Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 56
Posts: 1,046
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
8 Posts
I would also image that water impact, regardless of entry angle or velocity would cause damage to the radome, including cracking, paint being delaminated due to "denting", separation of the radome etc.
Are the marks really indicative of a lightenting strike? Could they just be the paint being craked where there was an impact? Looks much like a car bumper that has been impacted and the paint becomes cracked/crazed due to deformation of the underlaying structure...
Are the marks really indicative of a lightenting strike? Could they just be the paint being craked where there was an impact? Looks much like a car bumper that has been impacted and the paint becomes cracked/crazed due to deformation of the underlaying structure...
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wing spoilers appear to be deployed. Would deployed spoilers remain up after the aircraft coming apart like this?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
despegue:
There is no need to put the aircraft in DIRECT LAW. One just have to take TWO ADRs OUT and put it in ALTERNATE LAW.
In ALTERNATE LAW the aircraft will obey your inputs and the pilot will be able to steer from any unusual attitude, keeping the required information to fly the aircraft away from overspeed protection, as well as low speed. The protections in ALT LAW may be overridden while maintaining structural integrity. (Load Factor).
By the way...if in doubt: all automatics OFF, go to DIRECT LAW, fly the aircraft raw data like any other aircraft in the world .
In ALTERNATE LAW the aircraft will obey your inputs and the pilot will be able to steer from any unusual attitude, keeping the required information to fly the aircraft away from overspeed protection, as well as low speed. The protections in ALT LAW may be overridden while maintaining structural integrity. (Load Factor).
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Washstate
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternate law and load protection??
" The protections in ALT LAW may be overridden while maintaining structural integrity. (Load Factor)"
So in other words one cannot ' bend ' the airplane no matter what ( unless somehow HAL allows direct control "
IMO that is a logic flaw. I posted earlier about a China 747 in 1985 that had an engine failure, went into a major spiral dive, and was recovered- and still flew - but it was severly bent with estimated 5G loads during pullout. Wings were bent up permanently sever inches at tips, who knows how much during flight. Part of horiz stabilizer was torn away.. plane landed safely, and was repaired and put back into service. Structural limit load test the wings on a 747 go several feet above top of fuselage at 2.5 to 3 G equivalent ..
Alternate law limits would have prevented that- and plane and passengers would have been swimming with the fish . .
see China Airlines Flight 006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and the official report can be found
" here were two serious injuries on board: a fracture and laceration of a foot, and an acute back strain requiring two days of hospitalization. The aircraft was significantly damaged by the aerodynamic forces. The wings were permanently bent upwards by 2 inches (50 mm), the inboard main landing gear lost two actuator doors, and the two inboard main gear struts were left dangling.[1] Most affected was the tail, where large outer parts of both horizontal stabilizers had been ripped off. The entire left outboard elevator had been lost along with its actuator, which had been powered by the hydraulic system that ruptured and drained."
Now about load protection ??
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR86-03.pdf
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR86-03.pdf
BTW early in the 707 commercial introduction a 707 went into a spiral dive cuz autopilot kicked out at night, nobody minding the store. Luckily they recovered, but wings were permanentely bent..
Load protection would have done What ??
So in other words one cannot ' bend ' the airplane no matter what ( unless somehow HAL allows direct control "
IMO that is a logic flaw. I posted earlier about a China 747 in 1985 that had an engine failure, went into a major spiral dive, and was recovered- and still flew - but it was severly bent with estimated 5G loads during pullout. Wings were bent up permanently sever inches at tips, who knows how much during flight. Part of horiz stabilizer was torn away.. plane landed safely, and was repaired and put back into service. Structural limit load test the wings on a 747 go several feet above top of fuselage at 2.5 to 3 G equivalent ..
Alternate law limits would have prevented that- and plane and passengers would have been swimming with the fish . .
see China Airlines Flight 006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and the official report can be found
" here were two serious injuries on board: a fracture and laceration of a foot, and an acute back strain requiring two days of hospitalization. The aircraft was significantly damaged by the aerodynamic forces. The wings were permanently bent upwards by 2 inches (50 mm), the inboard main landing gear lost two actuator doors, and the two inboard main gear struts were left dangling.[1] Most affected was the tail, where large outer parts of both horizontal stabilizers had been ripped off. The entire left outboard elevator had been lost along with its actuator, which had been powered by the hydraulic system that ruptured and drained."
Now about load protection ??
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR86-03.pdf
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR86-03.pdf
BTW early in the 707 commercial introduction a 707 went into a spiral dive cuz autopilot kicked out at night, nobody minding the store. Luckily they recovered, but wings were permanentely bent..
Load protection would have done What ??
... nobody minding the store ...
Back to our thread, it's a good bet that in this accident, Air Asia Indonesia, the pilots were indeed minding the store and trying to resolve their difficulty with the weather they were encountering.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IndonesianTempo AirAsia Plane Often Experiences Trouble, Former Pilot Says | Economy & Business | Tempo.Co :: Indonesian News Portal - 'Former Garuda Indonesia pilot Capt. Shadrach M. Nababan, said -based on its logbook data - that the Airbus A320-200 serving AirAsia flight QZ8501 had experienced problems as much as nine times on its auto rudder trim limiter flight control in 2014.
Three days before crashing on December 25, 2014, flight QZ8501 experienced a 'return to apron' twice, according to Shadrach.
Flight QZ8501's last transmission were revealed by the Transportation Minister Ignasius Jonan in a meeting with the Transport Commission Legislature on Tuesday, January 20, 2015, saying that the aircraft tried failed gain altitude and stalled before vanishing from Soekarno-Hatta's ATC (Air Traffic Control) radar. The plane attempted to climb from 32,000 feet to 37,000 feet between 06:17 to 06:17:54 am (Western Indonesian Time).
At 6:17:54, the plane stalled from 37,000 feet to 36,000 feet in six seconds, and to 29,000 feet in 31-seconds. At 6:18:44 am, the plane vanishes from ATC radar.
Shadrach explained that commercial planes are not allowed to do any extreme climbs in the air because it does not have the same power as fighter jets.'
Three days before crashing on December 25, 2014, flight QZ8501 experienced a 'return to apron' twice, according to Shadrach.
Flight QZ8501's last transmission were revealed by the Transportation Minister Ignasius Jonan in a meeting with the Transport Commission Legislature on Tuesday, January 20, 2015, saying that the aircraft tried failed gain altitude and stalled before vanishing from Soekarno-Hatta's ATC (Air Traffic Control) radar. The plane attempted to climb from 32,000 feet to 37,000 feet between 06:17 to 06:17:54 am (Western Indonesian Time).
At 6:17:54, the plane stalled from 37,000 feet to 36,000 feet in six seconds, and to 29,000 feet in 31-seconds. At 6:18:44 am, the plane vanishes from ATC radar.
Shadrach explained that commercial planes are not allowed to do any extreme climbs in the air because it does not have the same power as fighter jets.'
SAMPUBLIUS:
Your post raises some thoughts.
Why are Airbus machines designed with such load protection?
Are they built like Boeings?
Would an A330 survive in the above circumstances if full control were allowed?
Your post raises some thoughts.
Why are Airbus machines designed with such load protection?
Are they built like Boeings?
Would an A330 survive in the above circumstances if full control were allowed?
Load protection would have done What ??
Last edited by auraflyer; 26th Jan 2015 at 23:24. Reason: corrected a word
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a related problem ?
auraflyer
Auraflyer - In a word - Yes
What we have is the reverse of the Sourcerer and the Apprentice.
In normal life, when the Apprentice screws up, the Master Tradesman has to perform the rectification, and the apprentice gets a kick up the arse and "learns".
What we now have, in the bus philosophy, is the system is the annointed Master Tradesman, that is so much smarter, quicker, better, and all knowing, than the apprentice pilot.
When the Master Tradesman screws up, makes a mess, then compounds it into a bigger mess, and then gives up, it throws it all back onto the apprentice pilot with the instruction:-
"OK son, let's see how much you have learned so far. Show me how to fix this problem, and save our arses, before we loose the contract."
Put bluntly, the real responsibility for these "make it worse - then give up and kick off" automation facilitated needless disasters - should be laid fairly and squarely where it belongs - at the front door of the mentoring and sponsoring certification authouity - La Direction de l'Aviation Civile.
Quote: Load protection would have done What ??
Is there a related problem: I'm getting the impression that when things go seriously amiss, will the computers trying to hang on too long, and in the process make such extreme inputs, that when they finally drop and hand control back, things are already much further gone than they should be?
Is there a related problem: I'm getting the impression that when things go seriously amiss, will the computers trying to hang on too long, and in the process make such extreme inputs, that when they finally drop and hand control back, things are already much further gone than they should be?
Auraflyer - In a word - Yes
What we have is the reverse of the Sourcerer and the Apprentice.
In normal life, when the Apprentice screws up, the Master Tradesman has to perform the rectification, and the apprentice gets a kick up the arse and "learns".
What we now have, in the bus philosophy, is the system is the annointed Master Tradesman, that is so much smarter, quicker, better, and all knowing, than the apprentice pilot.
When the Master Tradesman screws up, makes a mess, then compounds it into a bigger mess, and then gives up, it throws it all back onto the apprentice pilot with the instruction:-
"OK son, let's see how much you have learned so far. Show me how to fix this problem, and save our arses, before we loose the contract."
Put bluntly, the real responsibility for these "make it worse - then give up and kick off" automation facilitated needless disasters - should be laid fairly and squarely where it belongs - at the front door of the mentoring and sponsoring certification authouity - La Direction de l'Aviation Civile.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternate law limits would have prevented that- and plane and passengers would have been swimming with the fish . .
Simply losing one engine on a 747 should not result in total loss of control by the crew and a 5g 30,000ft plunge. Once he took manual control, the Captain made several basic mistakes and nearly killed everyone on board. That is completely unacceptable.
If anything, China Airlines 006 further supports the Airbus design philosophy.
GPS gives you ground speed (the speed of the aircraft relative to the ground), which is irrelevant for flying. You need Airspeed (the speed of the Aircraft relative to the air).
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe we just need hotter pitot tubes and vanes
oh, and even without GPS, if you are level at cruise power settings, there is a good chance you are making cruise indicated airspeed.
I want all those who are NOT pilots to know that we train, when we are very early in our pilot training how to deal with loss of indicated airspeed, for what ever reason...
In the larger planes, we actually have a piece of paper in our POH which gives power setting, pitch attitudes and other things which could be used IN LIEU of indicated airspeed...even offering things like this if we LOSE THE RADOME for some reason or another.
I love all the advice from non pilots or engineers, but the best thing I could ever offer to an aircraft designer is the term: KISS
KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID
but it seems that modern planes have done just the opposite.
oh, and even without GPS, if you are level at cruise power settings, there is a good chance you are making cruise indicated airspeed.
I want all those who are NOT pilots to know that we train, when we are very early in our pilot training how to deal with loss of indicated airspeed, for what ever reason...
In the larger planes, we actually have a piece of paper in our POH which gives power setting, pitch attitudes and other things which could be used IN LIEU of indicated airspeed...even offering things like this if we LOSE THE RADOME for some reason or another.
I love all the advice from non pilots or engineers, but the best thing I could ever offer to an aircraft designer is the term: KISS
KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID
but it seems that modern planes have done just the opposite.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
auraflyer
Quote:
Quote: Load protection would have done What ??
Is there a related problem: I'm getting the impression that when things go seriously amiss, will the computers trying to hang on too long, and in the process make such extreme inputs, that when they finally drop and hand control back, things are already much further gone than they should be?
Auraflyer - In a word - Yes
What we have is the reverse of the Sourcerer and the Apprentice.
In normal life, when the Apprentice screws up, the Master Tradesman has to perform the rectification, and the apprentice gets a kick up the arse and "learns".
What we now have, in the bus philosophy, is the system is the annointed Master Tradesman, that is so much smarter, quicker, better, and all knowing, than the apprentice pilot.
When the Master Tradesman screws up, makes a mess, then compounds it into a bigger mess, and then gives up, it throws it all back onto the apprentice pilot with the instruction:-
"OK son, let's see how much you have learned so far. Show me how to fix this problem, and save our arses, before we loose the contract."
Put bluntly, the real responsibility for these "make it worse - then give up and kick off" automation facilitated needless disasters - should be laid fairly and squarely where it belongs - at the front door of the mentoring and sponsoring certification authouity - La Direction de l'Aviation Civile.
Quote:
Quote: Load protection would have done What ??
Is there a related problem: I'm getting the impression that when things go seriously amiss, will the computers trying to hang on too long, and in the process make such extreme inputs, that when they finally drop and hand control back, things are already much further gone than they should be?
Auraflyer - In a word - Yes
What we have is the reverse of the Sourcerer and the Apprentice.
In normal life, when the Apprentice screws up, the Master Tradesman has to perform the rectification, and the apprentice gets a kick up the arse and "learns".
What we now have, in the bus philosophy, is the system is the annointed Master Tradesman, that is so much smarter, quicker, better, and all knowing, than the apprentice pilot.
When the Master Tradesman screws up, makes a mess, then compounds it into a bigger mess, and then gives up, it throws it all back onto the apprentice pilot with the instruction:-
"OK son, let's see how much you have learned so far. Show me how to fix this problem, and save our arses, before we loose the contract."
Put bluntly, the real responsibility for these "make it worse - then give up and kick off" automation facilitated needless disasters - should be laid fairly and squarely where it belongs - at the front door of the mentoring and sponsoring certification authouity - La Direction de l'Aviation Civile.
Amen to that. It has been my argument since 20 years.
Being called a Airbus enemy for so long, i only opposed the stated above. It would take a minor programming change to rectify the system. But it would admit something ...... and therefore we will cynically witness another Airbus c-u.
Did you notice the absence of the usual Airbus lobby-suspects' trivial contributions on here? It's getting ever more difficult to find excuses for the system with the similarity of these accidents.
But you have pointed out the real responsible body in your contribution.
