Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > Safety, CRM, QA & Emergency Response Planning
Reload this Page >

Qantas flight 72 in-flight upset final report available

Safety, CRM, QA & Emergency Response Planning A wide ranging forum for issues facing Aviation Professionals and Academics

Qantas flight 72 in-flight upset final report available

Old 1st Jan 2012, 08:04
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bloggs,

even in 1st and business you still need to get up to go to the loo, unless something has changed in the last month where the CC bring the necessary items or the seats are now so advanced that you can go in your seat.

also you might want something from the overhead locker, etc etc try proving that this wasn't the case. no hope.


so unless Q want to employ double the CC and supply all pax with private seats that include a loo, then pax will have to move around in the cabin.


the pax can in no way be responsible for poor aircraft design, which is what this is. that's why airbus and northrop are paying, not qantas.
lurker999 is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2012, 08:22
  #22 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,230
Received 1,501 Likes on 679 Posts
I'd be interesting if those passengers injured by other passengers not wearing their belts file law suits against them for negligence. If successful, this may then encourage more people to fasten their belts when seated.
Dead or alive, the one's not wearing their seat belts are liable if the case is heard in the USA........
ORAC is online now  
Old 1st Jan 2012, 12:47
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Under Au law, I understand damages are very limited for psychological angst and suffering, hence choosing a more favourable legal system.

It is pertinent, no doubt, whether or not this software vulnerability should have been evident with reasonable programming and testing. Lots of aircraft, very few episodes ... But it's all in the spin.

As with most things, lawyers will have us believe everything is obvious in retrospect.

I don't believe the Rocket propelled grenade analogy is either helpful, or relevant. No-one was trying or intending to hurt anyone, here.

Blame is endemic, and unhelpful ...

It remains to be seen whether there is evidence for cash as a cure for injury ... But that is another matter, entirely.

Back to usual programming. (be nice, it's my first post)
hcornea is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2012, 00:43
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'd be interesting if those passengers injured by other passengers not wearing their belts file law suits against them for negligence. If successful, this may then encourage more people to fasten their belts when seated.
As the cause of being thrown about is the aircraft, not simply being on the flight, it would not be worth bring the case. Additionally you never attempt to sue a injured party like this, your on the back foot from the beginning (establishing reasonable, foreseeable and standard practice).
Phalanger is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2012, 00:47
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dead or alive, the one's not wearing their seat belts are liable if the case is heard in the USA........
That case is very different and not really reliant here. The biggest difference is that in that case he caused the accident by covering his view in a rush. In this case the manufacture(s) are the reliant party. This is the application of extremely old torte law from the UK which is also in the Australian legal system. It is hard to see how a different result would occur for these facts in an Australian case. We have had very similar cases which had much wider results. For example the loss of income to the family members of that person who was killed in a road accident is considered foreseeable and reasonable.

An interesting aspect will be if the other manufactures are sued successfully. This does not stop them having recourse against Airbus for improper use of their products.
Phalanger is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2012, 01:09
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Under Au law, I understand damages are very limited for psychological angst and suffering, hence choosing a more favourable legal system.

It is pertinent, no doubt, whether or not this software vulnerability should have been evident with reasonable programming and testing. Lots of aircraft, very few episodes ... But it's all in the spin.

As with most things, lawyers will have us believe everything is obvious in retrospect.

I don't believe the Rocket propelled grenade analogy is either helpful, or relevant. No-one was trying or intending to hurt anyone, here.

Blame is endemic, and unhelpful ...

It remains to be seen whether there is evidence for cash as a cure for injury ... But that is another matter, entirely.

Back to usual programming. (be nice, it's my first post)
It is actually more for legal requirements than merchant. Any damages leveraged by a court against a company can only be enforced in that jurisdiction. For a company like Airbus which has little presence in Australia, bring a legal case in Australia could be futile as the court could not enforce it. That would then require the overseas court to enforce the case, which is very very hard to achieve. They are much better off bringing the case to action in a country where the company has a large establishment. In this case as the US is based on the common law system, meaning it makes much more sense to bring a case there than in a civil law system.

This is very different from arbitration which when following the international conventions can be enforced in foreign states. The reason for these cases to not be brought in arbitration could be multiple.

These cases are most likely the most extreme end of the scale, and involve lingering injuries (including head trauma) which may effect the person's income and care requirements for the future. Till recently most international aviation agreements actually work servilely in favour of the aviation industry, this was to try and grow it while it was young. But newer agreements have started to remove these protections recognising they are not required for public policy any more as the industry is extremely competitive. One of the first protections removed was injury to human life and costs inflected to those people.

If someone has head trauma and requires care for life with little income ability, it is extremely expensive.
Phalanger is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2012, 23:51
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
has anyone seen these photos yet, not sure if they're in the report, they're about almost 2/3 the way down the page on this link
Airbus and EMF
PlaneWhisperer is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 10:12
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is really happening here (if you are interested in the truth)

Airbus and Northrop Grumman have been sued in State Court in Chicago, Illinois by 175 pax and crew. The case was first filed over 18 months ago.

Access to Courts is much easier and cheaper in the US than Australia or the UK. Don't believe the garbage on here to the contrary by armchair lawyers.

The liability theories centre around the defective ADIRU, its software programming, and its effect on the flight control computers.

Damages and compensation is considerably higher in the US than Oz or the UK, because a jury gets to hear the story and to allocate money by way of compensation. The aviation insurers of the manufacturers pick up the bill.

It is accurate that many passengers have resolved their claims. It is also an open question as to whether Airbus and Northrop will not contest liability for the remaining claims. This issue was addressed in open court this month.

If you are still interested, you can sit in at the next status hearing in the Chicago Court.
Swiss Cheese is offline  
Old 12th May 2017, 23:55
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: YARM
Age: 74
Posts: 136
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There's a lengthy article in today's Sydney Morning Herald about the incident.

The untold story of QF72: What happens when 'psycho' automation leaves pilots powerless?

Does anyone know how the lawsuits against Airbus and NG are progressing?
unworry is offline  
Old 14th May 2017, 20:48
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Untold Story of Quantas QF72 [2008]: When 'Psycho' Automation Leaves Pilots Powerless

For the first time, the captain of the imperilled Qantas Flight 72 [October, 2008] reveals his horrific experience of automation's dark side: when one computer "went psycho" and put more than 300 passengers at risk.The untold story of QF72: What happens when 'psycho' automation leaves pilots powerless?
PastTense is offline  
Old 14th May 2017, 21:08
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,570
Likes: 0
Received 44 Likes on 20 Posts
Just a gentle reminder that its QANTAS , all caps and no 'u'
pax britanica is offline  
Old 14th May 2017, 21:14
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 58
Posts: 1,903
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Those on board QF72 are in dire trouble. There are no ejection seats like the combat jets Sullivan flew in the US Nav
Seriously?

There is a point to be made (IMHO) about failing automation in modern jetliners. But this "article" is just a pile of nonsense.
atakacs is offline  
Old 14th May 2017, 21:58
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The incompetent media missed the bit about them narrowly missing a crowded schoolyard, hospital, and refinery (to say nothing of the neighborhood pub)
barit1 is offline  
Old 14th May 2017, 22:26
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,787
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
Untold Story of Qantas QF72

So the 300-page investigation report by the ATSB doesn't count, then?

In-flight upset - Airbus A330-303, VH-QPA, 154 km west of Learmonth, WA, 7 October 2008
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 14th May 2017, 23:44
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,881
Received 362 Likes on 192 Posts
One thing the article addresses very well is the possible psychological effects upon crew having endured a notable event. Something all who survive such encounters need to be cognisant of, ditto managers. An area official reports don't delve into.
megan is offline  
Old 14th May 2017, 23:52
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by atakacs
... But this "article" is just a pile of nonsense.
I see nothing wrong with that article.
It reports how traumatic that event has been on the crew.
I can only recommend its reading.
CONF iture is offline  
Old 15th May 2017, 00:18
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you want the dry technical explanation of why/how that A330 went rogue and the dry technicalities of the crew response. ATSB.

If you want to know how it effected the actual humans involved. read the article.
lurker999 is offline  
Old 15th May 2017, 00:36
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 303
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by atakacs
Seriously?

There is a point to be made (IMHO) about failing automation in modern jetliners. But this "article" is just a pile of nonsense.
Standard journalistic fail on technicalities but the story from the point of view of the crew is interesting. You don't get that in a technical report.

You also wouldn't get the priceless description of the passenger nearly choking to death because the put on a life preserver incorrectly and then proceeded to inflate it inside the aircraft.
RickNRoll is offline  
Old 15th May 2017, 00:59
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by pax britanica
Just a gentle reminder that its QANTAS , all caps and no 'u'
All caps? Are you shure?

More discussion from the daily posting of this article link here:

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ml#post9770302
Airbubba is offline  
Old 15th May 2017, 02:26
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Airbubba
All caps? Are you shure?
"Shure" is registered trade name commonly associated with professional sound equipment. Notably, high end microphones.

I appreciate your humor here, and love the chance to pick on you a bit.

"Quantas." It bugs me, too.

"Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services"

Hence, abbreviation: QANTAS

It's like typing Raaf, or Usaf, which you find people doing.

DavidReid writes:
So the 300-page investigation report by the ATSB doesn't count, then?
It does.

The linked article is great in a touchy-feely way, but is sparse on technical facts.

Folks, that's why I come here.

Cheers!
rottenray is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.