Aviation News

Damage to the fittings above passenger seats caused by the plunge of the Qantas flight. Photo: ATSB

A wild ride mid-flight on a Qantas Airbus that left a third of passengers on board injured as they were tossed out of their seats has been traced to a computer programming glitch, air investigators have found.

In the culmination of a three-year probe into the incident, which occurred at 37,000 feet in the dead of night over the Indian Ocean off the coast of Western Australia on October 7, 2008, Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators found the plane twice dived unexpectedly after one of three airspeed sensors malfunctioned.

The plane, an Airbus A330, carrying 303 passengers and 12 crew twice nosedived after flight computers went haywire, leaving 110 passengers and nine crew members injured as they were flung about the cabin, hitting overhead lockers and fittings.

As an indication of the violence of the plunges, 12 people were seriously injured, investigators said, while 39 were taken to hospital. At least 60 passengers were were seated without their seatbelts fastened at the time of the first plunge.

Incorrect data from a sensor measuring airspeed, altitude, air pressure, temperature and the flying angle was fed to the computers controlling the flight, investigators found.

Within two minutes, the autopilot disconnected, and five seconds later, pilots started receiving spurious cockpit alarms and alerts about stalling and overspeed warnings, along with fluctuating airspeed and altitude readings. Suddenly, the plane nosedived.

Passengers not wearing seatbelts, and standing crew hit the ceiling when the plane plunged 150 feet in two seconds, as part of a 690-feet, 23-second dive.

Two minutes later, it plunged a second time, when the flight computer instructed the plane to pitch downwards again, plunging 400 feet in 15 seconds.

Pilots broadcast a “mayday” and sought an immediate emergency landing at the nearest runway, which was at Learmonth on the mid-north west coast of Western Australia.

Adding to the injuries and flight computer dramas, the automatic cabin pressurisation system malfunctioned during descent, as did the aircraft’s auto-braking system.

In the safety bureau’s 313-page report, investigators focused on two key elements of the malfunctions: how and why the airspeed sensors started supplying erroneous data in the first place; and how and why the flight system computers acted on the incorrect readings.

With the airspeed sensors, it found one of the three units started feeding intermittent and incorrect data on all flight parameters to flight computers.

“The failure mode was probably initiated by a single, rare type of trigger event combined with marginal susceptibility to that type of event within the CPU (central processor unit) module’s hardware,” investigators said.

The air-speed sensor malfunction was one of only three such malfunctions known worldwide in 128 million operating hours, investigators believe, though one of those incidents involved the same sensor unit on the same aircraft, on September 12, 2006. The other known incident occurred on another Qantas Airbus with another of the same type of airspeed sensor, on December 27, 2008.

In a strange coincidence, all three sensor malfunction events occurred on Qantas flights off the coast of Western Australia.

Investigators say there was no correlation to the way the Qantas planes were set up, maintained or operated.

Secondly, investigators found fault with the piece of computer code that interpreted data from the air speed sensors for the main flight computers.

The computer code, called an algorithm, could not cope with the erroneous data coming from one of the three air sensors that malfunctioned.

Investigators found fault with the way the algorithm had been written in the early 1990s that translated the sensors’ data into actions, where the flight control computer could put the plane into a nosedive using bad data from just one sensor.

It was the only case of the flight computer going haywire in 28 million flight hours of the Airbus A330 or A340, investigators believe.

“The aircraft manufacturer [Airbus] subsequently reviewed and improved its [flight computer] algorithms,” investigators said, and the revised software was installed in November 2009.

“As a result of this redesign, passengers, crew and operators can be confident that the same type of accident will not reoccur,” investigators have concluded.

But the safety investigators also warns passengers to keep their seatbelts buckled during flights to minimise the risk of injury should an inflight upset occur.

The Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental, left, and the Airbus A380.

Boeing’s 747-8 Intercontinental, the latest incarnation of its era-defining passenger jet, has received its certification from the Federal Aviation Administration. The European Aviation Safety Agency is expected to follow suit imminently.

That means it’s safe to fly and opens the way for its 36 orders to start shipping “early next year” according to Boeing.

It’s the longest passenger plane in the world and takes on the Airbus A380 head-on. But how do these two leviathans of the skies compare?

We present to you the Airbus 747-8 and Airbus A380 face off.

Figures are obtained from Boeing and Airbus, except where stated.

Round 1: Capacity

Boeing 747-8: 467 passengers, in a three-class configuration

Airbus A380: 525 passengers, in a three-class configuration

The Airbus is the clear winner in this round, and inspired a rather curt reaction from Boeing deputy program manager Elizabeth Lund to Bloomberg, “With an A380, you run the risk of not filling every seat whenever you fly.”

Fightin’ talk starts, the game is on.

Round 2: Length

Boeing 747-8:76 meters

Airbus A380: 72.72 meters

The Boeing is 3.28 meters longer than the Airbus, officially making it the longest commercial plane in the world right now.

Oh, that’s good. Who cares how many passengers you can carry — anything that can be called “the world’s longest” is a winner. Boeing slugs back.

Round 3: Internal cabin width

Boeing 747-8:6.1 meters

Airbus A380: 6.54 meters

The Intercontinental has the same cabin width as its predecessor (the Boeing 747-400), but claims to be able to carry 51 more passengers due to its extra length of 18.3 feet.

However, Airbus execs have pointed out that the 747-8 has yet to pass evacuation tests.

“I am going to be taking that aircraft one day,” Airbus chief operating officer John Leahy told Dow Jones. “I want to be sure that you can get out of it in an emergency.”

To this, Boeing spokesman Jim Proulx responded that the plane will meet all certification standards for emergency evacuation.

Round 4: Price

Boeing 747-8: US$317.5 million

Airbus A380: US$375.3 million

The Airbus A380-800 sells for nearly US$58 million more than the new Boeing as of January this year, depending on customization and engine.

That’s not exactly small change. It means for every five A380s you buy you could get six 747-8s.

Round 5: Cruising speed

Boeing 747-8:Typical cruise speed at Mach 0.855, top cruise speed: Mach 0.86 (or 86 percent the speed of sound).

Airbus A380: Typical cruise speed at Mach 0.85 (from BBC), top cruise speed at Mach 0.88 (from Airliners.net)

In terms of typical speed Boeing 747-8 wins, but this is a serious slug-fest, and there’s no time for cruising. We’re giving this one to Airbus.

Round 6: Range

Boeing 747-8:8,000 nautical miles

Airbus A380: 8,300 nautical miles

Both planes will be able to cover long haul, trans-continental flights such as those between New York and Hong Kong, Los Angeles to Mumbai, and London to Singapore.

For an interactive map on A380’s range click on Airbus.com. Details on 747-8′s range can be found at Boeing.com.

Round 7: Wing span

Boeing 747-8: 68.5 meters

Airbus A380: 79.75 meters

Airbus chews up the Boeing a few times over when it comes to wingspan. But both are doing clever things.

The Boeing’s new wing design claims to heighten performance while lowering noise levels. Its fly-by-wire spoilers and outboard ailerons, pioneered by the 787 Dreamliner, can allegedly save weight.

The Airbus A380 also has a new wing design (at the time of its launch, anyway) that employs aluminum alloys for the wing and fuselage, and composite materials for the center wing box, which reduces the overall weight of the aircraft.

Round 8: Fuel efficiency

Boeing 747-8: 2.8 liters per seat per 100 kilometers

Airbus A380: 2.9 liters per passenger per 100 kilometers (from Nat Geo)

Ooh, now we’ve hit a nerve. Both sides regurgitated some rather fuzzy PR when it came to fuel efficiency, preferring to simply say “the competition is worse” and compiling estimates based on different underlying assumptions, especially the average flight length and the number of passengers on board, as this Nat Geo article explains.

But while Boeing gave us a hard figure of 2.8 liters per seat per 100 kilometers, Airbus didn’t respond, so we assigned them a figure of 2.9 liters per passenger per 100 kilometers, as stated in the Nat Geo article.

Result

What does all this mean? For the serious competition fiends out there Airbus comes out on top, five rounds to three.

Air New Zealand B777 in all Black Livery

Air New Zealand unveiled their entirely black Boeing 777-300ER in Seattle’s Boeing paint hanger facility Friday night.

The aircraft was painted completely black for the airline’s long-time sponsorship with the world champion All Blacks rugby team.
According to Boeing, painting the aircraft took over a week and 185 gallons of chrome-free primer and paint were used. The work involved a total of 14 painters working in shifts 24 hours a day.

“It was, without a doubt, one of the most challenging paint jobs we’ve ever done, but the paint team was up for the challenge and the results are absolutely outstanding. I am very proud of what the paint team has achieved,” said Jeff Klemann, vice president of the Boeing Everett Delivery Center.

Air New Zealand Public Affairs said the aircraft is expected to be delivered in late January after the completion of its interior.

Source: http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/boeing-777-painted-completely-black-seattle-facili/nF5Ss/

For more interesting articles to help you improve your Aviation English please visit http://aviationenglish.com and LIKE our Facebook Page.

Cash-strapped Kingfisher Airlines has grounded 15 aircraft after being unable to meet maintenance and overhaul expenses, a move that could curtail its domestic and international operations further.

The beleaguered carrier owned by liquor baron Vijay Mallya is looking for funds from investors and a softer stand from banks to stay afloat. On Thursday, it let go over 50 senior and junior pilots before the completion of their notice period.

“Kingfisher has grounded aircraft as it using these grounded aircraft as Christmas tree (taking parts from one aircraft to service need of other) to keep certain number of aircraft in the fleet active,” an industry person familiar with the development said, not wanting to be identified.

Kingfisher refused to comment on the grounding of planes but on the pilots’ issue, a spokesperson for the airline said, “We have enough number of pilots to keep our aircraft operational.”

About 140 pilots of Kingfisher have put in their papers and 11 have already left without the company giving them a clearance to joint rival budget airline IndiGo. Some pilots have signed up for Naresh Goyal-promoted Jet Airways’ ATR fleet.

Kingfisher, which has about 750 pilots, has not divulged how many pilots have left in the past one year. Senior executives say that despite the airline operating with a curtailed fleet, it has not faced a situation of surplus pilots, indicating that the attrition rate is high.

Kingfisher’s grounded aircraft are parked at various airports across the country and include the wide-body A330s that are used for long hauls. The airline, which announced in November it was cutting over 50 of its 345 flights, is likely to run the curtailed schedule till March.

This is not the first time Mallya has been forced to take such a step. Last year, the airline grounded 16 aircraft from its narrow-body fleet (A320s) because of engine material failure on its V2500-A5 engine type. The company was able to resolve the issue with engine manufacturer IAE after several rounds of talks. The fleet, barring one aircraft, was pressed into operation by August.

Kingfisher, which had 69 aircraft by end-2010, now has 40 in its active fleet, of which 15 are ATRs and the rest a mix of A320s, A321s and A330s.

Aviation experts say it is possible to use parts of one aircraft for another, but some parts with a serial number are difficult to remove and this is becoming a concern with leasing companies.

Kingfisher is currently negotiating with leasing companies to take back aircraft on ‘as is’ basis. People with knowledge of the matter said that the leasing companies, which are yet to agree to any formula, haven’t approached the Indian civil aviation regulator for de-possessing of aircraft either.

Airline executives say that the grounded aircraft are bleeding the carrier as the fixed costs of lease rentals and parking charges need to be paid.

“Even if we operate with this shrunk fleet of 40 aircraft, it is fine, but what is killing us is the fixed cost on grounded aircraft,” an executive said.

The airline posted a loss of 1,057 crore in 2010-11 and a loss of over 400 crore in the second quarter of this fiscal. Kingfisher, whose financial woes started in 2009, is finding it difficult to run operations on a daily basis. It is yet to pay the November salary dues of its 7,500 employees.

Funding from banks have dried up for the airline and its request for working capital loan of about 600-700 crore is still pending with a consortium of 13 public sector banks, which have ruled out another round of restructuring for the carrier.

For more interesting articles to help you improve your Aviation English please visit http://aviationenglish.com and LIKE our Facebook Page.