Monday February 28 9:30 AM ET

Five Injured in British Airways Plane Jolt

LONDON (Reuters) - Five people were hurt when a British Airways' 747 jumbo jet carrying 364 passengers jolted in mid-air en route to New York Monday, leaving one passenger in hospital with a suspected broken leg, the airline said.

Three of the passengers were taken to hospital but were released soon afterwards while one crew member was treated for cuts and bruises, a company spokeswoman said.

``One passenger is currently being treated after being injured in a flight overnight. The incident happened at about 0220 GMT,'' a the spokeswoman said.

``We believe the jolt was due to a technical problem but we do not want to speculate on the case until we have completed our investigation into the incident,'' she added.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000228/ts/plane_jolt_1.html

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), February 28, 2000

Answers

Wasn't this the 2nd incident of this type?

Thanks Carl for your continuing good posts!

-- Crow (suzan@monad.net), February 28, 2000.

One of the pilots on another discussion board said, "Possibly uncommanded autopilot input."

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), February 28, 2000.

Wow... another classic example of malfunctioning embedded chips. The Alaska Air Flight 261 autopilot was trying to fly the plane upside down, another one refused to make left turns, and this one is doing the shake, rattle, and roll. What's next, an inverted 360 degree loop?

Life imitates art. As written by Arthur C. Clarke in 2001 A Space Odyssey, the computers are taking control!

Thanks Carl. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 28, 2000.

FAA Accident/Incident Report. **** 02/28/2000 Preliminary Accident/Incident Data Record RECORD 1 **** A. Type: Accident Mid Air:N Missing:N Entry date: 02/28/2000 From: EASTERN REGION OPERATIONS CENTER

B. Reg.No.: BAW179 M/M: B747 Desc: SUPER JET 747 Activity: Business Phase: Descent GA-A/C: Air Carrier

Descr: BRITISH AIRWAYS ACFT WAS ON DESCENT INTO JFK ARPT 100 MILES SOUTH OF BOSTON, MA, WHEN IT EXPERIENCED AN UNCOMMANDED AUTOPILOT CLIMB, 1 PASSENGER SUSTAINED SERIOUS INJURIES (BROKEN LEG), AND 10 OTHER PASSENGERS SUSTAINED MINOR INJURIES IN THE EVENT, NO ACFT DAMAGE WAS REPORTED, THE ACFT LANDED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT IN NEW YORK, NY.

WX: UNKN Damage: None C2. Injury Data: # Crew: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:Y # Pass: 11 Fat: 0 Ser: 1 Min: 10 Unk:Y # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 UNK:

D. Location City: NEW YORK State: NY

E. Occ Date: 02/28/2000 Time: 02:45

F. Invest Coverage. IIC: Reg/DO: EA15 DO CTY: NEW YORK DO State: NY Others: NTSB

G. Flt Handling. Dep Pt: YYT Dep Date: 02/28/2000 Time: Dest: NEW YORK, NY Last Radio Cont: UNKN Flt Plan: IFR Last Clearance: UNKN WX Briefing: Y Other:

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), February 28, 2000.

Thanks Rachel,

AN UNCOMMANDED AUTOPILOT CLIMB...

It's gonna be fun to see how the polly trolls try to explain this one as an analog mechanical failure. More jackscrews and metal shavings?

Lol!!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 28, 2000.

Thanks Rachel! That is an incredible piece of information.

-- Carl Jenkins (Somewherepress@aol.com), February 29, 2000.

HAWK, what is a "UNCOMMANDED AUTOPILOT CLIMB"?

-- S BRyan G (sbrg3@juno.com), February 29, 2000.

LOL SB!!

Basically it means that the computer was flying the plane wherever the hell it wanted to without being told to do so. This should make for some very interesting journeys!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 29, 2000.

eeeeeeeeeeeeeek. what's a JOLT when you are in mid air?!! i am NOT flying again.

-- ttttttttttt (cuddluppy@aol.com), February 29, 2000.

Funny how all the aviation "experts" who bombarded all the other MD-80 threads with their campaign of disinformation haven't got so much as a peep to say about this incident.

There is no way they can possibly explain this one without admitting that the most likely cause is a computer malfunction, so they are avoiding it like the plaque. If they admitted that, they might actually be lending some credence to our suspicions about the cause of many of these anomalous incidents, and there's no way their inflated egos will allow them to make such a concession to us lowly "doomers."

LOL!! The truth is plain to see. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 29, 2000.

Hawk said: Funny how all the aviation "experts" who bombarded all the other MD-80 threads .... Hmmm, I thought this was about a 747. Well, he doesn't know the difference. ... with their campaign of disinformation haven't got so much as a peep to say about this incident. Well, since Hawk and everyone else has made up their minds already, why bother presenting the truth? He's going to continue to believe that embedded chips are at fault no matter what.

There is no way they can possibly explain this one without admitting that the most likely cause is a computer malfunction, so they are avoiding it like the plaque. Plaque is not a nice thing to have on your teeth, like having Hawk on this forum No, a computer malfunction is not the only posssible cause. If they admitted that, they might actually be lending some credence to our suspicions about the cause of many of these anomalous incidents, and there's no way their inflated egos will allow them to make such a concession to us lowly "doomers." You irrational doomers are going to believe what you want regardless of what we say. You think the presence of a computer means that it has Y2k bugs and that any aircraft malfunctions can be blamed on these non-existent Y2k bugs. If you were given an MD-80 and free rein, you still wouldn't believe that it didn't have a non-compliant embedded processor after you had torn it into shreds and hadn't found one. Let's see, what would be? Oh, yeah -- the NTSB substituted the non-compliant chips with compliant ones just before letting you have the aircraft.

AN UNCOMMANDED AUTOPILOT CLIMB... He shouts like this is something significant. During certification, autopilot installations are tested by deliberately inserting these malfunctions called "hardovers" to ensure that they will not be so severe as to put the aircraft in a maneuver that's unrecoverable.

It's gonna be fun to see how the polly trolls try to explain this one as an analog mechanical failure. More jackscrews and metal shavings? He puts words in our mouths, and then calls us trolls. He's called us "gubmint shills" and liars.

Now, really. Who is the troll?

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 29, 2000.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

I rest my case. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 01, 2000.

Hmmm. I thought you were going to ignore me Hawk. Gotcha!!!

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), March 01, 2000.