Computer Error Caused Qantas Jet Mishap 389
highways sends word that preliminary investigations into a Qantas Airbus A330 mishap where 51 passengers were injured has concluded that it was due to the Air Data Inertial Reference System feeding incorrect information into the flight control system — not interference from passenger electronics, as Qantas had initially claimed. Quoting from the ABC report: "Authorities have blamed a faulty onboard computer system for last week's mid-flight incident on a Qantas flight to Perth. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said incorrect information from the faulty computer triggered a series of alarms and then prompted the Airbus A330's flight control computers to put the jet into a 197-meter nosedive ... The plane was cruising at 37,000 feet when a fault in the air data inertial reference system caused the autopilot to disconnect. But even with the autopilot off, the plane's flight control computers still command key controls in order to protect the jet from dangerous conditions, such as stalling, the ATSB said."
uhh huhs (Score:5, Insightful)
well duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Been there, done that (Score:5, Insightful)
put the jet into a 197-meter nosedive.
I've been in nose dives before.. it's awesome fun. Everyone is screaming and the assholes who refuse to keep their seatbelt fastened while seated quickly learn the *reason* why they request you to do this.
People pay good money for this experience [gozerog.com], and with a little malfunction or two they give it to you for free. When you throw in the fact that you could very well be experiencing the last few minutes of your short pathetic little life - you can't get a better adrenaline rush.
Re:well duh (Score:4, Insightful)
The airlines dont ban those items.
Re:Thanks, I'll pass on that flight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Questions: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Questions: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thanks, I'll pass on that flight... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting the way people rationalize things isn't it?
Statistically, you are far more likely to die in a car on the way to work than you are in a commercial passenger aircraft. Statistically, the computer system in a commercial passenger aircraft is far less likely to fsck things up than a human pilot (although that's saying nothing about the _size_ of the fsckup, should one occur...)
I drive around 600km a week in my car. A lot of that is spent at 110km/hour on a freeway, and at 100km/hour along some reasonably windy and hilly roads. I often think about the ways that such an activity could end rather badly for me, but it doesn't worry me greatly.
In about a week though I'm going to be getting onto an airplane for the first time in about 28 years, and the thought of it has me a little nervous - far more so than driving a car which is, statistically speaking, far more dangerous.
A car crash here in Australia will often make the news, possibly only locally unless more than a few people lost their lives. A plane crash of any reasonable size will make the news world wide, and will probably continue to do so for weeks after the event. The Quantas Airbus 'mishap' didn't kill anyone, and the majority of the passengers have probably mostly healed whatever injuries they did sustain by now, and yet here in Australia the incident still makes the news daily. The logical part of your brain should tell you that that is a comforting thing - it's so unusual that it is still newsworthy a week later. The less logical parts of your brain though are constantly reminded that while safe, air travel is not 100% safe.
For me I think the difference is the time I will have to contemplate things should something go wrong. In a car, the time between the realization of error (mine or someone elses) and things ending badly is going to be measured in seconds. In an airplane, the time between when I realize that things are not as they should be and the time when I won't be thinking anymore could be measured in minutes. That is a pretty chilling thought for me...
Re:Questions: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Questions: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does Qantas' aircraft maintenance suck or does Airbus' quality control suck? Do both suck?
Australia is big, really big. I leave Sydney heading north, watch one full length movie, have a snooze, watch another full length movie then flick over to the map and get depressed... I have watched the only two decent films on offer, am already sick of the flight to Europe but I still have not even left Aussie borders. So with that in mind, my money is on Airbus's unit testing that sucks. Qantas is more than likely just the beta tester who runs the most miles.
Imperial or metric, choose one (Score:2, Insightful)
Jeez. Would it be too hard to pick one measurement system and stick with it? FYI, 37000 feet = 11 277.6 meters
-1 Flamebait (Score:1, Insightful)
Queerarse
Is it really necessary to use this term?
Re:Questions: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still one of the best aviation flight safety (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't forget the spin (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense. The air is thin but not THAT thin. B-29 Superfortresses routinely flew at that height, via human piloting. You don't "need" an autopilot.
>
>>>incorrect information... prompted flight control computers to put the jet into a 197-meter nosedive.
Nice. I hear that car manufacturers want to include similar accident-avoidance measures in cars. That's just what I need - my car's old computer going senile, and suddenly swerving me head-on into oncoming traffic.
Re:Don't forget the spin (Score:5, Insightful)
If you need an autopilot to keep the airplane from stalling, then yes, you probably have a stall within seconds after disconnecting the autopilot. And in a stall situation you have no lift from the wings, therefore the plane will immediately and rapidly lose altitude. Modern Airbus and Boeing are engineered to dive forward in these cases, so the stall is self-limiting in the sense that the aircraft will fall until the air is denser or airspeed is higher to let the wings generate lift again thus recovering from the stall.
The resulting forces are well within design limits of current airframes but may seriously injure passengers that had not used their seatbelts or were walking around at this moment.
Re:Something similar (Score:3, Insightful)
That sounds unlikely to me. The autopilot is generally not engaged until a few minutes after takeoff. Even if it disengaged suddenly during a stable ascent, there is no reason for the plane to suddenly start falling out of the sky. (That would be a stall, and commercial airliners have so many stall warning devices that it requires some truly extraordinary circumstances to stall one.)
In any event, if your airliner was stalled for a good ten seconds, you would have lost several thousands of feet and would probably no longer be around to complain about it.
It is actually far more likely that a small plane blundered into the flight path or the airliner and forced a temporary altitude change to avoid him (Happens all the time...there is significant tension between the airlines and GA pilots for this reason).
What information do you have that makes you believe the pilot was lying?
Re:Been there, done that (Score:4, Insightful)
Astronauts in orbit are falling also but yet experiencing what is commonly referred to as "zero-G".
Sorry to get in the way of your.. whatever
Re:Don't forget the spin (Score:5, Insightful)
No. I am a pilot, and you are confusing 37000 feet with 56000 feet. At the altitude where the U-2 flys, over 3 miles higher than 37000 feet, the stall and maximum allowable speeds are nearly on top of each other.
At 37000 feet you have a wide margin of speed available between stall and cruise. What gets closer together is the airplane's top cruise speed and the Mach limit.
The dive after autopilot disconnect is crap; the airplane should be trimmed for level flight by the autopilot to save fuel and system wear.
The dirty secret about airbus airplanes is that the autopilot is never really disconnected; the flight computers will always play 'nanny'. In this case, the computer got 'vertigo' and said 'ZOMG we're too steep', slammed the plane around to keep up speed. Wrong move by the wrong system. If the autopilot disconnects, the airplane should hand control to the pilots, not try to tear the plane apart.
Looking at the article, people suffered spine damage as a result of the (improper) maneuver. Considering that one Airbus aircraft has had a tail fall off in flight due to stress cracking, I'd wonder if this airplane hadn't exceeded it's structural G-force limits during the computer's unscheduled aerobatics.
Re:Don't forget the spin (Score:5, Insightful)
The flight crew adamantly demands a shut off my iPod shuffle, which has the EM characteristics of a wristwatch. I will continue to ignore them.
Re:Don't forget the spin (Score:1, Insightful)
This is why we have regulations such as 14CFR91.21 [gpo.gov] and policies that below 10,000 AGL, you may not operate any instruments.
Ok so let me get this straight.
When taking off or landing, the airplane is passing through airspace that is positively chock full of not only cell phone RF, but RFI from everything else like power lines, microwaves, home electronics, wireless access points, etc.
And you expect me to believe that a single cell phone on the plane itself poses a danger, but only at low altitudes?
Give me a break.
If there was anything to these rumors we'd have airplanes crashing on takeoffs and landings like clockwork. Not to mention anytime they happened to intersect with a microwave relay transmitter or high powered satellite downlink.
Use your brains people.
Re:Don't forget the spin (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't forget the spin (Score:3, Insightful)
i think this was a prudent policy when portable electronics and wireless devices first became popular. planes were operated by complex & high tech machinery, and they had not been tested against such EM interference. it would have been foolish to allow such devices to be operated on a plane before studying the interaction between these devices and airplane equipment.
however, it's now 2008. the "we don't know what might happen, so let's just ban all electronic devices" attitude is no longer acceptable. FAA or NTSB should have conducted research into the safety of using such devices on planes. flight equipment regulations should have been updated to ensure safe operation in an environment with active wireless/electronic devices. and if needed, cellphone, laptop, and other wireless device manufacturers could be required to test the EM output of their products to determine whether they pose a significant risk of interfering with other electronic equipment.
these studies have to be done eventually, and frankly they've been put off for much too long already. there's absolutely no reason why we can't determine once and for all whether consumer electronics pose a threat to passenger planes.
Re:Don't forget the spin (Score:2, Insightful)
And you'll have your iPod forcibly taken away and disabled, you'll get to finish the flight duct taped to the chair, and arrested on landing. The flight crews authority is pretty much absolute, complain once the flight is over, write letters to the FAA/NASA/TSB but when they give you an instruction you would be extremely foolish to ignore it.
Re:Don't forget the spin (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the difference? Wouldn't an aluminum gate be just as busted as a fiberglass one if a car ran through it fast enough to shatter the fiberglass?