Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Three Wizz Air A320's lose airspeed data on Feb 26th

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Three Wizz Air A320's lose airspeed data on Feb 26th

    This should be interesting.

    Maintenance, I would guess... hopefully not masking tape this time.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	avherald_wizzair.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	27.3 KB
ID:	1045306

  • #2
    i get the sinking feeling it's all the same airplane.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
      i get the sinking feeling it's all the same airplane.
      You got the wrong sinking feeling (and were lazy in the research)

      A Wizz Air Airbus A321-200, registration HA-LXP performing flight W6-4427 from Sofia (Bulgaria) to Tel Aviv (Israel) with 220 people on board, was climbing to FL230 out of Sofia when the crew requested to stop climb at 10,000 feet MSL, accepted a climb to 12,000 feet due to terrain and entered a hold. The crew subsequently declared PAN, PAN, PAN reporting unreliable airspeed. After checking weather conditions around the aircraft climbed to FL200 and diverted to Budapest (Hungary) for a safe landing on runway 31R about 105 minutes after departure from Sofia.

      A Wizz Air Airbus A321-200, registration HA-LXD performing flight W6-4351 from Sofia (Bulgaria) to Milan Bergamo (Italy) with 204 passengers, was climbing out of Sofia cleared to climb to FL280 when the crew requested to stop climb at FL180 due to some issue while continuing along their planned flight route. The crew subsequently reported they had unreliable airspeed indications. The crew decided to return to Sofia, declared PAN and descended the aircraft to 11,000 feet, but then decided to divert to Budapest (Hungary), climbed the aircraft to FL200 and landed safely on Budapest's runway 31R about 2 hours after departure.

      A Wizz Air Airbus A321-200, registration HA-LXL performing flight W6-4321 from Sofia (Bulgaria) to Beauvais (France), was accelerating for takeoff on Sofia's runway 09 when the crew rejected takeoff at 80 knots reporting unreliable airspeed indications. The aircraft slowed safely and returned to the apron.

      Source: avherald.com (same source than Evan's picture)

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #4
        Maybe Airbus should point a pipe into the wind and then run a tube to a pressure gauge on the upper left instrument panel and put a pressure gauge there? Maybe you could calibrate it to MPH or KPH? Put a heating coil out on the pipe and and a few more tweaks, and Airbus could offer RELIABLE airspeed indications. RAS...sounds like a nifty acronym and marketing feature.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          Maybe Airbus should point a pipe into the wind and then run a tube to a pressure gauge on the upper left instrument panel and put a pressure gauge there? Maybe you could calibrate it to MPH or KPH? Put a heating coil out on the pipe and and a few more tweaks, and Airbus could offer RELIABLE airspeed indications. RAS...sounds like a nifty acronym and marketing feature.
          ...and Boeing. Don't forget Boeing:

          Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation


          Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            You got the wrong sinking feeling (and were lazy in the research)
            Happens to the best of us. "Even to you, Sosa..." (bonus for getting that reference)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
              Happens to the best of us. "Even to you, Sosa..." (bonus for getting that reference)
              I can't decide between 2 Bill's: Shakespeare or Gates

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                ...and Boeing. Don't forget Boeing:

                Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation


                http://avherald.com/h?article=4b4f3b2b&opt=0
                Noted.

                One of your links says that "the sensor" failed...

                Yes, definitely aligns with my smart-aleck-but-slightly-serious suggestion of removing electronical wizardry.
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Why are airspeed issues still a thing?

                  As a hobby programmer I could easily create a script that will calculate the time it took to traverse two GPS co-ordinates.

                  Okay it's not perfect but should be a decent backup to the pitot tube system.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Nirwanda View Post
                    As a hobby programmer I could easily create a script that will calculate the time it took to traverse two GPS co-ordinates.

                    Okay it's not perfect but should be a decent backup to the pitot tube system.
                    Because you're 'instrument' would give us a ground speed.......airplanes don't fly using groundspeed. (besides, I've already got a groundspeed readout)


                    More importantly, I've got to fly on one of this airline's planes someday if for no other reason so that I can say "I just took a Wizz!"
                    Parlour Talker Extraordinaire

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Vnav View Post
                      Because you're 'instrument' would give us a ground speed.......airplanes don't fly using groundspeed. (besides, I've already got a groundspeed readout)
                      I get that, but as a backup it would surely at least give you a rought estimate what your airspeed is. I'm thinking about how it could have helped Aeroperu etc.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Vnav View Post
                        More importantly, I've got to fly on one of this airline's planes someday if for no other reason so that I can say "I just took a Wizz!"
                        It works better if you say "I just took a Wizz from (insert name of a city) to (insert name of a different city)".
                        Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                        Eric Law

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Nirwanda View Post
                          I get that, but as a backup it would surely at least give you a rought estimate what your airspeed is. I'm thinking about how it could have helped Aeroperu etc.

                          That difference can be quite significant. At high cruise levels the margin for error is not so great. Windshear adds another dimension to it. But it hardly matters, pilots don't need speed data to safely remain in level flight. They just need to not do something else, like climb or descend outside the safe envelope, or cause sudden upsets.

                          The greatest danger unreliable airspeed poses is the confusion and disorientation it creates. Since autoflight systems cannot operate without airspeed data, pilots have to suddenly fly by hand with no time to mentally prepare, not so dangerous in itself but dangerous when your mind is confused and your judgment flawed.

                          The only reliable solution to this problem is in training pilots to follow procedures designed to protect them (and you) during those moments between a sudden event and a fully regained situational awareness.

                          Some pilots think they are above all that.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Nirwanda View Post
                            I get that, but as a backup it would surely at least give you a rought estimate what your airspeed is. I'm thinking about how it could have helped Aeroperu etc.
                            Close to the ground, yes. Up there in the levels, no. Air density makes a huge (and I say huge) difference between the indicated airspeed or calibrated airspeed or equivalent airspeed, which is what the pilots need to fly the airplane, vs the true airspeed or the ground speed. How huge? Think 250 vs 400 kts.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hey, Nirvana:

                              What if you programmed your GPS to track actual speed vs distance on a takeoff roll and compared that to the needed speed versus diastance for pilots to check that they aren’t going to come up short and take out a fence, or something?

                              It could even give warnings if things looked bad.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X