however another story to know how george is going to react :confused: :confused: (an A310 romanian crew had a very bad experience years ago on final to orly :uhoh: )
anyway great airmanship from crew :D and wishes of quick recovery to the roaring forties :* :*

Quote from BBC News:
"However, Western Australia Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan later told the Sydney Morning Herald that he understood the incident had been caused by "some sort of systems failure".
The ultimate expert has spoken. We can all go home now.

Salut Caveokay
 

AP 1+2 on A330 can only be used in APProach mode (armed) and ILS (auto)tuned!

as a humble MEP PPL and often SLC can I suggest the statement:
"for your comfort and safety please keep your seatbelts fastened during the flight even when the seatbelt sign is off"
is simply insufficient.

Most of your SLC have never heard of CAT and even if they have, most of them will not expect to end up against the ceiling, at worst they'll expect their cup of coffee in their laps like during normal moderate turbulence.
Some improved statement should explain the risks.

Also it is time that trolleys ran on tracks in the cabin, perhaps on the side of the aisle so that people can pass, because they are the hardest and sharp edged heavy items around and lethal in heavy turbulence.

Even that however will not prevent the painful Stewardess burns of the coffeee can which I once saw in a 737 in sudden turbulence. It can t be that hard to design quick latch/unlatch turbulence safe trolleys on tracks