Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore

Old 22nd Jan 2015, 10:15
  #2361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
And at least a fourth: a breakup at low altitude due to rolling G at which time the radome may have detached..
RifRaf3 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 10:19
  #2362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Sydney
Age: 66
Posts: 19
8/8ths

Quite possible given the damage to the undertail section but there can (IMHO) be no doubt he was in a flat or spiral with little or no elevator or rudder control. As to the thrust and trim position, only time will tell. You may well be right that he simply ran out of altitude during a partial recovery.
Meet the Fokker is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 10:36
  #2363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Asia
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by training wheels View Post
According to Detik.com, this data plot was received by a reporter from someone in the Department of Transportation. The plot shows the climb from FL320 at time 23:17:1.7889 to FL373.5 at time 23:17:43.210 (ie a climb of 5350 ft in about 41.4 seconds) with a turn to the left. End of detection was at FL240 at time 23:19:46.352 in what looks to be a spiral or spin?



Source: Detik.com
Why no radar return starting at FL240? Can we assume the aircraft came apart?
Sikpilot is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 11:00
  #2364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,895
From FL240 to the whitecaps was then approx three and half minutes during which time they traversed approx 1 nautical mile.
Though of course while the point of impact with the sea is known to be around a mile from the last plot, the absence of any intermediate points tells us nothing about the groundspeed or the flightpath between the two known positions (other than the average ROD).
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 11:08
  #2365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Sydney
Age: 66
Posts: 19
Dave

Correct. But I do not believe that in the absence of any advance upon Singapore or retreat to Surabaya he decided to conduct a joy flight over Borneo in the intervening minutes.
Meet the Fokker is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 11:28
  #2366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 43
In the Straitstimes website there is a report from 8.51am today in which there is a statement:

"The plane climbed steeply very rapidly but its crash was not due to icing, said Mr Tatang Kurniadi, the chief of the agency investigating the accident, in debunking an earlier suggestion.

"No similarity with Air France 447. No indication (of icing)," Mr Tatang, who heads the National Transportation Safety Committee, said on Jan 21 during a discussion on aviation safety with foreign journalists."
mcloaked is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 11:55
  #2367 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,295
Another plot from ADS-B data that's circulating on twitter. Not sure of the accuracy of the rates of descent but with such tight turns and bank angles, can we assume they were no longer in normal law?

It would be great if someone can overlay the weather for this time frame at these coordinates.



Source: Twitter
training wheels is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 12:23
  #2368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Banksville
Posts: 28
From air net
_
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6991 posts, RR: 78
Reply 181, posted Wed Jan 21 2015 23:30:32 your local time (7 hours 46 minutes 55 secs ago) and read 4154 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 164):
Regarding the continuous left turn, and reversion to alternate law, there were reports a number of years ago of FAC (flight augmentation computer) faults on A320s resulting in "runaway" rudder trim. From Youtube (not "runaway", but ...

My understanding (Pihero, Mandala499 correct me if I'm wrong) is that FAC failure will also result in a reversion to Alternate2, with a number of protections being lost.

You got something there...
Ironically a local media called me today and asked about MELs related to:
AUTO FLT RUD TRV LIM (and 2)
ELAC 1 FAULT
Rudder travel limiter 2 fault identification and MEL Cat C allowances
AUTO FLT RUD TRV LIM SYS
FAC 2 FAULT

This... they said was from the aircraft's write up...

Quoting Pihero (Reply 168):
"Safety Recommendation 2010-092
It is recommended that Airbus alert all operators of A320-series aircraft of the possibility that an electrical power generation system fault may not be clearly annunciated on the ECAM, and may lead to uncommanded rudder trim operation.",

Uncommanded rudder command or rudder trim is being suspected.
Joejosh999 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 13:51
  #2369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,314
Originally Posted by onetrack View Post
This post by Romeo E.T., outlines the concern raised many years ago by air safety people in BASI (Aust) - the difference in approach to driving between those who receive all their early training in a military environment, and in jet fighters - and those who receive all their early training in a 100% civilian environment.

The basic approach used by military training is aggression, "punch through at all costs", "the aim is to win, no matter what", and to take every risk possible, to achieve the targetted outcome.

In a 100% civilian busdriver training environment, the stated or implied aim is to "take no risks", "turn back before you get into trouble", "remember you have many lives in your hands".

It was raised as a point of serious discussion by BASI, that it is difficult to get someone who has been trained in a military/fighter jet environment to totally reverse all their training, all their thought patterns, their aims and objectives, to ones that are completely at odds with their initial and early aviation learning, when they convert to RPT flying.
But when it all goes 'pear shaped' who would you rather have as PF a Chesley Sullenberger ex military pilot or a pilot who had never pulled g, put the nose down more than 15deg, never been upside down or risked anything but was excellent at following magenta lines?
Ian W is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 13:55
  #2370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,314
Originally Posted by klintE View Post
Worth to notice that time interval between reported positions on that screen is up to above two min.
Even if there were some intermediate points not shown on graph, generally it doesn't work continuously but in rather large intervals.
Therefore, no "ping" between FL240 and impact, doesn't implicate (for me) in-flight break up.
The base of radar cover for secondary radar is higher than the base of reception for ADS-B. The SSR was out of line of sight several seconds before the ADS-B was out of line of sight. This is precisely what would be expected even with collocated receivers.
Ian W is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 14:26
  #2371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,374
Question on g limitation & flight laws: is 1.75 or 2.5 G (not sure why those numbers are in my head) where the system doesn't let you pull any more G in the A320? With the idea that they got it stalled, and on the way down finally got it un-stalled (which takes some altitude, and might be a challenge if doing it in the goo in very turbulent air) they might end up in a dive but only be able to pull "x" amount of G and not be able to break the rate of descent before impact with surface.

Does that fit the impact being such that the break up spread the major pieces out more?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 15:00
  #2372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 66
Posts: 782
@onetrack

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8835103

Your post from 22. January 2015 time 8:54 does not hold any value in general, and not for this accident and this crew either. But you may keep your view of the suicidal military pilots if it suits you.

If you read up on "Turbulence and Thunderstorms" in the T.O. 1F-16 under section 7-2, which is on page 532 of the pdf file below, you will find the following information:

Avoid flight in turbulent air, hailstorms and thunderstorms. There is a high probability of damage to airframe and componenets from impact ice, hail and lightning. ..........
https://info.publicintelligence.net/USAF-F16.pdf
RetiredF4 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 15:05
  #2373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 567
The idea that the military train their aircrews to 'punch through' should be retired.
Afaik, the military hate to lose their assets. Consequently their rules are to avoid weather, rather than bulling ahead. That makes sense because an airplane that has gone through the mixmaster may then be incapable of completing the mission.
etudiant is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 15:35
  #2374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Vermont, US
Age: 79
Posts: 4
Military Flight Safety Standards

I agree with Retired F4. My son is a USAF pilot. At the UPT graduation ceremony where he received his wings, the father of one of the new pilots gave the graduation speech. The speaker was a retired Major General who had many hours in combat flying F4s and F100s. His topic was safety. He explained that it was a mistake to think that because combat was dangerous, the safety procedures taught to new pilots could be ignored. In fact, it was expected that all risks that could be minimized, be properly dealt with. Of course, some risks in combat are out of the pilot's control. But whether or not a pilot is assigned to a war zone, some officer's primary job is safety, and monthly safety briefings are required.

Last edited by bob1vt; 22nd Jan 2015 at 18:46. Reason: Correct clumsy wording.
bob1vt is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 16:51
  #2375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Garden of Eden
Posts: 19
I flew out of Surabaya to Jakarta a few hours before Air Asia 8501. I flew over the java sea enroute to Jakarta. The radar did pick up a lot of CBs over both land and sea. Though navigable, it was easy to navigate around.
JoeMcGrath is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 17:12
  #2376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,387
I suppose its a coincidence that ATC were unable to make contact a few mins before the left turn and rapid climb but have any of the unofficial reports or briefings mentioned or implied they heard the crew speaking or just alarms sounding?

Edit:

Nearest I can find is..

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...icle-1.2087107

The voices of the crew were drowned out by the warning alarms, said the investigator from Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee.
Edit 2: Ok so at least they were heard to say something....

http://www.wsj.com/articles/airasia-...825697?tesla=y

“The warning [alarms] kept on screaming, and in the background, they [the pilot and co-pilot] were trying to recover the plane,” said the crash investigator. “But what they said wasn’t clear,” the investigator said.

Last edited by cwatters; 22nd Jan 2015 at 17:26.
cwatters is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 17:58
  #2377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Kalgoorlie, W.A. , Australia
Age: 81
Posts: 448
“The warning [alarms] kept on screaming, and in the background, they [the pilot and co-pilot] were trying to recover the plane,” said the crash investigator. “But what they said wasn’t clear,” the investigator said.
This may be the case at present but I expect that the various tracks will be digitally filtered in due course. So that actual voices can be interpreted.
Pom Pax is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 17:59
  #2378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Only occasionally above FL50
Age: 67
Posts: 119
Presumably cockpit sounds and pilot communications are only clearly differentiated if the pilots are wearing headsets. I understand that pilots don't routinely wear headsets all the time in the cruise. Is this right?
Andrewgr2 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 18:06
  #2379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Banksville
Posts: 28
I am new here and reading with great interest.

I have read that there was a write-up on this aircraft and a swap out of ELAC2 and FAC2.... And that uncontrolled rudder trim is now suspected.

I am not a pilot so hope the experts here can perhaps shed more light. Do the past issues with runaway rudder trim on AB have potential importance here?

Many thanks and enjoy this forum!!!
Joejosh999 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 18:33
  #2380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,094
Presumably cockpit sounds and pilot communications are only clearly differentiated if the pilots are wearing headsets. I understand that pilots don't routinely wear headsets all the time in the cruise. Is this right?
I generally wear a noise cancelling headset while in cruise, especially when flying internationally. Many of my colleagues take off the headset and switch to speaker above FL 180.

I'll defer to the sea lawyers here, but I think the requirement to wear headsets below FL180 on most 'modern' airliners does indeed come from CVR regulations.
Airbubba is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.