Accidents et incidents mineurs

Retour vers l'aéroport d'Osaka Itami (Japon) pour un Boeing 777-300 de la compagnie All Nippon Airways qui venait d'en décoller , opérant le vol intérieur NH-105 à destination d'Okinawa avec 392 passagers à son bord .

L'appareil était en pleine ascension vers son altitude de croisière quand les pilotes ont été alertés d'un problème hydraulique. Prenant la décision de revenir se poser à Osaka , l'équipage a dû poser l'avion sans aucun guidage sur la roulette de nez . Le Boeing a malgré tout , pu atterrir sans autre problème.

L'avion a dû être remorqué jusqu'à son emplacement .

La première inspection post-vol a permis de détecter effectivement une fuite hydraulique sur l'avion .

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

Australian investigators are to examine whether cosmic radiation played a role in the still-unexplained in-flight upset to a Qantas Airbus A330 in October last year.
The inquiry has already determined that an air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU) provided erroneous data spikes just before the upset.
Some of these spikes, in the angle-of-attack data, were not filtered by flight-control computers, which then commanded abrupt pitch-down movements.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has conducted extensive examination and testing of the suspect ADIRU, to check for electronic malfunctions, physical defects and possible problems in its software.
Investigators have also carried out tests flights, using the A330 involved, to check whether the ADIRU might have been subject to electromagnetic interference.
None of these tests have revealed any anomalies which might have explained the jet's behaviour.
Given the lack of evidence of a problem with the system, the ATSB is considering - among other avenues of inquiry - the possibility of a 'single event effect', generated by particle impact from cosmic radiation.
Upper-atmosphere collisions involving high-energy solar or intergalactic radiation can create secondary stray particles - notably neutron showers which have the potential to interact with, and damage, high-density integrated circuits.
"[Single event effects] have been suspected of generating some of the soft errors that occur in a wide range of different aircraft systems," says the ATSB. These 'soft' errors include non-destructive changes in logic states within digital electronics.
"The investigation team is evaluating the relevance, if any, of [single event effects] to the ADIRU fault that resulted in spikes being produced in ADIRU parameters," the ATSB adds.
Investigators are also assessing whether a known fault, known as 'dozing', might have contributed to the A330 upset.
The 'dozing' fault is a temporary issue which results in the ADIRU ceasing to output data for the remainder of the flight, although it resumes normal operation after power has been cycled on the ground.
Eleven passengers and a flight attendant were seriously injured during the upset, which occurred as flight QF72 was operating the Singapore-Perth route on 7 October last year.

South African carrier Airlink has suffered another [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] Jetstream incident, less than two months after a fatal crash in Durban.
The airline's flight SA8488 veered off the runway at Port Elizabeth while departing for East London. None of the 29 passengers and three crew members was injured and the carrier is checking the aircraft for damage.
Airlink is attributing the incident to "extremely bad" weather conditions. Meteorological data shows reduced visibility and the presence of drizzle at the time of the incident, 15:42, and winds of around 20kt from the east.
The carrier says a "high velocity wind squall caused a loss of directional control" during the take-off roll, resulting in the aircraft's coming off the runway.
Airlink adds: "The quick-thinking pilots immediately aborted the take-off roll. The aircraft stopped in the grass just off the runway.
"The aircraft appears not to be damaged but will be towed out of the grass verge and properly assessed."
One of the three crew members on board an Airlink Jetstream died last month, two weeks after the aircraft crashed shortly after taking off on a positioning flight on 24 September.

Sérieux et inquiétant incident que celui survenu à un Airbus A330-300 de la compagnie ”US Airways” qui opérait le vol US-740 entre Philadelphie (USA) et Madrid (Espagne).

L'appareil était en vol depuis 40 minutes au dessus de l'Océan Atlantique et au FL390 quand l'équipage a demandé l'autorisation de revenir vers Philadelphie .
Dès celle-ci obtenue , les pilotes ont engagé un retour en tournant vers leur gauche quand 40 secondes plus tard , ils ont déclaré une situation d'urgence en demandant à pouvoir descendre sans attendre .
5 minutes plus tard , ayant atteint le FL300 , les pilotes ont annoncé qu'après avoir constaté une défaillance du système informatique , ils avaient perdu le contrôle de l'avion mais que tout était rentré dans l'ordre par la suite .

L'urgence a été levée et l'appareil a pu atterrir à Philadephie 1h15 après le début des problèmes rencontrés par l'Airbus .
Cet incident fait suite à de nombreux cas comptant des similarités avec celui-ci , notamment sur deux appareils Qantas .

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

Emergency services in Shanghai are attending the scene of a crash involving a Boeing MD-11 freighter operated by cargo carrier Avient Aviation.
Seven crew members were on board the aircraft, and initial indications point to at least three fatalities.
Avient says that the accident occurred during take-off from Shanghai Pudong International Airport at 08:16.
The aircraft was operating a charter freight flight, says Avient, which has a UK headquarters although its fleet is registered in Zimbabwe.
"At this time, the full resources of Avient's accident response team have been mobilised and will be devoted to co-operating with all authorities responding to the accident," the carrier adds.
While the identity of the airframe has yet to be confirmed, Avient had only just taken delivery of its first MD-11F - registered Z-BAV, serial number 48408 - in the last few days.
This aircraft is an 18-year old Pratt & Whitney PW4000-powered example. Avient opted for the MD-11F to begin replacing its McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30Fs.

Jeannot a écrit:Retour du vol AF007 (380) sur JFK cette nuit. Le pilote a déclaré un souci de pilote automatiquealors qu'il était à la hauteur de Boston et a demandé a revenir sur JFK où il s'est posé sans souci sur la 31L

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

An Air France Airbus A380-800, registration F-HPJA performing flight AF-7 from New York JFK,NY (USA) to Paris Charles de Gaulle (France), was climbing out of New York at about abeam the eastern tip of Long Island, when the crew did not accept a clearance to climb above FL280 reporting they were not RVSM compliant because of autopilot problems. The airplane levelled off at FL280 and continued eastwards for another 30 minutes, then the crew decided they were unable to fix the problem and needed to return to New York's John F. Kennedy airport, where the airplane landed safely about another hour later and about 1:45 hours after departure.

The airplane was able to depart again about 4 hours after the return and is currently estimated to reach Paris with a delay of 6:15 hours.

Retour vers l'aéroport de New York JFK (USA) pour un Boeing 777-200 de la compagnie ”Saudi Arabian” qui venait de décoller à destination de Riyadh (Arabie Saoudite) .

L’appareil, immatriculé HZ-AKD, opérait le vol SV-22 et était en pleine ascension vers son altitude de croisière quand les pilotes ont demandé l'arrêt de la montée à 7000ft à la suite du signalement d'ouverture de la porte du train principal gauche de l’avion. Quelques minutes plus tard , l'équipage a confirmé sa demande d'autorisation de retour vers JFK .
Le B772 est remonté à une altitude de 11000 ft afin de procéder au largage de carburant durant 20 minutes et est venu se poser en piste 31L , une petite heure après avoir quitté New York JFK .

Rédacteur : GIOU 31

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir cette image]
[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

L’avion a dû atterrir à New York, d'où il avait décollé, en raison d'un "problème informatique mineur", précise Air France.

L’A380 d’Air France a décollé de New York vers Paris et a volé pendant une heure et demie… avant de faire
demi-tour en raison d’une panne informatique et d’atterrir à son point de départ. L’incident a eu lieu dans la nuit de vendredi à samedi, mais la compagnie aérienne ne l’a révélé que lundi.

"L'avion est neuf et un peu en rodage, a expliqué un porte-parole d'Air France. C'était un problème informatique mineur qui rendait la navigation un peu imprécise."

Après un premier vol inaugural Paris-New York le 20 novembre, Air France a entamé les vols commerciaux le 23 novembre avec l'avion géant d'Airbus, qu'elle est la première compagnie européenne à exploiter

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

PARIS, 30 nov 2009 (AFP)

L'A380 d'Air France, qui a dû faire demi-tour vendredi peu après son décollage, a connu une panne du pilote automatique, a déclaré à l'AFP Erick Derivry, porte-parole du SNPL, principal syndicat de pilotes de la compagnie, qui a qualifié cet incident de "petite anomalie".

2009 AFP

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

An Air France Airbus A330-200, registration F-GZCK performing flight AF-445 from Sao Paulo Guarulhos,SP (Brazil) to Paris Charles de Gaulle (France), was enroute at FL380 overhead the Atlantic on airway UN741 just before waypoint DEKON about 680nm northeast of Fortaleza,CE (Brazil) and 750nm southwest of Praia (Portugal, Cape Verde), when the crew called Mayday on the international emergency frequency indicating, they encountered severe turbulence and were descending to a lower altitude. The airplane was seen enroute at FL280 overhead France and landed safely at Paris Charles de Gaulle 6:40 hours after the emergency call.

The Mayday call was relayed by the crew of a TAM Airbus A330-200 registration PT-MVG performing flight JJ-8055 from Paris CDG to Rio de Janeiro,RJ (Brazil) at around 03:50Z (Nov 30th).

An Air France Airbus A330-200, registration F-GZCK performing flight AF-445 from Sao Paulo Guarulhos,SP (Brazil) to Paris Charles de Gaulle (France), was enroute at FL380 overhead the Atlantic on airway UN741 just before waypoint DEKON about 680nm northeast of Fortaleza,CE (Brazil) and 750nm southwest of Praia (Portugal, Cape Verde), when the crew called Mayday on the international emergency frequency indicating, they encountered severe turbulence and were descending to a lower altitude. The airplane was seen enroute at FL280 overhead France and landed safely at Paris Charles de Gaulle 6:40 hours after the emergency call.

The Mayday call was relayed by the crew of a TAM Airbus A330-200 registration PT-MVG performing flight JJ-8055 from Paris CDG to Rio de Janeiro,RJ (Brazil) at around 03:50Z (Nov 30th).

WOW, I knew something was up, i was the PF last night of TK 15 from DKR-GRU,Airbus A330-200 - holy shit did we have some turbulence....we were light so i tried to climb above most of the activity, got stuck at FL 400 around the tops, had maybe half the pax throw up, and was in the soup for 2 hours and 27 minutes towards KODOS intersection, there were times where we were dropping 4-500 feet and losing speed and gaining within seconds..it was a rough night, didn't let the f/a's leave their seats whatsoever...

I have never seen the wings flex so much in my life, it was quite amazing,...i was trying to fly a fast enough speed to maintain above clean speed, but slow enough to not get pounded back...i also thought about dropping down in altitude, but there were NO other a/c on my airway to talk to and ask about the ride ahead, even atlantico and dakar HF couldn't assist as they had no traffic either...
glad things worked out well for everyone...

Turbulence levels have been layed out by ICAO as light moderate and severe...and to assist in understanding which one you are flying through, you can't really use these terms because they are general descritptions, and sometimes you can't really place yourself into them. Every pilot has their own comfort zone and definition of turbulence...mine are as follows..

light : in flight service can continue using trolleys and pouring drinks...only a lap belt is sufficient to keep me in my seat and writing things down is no problem...

moderate: In flight service starts getting a lil rough for the warriors of the cabin, and drinks need to be filled at less than half for safdety purposes, and the trolleys need to be secured on spot using their brakes...minor changes in speed, ranging from 10-15 knots in TAS or around 0.01-0.05 MACH, as we are flying through the area of different pressure or temperature instantly, the a/c computer calculates our speed change depending on ambiet TAT and SAT. Instruments can be read and writing something down requires for me to wait until certain periods of jolting have eased up...I need to use a lap belt and the first point of harness between my legs to stop me from shifting from time to time...

Severe: Sudden loss and gains in altitude, that free fall feeling in your stomach, followed by sudden jolts of the a/c in random directions...drinks and food can not be served without spilling, and passengers start to throw up. The aircraft instruments can't be read clearly from the jolting as the oscilation rate is faster than what our eyes can process. Requires the use of a 5 point strap in and i pull my seat up and secure myself into the seat with no room to move so that i move exactly how the airplane does, so i can read my instruments and make sure i am not dropping below clean speed and into the yellow VLS zone at altitude - the last thing i want to do is activate aircraft protection at 40,000 feet and deal with recontrolling and reestablishing the a/c path... You can hear the actual wind and wind shift in the airbus cockpit and it swosshes and changes direction over the structure of the airplane, quite exciting and a lil nerve wrecking. The trend vector arrow is alive and is quite large on your PFD, which insdicates atmospheric instability and windshear....

Airbus procedure in severe turbulence is to disconnect the A/THR system,however i did not see a need for this that night. There are recommended speeds and N1 settings to be used during this event...
as a general rule, flying through severe turbulence is rare, but what happens is that most of the turbulence is moderate, with occasioanl severe in between...for me it was maybe 2 hours of mod and 12-15 mins of severe inbetween, but not all in one go...if that makes sense...

You get used to it as a pilot, i always reduce my speed, I would rather deal with a stall or partial loss of control with 40,000 feet to recover, than an inflight structural problem...
I've been flying for almost 4000+ hours now...and well, you can tell where what is going to happen...byt looking at the OAT, and the shape of the clouds, the K index charts, the prog charts, the winds...it's quite easy....hope this helps with the first question!

On Airbus, we have ECAM -electronic centralized aircraft monitoring. I did not receive any warnings or flags, and the data on my instruments was shifting a lot because of the major change in temperature and pressure as we flew through these air patches...hence the change in speed and altitude, and the windshear...all quite normal for that region of the world...I opted to turn on my engine ignition in case of a flameout because i have read reports of disturbed/windhsear related airflow almost stalling and flaming out and engine in the past, there was no harm in doing this.

Thrust was on auto all the way. The largest speed drop I got at altitude was from 0.78 mach to 0.76 instantly, and that put me under my clean speed for a few seconds, but it came right back. My aircraft was light because the trip tie was on 6:45 so we were experiencing more than normal loads and effects of this turbulence.

The atmosphere is sterile, but just to break the mood from time to time, we update each other in a humurous way, to keep the calm and cool, we are professional and experienced, BUT we are also human...i thought about AF 447, and how things would have only started with how they finished for me...and how they would have had to descend into the storms and through icing...i just said a lil prayer and thought, dear god please always give me the chance to always plan ahead with my flights, like i was able to today...The captain and I were quite calm, we exchanged theories as to why it was so rough, and actually enjoyed mother nature's amazing power and force as it effected us, i also made a nice lil announcement to the back, telling them everything is a ok and that we had expected this weather and we were fighting through it for another few mins...

I hope this helps you my friend...now for some correction time

1. AUTOPILOT OFF - AUTOPILOT OFF is not a land asap item on our a/c...i don't know many airlines that would divert due to this issue if they are already well under way...however the PIC is the final word, if he was going into rough weather, then maybe a divert is in order...but there is no text that says this to my knwledge in my a/c.

2. NAT tracks....flying through where we did, we don't use NAT tracks...NAT is NORTH atlantic..this airpace is SOUTH atlantic...and there are no 90 degree turn off and break off procedures for this region or paralleling the tracks, they are established airways....

3. WEATHER - severe turbulence is normally CAT - non cloud turbulence....the red and green and yellow echoes we see, that is not what we fly through in these conditions..those are echoes of moisture from cloud formations, when we talk about this turbulence, we talk about cirrus and alto cirrus clouds, the misty looking swept clouds hiiiiigh above the earth, they are this shape because of the severe upper atmosphere winds...so we need to get this straight, this flight did not fly through an area of RED CB echoes....they probably passed downwind or near an area of jetstream CAT...if you fly through a red CB echo, you might not come out the other end, which is what i suspect the AF crew were eventually ending up in due to icing...i am convinced this area has serious icing, and a freeze of the pitots would be a piece of cake for the clouds we flew through, esp if they were the wrong ones...and now that airbus has released a BACKUP SPEED SYSTEM - BUSS, im more than convinced this was an icing/flight control protection issue, along with secondary failures..

I do hope this helps [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir cette image]

Following an internal investigation, Air France can confirm that flight AF445 left Rio on 29 November at 21:20 (local time) and landed in Paris on 30 November at 12:04 (local time). Approximately four hours after take off, in strict accordance with procedures, the flight deck crew:

- carried out a normal descent to avoid severe turbulence and reached a flight level with less turbulence, thus ensuring a more comfortable flight for passengers,

- being unable to obtain immediate authorisation from air traffic control, sent out an emergency radio message to indicate that the aircraft had left its flight level.

After half an hour of moderate to severe turbulence, the flight continued normally.
The flight was operated with an Airbus A330-200 (F-GZCK) carrying 203 passengers, 3 pilots and 9 flight attendants on board.

Retour vers Amsterdam pour un Airbus A330-200 de la compagnie KLM , immatriculé PH-AOF qui opérait le vol KL-677 entre Amsterdam (NL) et Calgary (Canada) avec un nombre non-précisé de passagers à son bord .

L'appareil était au FL400 après 1h30 de vol quand les pilotes ont initié un retour vers les Pays-bas où l'appareil s'est posé en toute sécurité, 3 heures après avoir décollé d’Amsterdam.

---------------------------------

Toujours d'après ce passager, les pilotes auraient annoncé après 90 minutes de vol , qu'ils avaient pris l'option de faire demi-tour à la suite de nombreuses erreurs concernant le système informatique de l'avion , la meilleure solution de réparation se trouvant à Amsterdam .

Le vol KL-677 ainsi que le vol retour ont été annulés et les passagers replacés
sur d'autres appareils .

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

Sydney (NSW, Australie) - Un avion de la compagnie aérienne française de l'Ile de la réunion, Air Austral, est bloqué depuis hier à l'aéroport Kingfsord Smith de Sydney pour cause de fuite hydraulique.

L'avion, un Boeing 777-200, vol UU771, qui effectuait la liaison entre l'aéroport international Roland-Garros de Saint-Denis et l'aéroport international de La Tontouta (Nouvelle Calédonie) avec escale à Sydney avec un nombre de passagers qui n'est pas connu, n'a pas pu repartir d'Australie.

Des informations contradictoires ont d'abord annoncé le vol comme retardé à l'après-midi, puis le vol a été annulé et les passagers transférés dans des hôtels de la ville afin d'attendre le lendemain.

Ce matin l'appareil est toujours en cours de réparation, le décollage pour l'instant planifié à 10h30 (heure de Sydney) mais non confirmé.

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

....L'appareil immatriculé F-GSPB était en approche de sa destination quand l'équipage a déclaré une défaillance d'un des systèmes hydrauliques de l'avion puis a demandé l'autorisation de se poser sur la piste la plus longue disponible.

Les pilotes ont donc posé le Boeing en toute sécurité et l'appareil a pu rejoindre le terminal par ses propres moyens...

Rédacteur : GIOU 31

A REX Regional Express Saab 340B, registration VH-ORX performing flight ZL-161 from Orange,NS to Sydney,NS (Australia), was turning onto final approach for Sydney's runway 34R about 7nm before touch down, when the crew reported they had a temporary loss of control suspecting wake turbulence. The airplane continued for a safe landing on runway 34R. One passenger received minor injuries in the upset.

The Australian Transportation Safety Board ATSB released their [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] concluding following safety factors contributed:

- There was no requirement for wake turbulence separation to be provided by Air Traffic Control in respect of aircraft operations on the adjacent parallel runway. [Safety issue]

- The strong crosswind caused the wake turbulence that was generated by the Airbus Industrie A380-800 (A380) operating on runway 34 Left (34L), to drift across to the final approach path for runway 34 Right (34R).

- Due to the location of the respective runway thresholds, the approach path for 34L was higher than the approach path for 34R at a fixed distance from the airport, resulting in the drifted A380 wake turbulence descending onto the SAAB’s final approach path.

Two safety actions to introduce wake separation for operation on parallel runways have been taken.

The airplane was joining the final approach course for runway 34R at about 7nm from the threshold descending through an altitude of 2400 feet, when the airplane experienced an uncommanded 52 degrees roll to the left and an uncommanded pitch down by 8 degrees. Immediately following the airplane rolled to a right bank angle of 21 degrees. During the about 9-15 seconds of the encounter the airplane lost 300-400 feet of altitude before the crew regained control of the aircraft. The airplane was about 259 meters to the right of the extended centerline of runway 34R. The crew disengaged the autopilot and completed the landing flying manually.

Radar recordings showed, that a Dash 8 was the last on approach to runway 34R about 130 seconds or 6.5nm ahead of the Saab. An Airbus A380-800 was on approach to runway 34L about 3.4nm ahead and to the left of the Saab. The A388 had passed the incident location to the left and above about 72 seconds prior to the Saab. The crew of the Saab was aware of both preceding aircraft and considered the separation being adequate.

Surface winds at the time were coming from 270 degrees at 8 knots. The air data of the A388 indicated, that the winds increased in strength with altitude and reached about 35 knots from 246 degrees at 2400 feet. Visibility was in excess of 10km with no clouds between surface and 5000 feet.

The ATSB computed based on the wind data of 249 degrees at 35 knots, that the wing vortices created by the A388 took 72 seconds to cover the 1037 meters of runway spacing plus 259 meters of the Saab being from the runway centerline.

The runway threshold of 34L is abeam 961 meters down runway 34R. This means, that airplanes approaching 34L at the same glideslope angle are generally higher at the same location than those on approach to runway 34R (editorial note: by about 165 feet).

The ATSB analysed, that the Australian as well as international regulations did not cater for the possible lateral drift of wake turbulence in high crosswind conditions and vertically staggered approaches.

At the time of the occurrence the A388 was listed in the heavy wake turbulence category. On November 19th 2008 the A388's category was changed to Super Wake Turbulence Category following materials received from the International Civil Aviation Organisation ICAO. The Super Wake Turbulence Category requires increased separation compared to the heavy category.