Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AirAsia flight missing

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

  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
    An Indonesian NTSC investigator made this statement today:



    So, it appears to be an upset situation and a struggle to recover.

    Sound familiar...?

    The preliminary report will be released on January 28.
    You mean like Lauda Air Flight 004

    or Copa Airlines Flight 201

    It does not matter how experienced or unexperienced the pilots are, once they're in a a life or death struggle for control with the aircraft the last thing on their minds is communicating with the ground until after they have the plane under some kind of control.

    As with the pilots of Alaska Airlines Flight 261

    Comment


    • Weather appears to have led to loss of control from early CVR.

      Indonesian investigators said the crash of AirAsia QZ8501 was not likely due to terrorism, in their first remarks since analysing the cockpit voice recorder.

      Transport safety committee investigator Andreas Hananto told the BBC that there were also indications that the plane encountered bad weather.

      The plane is thought to have gone down on 28 December when it encountered difficulties from an approaching storm.

      All 162 people onboard the flight from Surabaya to Singapore perished.

      Two more bodies were recovered on Monday, bringing the total found so far to 53.

      Mr Hananto told BBC Indonesian that investigators had listened to the entire two-hour recording, and found that there was "no threatening voice on board."

      The recording appeared to indicate that the pilot was too busy attempting to regain control of the aircraft to send a distress signal, he said.

      Some of the parameters retrieved from the flight data recorder seemed to indicate that the plane had encountered bad weather.

      More analysis was needed from the rest of the 1,200 parameters to determine the exact weather conditions and the impact the weather had on the plane's engines, Mr Hananto added.

      Investigators have only transcribed half of the cockpit voice recording and that would require more analysis as well.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jpmkam View Post
        Weather appears to have led to loss of control from early CVR.
        Reportedly Indonesia law prohibits public release of the CVR recording/transcript.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
          Reportedly Indonesia law prohibits public release of the CVR recording/transcript.
          I should have said flight data recorder in the title as the early parameters are what were referred to in the article.

          Comment


          • Another report:

            Just moments before the plane disappeared off the radar, the pilot had asked to climb to avoid the storm. He was not immediately granted permission due to heavy air traffic.

            "In the final minutes, the plane climbed at a speed which was beyond normal," Transport Minister Ignasius Jonan told reporters, citing radar data.

            "The plane suddenly went up at a speed above the normal limit that it was able to climb to. Then it stalled."

            Earlier at a parliamentary hearing, he said radar data showed the Airbus A320-200 appeared at one point to be climbing at a rate of 6,000 feet (1,800 metres) a minute before the crash. There were several other planes in the area at the time.

            "I think it is rare even for a fighter jet to be able to climb 6,000 feet per minute," he said. "For a commercial flight, climbing around 1,000 to 2,000 (feet) is maybe already considered extraordinary, because it is not meant to climb that fast."

            His comments came after Indonesian investigators said they were focusing on the possibility of human error or problems with the plane having caused the crash, following an initial analysis of the cockpit voice recorder.

            Comment


            • Citing radar data, Indonesian Transport Minister Ignasius Jonan said: "The plane, during the last minutes, went up faster than normal speed... then it..

              stalled."

              Ok, you can't determine stall from radar data and the report doesn't state anything from this statement was derived from the FDR.

              But he does confirm a 6000fpm climb which must involve a violent updraft unless AirAsia's A320 have the optional JATO rockets

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                at which time some of our resident experts with zero stick time will rant on about how the pilots were inept, poorly trained, and should never have been behind the (or this case, next to) the stick to begin with. and how simple it would have been to recover the aircraft had the pilots only done xyz...

                all from safety and security of their cozy houses...
                As I get older, it's not as easy to say stuff like "Why didn't they just do that basic recovery that Vanderburgh talks about", or just run the memory checklist for "we-just-encountered-butt-kicking-turbulence".

                Conversely, with some of these crashes, the pilots actions seem to be awfully counter to procedures and fundamentals.

                And at some point, there is a fine, gray line...perhaps they were royally screwed with overwhelming turbulence?...is there an instant when they went left when they should have gone right?...or did something break and they really had no choice?...or will we see evidence that suggests that thousands of hours of FMS programming and mundane driving and highly specific procedural training conditioned them to be kind of bad at flying?
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  stalled.
                  Why do pilots keep stalling your unstallable* airplane with all it's computer protections and all the memory checklists on how not to stall?

                  *Unstallable for most practical purposes.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    Why do pilots keep stalling your unstallable* airplane with all it's computer protections and all the memory checklists on how not to stall?

                    *Unstallable for most practical purposes.
                    Unstallable* in normal law... which is intended for normal operations where redundancies are in full agreement. If you EVER decide to actually learn about how these systems work, you will quickly see why they cannot be used when redundant systems are lost or where turbulance or attitudes exceed certain parameters.

                    Which is why we have things like alternate law and supplemental pilot training for upset recovery and—I know I'm wasting my words here—CRM and abnormal procedures. And basic airmanship.

                    I suspect what happened here exceeded normal law parameters as it did with AF447. It might have involved ice crystal ingestion. It might have involved excessive wind shear. Normal Law is not expected to be available during these scenarios. Any Airbus pilot who still thinks they can simply honk back on the stick and let the protections fly the plane is unsafe to fly and is the product of miserable training.

                    *Airbus has never claimed the A320 is 'unstallable'. It is 'stall-resistant'. Any pilot can stall any airplane at any speed or altitude.

                    Comment


                    • But

                      How high did it go at 6000fpm?

                      Comment


                      • "I think it is rare even for a fighter jet to be able to climb 6,000 feet per minute," he said. "For a commercial flight, climbing around 1,000 to 2,000 (feet) is maybe already considered extraordinary, because it is not meant to climb that fast."
                        Not true, judging by flightaware data, on many short hops I've been on, those E175s easily climb at 3500fpm. Even a 747 going on a 6hr transatlantic flight can climb at 2500fpm initially.

                        If indeed the reports are true about the 6000fpm climb then stall, then this is becoming very similar to Air France 447(as many have already speculated)

                        Comment


                        • somebody quickly explain (if you have a min) what might have happened here in non pilot terms if it was the same as the AF crash.
                          way i think of it with what i've read or seen)...Ice gets in the little pitot tubes (even tho these are heated) which give wrong airspeed indications...so plane is going faster than it thinks...pilot pulls nose up...but then it climbs too steep and then stalls....Is that right?
                          I'm not trying to speculate....im genuinely interested but the language you guys use is a bit perplexing to non pilots and i'd like to understand how this happens....if you dont wanna speculate on this one tell me in non pilot terms how it happened to the AF plane.

                          thanks

                          Comment


                          • Almost any aircraft can attain 6000fpm climb.... Until the speed bleeds off. Very few can sustain it.

                            Can't remember what TWA800's climb rate was after it lost the nose, but a rapid change in CG could initiate a momentary high rate climb, if say, the engines had detached under extreme loads due severe turbulence.

                            Seem to remember a report mentioning an engine was found relatively near the fuselage, so it seems unlikely that engine detachment was a prime link in the causal chain.

                            Having been thrown around the cockpit of a 747 in high altitude storm turbulence, I can attest to its violence. For such a massive aircraft to lose 250ft in the blink of an eye is impressive to say the least.

                            Comment


                            • Don't think af447 climbed to a stall, it just kept losing airspeed while the aircraft/pilots tried to maintain altitude until it stalled.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Dispatch Dog View Post
                                Don't think af447 climbed to a stall, it just kept losing airspeed while the aircraft/pilots tried to maintain altitude until it stalled.
                                An Airbus A330-203 passenger plane, registered F-GZCP, was destroyed in an accident c 160km NNW off São Pedro and São Paulo Archipelago, Atlantic Ocean. There were 216 passengers and crew members on board. The airplane operated on a flight from Rio de Janeiro-Galeão International Airport, RJ (GIG) to Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG).


                                The airplane’s pitch attitude increased progressively beyond 10 degrees and the plane started to climb. The PF made nose-down control inputs and alternately left and right roll inputs. The vertical speed, which had reached 7,000 ft/min, dropped to 700 ft/min and the roll varied between 12 degrees right and 10 degrees left.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X