CAL 777 hits CAT?

[Spooky 2]

FWIW:

15 MAR 2007 ATSB releases final report into Boeing 777 in-flight upset event
In August 2005, Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777-2H6ER 9M-MRG suffered an in-flight upset en route from Perth to Kuala Lumpur. A safe landing was made back in Perth. The Australian ATSB concluded that a contributing safety factor was that an anomaly existed in the component software hierarchy that allowed inputs from a known faulty accelerometer to be processed by the air data inertial reference unit (ADIRU) and used by the primary flight computer, autopilot and other aircraft systems. Other safety factors identified were: 1) The software anomaly was not detected in the original testing and certification of the ADIRU; and 2) The aircraft documentation did not provide the flight crew with specific information and action items to assess and respond to the aircraft upset event. (ATSB)

Thanks Tom, but I don't think an upset is the same as upside down or inverted in this case. I'm doing some work with a former MAS Capt. later today and I'll ask him about the details.

 

[typhoonpilot]

History of the flight:

​

​

At approximately 1703 Western Standard Time1, on 1 August 2005, a Boeing Company 777-200 aircraft (B777), registered 9M-MRG, was being operated on a
scheduled international passenger service from Perth, Australia to Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia. The flight crew reported that they observed a LOW AIRSPEED advisoryon the aircraft’s Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS), whenclimbing through flight level (FL) 380. They also reported that, at the same time, the aircraft’s slip/skid indication2 deflected to the full right position on the Primary Flight Display (PFD)3. The PFD speed tape4 then indicated that the aircraft was approaching the overspeed limit and the stall speed limit5 simultaneously. The aircraft nose then pitched up, with the aircraft climbing to approximately FL410. The indicated airspeed then decreased from 270 to 158 kts, and the stall warning
and stick shaker devices activated. The pilot in command reported that he then disconnected the autopilot and lowered the nose of the aircraft. The aircraft autothrottle then commanded an increase in
thrust, which the pilot in command countered by manually moving the thrust levers to the idle position. The aircraft nose pitched up again and the aircraft climbed 2,000 ft. The flight crew notified air traffic control (ATC) that they could not maintain altitude and requested a descent and radar assistance for a return to Perth. The crew were able to verify the actual aircraft groundspeed and altitude of the
aircraft with ATC. The pilot in command later reported that the PFD indications appeared normal
when descending through FL200. He then reportedly selected the LEFT6 autopilot‘ON’, but the aircraft banked to the right and the nose pitched down, so the autopilot was disengaged. A similar result occurred when the RIGHT autopilot was selected, so the pilot in command left the autopilot disengaged and manually flew the aircraft. The pilot in command reported that, with the autopilot disengaged, there were no further control difficulties experienced. The pilot in command reported that he attempted to disconnect the autothrottle by pressing the thrust lever autothrottle disconnect switches and pushing the autothrottle engage switch. The autothrottle arm switches had remained in the ‘ARMED’ position during the occurrence.
​

The crew were given radar vectors by ATC to position for an instrument landing system approach onto runway 03 at Perth. When the aircraft was at an altitude of 3,000 ft above ground level (AGL), and the crew was preparing for the approach, the PFD again annunciated a low indicated airspeed condition. The autothrottle system responded to the low indicated airspeed condition by commanding an
increase in thrust of the engines. At the time of the landing, the wind at Perth was 25 kts gusting to 30 kts from the north-west, with moderate turbulence below 3,000 ft AGL. During the approach, the aircraft’s windshear alert warning system indicated a windshear condition, but the flight crew continued the approach and landed the aircraft without further
incident. The flight crew later reported that the aircraft’s autobrake system was selected to AUTOBRAKE 3 before landing, but that after landing the autobrakes were not able to be cancelled by using the brake pedals. The AUTOBRAKE switch
was then selected to OFF and normal operation resumed.

Full report here


Typhoonpilot​

 

[Spooky 2]

Thanks for the report. Nothing like having the facts of the case in front of you.

 

[Palomino]

History of the flight:

​

At approximately 1703 Western Standard Time1, on 1 August 2005, a Boeing Company 777-200 aircraft (B777), registered 9M-MRG, was being operated on a
scheduled international passenger service from Perth, Australia to Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia. The flight crew reported that they observed a LOW AIRSPEED advisoryon the aircraft’s Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS), whenclimbing through flight level (FL) 380. They also reported that, at the same time, the aircraft’s slip/skid indication2 deflected to the full right position on the Primary Flight Display (PFD)3. The PFD speed tape4 then indicated that the aircraft was approaching the overspeed limit and the stall speed limit5 simultaneously. The aircraft nose then pitched up, with the aircraft climbing to approximately FL410. The indicated airspeed then decreased from 270 to 158 kts, and the stall warning
and stick shaker devices activated. The pilot in command reported that he then disconnected the autopilot and lowered the nose of the aircraft. The aircraft autothrottle then commanded an increase in
thrust, which the pilot in command countered by manually moving the thrust levers to the idle position. The aircraft nose pitched up again and the aircraft climbed 2,000 ft. The flight crew notified air traffic control (ATC) that they could not maintain altitude and requested a descent and radar assistance for a return to Perth. The crew were able to verify the actual aircraft groundspeed and altitude of the
aircraft with ATC. The pilot in command later reported that the PFD indications appeared normal
when descending through FL200. He then reportedly selected the LEFT6 autopilot‘ON’, but the aircraft banked to the right and the nose pitched down, so the autopilot was disengaged. A similar result occurred when the RIGHT autopilot was selected, so the pilot in command left the autopilot disengaged and manually flew the aircraft. The pilot in command reported that, with the autopilot disengaged, there were no further control difficulties experienced. The pilot in command reported that he attempted to disconnect the autothrottle by pressing the thrust lever autothrottle disconnect switches and pushing the autothrottle engage switch. The autothrottle arm switches had remained in the ‘ARMED’ position during the occurrence.
​

The crew were given radar vectors by ATC to position for an instrument landing system approach onto runway 03 at Perth. When the aircraft was at an altitude of 3,000 ft above ground level (AGL), and the crew was preparing for the approach, the PFD again annunciated a low indicated airspeed condition. The autothrottle system responded to the low indicated airspeed condition by commanding an
increase in thrust of the engines. At the time of the landing, the wind at Perth was 25 kts gusting to 30 kts from the north-west, with moderate turbulence below 3,000 ft AGL. During the approach, the aircraft’s windshear alert warning system indicated a windshear condition, but the flight crew continued the approach and landed the aircraft without further
incident. The flight crew later reported that the aircraft’s autobrake system was selected to AUTOBRAKE 3 before landing, but that after landing the autobrakes were not able to be cancelled by using the brake pedals. The AUTOBRAKE switch
was then selected to OFF and normal operation resumed.

Full report here


Typhoonpilot​

spooky indeed.

nice job on the recovery.

 

[Spooky 2]

Upsets

For the record Boeing defines an "upset" in the B777 as anything with the following conditions:

Pitch attitude greater than 25 degrees NU
Pitch attitude greater than 10 degrees ND
Bank Angle greater than 45 degrees
Within these parameters but flying a airspeeds inappropriate for the conditions.

I can usually exceed most if not all of these in a routine sim check!

 

[pianoman]

My IOE check airman mentioned that in early 2007 (I think) a CAL crew hit some pretty severe turbulence somewhere over Alaska coming back from the Far East.

 

[whatitdoing?]

Ya, it's true. From what I understand, it was a CAL 777 somewhere over the Artic. The FO and IRO where at the controls when they hit CAT. They clicked off the autopilot and went for an interesting ride. I don't know anything beyond that, but it seems they went "near" inverted. I think I would of crapped myself.

 

[samballs]

I heard it wasn't really turbulence, but a lateral imbalance from the overweight 777 Captain getting back in his seat after his break. The plane was trimmed up for the IRO, not the CA.

Sounds more likely than the CAT turbelence explanaition when you really think about it. LOL

I just wanna bend you over and bang you in the A$$

 

[Pocono Pilot]

I just wanna bend you over and bang you in the A$$

Oh please slimeballs. I'm sure I wouldn't even feel it. LOL

 

[Spooky 2]

Ya, it's true. From what I understand, it was a CAL 777 somewhere over the Artic. The FO and IRO where at the controls when they hit CAT. They clicked off the autopilot and went for an interesting ride. I don't know anything beyond that, but it seems they went "near" inverted. I think I would of crapped myself.

Please stop posting your ignorant, uninformed BS regarding this event.

 

[whatitdoing?]

Ok, I'll admit I shouldn't of said this was "TRUE". I only say that because I can't find anything about it. But, I heard it from 2 CA's and when I had my last checkride, I brought it up to the check airman in IAH who said it happened shortly after CAL got the 777's. The senario that I stated came right from the horses mouth. None of them talked to each other and the story was the same. I was as shocked as anyone. From what I was told, the CA on break was hanging on for dear life.

So where's your facts on this "event"? It seems like you portray yourself as the "authority" but you don't back anything up with facts. So call it BS....I don't give a s***.

 

[sat74]

Ya, it's true. From what I understand, it was a CAL 777 somewhere over the Artic. The FO and IRO where at the controls when they hit CAT. They clicked off the autopilot and went for an interesting ride. I don't know anything beyond that, but it seems they went "near" inverted. I think I would of crapped myself.

This is very similar to the story I heard. The CA was on break with the FO and IRO at the controls when they hit the CAT and went all over the place. But this was fairly recent from what I heard.

Its certainly not an unbelievable event, so why all the hush hush about it if really happened. I have been tossed around very badly before in CAT and I would want to know about this and learn from it instead of trying to cover it up.

 

[whatitdoing?]

I think this was the incident. IAH-NRT in 2002

Press Releases


FAA KILLS EFFORT TO IMPROVE WEATHER DATA DISSEMINATION


11/01/2005
CONTACT: Michelle Foster
817/656.4993
Phil Barbarello
516/381.6424

WASHINGTON - Federal air traffic management coordinators today are calling on the Federal Aviation Administration to take immediate action to restart work on an important safety feature to a software upgrade in the final development stages that would provide additional automated weather information to the computer system used by air traffic controllers monitoring the en route portion of flights.

The three-year-old project was proceeding, albeit slowly, up until mid-September, when FAA officials abruptly pulled the plug and put the project on ice for at least another six years.

"Once again, we are witnessing the one-step-forward, two-steps-back approach to safety and modernization that the FAA, regrettably, seems to feel the need to perfect," National Air Traffic Controllers Association President John Carr said. "This time, however, the subject matter involves weather, one of the most important factors in air safety. So it's serious business and altogether unacceptable for the agency to act so cavalier in dismissing the fact that this is a documented safety issue. Plus, the FAA has spent considerable money, time and energy on this effort, only to now scrap it and pour those dollars down the drain. More fodder for the agency's bulging file on waste and mismanagement."

NATCA Eastern Regional Vice President Phil Barbarello made NATCA's strong views known to agency officials last week, telling them that "we believe many safety incidents have gone unreported because of the lack of timely weather information dissemination." One incident that was reported occurred in 2002 when a Continental Airlines Boeing 777 from Houston to Narita, Japan, encountered severe turbulence that injured one passenger. Although all communications were done by the book, the multiple handling of messages and aircraft frequency changes caused the aircraft to miss some pertinent weather information.

"Having more than one point of entry in our facilities for weather information also adds to an increased factor of human error," said Barbarello, who helps oversee en route center matters for NATCA, which also represents traffic management coordinators. "And isn't that the primary argument for automation, to take human error out of the equation? Now, you have an overworked and understaffed workforce of specialists in our traffic management units that will have to continue to manually input weather information."

In addition to NATCA, opposition to the FAA's flip-flop has come from at least one official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and several FAA officials who were overruled by their superiors.

The bottom line, said Barbarello, is that "this process can be streamlined with benefits all the way around and to not do it is ridiculous. It sure sounds to me like this is just not high enough on the priority list for the agency and we would like to see that change."

 

[flygirlqt]

I'm sure I wouldn't even feel it. LOL

When you stretch that gaping lower body orifice through constant abuse from your paying customers, this is the natural result.

This is probably the first logical and accurate post you have ever made.

 

[whatitdoing?]

flygirlqt.....you're cracking me up!!!