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 2nd Jan 2015, 00:50
  #941 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 4
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.
StallStal1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 00:50
  #942 (permalink)  
ekw
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 42
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?
ekw is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 00:51
  #943 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
some fishermen saw an airplane descending to the water and heard it hit
We don't even know that for sure.

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.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 00:56
  #944 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
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.
Sop_Monkey is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 00:58
  #945 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: swindon
Age: 40
Posts: 88
Keep banking your drum of hate against a plane maker, and keep making a fool of yourself.
Hilarious - do you actually know who John Farley is?!!
smala01 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 01:02
  #946 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MURDO
Posts: 35
@peekay4:

Yeah, that too...
DCrefugee is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 01:11
  #947 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 4
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.
StallStal1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 02:05
  #948 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by furbpilot View Post
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 .
Totally agree with you there, but believe it or not, airlines in this part of the world don't even consider your single engine piston time as relevant when it comes to applying for jobs. Anything below 5700 kg (jet) or 19 seat turbo-prop won't be considered as part of your total time. That's why you see log books of FO's here with TT the same as their time on type, because all the flying they do at flight school gets logged in a separate logbook, and doesn't count for time on Part 25 (Air Transport Category) aircraft.
training wheels is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 02:38
  #949 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,295
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.
training wheels is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 02:38
  #950 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 822
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).
glendalegoon is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 02:51
  #951 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Dallas
Posts: 103
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.


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.
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.
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."
ThreeThreeMike is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 02:56
  #952 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,247
Devil 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

Last edited by RatherBeFlying; 2nd Jan 2015 at 05:35.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 03:12
  #953 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by ThreeThreeMike View Post
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.
And I notice that many of these so called experts aren't airline pilots themselves. I don't believe any current airline pilots would dare damage their own credibility and say anything to the media at this early stage because the fact of the matter is, we won't know what happened until the FDR and CVR has been recovered and analysed.

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.
training wheels is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 03:18
  #954 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,284
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?
I don't know what to make of subjective words like "high rate of descent" etc. without verified data.

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
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 03:32
  #955 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cohoes, NY
Posts: 23
@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.
jientho is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 05:31
  #956 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Bangkok
Age: 87
Posts: 2
Several days ago, SIN announced in was sending Sonar Locators. Nothing heard since.
bapak is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 06:15
  #957 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: milky way
Posts: 205
Leaving a managerial position at Total to join P2F for Air Asia with that education..with all respect for the poor guy seems odd. I happen to have friends in Air Asia recruited as direct upgrade FO .... they actually paid for their upgrade as well. Time to say enough with P2F.
furbpilot is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 06:15
  #958 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by training wheels View Post
I don't believe any current airline pilots would dare damage their own credibility and say anything to the media at this early stage because the fact of the matter is, we won't know what happened until the FDR and CVR has been recovered
That apparently doesn't apply to many posting here. Perhaps anonymity allows them to ignore your very sensible point, particularly when it comes to sticking the boot in to Airbus or its engineers, for some reason.
HeavyMetallist is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 06:23
  #959 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Antipodes Islands
Posts: 94
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.
That's not an altogether stupid idea. The only problem is changes in apparent drag due to accumulated ice or water striking the surface in rain.

Back in my micrometeorolgy days I'd considered and discarded this approach when looking at low cost wind speed and direction sensors.

But 10/10 in the lateral thinking stakes!
Mahatma Kote is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 06:28
  #960 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: nz
Posts: 131
"We found parts of the plane which could be part of the wing or the plane's interior," he said on local television channel MetroTV, displaying a white wooden structure about 1.5 by 1 metres with part of a corrugated hose attached.
Jesus wept!

I see your photo Mach2point7, wooden airframe parts in an A320....seriously??

Last edited by Weheka; 2nd Jan 2015 at 08:57.
Weheka is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.