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 18th Feb 2015, 23:12
  #3261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 48
Posts: 198
A0283,
That would appear to point to a breakup scenario that is different from that of the PPRuNe majority view. Which might point to another chain of events ... below 24,000 ft...
So, at this stage we are not sure where the cockpit was, and not sure where the forward section is located. I have no idea why this information is not published.
By the way, the article in discussion states:
Although the tail was recovered, large pieces of the fuselage are fairly heavy, so it is less likely to be shifted away by exposure to ocean currents. The spread of large pieces of the fuselage in a fairly large distance range is an indication that the airframe may be incomplete when touching the surface of the sea. So the possibility of an emergency landing at sea level can be ruled out.


Training wheels,
Also the recovered tail section shows two major ruptures: from the fuselage and from the THS, so most likely there were two impacts.
In case of a break-up scenario, recording would stop in midair. But yes, I agree, let's wait for something more official and credible.

Last edited by _Phoenix; 19th Feb 2015 at 10:54. Reason: grammar
_Phoenix is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2015, 09:41
  #3262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: YARM
Age: 69
Posts: 88
a wing and a prayer.

@IanW @andianjul and others

This isn't a software logic/coding issue but one of system design.

There are two primary actors, the automated flight computers and human pilots, who have varying control of the flight. A critical factor in the handling of these upsets seems to depend on the nature of the failover/hand-off (here, catch) to the crew.

I know its mainly about risk mitigation (stall/over-speed avoidance) but once such an incident has occurred, it appears the system as a whole is inherently vulnerable, exacerbated by deficiency in training, crew awareness and identification of the problem, their response and computer assistance in alternate configurations.

So is this just the way it is nowadays? Take all precautions to avoid an upset, then ... good luck?
unworry is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2015, 10:39
  #3263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,368
Originally Posted by Ian W
That raises all sorts of potential issues and it would be easy to speculate on the bete noir that Airbus is complaining about and similarly the problems that AirAsia may not want raised
Yeah and NTSC is famous worldwide for its technically impeccable reports like the one on MI185.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2015, 12:14
  #3264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,199
Originally Posted by unworry View Post
@IanW @andianjul and others

This isn't a software logic/coding issue but one of system design.

There are two primary actors, the automated flight computers and human pilots, who have varying control of the flight. A critical factor in the handling of these upsets seems to depend on the nature of the failover/hand-off (here, catch) to the crew.

I know its mainly about risk mitigation (stall/over-speed avoidance) but once such an incident has occurred, it appears the system as a whole is inherently vulnerable, exacerbated by deficiency in training, crew awareness and identification of the problem, their response and computer assistance in alternate configurations.

So is this just the way it is nowadays? Take all precautions to avoid an upset, then ... good luck?
I think that you are understating the problems.

The approach to training and operational flight now is that flight crew are positively discouraged from manual flight at cruise levels. The psychological impact of just taking control of the aircraft and 'manually' flying it rather than leaving it to the AP is considerable for some flight crew. They may have thousands of hours in the cockpit but almost no time at all manually flying at cruise. No amount of time in a nice safe simulator will provide the mental effect of flying the real thing manually at height. So just having the AP give control to the flight crew (for some crews) is sufficient stress and some may not cope too well.

The problem is that the AP normally calls it a day, when something is going wrong and the aircraft has distinct problems. So not only are the crews already stressed due to just having control, they also have the added alerts and problems to sort together with the 'calming' alarms, alerts, scrolling warnings on ECAM and barber poles changing colors etc. Perhaps even losing the standard instruments.

This mix of beancounters wanting efficient flight chasing crews who hand fly, lack of any hands-on training/practice in cruise and 'graceful degradation' of the systems increasing system complexity and the number of 'what is it doing now' questions all added to an inflight emergency, is a recipe for guaranteed failures.

It seems we are starting to see some of these failures; the industry is going to need to respond constructively to block these holes in the cheese. Don't hold your breath though as the first reaction appears to be to deny the problem - a management version of automation surprise.
Ian W is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2015, 12:59
  #3265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: I used to know
Posts: 175
AO283

If thats all true then we get a forward cylindrical fuselage section at 500 m. And the separated cockpit section at 20 m from the main fuselage and wing. That would appear to point to a breakup scenario that is different from that of the PPRuNe majority view. Which might point to another chain of events ... below 24,000 ft.
Not saying this is the case but:
If there was a mid air breakup and the cvr & fdr stopped recording short of impact then the evidence for the breakup sequence is the "expertly recovered wreckage". Having been dragged on board, cut up, dropped etc etc, I wonder how much evidence is left?
Any investigation should examine all the evidence not just rely on cvr, fdr. The recovery operation apears to have dictated the direction of the investigation.

Having said that my thoughts still lie with the breakup on surface contact.
PT6Driver is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2015, 17:32
  #3266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 54
Does this imply that Airbus and AirAsia may not want to accept the findings?
Apparently we are to wait until Augst before the report arrives. Is there a precedent for such a delay before releasing the data and preliminary report?

What would the impact be on the industry be if this was similar to AF447?
rideforever is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2015, 18:13
  #3267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
One would think it would be right and proper to get the report out ASAP so we can all learn from this tragic event. That surely would enhance safety.

Which begs the question, Is safety the authority's first priority?

"What would the impact be on the industry be if this was similar to AF447?" None!
Sop_Monkey is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2015, 19:33
  #3268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,199
If there would be no industry impact, Indonesia would not have issued the public cease and desist warning to Airbus and AirAsia. There are one or more things to come out that neither will like.
Ian W is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2015, 22:43
  #3269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,756
was the pilot and copilot struggling to control the aircraft right until the last moments.
Both pilots struggling at the controls? Does that mean one pilot handling and both shouting in fear? Or both grabbing the side stick with neither knowing what the other was trying to do? And was that a media interpretation third hand? So much pure speculation.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2015, 19:24
  #3270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 120
Sources for Transport Minister Jonan Quote

I have been asked for citations for this Jonan quote:
.Scott Posted:
There were a couple of news stories posted today that included this quote:
Quote:
[Transport Minister] Jonan said that the parties involved in the investigation, including plane manufacturer Airbus and AirAsia, must accept the committee's findings and not interfere in the inquiry.
Does this imply that Airbus and AirAsia may not want to accept the findings?
The clearest one is here:
The MalayMail Online

Here's another:
Venture Capital Post

In both cases, search for "interfere" - or just read the whole article.
.Scott is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2015, 00:23
  #3271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 716
If that quote is true then it points to a complete whitewash of a report. Sounds like they are lining up Airbus to take the blame. My previous post regarding the Asiana crash was trying to make this point. In that report the Koreans didn't accept pilot error and blamed the manufacturer for badly designed automation, I suspect in this report the pilots will be exonerated and Airbus will be blamed regardless of the facts. That is the only conclusion I can come to considering the secrecy of the investigation so far combined with quotes like above.
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2015, 06:53
  #3272 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 68
Posts: 2,501
I suspect in this report the pilots will be exonerated and Airbus will be blamed regardless of the facts
Then you probably never read an Indonesian investigation report before. (or any other for that matter)
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2015, 07:15
  #3273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 206
Post #3297 Ian W

Great Post IanW- SPOT ON
ramble on is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2015, 08:31
  #3274 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 68
Posts: 2,501
Does this imply that Airbus and AirAsia may not want to accept the findings?
It is not a matter of accepting or not. Every party to an investigation ( and the manufacturer and the operator normally are, as well as the state(s) of registry ), can have their own views , differring from the majority, and those views can be added as comments to the report, generally as an appendix in the end.

The best example is in the Teneriffe collision report, where both KLM and the Dutch State did not agree with the report's conclusions an anexed their own investigation.

see here : http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/313.pdf
page 57, the 3rd para , followed by 11 pages !)
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2015, 13:34
  #3275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 921
If that quote is true then it points to a complete whitewash of a report.
First of all it points to a perfectly normal process. All involved parties get a preliminary report and have the chance to comment. This may provide the investigators with aspects, views and technical details they did miss so far. (for example a manufacturer may have test flown specific scenarios already, with different findings than the investigator would assume)
However.... There is of course always a risk, that the most powerful party gets most of its view into the report. A complete whitewash is rare, but one must always read an accident report with the fact in mind, that there might be some information missing or some information included which is not that important. It is hard to seek for assistance without being manipulated.

So do I suspect a complete whitewash? Not at all!
Do I expect a 100% objective report? Well, within the typical limits of a job which is heavily influenced by politics. So I guess that is a No as well...

Sometimes it is easier if the aircraft remains missing...
Volume is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2015, 10:03
  #3276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 51
Posts: 540
Oz 465

Certainly in a Boeing it is very simple:
Push down trim down until the stall indications stop.

Unfortunately, it is not that simple. If the engines are still at full chat (esp. at lower altitude), they will overpower the elevator and make the aircraft do a back-flip.

This was a part of the problem in the AF incident, and it may have been contributory in this incident. When most instructors do stalling in the sim, they ask you to reduce power to initiate the stall, so you never see the effect. What I did, and only because I asked, is let the speed bleed off to the stall on the approach - then add full power for the go-around and see what happens.....

Try it.
silverstrata is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2015, 10:21
  #3277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 51
Posts: 540
ATC watcher

Then you probably never read an Indonesian investigation report before. (or any other for that matter)
No, but I have read two reports from xxxx nation, which did do everything to blame Boeing. And I have read two reports from xxxx nation, which did exactly the same thing (also to Boeing, but that is merely due to Boeing's commercial reach into those regions).

One interesting preliminary report said that, 'the gear collapsed because the captain landed the aircraft too smoothly....'

So this does happen. Not saying it will here, but it is always in a nation's interest to deflect blame, and the temptation is therefore high. We shall no-doubt see what they say shortly, but the long delay suggests that all is not well between the local CAA and Airbus.
silverstrata is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2015, 18:39
  #3278 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 68
Posts: 2,501
Silverstrata

I understand what you want to say but do not compare Indonesia KNKT with country Xxx (and I agree there are a few xxx out there ) but look at the NTSC report on the accident of the Sukhoi SSJ100 in Mt Salak in 2012 for instance . Go to pages 61 to 68 to make yourself an educated opinion of their expertise and independance. (You can download the report from ASN )
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2015, 10:43
  #3279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 303
Rumour ... Fuselage just lifted?

Taking the text and searching for DB30 - the barge said to have performed the lift - delivered:

"McDermott International’s DB30 derrick barge, with its 2,794 metric ton-rated crane, will be put to work this year supporting Petronas’ Bukit Tua Development offshore East Java, Indonesia. “This is the second award we have received related to the Bukit Tua Development this year,” commented Hugh Cuthbertson, McDermott’s Vice President and General Manager, Asia Pacific. “We are currently fabricating the 1,212-ton BTJT-A wellhead jacket at our Batam Island fabrication facility in Indonesia, where construction work is on track and expected to complete in November 2014.” The DB30 will be tasked with transportation and installation of the BTJT-A jacket, its related topsides and subsea pipeline tie-in spools. Additionally, McDermott will undertake the pre-commissioning of the related export and infield pipelines. McDermott’s share of the offshore installation work is expected to be completed by end of the first quarter of 2015. The Bukit Tua field is located approximately 21 miles from Madura Island and 62 miles from Surabaya, East Java, in approximately 190 ft of water."

So outsized for weight but handy for larger dimensions, and already close to location. The barge has an operating draft of about 4.5 meters. So not improbable, but...

Can anyone confirm this rumour. I have not yet found photos.
A0283 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2015, 10:52
  #3280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The 'Bat Cave' @ HLP in the Big Durian Indo
Age: 56
Posts: 779
One wing was recovered , I haven't heard that they've lifted the fuselage yet

Berhasil! Basarnas Mengangkat Bodi Utama AirAsia QZ8501

aseanaero is offline  

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.