Qantas Dive Traced To Computer Glitch

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/QantasDiveTracedToComputerGlitch_198997-1.html ^ | October 14, 2008 | Mary Grady

[Devilinbaggypants]

The abrupt dive of a Qantas A330-300 last week that injured scores of passengers wasn't caused by a passenger's electronic device, but by an internal breakdown in the Airbus's flight-control computer system, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said on Tuesday.

[Devilinbaggypants]

This is kind of scarry!

[agere_contra]

In before the Rainman pic!

[Trust but Verify]

“Qantas never crashed”

[Blennos]

I feel safer on US-made equipment. Airbus seems to have had lots of problems.

[A.A. Cunningham]

“Qantas never crashed”

An urban legend perpetuated by the ignorant.

[grobdriver]

I knew it was malarky when I read the original story. "Wireless mouse" causing the problem... get real.

I think all of the "electronics interference" stuff is hooey, even aboard fly-by-wire ships.

[Mount Athos]

0 fatalities on qantas since 1951, that’s pretty good

[r9etb]

The meat of the article:

The aircraft was flying at FL 370 en route from Singapore to Perth when the Inertial Reference System malfunctioned, which resulted in the autopilot automatically disconnecting, the ATSB said. However, the faulty unit continued to feed false information to the flight-control computers, which even with autopilot off, still command the control surfaces.

Eeeesh. Talk about your ghastly failure scenarios. This is a pretty fundamental failure; I'd be willing to guess that every Airbus flying has the same bug. The only reason it hasn't shown up before must that the Inertial Reference Systems don't fail in flight very often.

This would be a case of poor software design, and very inadequate testing.

[DesScorp]

I work in commercial aviation... my boss is a former learjet instructor pilot and B-52 navigator. He doesn't trust computer controlled airliners, period, and he's disappointed that Boeing went that direction with the 777 and 787.

Keep in mind, you're not flying that airplane. You move the stick, and a computer interprets your movements and flies the plane. There's no direct control like the old hydrolic or first generation fly by wire systems.

[Blennos]

I work in commercial aviation... my boss is a former learjet instructor pilot and B-52 navigator. He doesn't trust computer controlled airliners, period, and he's disappointed that Boeing went that direction with the 777 and 787. Keep in mind, you're not flying that airplane. You move the stick, and a computer interprets your movements and flies the plane. There's no direct control like the old hydrolic or first generation fly by wire systems.

Interesting point. So much of our lives today is dependent upon the proper flow of 0s and 1s. Aren't there some US military aircraft that simply cannot be flown by manual control? The B2 bomber for example?

[mikey_hates_everything]

What would one expect of something designed by Socialists?

The system knows how to fly the plane better than the pilot can.

[RobRoy]

>>Aren’t there some US military aircraft that simply cannot be flown by manual control? The B2 bomber for example?<<

The space shuttle.

[RobRoy]

Good ole airbus fly-by-wire in action:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU

[Ditto]

Aren't there some US military aircraft that simply cannot be flown by manual control?

The F-117 and the B-2 "Stealth" aircraft can not stay in the air without the computer making constant adjustments to the flight surfaces. The best pilot in the world would crash and burn them if he didn't have computer assistance.

[PLMerite]

I think the pilot on that demo flight bypassed some safety feature so maybe it’s not right to blame the fly-by-wire in that case.

[RobRoy]

I believe the flaps were up.