QF29 VH-OJU 'stick shaker 7.4.2017' incident injures 15 passengers

[Melburnian1]

'The Australian' tonight has an online (probably in print tomorrow) about '15 injured as Qantas jet suffers serious stall alert.' Reporter was Emily Ritchie.

I have not included a link as the paywall tends to defeat one, but type in the above into Google and it may be viewable.

QF B744 VH-OJU had its first flight on 18 January 2000, so it is not the oldest of the 11 remaining in service.

Since the incident approaching HKG, it went back to SYD (I assume as QF118), then did two return trips on QF73/74 to and from SFO and is currently on its way from SYD to SCL (QF27.)

Presumably this incident will be picked up by other media tomorrow morning. Is it as concerning as Geoffrey Thomas suggests?

It is unusual that the ATSB must have stated that its investigation will be completed in August 2017 as it is way behind on many of its surface and air transport investigations with a typical timeframe being at least 12 months. Admittedly this incident is not a plane crash or a serious train derailment aftera truck collided with it, so it's probably somewhat simpler.

UPDATE: I have placed the full text in a subsequent post below.

 

[RooFlyer]

From Flight radar 24. Interestingly, the up-tick in speed (yellow line) at about 9:50 corresponds to 22,000' , the reported height where the incident occurred. May have nothing to do with it, of course.

 

[moa999]

A non-paywall source:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/04/12/qantas-stick-shaker-incident-probed

Without the gratuitous Geoffrey Thomas comments about a stall

 

[Melburnian1]

...Without the gratuitous Geoffrey Thomas comments about a stall

moa999, I take it that you consider it far less serious than the aforementioned Mr Thomas.

Can you explain for the benefit of many of us why? Is it because it is unusual for such incidents to go on for any measurable length of time?

'The Australian's' report is far more comprehensive than that of SBS (latter sourced from AAP.) The former is worth a read.

 

[moa999]

Obvious a disruption occured if passengers were injured.

But I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions too early, particularly throwing around the headline grabbing s**** word.

Hopefully some of the pilots around here can weigh in.

Interesting at about that time on descent that the altitude suddenly increases as well

 

[BacchusMarsh]

Obvious a disruption occured if passengers were injured.

But I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions too early, particularly throwing around the headline grabbing s word.

Hopefully some of the pilots around here can weigh in.

Very politely put.

 

[Blackswan]

A non-paywall source:
Qantas 'stick-shaker' incident probed | SBS News

Without the gratuitous Geoffrey Thomas comments about a stall

Remind me again, what exactly are Geoffrey Thomas' aviation credentials?

 

[Happy Trails]

Remind me again, what exactly are Geoffrey Thomas' aviation credentials?

Well, AIUI, he's a Qantas CL.
But, perhaps, not for much longer.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Here is the article in full:

***********************************************************************************************

FIFTEEN passengers were injured on a Qantas flight from Melbourne to Hong Kong after a serious stall alert last Friday, it has just emerged.
Authorities will now begin a serious incident investigation after a ‘stick shaker’ warning activated on the QF29 service on April 7.
Stick shaker is an industry phrase used to describe a stall warning, where the controls shake to warn the flight deck of an imminent stall.
Details of the in-flight incident, which took place at the end of the Boeing 747’s 9.5 hour flight, some 110 kilometres south of Hong Kong, have only just emerged.
The Australian reports that the plane also experiencing airframe buffeting, which often causes vibration.
“The flight crew disconnected the autopilot and manoeuvred the aircraft in response,” the Australian Transportation Safety Bureau (ATSB) told the newspaper in a statement.
“Fifteen passengers received minor injuries. As part of the investigation, the ATSB will interview the flight crew and gather additional information.”
Fifteen people were injured and one of them was hospitalised as a result of the incident.
One of the 15 people to be injured required hospitalisation but was later released, it was reported.
The airline confirmed the incident to The Australian on Wednesday — the first public statement almost a week later.
“Customers on QF29 experienced unexpected in-flight turbulence when travelling from Melbourne to Hong Kong on Sunday,” a Qantas spokeswoman said.
“We notified the ATSB of the occurrence, and our own teams are also reviewing the event.”
Geoffrey Thomas, an aviation expert, told The Australian that such an incident was “extremely unusual”.
“A stick shaker is an extremely rare event, and very, very serious,” he said.

 

[whatmeworry]

More links.

Qantas mid-air incident injures 15 on flight from Melbourne to Hong Kong

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-044/

 

[Major]

Also a bit more info here

Accident: Qantas B744 near Hong Kong on Apr 7th 2017, stick shaker activation in holding pattern injures 15 passengers

 

[Melburnian1]

Here is the article in full:...

What you provided was not the original full online 'The Australian' article.

The original article had more extensive comments from Mr Geoffrey Thomas, and much more detail:

[FONT=&quot]The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has opened a serious incident investigation after a “stick shaker” stall warning activated on a Qantas Boeing 747 flight from Melbourne during which 15 passengers were injured, including one taken to hospital.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Stick shaker” is an aviation term used to describe a stall warning — where the control stick shakes to warn pilots of an imminent stall.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The flight also experienced airframe buffeting, which typically causes vibration, while nearing Hong Kong last Friday.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]An aviation expert expressed alarm tonight, with the event considered “extremely rare” and “very, very serious”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The 747 was in the final hour of the 9½-hour flight.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“The ATSB is *investigating a stick shaker activation involving a Qantas Boeing 747, VH-OJU, 110km SE of Hong Kong, on 7 April 2017,” the bureau said in a statement tonight.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“The flight crew disconnected the autopilot and manoeuvred the aircraft in response. Fifteen passengers received minor injuries.”It said it would interview the flight crew and gather information.”

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Qantas confirmed the incident tonight. “Customers on QF29 experienced unexpected in-flight turbulence when travelling from Melbourne to Hong Kong on Friday,” a Qantas spokeswoman said. “We notified the ATSB of the occurrence, and our own teams are also reviewing the event.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The aircraft was 110km southeast of Hong Kong at 22,000 feet when the control stick on the 17-year-old 747 began *vibrating.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Qantas said the shaking lasted about two minutes. Fifteen passengers were slightly injured. An ambulance met the flight in Hong Kong and one passenger was taken to hospital for “precautionary medical *assessment” and later released, the spokeswoman said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]She confirmed the aircraft underwent all the necessary engineering checks after landing and went back into service that same evening.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Aviation expert Geoffrey Thomas said such an incident was “extremely unusual”. “A stick shaker is an extremely rare event, and very, very serious,” he said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He described it as an “aero-*dynamic stall” which occurs when “the angle of attack of the wing increases beyond a point such that the lift begins to decrease”. “The airflow over the wing begins to separate and it breaks up. There is a sudden decrease in altitude, which is why some passengers may have been injured,’’ he said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thomas, the editor-in-chief of Airlineratings.com, also likened the feeling of such an incident to “severe turbulence”. He said the incident may have been an auto*pilot malfunction.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The aircraft has 364 seats, but it was unclear how many passengers and crew were aboard.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]An ATSB aviation research *report released in November 2013 reviewed stall-warning events *reported to the air safety bureau over five years. The report found most of the 245 stall incidents *reported to the bureau were momentary and pilots had responded quickly “to ensure positive control of the aircraft was maintained”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Only “a few were associated with minor injuries to passengers or crew”, the report said, with most injuries caused during severe turbulence “or a temporary control issue.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The ATSB described a stick shaker or stall-warning signal as “a warning to flight crew to take corrective action to prevent a stall from developing’’.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The bureau’s research found common precursors to stick shakers or other stall warnings “were rapid changes of pitch angle or airspeed”. In one type of event, it was found that in a fifth of cases “the stall warning system was activated when the autopilot tried to correct the aircraft’s speed or flight path due to a disturbance”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In incidents on approach, the stall warning was typically activated when aircraft were “being *affected by turbulence while manoeuvring around weather”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The investigation is due to be completed in August.[/FONT]

 

[clazman]

Wow would have thought it would have appeared on social media on Friday

 

[paxman]

Yesterday, I just happened to be speaking with an FA who worked that flight and nothing was mentioned. Just seems strange it wasn't mentioned? How big a deal is this?

 

[Melburnian1]

Yesterday, I just happened to be speaking with an FA who worked that flight and nothing was mentioned. Just seems strange it wasn't mentioned? How big a deal is this?

One other odd feature is that it appears only passengers were injured, not cabin crew.

Perhaps every cabin crew member was in the galley and able to hold on to a structure, or the worst effect of the sudden movement was experienced in the rear rows of the aircraft, where passengers were standing (or lacked seat belts if seated) bur crew were not in the aisles in this section of the B744.

It is a big deal because the ATSB has decided to investigate, and one passenger was conveyed to hospital by ambulance in HKG. If no one had required the latter...less of a problem.

It's all over the mainstream media now, although 'The Oz' was first with the news last night, despite its report being far more comprehensive than the AAP-issued one.

 

[RooFlyer]

Yesterday, I just happened to be speaking with an FA who worked that flight and nothing was mentioned. Just seems strange it wasn't mentioned? How big a deal is this?

To clarify - nothing was mentioned by them to you, or there was no particular incident mentioned to the crew during or after the flight?

 

[Dannyism]

Interesting. The quote below seems like the most logical explanation to me.

'In one type of event, it was found that in a fifth of cases “the stall warning system was activated when the autopilot tried to correct the aircraft’s speed or flight path due to a disturbance”.
In incidents on approach, the stall warning was typically activated when aircraft were “being *affected by turbulence while manoeuvring around weather”.'

 

[AviatorInsight]

This was a response I made in the Ask The Pilot thread to a question about turbulence causing stick shaker activation:

Up at altitude where the margin between stick shaker and overspeed is small (known as coffin corner), turbulence can most definitely be a factor. Down at 20,000ft where the margin is greater, not so much. That is not to say it's not possible though. As with any incident/accident there are a lot of variables. What was the holding speed? Was it ATC related or aircraft related? Were there icing conditions present? Was the aircraft in a clean or dirty configuration? Was it turning when it happened (this increases the amount of lift required)?

I'm sure there are lots more questions to be asked, but like others have quite correctly stated on the other thread, it is a reaction to an impending stall. The aircraft has not at this point stalled. The vibration they would have felt would have been the buffeting from the disrupted airflow over the tailplane. The pilots did a great job and stopped the situation from getting any worse and the plane landed safely.

I will also add that I had a stick shaker activation momentarily after take off one day on 34L out of SYD. We had plenty of airspeed (remember stalling isn't necessarily a loss in airspeed but when the AoA exceeds the critical angle). The reason for the activation was windshear, where a sudden change in the wind direction and speed caused the aircraft to pitch up. Because of the sudden pitch change, the stick shaker activated. It was only for a brief second or two and I was manually flying at the time so only a small nose down correction was needed to counteract. Once we were out of the shear it was a regular climb.

 

[SimonD]

Qantas Stick Shaker Incident

The full report will be expected in August, but there's a few initial reports coming out now:

Qantas under ATSB investigation after plane hit 'turbulence' that left 15 injured - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Qantas safety incident explained: What is a 'stick shaker' and how serious is this investigation? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[mannej]

Re: Qantas Stick Shaker Incident

This has been discussed in the Ask the Pilot thread and it's own thread already - this will likely be closed and merged.