Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AirAsia flight missing

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

  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Sorry, stall warning, what's the difference? I've been reading too many of these things lately. Too many stalls.
    No difference.

    How many AoA vanes does the A320 have? I thought it was only 2, but it looks that it's 3? And why wasn't that one "voted out" by the other 2 agreeing on a wrong AoA?

    --- 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


    • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      No difference.

      How many AoA vanes does the A320 have? I thought it was only 2, but it looks that it's 3? And why wasn't that one "voted out" by the other 2 agreeing on a wrong AoA?
      The system logic votes it out for flight control. It still has a direct function for stall alert, apparently. Have to delve back into the report...

      It was not possible to determine if angle of attack sensor 3, whose position
      is not recorded by the FDR, completely stopped moving at any time during
      the flight. However, at 15 h 45 min 05, angle of attack sensor 3 was operating
      correctly since it triggered the stall warning.

      Comment


      • I have information that the rumors about the captain being out of his seat playing with the circuit breakers when the shat hit the fin are false.

        The sudden climb, however, is true.

        The NTSC held a press conference where they gave some information and said that they will not release an interim factual report because "fats can change rapidly".

        That's bull crap!!! Unless you have a DeLorean and 1.21 GW, past facts CAN'T change.
        The CVR and FDR data will not change.
        The location where different parts of the plane were found cannot change.
        The failure mode under which different parts failed cannot change.
        The injuries sustained by the victims cannot change.
        The radar recordings cannot change.
        The ACARS information, if there was any, cannot change.
        The weather information available from the moment of the accident cannot change.

        The interpretation, analysis, findings and conclusions based on those facts can change though, but this is the subject of a more advanced interim report or final report, not the first factual interim report.

        To make things worse, there is no official transcript of statements or Q&A of the press conference, and I have seen no video of it. Not even a verbatim news report.

        So I can see how the "expert" mainstream reporters in the press conference can quickly fall in a "broken telephone" trap.
        - The pilot used the switches to disconnect the flight computer.
        - The pilot used the CB to disconnect the flight computer.
        - The pilot used the CB, located at the back of the cockpit, to disconnect the flight computer.
        - The pilot left his seat to use the CB located at the back of the cockpit to disconnect the flight computer.
        - The pilot left his seat [....] and at that moment the plane went out of control.

        What the NTSC is doing is a shame. They are withholding vital safety information not only from the general public, but also form the airlines, civil aviation authorities and accident investigation bodies around the world.

        From the NTSC official web site:
        The NTSC is responsible for the investigation of safety deficiencies of aviation, maritime, railway and road transportation.
        The very important aspect of the investigation is that the sole objective of the activity is to prevent accident/incident


        In the same website, there is no mention whatsoever that an Air Asia plane crashed. Let alone any factual information, press release, or transcript of the press conference.

        This is fuel for rumors and crappy mainstream media reporting because, what they should be reporting given the available information, is about nothing.

        The NTSC is doing a disservice to the the aviation industry and the public in general.

        --- 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


        • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          The NTSC is doing a disservice to the the aviation industry and the public in general.
          This is the Indonesian NTSC after all. Transparency is not something these governments are comfortable with even if they have no reason to fear in this case.

          But they also don't want another accident. If there is something on the recorders that raises the alarm about a system malfunction I feel pretty certain they would get that info to Airbus ASAP and circulate a message to their pilots and ground/maintanance staff. Airbus would report it to the ICAO/CAA's/operators and an emergency AD would probably be out by now. Staff would almost certainly leak it to the press.

          While I think their reticence is part of the culture, I also suspect they are trying to spin it in a way that does not fall back on them politically. If this crash was the result of training deficiencies and those deficiencies are the result of weak CAA oversight, that's going to come to light pretty fast once the report is released. So I expect they are not letting that out until they have to.

          In the meantime they will probably continue to make obscure statements about a possible system issue they are investigating, but you know that is BS because there is no Emergency AD out there. If we see a leaked multi-operator message about procedure, we can pretty much deduce the findings from that (like Turkish 1951).

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            I have information that the rumors about the captain being out of his seat playing with the circuit breakers when the shat hit the fin are false.

            The sudden climb, however, is true.

            I think manipulating the overhead FAC switches is probably also true. It seems it literally got lost in translation when communicating with the international media, hence the CB rumors.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
              If this crash was the result of training deficiencies and those deficiencies are the result of weak CAA oversight, that's going to come to light pretty fast once the report is released.

              Training deficiencies, but still a chance to be in a combination with poor maintenance procedures. Those FAC faults are practically confirmed.

              Comment


              • Curious how much similarity between this and AF447. They are "lucky" it didn't happen over some sort of deep oceanic formation. Recovery was simple compared to AF447.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  I have information that the rumors about the captain being out of his seat playing with the circuit breakers when the shat hit the fin are false.

                  The sudden climb, however, is true.

                  The NTSC held a press conference where they gave some information and said that they will not release an interim factual report because "fats can change rapidly".

                  That's bull crap!!! Unless you have a DeLorean and 1.21 GW, past facts CAN'T change.
                  The CVR and FDR data will not change.
                  The location where different parts of the plane were found cannot change.
                  The failure mode under which different parts failed cannot change.
                  The injuries sustained by the victims cannot change.
                  The radar recordings cannot change.
                  The ACARS information, if there was any, cannot change.
                  The weather information available from the moment of the accident cannot change.

                  The interpretation, analysis, findings and conclusions based on those facts can change though, but this is the subject of a more advanced interim report or final report, not the first factual interim report.

                  To make things worse, there is no official transcript of statements or Q&A of the press conference, and I have seen no video of it. Not even a verbatim news report.

                  So I can see how the "expert" mainstream reporters in the press conference can quickly fall in a "broken telephone" trap.
                  - The pilot used the switches to disconnect the flight computer.
                  - The pilot used the CB to disconnect the flight computer.
                  - The pilot used the CB, located at the back of the cockpit, to disconnect the flight computer.
                  - The pilot left his seat to use the CB located at the back of the cockpit to disconnect the flight computer.
                  - The pilot left his seat [....] and at that moment the plane went out of control.

                  What the NTSC is doing is a shame. They are withholding vital safety information not only from the general public, but also form the airlines, civil aviation authorities and accident investigation bodies around the world.

                  From the NTSC official web site:



                  In the same website, there is no mention whatsoever that an Air Asia plane crashed. Let alone any factual information, press release, or transcript of the press conference.

                  This is fuel for rumors and crappy mainstream media reporting because, what they should be reporting given the available information, is about nothing.

                  The NTSC is doing a disservice to the the aviation industry and the public in general.
                  Agree 1000%....I'm baffled why there isn't more expressed outrage and frustration in the mainstream media over the behavior of the NTSC and Indonesia....contrast this with Taiwan's CAA which released the FDR information of TransAsia crash pretty much the SAME DAY that they received it!!!

                  Comment


                  • FINAL REPORT OUT - TOTAL COWBOY IMPROVISATION

                    Originally posted by 3WE
                    ..why would they violate something so basic?...

                    ...I blame something mechanical, weather or computer related...

                    Yes, I've been wrong about this before.
                    Originally posted by Evan
                    I'm going with zero CRM, procedural ignorance and total improvisation.
                    FInal report released at last. Once again, history repeats itself, AF-447 lessons NOT learned. Cause of crash:
                    • ZERO CRM, PROCEDURAL IGNORANCE AND TOTAL IMPROVISATION


                    Specifically:
                    • COWBOY COCKPIT IMPROVISATION OF THE WORST KIND
                    • FAILURE ON BASIC FLYING SKILLS
                    • OPERATOR TRAINING NEGLIGENCE


                    The three most unthinkable highlights:
                    • CREW PULLS FAC CB'S IN FLIGHT!!!
                    • PF NEGLECTS TO FLY THE PLANE AND CORRECT ROLL FOR 9 SECONDS, THEN PULLS UP RELENTLESSLY DESPITE STALL WARNINGS
                    • ZERO CRM FOLLOWED BY DUAL INPUT SIDESTICK WAR


                    How it should have gone:
                    • Recycle the FAC's using the overhead pushbutons, NEVER PULL THE CB's IN FLIGHT (unless you suspect fire)!!! The FAC overhead pushbuttons were not recycled.
                    • Instant PF takeover of manual flight upon master caution / loss of autoflight.
                    • PIC pressing priority takeover button if the SIC is not flying correctly
                    • CRM and proper QRH procedure for a) loss of autoflight and b) loss of FAC 1 + 2
                    • Adequate pilot training years before this happened and recurrent training thereafter
                    • Safety culture that precludes maintenance improvisation from preventing repeated system failures from being recognized


                    Here's how the Indonesian NTSC is treating it:
                    • IT'S THE AIRPLANE'S FAULT. BLAME THE AIRPLANE.
                    • RECOVERY WAS BEYOND THE ABILITY OF THE CREW


                    (The NTSC even goes on to say that at 40° AoA the FD's disappeared leaving the crew without this guidance, despite the BASIC rule that the FD's must be switched off (or at least ignored) after autoflight failure.)

                    My conclusions:
                    • INDONESIA NEEDS TO SPEND SOME TIME AS A CAT 2 NATION until it gets its CAA up to par.
                    • AIRASIA IS CLEARLY AT FAULT for both failure to ensure that its pilots are trained for upset recovery and for non-standard maintenance procedures
                    • THE PLANE WAS PERFECTLY FLYABLE AT THE TIME OF THE CRASH. THE CREW NEGLECTED TO FLY IT.
                    • THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE A320 DESIGN THAT CAUSED THIS CRASH


                    I'm sorry about the ALL CAPS but this repeated cowboy idiocy and final report DENIAL makes me VERY ANGRY!

                    Essentially, what led up to this was an improvised ground maintenance procedure to reset the FAC's due to a repeated rudder travel limiter fault, in order to continue dispatch when obviously the issue required taking the aircraft out-of-service. The PIC had observed the improvised procedure, involving a dual FAC circuit-breaker reset (which MUST ONLY be done on the ground unless you are deeply versed in ALL of the in-flight consequences and is therefore not found in pilot manuals) and decided to ape the procedure in flight. This led to a loss of autoflight and normal law protections as well as a rudder left at 2° deflection. This, combined with the PF's failure to center the rudder and correct for roll and nonexistent CRM led to a loss of SA and ultimately a loss of control, followed by a total breakdown of CRM and failure to apply recovery procedure.

                    Long after AF-447, the industry STILL needs to take a serious look at its global regulatory standards.

                    Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      ...FAILURE ON BASIC FLYING SKILLS...
                      ...PF NEGLECTS TO FLY THE PLANE...
                      And therefore, I cannot cite fundamental basics that cross over to a Cessna 150, and they need more high altitude and procedural training with lots of acronyms.

                      Got it.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        And therefore, I cannot cite fundamental basics that cross over to a Cessna 150, and they need more high altitude and procedural training with lots of acronyms.

                        Got it.
                        Because we still have the question of why. Did the PF neglect the controls for nine seconds while in a steep roll excursion and then so something unthinkable because he was a total idiot or because his brain 'froze' or because a total lack of CRM had him monkeying around with the FAC breakers when he should have been focused on the PFD while the PM was focused on preserving his SA? I see the commonality with AF447 pretty clearly here. It was a lack of CRM due to IMPROVISATION and everything else is just what that leads to with a pilot who may not be the best at IMPROVISATION...

                        When history repeats itself like this, it might be time to stop arguing against the obvious need for stronger CRM discipline.

                        (just forget about the monkeying with circuit breakers in flight part, cuz that's just off the idiocy charts...)

                        Comment


                        • Evan, I think that nobody is saying something different. Division of tasks is a key part of CRM, as it is prioritization of tasks for single-pilot resources management.
                          In both cases, someone has to be in control of the plane all the time, the PF or the only pilot. And for that pilot, fly the plane first is the top priority and any and everything else can and must wait until the flight part is stabilized.

                          If the PF was doing anything else other than flying the plane, like playing with circuit breakers, then it is a gross violation of CRM but also of fundamental airmanship ("fundamental" like in "applies in every plane, even in a Cessna 172").

                          Nobody is arguing about the need for stronger CRM discipline, because that would be to argue against "fly the plane first" being the top priority for the PF or single pilot.

                          Again, I am all for improving training, but I think that we must start with basic training. A lot of things that are not the mechanical stick-and-rudder skills need a lot more attention in basic training, from weight and balance to fundamental aerodynamics, from weather assessment to risk management, from human factors to procedural discipline, and from "fly the plane first" to upset recovery.

                          --- 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


                          • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            Because we still have the question of why. Did the PF neglect the controls for nine seconds while in a steep roll excursion and then so something unthinkable because he was a total idiot or because his brain 'froze' or because a total lack of CRM had him monkeying around with the FAC breakers when he should have been focused on the PFD while the PM was focused on preserving his SA? I see the commonality with AF447 pretty clearly here. It was a lack of CRM due to IMPROVISATION and everything else is just what that leads to with a pilot who may not be the best at IMPROVISATION...

                            When history repeats itself like this, it might be time to stop arguing against the obvious need for stronger CRM discipline.

                            (just forget about the monkeying with circuit breakers in flight part, cuz that's just off the idiocy charts...)
                            Why? and Can we prevent this? and Why does history continue to repeat itself? (And rebooting major control computers is a bit eye rolling). Strongly concur with you there.

                            IMPROVISING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS? I tend to disagree with you (but that is not total disagreement either- it's the all caps). Rebooting the computer does seem to be improvisation and not-so-wise improvisation when computers are so integral to the basic control of these planes, so I agree here. I'm not sure I'll give you "improvisation" on Air France. I still see good ole fashioned "overwhelmed" pilots there (might be true here after the thing is 'established' in the steep bank).

                            ...and there we differ. Excrement happens and crews will have oh-shit incidents and some multi-second periods when they don't know what's going on. During those times you forget things- I don't care how much training you have.

                            I guess my deal is 1) I think the best hope is to try and remember the fundamentals when things go bad. Stuff you learned from day one. FLY THE PLANE. (None of us really knows WHY the crews seemingly forgot that- why AF thinks it's ok to pull up relentlessly, why Pinnacle decides to let it stall and flame out, why the PF was unable to right the plane from a bank (a drill I have practiced in a 172 under a hood although, admittedly, I have not actually done it at night in clouds after it was a huge surprise).

                            And #2, on the CRM deal (please listen carefully), why couldn't the Air France dude paused for 15 seconds and try the 3BS Pitch + Power = Performance trick...(15 SECONDS ALL CAPS AND BOLD)...And then taken a deep breath, assessed the situation and applied his best Evan CRM and procedure following? None of us knows what they were thinking, but surprised and overwhelmed is a good guess and your suggestions of specific procedures and exact CRM utterances just doesn't resonate.

                            When overwhelmed, just fly the plane, and then carefully assess the situation, does resonate.

                            And I'm serious...15 seconds of using your fundamentals to get your head screwed on right and THEN dive into all the type-specific procedure stuff- it's not one or the other, it's resource management of using fundamentals to keep the plane flying and getting the resource of the pilot's brains working properly, and then hitting the QRHmemorychecklistFCOMPOH. 15 seconds is good resource management) (And maybe it's 3 seconds to firewall the throttles, go around and do another approach- just to drag in other incidents.)

                            PITCH + POWER = PERFORMANCE IS NOT COWBOY IMPROVISATION. It's valid airmanship, it's a valid procedure (even though it lacks paragraphs and numbers and acronyms in the QRH) and it's valid CRM.

                            KEEPING THE PLANE REASONABLY STRAIGHT AND LEVEL AND STABLE IS NOT COWBOY IMPROVISATION either.

                            Hang on bubba, we gonna try something (yeah, I see that here and would concur with your anger).

                            Why in the hell didn't one pilot keep the plane somewhat straight and level? (concur here too).

                            That the answer is the sterile mundane stuff on my recent post about the Citation crew where there was no exchange regarding sink-rate and landing short of the traditional TDZE...no.

                            (For the record- the sterile mundane stuff on that video is also important because humans make stupid little mistakes and that's a good way to catch them, I'm just saying the rules differ a bit when there's a giant-ass mistake and the plane is suddenly and unexpectedly viciously biting you in the butt in multiple ways you have never ever before experienced for real...)
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • i will once again lay some, if not most, of the blame at the feet of technology. bus drivers are trained ad infinitum in the bus' fantasmalogically fantastic super-uber smart "you can't make me crash" technology that they forget that they are actually real pilots that can fly real, non-digitized aircraft. if there were someway of recording and preserving the thought processes of these poor bastards, who ultimately killed themselves along with their pax, i would bet that the majority of their internal bandwidth was occupied by "what's it doing now and why?" "why isn't HAL handling this problem?" "what LAW is the plane in?" "holy shit, i love my wife/girl/kids"

                              hardly a great analogy, but i've been driving for a hell of lot longer than ABS has been around. i learned how to use the brakes without locking them up, even on icy roads. now, having driven ABS equipped vehicles for 15 years, i've lost the touch. feathering actually screws up ABS so you have to slam the brakes. technology IS and enemy of sorts.

                              how many of you have all of your friends' phone numbers memorized??????

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                NEVER PULL THE CB's IN FLIGHT (unless you suspect fire)!!!
                                Actually, A320 FCOM Supplemental Procedures section (which is about as type-specific as it gets) lists numerous in-flight CB reset procedures. Just thought you should know.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X