Thanks Michael. What you state in your first paragraph is my understanding too.
Your use of the word "choose" in your initial post was the point of confusion.
In fact there was no choice.It was a "Buckley's Choice" - 50 tons overweight
was in fact as good as it was going to get.
Re RR, I guess that getting the contracts to supply a majority of the engines
on Boeing's Dreamliner, might be somewhat on their minds, and have something to
do with their 'no comment" attitude here! {Customers can choose either RR or GE
engines.}
Oh to be able to competently handle 5 different problems simultaneously! I
think most of the human race would settle for 1.
Talking of "fail safe" computerised aircraft systems, I vaguely recall being
told many years ago about a system designed for the military, which "when all
else failed" would automatically eject the crew to safety. In this particular
story, I seem to recall that the crew got into trouble - maybe at night ?? - in
an exercise which involved terrain following radar ie they were VERY low. When
it came to the crunch - if you will pardon the pun - the system worked
beautifully. There was just one small glitch. At the time of automatic
activation of the system, the aircraft just happened to be in an inverted
attitude!
Regards,
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Shirley
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 4 Corners story on QF32
Gary
I was told the choice to land overweight (confirmed in the ABC program) was a
poor, but necessary choice between continuing to burn off fuel (mostly from one
wing as they had lost the transfer pumps - so one wing was ultimately 10 tonnes
heavier than the other) causing an increase in the landing speed required to
maintain aileron control (already planned to be high because they had lost full
flap and slat functions). Separately, the fuel they burned off from the main
tanks moved the CofG progressively aft as the tail tank transfer pump was U/S -
risking the loss of elevator control. Being unable to lower the nose wheel
would allow the aircraft to depart the runway due to the crosswind.
In addition to the tyre fire risk there was a much greater risk from the jet
fuel poring onto the runway close to a 900 degree brake. That had the fire
department's full attention!
Either of these things could have lost the aircraft and most on board.
I have been told that most airlines who lease engines on the basis Qantas do
have a body that connects the engine and mainframe maintenance functions. That
is supposed to ensure that everyone knows what's going on in the whole
aircraft/fleet. Qantas does not have that body so RR was able to keep their bad
news a secret.
I would love to hear from someone who knows about these things, as to why
there is no fundamental rethink (at Airbus) of highly computerised systems and
supposedly well designed redundancy that all failed on QF32? The failure and
effect of the redundancy is obvious, but the mass of system failure prompts
coming like a landslide would overwhelm the average 3 man crew, even if they
were all at genius skill level and had memorised the manuals the QF32 men were
busy consulting.
A very intelligent human brain can only manage 5 different problems
simultaneously, anymore and the whole brain suffers from tunnel vision,
concentrating on only a few matters. It seems to me that something like that
brought down the Air France flight out of South America - the crew were
overwhelmed by messages about loss of airspeed information, flew into a storm,
stalled and spun into the sea while trying to sort out the computer created
mess.
Regards
Michael
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of
gstev...@bigpond.com
Sent: Wednesday, 30 March 2011 10:28 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 4 Corners story on QF32
Michael,
On the evidence of the ABC Report, I think your last paragraph says it all!
I suspect that your reason for stating why they were 50 tons overweight on
landing might be incorrect, or at least a subject of debate. Comments?
I do not understand (in point 2), your reference to Qantas and coordination
of the engine/mainframe maintenance. I would appreciate amplification here, and
the significance of this statement.
Point 3 - I guess that after an hour the brakes may have cooled a bit,
especially if they are being given special attention by the fire brigade! In
the end, all the passengers walked off this aircraft, but I guess that if they
were chuted out, or whatever, (how many chutes available?),in an emergency, the
evacuation time would be MUCH less. Does anybody have any facts - perhaps
derived from real tests as opposed to computer simulations - as to what this
time might be for a full passenger compliment on this aircraft type?
Regardless, I suspect that everybody on board was bloody lucky that the
aircraft did not burn on the ground, and that they did not have to undertake an
emergency evacuation - read extreme loss of life! I particularly noted the
comment of the Captain, who declared (in essence), that, in the event, he could
have braked the aircraft to a full stop a little short of the runway end, but
he could see the fire tenders ahead, and this was where he was going. "These
are my friends". In fire prevention circles, this might possibly be an ultimate
statement, that fire-fighters could use to promote their cause!
Point 4 - it would seem that large amounts of water were initially hosed into
the running engine in an attempt to stop it, but without success. The use of a
retardant in the water finally did the job. Anybody got any comments here? {e g
Why wasn't this used as the first mode of attack?}
It would seem that one of the points (understated?), that was made by the
Captain was the (huge?), risk of setting on fire the tires on the wheels that
had lost their ABS function, during the landing process. It would seem
obviously this would have been totally catastrophic. Some of the images taken
after the event, show wheels being replaced- maybe all wheels? - before the
aircraft was moved to the storage hangar.
Regards,
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Shirley
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 4 Corners story on QF32
Unevenly bored oil pipe and full powered take off from LAX was mentioned,
though briefly, however four matters (I have read about) were not mentioned:
1.. The inability to move fuel from the tail tank meant the calculation
of CofG was vitally important if they were to get the nose wheel down on
landing and prevent the aircraft departing the runway, due the 5kts cross wind.
That severely limited their ability to reduce AUW to the landing max - they
chose to land 50 tonnes over weight to be sure of directional control.
2.. RR as the engine managers, should have told Qantas maintenance staff
that they knew of the potential fault, they did not, though Qantas (alone in
the world) lacks a body coordinating engine:mainframe maintenance.
3.. It took nearly 2 hours to get the passengers off from one rear door -
away from the running #1 and the high pressure fuel leaking from the wing
adjacent to the 900 degree brakes.
4.. The Changi Fire Dept understandably refused to put any of their
assets in front of the running #1 to cool down the brakes and disperse the
leaking fuel away from the wheels - an hour later they agreed to try and drown
the engine.
They were so very lucky they (accidentally) had two surplus senior pilots
available to assist in sorting out the flood of error messages that would have
overwhelmed a normal crew - they were brilliant.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Nelson Handcock
Sent: Wednesday, 30 March 2011 10:24 AM
To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Subject: [Aus-soaring] 4 Corners story on QF32
Somewhat off-topic perhaps, but the 4 Corners report on the uncontained
engine failure on the A380 was (I thought) very interesting.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110328/qantas/
I don't feel that they really gave enough emphasis to the root cause -
which seems to be a unevenly bored oil-pipe that was further weakened by a
number of full-power take-offs on shorter runways....Admittedly Rolls Royce did
not participate which is a shame because the report could have gone into more
depth...
I believe a number of list recipients are commercial pilots - I'm wondering
what your opinions are on the incident (if you are able to voice such) and also
on the quality and accuracy of the report?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
