#111
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Philip |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#113
|
||||
|
||||
Article today in "The Australian"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-23349,00.html Quote:
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Is QPA back in SYD?
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Yep, I saw it over at the Jet Base this morning. It's parked north of Hangar 96.
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Would imagine its going to take some time to get the interior repaired.
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Apologies if this photo gallery has been posted before, but I didn't see it:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/larg...013959,00.html Also there's been some media reports that are drawing comparisons to this incident: http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...200503722.aspx |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|