Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 769
Originally Posted by The Ancient Geek
Do you honestly believe that a Boeing can recover reliably from a low level stall ?
One NG, one classic.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 507
The point that strikes me from reading the report a few times is that having seen the reset on ground procedure it was "felt appropriate" to try it airborne .. now thats a no-no for line flying.
That and the failure to bring the units online again by pushing the reset buttons to regain dark cockpit, then add the stick back stall recovery !!
And where was the crew brief before the cb pulling started ?
It's very simple to blame the architecture and turn this into a A vs B slanging match, but really ... the aircraft and it's occupants should have survived, and it would appear that human intervention prevented that.
That and the failure to bring the units online again by pushing the reset buttons to regain dark cockpit, then add the stick back stall recovery !!
And where was the crew brief before the cb pulling started ?
It's very simple to blame the architecture and turn this into a A vs B slanging match, but really ... the aircraft and it's occupants should have survived, and it would appear that human intervention prevented that.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 42
Posts: 443
Please enough with the AvB slagging contest!
Sometimes things go awfully bad. In some planes they go bad because they lose a prop blade. Does this mean we should start beating on turboprops because "jets don't have props"?
Nah, come on peeps. Meddling with the CBs in the middle of the flight was never, has never been and will never be a good idea, something pilots MUST have learned at least since that bad bad crash in the US many moons ago. The one where they pulled a CB to prevent unwanted noise, but that also meant they tried to take off with no flaps or anything. One single survivor - the rest was carnage.
I would suggest you ponder about what Machinbird said. Maybe there needs to be another category of accidents: "Loss of Control-Unrecognized or Not Understood Control Configuration Change."
The Kazan 737 crash would probably be a candidate for this. Very low level stall, nose dive, all caught on camera. You really should take your beta blockers before watching that video.. *joke*
Sometimes things go awfully bad. In some planes they go bad because they lose a prop blade. Does this mean we should start beating on turboprops because "jets don't have props"?
Nah, come on peeps. Meddling with the CBs in the middle of the flight was never, has never been and will never be a good idea, something pilots MUST have learned at least since that bad bad crash in the US many moons ago. The one where they pulled a CB to prevent unwanted noise, but that also meant they tried to take off with no flaps or anything. One single survivor - the rest was carnage.
I would suggest you ponder about what Machinbird said. Maybe there needs to be another category of accidents: "Loss of Control-Unrecognized or Not Understood Control Configuration Change."
The Kazan 737 crash would probably be a candidate for this. Very low level stall, nose dive, all caught on camera. You really should take your beta blockers before watching that video.. *joke*
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: perth
Posts: 1
Torqued: Air Asia Crash Highlights Risks of In-flight Troubleshooting | Business Aviation: Aviation International News
Air Asia flight turns around after 'technical issue' - CNN.com
The other significant lesson from this crash is related to maintenance. There were repeated write-ups and deferrals of the rudder trim limiter system. The accident report does not delve into why this was allowed to occur and why the aircraft was not taken out of service until the problem could be found. Repeat items have to be dealt with in a timely manner and not deferred over and over so that crews are not put in the position of having to deal with known problems.
