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 runwaysAdmittedly 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 qua
Re: [Aus-soaring] 4 Corners story on QF32
On 31 March 2011 00:28, wrote: > 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? Well, there is always the official A380 full evacuation test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gqWeJGwV_U > 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. > Captain was the (huge?), risk of setting on fire the tires on the wheels > that had lost their ABS function, during the landing process. Sounds like a wise move - if you apply 'emergency' braking power then the brakes do catch fire. I can't say that I've heard of anybody worrying about 'setting fire' to the tires before, but I have heard about tire blow outs when braking in an emergency situation. Here is the A380 overweight brake test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1dv_y_3EK0 Mats ___ 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] Darling Downs Weather for the weekend of 2 -3 April 2011
Hi folks The weekend forecast is available at http://the-white-knight-speaks.blogspot.com -- Robert Hart ha...@interweft.com.au +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ 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] China & gliders/gliding
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/gliding-and-the-mysterious-ways-china-affects-the-world/73138/___ 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] DREW MCKINNIE
> If anyone can direct us to one Drew McKinnie we would appreciate hearing from > them > > JOHN ROAKE ___ 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] Good morning
Good morning DDD, 8 here. DDD oxo___ 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] Fw: Good morning
Oops Chris - Original Message - From: Christopher Mc Donnell To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 8:34 AM Subject: [Aus-soaring] Good morning Good morning DDD, 8 here. DDD oxo ___ 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
Re: [Aus-soaring] DREW MCKINNIE
John, see off line reply Stuart FERGUSON Phone - 0419 797508 Sent from iPad On 31/03/2011, at 9:02, John Roake wrote: > If anyone can direct us to one Drew McKinnie we would appreciate hearing from > them > > JOHN ROAKE > ___ > 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] NSW State Comps
Launching for day 5 has just finished. We have been able to get a bit of "meat" into the tasks today having been grounded on Tuesday and slightly under tasked yesterday Club class went up first on a 3.5 hr AAT to Keera, Edgeroi and Split Rock. Std/15 M have gone to Bingara, Gurley Silo Split Rock Dam on a Racing task of 355 kms. Open/18 M likewise on a Racing task to Warialda, Gurley Silo and Split Rock Dam for 389 kms Results at www.soaringspot.com/nsw2011/results Regards Ian Downes Manager LKSC___ 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
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
