It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


36 hurt in Qantas mid-air incident

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 07:13 AM
Oh yes, I forgot that the airbus planes have the FBW which doesnt allow over rides, thanks for mentioning that.

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 07:27 AM

One of the passengers on the Qantas flight 72, Oddivigh Forbes, has told ABC Radio it was terrifying.

"It happened without any warning," he said.

"I was half asleep and I suddenly realised that we were falling and people were hitting the ceiling of the plane and there was quite a bit of damage actually."

Must have been a very rapid decent for people to be hitting the ceiling...

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 10:31 AM
Clear Air Turbulence happens very suddenly, and the plane just falls. It remains in level flight, but it drops anywhere from 50 feet to several thousand feet suddenly, then starts to fly normally again. CAT can't be forecast, and generally the only warning is when the plane falls, or if a plane in front of you encounters it and radios a warning.

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen

Ok fair enough. Point taken.
I jumped to conclusions obvioulsy in this case.
I still stand by the poor maintenance thought.

[edit on 7-10-2008 by leearco]

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 09:39 PM
It was a computer 'glitch' they said
"Dropped plane had computer 'irregularity' "
But I think they are just throwing stones trying to shove the blame on something.

AIR safety investigators say there was an "irregularity" in the onboard computer equipment of a Qantas plane involved in a mid-air incident between Singapore and Perth.

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 09:44 PM
A computer "irregularity" wouldn't have caused the drop as described by passengers. It would have pushed them into a noseover, which would have caused weightlessness for a few seconds, but it wouldn't have slammed people around like this did. Clear Air Turbulence could have caused a computer glitch post hit, but it happening prior to this incident wouldn't have caused them to do how the various passengers described.

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 09:50 PM
Im guessing it was a mixture of flaps pushing the aircraft into a landing pattern.

8000ft in 10seconds I heard, thats massive,

Ive also been hearing that qantas confistcated all mobiles/camera's so no photos from inside would be released.

Qantas has had a BAD few months, constant issues.. almost makes me think someone is sabotaging these planes.

to go from nothing ever, to a dozen issues in a few months.. isnt coincidental.

edit to add:

The aircraft then climbed about 300 feet (100m) before "abruptly" pitching nose down.

[edit on 7-10-2008 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 09:54 PM
Flaps wouldn't cause this. If the slats were deployed (which after a couple of MD-11 accidents that caused critical injuries most aircraft were designed so they couldn't on accident) then the plane would have begun oscilations where it would pitch up, then down, then back up again, but it wouldn't just drop like this. The flaps deploying would have created more drag, but they wouldn't cause a huge drop like this. I can't think of ANYTHING that could have happened on the plane that would cause a sudden and massive drop like this off the top of my head.

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 10:01 PM
what if its a mixture of flaps and a clear airpocket?

reports say the plane banked up, then abruptly down, what if what you said is correct, is went up, then down, and just happened to head down as it entered a major pocket, which dumped the plane?

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 10:10 PM
It would have pitched back up again at the bottom and kept pitching up and down until the pilots retracted the slats. Slats are designed only for slow flight at low altitudes, in landing configuration. In high speed flight, they would slam the plane in vertical oscilations until they were retracted. That would usually mean at least two up, and two down before the crew figured out what happened. Most of the accidental deployments I heard about ended up with 5-6 cycles before they figured it out. If it was the flaps deploying, then it would have created more drag, and required them to go to a higher power setting, but it wouldn't have caused oscillations like this one went into.

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 10:37 PM
Maybe ask Mr weedwacker on his thoughts.
I am no aerospace engineer, so I cannot comment much, but i still think it's some maintenance problem.
Look up Jetstar, the big Q's domestic company and see how many recent incidents they have had.

posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 05:24 AM
Computer error behind Qantas dive

A COMPUTER glitch caused a Qantas jet to climb before nose diving over Western Australia, injuring dozens of passengers, air safety investigators say.

The same plane suffered a mechanical problem at Changi Airport last month.

The plane had a “fuel pump reset” before beginning a September 17 flight, a Qantas spokesman told


No mention of clear air turbulence in the article... They're saying it's a computer glitch. Probably still a little early, we'll have to wait for the official word.

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 01:29 PM
Qantas probe laptop link after 300 foot plunge

Passenger laptop computers are now being investigated as a possible cause of the Qantas mid-air emergency off Western Australia on Tuesday.

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 04:51 PM
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen

Could Qantas blame everything but themselves so they don't get sued?
Or do they simply not know and trying to piece it together?

[edit on 9-10-2008 by leearco]

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 05:07 PM
I think that QANTAS are trying to avoid being sued by offering free flights and other compensation deals to the victims.

They've stated that they are looking on a case-by-case basis to see how much they can compensate the victims.

Seriously, if QANTAS are prepared to offer compensation, then there shouldn't be a need for the passengers to sue, right?

Airline travel does have some associated risks, so it's not like QANTAS can be blamed for every single mistake. Accidents do happen. It seems like they are trying to act in good faith to appease these passengers.

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen

There has been at least one fatal crash attributed to passenger electronics causing interference with the flight controls. So it wouldn't surprise me if somehow something on the plane DID cause interference with the flight controls, even though it's unlikely.

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:13 PM
"No evidence' laptop caused plunge"

So for, no good, they still don't know what happened.

THERE is no evidence to suggest the use of mobile phones or laptops was the cause of the latest Qantas safety incident, investigators say.

But the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has discounted suggestions the use of mobile phones and laptops interfered with the plane's onboard computer equipment. "There is no evidence, at this stage, to indicate that the use of portable electronic devices by passengers contributed to the event," bureau spokesman Julian Walsh said in Canberra today.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by crackerjack]

[edit on 9-10-2008 by crackerjack]

posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 07:23 AM
Here is a gallery of pictures taken from inside the cabin, post accident.

posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 07:48 AM

Flaps wouldn't cause this. If the slats were deployed (which after a couple of MD-11 accidents that caused critical injuries most aircraft were designed so they couldn't on accident) then the plane would have begun oscilations where it would pitch up, then down, then back up again, but it wouldn't just drop like this.

The MD-11 has relaxed static stability, which obviously means the horizontal stab doesn't need to produce so much downforce, therefore it's possible to reduce the size of the horizontal stab (40% smaller than DC-10). The smaller H-stab & unstable design increases fuel efficiency significantly, in theory, allowing the plane to compete with the A330 & 777 without 'wasting' money on designing a new wing.

Obviously fighters need to be constantly corrected by a fly-by-wire system to fly properly, thus on the MD-11, to cure the designed instability they use a system called LSAS - Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System. The combination of LSAS, instability and the small H-stab, could cause oscillations, as you stated, with high speed slat deployment or, during stall, which in one incident, snapped the horizontal stabliser in half. The problem with slats was partially rectified with some cockpit improvements, and solved in 1998 when Boeing updated LSAS (These problems no longer remain and are impossible today).

On the topic of the MD-11, it was unsuccessful because it did not originally perform to expectations - resulting in many cancelled orders. The accidents did not help either. Promised performance was infact met and succeeded by 1997 through PIP and MTOW increases. It is interesting looking through reports of wire chafing that remain, but these are completely unrelated to Swiss 111. Until the 777F arrives, the MD-11F is without a doubt the best freighter in the sky.

A330 doesn't have relaxed stability, yet clearly has a more robust fly-by-wire system. I would dare say it's impossible for slats to make oscillations even if they could be deployed - that is unique to the MD-11 back in the 90's.

[edit on 10/10/2008 by C0bzz]

posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 08:05 AM
The reason for the slats causing MD-11 oscillations was because the handle in the cockpit for deploying them was designed so you pulled it straight down to deploy them. So several times a pilot went to put a clipboard down next to his leg, and it hit the handle, deploying the slats. They did an emergency cockpit redesign after a flight attendent was almost killed and put a locking plate behind the handle. Now you have to use both hands to deploy the slats on them.

[edit on 10/10/2008 by Zaphod58]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in