Preliminary A380 report issued - ATSB

[Phil Bunch]

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-089.aspx

See the PDF links towards the upper right area of this web page for both the 150-page preliminary report PDF and the PDF for the ATSB's recommendations.  My quick skim-read of the first few pages of the report was nothing short of "riveting", to say the least.

Click the "Photos" tab to see some key (downloadable) photos related to this incident.

As I understand it, a full report is not expected for about 1 year.

I was shocked to read how stressful and complex things became as the situation quickly developed.  They lost so many more of their systems and subsystems and automation than I had previously understood.  It must have become even more stressful when one of the pilots walked back and looked out the passenger windows to see an 0.5 meter stream of fuel/hydraulic fluid streaming from one of the wings.  Having a transiting Qantas pilot take some personal video of the developing situation shown in the passenger video screen display must have been both helpful and yet stressful too, presumably confirming the crew's assumptions about their lost fuel and hydraulics.

As others have remarked, the crew did a remarkable job in managing the situation and the crippled aircraft.  I am reminded of certain lines from Rudyard Kipling's poem "If" - see link below.

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_if.htm

[John Golin]

Interesting interview with the Check Captain and some of his pics of the flightdeck during the drama (including blurry ECAM shots)

http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/aerospace-insight/2010/12/exclusive-qantas-qf32-flight-from-the-cockpit/

edit: changed EICAS to ECAM

[Hardy Heinlin]

"First Officer Matt Hicks" ... that name sounds familiar ... from PS1 times :-)

[Phil Bunch]

Looks like the interviewed pilot is a "pro-Airbus" fellow!  (grins)

Here's the quote:

---------------
"ASChan: What's your opinion of the A380's survivability compared to other types you have flown?

DE: Well I think the Airbus A380 – it's a testament to the aircraft that we managed to get the aeroplane successfully on to the ground. The fly-by-wire system, albeit with the damage we were in an alternate law, it still was very flyable. Now comparing that to other types I have flown I am sure that Boeing types would have been equally flyable, but they would have been a lot more difficult, I'm sure.
---------------------

It would be interesting to learn more about the reasons he has formed this opinion.  I believe he has extensive Boeing and Airbus experience, including 747-400 experience.  

From a survivability standpoint, I've always admired the 747-400 since it has 4 of the major systems instead of 2 or 3.  As Captain Tarmack once said (paraphrasing), 'the only reason I fly with 4 engines is that they don't make a 747 with 5 engines'.  That's why I personally prefer to fly as a passenger on 747-400s rather than the 2-engine ETOPS planes.  "ETOPS = Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming".  

I believe that it would be beet to compare the latest Boeing (787) to the latest Airbus (A380), instead of a decades-old 7x7 design vs the newest A380.

[John H Watson]

I am sure that Boeing types would have been equally flyable, but they would have been a lot more difficult, I'm sure.

Isn't this contradictory?

How do you compare?

Boeing Vs Airbus...

4 main hydraulic systems Vs 2 main (plus dedicated flight control systems)
No FBW vs FBW (How safe is Airbus' Alternate Law (vs Boeing's normal law )
Both aircraft have gravity extension of gear
Same engine control principles
4 reversers Vs 2 reversers
Would the fuel jettison system on the 744 have worked with similar damage? (and kept the aircraft in trim)

Too many hypotheticals. You might say that the 744 might be hard to fly with 50% of the hydraulic systems inop, but would two hydraulic systems have been damaged in this scenario?

[Phil Bunch]

I am sure that Boeing types would have been equally flyable, but they would have been a lot more difficult, I'm sure.

Isn't this contradictory?

How do you compare?

Boeing Vs Airbus...

4 main hydraulic systems Vs 2 main (plus dedicated flight control systems)
No FBW vs FBW (How safe is Airbus' Alternate Law (vs Boeing's normal law )
Both aircraft have gravity extension of gear
Same engine control principles
4 reversers Vs 2 reversers
Would the fuel jettison system on the 744 have worked with similar damage? (and kept the aircraft in trim)

Too many hypotheticals. You might say that the 744 might be hard to fly with 50% of the hydraulic systems inop, but would two hydraulic systems have been damaged in this scenario?

I agree.  While I don't have enough knowledge (or experience) to have a meaningful opinion, based on what little I know, I am unsure that the most computerized and newest Airbus system(s) have been developed enough to work ideally in a highly damaged airplane.  Sometimes a little simpler is better.  Perhaps current knowledge of systems design means a more stable, more recoverable airliner would be one that is only automated to a certain point.  

Would a Boeing system tell you to move fuel and almost simultaneously tell you you can't move fuel due to inop systems? I found it surprising that their A380 computers couldn't cope with the combination of failures and limitations they experienced and thus could not predict how much runway they would need in order to land.  As I understand their solution, they had to remove a few of the limitations to obtain a "runway needed" calculation.  Makes a person consider carrying a slide rule and some pencil and paper!  

My understanding is that the A380 only has thrust reversers on the 2 inboard engines since the outboard engines hang off the runway in some airports or nearly off the runway and are thus exposed to "FOD" (foreign object damage).  Perhaps this is part of how the damaged A380 ended up about 100 meters from the end of the runway with overheated brakes and the added risk of leaking fuel, as well as an engine that wouldn't shut down.  Would a 747-400 have been as troubled?  Too many fine details to be able to speculate about what would have happened if a 747-400 were to blow an engine with shrapnel thrown through the wing and fuselage.

It's also mind-boggling to think about how many combinations of failures and parameters must be (ideally) programmed into these computers.  Hardy faces much the same situation in programming PSX.  How can he possibly test all the combination of switch and parameter settings unless some sort of systematic combinatorial testing method and algorithms are used?

The detailed full report, apparently available in about a year, should provide even more interesting details and conclusions.

(I freely acknowledge that my PS1 associations have undoubtedly biased me in favor of Boeing's systems.  I do not have an opinion based on real knowledge, but just a personal opinion based on a moderate amount of PS1 experience.)

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Take care not to compare old and new planes.