Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Qantas 333 Incident!  
User currently offlinePlairbus From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 311 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 19492 times:

I have a question, the Australian Aviation office... said that the incident was caused by a software problem. That the Autopilot was turned off by the system and that all airlines that have the Airbus 332 and 333 in they fleet got the information. What means that, that all the Airbusses 332 and 333 flying around has to be grounded for a software check?
Thanks for any info!

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19240 times:

Do you have a source? According to the ATSB it was, most likely, a bad #1 ADIRU that sent incorrect flight data to the FCCs.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...antas-a330-to-descend-sharply.html

[Edited 2008-10-14 13:31:54]

User currently offlineRamzi From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 535 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19240 times:

Certainly not. The warning would probably inform pilots to pay attention to this issue, assuming of course that A- it is true and B- it is actualy a A330 defect, not an issue on one of the thousand A330s.


There will come a time when you believe everything is finished - that will be the beginning.
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5727 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19144 times:

I don't know what did or did not cause this incident, but if it's as the original poster suggested, it wouldn't be the first time.
There was an incident with a 777 a few years ago, whereby they lost pitch authority for some time, lost altitude, and were then able to level off and land somewhere. It was faulty software, and the worldwide fleet had to have a software update pronto.
Sounds like Microsoft must have gotten into the aviation software business!


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19116 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 1):

I thought that large long-range aircraft mostly have three ADIRUs in order to determine which one has a fault (assuming only one is faulty at a time). What could have happened?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19034 times:



Quoting A342 (Reply 4):
I thought that large long-range aircraft mostly have three ADIRUs in order to determine which one has a fault (assuming only one is faulty at a time). What could have happened?

They do have 3 ADIRUs. However, I am not sure just what the 330's architecture is. In addition, the ELAC and FACs get inputs from the ADIRU and FMGS. So, it will take further investigation to see just what FCC acted up. I seriously doubt it was a software issue, more likely a hardware issue.


User currently offlineChrisrad From Australia, joined Dec 2000, 1068 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18890 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 3):
There was an incident with a 777 a few years ago, whereby they lost pitch authority for some time, lost altitude, and were then able to level off and land somewhere. It was faulty software, and the worldwide fleet had to have a software update pronto.

Malaysia Airlines 772, ironically from Perth.....
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...ports/2005/AAIR/aair200503722.aspx



Welcome aboard Malaysia Airlines! Winner of Best Cabin Staff 2001,2002,2003,2004,2007,2009,2012
User currently offlinePlairbus From Germany, joined Feb 2008, 311 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18752 times:

Yes, i just readit in the german newspaper. They said that this caused the problem and they also said that they send and advice to every airline having the Airbus 332 and 333 in operation. I am going to fly with Air Europa and the 332 from Cun-Mad so I was just wondering how they will handle this. Thanks....

User currently offlineOlympic472 From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 456 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 16484 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 3):
Sounds like Microsoft must have gotten into the aviation software business!

 Wow! I hope not! They did get into the IFE system though.



Civil Aviation has a "Need for Speed"!
User currently offlineJetA380 From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 16391 times:

Infomation released today by the ATSB in Australian news, is that the problem was false information from an air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU) fed "very high, random and incorrect values". 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. This caused a maximum 650ft dive.

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.

As stated above, this problem also occurred in the 2005 Malaysia Airlines 772 incident.


http://www.australianit.news.com.au/...ory/0,25197,24499849-15306,00.html


User currently offlineNwarooster From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1066 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 15082 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Unfortunately in today's computer operated aircraft, manual reversion in which the pilot can totally control the aircraft are gone. The computers control the aircraft and the pilot goes for the ride. Hopefully, the pilot can manage to make the computer system cooperate in an emergency.  old 

User currently offlineVivekman2006 From India, joined May 2006, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 15008 times:



Quoting Nwarooster (Reply 11):
Unfortunately in today's computer operated aircraft, manual reversion in which the pilot can totally control the aircraft are gone. The computers control the aircraft and the pilot goes for the ride.

But I am sure there might be a provision for a full manual take-over of the aircraft controls.

Of course, in fly-by-wire aircraft like the A330, the control surfaces are still operated electronically, but atleast the commands can be given by the pilots as opposed to computers. Experts, what do you say? Is it possible for a full manual control on a modern airliner like the A330?

- Vivek


User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3738 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 14356 times:



Quoting Vivekman2006 (Reply 12):
Experts, what do you say? Is it possible for a full manual control on a modern airliner like the A330?

No expert here, but I presume every flight control system is built around a primary and direct channel from the pilot to the controls.

Of course, FBW in modern airliners mean that there'll always be computers between the two even in the most direct control mode, so it all comes down to how trusty and reliable those computers and associated programming code are.

There's no going back to cables and pulleys now anyway, so whether we like it or not, we're in for the ride!  Wink



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8872 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 12709 times:



Quoting Plairbus (Thread starter):
said that the incident was caused by a software problem

Not convinced of any software problem yet...have not heard the ATSB actually say it was a software problem.

Quoting Plairbus (Thread starter):
That the Autopilot was turned off by the system and that all airlines that have the Airbus 332 and 333 in they fleet got the information.

Autopilots are supposed to turn off if they see certain faults, and an air data problem on #1 ADIRU would cause the autopilot to trip off. The initial climb that the aircraft did was in due to pilot input, not the autopilot.

Quoting Plairbus (Thread starter):
What means that, that all the Airbusses 332 and 333 flying around has to be grounded for a software check?

Not at all

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 1):
According to the ATSB it was, most likely, a bad #1 ADIRU that sent incorrect flight data to the FCCs.

I am not convinced that the ADIRU was faulty, if for example one of the sensors that inputs to the ADC was faulty (like if the TAT reported temps out by 60 deg), the ADC would report the correct speed for that input.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 3):
it wouldn't be the first time.

First time I have heard of anything like this, but not the first time for a ADC or IRU failure.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 5):
I am not sure just what the 330's architecture is.



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 5):
In addition, the ELAC and FACs get inputs from the ADIRU and FMGS.

The A330 does not have ELACs and FACs, it has PRIMary (x3) and SECondary computers (x2), the some of the FAC functions from the A320 are done by the FMEGC (the A320 has an FMGC).



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 12468 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 5):
They do have 3 ADIRUs. However, I am not sure just what the 330's architecture is.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
The A330 does not have ELACs and FACs, it has PRIMary (x3) and SECondary computers (x2), the some of the FAC functions from the A320 are done by the FMEGC (the A320 has an FMGC).

Zeke, as I wrote, I wasn't sure of the architecure is, but the functions are basically the same.

There is some more info from the ATSB http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...antas-a330-to-descend-sharply.html


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8872 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11063 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 15):
Zeke, as I wrote, I wasn't sure of the architecure is, but the functions are basically the same.

PRIMs control all flight control surfaces, on the A320 the ELACs (Elevator/Aileron) and SECs (Spoiler/Elevator) have specific surfaces they control.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 15):
There is some more info from the ATSB http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html

Nothing new there at all. The ATSB posted the full audio of the press conference the other day, that is the source for the flight global article. That is how I knew the initial climb was a result of pilot input, not the autopilot.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10802 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
PRIMs control all flight control surfaces, on the A320 the ELACs (Elevator/Aileron) and SECs (Spoiler/Elevator) have specific surfaces they control.

Zeke, I realise that however if you call them PRIMs or ELACS, FACS or SECS the operation of the entire system it the same.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
Nothing new there at all. The ATSB posted the full audio of the press conference the other day, that is the source for the flight global article. That is how I knew the initial climb was a result of pilot input, not the autopilot

Again, that link has not been posted. You can do with it what you want but it could be informative for other people.

You might want to consider toning your posts down a notch.


User currently offlineBoeing767-300 From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10756 times:



Quoting Nwarooster (Reply 11):
Unfortunately in today's computer operated aircraft, manual reversion in which the pilot can totally control the aircraft are gone. The computers control the aircraft and the pilot goes for the ride. Hopefully, the pilot can manage to make

Unfortunately you are right. In the near future there is only going to be a Pilot and a dog on the flight deck. The Pilot is to feed the dog and the dog is to bite the Pilot if he touches anything!!!!

The reality is folks that long flights are as boring for the flight crew as they are for the passengers ie once you get past the ego associated with 747/a380 etc for the pilot the A320/737 are more fun..  wink 


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8872 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10075 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
Zeke, I realise that however if you call them PRIMs or ELACS, FACS or SECS the operation of the entire system it the same

On the A330/A340 you have 3xPRIMs and 2xSECs and 2xSFCC, on the A320 you have 2xELACs, 3xSECs, 2xFACs, and 2xSFCC. What is similar between them is the Slats Flaps Control Computers (SFCC), all of them have 2.

On the A330/A340 the PRIMs have primary control the ailerons, elevator, and rudder, both the PRIMs and SECs control the spoilers. On the A320, the ELACs have primary control over the ailerons and elevator, and the FAC for the rudder, spoilers are controlled by the SECs only. The A330/A340 do not have FACs, but they also have CG control which you do not find on the A320.

"SEC" on the A330./A340 is the SECondary computers, on the A320 they are the Spoiler Elevator Computers.

From a pilots point of view the control manipulation is the same, but the system that is used to get the effect is different. Hence the reason they put the flight control architecture in the QRH on page 5.03 so that when people who are CCQd know what computers control what surfaces for the aircraft they are in on the day.

Even the A330 and A330E are not the same.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
Again, that link has not been posted. You can do with it what you want but it could be informative for other people.

Jetfuel posted both of the ATSB releases, the one on the 10th, and the other on the 14th. The newest one was posted on Oct 14 2008 at 17:04:30 in reply 187 of the other thread about this incident. Flight global just has used information from the ATSB press conference, it is not new, and the information has been posted on a.net already.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineA3xx900 From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9676 times:



Quoting Ramzi (Reply 2):
Sounds like Microsoft must have gotten into the aviation software business!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King



 duck 



Why is 10 afraid of 7? Because 7 8 9.
User currently offlineBreiz From France, joined Mar 2005, 1915 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9439 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
On the A330/A340 you have 3xPRIMs and 2xSECs and 2xSFCC, on the A320 you have 2xELACs, 3xSECs, 2xFACs, and 2xSFCC. What is similar between them is the Slats Flaps Control Computers (SFCC), all of them have 2.

Zeke, thanks for the explanations on the architecture of the controls.
But the question was, and still is for me at least, why was the faulty input from the ADIRU #1 not ignored? The whole point to have multiple sources (3 in this case) is precisely to be able to ignore the one which does not concur with the two others.


User currently offlineAvroArrow From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 1045 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9098 times:

I agree with Breiz, I too think the computer should have looked at all 3 inputs and generated a fault for the suspect ADIRU and either de-selected the suspect unit or prompted the pilots to do so.


Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
User currently offlineSWISSER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7324 times:

Well I had a few cases when we lost control of a PRIM computer during flight, and than the others isolate the faulty one and will take over.
It even caused a slight bump in between the transfer of PRIM.

No problem though, just interesting!

On my airline's stone aged battleship 340's this happens from time to time!
What amazes me is that on the QF A330's case there was no isolation of the faulty unit at all.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8872 posts, RR: 75
Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5540 times:



Quoting Breiz (Reply 20):
But the question was, and still is for me at least, why was the faulty input from the ADIRU #1 not ignored? The whole point to have multiple sources (3 in this case) is precisely to be able to ignore the one which does not concur with the two others.

The aircraft does have 3 ADIRUs, and each ADIRU has 2 components, the Air Data Reference computer which gets all the information from the pitot static tubes, TAT, AOA etc, and the Inertial Reference part. The ADR and IR parts can be turned off separately, or they can be ignored separately.

The ignoring or turning off however has to be done by the pilot. We are supposed to compare PFD1 to PFD2 to the backup instruments.

ADIRU1 normally is displayed on PFD1 (captains) and ADIRU2 on PDF2 (FOs), ADIRU 3 is stilling there as a backup. For PFD1 to use ADIRU3, all the pilot needs to do is switch the "AIR DATA" from normal mode where the CAPT is getting ADRIU1, to "CAPT on 3".



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5127 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 23):
ADIRU1 normally is displayed on PFD1 (captains) and ADIRU2 on PDF2 (FOs), ADIRU 3 is stilling there as a backup.

How are they used when it comes to navigation data?



Exceptions confirm the rule.
25 ThrottleHold : Airbus have released info on the incident, but it only relates to aircraft which have Northrop-Grumman ADRIU's. Other aircraft which have Honeywell AD
26 OldAeroGuy : If you mean manual reversion like the 737, the answer is no. You're always going to have at least a hydraulic valve between the side stick/column and
27 Breiz : Thanks Zeke. So the next question is: do you get a warning about conflicting information, or do you have to check now and then by yourself? (which wo
28 Post contains links Zeke : They are very advanced pieces of kit, it does a lot of checking all the time. http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/ltn101e/assets/LTN101E.pdf
29 Zeke : TO: A318/A319/A320/A321/A330/A340/A340-500/A340-600 Operators SUBJECT: A330 in-flight incident OUR REF: SE 999.0083/08/LB dated 14 Oct 08 CLASSIFICATI
30 Breiz : Thanks again. This looks of course reasonable, computer self-checking and human decision to shut down or select. I am most probably jumping to hazard
31 Zeke : From what I have seen they were flying it almost immediately after the AP disconnected, that was the cause of the initial climb shortly after the AP
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Qantas BKK Incident posted Wed Sep 29 1999 22:00:23 by Seat 1A
Another Qantas Incident! posted Thu Aug 14 2008 01:26:32 by AirJamaica
Qantas Incident's/aircraft Regos posted Fri Nov 8 2002 01:25:13 by Harvey
The Food Poisoning Incident On Qantas posted Fri Feb 16 2001 18:09:24 by United Airline
Qantas Incident posted Thu May 11 2000 15:40:32 by Daddy1
Qantas Incident At Rome Airport posted Sat Apr 22 2000 12:17:46 by Heisan67
Qantas Had An Incident posted Fri Sep 24 1999 22:30:17 by Sabena
Qantas SYD-LAX-SYD On QF11/12 On A380/B747-400 posted Fri Oct 10 2008 02:28:33 by Wheelie67
Qantas Flight Forced To Land At Learmonth posted Mon Oct 6 2008 23:30:33 by QANTAS077
Emergency/Incident At DCA On Oct. 5? posted Sun Oct 5 2008 16:35:56 by BZNPilot