QF 72 Diverted to Learmonth

[Montague S]

not sure what's happened here but there are injuries.

BREAKING NEWS: UP to 50 people are reported injured after a Qantas Airbus on an international flight made a forced landing near Exmouth today.

The flight - QF72 from Singapore - made the landing at Learmonth Airport just before 2pm after what has been described as a ``mid-air incident''.

Police said about 50 of the 300 passengers on board the Airbus A380 had been injured.

Pilbara police are making their way to the airport to launch an investigation, but it is not known at this stage exactly what happened or the circumstanced leading up to the incident.

Police Media's Inspector Wayne Silver told Perthnow that the flight had landed safely, but preliminary information suggested there had been some sort of ``instrument failure'' and turbulance.

Insp Silver said there were reports of passengers sustaining severe lacerations and broken bones.

More to come.

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/qantas-forced-landing-in-exmouth-injures-40-passengers-20081007-4vpd.html

[Marty H]

Ohh please:rolleyes: They just reported on Ch 10 news here in Melbourne it was an A320, media get your facts right please this is disgraceful:rolleyes:

[Anthony T]

3aw radio on the 1700 news said it was a Singapore Airways A320 on it's way to Melbourne:confused:

[Montague S]

VH-QPA is the a/c.

[Daniel M]

the headline on PerthNow news website:

Airbus down near Exmouth

These journalists should be shot!Twice!

[Montague S]

http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/au/publicaffairs/details?ArticleID=2008/oct08/3829

Qantas Aircraft Diverts to Learmonth in Western Australia

Latest News
Sydney, 08 October 2008

Qantas said today that a number of passengers and crew sustained injuries, including fractures and lacerations, on board QF72 this afternoon en route from Singapore to Perth following a sudden change in altitude.

The flight, operated by an A330-300 aircraft with 303 passengers and 10 crew, diverted to Learmonth in Western Australia and landed at approximately 3.30pm local time.

The flight had been due to land in Perth at 3.50pm.

Emergency services, including medical attendants, met the aircraft on landing.

Qantas said there were no details available at this stage as to what caused the altitude change.

Further information will be issued as soon as it is available.

QF has released a statement regarding the incident.

seems QF media department is about as accurate as the MSM itself. :S

it was due in at 1350 but landed at Learmonth at 1330.

[chrisb]

From PerthNow...

The flight - QF72 from Singapore - made the landing at Learmonth Airport just before 2pm after what has been described as a ``mid-air incident''.

Police said about 50 of the 300 passengers on board the Airbus A380 had been injured.

Damn it, if I'd have known the A380 was doing PER-SIN-PER i would have booked a return trip up there! :p

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24460959-948,00.html

[Andrew M]

Okay so a Qantas A320 with 300 people on board........................

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/10/07/1223145345200.html

Up to 40 people were injured when a passenger jet carrying more than 300 people made an emergency landing near Exmouth following a mid-air incident, West Australian police say.

Sergeant Greg Lambert said the Airbus A320 landed safety at Learmonth Airport, near Exmouth, this afternoon after a mayday call.

"It is understood up to 40 people were injured during a mid-air incident," Sgt Lambert said.

"The nature of the mid-air incident is unknown."

Emergency services and medical staff were at the airport.

Qantas would not immediately confirm the incident involved one of its aircraft.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/10/07/1223145345200.html

Up to 40 people were injured when a passenger jet carrying more than 300 people made an emergency landing near Exmouth following a mid-air incident, West Australian police say.

Sergeant Greg Lambert said the Airbus A320 landed safety at Learmonth Airport, near Exmouth, this afternoon after a mayday call.

"It is understood up to 40 people were injured during a mid-air incident," Sgt Lambert said.

"The nature of the mid-air incident is unknown."

Emergency services and medical staff were at the airport.

Qantas would not immediately confirm the incident involved one of its aircraft.

FACTS
http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/au/publicaffairs/details?ArticleID=2008/oct08/3829

Sydney, 08 October 2008

Qantas said today that a number of passengers and crew sustained injuries, including fractures and lacerations, on board QF72 this afternoon en route from Singapore to Perth following a sudden change in altitude.

The flight, operated by an A330-300 aircraft with 303 passengers and 10 crew, diverted to Learmonth in Western Australia and landed at approximately 3.30pm local time.

The flight had been due to land in Perth at 3.50pm.

Emergency services, including medical attendants, met the aircraft on landing.

Qantas said there were no details available at this stage as to what caused the altitude change.

Further information will be issued as soon as it is available.

[Daniel M]

sounds possibly like another decomp incident, or some serious CAT?

[Andrew M]

The Qantas article states "following a sudden change in altitude"

Would a mayday call be made for "severe mid air turbulence" ?

[Montague S]

FACTS
http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/au/publicaffairs/details?ArticleID=2008/oct08/3829

Sydney, 08 October 2008

Qantas said today that a number of passengers and crew sustained injuries, including fractures and lacerations, on board QF72 this afternoon en route from Singapore to Perth following a sudden change in altitude.

The flight, operated by an A330-300 aircraft with 303 passengers and 10 crew, diverted to Learmonth in Western Australia and landed at approximately 3.30pm local time.

The flight had been due to land in Perth at 3.50pm.

Emergency services, including medical attendants, met the aircraft on landing.

Qantas said there were no details available at this stage as to what caused the altitude change.

Further information will be issued as soon as it is available.

well unless we've moved forward in time I can assure you its NOT 3:30PM here in the west, its only 2:50pm, the a/c landed at 1330.

[chrisb]

sounds possibly like another decomp incident, or some serious CAT?

Random gossip around the office tends to show that it's just a bumpy flight, so probably just CAT.


"Qantas recommends you keep your seat belt fastened at all times..."

PS. Thanks Montague S for providing _FACTS_ on this rather than the crap coming out of the media.

[Stephen Brown]

.... more than 300 people .......

.....said the Airbus A320 landed safety.......

Well if you're going to pile 300 people onto an A320, you're just asking for trouble.....;)

[Montague S]

according to YPPH website the returning flight to Singapore (QF71) has been cancelled.

[Greg Wood]

Qantas Perth spokesperson has just announced two flights will depart Perth for immediately to bring passengers uninjured back to Perth. THE two flights are expected to return later tonight. The RFDS at Jandakot Airport have aircraft on standby if required.
The spokesperson also indicated the aircraft will remain in Learmonth and indicated that crew are amongst those onboard injured.

Cheers GW

[Philip Argy]

The ATSB has begun an investigation into the incident:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_38.aspx

[damien b]

Well i am glad the injuries appear to be minor (broken bones, lacerations etc) and that everyone is relatively ok. Sounds like severe CAT which has i believe been responable for several aircraft crashing due to structural failure. Will be interesting to read the final ATSB report.

[David B.]

Appears 767 VH-ZXC is heading to Learmonth to assist.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f56/qantasflyer/wx.jpg

:(

[Montague S]

VH-ZXC was supposed to operate QF 566 to SYD at 1515, now departing 2315 tonight.

[Sarah C]

Well if you're going to pile 300 people onto an A320, you're just asking for trouble.....;)

I shouldn't laugh but that is as funny as the A380 doing PER/SIN!

Still, at least they got the manufacturer right so that is a start.

Whatever happened, this again shows why you should have your seatbelt on at all times. Crew are likely to be injured because they are in the galleys or walking through the cabin.

[Peter T Syd]

Made the Italian News also ... from Corriere dela Sera
WoW Im impressed...

LO RIFERISCE LA POLIZIA
Australia, 40 feriti in incidente aereo
Il velivolo costretto a un atterraggio di emergenza nello scalo di Exmouth

SYDNEY - Un Airbus A320 della compagnia australiana Qantas con 370 passeggeri a bordo e in volo tra Singapore e l'Australia è stato costretto a un atterraggio di emergenza in un aeroporto della costa nordoccidentale australiana a causa di forti turbolenze. Lo ha riferito la polizia australiana.

FERITI - Dieci passeggeri sono rimasti feriti in modo serio in conseguenza dell'incidente in volo e sono stati ricoverati in un ospedale di Exmouth, mentre le altre persone che si trovavano a bordo sono state ospitate all'aeroporto in attesa di essere prelevati da un altro aereo della Qantas. In precedenza la polizia aveva riferito di una quarantina di persone rimaste complessivamente ferite nell'incidente.


07 ottobre 2008

[Adam T]

I just spoke to my boss who was supposed to fly PER-SYD on VH-ZXC and he's been turned away and gone back to his hotel, no indication of when he'll be able to get a flight back to Sydney.

Ah well, it looks like a BFW (boss free week) hehe

[albert vasquez]

Its also made the Polish news

http://www.tvn24.pl/-1,1567633,0,1,kilkudziesieciu-rannych-na-pokladzie-samolotu,wiadomosc.html

:D

[Arthur T]

The news in Hong Kong is correct though:

Qantas jet hits turbulence: 30 hurt

07-10-2008


More than 30 people have been injured on a Qantas airliner which was hit by turbulence on a flight from Singapore to Perth. Some of those hurt suffered broken bones and cuts. The A330-300, with 303 passengers and 10 crew, was forced to make an emergency landing at Learmonth, a remote airport near the town of Exmouth, about 1,100km north of Perth.

[Joseph D]

The Daily Telegraph have still got the aircraft as being an Airbus A380. Utterly hopeless reporting.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24462131-5001021,00.html

[Nick W.]

Okay, so we have confirmed that the reporting isn't great, moving on to the incident...

[Nigel C]

The quality of the reporting, or inherent lack of, IS the incident....;)

[Tim C]

It doesnt matter what a/c type the media say it is. The news to the public is a Qantas plane had to make a emergency landing with injured people on it. Every single incident we get the same "The media said 767 but it was a 737" posts. Get used to it!

TV news & online media is no different to newspapers if you believe everything you read on any subject you are silly.

Cheers

Tim

[Montague S]

It doesnt matter what a/c type the media say it is. The news to the public is a Qantas plane had to make a emergency landing with injured people on it. Every single incident we get the same "The media said 767 but it was a 737" posts. Get used to it!

TV news & online media is no different to newspapers if you believe everything you read on any subject you are silly.

Cheers

Tim

well said Timba, how about we focus on the incident rather than the way the media is reporting it.

[Philip Argy]

Isn't "lotterywest" a rather unfortunate logo to feature on the back of the Exmouth ambulance?

[chrisb]

Isn't "lotterywest" a rather unfortunate logo to feature on the back of the Exmouth ambulance?

I think it's on the back of all WA Ambulances - They providing funding with the proceeds of the lotteries.


It surprises me that Qantas hasn't piped up and said the pilot diverted due to the injuries and NOT due to an issue with the aircraft. I would have thought they'd want it known that the aircraft is not an issue in this case. (Assuming that's the case)

[Philip Argy]

It surprises me that Qantas hasn't piped up and said the pilot diverted due to the injuries and NOT due to an issue with the aircraft.

Does "MAYDAY" signify that the a/c is imperilled or just that some urgent reason to descend/land exists even if the a/c is quite OK?

[Andrew M]

Does "MAYDAY" signify that the a/c is imperilled or just that some urgent reason to descend/land exists even if the a/c is quite OK?


That was my question!!!

I have just seen this "Mr O'Callaghan said he understood the incident was caused by "some sort of systems failure"."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/10/07/1223145345200.html

Karl O'Callaghan is the WA Police Commissioner

From http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_38.aspx

Early reports indicate that three cabin crew and approximately 30 passengers sustained injuries, including about 15 with serious injuries, namely broken bones and lacerations.

So it would APPEAR that this was not weather related

[Montague S]

That was my question!!!

I have just seen this "Mr O'Callaghan said he understood the incident was caused by "some sort of systems failure"."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/10/07/1223145345200.html

Karl O'Callaghan is the WA Police Commissioner

From http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_38.aspx

Early reports indicate that three cabin crew and approximately 30 passengers sustained injuries, including about 15 with serious injuries, namely broken bones and lacerations.

So it would APPEAR that this was not weather related

so CAT isn't to do with the weather now?

[Phil M]

I think Andrew was saying that a "systems failure" has nothing to do with weather/CAT...

[Rhys Xanthis]

Qantas is sending two aircraft to Learmonth from Perth to collect passengers and crew.

A B767 is due to arrive in Learmonth at 5.10pm local time and a B717 at 5.40pm. The aircraft are due to arrive back in Perth at 7.50pm and 8.35pm respectively.

Inquiries regarding passengers should be directed to Qantas on 1800 062 241 (in Australia).

Further information will be issued as soon as it is available.

Correction to media release (Q3829) issued at 5.10 pm

The A330-300 aircraft landed in Learmonth at 1.45pm (local time) and had been due to land in Perth at 2.10pm (local time).
.

[Andrew M]

I think Andrew was saying that a "systems failure" has nothing to do with weather/CAT...

Correct, that was my reading of what the WA cop said.

ATSB report will tell all with FACTS

Good old Montague always jumping down peoples throats :p

[Montague S]

Correct, that was my reading of what the WA cop said.

ATSB report will tell all with FACTS


Karl is a cop, not a/c investigator! ;) he's about as reliable as the media saying its an A380.

[Andrew M]

Well I think he was quoted as saying it was an A320 OR A380 at first... :)

Now a few other details which may or maynot be true that have come out in various article this morning. Not sure how passengers know how many metres they fell.. Also one report saying the lights went out first..... Again by no means saying these are facts

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24464270-661,00.html

"He said word spread among the passengers that the aircraft had plunged more than 3,000 metres in a matter of seconds."

“The people who were standing were the ones who got hurt the most. To be honest think it's a lesson in wearing seat belts.''

“I was strapped in. A few around me did not have seat belts on. They hit the roof and it was really quite nasty.''

Neither the ATSB nor Qantas would confirm that air turbulence was responsible.

An insider said the jet's flight computer may have "tripped", but Qantas discounted that explanation.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,26058,24464262-5014090,00.html

The headline here was 'I thought we were going to die'......

He said his son had called him when the plane landed to tell him that the lights went out in the plane before passengers heard a loud bang and the aircraft suddenly dropped.

[Philip Argy]

The passenger reports coming out this morning all suggest that the aircraft just dropped vertically without warning, leaving passengers pinned against the ceiling only to be slammed down when the descent was arrested, wih some being injured by collapsing overhead compartments.

That kind of vertical drop does not sound like something that an a/c's control surfaces can trigger when it's travelling in level cruise at FL39 or thereabouts. It sounds more like some kind of microburst phenomenon or similar massive downdraft. Maybe the doppler wasn't working properly and didn't pick it up, or it was just a severe form of classic CAT.

With global warming I predict we are going to see an increasing number of incidents like these.

[NickN]

Do microbursts even occur at FL390?

To the credit of Ian Ross (Ch9 Sydney?) I was watching the news when he came on with the old "In breaking news" and introduced the Qantas issue he only mentioned that a Qantas Airbus has called Mayday and made an emergency landing at Learmonth with passengers suffering suspected fractures.

There was no sensationalism at that time.

[Philip Argy]

CASA has a page devoted to Turbulence at http://www.casa.gov.au/airsafe/trip/turbulen.htm

Here is what they have to say about CAT:


Clear air turbulence

There are several notable problems with clear air turbulence:

It cannot always be foreseen so there is no warning.
It is usually felt at its mildest in the flight deck and is generally more severe in the aft section.
It can occur when no clouds are visible.
Aircraft radars can't detect it.
It is common at high altitudes, where cruising airline suddenly enter turbulent areas.Turbulence is the leading cause of in-flight injuries. There are countless reports of occupants who were seriously injured while moving about the passenger cabin when clear air turbulence is encountered.
The causes

http://www.casa.gov.au/airsafe/trip/images/turb.jpg
Thermals - Heat from the sun makes warm air masses rise and cold ones sink.
Jet streams - Fast, high-altitude air currents shift, disturbing the air nearby.
Mountains - Air passes over mountains and causes turbulence as it flows above the air on the other side.
Wake turbulence - Near the ground a passing plane or helicopter sets up small, chaotic air currents, or
Microbursts - A storm or a passing aircraft stirs up a strong downdraft close to the ground.Injury prevention

In-flight turbulence is the leading cause of injuries to passengers and crew. Occupants injured during turbulence are usually not wearing seatbelts, ignoring recommendations to keep seatbelts fastened even when the signs are not illuminated. It is recognised that passengers need to move around the cabin to use restroom facilities or to exercise on long flights. However you should keep your seatbelt fastened at all times when seated.
From 1981 through 1997 there were 342 reports of turbulence affecting major air carriers. Three passengers died, two of these fatalities were not wearing their seat belt while the sign was on. 80 suffered serious injuries, 73 of these passengers were also not wearing their seat belts.
Turbulence related incidents

The following are recent jet airliner mishaps from around the world. In each event, at least one passenger/flight attendant was injured during an unexpected turbulence encounter.

During a flight from Singapore to Sydney with 236 passengers and 16 crew, the airplane encountered turbulence over central Australia. The plane hit an "air pocket" which caused it to drop 300 feet. Nine passengers including one pregnant woman and three crew members suffered various neck, back and hip injuries, with one of the passengers requiring surgery. Those who were injured were not wearing seat belts.
During a flight from Japan to Brisbane 16 passengers were injured when a large aircraft encountered turbulence. Passengers had been advised to keep their seatbelts fastened while seated. The pilot in command reported that flight conditions were smooth prior to encountering the turbulence. The weather radar did not indicate adverse weather, so the crew did not turn on the seatbelt signs. A number of the passengers who were not wearing their seatbelts were injured when they were thrown from their seats.
A jet hit air turbulence shortly before it landed at a Hong Kong airport, injuring 47 people, seven of them seriously. "It happened very suddenly and everything was very chaotic," one of the 160 passengers aboard the flight said. "The plane just dropped and I saw things flying all over."

[Christian Dietzel]

It could never have been an A320 as this has only a seat capacity of 148 passengers. It was an A330-300 and it carried 302 Passengers.

[Montague S]

CASA has a page devoted to Turbulence at http://www.casa.gov.au/airsafe/trip/turbulen.htm

Here is what they have to say about CAT:

fly in to Perth on a warm day and you'll understand what turbulence is all about... :eek:

roughest flights I've ever had have always been the ones coming back to Perth in the summer time from the east coast, especially when your coming over the hills on approach to YPPH.

[Daniel M]

reports coming through that sources inside QF have mentioned the incident was caused by a "computer malfunction"....:confused:

[Jason Carruthers]

[QUOTE=Christian Dietzel;14053It was an A330-300 and it carried 302 Passengers.[/QUOTE]


That's funny. I thought QF's 333's were only configured 30J/267Y a total of 297 seats. Unless QF included the crew in the passenger count.




Jason

[Andrew P]

That's funny. I thought QF's 333's were only configured 30J/267Y a total of 297 seats. Unless QF included the crew in the passenger count.
Jason

easy 5 infants and babies, not having assigned seating

Banjo

[David Ramsay]

reports coming through that sources inside QF have mentioned the incident was caused by a "computer malfunction"....:confused:

I'm not a pilot, but I am an engineer. Logic would suggest that if the aircraft systems told it to change altitude even suddenly, the nose would lower and it would descend, albeit rapidly. It wouldn't just drop. The only thing that is going to make it drop as it apparently did is sudden loss of the lift component, due to absence of air flowing over the leading edge.

Tech crew, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Daniel M]

Computer 'irregularity' on dropped plane

AIR safety investigators say there was an "irregularity" in the onboard computer equipment of a Qantas plane involved in a mid-air incident between Singapore and Perth.

The Airbus A330-300, with 303 passengers and a crew of 10, struck what the airline described as a "sudden change in altitude'' north of its destination yesterday.

The plane landed at Learmonth, about 40km from Exmouth, without any further incidents.

West Australian police said at least 20 passengers and crew aboard QF72 were seriously injured - some with spinal injuries and others with broken bones and lacerations.

Two Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigators are on the ground at Learmonth and five more are expected to arrive there later today.

The bureau's director of aviation safety investigation, Julian Walshe, says the plane was travelling at 37,000 feet and 110 miles north of Carnarvon when the incident occurred.

"The pilots received electronic centralised aircraft monitoring messages in the cockpit relating to some irregularity with the aircraft's elevator control system,'' he said in Canberra.

The aircraft then "departed level flight'', and climbed approximately 300 feet.

"The crew had initiated the non-normal checklist response actions.

"The aircraft is then reported to have abruptly pitched nose down.''

[Rhys Xanthis]

If the nose first tilted upwards as some passengers said (and the news report above), is it possible that the aircraft, because of its high altitude and heavy load, stalled, and then descended rapidly because of the stalling?

If that did happen, perhaps its a question of what caused the upward movement of the aircraft to start with...

Also i found this FAA document (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/e04e9b9732ba93fd86256caa005ca97e/$FILE/AC61-107A.pdf) regarding operations of aircraft at altitudes over 25,000 feet. It provides a small section about weather and the jet streams, and some info about CAT as well (Starting at page 12 on your PDF reader).

http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/national/charts/UV.shtml - Pretty extreme UV conditions out to the NW - thats todays forecast, but it wouldn't change much between 2 days.

[NickN]

If the nose first tilted upwards as some passengers said (and the news report above), is it possible that the aircraft, because of its high altitude and heavy load, stalled, and then descended rapidly because of the stalling?



Come on Rhys, you really think experienced Qantas pilots are going to let a jetliner stall at cruise altitude?

Next you'll be saying someone shot at it from the grassy noll.

The suggestion it stalled is preposterous.

[Nick W.]

If it was a computer failure, though, as has been reported, how much of a say would the pilots have in avoiding a stall?

You can't discount a theory just because it 'sounds' impossible. With that theory, there shouldn't be any aircraft incidents as all 'experienced' pilots should able to handle every situation, even a computer malfunction outside of their control.

[Jack B]

Where is VH-QPA at the moment? I suppose it hasn't left yet

[Rhys Xanthis]

Come on Rhys, you really think experienced Qantas pilots are going to let a jetliner stall at cruise altitude?


Quite the opposite, and as many here know I would rather fly no other airline than Qantas, and believe their safety standards are very high, and i have no issue at all flying with them, and the pilots i know are very very experienced, so that is not what i am saying at all.

What i am saying is that for one reason or another, the plane gained altitude, then descnded rapidly - this sounds like a stall of some sort to me, and i have absolutely no suspicion that it was the direct fault of the flight crew whatsoever.

The reason for it gaining altitude will provide the key for why this incident happened - unusally high volume of hot air in the area? Flight computer malfunctioned (What caused it?). These are all questions that must be answered.

[Paul C.]

I flew on VH-QPA from Melbourne to Hong Kong back in August 2005.

[NickN]

Nick,

Rhys is saying the incident was created by a stall, not the computer glitch causing the 300 feet climb and then stalling. There has never been any mention of a stall.

A 300 feet climb is a relatively minor altitude change which I doubt would directly result in the engines stalling.

news.com.au has just released an article blaming computer issues for the incident.

[Rhys Xanthis]

Thats why its a theory and not proof - to be proven right or wrong nick.

What i did say NickN was that something caused it to gain altitude during cruise, which needs to be determined. This should in turn explain the sudden descent.

[Tony G]

I'm not a pilot, but I am an engineer. Logic would suggest that if the aircraft systems told it to change altitude even suddenly, the nose would lower and it would descend, albeit rapidly. It wouldn't just drop. The only thing that is going to make it drop as it apparently did is sudden loss of the lift component, due to absence of air flowing over the leading edge.

Tech crew, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I agree David any command given, no matter how urgent or rapid would be a smooth transition ( thats if it was a command). In saying that, it does not count out an computer error occuring eg. reverse thrust being engaged. I know it sounds unlikely, as you might need weight on wheels and some other logics to achieve this to operarate, but i have seen computers do weird things.

Until we get the full story and maybe knowing what occured at what time during the flight from a data download it is hard to diagnose the fault.

[Nathan Long]

I'm not sure on the loop time on the FDR on the A330, but isn't there a danger in incidents like these that the time taken for the aircraft to land is long enough to overwrite the data from the incident?

[Andrew M]

I'm not sure on the loop time on the FDR on the A330, but isn't there a danger in incidents like these that the time taken for the aircraft to land is long enough to overwrite the data from the incident?

If the time is long enough yes of course, but I think I read somewhere the plane was on the ground in a very short time after this incident

[Rhys Xanthis]

I'm not sure on the loop time on the FDR on the A330, but isn't there a danger in incidents like these that the time taken for the aircraft to land is long enough to overwrite the data from the incident?

Yes thats entirely possible, but i'm not sure of the time either, and a google search hasn't yielded anything.

[damien b]

I'm not sure on the loop time on the FDR on the A330, but isn't there a danger in incidents like these that the time taken for the aircraft to land is long enough to overwrite the data from the incident?


Modern DFDR's can handle over 25 hours of flight time so any data would still be on the DFDR from this flight and probably previous flights.

As for the irregularity being reported by the ATSB - it wouldn't be unheard of due to the information coming into the main computer and that information possibly becoming corrupt for some reason giving the 300ft climb.

As for the rapid 6,000ft decent/drop being reported :eek: Thats a huge drop.

I have seen main computers 'freeze' on aircraft allowing for some weird disrepencies at times and the best the manufacturers came up with was a full memory capacity. On one occasion all four MFD's froze, leaving the crew unaware of their current location/situation for 30 odd minutes until they noted a moving map had not moved for some time.

[Nathan Long]

Thanks Damien. I recall that with the China Airlines 747SP incident that the data on the FDR on the barrel roll was overwritten because of the time it took for the aircraft to get on the ground. It's good to see modern technology overcoming this problem.

[David Ramsay]

Media release on the ATSB web site (http://www.atsb.com.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_40.aspx)

MEDIA RELEASE

2008/40
Qantas Airbus Incident Media Conference
08 October 2008

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau was advised yesterday afternoon of an occurrence involving an Airbus A330-300 aircraft while on a flight from Singapore to Perth, operating as Qantas Flight 72. The aircraft, which had 303 passengers and 10 crew on board, was in normal level flight at 37,000 ft about 110 nautical miles north of Carnarvon and 80 nautical miles from Learmonth near Exmouth in north-western Australia, when the pilots received electronic centralised aircraft monitoring messages in the cockpit relating to some irregularity with the aircraft's elevator control system. The aircraft is reported to have departed level flight and climbed approximately 300 ft, during which time the crew had initiated non-normal checklist/response actions. The aircraft is then reported to have abruptly pitched nose-down. During this sudden and significant nose-down pitch, a number of passengers, cabin crew and loose objects were thrown about the aircraft cabin, primarily in the rear of the aircraft, resulting in a range of injuries to some cabin crew and passengers.

The crew made a PAN PAN emergency broadcast to air traffic control, advising that they had experienced flight control computer problems and that some people had been injured, and they requested a clearance to divert to and track direct to Learmonth. A few minutes later the crew declared a MAYDAY and advised ATC of multiple injures including broken bones and lacerations. The aircraft landed at about 1530 local time, about 40 minutes after the start of the event.

The ATSB understand that there were 14 people with serious but not life threatening injuries, which included concussion and broken bones who were taken by air ambulance to Perth. In addition, up to 30 other people attended hospital with possible concussion, minor lacerations and fractures, with up to a further 30 or so people with minor bruises and stiff necks etc who did not need to attend hospital. However, these casualty figures are subject to further clarification and confirmation. All passengers have been now been transported to Perth. Given the nature of injuries, the occurrence is defined as an accident in accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization definition.

The ATSB has initiated a safety investigation and two investigators from the ATSB's Perth office travelled to Learmonth yesterday evening and commenced initial on-site investigation activities, which included securing the aircraft's Flight Data and Cockpit Voice recorders. A further five ATSB investigators are due to arrive in Learmonth early this afternoon Western Australia time

An officer from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority with a type rating on the A330 has joined the ATSB team. In addition, the Bureau Enquetes-Accidents, or BEA of France, the French counterpart of the ATSB has assigned an accredited representative as the State of Design and Manufacture of the aircraft, to provide assistance to the ATSB investigation. An investigator who is a flight control specialist from the aircraft manufacturer Airbus, is currently travelling to Australia and will also assist the investigation team.

It is obviously very early in the investigation and too soon to draw any conclusions as to the specific cause of this accident. The ATSB investigation will explore all aspects of the operation of the aircraft, including through detailed examination of the Flight Data and Cockpit Voce recordings, aircraft systems and maintenance history, Air Traffic Control radar and audio recordings, and weather conditions. The ATSB will also be conducting a range of interviews with the pilots and cabin crew, and will also speak with passengers to examine the cabin safety aspects.

It is always difficult to predict how long an investigation such as this will take. While it is likely to take some number of months, the ATSB will release a Preliminary Factual report within about 30 days. Furthermore, should any critical safety issues emerge that require urgent attention, the ATSB will immediately bring such issues to the attention of the relevant authorities who are best placed to take prompt action to address those issues.


Without pre-empting any findings in relation to cabin safety issues and the wearing of seatbelts, this accident serves as a reminder to all people who travel by air of the importance of keeping seatbelts fastened at all times when seated in an aircraft.


Media Contact: George Nadal: 1800 020 616

[Tony G]

I'm not sure on the loop time on the FDR on the A330, but isn't there a danger in incidents like these that the time taken for the aircraft to land is long enough to overwrite the data from the incident?

The herc FDR can record up to the last 25hrs of data. I am sure civi aircraft are very similar. We also have other data retreival methods we can use to determine everything that has happened throught the flight. eg take off/landing times, cautions and warngings that occur, engine data etc etc.

Again i am not sure what sort of data retrieval devices airliners have besides the DFDR and CVR, but i am sure they would have the data stored to deterime what happenned at the time of the incident.

[Chris Griffiths]

Nick,
A 300 feet climb is a relatively minor altitude change which I doubt would directly result in the engines stalling.

Are you perhaps displaying a lack of knowledge here?
You seem to be confusing the different types of stall that may affect an aircraft.

Cheers

[Tim C]

It could never have been an A320 as this has only a seat capacity of 148 passengers. It was an A330-300 and it carried 302 Passengers.

Thanks for that was bugging me for a while!

[Villy Curtin]

Hi,

A 300ft climb may be relatively minor change in altitude but a potential stall (not engines rather airflow envelope over surfaces) can occur if there is a simultaneous significant loss in airspeed at FL390.

I have been scheduled on at least 2 flights in memory where the a/c (all QF A333's) have gone U/S and the same reason given for both has been a problem with the Flight Control Unit. Now whether this event is the manifestation of such issues inflight it is something that has certainly struck a chord with me.

Regards,
VC

[Philip Argy]

Not sure about the A330, but the B744 only has 2 hours of CVR compared to 25 hours of FDR, and if the CVR is not powered off after landing, there is a likelihood of its contents being overwritten by ground crew conversations, as partially happened in Manilla.

I think the newer solid state devices such as would be on the A380 have greater capacity but I'm not aware of the A330 situation; I'm pretty sure it was one of the earliest solid state recorders but it was circa 1993 from memory and the technology has moved on a lot in that time.

[Robert S]

Not sure about the A330, but the B744 only has 2 hours of CVR compared to 25 hours of FDR, and if the CVR is not powered off after landing, there is a likelihood of its contents being overwritten by ground crew conversations, as partially happened in Manilla.

The ATSB's ongoing investigation into the Manila accident is meant to include "a review of the operator’s procedures for preserving a CVR recording following a serious incident or non-catastrophic accident."

Even though that's ongoing, hopefully one way or another the CVR in this latest accident has been preserved.

[Michael Rychter]

Hopefully the passenger interviews will try to see if any passenger activated a personal electronic device that was "dirty" enough to upset the aircraft computer.

[Rich W]

I've always been a little worried about the Airbus autopilot systems even since the lecturer at my software programming course at Uni told us about the bugs they found in some of the first Airbus systems.

One of the bugs they discovered would have flipped the aircraft 180 degrees on its back if it ever went over the Arctic circle!

[Nigel C]

In saying that, it does not count out an computer error occuring eg. reverse thrust being engaged. I know it sounds unlikely, as you might need weight on wheels and some other logics to achieve this to operarate, but i have seen computers do weird things.


Remember the Lauda B767? It crashed after this very occurance.

[NickN]

Whichever way we look at things computers are only going to become a greater part of the global flight experience and regardless of what type of computer it is or what function it controls technology is not always perfect and these incidents are going to continue to happen one way or another. The real question is, how often are they going to occur and are people going to die as a result.

We have already seen faulty technology cause loss of life in the past. I really think that we have to try and have a little faith in those responsible for its development and hope they make their systems and hardware as perfect as possible.

[Rich W]

Interestingly I found this from a website about risks to the public in computers and related systems...

The original source is from AFP news:

"On 19 Apr 1999, an Air India Airbus 320 en route from Singapore to Bombay via New Delhi had apparent had an autopilot failure at 27,000 feet, resulting in a dive that injured three crew members (two seriously) and an infant. The pilot was able to regain control, and manually flew the jet to Bombay. [Source: AFP, 19 Apr 1999]"

[NickN]

This from todays news.com.au

Did laptop cause plane plunge?

By Michael Madigan, Nicole Cox and Peter Morley

October 09, 2008 01:55am


Passengers to be quizzed on computers
Safety officials begin investigation
wireless mouse sent another plane off-course

PASSENGERS will be quizzed on whether they were using computers or electronic equipment before a Qantas aircraft plunged hundreds of metres.

One has told of how he heard a loud bang followed by the screams and groans of passengers being thrown about the cabin and slammed against the roof as the Airbus went into a steep dive off Western Australia on Tuesday.

Pictures: First look inside Qantas jet
Turbulence: Babies hit plane roof

Safety officials yesterday began investigating how the aircraft travelling from Singapore to Perth suddenly shot up 300 feet before pitching earthward after signalling to its pilots "irregularities" in its elevator control system.

The possibility passengers using electronic equipment including computers affected the aircraft's navigation system has not been ruled out, The Courier-Mail reported.

A passenger clicking a wireless mouse mid-flight recently sent a Qantas jumbo jet off course on a three-degree bank, an Australian Transport Safety Bureau report revealed.

"Certainly in our discussions with passengers that is exactly the sort of question we will be asking – 'Were you using a computer?'," an Australian Transport Safety Bureau spokesman said yesterday.

Director of aviation safety investigation Julian Walsh said: "We don't know, and we don't fully understand the dynamics of this event.

"Certainly there was a period of time where the aircraft performed of its own accord."

A passenger described how the smooth flight suddenly turned into a nightmare around 1pm when he heard a loud bang.

"All of a sudden there was a big bang – boom – and I found myself up in the ceiling for one to two seconds and then I fell down," said grandfather Yip How Wong.

"I fell down on the walkway a few rows from my seat. I couldn't get up."

Up to 40 passengers and crew were injured when the plane was cruising at 37,000 feet about 177km north of Carnarvon.

The injured, including about 20 suffering serious spinal injuries, broken bones or lacerations, were taken to hospital after the pilot sent out a mayday distress call then made an emergency landing at an old military strip at Learmonth about 40km from Exmouth.

SES volunteer Jackie Tapper, 30, was one of the first to start treating the injured passengers on the aircraft.

"Inside the plane it was like a tornado had gone off," she said.

"On the ceiling where people had hit their heads there was chunks of hair still there. There were a lot of people bleeding so we had to bandage them."



http://www.news.com.au/travel/gallery/0,25537,5035037-5013959,00.html

[Russell D]

Just wondering, if the ATSB will be quizzing passengers about "whether they were using computers or electronic equipment before a Qantas aircraft plunged hundreds of metres", wouldn't some pax be afraid that they might be found accountable and therefore deny that they were ever using one (even if they possibly were using one at the time)? In such a case, if the use of electronic devices did cause the incident, we might never really know.

"On 19 Apr 1999, an Air India Airbus 320 en route from Singapore to Bombay via New Delhi had apparent had an autopilot failure at 27,000 feet, resulting in a dive that injured three crew members (two seriously) and an infant. The pilot was able to regain control, and manually flew the jet to Bombay. [Source: AFP, 19 Apr 1999]"
That's sounds interesting, however something strikes me as odd. If the a/c was going via New Delhi ex Singapore, then I would imagine it would have been tracking pretty much directly towards New Delhi. When they had the problem (and I'm not sure how far from New Delhi they were), why would they divert to Bombay (Mumbai)?? For one, it would have been closer to New Delhi; and two, there are are many other closer airports they could have gone to (especially since it was an A320 and size wouldn't have been an issue).
http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/india/india-map-major-airports.jpg

[Mark B]

We have already seen faulty technology cause loss of life in the past. I really think that we have to try and have a little faith in those responsible for its development and hope they make their systems and hardware as perfect as possible.

On the flip side, technology has greatly improved the safety of flying, and, fopr example, there are far less instances of "controlled descent into terrain" these days, and less events attributes to "pilot error" than when humans were totally in control.

[NickN]

On the flip side, technology has greatly improved the safety of flying, and, fopr example, there are far less instances of "controlled descent into terrain" these days, and less events attributes to "pilot error" than when humans were totally in control.

You are absolutely right there too.

Gotta take the good with the bad.

Look at TCAS, that must have saved a few skins in its time.

Although that incident where the bizjet clipped a GOL 737 coz the bizjet pilots accidentally turned off their TCAS/Transponder was a worry.

Technology is great when it is used properly and it works well.

[Rhys Xanthis]

Just wondering, if the ATSB will be quizzing passengers about "whether they were using computers or electronic equipment before a Qantas aircraft plunged hundreds of metres", wouldn't some pax be afraid that they might be found accountable and therefore deny that they were ever using one (even if they possibly were using one at the time)? In such a case, if the use of electronic devices did cause the incident, we might never really know.


That's sounds interesting, however something strikes me as odd. If the a/c was going via New Delhi ex Singapore, then I would imagine it would have been tracking pretty much directly towards New Delhi. When they had the problem (and I'm not sure how far from New Delhi they were), why would they divert to Bombay (Mumbai)?? For one, it would have been closer to New Delhi; and two, there are are many other closer airports they could have gone to (especially since it was an A320 and size wouldn't have been an issue).


On your 1st point, i dont think if it was something as trivial as a wireless mouse or something that insignificant (thats what they believe so far), i dont think the ATSB would be pursuing any kind of legal action against said person, and would probably make that clear before being interviewed.

2nd point - it may have already landed in New Delhi and was then continuing onwards to Bombay from New Delhi when the incident occurred.

[Jeff Lane]

Hopefully the passenger interviews will try to see if any passenger activated a personal electronic device that was "dirty" enough to upset the aircraft computer.

Someone was using a video camera just after the event.

What would be considered dirty?

[Philip Argy]

Just released by ATSB:



ATSB Airbus investigation update

09 October 2008


The Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation is progressing.
The aircraft's Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) arrived in Canberra late on Wednesday evening. Downloading and preliminary analysis overnight has revealed good data from both recorders. Data from the FDR has been provided to Qantas, the French Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA) and Airbus as parties to the investigation.
While the full interpretation and analysis of the recorded data will take some time, preliminary review of the data indicates that after the aircraft climbed about 200 feet from its cruising level of 37,000 feet, the aircraft then pitched nose-down and descended about 650 feet in about 20 seconds, before returning to the cruising level. This was closely followed by a further nose-down pitch where the aircraft descended about 400 feet in about 16 seconds before returning once again to the cruising level. Detailed review and analysis of FDR data is ongoing to assist in identifying the reasons for the events.
In addition, the on-site investigation activity is continuing and includes:

recording and photographing cabin damage
removing panels to examine wiring for damage prior to restoring power to the aircraft
preparation for downloading data from the aircraft's on-board computerised systems
arranging interviews with the pilots and cabin crew.The ATSB plans to distribute a survey to all passengers and will conduct interviews with injured passengers to understand what occurred in the aircraft cabin. Passengers with information about the accident are encouraged to contact the ATSB at atsbinfo@atsb.gov.au (atsbinfo@atsb.gov.au).
The ATSB will provide further media releases when significant new factual information comes to light, ahead of a Preliminary Factual Report in 30 days time.

[Ryan N]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/qantas-compo-depends-on-class-of-seat/2008/10/09/1223145508283.html

Paul Bibby
October 9, 2008 - 4:34PM

Terrified passengers who were thrown around and injured or shocked when QF72 suddenly plunged have been offered compensation by Qantas, depending on whether they were travelling first, business or economy class.

The airline has pledged to give each passenger on the turbulent flight from Singapore to Perth a voucher - ranging in value from $2000 for economy travellers to about $9000 for those in first class.

It will also refund all tickets and pay medical expenses resulting from the incident on Tuesday.

But the airline could still face a series of compensation claims, lawyers say.

As transport safety officials continue to investigate the computer malfunction that appears to have contributed to the A330's sudden fall, law firm Slater and Gordon said injured passengers had a good chance of obtaining further compensation under federal legislation.

"The Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act provides for compensation for persons suffering injury or death by accident in the course of an international flight," lawyer Phil Gleeson said.

"Injured passengers don't necessarily need to prove fault or carelessness on the part of the airline but simply that there was an injury arising from an accident.

"If there's been any aberration in the normal functioning of the aircraft that has caused this, and people have been injured as a result, that would fall, on any commonsense analysis, within the normal definition of the act."

He said most claims did not go to court but were dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the airline after passengers logged a claim.

A Qantas spokeswoman today confirmed that the airline was talking to passengers about paying for expenses associated with injuries that occurred on the flight and "any other needs".

She said the airline would refund the cost of all travel on their current itineraries as well as giving each passenger a "voucher equivalent to a return flight from Australia to London". This would be valued about $2000 on current rates.

Each compensation claim would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis she said.

[Scott Loveday]

Excepting the fact that there is no first class cabin on the A330.

I guess there could always be first customers travelling in J on that sector.

BTW, I flew up to Singapore the day after on QPF. Very smooth ride. Aircraft half empty it seemed, but there were many on board who were from the previous day's cancelled QF71. Everyone was kind of waiting for an upgraded version of the safety announcements about seatbelts, but it was operations as normal, which is IMHO a good thing.

[Ash W]

I've always been a little worried about the Airbus autopilot systems even since the lecturer at my software programming course at Uni told us about the bugs they found in some of the first Airbus systems.

One of the bugs they discovered would have flipped the aircraft 180 degrees on its back if it ever went over the Arctic circle!

Consdering the length of time Airbus have been FBW and the number of aircraft out there they aren't doing too bad.

[Will H]

Slightly OT, but did QF ever announce compensation for the 747 oxygen incident?

[Philip Argy]

Latest ATSB release is at http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_40b.aspx with an animation as well.

Certainly seems to be a big puzzle at this stage.

[Philip Argy]

Here's the key description of the a/c's movements from the ATSB Media Conference:



While the full interpretation and analysis of the recorded data will take some time, preliminary review of the data indicates that the aircraft was cruising at 37,000 feet, when the aircraft initiated a climb of about 200 feet, before returning back to 37,000 feet. About 1 minute later, the aircraft pitched nose-down, to a maximum pitch angle of about 8.4 degrees, and descended about 650 feet in about 20 seconds, before returning to the cruising level. About 70 seconds after returning to 37,000 feet there was a further nose-down pitch, to a maximum pitch angle of about 3.5 degrees, and the aircraft descended about 400 feet in about 16 seconds, before returning once again to the cruising level.



Given the concentration of injury at the rear of the a/c, it would seem logical to speculate that the initial elevator movement which caused the 200 ft climb could have been violent enough to throw those at the rear of the plane into the cabin ceiling, and throwing them to the floor when what was probably an equal and opposite elevator movement returned the a/c to FL370.

Whilst the 8.4 degree pitch down and the 650 foot descent is very severe, we aren't told how quickly the a/c returned to FL370 and it seems to me that the second movement sequence would not have involved the tail of the a/c moving down then up in a way that would throw unrestrained people and objects into the ceiling for three to four seconds and then into the floor.

Similarly the third movement sequence of a pitch down of 3.5 degrees followed by a pitch up seems to me unlikely to account for the physical reaction of people and objects that has been described.

So, just based on logic and physics, the only one of the three movement sequences that has involved a sudden tail down followed by a tail up was the initial 200ft climb/descent sequence. It will be interesting to find out the pitch angles involved in this movement sequence but I would surmise they involved close to full amplitude elevator deflection and thefore extreme pitch and therefore extreme forces of the kind that would account for the movement of unrestrained people and objects.

Do others agree with this analysis or is it too simplistic?

Of course it doesn't explain what caused the sudden elevator movement in the first place but that is plainly a critical part of the investigation in case it reveals a latent defect in the avionics programming similar to that which was revealed with the MAS B777ER incident out of Perth a couple of years back.

[Nigel C]

I think your analysis of the G's experienced is back to front.

When the elevator is pitched up and the aircraft climbs, the G loading felt is positive i.e. you get forced into your seat.
When the elevator is pitched down and the aircraft descends, the G loading is negative and items are more likely to be thrown about the cabin.

There was an email doing the rounds a few years ago of a dog in the back of a light aircraft. Initially they put the aircraft into a climb and then put the aircraft into a negative G pushover...the dog 'floated' all the way to the ceiling of the aircraft during the pushover before landing on the floor when they started recovering from the dive.
I'm sure it would be somewhere on YouTube if you went looking for it.

The other one is the girl filling the chuck bag just before the pilot gets the negative G's going...I think you can guess what happens next.

[damien b]

Agree with Nigel on the Physics and g forces being felt by the passengers. They would have hit the ceiling on the pitch down movement, whilst when the aircraft pitched up - depending on the g loading they may have been pushed back into their seats for a brief moment.

The fault is definately sounding like a 'glitch' in the autopilot/flight director system which may never be fully identified. I would imagine that Airbus would be involved in this investigation very closely.

[Rhys Xanthis]

I would imagine that Airbus would be involved in this investigation very closely.

They are receiving updates and helping out with the investigation. An Airbus representative has been sent to Australia to assist.

[Philip Argy]

Agree with Nigel on the Physics and g forces being felt by the passengers. They would have hit the ceiling on the pitch down movement, whilst when the aircraft pitched up - depending on the g loading they may have been pushed back into their seats for a brief moment.

I need to articulate my analysis in a little more detail to see if it makes a difference to yours and Nigel's responses. Imagine that you were in a lift that suddenly accelerated downwards rapidly. You'd hit your head on the ceiling of the lift. If it then reversed direction just as suddenly, you'd be slammed into the floor.

Now think of the a/c as pivoting around the fulcrum of the wings like a see saw, so that in a sudden climb the displacement of the rear of the aircraft is like the suddenly descending lift - the inertia of the unrestrained mass of people and service carts will tend to make them rise in relation to the descending portion of the fuselage at that point.

The physics is complex but my thinking is that the aircraft was not climbing under power - this was an uncommanded climb during stable cruise, so the kind of acceleration forces that push you back in your seat on take off would not have been present when the sudden elevator displacement was initiated.

It may need a bit of a crash test dummy experient to see which forces take precedence. If the aircraft had no forward movement component, you would get the see saw analogy. My suspicion is that in level cruise the sudden movement had the same effect. I agree that under horizontal acceleration the physics would be different, as they would be if my see saw were on a platform that was undergoing additional acceleration forces. Then you need to study all the vectors to see how they work out.

With CAT, the sudden downward displacement of the fuselage is what makes unrestrained people contact the cabin ceiling - I'm positing the same effect in the aft of the cabin from a sudden pitch up during stable cruise.

In the second movement sequence recorded on the FDR the 8.4 degree pitch down and descent to my mind would have more likely created almost zero G for everyone on the a/c and that would not have resulted in the injuries being so concentrated in the aft section of the cabin.

Would love to get more views so let's hear what others think.

[Edward Terry]

Take for example the abrupt transition to the downward attitude, which was responsible for the zero-g forces passengers experienced. Assuming the aircraft's power setting was constant, the tangential accleration is negligible compared to its centripetal acceleration. This one acts towards the centre of the circle whose radius is given by the arc traced out by the aircraft as it changes attitude. The appropriate formula for centripetal acceleration is F = mv²/r, so the sharper the attitude change, the tighter the radius of the circle and hence the greater the force. By this logic, these forces would push people up-down but not forwards-backwards.

[Nigel C]

Phillip,
I understand what you're trying to say, however I don't see it as practically feasible.
If the aircraft pitched as sharply and as violently as you're suggesting to create the effect you're describing, then surely that would put the aircraft into a high speed stall. With the existing airspeed plus the thrust being generated during cruise at that time plus a sudden nose-high attitude, surely the aircraft would have gained more than 200ft on the initial climb.

I notice Brenden sent you the chuck movie I mentioned via email. You can clearly see the way the aircraft is going by the scenery below.

Does that help you understand the G loadings a little better?

[Philip Argy]

Yes - I saw Brenden's graphic movie and cetainly understand the alternative scenario. The only aspect of the incident that doesn't gel with what you are putting to me is the fact that the serious injuries and cabin ceiling penetration were apparently confined to the aft section of the rear cabin rather than randomly across all parts of the cabin.

If you could help me understand what would cause that focal point on your theory that would assist me. Maybe it's just the natural place for the majority of unrestrained people to congregate waiting for the toilet etc and my assumption that it reflects the forces at work is wrong. :confused:

[Nigel C]

Perhaps you've answered your own question?
Maybe it's just the natural place for the majority of unrestrained people to congregate waiting for the toilet etc

I don't know the layout of the A330's, but perhaps the loos are at the back.

[damien b]

Yes - I saw Brenden's graphic movie and cetainly understand the alternative scenario. The only aspect of the incident that doesn't gel with what you are putting to me is the fact that the serious injuries and cabin ceiling penetration were apparently confined to the aft section of the rear cabin rather than randomly across all parts of the cabin.

If you could help me understand what would cause that focal point on your theory that would assist me. Maybe it's just the natural place for the majority of unrestrained people to congregate waiting for the toilet etc and my assumption that it reflects the forces at work is wrong. :confused:

Along with the last bit mentioned, the injuries would have been confined to the back as the g forces (negative) would have been the greatest at that point. As the aircraft has transitioned from the climb to a dive the forward pax would have experianced something i am guessing to be around normal g forces whilst the pax at the rear would have experianced negative g's as the tail stopped moving up and followed the nose of the aircraft.

8.4 degrees nose down is not significant by itself. I think its the manner that the elevators have moved abrubtly from one directon to another that has induced the neagtive g forces onto the pax, particularly at the rear of the aircraft.

Happy to be corrected.

[Philip Argy]

This eyewitness account from The Australian throws a bit more light on the situation:




RETURNING home after visiting his fiancee in Singapore, Tim Ellett found flight QF72 from Changi to Perth began like the 12 other trips he had taken before.
The Airbus A330-300 jet that carried Mr Ellett and the 302 other passengers is one of the most technologically advanced planes in the world. It is also reputed to be one of the safest.
But three hours after takeoff, the jet plunged 650ft, injuring 50 passengers, some seriously. And it has now emerged that the calamity has striking similarities with two previous incidents, including an emergency involving a Singapore Airlines flight in 1996.
In these cases, questions were raised about the design of the A330's cockpit, including whether it could lead to both pilots, instead of just one, inadvertently overcorrecting the plane, resulting in the plane's computers recording a double input.
Settling in for the four-hour flight, Mr Ellett, 22, watched a movie and kept track of the trip via the flight path map on his television screen. The woman passenger next to him slept.
When the plane was only about an hour away from Perth, the journey turned into an extraordinary experience.

The jet was soaring over the Indian Ocean, 110 nautical miles north of Carnarvon on Western Australia's north coast, when it suddenly and inexplicably climbed 200ft.
This slight rise from the jet's 37,000ft altitude went unnoticed by many of the passengers and crew, but aviation experts believe moves would have been under way in the cockpit to discover why the aircraft had risen.
The plane returned to cruise normally, but about a minute later, passengers were suddenly hurled up to the cabin ceiling as the plane plunged 650ft in 20seconds. As bruised and battered passengers, many crying and screaming, clambered back to their seats, the jet levelled out and returned to cruising at 37,000ft. But 70 seconds later, the jet dropped another 400ft for 16seconds, creating havoc.

The plane then made an emergency landing at Learmonth airport, near Exmouth.



It appears that the initial climb to FL372 and the return to FL370 went almost unnoticed by pax. So that debunks my theory about that inital sequence causing pax to be injured.

It then appears that the main injuries were caused by the second movement sequence, being the 8.4 degree pitch down and 650 ft descent and return to FL370, followed by the third movement sequence of another pitch down, descent to FL366, and return to FL370. That would support Nick and Damien's theory.

I think the aggregated pilot input issue was the subject of an episode of Air Crash Investigation but I thought I read somewhere that Airbus had changed the software to give priority to the left hand joy stick if both joysticks were in active use. Does anyone here know more about that?

[Bill S]

I think the aggregated pilot input issue was the subject of an episode of Air Crash Investigation but I thought I read somewhere that Airbus had changed the software to give priority to the left hand joy stick if both joysticks were in active use. Does anyone here know more about that?

No, they average/total the two stick positions, eg, if you literally push one stick all the way forwards and the other all the way back nothing will happen to the flight path of the plane - But you do get an aural & visual warning that you have dual control inputs.
One pilot can take full control by pushing & holding the red button down on their stick and about 1.5 seconds later that stick is the only one controlling the plane. An aural advisory "prority left/right" comes up when that happens.
There's ways to regain dual control but I can't remember the details sorry.

Apparently the reason the sticks aren't mechanically connected is because Airbus was worried that if one pilot fell unconcious on their stick the other pilot would not be able to control the plane adequately. However I still think this is perhaps one of the most daft things I've ever seen on a plane.

[Philip Argy]

Does it mean that A330 aircrew would be more likely convert to A380 than B744 aircrew presumably due to the ease of type upgrading?

I'm not a pilot but I know there are strong views held by Boeing afficianados about the "unconventional" sidestick system that Airbus uses.

[Edward Terry]

The first Qantas crews to move to the A380 had to have been on the A330 beforehand, to become acquainted with the 'Airbus philosophy'.

[Jarrad Wadmore]

'Airbus philosophy'.

What's it doing next?

[Radi K]

What's it doing next?

No, what's it doing now? :p

[Kelvin R]

I just heard on the ABC News (breaking news at end of weather) that Airbus have reported that the dive was due to auto-pilot failure and a warning has now been sent to pilots world wide.

[Nigel C]

From www.news.com.au

b[]Computer fault caused Qantas plunge[/b]
October 14, 2008 07:47pm

A COMPUTER fault caused the autopilot system to be overridden, sending a Qantas plane into a mid-air plunge over Western Australia last week, authorities said tonight.

The air data computer - or inertial reference system - for the Airbus A330-300 sent erroneous information to the flight control computer causing the autopilot to disconnect, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said.

More than 70 people on Qantas flight QF72 from Singapore to Perth were injured on Tuesday last week when the Airbus, carrying 303 passengers and 10 crew, suddenly dropped altitude.

People were hurled around the cabin and the pilot was forced to make an emergency landing in Western Australia's north.

[Robert S]

http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_43.aspx

In the Q&A that exists in the audio recording, it was stated that the aircraft has returned to Sydney this evening. They also clarified that the initial gradual increase in altitude occured after the autopilot first disengaged (and therefore while the aircraft was being flown manually). The autopilot was re-engaged and the aircraft returned to the selected altitude. The autopilot was then turned off, before the first of the pitch down incidents.

From my reading of it, the dodgy data coming out of the Air Data Inertial Reference Unit and into Flight Control Primary Computers caused them to believe the aircraft was operating with an angle of attack well outside of its flight envelope (and in a stall) and hence, being a Fly-By-Wire aircraft, took swift "corrective" action to bring the nose down. Except of course this wasn't corrective at all and took the aircraft out of stable level flight.

[Philip Argy]

Here's an extract of the salient parts of the ATSB media release:



The aircraft was flying at FL 370 or 37, 000 feet with Autopilot and Auto-thrust system engaged, when an Inertial Reference System fault occurred within the Number-1 Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (ADIRU 1), which resulted in the Autopilot automatically disconnecting. From this moment, the crew flew the aircraft manually to the end of the flight, except for a short duration of a few seconds, when the Autopilot was reengaged. However, it is important to note that in fly by wire aircraft such as the Airbus, even when being flown with the Autopilot off, in normal operation, the aircrafts flight control computers will still command control surfaces to protect the aircraft from unsafe conditions such as a stall.
The faulty Air Data Inertial Reference Unit continued to feed erroneous and spike values for various aircraft parameters to the aircrafts Flight Control Primary Computers which led to several consequences including:

false stall and overspeed warnings
loss of attitude information on the Captain's Primary Flight Display
several Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring system warnings.About 2 minutes after the initial fault, ADIRU 1 generated very high, random and incorrect values for the aircrafts angle of attack.
These very high, random and incorrect values of the angle attack led to:

the flight control computers commanding a nose-down aircraft movement, which resulted in the aircraft pitching down to a maximum of about 8.5 degrees,
the triggering of a Flight Control Primary Computer pitch fault.The crew's timely response led to the recovery of the aircraft trajectory within seconds. During the recovery the maximum altitude loss was 650 ft.
The Digital Flight Data Recorder data show that ADIRU 1 continued to generate random spikes and a second nose-down aircraft movement was encountered later on, but with less significant values in terms of aircraft's trajectory.
At this stage of the investigation, the analysis of available data indicates that the ADIRU 1 abnormal behaviour is likely as the origin of the event.
The aircraft contains very sophisticated and highly reliable systems. As far as we can understand, this appears to be a unique event and Airbus has advised that it is not aware of any similar event over the many years of operation of the Airbus.
Airbus has this evening, Australian time, issued an Operators Information Telex reflecting the above information. The telex also foreshadows the issue of Operational Engineering Bulletins and provides information relating to operational recommendations to operators of A330 and A340 aircraft fitted with the type of ADIRU fitted to the accident aircraft. Those recommended practices are aimed at minimising risk in the unlikely event of a similar occurrence. That includes guidance and checklists for crew response in the event of an Inertial Reference System failure.



The aspect that I find alarming is why ADIRU-1 input and output is not compared with ADIRU-2 and ADIRU-3 and any inconsistency treated as the bais for concluding that something is wrong with one of them, or at least alerting the crew to that possibility. What's the point of having redundant systems if they don't take over when one is faulty or don't detect when one is faulty. The rigour with which these avionics are stress tested is inadequate - we've seen too many examples of faults that, however rare, still reflect a permutation of conditions not tested. To me that must remain unacceptable.

I don't want to name any component manufacturer here but there is one whose name seems to crop up too frequently in my opinion.

[Robert S]

The aspect that I find alarming is why ADIRU-1 input and output is not compared with ADIRU-2 and ADIRU-3 and any inconsistency treated as the bais for concluding that something is wrong with one of them, or at least alerting the crew to that possibility.

This is apparently the cause of the autopilot disconnecting automatically, but it does raise those questions as to why the FBW still kicked in this way.

[Philip Argy]

If the system disconnects autopilot because it senses that it has a fault, why isn't that fault also the basis on which its ability to command the aircraft contrary to the manual commands of the crew also disabled - that is just a fundamental logic flaw in the programming which ought to have been picked up in avionics testing. :mad:

I hope the public (and media) realise that this vindicates Qantas and that the skilled actions of the crew in the face of the erroneous stall and overspeed warnings, etc they were getting from the faulty avionics was really first rate.

[Ash W]

...
The aspect that I find alarming is why ADIRU-1 input and output is not compared with ADIRU-2 and ADIRU-3 and any inconsistency treated as the bais for concluding that something is wrong with one of them, or at least alerting the crew to that possibility. What's the point of having redundant systems if they don't take over when one is faulty or don't detect when one is faulty. The rigour with which these avionics are stress tested is inadequate - we've seen too many examples of faults that, however rare, still reflect a permutation of conditions not tested. To me that must remain unacceptable.
...

It is not easy to test a piece of equipment or software for every possible permutation. Even simple things can have millions of combinations.

The main thing is there are back-ups or procedures to follow when things go wrong. Sure some people got hurt by what appears to be a first for this type, but the plane and it's passengers still made it to the ground in one piece.

[Philip Argy]

It is not easy to test a piece of equipment or software for every possible permutation. .... Sure some people got hurt by what appears to be a first for this type, but the plane and it's passengers still made it to the ground in one piece.

I don't share your design philosophy I'm afraid, Ash. Safety critical systems require a special approach. The outcome in this case obviously could have been much worse but that doesn't make it an acceptable outcome.

My point remains that the logic flaw that exists is one that should have been obvious to test for - I don't rate it as outside the realm of conditions that could be foreseen. The auto pilot disengagement routine logic was sound. It should be pretty obvious that the same reason that required the autopilot to be disengaged should have caused the flight computers to ignore any further input from ADIRU-1 once it had been diagnosed as faulty. In fact I'd be astonished if that logic isn't present, so the task is more to uncover why it didn't trigger, which is probably related to the Flight Control Primary Computer pitch fault.

[NickN]

This is just a hypothetical question but it could just have easily been an outcome of this incident I suppose......

What would have happened if this incident was magnified 10x and say the aircraft pitched up and down so heavily it was pushed outside its operational envelope and broke apart mid-air?

As I said it's a hypothetical question but what would have prevented that outcome from happening?

[Mike W]

Article today in "The Australian"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24498914-23349,00.html

Global alert after Qantas dive

Steve Creedy and Mark Dodd | October 15, 2008
EUROPEAN plane-maker Airbus has warned A330 operators around the world to guard against potential computer problems after last week's roller-coaster ride by a Qantas jet.

The global alert comes after investigators found that a faulty unit that provides information about the plane's movement and position resulted in the autopilot disconnecting and prompted flight control computers to pitch the plane's nose downward.

More than 70 people were injured, 14 seriously, when they were thrown around the cabin as the plane pitched down violently near Learmonth, in Western Australia northwest, while en route from Singapore to Perth.

The jet diverted to Learmonth and the worst injured were airlifted to Perth by the Royal Flying Doctor Service.

Investigators said last night the false information from an air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU) fed "very high, random and incorrect values".

The ADIRU supplies information such as air speed, altitude and position.

The fault led to the flight control computers pitching the aircraft's nose down by about 8.5 degrees and led to a fault in the flight control primary computer.... goes on

[Radi K]

Is QPA back in SYD?

[Nigel C]

Yep, I saw it over at the Jet Base this morning. It's parked north of Hangar 96.

[Marty H]

Would imagine its going to take some time to get the interior repaired.

[damien b]

I don't share your design philosophy I'm afraid, Ash. Safety critical systems require a special approach. The outcome in this case obviously could have been much worse but that doesn't make it an acceptable outcome.

My point remains that the logic flaw that exists is one that should have been obvious to test for - I don't rate it as outside the realm of conditions that could be foreseen. The auto pilot disengagement routine logic was sound. It should be pretty obvious that the same reason that required the autopilot to be disengaged should have caused the flight computers to ignore any further input from ADIRU-1 once it had been diagnosed as faulty. In fact I'd be astonished if that logic isn't present, so the task is more to uncover why it didn't trigger, which is probably related to the Flight Control Primary Computer pitch fault.

Software is software unfortunately and designers along with engineers and test pilots can test the aircraft its sytems and the software for many varied faults. What has probably occured here is a failure of a component downward of either the ADIRU or FCC which has contributed to the ADIRU not being taken off line when it failed. Now that may be something like a relay or even a digital component which has failed or a slight glitch in the digital code.

To design a system for every possible failure and to cover everything that may occur, especially a low probability failure is not going to happen. It takes too long, costs to much and there comes a point in the design where the 'what if' scenerio's get to long and complex. I can not speak for Airbus but i saw the design philosophy behind the software and fault redundancy on the C-130J which was built to civil standards and the number of what ifs covered is huge yet faults will still occur that have not been thought of were or considered unlikely and thus not taken into consideration.

Its easy to say everything should be covered for safety but in reality it doesn't happen - its too costly, takes too long and for a thing that may only fail once in several million hours of flying its not something considered as critical to certification.

[Ash W]

I don't share your design philosophy I'm afraid, Ash. Safety critical systems require a special approach. The outcome in this case obviously could have been much worse but that doesn't make it an acceptable outcome.

...

It isn't a philosophy it is reality and I daresay safety critical items do get special attention, but as I said the reality is you cannot test for everything. We can sit here and say they should of tested this and that but that is with hindsite.

[Robert S]

Apologies if this photo gallery has been posted before, but I didn't see it:

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/large-gallery/0,25537,5035037-5013959,00.html

Also there's been some media reports that are drawing comparisons to this incident:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2005/AAIR/aair200503722.aspx

[Tom PER]

Sorry to dig up an old thread.

What's the latest on -QPA's current status? Did it end up going back to Airbus or HAECO for repairs? A source reckons their was 2 QF A333's parked at the hangars a couple of week back in HKG.

Last I heard it was parked near the QF hangars in SYD but someone on Airliners.net reckons it's back in service.

Haven't seen it pop up on any of the ACARS sites.

[Anthony J]

It is in Sydney and will be back in service in December.

[Philip Argy]

This media release just out from ATSB:



ATSB Preliminary Report: Qantas Airbus A330-303 In-flight Upset on 7 October 2008

13 November 2008


On Friday, 14 November 2008 at 10.00 am AEDT (local time), the ATSB will conduct a media conference to release its preliminary safety investigation report into the circumstances surrounding the in-flight upset accident of an Airbus A330-303 aircraft near Learmonth in Western Australia on 7 October 2008.
When: Friday 14 November 2008
Where: 62 Northbourne Avenue, Canberra City ACT (New ATSB Headquarters)
Time: 10.00 am AEDT (local time)

[Daniel F]

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/aair200806143.aspx

[Philip Argy]

Actual report is at: http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/pdf/AO2008070_prelim.pdf

Not materially different from the initial report. More detailed investigation of the ADIRU-1 failure and its impact on other systems is about to be conducted on a multi-agency (Australian, French and USA) basis.

It seems to me that there is a logic bug or multiple logic bugs in the A330's avionics such that redundant components are not switched in, or their input is not preferred, when a fault has been detected in a primary component. The aircraft had 3 ADIRUs only one of which was determined to be faulty, yet the faulty ADIRU-1 was not thereafter ignored and the two working redundant ADIRUs were not utilised in the way that one would have expected the system to operate. Basically the physical redundancy was not utilised by the avionics logic as a consequence of which spurious data spikes continuously interfered with various components of the avionics, including aural and visual warning alarms on an ongoing basis until landing in Learmonth. These included concurrent stall and overspeed alarms and warnings, and an ECAM with a display that continued to scroll multiple warnings and information so fast that the flight crew was unable to interact with them.

This is truly a scary scenario that, no matter how low the probability of recurrence exists, requires exhaustive investigation and, in my view, a rethink of how these systems are tested before certification.

[Tom Lohdan]

This is truly a scary scenario that, no matter how low the probability of recurrence exists, requires exhaustive investigation and, in my view, a rethink of how these systems are tested before certification.

You forgot the mention of:

The ATSB has received many suggestions from members of the public to consider the effect of various external sources of electromagnetic interference on the aircraft, particularly any transmissions by the Harold E. Holt very low frequency transmitter near Exmouth, WA. Initial analysis suggests it is unlikely that any transmissions from this facility could affect systems on board an aircraft flying near the vicinity. However, further assessment of this possibility and other possible sources of external electromagnetic interference will be examined.

With a transmission power of 1000 kilowatts, it is the most powerful transmission station in the Southern hemisphere. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Communication_Station_Harold_E._Holt)

When it happened I did look into the station and researched many other boards, but everyone came back with it would not cause issues with an aircraft.

Now the ATSB has included it.

[Philip Argy]

This appeared on the ATSB website this afternoon:


Qantas Airbus A330 incident, 480km North West of Perth on 27 December 2008

02 January 2009


The Australian Transport Safety Bureau was advised on 27 December 2008 of an occurrence that day involving a Qantas Airbus A330-300 aircraft while in cruise at FL360 (36,000 ft) enroute from Perth to Singapore.
At about 0829 UTC (1729 Local Time), the autopilot disconnected and the crew received an ECAM message (NAV IR 1 Fault) indicating a problem with ADIRU Number 1. The crew actioned the Airbus Operations Engineering Bulletin (OEB) procedure by selecting the IR 1 push-button to OFF and the ADR 1 push-button to OFF. Both OFF lights illuminated. The crew elected to return to Perth and an uneventful overweight landing was conducted. At the time that the autopilot disconnected, the aircraft was approximately 260 nautical miles (NM) North-West of Perth airport and approximately 350 NM South of Learmonth airport.
It is very early in the investigation and too soon to draw any conclusions as to specific causal factors involved in this incident. As it appears to be a similar event to a previous event involving an A330 aircraft (AO-2008-070 on 7 Oct 2008) it will be included as part of the earlier investigation. The ATSB investigation will explore all aspects of the operation of the aircraft, including examination of recorded data, and any commonalities with past occurrences.
While the investigation is likely to take a number of months, the ATSB has been working with a number of national and international parties on this investigation and plans to release an Interim Factual report by about mid-February 2009.



This is now more serious than before and requires deeper investigation of what could be shaping up as Australia's own Bermuda Triangle!

[Bob C]

This appears to be the third such event as a B777 of Malaysia Airlines had problems on 1 August 2005 ; http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20050801-1&lang=fr refers.

It does seem odd that two QANTAS A330s have been affected in such a short time and I wonder why other carriers are not experiencing similar problems as I presume this is happening on a major airway to Singapore.

Could there be quality control problems at Airbus, QANTAS or the manufacturer which have failed to detect faults in the nav system ? Or perhaps new equipment has been installed at the Harold E Holt Communications Station which may be under test or when operational under certain circumstances MAY be affecting the nav systems in the QF aircraft. Are these unique to QF or are the same systems installed in other aircraft ?

Whatever the causes, an investigation should be conducted immediately but I very much doubt that the USN would be too forthcoming about any
equipment at its base.

[Montague S]

perhaps our American friends can stick their spying equipment on the recently retired USN John. F Kennedy and stick it in the middle of the Indian Ocean?

[Rhys Xanthis]

perhaps our American friends can stick their spying equipment on the recently retired USN John. F Kennedy and stick it in the middle of the Indian Ocean?

Diego Garcia? Or does the US know something we don't about it's effect on aircraft

me smells a conspiracy:p

[Philip Argy]

This News Limited report makes the Harold Holt transmission issue seem less likely, despite the fact that to this day more mystery still surrounds the real Harold Holt's disappearance than any X-files episode:


Last week, a Royal Australian Air Force transport aircraft was forced to return to Learmonth air base after the cabin filled with fumes.

The RAAF said the C-17 Globemaster was heading for the Edinburgh base in Adelaide with a number of people on board when fuel vapours began leaking into the cabin.

The aeroplane returned to Learmonth where police said the problem had been rectified.



And for those who are taking a greater interest in the Very Low Frequency transmission base, here's some background of unvouched accuracy:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/exmouth.htm

[Chris Griffiths]

Geez, Phillip
Can you explain to us mere mortals the link between that story, the QF incident and your reference to Portsea 1967?

[Philip Argy]

From the link in my previous post:



In 1963, the US leased an area of North West Cape, Exmouth, Western Australiahttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/exmouth.htm#), for the establishment of a VLF Communications Station, as part of its world wide nuclear submarine force communications network. It was subsequently named the Harold Holt US Navy Communications Base, named after the former Prime Minister of Australia - who mysteriously drowned while he was in office.



One of the issues the ATSB is investigating is whether the VLF transmissions from the HHUNCB could adversely affect the avionics which has behaved erroneously on two occasions within two months within 350 km of the base.

The C-17 story is of interest because of its proximity to the HHUNCB and the fact that VLF transmissions appear not to have been implicated, thus increasing the mystery of the frequency of unusual incidents occuring within 400 km of the HHUNCB.

Sorry if the common thread was too obscure - perhaps you're too young to remember HH's drowning mystery? Popular mythology is that he was taken by a foreign sub - the kind that communicates via VLF.

Hmmm ...

[Bob C]

A report on another Board mentioned that the C17A was carrying 70 pax and equipment from Learmonth to Townsville when fumes & leaking fuel were
discovered coming from a vehicle onboard the aircraft. Hence the return to Learmonth.

WA Today had coverage and local radio 882 6PR also reported the incident.

And the RAAF activated Learmonth as an operational base a few days before Christmas and sent several hundred personnel and two P3C Orions there to provide an enhanced surveillance and response capability, as part of Operation Resolute, after several incidents of unauthorised boat arrivals and illegal fishing activities in Australia's territorial waters.

So I think we can rule out interference from North West Cape.

And re the disappearance of Harold Holt. I was a teenager living in Melbourne at the time and familiar with the Portsea Back Beach and Cheviot Beach where Holt disappeared. That area can be nasty at the best of times and I just think that Holt got into difficulties and drowned, his body being swept away. He wasn't the first nor was he the last to disappear in those treacherous seas.

[Ash W]

Pretty scary if the VLF transmitter is effecting a/c like this! Wonder what else they are doing at HEH because there are many VLF sites around the world that seem to operate without too much trouble and thounsands of airbus a/c that operate without issue.

Indeed HMAS Harman in Canberra (Belconnen site) was once the site of a VLF transmitter and was directly under one of the outbound paths a/c used to take from CBR-MEL. Ansett A320's regularly flew through this area.

It does seem as if there is some interferance problem with something that is going on up that way.

[Ash W]

...

So I think we can rule out interference from North West Cape.

...


What do you base that one? Still sounds pretty likely to me. It isn't as if these faults in A330's are regular occourances, yet here are two in the same general location within a short period of time. I was once taught once is bad luck, twice a co-incidence, 3 times enemy action.

[Bob C]

Hi Ash

I referred specifically to the incident involving the C17 which returned to Learmonth after fumes and leaking petrol came from a vehicle onboard.

I didn't make any mention whatsover of the incidents involving the A330s which appear totally unrelated to that with the C17.

[Ash W]

Hi Ash

I referred specifically to the incident involving the C17 which returned to Learmonth after fumes and leaking petrol came from a vehicle onboard.

I didn't make any mention whatsover of the incidents involving the A330s which appear totally unrelated to that with the C17.


Oh yeah, cannot see how anyone could have ever linked the two. Now if the C17 was the same type of incident then maybe.

[Philip Argy]

The ATSB has released an updated report this morning:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/pdf/AO2008070_interim.pdf

[Robert S]

The ATSB has released an updated report this morning:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/pdf/AO2008070_interim.pdf

Damn that's a lot to take in... and continues to raise new questions as well as a very sobering reminder about not just keeping your seatbelt fastened but not being overly liberal with the meaning of "fastened loosely" as some pax seem to do, ie. loosening it as much as they can.

[David Wilkie]

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/hardware/soa/Computer-glitch-caused-Qantas-drop/0,130061702,339295336,00.htm?feed=generic&omnRef=1337

[Philip Argy]

The ATSB will be releasing its second interim factual report on Wednesday morning: http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2009/alert/2009_14.aspx

The first report foreshadowed the contents of the second report:


The next phase of the investigation will further interrogate the aircraft's primary flight control computer and two secondary computers. The ATSB had identified problems with the secondary computers' ability to action commands sent from the primary. The investigation will examine the computers' software development cycle, such as design, hazard analysis, testing and certification.
The US manufacturer of the ADIRU units, not disclosed in the report, is also conducting a theoretical analysis of the device's software and hardware to identify possible fault origins, the ATSB said.

[Philip Argy]

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/748444/ao2008070_ifr_2.pdf

Extract from the report:

Despite extensive testing and analysis, the reason why the ADIRU started providing erroneous data (spikes) during the 7 October 2008 flight (or the 27 December 2008 flight) has not been identified to date. Nevertheless, the crew operational procedures that were provided by Airbus in October 2008 (and modified in December 2008 and January 2009) significantly reduced the chance of another in-flight upset by limiting the time that a faulty ADIRU could output angle of attack spikes. Airbus is also modifying the FCPC software used in the A330/A340 fleets to prevent angle of attack spikes leading to an in-flight upset.

[Philip Argy]

This news story out today about a class action commenced in USA against Airbus as well as Northrop-Grumman (the maker of the ADIRU):
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/20/3015989.htm.

The 'evidence' they apparently plan to use is the second interim ATSB factual report at: http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/1363394/ao2008070_ifr_2.pdf

The action has been filed now before the 2 year statute of limitations expires on 7 October.

[Bernie P]

What I find wierd though is, it has been filed by a US Attorney in a US Court as, under US Law, they can get more compensation. "One thing about US law which is interesting is that you can recover against these manufacturers for psychological injuries," he said.

"Everyone on that plane has experienced some type of trauma. Everybody who has ever flown before knows the feeling in the pit of your stomach when you have turbulence.

"Now think about a plane going into a dive twice, with people flying up into the air, hitting their heads on the overhead bins, carts flying around, the debris.

"Just an absolute state of panic and terror in that aircraft."

Mr Wisner says the statute of limitations in the US is about to expire on the second anniversary on October 7 and after that people will not be able to join the class action.

He says passengers from Australia, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Great Britain are all involved in the action.

He says Airbus wants the case to be heard in Australia, where the law would not allow people to claim anywhere near as much as they can under US law.
Source: - YAHOO (http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/Qantas-passengers-sue-Airbus-abc-4073906941.html)

[Montague S]

What I find wierd though is, it has been filed by a US Attorney in a US Court as, under US Law, they can get more compensation. Source: - YAHOO (http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/Qantas-passengers-sue-Airbus-abc-4073906941.html)


the part in question was manufactured in the US...I think you will find that this is integral to the case.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/

check tomorrow, there was a segment on the case tonight on ABC radio.

[Bernie P]

Ahhh... ok... I hadn't thought of that side of things... I just thought of it being a French AC with an Australian Operator over Australia that it wierd to be heard in a US Court!

[Radi K]

there was a story on the 7.30 report about it too

[Philip Argy]

Access via this link:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2008-070.aspx

[Adam J]

Seems to me that the crew did a great job in dealing with this emergency, both tech Crew and Cabin Staff.

Pilots with a lot of experience between them. Did I read right where it indicated one of the cabin crew had 37 years experience. That is a mighty knock in anyones book. He or she would have started back in the 70's.

I am firmly in the camp that subscribes to the theory that pilots must be and continue to be adequately paid to reflect the huge responsibility they carry each and every time they fly. I am a bloody nervous flyer and I want my pilots well paid and well trained.

Good job

[Philip Argy]

No question - very well handled when they couldn't trust what the instruments were telling them. The fundamental rule was followed - someone needs to fly the plane! And that's exactly what the Captain did while others attended to other duties.

As I commented early in this thread, fly by wire is great until the wire 'breaks'. Hopefully safety critical avionics software will be vastly better in the future as a result of this very conscientious ATSB report - all 313 pages of it.

[Kirk C]

To be honest i think the only ones that can claim for physical injury are ones that were not seated.

Any one that was seated, knows as stated by almost every airline that they have their seat belt on, for this very reason.

[Philip Argy]

Not wearing a seat belt during cruise might be contributory negligence but it is not disentitling, especially given that there had been not a skeric of turbulence.

[Kirk C]

At least 60 of the aircraft’s passengers were seated without their seat belts fastened at the time of the first pitch-down. Consistent with previous in-flight upset accidents, the injury rate, and injury severity, was substantially greater for those who were not seated or seated without their seat belts fastened.
Passengers are routinely reminded every flight to keep their seat belts fastened during flight whenever they are seated, but it appears some passengers routinely do not follow this advice. This investigation provided some insights into the types of passengers who may be more likely not to wear seat belts, but it also identified that there has been very little research conducted into this topic by the aviation industry

[MarkR]

Bit of a look at the human side of the incident

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/good-weekend/the-untold-story-of-qf72-what-happens-when-psycho-automation-leaves-pilots-powerless-20170510-gw26ae.html

Also a good account of the concerns many pilots have of Airbus's computer priorities over humans design.

[Philip Argy]

http://yssyforum.net/board/showpost.php?p=68997&postcount=148 :confused:

[Neil L]

If you have not read Captain Kevin Sullivan book on QF72. I would suggest you get a copy. It is an easy book to read and an amazing story. A very courageous crew