Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Sign in to follow this  
James Gota

Qantas Mayday

Recommended Posts

This is a bit far-fetched. There must be some other more obvious reason.

 

===

 

Speculation laptop use caused Qantas flight plunge

 

October 9, 2008 - 9:53AM

 

Air safety investigators say it is too early to blame passenger laptop computers for causing a Qantas jet to abruptly nose dive on a flight from Singapore to Perth.

 

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

 

The mid-air incident resulted in injuries to 74 people, with 51 of them treated by three hospitals in Perth for fractures, lacerations and suspected spinal injuries.

 

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has said an "irregularity" in one of the plane's computers may have caused the dramatic altitude change which hurled passengers around the cabin.

 

Laptops could have interfered with the plane's on-board computer system, it has been reported.

 

But the bureau says it's too early to make that judgment.

 

A spokeswoman said the bureau had not yet received an update from its investigators at Learmonth, near Exmouth in WA's north, where the plane was forced to land.

 

The flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder had only just arrived at the ATSB's Canberra headquarters and were yet to be analysed.

 

AAP

 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/news/qantas-plu...3145494293.html

 

===

 

From http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/...6-15317,00.html

 

qantas091008pq3.gif

 

Edited by Naim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accident: Qantas A333 near Learmonth on Oct 7th 2008, sudden inflight upset injures 74 people on board

 

By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Oct 9th 2008 06:29Z, last updated Thursday, Oct 9th 2008 06:37Z

 

The Australian Transportation Safety Board (ATSB) said, the airplane actually underwent two inflight abrupt nose down upsets descending 650 and 400 feet.

 

Qantas announced to reimburse all Qantas travel cost on itineries of passengers on flight QF72 enduring the inflight upsets. In addition Qantas offers vouchers in the value of a trip between Australia and Great Britain.

 

The ATSB reported the first results of cockpit voice and flight data recorder analysis. According to the flight data the airplane climbed about 200 feet above its cruise flight level 370, then pitched abruptly down and descended about 650 feet in 20 seconds, then returned to cruise level. The airplane pitched down again and descended 400 feet in about 16 seconds before returning to the assigned cruise level. A detailed analysis of cockpit voice and flight data recorders is in progress to identify the cause of the upsets.

 

The ATSB is currently also recording and photographing cabin damage, removing panels to examine wires for damage prior to restoring power to the aircraft, preparation for downloading data from the aircraft's on-board computerised systems and arranging interviews with the pilots and cabin crew. A survey is prepared which will be sent to all passengers. The injured passengers will be interviewed to understand the events in the cabin. Passengers with information about the accident are encouraged to contact the ATSB at atsbinfo@atsb.gov.au.

 

http://avherald.com/h?article=40de5374/0001

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They seem to be pursuing this angle in earnest now.

 

===

 

Aviation: was it a laptop WiFi that caused Qantas plane to drop?

Aviation Thursday 09 October 2008

 

Whilst we would hesitate to call the Discovery Channel programme "Mythbusters" authoritative, when they tested electronics and aircraft avionics, stuff that tells the pilot what do do went haywire. Now Australian investigators are wondering if a WiFi device on the Airbus plane that behaved strangely might have been at the root of the problem.

 

Do you remember when you were not allowed to use any electronics on a plane? At one point, we even had to take the batteries out of our phones. Then the rules changed, and it was said that it was OK so long as you didn't do it on take-off or landing and didn't use a phone or other communications device at any time.

 

That would include even cameras with bluetooth.

 

But of course, since those rules were changed, so has technology, and simply banning phones does not ban all communications devices. For these days many games devices and almost all laptops come with WiFi. Turn it on, and you are on the air.

 

It is the question of mobile phones upsetting the avionics - and control systems - that has kept mobile phones off planes until recently - although seemingly many passengers have their phones turned on judging by the number of in-flight camera-phone videos that keep cropping up on the internet.

 

Australian investigators are now contacting everyone who was on the plane that suffered extreme and unpredictable activity on approach to Western Australia. The flight data recorders (the orange boxes that are called "black boxes") have been opened and initial investigation indicates that turbulence was not the root cause of the problem.

 

Falling back onto the "computer glitch" theory first posited, the investigators, and Airbus, point out that A330s fly millions of miles each year and if there was a "glitch" in the software, then it is not logical to assume that it would have waited until now to happen.

 

The pilots have admitted that there was a period during the rapid rise and subsequent dive that they did not have control of the aircraft. Seemingly, the problem just went away.

 

http://chiefofficers.net/888333888/cms/ind...s_plane_to_drop

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WiFi......dunno guys..... During the Man Utd Charters the players were playing the PSPs against each other while seated all over the airplane. No issue at all.

 

I'm pretty sure any pilots who have flow FBW a/c must have gone through at least a fleeting moment of unexplained anomaly and will feel ;

 

"what's it doing?"

"why is it doing it?"

"what's it gonna do next?"

 

Most of the time the anomaly may clear itself after a reset and will not ever happen again, leaving the Pilot thinking " why did it happen?"

 

Just like computers, brainy FBW aircraft may develop a mind of its own.... If i was the one in the left seat of the QF A330, I will be fairly traumatised as i did not understand why the plane did what it did, and how it later returned to normal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overcorrection? Now we are getting somewhere rather than beating around the (wireless) bush!

 

===

 

Qantas jet's plunge sparks speculation about pilot over-correction on flight to Perth

 

Debbie Guest and Geoffrey Thomas | October 11, 2008

 

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.

 

Investigators from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said yesterday there was no evidence of pilot error but they were examining data transfer between pilots and onboard equipment.

 

In 1996 a Singapore Airlines A340-300 -- which has an identical cockpit to the A330 -- suffered a "severe upset" over central Australia after crew inadvertently switched the hydraulic pumps off, forcing the aircraft to pitch up. A violent plunge followed when both pilots took a corrective action simultaneously.

 

According to an Airbus pilot who spoke to The Weekend Australian, the Airbus flight computers algebraically assess information, and if both pilots take the same action in an emergency situation, often due to instinct, the effects can be doubled.

 

This is exacerbated by the cockpit layout, in which the pilots' joysticks are positioned at either side of the cabin; at the left hand of the captain, and the right of the co-pilot.

 

In the Singapore Airlines case, according to the Airbus pilot, both pilots pushed forward on their joysticks to correct the jet's altitude. The pilot said another airline had suffered a similar upset in the late 1990s, where dual pilot input doubled the effect of the downward pitch motion.

 

In the 1996 incident, nine passengers and three crew were injured, and like the Qantas incident, the emergency was originally reported to be caused by turbulence.

 

The bureau's Aviation Safety Investigation director Julian Walsh described the event as very complex. "As far as we can understand, there seems to be issues with some on-board components. Further examination of the auto-pilot system, data sources used by flight control computers and the flight control computers themselves, along with interaction of the flight crew with the aircraft's systems is necessary to achieve a better understanding of the event," he said.

 

Qantas would not comment on whether a double input could have contributed to the emergency and said all maintenance checks were up to date.

 

Australian Manufacturing Workers Union national secretary Dave Oliver said members were very concerned about damage to the airline's reputation.

 

Mr Ellett said he would soon be back on the route. "It could have happened to any airline," he said.

 

Additional reporting: Nicola Berkovic

 

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

 

Just like computers, brainy FBW aircraft may develop a mind of its own.... If i was the one in the left seat of the QF A330, I will be fairly traumatised as i did not understand why the plane did what it did, and how it later returned to normal.

'Ghosts in the Machine' or the infamous, mischievous 'Gremlin'... :rolleyes:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.... If i was the one in the left seat of the QF A330, I will be fairly traumatised as i did not understand why the plane did what it did, and how it later returned to normal.

 

Pare, they said it's a one in a millionth chance for it to happen....yeah right!!!

If it happens to you while on the left seat, I am sure you too can handle the machine.

 

As far as the aircraft systems are concern, engineers and tech experts can come up with theories and recommendations bcoz machines don't have feelings.

For us humans, it is the "after effects" that can be annoying.

 

So, be prepared for:

-higher than normal stress levels,

-over a month of "Sleepless nights in Seremban",

-stretch of nightmares,

-insomniac moments,

-jittery feelings when boarding planes and simulators,

-keep forgetting your simple daily routines like brushing teeth, answering phone calls, locking doors, etc...,

-driving to a destination you didn't plan,

-occasional flashes of the event when dreaming of Maria Karin, Pretty Zinta, and the rest...hehehe

-etc, etc...

Lets pray to the Almighty it will not happen to anyone of us here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pare, they said it's a one in a millionth chance for it to happen....yeah right!!!

If it happens to you while on the left seat, I am sure you too can handle the machine.

As far as the aircraft systems are concern, engineers and tech experts can come up with theories and recommendations bcoz machines don't have feelings.

For us humans, it is the "after effects" that can be annoying.

 

So, be prepared for:

-higher than normal stress levels,

-over a month of "Sleepless nights in Seremban",

-stretch of nightmares,

-insomniac moments,

-jittery feelings when boarding planes and simulators,

-keep forgetting your simple daily routines like brushing teeth, answering phone calls, locking doors, etc...,

-driving to a destination you didn't plan,

-occasional flashes of the event when dreaming of Maria Karin, Pretty Zinta, and the rest...hehehe

-etc, etc...

Lets pray to the Almighty it will not happen to anyone of us here.

 

I can only theorize on what I'll do should the one in a million chance happen to me when I'm on the left seat, ....but you have gone through it and brought the pax and plane safely. You've earned your lifetime's pay on that single occasion.

 

A Pilot's job is a continous routine of almost absolute boredom interrupted by one short moment of sheer terror. You've had your share. I hope I'll never have mine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pare, they said it's a one in a millionth chance for it to happen....yeah right!!!

If it happens to you while on the left seat, I am sure you too can handle the machine.

 

You have done extremely well under such difficult conditions, cap'n. I'd even be traumatised if my car's radiator leaks in the middle of Federal Highway!

 

Btw, I'm a pseudo-technologist, so air incidences like these always intrigue me.

 

-occasional flashes of the event when dreaming of Maria Karin, Pretty Zinta, and the rest...hehehe

-etc, etc...

Lets pray to the Almighty it will not happen to anyone of us here.

 

You mean this gal? :D

 

img4353xn5.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You mean this gal? :D

 

 

 

If she's on board my aircraft, I won't allow her to use her hand phone....unless she's calling me...hehe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If she's on board my aircraft, I won't allow her to use her hand phone....unless she's calling me...hehe

 

You might prefer her Kota Bharu version, but sorry we are digressing ...

 

img4283qc9.jpg

 

===

 

 

Autopilot fault considered in Qantas emergency probe

11th October 2008, 9:00 WST

 

Air-safety experts are examining the possibility a faulty autopilot was responsible for a Qantas flight between Singapore and Perth rapidly nosediving twice.

 

Early investigations have failed to find evidence that pilot error or interference from a laptop computer or mobile phone contributed to the terrifying incident.

 

Australian Transport Safety Bureau aviation safety director Julian Walsh said yesterday “good data” had been retrieved from the Airbus A330-300 jet, which made an emergency landing with 303 passengers and 10 crew at Learmonth Airport, near Exmouth, on Tuesday afternoon.

 

More than 70 people were hurt in the incident, including 20 seriously, as they were thrown violently around the cabin when QF72 suddenly lost altitude about 170km north of Carnarvon.

 

In three minutes, the plane rose once and fell twice across a range of 850 feet as it cruised on autopilot at 37,000 feet.

 

Mr Walsh said it was unlikely the use of a mobile phone or laptop could harm the plane but passengers would be quizzed on whether they had been using them.

 

“There is no evidence at this stage to indicate that the use of portable electronic devices used by passengers contributed to the event,” he said.

 

“There are certainly these type of devices used commonly on all aircraft every day . . . looking back over the last seven or eight years we’ve got one or two reports where people believe it possible those devices may have caused some thing, but nothing we’re aware of that has caused something serious like this.”

 

Mr Walsh also discounted pilot error, saying cockpit data had shown the captain reacted correctly when the plane began its wild ride.

 

“The aircraft has certainly pitched down without any input from the pilots and the pilots have responded to that very quickly, within seconds,” he said.

 

It was first thought that the plane had hit severe turbulence but Mr Walsh said there was no significant weather associated with the incident

 

The plane appeared to comply with airworthiness rules but a key part of the investigation would be whether the autopilot had malfunctioned and turned itself on and off, he said.

 

Mr Walsh said the plane would remain grounded at Learmonth for at least another day while investigators completed their work and it could be flown to France for the manufacturer to examine.

 

ANDREW TILLETT

CANBERRA

 

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?Men...ontentID=102182

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i want to tell them is not to employ so many managers and start using the money to employ matinence workers in aus so there will be no controversy and stop using SIA even though its great SIA always gets most of the blame. So Qf should start doing quality maintenece at aus so it can be the world's safest airline :drinks:

I'm not trying to offened SIA

 

cmon qantas, which speculation is right? you pointing here and there. can i trust qantas?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Computer error behind Qantas midair drama

 

Authorities have blamed a faulty onboard computer system for last week's mid-flight incident on a Qantas flight to Perth.

 

Preliminary investigations have found the fault originated in the main onboard computer system which caused other system failures.

 

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) says incorrect flight information was transmitted to the auto-pilot computer, causing the aircraft to pitch upwards for 200 feet before dropping twice by more than 1,000 feet.

 

More than 70 people were injured on the flight, when the plane suddenly lost altitude while flying from Singapore to Perth and was forced to make an emergency landing near Exmouth.

 

At a news conference in Canberra tonight, the Bureau identified the plane's air data inertial system as the cause of the problem.

 

The Bureau says the incident was unique.

 

Airbus has now issued guidelines for crews of all of its aircraft explaining the cause of the incident and how to manage it if it happens again.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10...ction=australia

 

===

 

ATSB

MEDIA RELEASE

 

2008/43

 

Qantas Airbus A330 accident Media Conference

 

14 October 2008

 

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau's investigation into the accident involving an Airbus A330-300 aircraft operating as Qantas flight 72 on a flight from Singapore to Perth on 7 October 2008 is progressing well. The ATSB has scheduled the media conference this evening to coincide with the release of an Operators Information Telex/Flight Operations Telex, which is being sent by Airbus to operators of all Airbus aircraft. The aim of that telex is to:

 

. update operators on the factors identified to date that led to the accident involving QF72,

. provide operational recommendations to mitigate risk in the event of a reoccurrence of the situation which occurred on QF72.

 

To assist in understanding the following information, I would just like to refer you quickly to the diagrams projected on the screen specifically, the term angle of attack which refers to the difference in angle between the aircraft and its control surfaces, and the air stream as the aircraft moves through the air.

 

The next diagram is a simple representation of the aircraft and the components relevant to this explanation, which include the angle of attack sensors located on the outside of the aircraft, the Air Data Inertial Reference Units (ADIRUs), of which there are three, located in the avionics compartment inside the aircraft, the Flight Control Primary Computers of which there are also three located in the avionics compartment, and the elevators, located on the aircrafts horizontal stabiliser. In the context of this occurrence, the angle of attack sensors send raw data to the ADIRUs, which provide processed angle of attack information to the Flight Control Primary Computers, which in turn command the elevator position.

 

Returning to the circumstances of the 7 October flight, preliminary analysis of the Flight Data Recorder data, Post Flight Report data and Built-in Test Equipment data has enabled the investigation to establish a preliminary sequence of events this information is also contained in the Airbus telex.

 

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.

 

Meanwhile, the ATSB's investigation is ongoing and will include:

 

. Download of data from the aircraft's three ADIRUs and detailed examination and analysis of that data. Arrangements are currently being made for the units to be sent to the component manufacturer's facilities in the US as soon as possible and for ATSB investigators to attend and help with that testing, along with representatives from the US National Transportation Safety Board, The French Bureau dEnquêtes et dAnalyses (BEA) and Airbus.

. In addition, investigators have been conducting a detailed review of the aircraft's maintenance history, including checking on compliance with relevant Airworthiness Directives, although initial indications are that the aircraft met the relevant airworthiness requirements.

. Work is also ongoing to progress interviews, which will include with injured passengers to understand what occurred in the aircraft cabin. The ATSB plans to distribute a survey to all passengers.

 

There has been close and frequent communication between the ATSB, Qantas, Airbus, the BEA, and CASA. That close communication will continue as the investigation progresses to ensure that any additional safety action can be instigated as soon as possible should critical safety factors be identified. The ATSB expects to publish a Preliminary Factual report in about 30 days from the date of the accident.

 

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

 

Edited by Naim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that Capt Norhisham's MH124 case in 2005 gets special mention here. :D

 

----

 

Beware computer malfunction: Airbus

 

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.

 

"The crew's timely response led to the recovery of the aircraft trajectory within seconds," ATSB air safety investigations director Julian Walsh said last night.

 

"During the recovery the maximum altitude loss was 650ft. 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."

 

The faulty unit continued to generate random spikes after the first drop, causing the plane to pitch down a second time about 70 seconds later, although not as badly. This is the first time an Airbus aircraft has been affected by a problem with this type of unit but it is the second incident involving an ADIRU on a plane travelling to or from Perth.

 

A global alert was issued in 2005 after a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 en-route to Kuala Lumpur from Perth experienced similar problems.

 

Investigators found a software glitch in a unit made by the same US manufacturer as the one in the Qantas plane combined with a mechanical problem.

 

The findings quash any suggestion of pilot error.

 

 

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/...9-15306,00.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exmouth base linked to Airbus incident

 

16th October 2008, 6:00 WST

 

 

 

 

 

 

Air safety investigators are examining concerns that electro-magnetic interference from a top secret US base at Exmouth could have sparked an emergency aboard a Qantas flight from Singapore to Perth earlier this month in which almost 70 people were injured.

 

It is understood the Australian Transport Safety Bureau will look into claims that transmissions from the Harold E Holt base caused a computer malfunction on QF72 which caused the Airbus A330-300 to climb unexpectedly before diving twice.

 

The base, which was set up by the Americans at the height of the Cold War, acts as a communications relay station for US and Australian submarines in the southern hemisphere.

 

The signals station is said to be one of the most powerful of its kind and its main mast, known as Tower Zero, is taller than the Empire State building.

 

It is known that fears about the possible effects of transmissions from the base on aircraft have been raised before and the ATSB has now factored those concerns into the wider incident investigation.

 

The ATSB said on Tuesday night it had narrowed the cause of the accident down to a fault in one of the Airbus’s complicated computer systems, known as Air Data Inertial Reference Unit, though investigators admit they remain clueless as to the specific cause.

 

Revelations the ADIRU was at the centre of the scare led to claims the accident may have links to a similar event involving a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 flight between Kuala Lumpur and Perth in August 2005 also involving a fault in the ADIRU.

 

However, it is thought the ATSB has ruled out any connection between the two events, as the problem in that case was traced to a specific software fault in the system.

 

But Capt. Mike Glynn, vice-president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, said it was unusual that computer faults had occurred in two different ADIRUs on two different aircraft in the same region of WA.

 

Capt. Glynn, a Qantas pilot who flies the A330, said he had thought about the possibility transmissions from the US signal station could interfere with complex aircraft computers, but admitted he knew little about the base or its operations.

 

“It’s a very strange coincidence … it’s something I can’t discount,” he said.

 

NICK BUTTERLY

CANBERRA

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting more interesting as a US Naval base comm system is now implicated.

 

====

 

US tests on false data sent on Qantas jet over WA

 

Steve Creedy | October 17, 2008

 

US testing may shed light on what made a Qantas Airbus A330-300 pitch downward last week.

 

AIR Safety investigators are hoping US testing will reveal why a unit that supplies key information to flight control computers suddenly prompted the dive.

 

While the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has quickly worked out a sequence of events for Qantas Flight 72 as it twice pitched down over the north of Western Australia, it still does not know why an air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU) started sending false data about parameters such as airspeed and angle of attack.

 

This has kept alive speculation about interference from laptops, mobile phones and even the Harold E. Holt Naval Communications Base at Exmouth.

 

Investigators determined that the main culprit in last week's incident was false information provided by the ADIRU about the plane's angle of attack, theangle of the wing relative toitsmotion through the atmosphere.

 

This resulted in the autopilot disconnecting and prompted flight control computers to pitch the plane's nose downwards.

 

Fast action by the crew limited the extent of the plane's fall to 650ft in the first nosedive and 400ft in the second.

 

But that was not before more than 70 people were injured, 14 of them seriously, as they were thrown around the cabin.

 

The jet, which has since returned to Sydney, diverted to Learmonth and those badly injured were airlifted to Perth by the Royal Flying Doctor Service.

 

The incident is the first of its kind in an Airbus plane and prompted the European manufacturer to issue a global alert to operators setting out procedures pilots should follow, including isolating the faulty unit, in the event of a recurrence.

 

"The information we have at hand indicates this is a fairly unique event," ATSB air safety investigation director Julian Walsh said this week. "These aircraft have been operating over many hundreds of thousands of hours over many years and this type of event has not been seen before."

 

Mr Walsh said he believed a recurrence was unlikely but stopped short of dismissing the possibility.

 

"Obviously it is important for the investigation to find out what led to those readings in the ADIRU so we can reduce the chance of it happening in the future," he said. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has also accepted Airbus assurances that the A330 can operate safely with the new procedures.

 

Both Qantas and Jetstar operate A330s. Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said yesterday that CASA was keeping a close eye on the investigation.

 

He said the Government would ensure any necessary safety action was taken.

 

"This appears to be an isolated incident and CASA accepts the manufacturer's recommendations which will ensure these aircraft can continue to fly safely," Mr Albanese said.

 

There are three ADIRUs on an A330-300 and each has two components.

 

Sensors supply the air data computer with raw data such as airspeed, pressure, altitude and angle of attack, and processes the information before sending it to the flight control primary computers. An inertial reference unit measures acceleration and positional information.

 

The ATSB found one of the units, ADIRU-1, generated "very high, random and incorrect values" about the aircraft's angle of attack. This prompted the flight control computers to pitch the aircraft's nose down by about 8.5 degrees in the first dive and about 3.5 degrees in the second.

 

The first sign of trouble came as the airliner was flying normally at 37,000ft with the autopilot and autothrust system engaged. An inertial reference system fault in ADIRU-1 prompted the autopilot to disconnect, prompting the crew to take over manually.

 

The aircraft gently climbed about 200ft before the auto-pilot was re-engaged and the aircraft returned to cruise level.

 

Investigators say that disconnecting the autopilot on the A330 does not take the flight control computers out of the loop because they can still command control surfaces -- including the elevator, a moveable panel on the horizontal stabiliser that controls pitch -- to protect the aircraft from unsafe conditions.

 

The faulty ADIRU continued to feed incorrect data to the flight computer, prompting false stall and overspeed warnings as well as several electronic centralised aircraft monitoring warnings.

 

"The autopilot was then disengaged again and then it was about a minute or so later that the spike values within the ADIRU that we can see on the flight data recorder were occurring," Mr Walsh said. "And when those spikes were occurring was when the aircraft pitched itself down.

 

"There were a number of values that were incorrect, so there were some erratic values on things like airspeed as well, but the angle of attack is the one that caused the particular problem."

 

Mr Walsh praised the crew, saying their timely response led to a recovery of the aircraft trajectory within seconds and limited the altitude loss.

 

Asked if they were lucky, he said: "I don't know that they were lucky. The crew essentially disconnected this system so they have done what was appropriate in the circumstances and once the system was disconnected the aircraft was able to fly."

 

Mr Walsh said the aircraft had essentially been flying at the right cruising level with the correct angle of attack and speed.

 

"Because of the fault within the ADIRU it indicated to the flight control computer that angle of attack of the aircraft was higher, and so the flight computer considered that it needed to nose the aircraft over to counteract the high angle of attack," he said.

 

The ATSB's investigation will include detailed examination of data downloaded from the A330's three ADIRUs.

 

The units are also heading back to manufacturer Northrop Grumman in the US for further testing under the oversight of investigators from the ATSB, the US National Transportation Safety Board, France's Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses and Airbus.

 

"What we need to understand is what caused the spike to occur and obviously part of the process," he said. "What is important to look at, is how to stop that sort of event developing." Surprisingly for such a rare event, this is the ATSB's second investigation involving an ADIRU and the second incident involving a plane travelling to and from Perth.

 

This has prompted the theory about the US naval base, even though investigators already know the cause of the earlier incident.

 

In that case, a global alert was issued by authorities in 2005 after a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 en route to Kuala Lumpur from Perth suffered ADIRU problems.

 

The ATSB has confirmed the Boeing unit came from a different manufacturer.

 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/busin...0-36418,00.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Qantas flight between Brisbane and Adelaide landed safely last night without using air brakes because of a problem with the wing flaps.

 

Flight QF665 made a safe landing in Adelaide at about 10:00pm ACDT.

 

Brian Mumford was a passenger and said the pilot announced that the landing would be faster than usual.

 

"He said, 'Just relax, don't worry about it, everything's under control'," he said.

 

"And once we landed, it was very fast. They just had to use their brakes to pull us up on the wheels only.

 

Safe landing despite Qantas flap problem

 

"And then the fire brigade were around us to make sure there was no fire on the brakes.

 

Pilot explained

Mr Mumford said the pilot then explained the problem to passengers.

 

"He let us know that they had no flaps. They couldn't get the flaps down to land, you know, for the air brakes," he said.

 

He said most passengers did not appear worried.

 

"Everyone was calm and relaxed as if there was nothing happening - my wife was in my pocket," he said.

 

Qantas responded to inquiries today with a statement, saying there was a flap indication issue which was rectified before landing.

 

It said the flaps were left up as a precaution, which is a standard procedure.

 

Qantas said there was no safety concern at any stage.

 

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/5098606

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qantas chief defends maintenance record

Posted 1 hour 24 minutes ago

Updated 1 hour 21 minutes ago

 

The head of Qantas says he stands by the airline's maintenance record despite another two mid-air equipment failures.

 

A Qantas flight from Los Angeles to Sydney has been forced to 'piggyback' an Air New Zealand plane after its weather radar failed.

 

And a Sydney-bound flight was forced to make an emergency landing in Melbourne this afternoon because of problems with its landing gear indicators.

 

Geoff Dixon says he believes recent incidents, including one in Western Australia in which scores of people were injured when a Qantas airbus suddenly lost altitude, were not the airline's fault.

 

"Those two major incidents look like they were more to do with the manufacture of the aircraft or parts of the aircraft than anything to do with Qantas' maintenance," he said.

 

"I don't think that that's a well known fact and as you know once something gets out there it's always hard to take it back."

 

From http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/29/2404980.htm

 

Plane most likely Boeing 747-400 ? :help: Any Details ?

 

Qantas flight with faulty antenna "piggybacked" by Air New Zealand planeFont Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print By Justin Vallejo | October 29, 2008

A QANTAS flight was forced to "piggyback" an Air New Zealand plane and divert to Auckland after its weather antenna stopped working three hours out of Los Angeles.

 

In the latest Qantas incident, over 280 passengers on board flight QF 12 arrived in Sydney four hours late today after repairs to the aircraft in New Zealand.

 

In a rare and extraordinary sight, passengers earlier awoke to a high-altitude dawn with a close-up view of the Air New Zealand jet off their left wing.

 

A Qantas spokesman said passengers were not in danger and the flight continued in safety to New Zealand.

 

"The weather antenna wasn't working to their full satisfaction,'' the spokesman said.

 

"They chose the safest option to divert to Auckland, which had preferable weather to other diversion options, coupled with the fact the Air New Zealand plane was there to provide guidance.

 

"The aircraft were vertically separated at all time and governed by air traffic control.''

 

The Air New Zealand flight was 35km away from the Qantas plane when the captain made radio contact asking for assistance.

 

The two planes came within a couple of thousand feet of each other as weather updates from the Air New Zealand flight were relayed across radio to the Qantas plane.

 

From http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...3-26103,00.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/29/2404980.htm

 

Plane most likely Boeing 747-400 ? :help: Any Details ?

 

Qantas flight with faulty antenna "piggybacked" by Air New Zealand planeFont Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print By Justin Vallejo | October 29, 2008

 

See my earlier post:

 

http://www.malaysianwings.com/forum/index....showtopic=10679

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...