Seems to me (after having a few thousand hrs in the Bus) that this airplane was made for third world countries. It was made so educated, extremely low time guys could fly it. The problem is the automation & protections have gone way overboard and seem to have caused more trouble than its worth.


The statistics would not support you.
The Airbus aircraft have casualty levels no worse than their Boeing contemporaries, so whatever their deficiencies, they are not 'more trouble than its worth'.
Imho, the abrupt loss of communications from a routine flight surrounded by other routine flights argues against the routine accident causes such as icing.

A more recent article (Oct 2013) by same WSJ author but involving engine icing on new 747.

Icing Hazards Surface on Boeing's Newest 747 Jet - WSJ

Have caused more problems than its worth? Well, the statistics seem to point otherwise. A quick look on AVHerald you can check how automation has saved the day numerous times.

If history proves us something, is that professional aviators need those protections and many more.

By the way, what's your problem with Airbus automation anyway? I don't get it. People here are always expecting an Airbus accident, and when it happens everyone blames the plane first.
Its safety standard is above Boeing 737. The 737 even had a rudder design flaw which caused some crashes.

The only explanation for this is that pilots consciously or unconsciously hate the Airbus because of the automation and they don't have the full control of the airplane... Ironic when it's more than proved that the majority of the accident are caused by human error.

Regards.

I'm wondering whether this issue about not Air Asia not having a permit to fly the Surabaya - Singapore route on a Sunday is just a distraction by the government to point the finger at Air Asia for any blame. I've flown on QZ8501 before on a Sunday in August of this year and here is my booking itinerary to prove it (with my identity removed, of course.)

http://i.imgur.com/7wxbasi.jpg

If Air Asia have been scheduling this flight on a Sunday from 3 months ago then why all of a sudden, their 'permit' to fly on that day has been revoked? It's interesting that Air Asia has been silent on this issue since it was brought up by the minister for transport. In Indonesia, you do not dare challenge the government if you still wish to continue to operate in the future.

As you can see, this flight has always been scheduled to depart at 0520 in the morning. I don't fly for Air Asia, but I did fly for an Indonesian airline based in Surabaya up until mid 2014 and I know for a fact that Surabaya airport does not officially open until 0600.

You can check this yourself by going to the Indoavis website and typing in the airport code for Surabaya WARR. The Tower, ATIS and Ground does not officially open until 2300 UTC. I've mentioned before on this thread that I've had early morning departures from Surabaya (0600 LT) with a reporting time of 0500 and getting weather data directly from the briefing office that early in the morning was not always possible. Our flight operations officers usually download the weather info online from the BMKG website which was legal. This is the way that many airlines operate in Indonesia and when on turn-arounds, those dispatcher briefings are always done in the aircraft before departure. So what the minister is suggesting here in this article is nothing new, but just typical of knee jerk actions to make it appear to the public that the government is busy doing something useful.

http://i.imgur.com/NE4yzyx.jpg

Oh and here I was thinking that out off all the airbus / Boeing hull losses over the past year or so 3 of the 4 were boeings!

Asiana - 777
Malaysia - x2 777
Air Asia - A320

I think in this day and age the aircraft no matter who manufactures them are pretty reliable, seems the crew that fly them though are a pretty 'broad' range of skills and abilities. Let's face it, you can't blame the Air France crash on the aircraft, just like you wouldn't blame the Asiana 777 on Boeing no matter what some may say. It would seem as a pilot group, Power, Attitude, Trim has been forgotten by some.

Flightaware AWQ8501
 

This flight is logged on flightaware as always departing at around 7.15am Surabaya LT but it seems it is departing much earlier as it is arriving on time in Singapore for it's 8.30am gate time

Something odd here

Indonesia AirAsia (QZ) #8501 ? FlightAware

I raise this as an issue as if the flight is for whatever reason not 100% legal this may affect the captains decision making operationally so as not to draw attention to the flight

TNX, Formula

Toaster may not recall the days of old, like 30 friggin' years ago.

Hard to say when the computers saved the day or when a skilled operator/pilot saved the day ( thinking of Sully).

Problem is when the "crew" has lost the skills required to aviate without a lotta computer navigation and flight path control. And yes, the "protections" that are not really protections unless rule 5,c,i is in effect and sensor 4 (d) is still operational and airspeed is above "x" knots and ..... the beat goes on.

I am not a dinosaur in the aviation business, but seems to me that there are too many confusing reversion modes on the latest jets that do not follow an easy path and allow a high degree of human control until the crew figures out if they can move up to a higher degree of automation ( grrrrrr). Just look at the Airbus FCOM and latest supplements. Sheesh.

I do not advocate a simple reversion to "direct" mode. There are previous FBW systems that have a simple back up control law using "notional" gain inputs ( static and dynamic pressures), or even existing AoA if one or more vanes are moving about.

But the current 'bus design seems to offer more protections after the "normal" laws are gone than is necessary. No need to go to pure "direct" as some have advocated, nor is it advisable.

While you can't blame these crashes on the aircraft, I do think there were issues with the man-machine interface on both aircraft that contributed to each.

A regular line pilot would probably not even know if his rostered flight was in accordance with this or that route permit or air services agreement. Whole departments handle such things. Not pilots.

Training Wheels , is it normal for international flights to depart Juanda before airport services open at 6am LT ?

Juanda is open 24 hrs / day with all services available on request.

(Previously they only operated 20 hrs / day, from 04:00 to 24:00 LT.)

Having said that, SUB is primarily a domestic airport, with very few international destinations.

From memory, Air Asia and Citilink were the only ones to depart before 0600. I'm sure they had prior permission to do so. China Airlines (Taiwan) also has a flight to Singapore but depart around 0605. Mandala Tiger, when they were still flying, also had an early morning departure to Singapore but this was after 0600.

During the peak season, there's a huge scramble for Push Back clearance on ground frequency once the clock ticks over 0600. Sometimes you can get up to 10 aircraft in the queue waiting for push back and ATC clearance. We've been delayed by as much as 1 hour because of this mad scramble once the tower opens.

Automation
 

I am far from being an air accident expert but I have not seen any statistical evidence to suggest that automation/FBW/control laws are the reason for the lowering airline accident rate. There is a big difference in the automation levels between the A320 and 737 but a recent post showed their accident rates were exactly the same. I am sure there are many reasons for the favourable accident statistics including better aircraft design know how, increased regulation of the manufacturing processes and increased regulation of carriers however the contribution of automation seems to be over blown. I am sure automation has allowed considerably increased airline efficiency.

I have a career in developing complex automation systems in industry. There is good automation and bad automation. With the SW tools available it is very easy to develop many complex algorithms with many AND, OR and IF statements and it is very easy to over automate something. I can recall a few years ago an automated toilet door locking system in the Auckland airport. I could not figure it out how to lock the B__dy door (I don’t desire some one walking in while I am performing my business – I personally dont care but very embarrassing for the person walking in) and then I discovered there was an attendant standing by who was explaining how to operate this new automated toilet door locking mechanism – duh. The level of automation has to be appropriate for the skill/training level of the user. It is very easy to get disconnected from the users of the automation. Excessively complex automation can cause confusion. Anything excessively complex can cause confusion – basic stuff. I get confused when my wife tries to explain why she is grumpy – too complex for me. I have not had enough experience/training in female hormonal responses. No insult intended – just a fact. Most of the time these complex situations do not have a life threatening effect but as we have seen in the cockpit of both manufacturers’ products this is not always the case. I know pilots are ultimately responsible for getting confused and not performing the correct action but I maintain that excessively complex automation is a contributory factor.

FWIW IMO the issue is not so much the degree of automation involved or the differences between BA and Airbus as to programming/computers... BUT the transition between " HAL" and the pilot(S) being other than obvious. BA has always put the pilot in final direct control with no protection issues by pushing or pulling hard enough to override the computer- even if it means ' bending' the plane, usually ( until 787) having minimimal direct cable backup with backdriven control colums- and Airbus having no backdriven sidesticks AND apparently little feedback but some sort of limit stops by a degraded " HAL".

Which IMO is not the time to figure out all the blinking lights and what mode " HAL" is in or what it takes to ignore him.

In any case- until the Black Box and CVR records are found- its all speculation.:uhoh:

For an interesting explanation- argument on Both systems

http://www.askcaptainlim.com/-airpla...us-system.html

Sunday flight was cancelled due to Indonesi meeting their immigration limits into Sin
 

@ Training Wheels, according to the press the reason for the schedule change of AirAsia’s scheduled flights on Sunday was because of Singapore not Indonesia/AirAsia. Singapore stated that Indonesia as a whole was reaching their immigration quote limits into their country. AirAsia’s Sunday flights were canceled on the paperwork from Oct 2014 to March 2015. The news article did not state if other airlines were affected or not by this Singapore immigration quote limit. The press is asking Indonesia questions but not with Singapore, would be good to know if Singapore indeed limited the flights.

Here is the Fox News Article:

Strait times reports:
 

AirAsia flight QZ8501: Pilots and Indonesian minister in war of words over weather briefing

JAKARTA - Questions have emerged over Indonesia AirAsia's pre-flight standard operating procedures, amid a war of words between the transportation minister and pilots angry with his reported comments on alleged procedural violations prior to the disappeance of Flight QZ8501. Indonesia AirAsia has said the pilot of flight QZ8501 "self-briefed" on weather conditions using reports downloaded from the meteorological bureau BKMG. The airline does not have flight operation officers (FOO) conducting mandatory briefings on weather conditions to pilots, unlike major carriers including Garuda Indonesia, Lion Air, Sriwijaya Airlines and Citilink, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Transportation Minister Ignatius Jonan chastised Indonesia AirAsia executives during his visit to the airline's office in Tangerang, Banten, last week. He reportedly spoke in a "high-pitch, angry tone" after an airline director suggested it was not necessary for a pilot to have a weather briefing by a FOO before take-off. "When we have regulations, you must comply with them; don't attempt to violate them. I can revoke your licence," the minister was quoted as saying by news portal Kompas. com. Some pilots, however, dismissed the claims. Mr Sardjono Jhony Tjitrokusumo, a senior pilot, described the reprimand as baseless, the Jakarta Globe reported. "Don't make things up and say pilots are at fault if they don't undergo briefing. It is not part of the required procedures (before taking off)," Mr Sardjono said in a written statement sent to the Indonesian media. He said pilots commonly read up on weather conditions but do not attend briefings.

"There is no such things as pilots being briefed before flight. Pilots of airlines around the world do self-briefings. They get printed weather information from systems used by their (respective) airlines; that information is provided before they fly," the Jakarta Globe quoted Mr Sardjono as saying. "Can you imagine if all pilots from all flights must be briefed on weather conditions...? How many of them will have to stand in line for that?...Don't be ridiculous, especially for those who have no knowledge of aviation," he said. He called on all parties to await results of the investigation into flight QZ8501 by the National Committee on Transportation Safety (KNKT) and to refrain from commenting unnecessarily.In another open letter to the transportation minister, pilot Fadjar Nugroho said the BMKG had for some time now been allowing pilots to access weather information - which is constantly updated - on its website, and that the information is the same as that provided in a briefing.

"Since weather information for flights became available on the BMKG's website, many of my colleagues - fellow pilots and FOOs - no longer need to come to the briefing office. Don't admonish us because we get weather information from the Internet,'' he said. Aviation expert Ruth Hanna Simatupang told the Jakarta Post that mandatory briefing to pilots by FOOs is a standard operating procedure."Nothing's new about the policy. It is a standard that has been applied regularly in the world. It is just one of the problems in the jungle of our aviation system. There are a lot of problems that need to be fixed in our aviation system."What Jonan (transportation minister) did is just a reminder to apply the already existing policy that is not being implemented," said Ms Hanna, who was a former investigator with KNKT. She said the briefing will take no more than 20 minutes and the FOOs would give all necessary documents such as weather reports for pilots to study.

"After that, pilots will make their flight plan then submit it to FOOs for second thoughts or suggestions. Later, the FOOs will submit the discussed flight plan to the appointed air traffic control," she said. She added that the transportation ministry must deploy more inspectors to ensure that the policy would be implemented seriously by airlines in the field.Indonesia's transport ministry has now made FOO briefings mandatory before take-off. "(The briefing is) not only about weather. The FOO should also detect if a pilot is not in good health," said Mr Djoko Murjatmodjo, acting director-general of aviation in the ministry. The absence of FOO briefings to pilots is not the only problem found in Indonesia AirAsia. The airline is facing increased scrutiny after the transport ministry said flight QZ8501 was on an unauthorised schedule...."

That post is available here:http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8809114
Well, I hope it was helpful to some, but I think you are missing the intent.

This described how planes crash near the LKP from cruise at altitude.

At altitude, there is immense potential energy that must be dissipated in some manner by the aircraft on its way down. The how an aircraft crashes relates to how the potential energy is finally dissipated, not how control was lost specifically. The way the energy is dissipated then points to specific possible causes of the accident. In this case, the majority of the energy was dissipated in the air and not so much in fragmenting the aircraft into little bitty pieces. This tends to indicate descent while stalled which can also include a spin. It does not completely eliminate the possibility of some parts of the aircraft departing inflight and plummeting, but it appears the fuselage containing the passengers had lost most of the total energy that it started with when the event happened.

It's well documented that not fully understanding the systems of your aircraft can result in a crash .
If I was smart enough to add links I could choose aircraft crashes back to the Wright Brothers day where lack of systems knowledge was a factor .

Doesn't it all boil down to this:
 

Don't fly in or near Thunderstorms of any size, EVER.

It seems to be the case that every few years we lose a plane to the weather, we wonder why it keeps happening.

Don't get near them, they will kill you and your passengers.

We know better. We know better. But why do we keep forgetting?

Why? Do we think the technology gets better and that makes it ok? Do we think the planes are better and that makes it ok? Well, it doesn't.

Don't fly in or near Thunderstorms, EVER. Legislatures around the world should make pilot pushing illegal, punishable by monetary reward to any pilot that turns back, doesn't take off or otherwise EXERCISES his authority to avoid unsafe conditions for the flight he commands.

glendalegoon...exactly!! Has everyone forgotten what the far/aim states about what to do when there are thunderstorm?? Try flying into a level 4 or 5 thunderstorm in the sim during your next recurrent one of two things will happen the sim will go off line due to high turbulence leaving the sim in the flight attitude it stop in and you will have to wait for a sim tech to unfreeze the sim or/and you will get a red screen in front of you.