6000 fpm
 

That report of the 6000 fpm climb is based on old radar data, not FDR data.

It was the Indonesian transport minister not a journalist that claimed that it climbed "too fast", so the assumption is that the "old radar data" has been confirmed somewhat by data already gleaned from the recorders. It's also stated that it stalled which they would probably know by now. Also updrafts do not necessarily bleed airspeed but zoom (speed for height) climbs always do. The pitchup into a stall scenario during the climb to FL 340 now seems most likely for whatever reason.

"Audio saturated Environment"
 

"Audio saturated environment" is a very appropriate expression for the cascade warning sounds bombarding the pilots during an abnormal occurance on a modern airliner. Add it to the lexicon!

6000'/min is quite believable for an updraft. Even paragliders have been known to climb at 4000'/min in quite modest Cb.

Of course 6000'/min is possible for an updraft, but gliders do not stall when they enter thermals. They gain total energy, The ROC mentioned is adequately explained by trading speed for height. There equally could have been a slight downdraft.

6000 fpm unexpected in an Airbus with a change of Outside Air Temperature? Not at all impossible indeed its happened before.

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...pdf_501275.pdf

Pick a number- pick a source
 

Geeze ...

AirAsia Jet Climbed at Rate Beyond Design of Commercial Planes
Plane Climbed at Rate of More Than 8,000 Feet a Minute, Transport Minister Says

The Airbus Group NV. A320 jet turned left away from its assigned flight path en route from Surabaya to Singapore, climbed at more than 8,000 feet a minute—six to eight times the normal rate—descended and finally disappeared within three minutes, Mr. Jonan said, citing data from the plane’s automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast, or ADS—B, system.


Note it is not from the FDR!

Pitot problems ??

That's one credible scenario to account for the 2000' odd overshoot of assigned altitude and the eventual stall. You often get temp changes in CBs, however it could also be sensor icing and autopilot pitchup or pilot error. There's not enough data yet to factor out all the possibilities.

Enter an updraft which by definition has higher temperature than the surroundings and is already carrying you up fast and then the aircraft does an 'assist' by climbing at 6000fpm inside the updraft. All IMC.

It seems that we are back to square one if he's just quoting the ADS-B figures because all these variables like temps and extreme gusts may adversely affect the accuracy of the sensors supplying that ADS system.

this may answer your question
 

Crashed AirAsia A320 undertook rapid climb: minister
By: DAVID KAMINSKI-MORROW Source: in 5 hours
Indonesia’s parliament has been told that the Indonesia AirAsia Airbus A320 which crashed into the Java Sea last month climbed rapidly before its fatal descent.

The aircraft climbed at 6,000ft/min and then descended 7,900ft in the space of 45s, transport minister Ignasius Jonan stated.

He was briefing the parliament on the latest findings in the flight QZ8501 investigation on 20 January.

There is no immediate indication as to the reason behind the rapid climb or the subsequent descent, nor any details on the flight-control law under which the A320 was operating at the time.

The aircraft’s crew had requested a climb to 38,000ft from its assigned altitude of 32,000ft, while in the vicinity of poor weather, during the service to Singapore on 28 December.

Investigators have previously stated that the aircraft had been cleared to climb only to 34,000ft

So where did SAMPUBLIUS get his info from re 8000'/min and the ADS-B?

How used to the local weather we're these pilots? On AF447, Bonin was spooked by St Elmo's Fire and the "Electrical Smell" from lightening. It was new to him. He'd never even heard of either phenomenon before. These two things, along with his leader, Captain Dubois, leaving the cockpit, made him so uncomfortable and nervous, that he was using his reptilian brain and was in fight or flight mode, even before the pitot tubes iced up. To put it in medical terms, he was already "freaked out".
These Air Asia pilots may have already been familiar with the weather and it's associated sights, sounds, and smells they encountered. They may have done all the right things. Investigators may find that there is nothing they could have done to save the aircraft. The storm may have affected the flight with specific combinations (up/downdrafts, ice, etc), that were beyond the capacity of the aircraft, crew, and flight computer to handle, even if everything was handled correctly. Could have been a combination that almost never happens, and didn't happen to the flights ahead of them or the flights behind them. It might just be, "The storm got 'em".
I think the Indonesians will find out soon enough, and I think they're doing a good job with the investigation. They may have learned from the missteps of their neighbors on the MH370 issue, on getting their ducks in a row, before they issue statements. I join those who laud the Indonesian divers. They have put their lives at risk, pushing the envelope on getting the Bends, and fighting strong currents, in order to move the investigation and recovery along.

Non-pilot here but just a question. (Which hopefully doesn't come across as blatantly ignorant.)

Is it possible, or even likely, for a severe updraft to carry a commercial airliner to that rate of ascent? Just curious.

Assuming the data comes from the pressure instruments (IAS/VSI/ALT) these would be indicated values.

Within an active CB there are big pressure variations which will affect these instrument indications.

The a/c may actually have been doing something different.

Personally I don't like this drip feed of information. Better to wait and hear all the facts.

Have they found the second wing yet?
 

Have they found the second wing yet?

If so where was that wing in relations to the fuselage and the cockpit vs the tail section.

It will be where the ocean currents took it either as it floated or the undersea currents. 6Kts times however many hours/days it took to wedge into the seabed. How far is 6kts for 24hours? Difficult to prove much from that isn't it. More interesting will be the damage and estimates of how that would have been caused.

I remember (obviously unintentionally) reaching +6000fpm in a 737 while the autopilot was climbing in VNAV SPD passing FL360 - we suddenly gained 35 knots of headwind within 1000 feet, what we did was leave the autopilot attempt to fly the speed and kept the thrust levers where they were but pulled the speed brake in anticipation of losing that headwind component again to reduce the climb rate - eventually levelled off at FL400... Quite the experience, V/S pegged and Mach approaching 0.82 with the autopilot wanting to pitch past 10°.

Radome
 

The visible portion of the radome pic
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8832757
shows a similarity to the earlier pic of the fuselage frame that retained its circular shape but was neatly stripped of skin. Rivets pulled through without gross deformation seems less consistent with an impact than with an impact overpressure blowoff where pressure is applied internally and uniformly over the part. Thanks training wheels for including sources.

If the aircraft did go into a deep stall, is it time to fit a stick pusher?

On an Airbus? ;-)

re 8000 ft/min
 

From WSJ - behind the paywall

I'll post the headlines


World News
AirAsia Jet Climbed at Rate Beyond Design of Commercial Planes
Plane Climbed at Rate of More Than 8,000 Feet a Minute, Transport Minister Says

By
I-Made Sentana And
Gaurav Raghuvanshi
Updated Jan. 20, 2015 12:15 p.m. ET
15 COMMENTS

JAKARTA, Indonesia—The AirAsia jet that crashed on Dec. 28 into the Java Sea stalled after apparently climbing far too steeply, Indonesia’s Transport minister said Tuesday, in the first public comments by a high-level official on what likely happened.

“The plane may have climbed in the last minutes at a speed beyond normal limits. After that, it stalled. Why did it stall? I don’t know,” Transport Minister Ignasius Jonan said, elaborating on an statement he made earlier in a hearing in the parliament....

Possible, but that updraft not necessarily have to throw up plane like a ball.
Wind power may cause only raise the nose of the aircraft and than speed (which initially is big) is transformed into altitude. For a time.

6000fpm is the low 30K's is quite possible in an A320, and does not need an "updraft".

I saw 4500'/m in an A320, FL330, recently, nowhere near a CB, nor with an updraft, but with "windshear". Think through flying towards a Jetstream, you are in say a 50K HW, climbing at 290KIAS transitioning to .78M, OP CLB.

As you fly into the 110K jet stream the HW increases. To maintain IAS the AP pitches up, and provided the HW keeps increasing, high RoC is possible, outside the conventional "performance limits" of the type. And totally iaw the SOPs.

On the occasion above I "hinted" to my colleague "was this wise?" - they were oblivious to the "issue"... I requested they select V/S, a reasonable RoC, even though this kept us in the turbulence for longer... since in time the HW would not only stop increasing, but potentially reduce as we flew out of the Jetstream upper level. Were you to do this, the IAS fall off could be dramatic, and could see IAS fall below VLS (or worse), an uncomfortable nose lowering pitch rate required (even manually), and a descent (back into the Jetstream :confused: ) required to recover IAS.

I am not suggesting this occurred in this accident i.e. a HW change led to zoom climb, then HW fell off so drastically stall etc. - although possible? But 6000'/m is feasible without failure, and iaw SOPs.

I am not sure if the sheer speed of the updraft would be too much of a problem. As long as you are in a consistent airmass. I have flown gliders in mountain wave, as long as I allow the updraft to carry me and I hold same 'speed' and attitude all is well....
But, along with the updraft, close by is an equally strong downdraft.. and, inbetween, extremely rough rotor and disturbance that can break your craft by exceeding G forces.
Add to that, HAL trying to maintain the programmed flight plan and getting overwhelmed by the external changes....

In a CuNimbus scenario you will have extreme airflows up and down. Trying to poke a hole in that cloud at speed will give you extremes of G and not to mention super cooled air, icing etc for your wings, pitot tubes etc.

Best to thread your way around them as most do.
They asked for permission but left it too late and drove into a super cell perhaps :(

[from actual incident report]
From other Airbus experiences (and I am open to correction) the turbulence and fluctuating outside air temperature fluctuation lead to autopilot disconnect if the angle of attack then reaches the 'alpha prot' value. The angle of attack excursion beyond alpha prot causes a change in the pitch flight control law from normal law (NZ law) to angle of attack protection law (AoA law). (rewritten from http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...pdf_501275.pdf ) This actually happened and the aircraft involved zoom climbed at up to 6000fpm to above FL380.
[/from actual incident report]

[Speculation]
If that zoom occurs in an updraft it could be even faster but the aircraft would be capable of that rate on its own. Then at the apogee the speed would have bled off and the aircraft could stall.

As Machinbird (I think) suggested a compressor stall due to the AOA and poor airflow into one engine with the other at full power could change a stall into a spin accelerated by into spin power.

The autorotate and then tightening spin to a surveillance observer could look like a hard turn followed by a very fast descent at slow ground speed.

The resultant damage on hitting the surface of the ocean would look very similar to that which has been found. It is possible that the outside engine could eventually be shed due to the spin g forces.
[/Speculation]

Quote from Nigel on Draft

"6000fpm is the low 30K's is quite possible in an A320, and does not need an "updraft"."

What would the g loading be at this ROC and would envelope protection not say computer says NO.

Likely cause of such ROC must be exceptionally powerfull updrafts in the storm cell.

Can anyone corroborate how far away from the main wreckage the radome was found. In an earlier post someone had mentioned a figure which seemed rather implausible.

Are inertial guidance or GPS speed and climb rates -as opposed to airspeed and barometric indications - written to the flight recorder?

It might be time to have flight recorders that can record weather radar patterns ...

I think the terms are likely incorrect, but the basics correct:

1. In Normal Law the high AoA will leas to an AP disconnect (would need to look up when exactly)
2. If Alpha Prot is exceeded then "Normal Law's AoA protection" means that stick neutral holds Alpha Prot, and Stick Full Aft holds Alpha Max, and proportionally between.
3. Thus if you get into this protection, and do nothing (let go), the aircraft will maintain Alpha Prot. If power is high (and will be if Alpha Floor has been triggered), this is not far off equating to a "Max Angle of Climb"
4. This is one area trained for, since it requires a positive and slightly unnatural recovery - you need to push forward to reduce AoA below Alpha Prot and return to Normal Law's usual pitch control (stick v 'g')
5. You also need to get out of Alpha Floor (max power wherever TLs are)

A "weakness" of the Airbus (and other types in similar scernarios) is that all hell is let loose around now - overspeed warning, AP disconnect, Altitude Warner, and the ensuing vertical excursion may well trigger a TCAS warning.

If you assume it took some level of "lack of SA" and distraction to get into the situation, the multitude of warnings is unlikely to immediately improve SA :{

The 'g' loading would be 1g (or strictly marginally less by COS(Climb Angle) and marginally more when pitching up).

What envelope protection would intervene? There is no "RoC Protection"? 6000'/m is easily achievable to low altitude, but not usually high up due reduced thrust. All my "scenario" involves is an increasing HW to substitute for the IAS loss. Put another way, the high RoC (increasing PE) is obtained by loss of KE (measured v GSpd) - the key is the increasing HW (temporarily) maintains IAS = AP target.

It does not need to be an updraft.

Supposed Latest
"World News
AirAsia Jet Climbed at Rate Beyond Design of Commercial Planes
Plane Climbed at Rate of More Than 8,000 Feet a Minute, Transport Minister Says"

If this is the latest from Indonesia, it's meaningless nonsense and all we know is that it climbed rapidly and stalled. The ambiguity re instantaneous and average climb rate, and climb speed is obvious (GS or CAS). Any one or a combination of zoom climb, windshear, temperature change, updraft, loss of control, is sufficient to explain a higher than normal rate of climb bleeding into a stall. At the moment any figures remain dubious as we don't have the confirmed source of the figures or confirmation of the readings.

Time
 

HT to Nigel's few well chosen words that allow me to cut my post by 90%: “...the multitude of warnings is unlikely to immediately improve SA”

A decision chain leading to an accident can be long or very short. The last possible chance to avoid an accident comes between the last two decisions of that chain. If the time available for all decisions or just the last two is seconds, or even virtually instantaneous as some scenarios posted suggest as possible, automation resulting in info and sensory overload probably contributes to an accident. Those are different and relatively rare scenarios compared to when pilots have enough time and automation is helpful.

Agreed. As usual, time is of the essence. Even CRM does not always work when there are only a few seconds available to make the decision. It can just impede the advantage of the commander's alleged, superior, experience.

SA in rapid decision making is a vexed question and there are no simple solutions. However computers now do beat humans at chess and lately poker, which has a high and ambiguous SA. The trend is obvious.

It is possible but unlikely. The airplane would have to maintain its pitch attitude, thrust setting, and airspeed, and the gust would have to last long enough for the airplane to attain the vertical speed of the gust. Meteorological analysis of the atmospheric conditions at the time of the accident indicates that upcurrents of this magnitude are unlikely.

The data come from ADS-B messages where they are indicated as “geo”, meaning that the source is GPS. Barometric data were lost at that time.

You forgot deliberately holding back on the stick, non?

Is there in fact any "statistical analysis"? Which xAA's or airlines require reporting of upset recoveries, do they dump the FDR and CVR for these "near misses" so that the data can be used either in house or by someone centralised for training or even software changes? Australia mandated reporting of stall warning events at least over some years. Do other countries do this?

Is there even a duty to store and share accident related raw data or just the final report? For instance does Airbus have a legal right to the entire unfiltered FDR/CVR data here? Does the BEA (now EASA perhaps) as certifying body?

No aircraft is immune from stalling Finding Nemo. The bus tries to help you not get into that corner of the envelope. Unfortunately a lot of people think that in Normal law the bus is immune to the laws of Physics and Mother Nature
From the FCTM-
High AOA protection enables the PF to pull the sidestick full aft in dangerous situations, and thus consistently achieve the best possible aircraft lift. This action on the sidestick is instinctive, and the high AOA protection minimises the risk of stalls or control loss.
High AOA protection is an aerodynamic protection:
The PF will notice if the normal flight envelope is exceeded for any reason, because the autopitch trim will stop, the aircraft will sink to maintain its current AOA (alpha PROT, strong static stability), and a significant change in aircraft behavior will occur.
If the PF then pulls the sidestick full aft, a maximum AOA (approximately corresponding to CL Max) is commanded. In addition, the speedbrakes will automatically retract, if extended.
OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
When flying at alpha max, the PF can make gentle turns, if necessary.
The PF must not deliberately fly the aircraft in alpha protection, except for brief periods, when maximum maneuvering speed is required.
If alpha protection is inadvertently entered, the PF must exit it as quickly as possible, by easing the sidestick forward to reduce the angle-of-attack, while simultaneously adding power (if alpha floor has not yet been activated, or has been cancelled). If alpha floor has been triggered, it must be cancelled with the instinctive disconnect pushbutton (on either thrust lever), as soon as a safe speed is resumed.
In case of GPWS/SHEAR:
Set the thrust levers to TOGA
Pull the sidestick to full aft (For shear, fly the SRS, until full aft sidestick).
Initially maintain the wings level
This immediately provides maximum lift/maximum thrust/minimum drag. Therefore, CFIT escape maneuvers will be much more efficient.

@ Finding Nemo

Everything will work just fine if everything works as designed and you stay more or less in the normal flight enveloppe..

Extreme turbulence, or updraft, Sensor failure single or multiple, Sensor icing, single or multiple, autopilot desengage, multiple and conflicting warnings going off, pilots over saturation, and it goes downhill fast.

How many cars bang into each other because they are on cruise control?
How many trucks bang into cars because they are on cruise control?

The sensors => Automatic systems => Human interface => Results do not Always live up to its safety increasing expectations.

The more sensors, the more prone the system becomes to conflicting information and ultimately to desengaging or failure.

PS; IMHO for cars and trucks, cruise control should have been banned a long - long time ago.