Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bug
High altitude stall training is all well and good and a step in the right direction.
What stage of stall and recovery of these aircraft are carried out at test? Is it the approach to the stall, threshold of the stall, fully developed stall, or deep stall, at high altitude? If not all, where are they getting the data from, to feed into the simulator?? I suspect it is not only a "T" tail to get into a deep stall. If the elevator on a non "T" tail aircraft is stalled I suspect the situation could be irretrievable from that stage on wards, depending on CofG, CofP and trim etc.
Is there any extra training given to avoid stalling the aircraft in the first instance?? E.G, simply flying an attitude and setting or leaving the thrust where should be, should pressure sourced instruments be suspect or plain useless. Or throttles idle and attitude zero to get down into "better air" then derive a thrust setting for the newer lower altitude? One would hope these are all taught at initial training and should certainly be covered at some stage on type conversion, not waiting for a bad accident. I call it "tombstone regulation". Or don't the basics matter anymore??
High altitude stall training is all well and good and a step in the right direction.
What stage of stall and recovery of these aircraft are carried out at test? Is it the approach to the stall, threshold of the stall, fully developed stall, or deep stall, at high altitude? If not all, where are they getting the data from, to feed into the simulator?? I suspect it is not only a "T" tail to get into a deep stall. If the elevator on a non "T" tail aircraft is stalled I suspect the situation could be irretrievable from that stage on wards, depending on CofG, CofP and trim etc.
Is there any extra training given to avoid stalling the aircraft in the first instance?? E.G, simply flying an attitude and setting or leaving the thrust where should be, should pressure sourced instruments be suspect or plain useless. Or throttles idle and attitude zero to get down into "better air" then derive a thrust setting for the newer lower altitude? One would hope these are all taught at initial training and should certainly be covered at some stage on type conversion, not waiting for a bad accident. I call it "tombstone regulation". Or don't the basics matter anymore??
Last edited by Sop_Monkey; 2nd Jan 2015 at 04:19.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only fact we can reliably work on at present is that two, supposedly highly experienced pilots, wasted a full 38,000 of height in a perfectly good aircraft, and flew into the sea after an updraught upset. On that basis, the comparison with AF447 is inescapable.
I fail to see how an updraught upset can lead to total hull loss without total confusion in the cockpit. No doubt they were in total IMC, which would nearly equate to the total darkness of the AF447 incident.
There is no indication that the aircraft was torn apart by the stormy conditions, it was briefly spotted by two fishermen, still flying in one piece, heading towards the sea.
The talk of a "nearly-successful ditching" is fantasy, the sea and wind conditions in the area were atrocious, and still are atrocious.
I fail to see how an updraught upset can lead to total hull loss without total confusion in the cockpit. No doubt they were in total IMC, which would nearly equate to the total darkness of the AF447 incident.
There is no indication that the aircraft was torn apart by the stormy conditions, it was briefly spotted by two fishermen, still flying in one piece, heading towards the sea.
The talk of a "nearly-successful ditching" is fantasy, the sea and wind conditions in the area were atrocious, and still are atrocious.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
Does anyone agree that the current Airbus Weather Radars aren't as good as they used to be ? I've noted the following :
1) Weather picture suddenly changes from yellow to red as you approach closer to the cloud.
2) Auto-tilt is overly conservative (tilt down). Manual tilt needs to be used often.
3) Gaps between clouds disappear as you approach closer.
I have flown radars from the DC-9-30 all the way up to the newest ones in the single aisle Airbus. I would take auto tilt any day anywhere. I have taken Archie Trummel's weather radar course and understand all about tilt control. All the earlier radars had their faults, and there may be a few with auto tilt, but the reason why we have radar to begin with is to avoid severe weather, not find a way to fly through it. I realize that flying in the tropics is a whole different animal than flying in the states.
Does anyone agree that the current Airbus Weather Radars aren't as good as they used to be ? I've noted the following :
1) Weather picture suddenly changes from yellow to red as you approach closer to the cloud.
2) Auto-tilt is overly conservative (tilt down). Manual tilt needs to be used often.
3) Gaps between clouds disappear as you approach closer.
I have flown radars from the DC-9-30 all the way up to the newest ones in the single aisle Airbus. I would take auto tilt any day anywhere. I have taken Archie Trummel's weather radar course and understand all about tilt control. All the earlier radars had their faults, and there may be a few with auto tilt, but the reason why we have radar to begin with is to avoid severe weather, not find a way to fly through it. I realize that flying in the tropics is a whole different animal than flying in the states.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MURDO
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only fact we can reliably work on at present is that two, supposedly highly experienced pilots, wasted a full 38,000 of height in a perfectly good aircraft, and flew into the sea after an updraught upset. On that basis, the comparison with AF447 is inescapable.
That image showing the flight at FL363 and 353 knots GS? What a coinkydink someone had a camera pointed at the screen at the exact right moment...
All we really know is the plane didn't reach its destination, some fishermen saw an airplane descending to the water and heard it hit, and that some bodies ID'd to have been on board, along with wreckage consistent with an Air Asia A320, have been found.
All that said, yes, it looks a helluva lot like AFR447. But we don't know that as a certainty.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question: Would a high rate of descent make sense if the Cptn put the A320 in a steep dive from considerable height -- NOT with any bad intentions, but in a desperate effort to recover from a stall?
Perhaps powered, or initially unpowered but restarting engine(s) along the way?
Earlier in this thread, NigelOnDraft said (in reference to AF 447)
[D]o you really think that crew would have correctly recovered from this stall?
The Nose Down attitude to recover (30+nd?) would have been horrendous, and I am not sure I could have been convinced to push that hard for that long (and I'm a current aerobatic pilot, ex-mil fast jet, RAF ex-QFI etc.).
Flight 8501's Cptn reportedly flew fighters in the military. Like some other pilots, after AF 447 he also may have thought about how he would respond if ever in a high altitude stall.
If the odds were high the plane would crash if nothing were done, would a steep dive be a reasonable response - trading altitude for speed and hoping to regain control before reaching the deck? It certainly would void the warranty, and might push some control surfaces past their limits - but would there be a better alternative once in the proverbial soup?
If I'm all wet, just say so. (And yes, my question presumes recovery from an actual stall, which has been suggested by some but thus far remains speculative. I also refrain from using technical terms such as "fully developed stall" or "deep stall", recognizing the limits of my knowledge and not desiring to make a complete fool of myself.)
Perhaps powered, or initially unpowered but restarting engine(s) along the way?
Earlier in this thread, NigelOnDraft said (in reference to AF 447)
[D]o you really think that crew would have correctly recovered from this stall?
The Nose Down attitude to recover (30+nd?) would have been horrendous, and I am not sure I could have been convinced to push that hard for that long (and I'm a current aerobatic pilot, ex-mil fast jet, RAF ex-QFI etc.).
Flight 8501's Cptn reportedly flew fighters in the military. Like some other pilots, after AF 447 he also may have thought about how he would respond if ever in a high altitude stall.
If the odds were high the plane would crash if nothing were done, would a steep dive be a reasonable response - trading altitude for speed and hoping to regain control before reaching the deck? It certainly would void the warranty, and might push some control surfaces past their limits - but would there be a better alternative once in the proverbial soup?
If I'm all wet, just say so. (And yes, my question presumes recovery from an actual stall, which has been suggested by some but thus far remains speculative. I also refrain from using technical terms such as "fully developed stall" or "deep stall", recognizing the limits of my knowledge and not desiring to make a complete fool of myself.)
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CEO Mr. Fernandes - tell us about their simualtor training?
Simulator training? What a joke. My first high altitude stall scenario came after AF fell into the ocean. That was also the last time I have done high altitude stalls. As I remember it, it took a decisive push on the stick to get the nose down and then it took forever for the speed to build enough to start to pitch to level flight. As for loss of air data, what makes a pilot think he has to do anything to correct for it? What was the airplane doing just prior to the event? Level flight, constant power setting? Leave it alone. If the auto thrust tries to react to erroneous speed information, turn off auto thrust. The system is already compromised, so turning off auto thrust is not going to harm anything. Pitch and power, baby.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curious and curiouser. Maybe they thought they were fighting a downdraft - engines roaring and stick full back? - not noticing stall because they were below 60kts?
On the other hand if the fuselage really is intact and upside down as some reports have said, then vertical speed can't have been that high? If they were gliding then it was more likely to have been a double flame out, but then why no comms? Maybe the RAT didn't supply enough power for transmission?
On the other hand if the fuselage really is intact and upside down as some reports have said, then vertical speed can't have been that high? If they were gliding then it was more likely to have been a double flame out, but then why no comms? Maybe the RAT didn't supply enough power for transmission?
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some fishermen saw an airplane descending to the water and heard it hit
Many fishermen from different islands think they saw / heard something. But they all told different stories, about possible aircraft at different locations, altitudes and states.
Some of those stories may or may not coincidentally match other things that's been reported.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passenger 389
Oh no, don't be afraid to ask and no you aren't making a fool of yourself. None one knows all the answers. If we all did, a/c wouldn't be dropping out the sky, with the consequent carnage.
Oh no, don't be afraid to ask and no you aren't making a fool of yourself. None one knows all the answers. If we all did, a/c wouldn't be dropping out the sky, with the consequent carnage.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High altitude Stall
Quote:
Curious and curiouser. Maybe they thought they were fighting a downdraft - engines roaring and stick full back? - not noticing stall because they were below 60kts?
I would find it hard to ignore the PFD down in the barber pole, or the pitch above 15 degrees. I would think that if an updraft were encountered, the first reaction would be for the airplane to pitch down to maintain selected altitude (if in level flight). Then as airspeed increased to MMO, it would automatically pitch up to keep from exceeding MMO (by 6 knots). If the pitch required to do that exceeds limitations, auto pilot drops off and it is all yours. What happens when updraft peeters out? Speed would disappear in a hurry at a super high angle of attack. High altitude stall follows and recovery would take a lot of altitude while falling through a very active thunderstorm. This is one scenario where I would like a button to push the airplane into alternate law.
Curious and curiouser. Maybe they thought they were fighting a downdraft - engines roaring and stick full back? - not noticing stall because they were below 60kts?
I would find it hard to ignore the PFD down in the barber pole, or the pitch above 15 degrees. I would think that if an updraft were encountered, the first reaction would be for the airplane to pitch down to maintain selected altitude (if in level flight). Then as airspeed increased to MMO, it would automatically pitch up to keep from exceeding MMO (by 6 knots). If the pitch required to do that exceeds limitations, auto pilot drops off and it is all yours. What happens when updraft peeters out? Speed would disappear in a hurry at a super high angle of attack. High altitude stall follows and recovery would take a lot of altitude while falling through a very active thunderstorm. This is one scenario where I would like a button to push the airplane into alternate law.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1500 hours on basic airplanes with no or little automation,ideally flown as an instructor constantly practicing stalls and basic maneuvers are a background that no AFDS protection can substitute. Stop P2F and enforce such rule worldwide or more and more people will die. If I had to start an airline I would only hire pilots with FI rating and experiencdr. The US are as usual leading..just follow and take geniuses with no real skills and no qualities other than daddy's money out of airliner cockpits .
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest news from the local TV is that a team from France specializing in searching for the black box has arrived on the scene with their specialist equipment and will begin searching.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ekw
if I had over 30000 feet below me, I would not fight a downdraft into a stall or anywhere near a stall.
in the AIM, you can find thunderstorm do's and don'ts. And if you have to RIDE THE WAVES it is what you do and don't hold altitude too closely.
Now, the plane may have done something different on its own, perhaps even do to ''garbage'' information making a computer conclude the wrong thing and act in the wrong way (over simplification here).
if I had over 30000 feet below me, I would not fight a downdraft into a stall or anywhere near a stall.
in the AIM, you can find thunderstorm do's and don'ts. And if you have to RIDE THE WAVES it is what you do and don't hold altitude too closely.
Now, the plane may have done something different on its own, perhaps even do to ''garbage'' information making a computer conclude the wrong thing and act in the wrong way (over simplification here).
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Dallas
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the conjecture by so-called media "experts" is just stunning in its nonsense. It is hard to believe that these statements are being printed and given credence.
Experts say the absence of any crash transmission means the experienced former airforce pilot Captain Irianto may have executed the perfect emergency landing before being the plane was overcome by high seas and sank.
While the hunt is on for the black boxes, several aviation experts believe the absence of any usual crash transmission data means the plane could have touched down safely with all 162 people on board.
After leaving Indonesia early on Sunday, the Airbus A320-200 disappeared over the Java Sea during a storm but the emergency transmissions made when planes crash or are submerged in the sea were never emitted.
So flight experts now believe it's entirely possible that experienced former airforce pilot Captain Irianto may have safely landed the plane on water - before it was overcome by high waves and fell to the bottom of the sea.
While the hunt is on for the black boxes, several aviation experts believe the absence of any usual crash transmission data means the plane could have touched down safely with all 162 people on board.
After leaving Indonesia early on Sunday, the Airbus A320-200 disappeared over the Java Sea during a storm but the emergency transmissions made when planes crash or are submerged in the sea were never emitted.
So flight experts now believe it's entirely possible that experienced former airforce pilot Captain Irianto may have safely landed the plane on water - before it was overcome by high waves and fell to the bottom of the sea.
Indonesian aviation analyst Gerry Soejatman believes the aircraft rose up as fast as a fighter jet and then dropped back into the ocean almost vertically into the water.
And the extreme weather which Airbus 320-200 encountered meant the pilots were helpless to save the passengers and crew on-board, Soejatman told Fairfax media after he examined figures leaked from the official air crash investigation team.
And the extreme weather which Airbus 320-200 encountered meant the pilots were helpless to save the passengers and crew on-board, Soejatman told Fairfax media after he examined figures leaked from the official air crash investigation team.
In contrast, aviation expert Peter Marosszeky, from the University of NSW, told the Sydney Morning Herald that the extremely low speed of the aircraft’s descent - as low as 61 knots - would suggest the plane was heading almost straight down, explaining why it has been found in water just 10km from its last point of radar contact.
Mr Marosszeky surmised that a climb rate of at least 6000ft a minute would indicate a “severe weather event,” because that rate of climb was a ‘domain for jet fighters.’
He said “It’s really hard to comprehend [the plane acted in a way] bordering on the edge of logic,” as it plunged into the water “‘like a piece of metal being thrown down.”
Mr Soejatman believes the crash occurred because the aircraft was caught in a severe updraft, followed by an equally severe ground draft, with the leaked figures showing that it climbed at a staggering rate of 6000ft to 9000ft per minute.
The aircraft then fell at 11,000ft a minute, with bursts of up to 24,000ft – in marked contrast to regular circumstances, when a plane would climb between 1000ft to 1500ft on a sustained basis, gaining 3000ft in a burst.
Mr Marosszeky surmised that a climb rate of at least 6000ft a minute would indicate a “severe weather event,” because that rate of climb was a ‘domain for jet fighters.’
He said “It’s really hard to comprehend [the plane acted in a way] bordering on the edge of logic,” as it plunged into the water “‘like a piece of metal being thrown down.”
Mr Soejatman believes the crash occurred because the aircraft was caught in a severe updraft, followed by an equally severe ground draft, with the leaked figures showing that it climbed at a staggering rate of 6000ft to 9000ft per minute.
The aircraft then fell at 11,000ft a minute, with bursts of up to 24,000ft – in marked contrast to regular circumstances, when a plane would climb between 1000ft to 1500ft on a sustained basis, gaining 3000ft in a burst.
Dudi Sudibyo, a senior editor of aviation magazine Angkasa, said: "The emergency locator transmitter (ELT) would work on impact, be that land, sea or the sides of a mountain, and my analysis is it didn't work because "there was no major impact during landing." "The pilot managed to land it on the sea's surface."
Tinfoil hat backup airspeed sensor proposal
The many suggestions of using GPS and/or INS for backup airspeed come up short when it comes to correcting for wind, especially in turbulent conditions with the up and down drafts throwing off vortices.
I modestly propose force transducers on the radome mounts. The forces from the transducers could be algebraically summed to produce a net force which could then be processed against radome drag coefficient to produce airspeed.
Differentials between opposite sensors could even be used to derive AOA and yaw.
I hope those suffering boredom from trawling through the hamster wheel may have found some amusement
I modestly propose force transducers on the radome mounts. The forces from the transducers could be algebraically summed to produce a net force which could then be processed against radome drag coefficient to produce airspeed.
Differentials between opposite sensors could even be used to derive AOA and yaw.
I hope those suffering boredom from trawling through the hamster wheel may have found some amusement
Last edited by RatherBeFlying; 2nd Jan 2015 at 05:35.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The media, especially in Indonesia, will continue to milk the story for a few weeks; the same as what happened previously with the Sukoi SJ 100 CFIT.
Question: Would a high rate of descent make sense if the Cptn put the A320 in a steep dive from considerable height -- NOT with any bad intentions, but in a desperate effort to recover from a stall?
Perhaps powered, or initially unpowered but restarting engine(s) along the way?
Perhaps powered, or initially unpowered but restarting engine(s) along the way?
But if you want to restart engines you should be thinking of controlling your speed within restart limits, while at the same time extending your glide to give yourself enough time to benefit from a restart attempt. If they really are screwed up, they will be very sluggish in spooling back up at altitude and easily fool you into thinking they have flamed out (ala the China Air dive bomber on the way to SFO)
Then again the structure of the aircraft doesn't like vertical overspeeds as well. Make of it what you will but I doubt the pilots would command something of great extent
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cohoes, NY
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@HarryMann -- Do the math. Downdraft of 250+ mph?? I mean I'm the one speculating about unprecedented tropical weather phenomena, but that is beyond even my ability to conjecture.