Too late to reboot when in the air ( QF A380 problems)

[Dave Noble]

Disgruntled passengers on the new Qantas A380 luxury superjumbos have started calling it the A3-Lately or the A-180 (as in degrees), because of delays as long as eight hours.

And, according to one Qantas insider, premium business passengers are demanding to be on the old Boeing 747, saying there is "absolutely no way" they are travelling on the Airbus A380 because of the unreliable departures.

The A-180 nickname stuck after one plane, bound for Los Angeles last month, came out of the hangar, loaded up with passengers, had technical problems, unloaded and went back to the hangar - a 180-degree turn.

According to one business class passenger, that QF 11 flight took off eight hours late. After several attempts to rectify technical problems, the pilot told passengers he was not happy and unloaded them onto another A380 that took off just before 9pm.

Article at Miranda Devine

 

[Slats7]

Another Qantas bashing article.

 

[rtyuiop]

I actually read it as an Airbus bashing article by the purposefully inflammatory and generally ignorant Ms Devine. Note that she doesn't talk about how the A380 introduction compares to other new airframes in terms of late departures, etc.

Also, while she goes to great lengths to point out any Airbus equipment issues, she doesn't discuss the overall safety records of them versus Boeing, which has quite a different philosophy on the pilot overriding computers.

For instance, there's every chance that the control system and carefree handling of the plane involved in the US Airways/Hudson River incident helped everyone survive. She mentions the incident, but doesn't mention what sort of aircraft it was... I wonder why?

But having said that, I might just be letting my opinion of newspapers employing people purely to write columns designed to infuriate people change what I think. Editorial with actual content has been replaced by a desperate grab for readership...

Cheers,

Danny

 

[Nigelinoz]

To be fair I don't read much criticism of Qantas in the article,I see it as more of a report that indicates that the A380 may not be the wonder that it's claimed to be .
Although the journalist in question does have form when it comes to sinking the boot into QF.

 

[NYCguy]

What can you expect from Miranda Devine? She gives a right-wing, lowest-common-denominator slant to every story she comments on, and would be a much better fit at the sleazy tabloid scandal-rag that befouls Sydney news-stands, than at a "quality" broadsheet. Devine's work is entirely predictable - one needn't read the entire column, just the title, because the reader already knows what direction her commentary will take.

Unfortunately the quality of the SMH has slipped over the past several years, to the point where it's becoming more like the Telegraph or the UK's Daily Mail than the New York Times.

 

[raphsta]

Aah,
Just what someone uneasy about flying needs to read a week before jumping on an Emirates A380 over to London....

Maybe the trusty 747 would've been a better choice ... Although, I guess I would latch onto any stories about 747s in that case... I remember, before a flight to LA a year or two ago on QF, a 747 blew an engine.. That freaked me out a bit - I ended up getting on the same plane, with a shiny new engine! Made me wonder if any of the other engines were ready for a blow out!

 

[serfty]

Here's a perfect example of the "quality" journalism of the author:

...
The bureau also reported "other occurrences" involving similar anomalous ADIRU behaviour" in September 2006 and December 2008. "But in neither case was there an in-flight upset."

In March the bureau investigated another computer glitch which led to a tail strike involving a United Arab Emirates Airbus A340-500 during take-off at Melbourne Airport. The investigation found "an incorrect weight had been inadvertently entered into the laptop when completing the take-off performance calculation prior to departure based on a take-off weight that was 100 tonnes below the actual take-off weight of the aircraft".

The result was the plane did not produce enough power to take off and although the pilots managed to override the computer and apply maximum thrust, the plane's tail hit the runway. ...

What has "an incorrect weight had been inadvertently entered into the laptop" got to do with "anomalous ADIRU behaviour".

More to the point: "... the pilots managed to override the computer and apply maximum thrust ...". What? Increasing throttle to full power is overriding the computer???

Trying to make tenuous connections is one thing - promoting unrelated issues as linked in order to push a point destroys any creditability the author may have had ...

 

[moa999]

Where are the 747s serviced?
Where are the A380s serviced?

No hidden agenda at all for Ms Devine

 

[simongr]

Where are the 747s serviced?
Where are the A380s serviced?

No hidden agenda at all for Ms Devine

Any chance you can answer that for us? I am not sure what point you are trying to make or insinuate...

 

[NM]

Here's a perfect example of the quality journalism of the author:What has "an incorrect weight had been inadvertently entered into the laptop" got to do with "anomalous ADIRU behaviour".

More to the point: "... the pilots managed to override the computer and apply maximum thrust ...". What? Increasing throttle to full power is overriding the computer???

Trying to make tenuous connections is one thing - promoting unrelated issues as linked in order to push a point destroys any creditability the author may have had ...

Your smilies say it all. I have to ask the question about who/what is driving this campaign? It would appear to be either vindictive or ignorant. I struggle to draw any other conclusion

The EK A340 accident in MEL was caused by pilot error and a failure of operating procedures to identify the pilot error. What caused the pilots to make the error in the first place is still under investigation. Linking that with either the AF or JQ recent events would seem to be sensationalist journalism which lacks credibility and defies logic. Add to that the publishing of a 2-year old JQ A330 engine issue and there does indeed seem to be a bashing vendetta in play

.

 

[oz_mark]

I seem to recall that when pilots had complete control, the pranged the planes a lot more often than happens nowadays.

 

[Nigelinoz]

I would also take issue with describing the Emirates issue as a "computer glitch which led to a tail strike"-the Airbus flight computer simply responded to the data which had been fed into it,albeit incorrect data.
The investigation into the incident has not yet been completed but I would think it would be fair to assume that if the pilots had not entered the wrong data the tail strike probably would not have happened.
I'm reminded of an acronym relating to computers which may be apt in the Emirates incident-G.I.G.O-Garbage In Garbage Out.
Sorry mods if this is a bit off topic to the thread.

 

[straitman]

Some of the later posts here appear to have gone from Airbus bashing to Pilot bashing :!:

 

[oz_mark]

Some of the later posts here appear to have gone from Airbus bashing to Pilot bashing :!:

I hope I didn't come across as pilot bashing. My point is that the computerisation has added significantly to the safety of aircraft, and this seems to be lost in the cross fire of simply blaming the computerisation for aircraft incidents.

 

[harvyk]

I don't see it as pilot bashing, the PIC on EK407 made a mistake is what appears to be the offical word on the street.

Be that mistake because he made a mistake with the side stick on the take off, or be it that he made a mistake on programming the FMC, either way the PIC is ultimately in charge.

Now back to the original article, it reads like a shopping list, with no real focus (except airbuses crash from time to time M'kay), also be it Airbus or Boeing, if the autopilot feels like nose-diving because of a computer glitch, the plane will nose dive, if the pitot tubes stop functioning correctly your not going to know the speed of the aircraft. And unless the pax where informed by the capt, how on earth did they know about the fuel usage \ faulty fuel gauge in the middle of an A380 flight to LAX. I have yet to hear a captain coming on the PA and saying.

"Excuss me ladies and gentleman, this is your captain speaking, we're currently cruising at an altitute of 35,000ft, the outside air temp is -40, and we have a faulty fuel gauge..."

 

[v8Statesman]

Then there was the Air New Zealand A320 Airbus that crashed off southern France on November 28 after what French investigators described as a power surge which made it fly sharply upwards, stall and crash as it was landing in Perpignan.

A NZ A320 in france? This can't be scheduled services. My guess it is pre delivery in the hands of Airbus. If so why make note of who will ultimatly operate the aircraft?

 

[mannej]

A NZ A320 in france? This can't be scheduled services. My guess it is pre delivery in the hands of Airbus. If so why make note of who will ultimatly operate the aircraft?

Iirc, it was doing some form of testing at Airbus, with NZ pilots on board.
It was leased out to a German (?) Airliner, and NZ were preparing to take it back.

 

[harvyk]

A NZ A320 in france? This can't be scheduled services. My guess it is pre delivery in the hands of Airbus. If so why make note of who will ultimatly operate the aircraft?

It was a leased aircraft which had just been repainted back into AirNZ livery. They where doing a proving flight prior to redelivering the ac back to AirNZ...

The only reason it is associated with AirNZ is because the photo of the ac in the water was in AirNZ livery. (I don't even think it was an AirNZ crew piloting the flight, but I might be wrong)

 

[NM]

A NZ A320 in france? This can't be scheduled services. My guess it is pre delivery in the hands of Airbus. If so why make note of who will ultimatly operate the aircraft?

Iirc, it was doing some form of testing at Airbus, with NZ pilots on board.
It was leased out to a German (?) Airliner, and NZ were preparing to take it back.

It was a leased aircraft which had just been repainted back into AirNZ livery. They where doing a proving flight prior to redelivering the ac back to AirNZ...

The only reason it is associated with AirNZ is because the photo of the ac in the water was in AirNZ livery. (I don't even think it was an AirNZ crew piloting the flight, but I might be wrong)

See the previous Travel news thread on this topic:

http://www.frequentflyer.com.au/community/travel-news/air-new-zealand-a320-crashes-15477.html

There were four Air New Zealand employees on board, including a Captain and 3 engineers. A 5th kiwi was an airworthiness inspector. Very sad for all involved.

 

[oz_mark]

Here's a perfect example of the "quality" journalism of the author:What has "an incorrect weight had been inadvertently entered into the laptop" got to do with "anomalous ADIRU behaviour".

More to the point: "... the pilots managed to override the computer and apply maximum thrust ...". What? Increasing throttle to full power is overriding the computer???

There seems to be a failure to grasp the whole idea of fly-by-wire in the media generally. Most of the time the computers do what the pilot asks them to do.