Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have not had the "pleasure" of flying in that part of the world, however, a couple of very experienced colleagues that did, for some time, intimated to me that if you did not accept to routinely fly through weather that you assuredly would avoid in Europe, you wouldn't operate any flights.
Down low, if you 'never fly through the red' on the radar sometimes you'd never make it to the airport in places like SIN. You can turn down the gain and play with the tilt and try to find structure but often all you have is rain with very little turbulence.
As for up high, several of us have come down to the PPRuNe altar and testified here about those cells that just don't paint but have a tremendous kick.
Just as you get used to the icing, fog and low ceilings in Europe in the winter, convective activity is a common challenge year-round over the South China Sea.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Moses Lake, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gulfairs
I am and old critter, and the last heavy aircraft(being greater than 12500 kg)
was a DC8 73 and then 747 200 preceded by DC10-30.
Non of these aircraft had all the white mans magic of a dozen different laws etc, just the old ones, Pull stick back equals houses get smaller and push stick forward houses get bigger.
It appears to this fuddled brain, that airbus industries have put so many protection systems in place that the aircraft systems are able to out maneuver the pilots inputs.
...
My point is: maybe we should revert to cable operated controls and switches.
was a DC8 73 and then 747 200 preceded by DC10-30.
Non of these aircraft had all the white mans magic of a dozen different laws etc, just the old ones, Pull stick back equals houses get smaller and push stick forward houses get bigger.
It appears to this fuddled brain, that airbus industries have put so many protection systems in place that the aircraft systems are able to out maneuver the pilots inputs.
...
My point is: maybe we should revert to cable operated controls and switches.
Comparing the A319/320/321 against the B737 NG, the rates are identical, at 0.08. Perhaps the type of flight control system is less important to accident rates than some would like to think. Given a particular scenario, you can make an argument that one design is better than another. But, over the whole range of real world scenarios, it all averages out.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Information given to media
I am concerned by what looks like incorrect information being given to the media by non-authorised personnel - similar to the MH370 incident. The grief caused to the family members from the dissemination of such information is unthinkable.
So far, we have:
bodies recovered going from 3 to 40 then back to 3.
bodies holding hands then debunked.
body wearing a lifejacket then debunked.
airframe found under the sea with sonar, then debunked.
Those people involved in the SAR teams, and their superiors (I don't care if you are a general or a minister - SHUT UP) should just keep mum when confronted by media and refer them to the appropriate channels. And the media should not be pushing so hard and diseminating such information so quickly just to get a scoop on the other media organisations.
So far, we have:
bodies recovered going from 3 to 40 then back to 3.
bodies holding hands then debunked.
body wearing a lifejacket then debunked.
airframe found under the sea with sonar, then debunked.
Those people involved in the SAR teams, and their superiors (I don't care if you are a general or a minister - SHUT UP) should just keep mum when confronted by media and refer them to the appropriate channels. And the media should not be pushing so hard and diseminating such information so quickly just to get a scoop on the other media organisations.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: swindon
Age: 44
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would the automatics eventually recover from any condition resulting from a jet upset? Stall/Spin? Inverted?
In this case partial retardation of the automatics due to Angle of Attack sensor icing caused a non-commanded pitch up to point of stall. The crew tried to push full forward on the stick but missed the indication that pitch control was now manual. They ran out of elevator and stalled into the ocean.
No suggestion this happened to Air Asia - but relevant when you ask if self recovery is possible.
Plane Crash Investigation | Mayday XL Airways Germany Flight 888T - YouTube
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airbubba
kudos to you sir for describing how wx radar should be adjusted and , for lack of a better word, played with to develop a good understanding of what is ahead of you.
long ago I realized that the worst turbulence was the boundry between different levels on the adjusted wx radar, using gain, and tilt to promote a better picture.
but it takes too long to type about, but kudos cuz I think you know of what you speak
kudos to you sir for describing how wx radar should be adjusted and , for lack of a better word, played with to develop a good understanding of what is ahead of you.
long ago I realized that the worst turbulence was the boundry between different levels on the adjusted wx radar, using gain, and tilt to promote a better picture.
but it takes too long to type about, but kudos cuz I think you know of what you speak
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: HK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Freespeed2 a while back:
About 10 years ago I was flying in the same region. 4 hours into a 7 hour flight. Happy at FL410/M.80 but in a thin wispy flat layer with light ocnl mod turb. Suddenly the aircraft pitched up violently, both FGCs and ADCs kicked out as did the autopilot, autothrottles and trims. All the screen speed info red X'd and the mach indicated on the Flt Director panel went instantly to M.74 as the max cruise speed for this altitude (hence the initial pitch-up). The OAT had changed within 5 seconds from -54C to -27C. This temp is outside all the aircraft performance charts. Both FMS's warned that the aircraft was exceeding its ceiling altitude. The was NO severe turbulence at any stage but the aircraft became almost uncontrollable and I was left flying on a standby manual AOA indicator and the mark 1 eyeball on the horizon until we could figure out what the hell to do next. After about 45 seconds (felt like an hour) the temps returned to normal and everything was sequentially reset. During that time all I could was keep the aircraft flying upright. Manual flying at that altitude is a delicate process.
I was fortunate to be in an aircraft with a lot of spare thrust and a large margin above the stall in normal cruise. To be honest it scared the sh*t out of me. In an aircraft with a narrower margin above the stall control could be lost very quickly with a low chance of recovery.
The subsequent investigation identified the cause as a rapidly rising column of warm air being funneled up from a developing Cb below. There were no clouds at our level and nothing on the Wx radar.
I guess my point from this experience is that;
Don't be too quick condemn Airbus for icing pitots/AOAs.
Don't be too quick to suggest that the pilots stalled the aircraft through some positive or negative action.
Don't be too quick to blame severe turbulence.
From SCMP this morning:
"Radar data being examined by investigators appears to show the doomed AirAsia plane made an "unbelievably" steep climb before it crashed - possibly pushing it beyond the Airbus A320-200's limits, according to a source.
The data was transmitted before flight QZ8501 disappeared from the screens of air traffic controllers in Jakarta on Sunday, according to the unnamed source.
"So far, the numbers taken by the radar are unbelievably high. This rate of climb is very high, too high. It appears to be beyond the performance envelope of the aircraft," he said."
About 10 years ago I was flying in the same region. 4 hours into a 7 hour flight. Happy at FL410/M.80 but in a thin wispy flat layer with light ocnl mod turb. Suddenly the aircraft pitched up violently, both FGCs and ADCs kicked out as did the autopilot, autothrottles and trims. All the screen speed info red X'd and the mach indicated on the Flt Director panel went instantly to M.74 as the max cruise speed for this altitude (hence the initial pitch-up). The OAT had changed within 5 seconds from -54C to -27C. This temp is outside all the aircraft performance charts. Both FMS's warned that the aircraft was exceeding its ceiling altitude. The was NO severe turbulence at any stage but the aircraft became almost uncontrollable and I was left flying on a standby manual AOA indicator and the mark 1 eyeball on the horizon until we could figure out what the hell to do next. After about 45 seconds (felt like an hour) the temps returned to normal and everything was sequentially reset. During that time all I could was keep the aircraft flying upright. Manual flying at that altitude is a delicate process.
I was fortunate to be in an aircraft with a lot of spare thrust and a large margin above the stall in normal cruise. To be honest it scared the sh*t out of me. In an aircraft with a narrower margin above the stall control could be lost very quickly with a low chance of recovery.
The subsequent investigation identified the cause as a rapidly rising column of warm air being funneled up from a developing Cb below. There were no clouds at our level and nothing on the Wx radar.
I guess my point from this experience is that;
Don't be too quick condemn Airbus for icing pitots/AOAs.
Don't be too quick to suggest that the pilots stalled the aircraft through some positive or negative action.
Don't be too quick to blame severe turbulence.
From SCMP this morning:
"Radar data being examined by investigators appears to show the doomed AirAsia plane made an "unbelievably" steep climb before it crashed - possibly pushing it beyond the Airbus A320-200's limits, according to a source.
The data was transmitted before flight QZ8501 disappeared from the screens of air traffic controllers in Jakarta on Sunday, according to the unnamed source.
"So far, the numbers taken by the radar are unbelievably high. This rate of climb is very high, too high. It appears to be beyond the performance envelope of the aircraft," he said."
Last edited by GunpowderPlod; 1st Jan 2015 at 00:53. Reason: Hangover from New Year party!
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having operated through the ITCZ several times I would say the exceedingly high climb rate was probably due to a sudden severe updraught, especially considering that a climb was not authorized due traffic when requested.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gunpowerplod
I flew a certain kind of jet that needed certain temps to calculate takeoff EPR.
RAT probe was heated IN THE AIR to avoid icing.
BUT on the ground the calculated EPR was a nutty value...oops, the plane "THOUGHT" it was in the air and was heating the RAT probe.
Investigated and the OVER RIDE for the landing gear handle thought it was in the air too.
Called MX and fixed the problem
CAN YOU IMAGINE how dependent we have become on computers to do things, and THUS when a NUTTY value comes along the COMPUTER BELIEVES IT AND THEN GIVES UP>
Maybe you flew through an area of extreme temp change...OR MAYBE your computer goofed.
EITHER WAY I WISH we had a "STEAM GAUGE" backup of large enough size
to allow for vibrating eyeballs.
I flew a certain kind of jet that needed certain temps to calculate takeoff EPR.
RAT probe was heated IN THE AIR to avoid icing.
BUT on the ground the calculated EPR was a nutty value...oops, the plane "THOUGHT" it was in the air and was heating the RAT probe.
Investigated and the OVER RIDE for the landing gear handle thought it was in the air too.
Called MX and fixed the problem
CAN YOU IMAGINE how dependent we have become on computers to do things, and THUS when a NUTTY value comes along the COMPUTER BELIEVES IT AND THEN GIVES UP>
Maybe you flew through an area of extreme temp change...OR MAYBE your computer goofed.
EITHER WAY I WISH we had a "STEAM GAUGE" backup of large enough size
to allow for vibrating eyeballs.
"Radar data being examined by investigators appears to show the doomed AirAsia plane made an "unbelievably" steep climb before it crashed - possibly pushing it beyond the Airbus A320-200's limits, according to a source.
what's a steep climb in this context
rate of change of altitude?
Pitch attitude ?
Isn't the AOA a key to the discussion if one is considering operation outside published limits?
Or for the breakup theorists, wouldn't it be G loads? in gusts
I would think that with decoded radar plots the aero guys could work out possible AOA values and possible onset of stall
Of course we are stuck waiting for actual data before running with somebody's words like "steep"
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Under Class C
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pitch has nothing to do with stall, every student starting out gets taught that. In a severe up draught you could be pointing nose down, and still stalled. It is the angle of relative airflow to the wing. Just like a power on stall pulling out of a loop, low angle of attack relative to the horizon, but still a stall.
If this was indeed a very severe up draught, the plane could very well have been in an immediate stall.
If this was indeed a very severe up draught, the plane could very well have been in an immediate stall.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what's a steep climb in this context?
Here's the story.
AirAsia flight may have stalled after 'unbelievably steep climb' | South China Morning Post
"This rate of climb is very high, too high. It appears to be beyond the performance envelope of the aircraft”
Similar information has been given out by Aviation experts from Indonesia close to the investigation. See post #469
Hang on. An updraft may result in a momentary increase in g and therefore the stall speed, but thereafter, when established in the updraft, either the autopilot or the crew would be pushing the nose down in an attempt to maintain altitude. This will probably result in a speed increase. Certainly, the nose isn't going to pitch up by itself. If anything, as the speed reduces, the nose should drop by itself because the pitch trim is now way out. And this is an airbus; I don't fly them but in normal law, won't the system automatically reduce the AoA/lower the nose if a stall is approached?
A severe downdraft, on the other hand, will result in a big speed decrease if level flight was attempted. But these guys were climbing.
A severe downdraft, on the other hand, will result in a big speed decrease if level flight was attempted. But these guys were climbing.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Washstate
Age: 79
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re# 826 and others and climb rates
..." "This rate of climb is very high, too high. It appears to be beyond the performance envelope of the aircraft”
Wouldn't the local change in baro pressure in a major updraft or downdraft give false readings to the transponder instrumention- thus indicating a major change in altitude even in relatively level flight- thus the computer(s) have a garbage in- garbage out issue ?
Or were the so called "radar" readings based on actual target -skin return changes? ( I'm doubtful of skin returns at that distance from radar )
Seems to me would have to wait for combination of readings/g levels from FDR ?
Wouldn't the local change in baro pressure in a major updraft or downdraft give false readings to the transponder instrumention- thus indicating a major change in altitude even in relatively level flight- thus the computer(s) have a garbage in- garbage out issue ?
Or were the so called "radar" readings based on actual target -skin return changes? ( I'm doubtful of skin returns at that distance from radar )
Seems to me would have to wait for combination of readings/g levels from FDR ?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sampublius
I was thinking the same thing a couple of hours ago. it would have to be a MASSIVE change in barometric pressure..4 inches?
but who knows...
I JUST REMEMBER that a great man named BUCK (weather flying) took a B17 through crappy wx during WW2 and learned alot.
and taught us more!
I was thinking the same thing a couple of hours ago. it would have to be a MASSIVE change in barometric pressure..4 inches?
but who knows...
I JUST REMEMBER that a great man named BUCK (weather flying) took a B17 through crappy wx during WW2 and learned alot.
and taught us more!
Sadly I am not sure this will be such a rare event in future. A dramatic growth In air travel - especially low cost air travel. More punishing crew schedules with busy nights and all the risks of fatigue. An ever increasing drive towards automation and efficiency. Reduced training budgets. Pilots with less hands on experience who are at increased risk of getting startled by the unexpected.
We are seeing this across society. Increased sophistication and people trained to be reliant on the "system." And increasingly less well prepared to take over when the system fails.
Not saying it will be common. But I fear common enough that tracking is justified.
An interesting question. What altitude would you like tracked? FL as per altimeter? GPS derived altitude (when available)? Both?
Imagine if we had both and there was a sudden substantial discrepancy. Imagine how useful it would be in a case when it was going to takie time to get the recorders (deep mid pcean).
As an aside, how often is GPS coverage sufficient to permit altitude to be calculated.
We are seeing this across society. Increased sophistication and people trained to be reliant on the "system." And increasingly less well prepared to take over when the system fails.
Not saying it will be common. But I fear common enough that tracking is justified.
Wouldn't the local change in baro pressure in a major updraft or downdraft give false readings to the transponder instrumention- thus indicating a major change in altitude even in relatively level flight
Imagine if we had both and there was a sudden substantial discrepancy. Imagine how useful it would be in a case when it was going to takie time to get the recorders (deep mid pcean).
As an aside, how often is GPS coverage sufficient to permit altitude to be calculated.
Last edited by slats11; 1st Jan 2015 at 04:50.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
always wanting actual data and facts
lomapaseo
Tsk, Tsk. Always wanting "actual data" and facts before you leap to conclusions.
Had we done that on the Colgan (Buffalo) thread, we'd have missed an extensive discussion of how tailplane icing almost certainly was the culprit.
How the flight crew should have responded by pulling back on the column as hard as they could and maybe even reducing power (depending on the a/c type). Albeit one poster did caution that mis-identification of the type of stall (wing v tailplane) could be lethal.
Others chimed in: Cause of the stall? Faulty deice boots on the tail or wing(s).
There was extensive discussion of whether 'ice bridging' was a myth.
Some wanted to GET RID OF BOOTS in all planes, because heated wings/airfoils are the way to go.
OR make the airfoil so robust aerodynamically as not to need anti-ice.
There were calls to require little video cameras mounted on the tail, to spot the icing. And "I guess there should be a ice detector on the tailplane!!!!!!"
But then you put a damper on some of the speculation:
Of course we are stuck waiting for actual data before running with somebody's words like "steep"
Had we done that on the Colgan (Buffalo) thread, we'd have missed an extensive discussion of how tailplane icing almost certainly was the culprit.
How the flight crew should have responded by pulling back on the column as hard as they could and maybe even reducing power (depending on the a/c type). Albeit one poster did caution that mis-identification of the type of stall (wing v tailplane) could be lethal.
Others chimed in: Cause of the stall? Faulty deice boots on the tail or wing(s).
There was extensive discussion of whether 'ice bridging' was a myth.
Some wanted to GET RID OF BOOTS in all planes, because heated wings/airfoils are the way to go.
OR make the airfoil so robust aerodynamically as not to need anti-ice.
There were calls to require little video cameras mounted on the tail, to spot the icing. And "I guess there should be a ice detector on the tailplane!!!!!!"
But then you put a damper on some of the speculation:
lomapaseo 14th Feb 2009, 01:20
Good video learning about tail stall due to icing
Lots of discussion following.
But how sure are we that it's indeed tailplane stall
Are there other possibilities with the information released to date?
Good video learning about tail stall due to icing
Lots of discussion following.
But how sure are we that it's indeed tailplane stall
Are there other possibilities with the information released to date?
Last edited by Passenger 389; 1st Jan 2015 at 04:39.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: HERE
Age: 46
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAN YOU IMAGINE how dependent we have become on computers to do things, and THUS when a NUTTY value comes along the COMPUTER BELIEVES IT AND THEN GIVES UP>
The crux of the matter is that training and improvement continues between human and machine interface so that incidents where the autopilot cuts out aren't "oh
" moment for contemporary pilots.As a long time lurker, in my observation, post AF 447, PPRUNE accident threads unfold in rather predictable patterns, usually a dichotomy of "airmanship vets" verse "software guys and magenta line pilots (and management)" with each side talking past the other.
I hope that this incident, if found to be caused by poor human machine interface, leads to increased training and awareness of what exactly is happening at the moment of criticality to throw otherwise professional, trained pilots off their game so much to lead to an upset.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: US
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NYTimes: United Nations audited Indonesia’s safety record
In May according to the NYTimes the United Nations sent auditors to Jakarta, Indonesia to rate the countries aviation safety record...their conclusion Indonesia's safety recorded was “well below...global average in every category...scoring 61 in airworthness”. (note it was not specific to AirAsia but to the country of Indonesia as a whole).
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/01/wo...airline-safety
Another article on the net indicates that the EU bars 62 Indonesian carriers into Europe for safety reasons. This article sites that the biggest issue/concern is proper training with rapidly aviation expansion.
My concerns with this accident is the fact that it is a “Low cost airline” and MAYBE not conclusive the push to get planes in the air vs canceling or delaying a flight as it would disrupt that particular planes day flight legs and the possible loss of revenue/increase cost in revenue that is required to move the pax if a flight is cancelled and the airline needs to sell the seats to another airline to move the pax to their destination.
All accidents are a domino effect as we know and I think the first domino in this case goes back to management wanting to keep airline cost down, then dispatch and obviously the flight crew. There is no discussion on here about dispatch and their role in moving this flight forward by 2 hours...clearly dispatch knew the weather was bad and getting worse...the question is was dispatch pressed to get the fight into the air vs canceling or delaying the flight due to weather. What kind of training and years of experience do AirAsia dispatchers have and how much pressure from management/dispatch in the very early am did the captain of this flight have/feel and/or was he to fatigue to make a proper decision to delay the flight.
As for the flight crew...at what time did they receive a revised call to leave their home for the new flight departure time was pushed 2 hours ahead (pilot fatigue). Were they a reserve crew? if so what kind of reserve structure does AirAsia have ie a/b/c reserve schedule.
As for the discussion about radar in cockpits...radars are behind the times not only in the airline industry but also in the corporate world...these aircraft/glass cockpit manufactures should have real time weather overlay like the handheld gps that the civil light aircraft owners use they are excellent at navigating around weather. It’s interesting to see even the Indonesia navy pilots searching for this plane had one on their dash as a back up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/01/wo...airline-safety
Another article on the net indicates that the EU bars 62 Indonesian carriers into Europe for safety reasons. This article sites that the biggest issue/concern is proper training with rapidly aviation expansion.
My concerns with this accident is the fact that it is a “Low cost airline” and MAYBE not conclusive the push to get planes in the air vs canceling or delaying a flight as it would disrupt that particular planes day flight legs and the possible loss of revenue/increase cost in revenue that is required to move the pax if a flight is cancelled and the airline needs to sell the seats to another airline to move the pax to their destination.
All accidents are a domino effect as we know and I think the first domino in this case goes back to management wanting to keep airline cost down, then dispatch and obviously the flight crew. There is no discussion on here about dispatch and their role in moving this flight forward by 2 hours...clearly dispatch knew the weather was bad and getting worse...the question is was dispatch pressed to get the fight into the air vs canceling or delaying the flight due to weather. What kind of training and years of experience do AirAsia dispatchers have and how much pressure from management/dispatch in the very early am did the captain of this flight have/feel and/or was he to fatigue to make a proper decision to delay the flight.
As for the flight crew...at what time did they receive a revised call to leave their home for the new flight departure time was pushed 2 hours ahead (pilot fatigue). Were they a reserve crew? if so what kind of reserve structure does AirAsia have ie a/b/c reserve schedule.
As for the discussion about radar in cockpits...radars are behind the times not only in the airline industry but also in the corporate world...these aircraft/glass cockpit manufactures should have real time weather overlay like the handheld gps that the civil light aircraft owners use they are excellent at navigating around weather. It’s interesting to see even the Indonesia navy pilots searching for this plane had one on their dash as a back up.