Air Asia report

[Frogman1484]

Crew blamed for AirAsia crash: Investigators (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/investigators-crew-action-blamed-for-airasia-crash/news-story/9f5b3d2ab211bb8a86f2665f18dbadc1)

Sounds like a combination of wrong procedures by the captain and inexperienced FO.

Real pity as neither of the two factors should cause a crash.

[broadband circuit]

Funny how the headline doesn't make a big deal about the "repetitive maintenance issue" with "23 problems in the last 12 months"

[crwkunt roll]

Repetitive low cost maintenance indeed. Hopefully this report will help bring about the death of the Low Cost model.

[Dorf]

Just another crew crashing a plane because the automation isn't working - for whatever reason. This is the real problem.

[Michael Hunt]

Agreed. A perfectly serviceable plane with a small problem crashes because one guy is mucking around with some circuit breakers and the other bloke couldn't keep it straight and level without an autopilot.
Not the first one of these and will not be the last.

[Freehills]

For comparison of scale. 32,000 people die a year on Indonesian roads, shutting down the LCC model and forcing people back on to overnight buses & ferries would be a disgraceful reaction by Indonesian authorities

[oriental flyer]

All valid points

But isn't it a sad reflection of today's aviation world when the acceptable level of pilot training has been reduced to such a low standard that a crew can't operate basic stick and rudder to maintain an otherwise serviceable aircraft in the cruise without stalling and taking a 32,000 ft dive into the ocean

The blame for this can be directly attributed to the bean counters who fail to see any obvious return for the costs involved in crew training so it simply isn't done

Talk about the Swiss cheese model , unacceptable maintenance standards coupled with inept, undertrained crew and tragically we are seeing the result.

[boocs]

Harsh truths about crash of AirAsia QZ8501 | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2015/12/01/harsh-truths-about-crash-of-airasia-qz8501-come-out/)

b.

[DropKnee]

They will just drop the prices and all the punters will flock to buy a ticket.
This is a failure a greedy management culture. It infects the world airlines. We too at CX have the same desease.

[Cafe City]

This disconnected the autopilot and left the two pilots in a position where taking manual control of the jet was outside their trained capabilities.

Enough said...

[pilotchute]

I flew with an Indonesian who had a fresh CPL. He couldn't keep with 300 feet of assigned altitude or even 30 degrees of heading. I suggested he bug the heading and he had no idea what I was talking about. I showed him and he said he had never used it.

[744drv]

The mantra that group decisions are better than those of individuals is not true when you cast your 'vote' on the joystick of an Airbus. This crash highlights, as did AF447, that the lack of back drive to the other pilot's joystick is a critical failure in the Airbus design. The 23,500 hr PIC of AirAsia made some forward stick attempts at recovery; however, they were defeated by the aft stick input of the stricken SIC. The Priority button is only any use if you are aware in the first place that the other pilot is making stick inputs. Difficult to visually monitor what the other pilot is doing when you are plummeting earthwards at 40degree alpha and 12,000 fpm.

[controlledrest]

With all due respect 744drv, you don't really know what you are talking about.


I agree that it would be nice to have back drive on the sticks (as the C-17 has), but it is very, very clear in an Airbus cockpit when both sticks are moved. You can't not know that both sticks are in use. The priority button does work and you can lock the other stick out. In a 'normal' cockpit you can also say 'I have control' and get the required reaction.

AF447 was been flown by cadet pilots and Air Asia a couple of idiots - but the poor bastards were the product of the training they receive under the watching eye of the regulator, as we all are.

The real blame is with the management, company owners and the regulator. The aeroplane was not at fault.

[wanabee777]

The mantra that group decisions are better than those of individuals is not true when you cast your 'vote' on the joystick of an Airbus. This crash highlights, as did AF447, that the lack of back drive to the other pilot's joystick is a critical failure in the Airbus design. The 23,500 hr PIC of AirAsia made some forward stick attempts at recovery; however, they were defeated by the aft stick input of the stricken SIC. The Priority button is only any use if you are aware in the first place that the other pilot is making stick inputs. Difficult to visually monitor what the other pilot is doing when you are plummeting earthwards at 40degree alpha and 12,000 fpm.

I totally agree.

Yet another "blame the crew" instead of addressing the root problem.

Somebody order more body bags, please.

[oriental flyer]

Unless a rudder hard over can be definitively attributable as the cause of the accident which it hasn't been . The only logical conclusion is crew error .
Much that I hate to pass judgement on fellow pilots , it would appear that a total lack of basic flying skills resulted in the loss of a serviceable aircraft.
Quite how a 23,000 hour Capt allowed an un-commanded climb by the FO from FL 320 to finally stall at FL 380 instead of flying straight and level is beyond comprehension . Side stick or not . " I have control " should suffice ,

So yes the lack of basic stick and rudder skills by the Younger generation of pilots is coming home to roost and I fear that this will not be the last time this sort of thing happens
Just as a matter of interest , how many of our SOs actually get to hand fly the aircraft in cruise under the Capts supervision ? Or do we rely on the fact that although very unlikely ,the first time he may be called upon to do this could well be when the Capt or Relief Pilot are off the flight deck for a bathroom break .

[744drv]

Controlled Rest, I do understand.

It is not about whether you know that the other pilot is playing with the stick it is about knowing which corner he has parked it in.

The red button plainly does not work in the heat of the moment in TWO crashes now. In both cases two pilots were "flying" the aircraft simultaneously. I know there are big arrows and loud audio, but there is also a stall warner, ECAM warnings, a lot of "what is it doing now" confusion and human startle factor. In the Air Asia crash the red button was pressed twice but for only short periods .... so it was effectively useless in this scenario with these two pilots. It was also useless in AF447 as it was not used at all. Have there been any examples from the cruise where it has been used successfully? I rest my case.

[744drv]

Oriental, I know the report did not say this, but the way I assumed the initial situation developed was that PIC was out of his seat and SIC was head twisted round trying to confirm circuit breakers. The report said there was inaudible talking prior to CB pulling. Additionally, BEA in their correction suggestions wanted to add the sound of the seat being moved. They felt there was evidence from the CVR that seats were being moved around. From AP disconnect it then took 9 seconds for SIC to make a control input, he was obviously very disorientated / confused and while correcting the large roll attitude also added a handful of backstick. Correcting such a large roll displacement was probably something he had never done before in an Airbus.

[iceman50]

wanabee777

The root problem is that we have some "pilots" in the cockpit who should NOT be there, nothing to do with Airbus. If you cannot fly straight and level with the PFD fully functional then get out of the cockpit.

747drv

Sorry but you are sadly wrong with your assumptions.

[wanabee777]

I believe that either pilot, if left alone, could have easily recovered from the upset while in Alternate Law. The root cause of this accident is that we have aircraft with a flawed dual flight control system.

Does anyone remember the Hoot Gibson TWA 727 upset and recovery?

Allegedly, also the result of dubbing around with circuit breakers.

[744drv]

In what way Iceman?

[LIKE.HKA]

Yesterday, a A320 departed RWY07R, the aircraft did not fly the standard SID but instead turned right track direct to TD after airborne. That resulted heading towards the Lantau Peak. Do I have to continue? The carrier was Axx Axxx.

[wanabee777]

I hope they had their Quran handy.

[snoop doggy dog]

Have been visiting a mate in Discovery Bay. Normally the planes head up past Disneyland and make a right turn. Last night around 9pm, a jet flew over the hills (Tiger's Head) in Discovery Bay around 3000 feet and then down the harbour in Discovery Bay. Didn't look right :ugh:

[wanabee777]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the aircraft itself, if left alone, could have easily recovered from the upset while in Alternate Law.

Possibly, but you definitely can't have two pilots fighting for control of an aircraft at the same time while neither is aware of that fact and expect a good outcome.

[744drv]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the aircraft itself, if left alone, might have easily recovered from the upset while in Alternate Law.

I'm sure that the aircraft has more chance (but slim) of recovering itself than when a stick is being held aft. However, even Airbus are not willing to suggest that it will recover by itself when it is at an alpha way beyond the boundaries of any in flight testing. If I recall correctly there were short periods in the AF447 stall that the stick was pushed forwards and it was suggested that the aircraft displayed an initial recovery response, but the stick did not stay forwards for anything like long enough.

[cxorcist]

"If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going!"

[Dilbert68]

Just as a matter of interest , how many of our SOs actually get to hand fly the aircraft in cruise under the Capts supervision ?

Absolutely none I hope since we fly almost all our flights in RVSM airspace. FL390 is no place for our new generation to play pilot, that's what simulators are for.

[pasa001]

cxorcist

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 910

"If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going!"

http://youtu.be/rvkEpstd9os

If it's built at their South Carolina plant I might just reconsider that statement !

[cxorcist]

Al Jazeera? Now there's a credible news source. Can't speak for SC plant myself.

You're telling me if CX bought 787-9/10 that you would jump at the opportunity to fly them, I think not.

If you had to choose between 737 and A320 and you were concerned about resale, which one would you buy? Look at comparable residual values, it's not even close.

[MajorLemond]

While it is never just "one" thing that creates an accident, and no doubt there are cultural/organisational issues at play here too, the fact remains that:

It's 2015, and a serviceable A320 was crashed by it's crew with the loss of all on board due to a minor technical issue. As pilots, we earn our money by being able to apply our training and skills to fly an aircraft safely when dealing with multiple system failures.

We're supposed to be able to keep the thing straight and at v2 for an EFATO but these guys pranged it from FL320 performing a reset when it just needed to be kept straight and level... Wtf.

[AQIS Boigu]

But then on the other hand our GMF thinks we don't need a handling sim anymore...

[swh]

Boeing pilots think because controls are linked both pilots can make control inputs at the same tme, the stronger one wins. That should never be the case, one pilot flying, one pilot monitoring.

On the Airbus, the other pilot can isolate their control a any time, and should say, I have control control to make it clear the roles of each crew member.

The captain failed simple CRM 101, I have control, to tell the FO of his changed role. If that does not work, hit the priority push button and isolate his inputs.

[controlledrest]

It is not about whether you know that the other pilot is playing with the stick it is about knowing which corner he has parked it in.

No it isn't. If the other pilot is flying the aeroplane and the right performance is not being achieved you take over and fix it. I don't give a **** where the other stick is. If I want to control the aeroplane I push and hold the take over button and fly the aeroplane. If I know the correct Power and Attitude to set the performance will follow. If I don't know how to fly the aeroplane I should be there.


In the Air Asia crash the red button was pressed twice but for only short periods .... so it was effectively useless in this scenario with these two pilots. They didn't know how to fly the aeroplane.

It was also useless in AF447 as it was not used at all. They didn't know how to fly the aeroplane.

Have there been any examples from the cruise where it has been used successfully? I rest my case. In the cruise, not that I know of, but there was a case where a side stick had been miss-wired by maint, not checked properly prior to flight and just after lift off the Capt (PF) put in a roll command and the aeroplane rolled the wrong way. Cant didn't know what was happening. The FO took over, with the Take Over Button, used correctly to lock out defective side stick. They safely returned and had the side stick replaced.

Another thought. In a conventional aircraft I might be making the wrong control inputs, you might see this and try to take control. I am physically stronger and I win the fight over the controls, so we crash. Or, with a side stick, you don't like what I am doing, so you (knowing how the flight control system works because you are not an idiot, have thought about these things and have been properly trained) push and hold a button with your thumb and now have complete control of the flight controls.

These crashes aren't the fault of the aeroplanes. They are the fault of the 'pilots' who don't know how to fly the aeroplanes they are in charge off. These guys are the products of the aviation systems modern aviation now follows. CX is heading in the same direction. Unless wee change our ways we will crash an aeroplane, killing hundreds of people. The DFO has been warned.

[raven11]

Controlled Rest

I completely agree with your last para....however, having flown both Airbus and Boeing, Boeing wins. There's nothing like being able to see the input being made by the other pilot and then assessing the airplane's response.

As well, if I want more than 67 degrees of bank (think unusual attitude recovery) then I should be able to have it. And why can't I see the throttles moving? The Airbus has some wonderful design features, but one or two weird ones. Sadly, the Airbus community have an almost religious attachment to those weird aspects. They stubbornly refuse to consider any other point of view that might make their product even better.

An F/O I flew with once had me in stitches when he imagined the response from the design engineers at Toulouse considering any ideas from the test pilots....."Pilots!...Poo....I spit on dem...!"

On the other hand....there's nothing like a tray table when dinner is served.

[el commandante]

controlledrest,

If I know the correct Power and Attitude to set the performance will follow

That's exactly why Air Aisa and Air France crashed. I still cannot believe how many people talk about that Power + Attitude = performance. Well it does, but only in a very small regime and usually when everything works alright.
What it really should say is: Power + angle of attack = Performance.
People who flew airplanes with angle of attack indicators in the flight deck know what I'm talking about.

Recovering from a stall at high altitude requires a complete different Attitude. If you just put it to what you assume to be correct attitude and then you wait for the performance, well, you wait for a long time.

Pitch 20 degrees + full power, do you get constant performance?

I thought so too.

The pitch and power equals performance proverb only helps when you on the correct side of the power curve.
So really, look behind the Attitude and start thinking about what angle of attack you have. Then the performance becomes completely predictable.

All performance is based on angle of attack, not speed nor attitude.

Btw, this works on Airbus and on Boeing.

[Yonosoy Marinero]

The flight controls architecture debate is secondary.

The main issue is that you have pilots around who can't fly airplanes.

Fix that first, then worry about perfecting flight control systems.
Otherwise, you're pointing the searchlight at the wrong culprit while airlines continue to cut corners on training such as, for instance, removing handling sims, and regulators continue to act as if it's all alright...



But Boeing v. Airbus is a much more interesting debate, isn't it? Since we're all obviously paid by them.
:hmm:

[744drv]

I think, Controlled Rest, you have just proven that you don't know how to fly the aeroplane when it is at extreme angle of attack QED.

So far 5/5 randomly chosen pilots and Controlled Rest have shown that they cannot fly the aeroplane.

[donpizmeov]

Seeing the yoke and thrust levers move didn't save Flash airlines, Ethiopian and Turkish B737s from crashing. Nor did it prevent Asiana from crashing a B777. If pilots can't fly it doesn't matter what they sit in, they can crash it.

[iceman50]

raven11

As well, if I want more than 67 degrees of bank (think unusual attitude recovery) then I should be able to have it.That is why we have Abnormal Attitude Law to allow you to recover from an upset.

why can't I see the throttles moving?Again you do not need too see them move they did not save Turkish in AMS or Asiana in SFO!

They stubbornly refuse to consider any other point of view that might make their product even better.Insert Boeing drivers here!:rolleyes:

[Oasis]

Iceman 50, I agree with your thought about the Turkish crash not being prevented by moving AT's, but I believe Asiana is another story.

The PF was transferring from an airbus, so his was probably not even expecting the levers to wake up in his hand.
So, in effect the crash happened partly because he came from the airbus and the airbus not having moving thrust levers.

big disclaimer: never flew airbus, so i'm probably taking out of my you know what.

[donpizmeov]

Oasis,

Isn't the non bus pilot argument that moving bits are needed to show both pilots what is happening? That did not occur in the Flash airlines, Ethiopian, Turkish nor Asiana Boeing crashes. If the yoke or thrust levers move or not makes no difference if you aren't a very good pilot. One needs to be able assess what is happening, and decide what needs to be done. This is the factor that is common in both Airbus and Boeing accidents.
Pilots aren't trained to do pilot stuff anymore. CBT teaches systems, line training makes sure you are safe in normal Ops. SIM Training is to the lowest legal requirements. Pilots don't gain experience outside of airlines anymore. The profession has been dumbed down, and the result is that when things go slightly wrong successful outcomes are no longer predictable. This crew would have splashed a Boeing if they were sitting in one.

[main_dog]

Pilots aren't trained to do pilot stuff anymore. CBT teaches systems, line training makes sure you are safe in normal Ops. SIM Training is to the lowest legal requirements. Pilots don't gain experience outside of airlines anymore. The profession has been dumbed down, and the result is that when things go slightly wrong successful outcomes are no longer predictable. This crew would have splashed a Boeing if they were sitting in one.

While during my years of flying Airbus I indeed found that the non-moving thrust levers and the non-linked sidesticks did introduce a layer of opacity (and potential source of confusion) to operations, the bottom line is that Donpizmeov is spot on: when the chips are down a well-trained and experienced crew will probably save the day on either product A or B, a poor one will become a statistic.

Our profession is being dumbed down by beancounters who chillingly factor in the cost of a hull loss vs. the cost of proper training or the cost of hiring experienced pilots.

[Hugo Peroni the IV]

Whichever aircraft is better, and i have a fair bit of time on both Boeings and Airbus, the crux of this is the pure inability to fly straight and level…..which on an airbus, when the AP disconnects, requires you to do absolutely F*** all but sit there, loosely cover the sidestick and move nothing in the short term.