Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore

[caulfield]

Well,I've followed the thread and its been an interesting read and there have been some excellent contributions,in particular Retired F4.I dont know the Airbus so I cant comment but it seems to me pilots have to know as a memory item just what each different law implies.Precisely.They cant respond to a UAS/Stall/Upset without knowing just what level HAL is operating under and what that means to them as the pilot.Do they have trim all the way nose up,do they have to trim out of the stall themselves,etc etc.The points about the small SS,non-moving throttles,silent stabtrim all make it a high tech spaceship in Normal Law but I dont think its my kettle of fish when things go pear shape.

But for me,its about the pilot,not the Bus.The changing face of the airline pilot.Ive done a fair few contracts in my time after leaving my first and favorite airline,Dan Air.And I can tell you that on joining 80% of these airlines,nobody really cared about my flying skills or airmanship(bar the V1cut and required LPC items).What they all cared about was...did I know and follow the SOP's,cross my T's and dot my I's,and keep the automation in and watch the good ship.I rarely if ever saw sim time devoted to ex LPC items.And many instructors would reposition the sim in a perfunctory manner until the box was ticked.No expansion,no discussion,no focus on airmanship.Just whats the next box to tick.
In one airline I was supposed to follow like a monkey a set pat of intra flight deck comms when the ramp agent arrived.I said to the line instructor,I can get the loadsheet,extract the data,enter it into the FMC with the other guy cross-checking and we can do it safely without a procedure like a monkey.This is where the airlines focus is now.Procedure.They dont want the crew thinking for themselves or flying the plane all by their lonesome.And its enforced from top down with FDM.This is where we're going wrong.This is why we get 447 and the Asiana.No basic flight skills.And its not the pilots fault.Its the people running the show that are to blame.You need old stick and rudder guys running the show in the training dept,not SOP guys.
My instructors in Dan Air were old timers and they taught me how to fly.I picked up the mundane procedures as I went along,how to do a howgozit,how to handle the comms,what section of the COM to find the holdover table etc,etc.But their focus was basic flight skills and airmanship.Their mandate was to pass that knowledge on to the right seat.They didnt give a monkeys if I got a procedure(there werent many in those halcyon days anyhow) the wrong way round just so long as I knew my pitch and EPRs for 250/210/170,I could handlfy a raw data ILS in marginal,I knew my way round the engineers panel,and I showed enthusiasm and wanted to learn what they had to show me.FOs arent like that anymore are they?They know it all already.CRM tells them theyre all entitled to equal measure.Look at Bonin,he knew all about the ITCZ,all about the smell of ozone,all about St Elmo,all about how to fly didnt he?And now all those people are dead.And why?Its not Bonin.Nobody taught him anything in those 3000 hours.All he knew was procedure,the facade of being an airline pilot.
So whilst the Airbus definitely has some funny quirks(that latest AD OMG),whats needed is a return to flying.Fly the plane.Pure and simple.Airmanship is what will save this troubled profession.Sounds corny and old hat but its so true.Procedure last.SOPs enable 2 strangers to operate a complex piece of machinery.They have an importance but its tertiary.
Thats my take on this sorry state of affairs in our great profession.Over and out.

[formulaben]

...whats needed is a return to flying. Fly the plane. Pure and simple. Airmanship is what will save this troubled profession. Sounds corny and old hat but its so true. Procedure last. SOPs enable 2 strangers to operate a complex piece of machinery. They have an importance but its tertiary.

Doesn't sound corny at all...but simply illustrates the problem with too much automation. In the end they inhibit basic airmanship.

[wes_wall]

Cockpit Crew Seated/Belted?

I may be behind the power curve and if so sorry, but has any definitive confirmation been made as to where the crew was prior to contact with the water. So many media accounts recently saying a myriad of stories quoting officials close to the investigation, but unless I am mistaken, no "official" yea or nea has been declared. And do we know for sure that the Capt left his seat before the onset of control loss.

[silverstrata]

Asraam

Exactly HOW does your stick pusher know it is approaching the stall, perhaps it will use the AOA probes ... that generated the reversionary mode in the first place.

By reverting to the inertial reference system (IRS).

I can understand why AB would not want to use IRS data for normal law, to define a stall, it could easily be used for alternate law.

The IRS knows the attitude (after all, that is what we fly by) and it also has a good idea about the airspeed.** And the FMC knows the weight. From this, the correct stall attitude can be calculated with reasonable precision.


** The IRS and FMC know the groundspeed, while FMC knows the previous windspeed and altitude from before a problem occurred, and can use this to calculate a probable TAS airspeed. The FMC could also integrate known thrust, attitude and altitude, to derive a secondary airspeed profile.

[Smilin_Ed]

What Law Are We In?

In the AB is there any kind of information displayed that tells the pilots which law the system is operating in? A light? A message displayed?

Would it have made any difference to AF447 if there had been such a notification? Would anyone have acted differently?

[formulaben]

The IRS knows the attitude (after all, that is what we fly by) and it also has a good idea about the airspeed.** And the FMC knows the weight. From this, the correct stall attitude can be calculated with reasonable precision.

Well, not really...but most of the time. This statement presumes no vertical up/downdrafts...which probably has a lot to do with this accident. Might have helped with AF447, but don't see how that would help in this case, in fact keeping it within a prescribed pitch attitude could make the situation worse.

[xcitation]

What Law Are We In?

Something like this:

ECAM gives details
PFD shows icons reflecting degraded protections.

Alternate
Amber XX's replace the green attitude limits on the PFD.
The PFD airspeed scale is modified:
- VLS remains displayed
- VALPHA PROT and VALPHA MAX are removed, replaced by a red and black barber pole, the top indicating the stall warning speed VSW

Direct
An amber message USE MAN PITCH TRIM appears on the PFD.
The PFD airspeed scale remains the same as in Alternate Law.

Mechanical Backup
A red MAN PITCH TRIM ONLY warning appears on the PFD.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by caulfield

And I can tell you that on joining 80% of these airlines, nobody really cared about my flying skills or airmanship (bar the V1cut and required LPC items). What they all cared about was ... did I know and follow the SOP's, cross my T's and dot my I's, and keep the automation in and watch the good ship.

This fits into the current legal environment nicely. That is what has a lot of management concerned: liability.

I rarely if ever saw sim time devoted to ex LPC items. And many instructors would reposition the sim in a perfunctory manner until the box was ticked. No expansion, no discussion, no focus on airmanship. Just whats the next box to tick.

This make regulators happy, seeing all of those boxes ticked. Training costs time and money. Box ticking is more "time efficient." (Please note the sarcasm dripping from my keyboard ... )

In one airline I was supposed to follow like a monkey a set pat of intra flight deck comms when the ramp agent arrived. I said to the line instructor, I can get the load sheet, extract the data, enter it into the FMC with the other guy cross-checking and we can do it safely without a procedure like a monkey. This is where the airlines focus is now. Procedure.

ISO 9000 has arrived on the Flight Deck.

Don't feel bad. This isn't only a problem in the airline industry.

They dont want the crew thinking for themselves or flying the plane all by their lonesome. And its enforced from top down with FDM. This is where we're going wrong.

Because people are hard to lead and manage.

[A0283]

@ wes wall - cockpit crew

Status that I keep says ...

Both Captain and F/O were seated.
Early rumours that Capt was out of his seat were rejected early on by officials.
Rumours persisted.
No foundation of rumours known to me.

On Friday both pilots were located in the damaged cockpit. Both strapped in. And one of the pilots was recovered. His uniform had 3 stripes. But formal identification is referred to the DVI team.

Recovery of the second pilot, most likely the captain, is planned. Progress unknown.

[Oakape]

Perfect summary caulfield & Lonewolf_50 adds to it nicely! The accountants & marketing types have got their hands firmly on the airline industry & they are going to force it into their mold, no matter what!

[Nimbus4]

Alternate Law PFD

Note the HUGE red X's on the display in Alternate Law PFD


Flight Control Laws | Alternate Law - Description

[Naali]

Caulfield

Not much to add,even today. thanks for writing.

[scard08]

Experience with Alternate Law

Can any Airbus guys say how often they have to fly in Alternate Law? Is it a regular occurence or something you just experience in training?

[ATC Watcher]

caulfield

Superb post Caulfield, totally agree .
Same in our Profession, the most important part of Safety management today is satisfying audits and regulators questionnaires. If all the boxes are ticked, management opens the Champagne bottles and congratulate themselves how good they are.
But unfortunately I do not think "Good airmanship" " is one of the boxes.

[NigelOnDraft]

Can any Airbus guys say how often they have to fly in Alternate Law? Is it a regular occurence or something you just experience in training?

6K+hrs A340/320 - never.

Very rare on the line, of course practiced in the Sim.

if cruising at max altitude and you receive a tcas alert to "climb", don't do anything; the other aircraft will get tcas alerts to descend at a higher rate

I trust your advice not to climb is not serious How do you know the other aircraft even has TCAS? If you are Max Alt, and TCAS says climb, then FOLLOW IT

[Trackdiamond]

Caulfield

Well posted old boy! We need more retrospecive thinking in this industry to correct matters.Its not just about speedy i-pad googly minds in the cockpit.We need Airmen who can THINK and DECIDE like AVIATORS.That means a liberal latitude rather than robotic SOP and punching buttons like a Digital DJ. Unfortunately when "Airmanship" criterion appears I the tick box..it is judged not objectively but more subjective assessment o how the TRE sees your operation dominated by CRM mandates.There is also the worrying trend that modern trained young pilots just because have CRM lessons in their syllabus seem to think they have a monopoly of expertise in the field and their misinterpretation of Assertiveness versus Aggressiveness might lead to undermining the authority of the Pilot In Charge.The AF Airbus 340 landing accident at Toronto amongst others bring to mind.Experience vs knowledge...two similar but quite different positions in the cockpit.At the end of the day when in dire straits..it is correct judgement that will count.And that comes on naturally..with years of hard earned experience.

[HeavyMetallist]

Originally Posted by Trackdiamond

..it is correct judgement that will count.And that comes on naturally..with years of hard earned experience.

I've been quite surprised to see a number of posts along these lines recently, basically criticising CRM for empowering whipper-snappers to challenge wise old greybeards. I thought that Tenerife (and numerous accidents before and since) had demonstrated that "years of hard earned experience" do not necessarily equate to correct judgement in any given situation, and that a far greater risk is the FO cowered into silence by the higher status of their more experienced captain? It might be irritating to have your judgement regularly queried by a relative novice, but haven't we all (in whatever field) had the experience at one time or another of being challenged and thinking "damn, the kid's right"?

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

This fits into the current legal environment nicely. That is what has a lot of management concerned: liability. This make regulators happy, seeing all of those boxes ticked. Training costs time and money. Box ticking is more "time efficient." (Please note the sarcasm dripping from my keyboard ... )
ISO 9000 has arrived on the Flight Deck.

Don't feel bad. This isn't only a problem in the airline industry.
Because people are hard to lead and manage.

At one stage in my 'career' I qualified as an ISO-9000 auditor. One of the things that was expressed to me during the training was that procedures were not required for everything, only where it was really essential the procedures were not varied. Or to put it another way one of the more experienced QA instructors said:

"You go to audit some companies and they have several tables all covered with procedure manuals 2 or 3 deep. You go into others and they hand you a single slim folder. You know immediately which company actually follows their procedures."

I think that this has application in the aviation world. Less by rote procedures and more capable personnel will make a better more professional airline which in the long term will be safer and more profitable.

Unfortunately, that message has not percolated through to 'management' and tickboxes and inhibition of original thought are seen as the way to do it. That inevitably leads to the:

'if there isn't a procedure for it - you are not allowed to do it'; and,

'I have learned all the procedures in the manual and the boxes have all been ticked, so I don't need to know anything else.'

[A0283]

Investigative approach taken by the KNKT/NTSC ?

What I would like to understand is the huge difference between how the AirAsia and the latest TransAsia accidents are treated by the respective national authorities (both acting under ICAO Rules).

In the AirAsia case the (investigation) authorities have published few preliminary facts (radar, FDR and CVR data). But have published some short ‘final opinion’ conclusions( {we know what happened} “ we have the ‘key‘ “ – and – “it was not a suicide”).
In the TransAsia case the (investigation) authorities have already published many preliminary facts (radar, FDR and CVR data). And have published a ‘preliminary factual’ conclusion (one engine out and the second good one shut down too).

From a professional personal point of view you learn much much more from getting the preliminary facts yourself, struggle with them to find probable cause and contributing factors, and then compare these when preliminary, interim and final reports are published. The main learning moments being where the professional official report either confirms or rejects your professional personal conclusions.

From that professional viewpoint you can only be very very happy with the approach taken by the Taiwanese ASC. And at the same time negatively surprised by the approach taken by the Indonesian KNKT/NTSC.

In context, the Taiwanese ‘political’ risks appeared to be much greater than the Indonesian ones. Declaring the pilot a hero ( while keeping the ‘from hero to villain pilot’ case after rolling the 747 in mind ). Possibly shutting down the good engine too (keeping the UK 737 case in mind). And the mainland Chinese passengers (keeping general politics and MH370 emotions in mind).
In the Indonesian case no-one, not a single mention on Pprune I think, suggested a suicide. And no-one expects an investigation team to have the ‘key’ in an early stage. There is a lot of information that can be published without having any political overtones. Publishing the MH370 take-off fuel weight for instance would also have harmed no one, on the contrary one could even say.

Is there a Pprune member who has an informed opinion on this. And can give us a better understanding of how the Indonesian investigation might view its own QZ8501 approach.

[Lonewolf_50]

Ian:
As with any quality and standards system, the "spirit of the law" versus "the letter of the law" application remains problematic.

Your points are well taken, but that doesn't mean that the concept behind the system is reflected in practice.
(See also with various misadventures in Lean ... )

There is no substitute for knowing the aircraft thoroughly and knowing the limitations / constraints of the regulatory system (be it national or international) that is put in place with the intention of establishing some order to air travel and transport.