Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pashaF -was this the Kazan airport crash ?
Nov 17, 2013 - A Boeing
737-53A passenger plane, operated by Tatarstan Airlines, was destroyed in an accident at
Kazan Airport (KZN), Russia. 
Please put dates on such incidents when reported-posted in thread
PashaF on 23 dec 2015 posted . . .
Please put dates on such incidents when reported-posted in thread
PashaF on 23 dec 2015 posted . . .
I guess this is another really close case.
A Boeing 737-53A passenger plane, operated by Tatarstan Airlines, was destroyed in an accident at Kazan Airport (KZN), Russia. All 44 passengers and six crew members were killed.
A Boeing 737-53A passenger plane, operated by Tatarstan Airlines, was destroyed in an accident at Kazan Airport (KZN), Russia. All 44 passengers and six crew members were killed.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: St. Petersbourg
Age: 39
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nov 17, 2013 - A Boeing
737-53A passenger plane, operated by Tatarstan Airlines, was destroyed in an accident at
Kazan Airport (KZN), Russia. Please put dates on such incidents when reported-posted in thread
IAC have issued the final report just yet. However, Russian officials are strongly disagree, implying that elevator malfunction occurred. I can translate something from Russian document if it unavailable in English. In general - the same issues as "hard-over" situation.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alternate places
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PashaF, your offer to translate is very kind, thank you. The letter from the MAK/IAC can be seen on the AvHerald website at News: Russia suspends airworthiness certification for Boeing 737s, but does not prohibit operation of 737s. Would it be possible to translate this letter?
Amidst the disagreements between agencies, I think it would be helpful to know the exactly how the elevators or the pitch control system malfunctioned. (to be clear, I don't expect the MAK/IAC letter will explain the malfunction - for those not reading Russian it would be interesting to know what it states).
Amidst the disagreements between agencies, I think it would be helpful to know the exactly how the elevators or the pitch control system malfunctioned. (to be clear, I don't expect the MAK/IAC letter will explain the malfunction - for those not reading Russian it would be interesting to know what it states).
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: St. Petersbourg
Age: 39
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PashaF, your offer to translate is very kind, thank you. The letter from the MAK/IAC can be seen on the AvHerald website at News: Russia suspends airworthiness certification for Boeing 737s, but does not prohibit operation of 737s. Would it be possible to translate this letter?
Amidst the disagreements between agencies, I think it would be helpful to know the exactly how the elevators or the pitch control system malfunctioned. (to be clear, I don't expect the MAK/IAC letter will explain the malfunction - for those not reading Russian it would be interesting to know what it states).
Amidst the disagreements between agencies, I think it would be helpful to know the exactly how the elevators or the pitch control system malfunctioned. (to be clear, I don't expect the MAK/IAC letter will explain the malfunction - for those not reading Russian it would be interesting to know what it states).
It is a lot there, mostly focused around hydraulic piston conditions.
Hmm. I have an idea. You can read official Boeing response to technical part here http://mak-iac.org/upload/iblock/8dc...0%B8%D0%B8.pdf
If you interested in pilot behavior analysis it focus on the monotonous force applied to the column according to the official report. Practically, pilots have to put 80 pounds efforts in -1g situation to do provide such input.
Last edited by PashaF; 24th Dec 2015 at 18:04.
and not having a full understanding of the true handling characteristics of the a/c, and not having consistent practice and recurrency training of both.
I recall reading of one very well known major airline boasting how they have managed the "threat" of automation dependency by adding two raw data hand flown ILS in their cyclic training every six months. That would not add one iota of basic handling skills to already nervous Nelly's.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is the owner of the aircraft ?
The very bad maintenance of the aircraft is a major factor of that crash. Both airline and owner didn't do their job.Did I miss the owner's identity in the official report ?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Response To Danger
I think have found some potentially useful psychological information that relates to the human response to danger. How, Why We React To Danger As We Do - tribunedigital-sunsentinel
Of particular interest to me is the "mental tunnel vision" response to danger. I've seen that at least twice in my life, where time seems to move in slow motion. In both cases, I was evaluating a question that was a critical constraint and my mind rapidly processed the question numerous times sequentially in an extremely short period. Questions like: "Can I pull any more AOA?" or "Where will I stop?"
I discussed this discovery with my daughter who then relayed her experiences in interviewing people for a job opening (she can be intimidating). She asked a simple logical question that had a correct answer that required good logical reasoning. She stated that she was amazed that people who started out with an incorrect initial logical analysis of the problem were often unable to restructure their thoughts to find the correct answer even when she attempted to coach them into the correct chain of thought!
It appears (to me) that these observations may provide tools for understanding the otherwise inexplicable pilot behaviors observed at the fundamental level in the AF447 and QZ8501 accidents.
How, Why We React To Danger As We Do
March 26, 1987|By GAYLE YOUNG, United Press International
When a Pennsylvania official drew a gun from his briefcase during a news conference earlier this year, it took reporters precious seconds to realize he was about to kill himself. By that time, they said afterwards, it was too late.
Last July, a retired police officer quickly drew his gun and subdued a deranged killer who had pulled a sword on a crowded Staten Island ferry before some witnesses even realized what was happening.
A recent study of 500 fire victims showed - that when confronted with a blaze - men invariably stepped forward to fight it while women raced away to alert potential victims and save lives.
When seconds count, why do people react the way they do?
Psychologists say how people react in emergencies depends on a variety of factors, most of them tied to human instinct.
But they dispute the idea that the world is divided into cowards and heroes.
``Most heroes later say privately they wouldn`t have done what they did if they knew the risks they were taking with their own lives,`` said John Dovidio, chairman of psychology at Colgate University. ``What makes a person focus on the gun and another focus on the victim during an emergency is simply a quirk.``
Researchers say when emergencies strike, most people become extremely tense and agitated. Their attention focuses exclusively on the danger and their thoughts become simple and methodical.
``Accident victims sometimes say the few seconds before the crash was like slow motion,`` Dovidio said. ``That`s because all their attention is focused on the upcoming danger and they process it richly.``
The ability humans have to create a sort of mental tunnel vision during emergencies is seen by psychologists as a survival technique developed over evolution.
``You want to process danger very well, not a lot of information that is no use to the situation,`` Dovidio said.
Once danger is perceived, how people react varies, researchers said. When they have only seconds to react, some risk their lives for strangers, others may try to escape and still others freeze in panic.
But researchers have seen patterns of behavior in their studies of human response. For instance, it is clear that some split-second reactions can be learned.
Police and emergency personnel who are drilled in how to respond in emergencies often perform deeds within moments that are later deemed heroic, like the retired police officer who captured the Staten Island ferry swordsman by firing a gunshot into the air.
``People have a tendency to think simply, so they act best if they have had a drill,`` said John Keating, professor of psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Researchers also said studies have indicated that witnesses to violence usually focus on the weapon and not on the victim. As a result, the first reaction of most people at the scene of violent crime is to cower.
But there are exceptions to this rule.
``If the victim is known by the witness, then the victim, not the weapon, becomes a primary focus,`` Dovidio said. ``That`s why we have people running back into burning houses to save relatives or friends.``
But people who get easily excited appear to have a natural tendency to ignore the weapon and focus in on the victim, Dovidio said.
These are the heroes who later say they would not have risked their lives if they had realized the danger, but who at the moment of crisis plunge forward to yank a victim from the path of an oncoming train or dive into an icy river to save a drowning person.
Gender also may be a factor in how people react in emergencies. Keating said his fire studies indicate men are much more likely to react aggressively and women intuitively.
``The men see the fire and want to eliminate the danger while the women tend to think about others first,`` he said.
March 26, 1987|By GAYLE YOUNG, United Press International
When a Pennsylvania official drew a gun from his briefcase during a news conference earlier this year, it took reporters precious seconds to realize he was about to kill himself. By that time, they said afterwards, it was too late.
Last July, a retired police officer quickly drew his gun and subdued a deranged killer who had pulled a sword on a crowded Staten Island ferry before some witnesses even realized what was happening.
A recent study of 500 fire victims showed - that when confronted with a blaze - men invariably stepped forward to fight it while women raced away to alert potential victims and save lives.
When seconds count, why do people react the way they do?
Psychologists say how people react in emergencies depends on a variety of factors, most of them tied to human instinct.
But they dispute the idea that the world is divided into cowards and heroes.
``Most heroes later say privately they wouldn`t have done what they did if they knew the risks they were taking with their own lives,`` said John Dovidio, chairman of psychology at Colgate University. ``What makes a person focus on the gun and another focus on the victim during an emergency is simply a quirk.``
Researchers say when emergencies strike, most people become extremely tense and agitated. Their attention focuses exclusively on the danger and their thoughts become simple and methodical.
``Accident victims sometimes say the few seconds before the crash was like slow motion,`` Dovidio said. ``That`s because all their attention is focused on the upcoming danger and they process it richly.``
The ability humans have to create a sort of mental tunnel vision during emergencies is seen by psychologists as a survival technique developed over evolution.
``You want to process danger very well, not a lot of information that is no use to the situation,`` Dovidio said.
Once danger is perceived, how people react varies, researchers said. When they have only seconds to react, some risk their lives for strangers, others may try to escape and still others freeze in panic.
But researchers have seen patterns of behavior in their studies of human response. For instance, it is clear that some split-second reactions can be learned.
Police and emergency personnel who are drilled in how to respond in emergencies often perform deeds within moments that are later deemed heroic, like the retired police officer who captured the Staten Island ferry swordsman by firing a gunshot into the air.
``People have a tendency to think simply, so they act best if they have had a drill,`` said John Keating, professor of psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Researchers also said studies have indicated that witnesses to violence usually focus on the weapon and not on the victim. As a result, the first reaction of most people at the scene of violent crime is to cower.
But there are exceptions to this rule.
``If the victim is known by the witness, then the victim, not the weapon, becomes a primary focus,`` Dovidio said. ``That`s why we have people running back into burning houses to save relatives or friends.``
But people who get easily excited appear to have a natural tendency to ignore the weapon and focus in on the victim, Dovidio said.
These are the heroes who later say they would not have risked their lives if they had realized the danger, but who at the moment of crisis plunge forward to yank a victim from the path of an oncoming train or dive into an icy river to save a drowning person.
Gender also may be a factor in how people react in emergencies. Keating said his fire studies indicate men are much more likely to react aggressively and women intuitively.
``The men see the fire and want to eliminate the danger while the women tend to think about others first,`` he said.
I discussed this discovery with my daughter who then relayed her experiences in interviewing people for a job opening (she can be intimidating). She asked a simple logical question that had a correct answer that required good logical reasoning. She stated that she was amazed that people who started out with an incorrect initial logical analysis of the problem were often unable to restructure their thoughts to find the correct answer even when she attempted to coach them into the correct chain of thought!
It appears (to me) that these observations may provide tools for understanding the otherwise inexplicable pilot behaviors observed at the fundamental level in the AF447 and QZ8501 accidents.
From the article:
[QUOTE][Once danger is perceived, how people react varies, researchers said. When they have only seconds to react, some risk their lives for strangers, others may try to escape and still others freeze in panic.
But researchers have seen patterns of behavior in their studies of human response. For instance, it is clear that some split-second reactions can be learned.
Police and emergency personnel who are drilled in how to respond in emergencies often perform deeds within moments that are later deemed heroic, like the retired police officer who captured the Staten Island ferry swordsman by firing a gunshot into the air.
``People have a tendency to think simply, so they act best if they have had a drill,`` said John Keating, professor of psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle./QUOTE]
This is SUPPOSED to be drilled into pilots in training, but maybe it isn't being done thoroughly enough. I always said USAF pilot training was about learning to be comfortable in very uncomfortable situations--something PC training may have given up on.
GF
[QUOTE][Once danger is perceived, how people react varies, researchers said. When they have only seconds to react, some risk their lives for strangers, others may try to escape and still others freeze in panic.
But researchers have seen patterns of behavior in their studies of human response. For instance, it is clear that some split-second reactions can be learned.
Police and emergency personnel who are drilled in how to respond in emergencies often perform deeds within moments that are later deemed heroic, like the retired police officer who captured the Staten Island ferry swordsman by firing a gunshot into the air.
``People have a tendency to think simply, so they act best if they have had a drill,`` said John Keating, professor of psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle./QUOTE]
This is SUPPOSED to be drilled into pilots in training, but maybe it isn't being done thoroughly enough. I always said USAF pilot training was about learning to be comfortable in very uncomfortable situations--something PC training may have given up on.
GF
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 26th Dec 2015 at 20:43.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pergatory
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is SUPPOSED to be drilled into pilots in training, but...
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Machinbird,
Logic and intuition are concepts of thought not of behaviour.
In any case any theory used in flight must be validated in flight
Logic seems easy, clear, mandatory, but paradoxes and errors exist I.e.:
That equation :
x²+x+1=0
x(x+1)=0 and. x+1=-x²
x(-x²)=0
-x³=0
x=0
Verification :
0²+0+1=0
1=0
..
...correct the errors and find the paradox !
Logic and intuition are concepts of thought not of behaviour.
In any case any theory used in flight must be validated in flight
Logic seems easy, clear, mandatory, but paradoxes and errors exist I.e.:
That equation :
x²+x+1=0
x(x+1)=0 and. x+1=-x²
x(-x²)=0
-x³=0
x=0
Verification :
0²+0+1=0
1=0
..
...correct the errors and find the paradox !
Last edited by roulishollandais; 28th Dec 2015 at 00:55. Reason: intuition, validated, add conclusion
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dubai
Age: 63
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot On
Hi Joema
You hit the nail on the head! The article below has probably been posted previously but is so well researched and written it deserves another look. So many factors in todays aviation exist as described.
All pilots should know what can hurt them on the type they are current on and specifically know basic pitch and power settings for each phase of flight.
Should Airplanes Be Flying Themselves? | Vanity Fair
You hit the nail on the head! The article below has probably been posted previously but is so well researched and written it deserves another look. So many factors in todays aviation exist as described.
All pilots should know what can hurt them on the type they are current on and specifically know basic pitch and power settings for each phase of flight.
Should Airplanes Be Flying Themselves? | Vanity Fair
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SAYE
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather was not a factor!
Not sure if this was already mentioned here:
Torqued: Air Asia Crash Highlights Risks of In-flight Troubleshooting | Business Aviation: Aviation International News
Torqued: Air Asia Crash Highlights Risks of In-flight Troubleshooting | Business Aviation: Aviation International News
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
avionimc
I am concerned that the long term understanding of the QZ8501 accident will be, "They were just conducting unauthorized inflight troubleshooting."
That was definitely a factor in the accident of course, but we should never lose sight of the fact the loss was directly caused by a gross piloting failure.
The aircraft was actually capable of being controlled, but the improper crew reaction to the new configuration caused them to lose control. In this regard, the accident very closely resembles the AF447 accident.
Perhaps we need to be tracking an accident causal factor called, "Loss of Control-Unrecognized or Not Understood Control Configuration Change."
I am concerned that the long term understanding of the QZ8501 accident will be, "They were just conducting unauthorized inflight troubleshooting."
That was definitely a factor in the accident of course, but we should never lose sight of the fact the loss was directly caused by a gross piloting failure.
The aircraft was actually capable of being controlled, but the improper crew reaction to the new configuration caused them to lose control. In this regard, the accident very closely resembles the AF447 accident.
Perhaps we need to be tracking an accident causal factor called, "Loss of Control-Unrecognized or Not Understood Control Configuration Change."
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Above the Transition Level
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All comes down to the regulators.
Over reliance in automation and companies restricting pilots hand flying day to day on line ops combined with not providing recurrent sims for handling due to commercial and budget.
Initial type ratings give you the skills but how are you supposed to maintain them.
Over reliance in automation and companies restricting pilots hand flying day to day on line ops combined with not providing recurrent sims for handling due to commercial and budget.
Initial type ratings give you the skills but how are you supposed to maintain them.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: bkk
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand flying a glass cockpit big airplane
Over several years, both here on PPRUNE and in several other forums this issue of "losing handling skills" keeps coming up.Certainly it is real, I even notice it affecting me even though I have 20,000 plus hours and have been an instructor on big jets for 25 years.
One answer, which is a method I use, during the initial line training/IOE period, is about once every 4-5 legs, just prior to flap extension, I turn off AUTOPILOT, FLIGHT DIRECTOR and AUTOTHROTTLE, providing conditions are suitable, and let them "feel" the machine.Many seem to take this practice into their flying lives, its very satisfying to see and the results show up in the SIM training as well.Pete.
One answer, which is a method I use, during the initial line training/IOE period, is about once every 4-5 legs, just prior to flap extension, I turn off AUTOPILOT, FLIGHT DIRECTOR and AUTOTHROTTLE, providing conditions are suitable, and let them "feel" the machine.Many seem to take this practice into their flying lives, its very satisfying to see and the results show up in the SIM training as well.Pete.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Above the Transition Level
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree Pete however not all operators allow to reduce the level of automation to that level.
Then on the other hand some pilots/pic are too afraid to reduce the level of automation to that level in case they mess it up or can't get it stable again resulting in a go around and consequential fdap.
Sad times (i'll put a period there on the automation topic).
Then on the other hand some pilots/pic are too afraid to reduce the level of automation to that level in case they mess it up or can't get it stable again resulting in a go around and consequential fdap.
Sad times (i'll put a period there on the automation topic).
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: antipodies
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Automation did not remove the need for an engineer, there needs to be a systems engineer in the cockpit. Pilots cannot be expected to understand failure modes of automation , thats a specialist discipline and modern aircraft should carry a systems engineer.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SAYE
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather was not a factor!
Or, is it possible that airbuses are not really meant for human full understanding?
Notable accidents, and yes, easy to blame them on pilots:
Notable accidents, and yes, easy to blame them on pilots:
- Habsheim airshow, 1988, seasoned crew. Still fresh in my memory, seeing that unbelievable crash on the French evening news that same day; it would not have happened with any other aircraft make.
- Air New Zealand Airbus crash in the Mediterranean (Perpignan) 2008, seasoned German & NZ crew, including engineers, no one understood, until too late.
- Qantas and Lufthansa substantial loss of altitude due to sudden uncommanded pitch-down descent, 2014, causing, at least in one occurrence, serious injuries. Remedy to that was to pull a CB, wasn't it? There too, seasoned Australian and German crews.
- Etc., etc.
Last edited by avionimc; 21st Feb 2016 at 13:00.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really are talking rubbish. Do you have even the slightest clue about how to fly an aircraft ?
Too low, too slow, nose high, back side of the curve.
The result was inevitable in ANY aircraft including Boeing or even a Piper Cub.
This one goes beyond pilot error into the realm of utter stupidity.
Functional test of alpha protection. The test instructions are very clear that the test MUST be conducted at 14000 ft and not less that 10000 feet AGL. Deliberately stall the aircraft to confirm that the alpha protection prevents the stall. Anyone who tries this at low level is way beyond stupid and certifiably insane. They did it at low level. DUH.
Habsheim airshow, 1988, seasoned crew. Still fresh in my memory, seeing that unbelievable crash on the French evening news that same day; it would not have happened with any other aircraft make.
The result was inevitable in ANY aircraft including Boeing or even a Piper Cub.
Air New Zealand Airbus crash in the Mediterranean (Perpignan) 2008, seasoned German & NZ crew, including engineers, no one understood, until too late.
Functional test of alpha protection. The test instructions are very clear that the test MUST be conducted at 14000 ft and not less that 10000 feet AGL. Deliberately stall the aircraft to confirm that the alpha protection prevents the stall. Anyone who tries this at low level is way beyond stupid and certifiably insane. They did it at low level. DUH.
Last edited by The Ancient Geek; 21st Feb 2016 at 17:26.