QF 72 Diverted to Learmonth

[Jeff Lane]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.
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/qa...145508283.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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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.../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.