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 20th Dec 2011, 07:01
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Whereever I lay my hat
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Qantas flight 72 in-flight upset final report available

Investigation: AO-2008-070 - In-flight upset - Airbus A330-303, VH-QPA, 154 km west of Learmonth, WA, 7 October 2008

Coupled sidesticks anyone ?
KiloMikePapa is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 07:56
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WOW 313 pages even though no crash. Go Aussies...
alph2z is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 10:33
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Coupled sidesticks anyone
?? Cannot see anything in the report to do with Flight Crew Control inputs v problems, hence why would side stick coupling be any use/relevance here?
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 11:16
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hazel Grove, Stockport
Age: 81
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Agree with you, NigelOnDraft, re the coupled sticks. Probably too complicated for a PA38 pilot to understand

What is interesting is it could have happened to either A or B and it could happen on either Litton or Honeywell.
lakerman is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 12:15
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Whereever I lay my hat
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WTF

I was simply referring to the fact that the sidestick issue seems to come up, rightly or wrongly, in about all threads concerning Airbus aircraft (see AF447 and Emirates EK407)

This emoticon was supposed to express some cynicism.

"Probably too complicated for a PA38 pilot to understand"
Are you always so fast in jumping to conclusions? And BTW: I have never flown a PA38. Hopefully your "engineering" was of a higher standard than your typing.

Last edited by KiloMikePapa; 20th Dec 2011 at 13:59. Reason: Corrected a reference to keep lakerman happy
KiloMikePapa is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 12:28
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is interesting is it could have happened to either A or B and it could happen on either Litton or Honeywell
Not could - did happen to a B (SQ 777).

KMP - did wonder about the "emoticon" hence did not wade in with both feet
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 13:34
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by lakerman
What is interesting is it could have happened to either A or B and it could happen on either Litton or Honeywell.
No no, only the A with its 'protections' could have sent the pax flying in the cabin.
CONF iture is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 13:49
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by NOD
Not could - did happen to a B (SQ 777).
It did happen a malfunction on one ADIRU, correct, but the following upset was Autopilot and Pilot induced, not Protection induced.
CONF iture is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 14:04
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,282
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by NoD
Not could - did happen to a B (SQ 777).
AND an MH 777!
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 14:31
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From reading the report, the FCPC commanded a pitch down for 2 seconds, during which time the captain was unable to counteract the pitch down using stick back commands. Thus this incident was due to erroneous protection activation, which the flight crew was unable to override.

this is the key difference between the 777 indicidents and the A330 incident.

Obviously both systems are very safe, but the efficacy of flight control systems, should, IMHO, be continually reevaluated and changed if required, and this report seems to well serve this purpose.
nlarbale is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 15:47
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near water
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question to all the bus drivers;

In 1.1.5 it is written "The crew advised that, because the autotrim was not working, they thought the flight control system was in direct law."

Previously they also said that the crew received an ECAM warning advising them they were in Alternate law. Is that the only indication the crew gets when the aircraft goes from one law to another? A ECAM message that could be buried below the rest if the crew don't deal with them? Or is there some kind of clear other indication when switching laws?

Note that the aircraft never went in to direct law but remained in alternate law for the rest of the flight.
Bumps is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2011, 18:39
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Normal / Altn / Direct Law indicated on PFD...

To be frank, there isn't a lot you're going to do different between Normal & Altn. Direct you need to trim, and the PFD message reminds you as much
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 21st Dec 2011, 23:52
  #13 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 66
Posts: 9,740
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The magazine Information Week, has an assessment that references the same final report and highlights the software programming error:

... according to the final report on the incident from the ATSB, the problem wasn't just a faulty ADIRU, but also a programming error involving the flight computers. In particular, the airplane software wasn't written to handle an event in which an ADIRU began outputting erroneous data at regular intervals.

Notably, the flight computers averaged the angle of attack data from two of the ADIRUs to compute the airplane's true angle of attack. If the data from the two ADIRUs significantly differed, however, then the flight computers discarded the values and used the one they'd computed 1.2 seconds prior. But investigators said that the algorithm couldn't handle an episode in which an ADIRU began feeding erroneous information at 1.2-second intervals. That led to the flight computers computing an incorrect angle-of-attack reading, causing it to execute the two dives, one of which subjected passengers to forces of 0.8 G.
They then report on the rarity of the event but programming was a key factor of the upset, once the initial failure had occurred.

The article is here: Software Bug Triggered Airplane Dive Emergency - Security - Application Security - Informationweek
PAXboy is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2011, 01:04
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Passenger compensation, $400k for a near death experience

ABC (Australia) news reporting today that a payout of up to US$400k has been offered to injured passengers.
Some passengers have said that they would refuse the payout and take a class action to the aircraft manufacturer and Northrop Grumman for "millions of $"


Passengers compensated over mid-air drama - Business (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2011, 01:34
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 72
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Someone should give them a clue...

Those must be overseas passengers :-) Australian residents would know that class actions make lawyers rich, and then they'll get $1,000 (maybe...).

$400,000 for being too stupid to wear the seatbelt? I must try leaving mine off.

It's those deadly "plunges" that bring the money in :-)

Happy New Year All
JohnMcGhie is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2011, 08:21
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Leaving your seat belt is for your own protection against natural courses. It is not rectification for foreseeable injury caused by normal use of the aircraft (aka if they know the data is wrong 1.2 seconds ago, why did it use it 1.2 seconds later instead of the closest correct data to that point). That is a foreseeable problem for any reasonable programmer in their position designing that system. This is different from how it is not reasonably possible to make a perfect system.

There can be contribution from a person, but it would not be reasonable to expect a person to sit there for the whole flight never getting out of the seat. Also they did not add to the cause of the aircraft inflicting damage. It would be minimal contribution by the people at best.

Think of it like a car. If I make a case where it does not break under conditions because of a 0.00001P chance when the system could have been reasonable designed and foreseeable against this flaw, then the fact the guy is not wearing a helmet to stop head injuries is irreverent.
Phalanger is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2012, 00:21
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,282
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Leaving your seat belt is for your own protection against natural courses. It is not rectification for foreseeable injury caused by normal use of the aircraft
And if the reason to keep your seatbelt on is not given? Passengers wilfully disobeying a company direction to keep their seatbelt on "for their own comfort and safety"?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2012, 01:38
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That's like saying run quickly now because I'm going to fire an RPG at you. The fact I told you to run quickly does not change the fact I fired an RPG at you.

A considerable reason in this is people are not meant to sit still for a long haul flight. DTV is a prime example of this. Your bladder too. While it is a good safety requirement to protect against the unknown external forces, it is not a defense against an accidence of their own cause.

Another way to think of it is I drive a wide load truck down the street with a at 5am every day. Some day I will be going down one street and hit something because the truck is too big. The fact I had lights flashing on top does not mean I am not responsible for the damage. If someone walked in front of the truck, then no as that would be a proactive contribution. I will have to anticipate this cost will occur sometime, that's why I get insurance from an insurance company (which for tax purposes is actually very similar to an investment fund). I could counter this by placing sensors all over the truck, and doing so may be able to lower my insurance costs.
Phalanger is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2012, 05:23
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 59
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Minor point

Some of the injured passengers may have been in their seats with their belts securely fastened but were injured by passengers who weren't.
Di_Vosh is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2012, 05:38
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
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.
training wheels is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.