Status
 

In a case which has had so much global coverage it is also surprising that .. As far as I have heard till now ... There has not been an announcement of the start of the 'Annex 13' comments round on a 'concept final report' by the parties involved.

Peekay do you by any chance have any information on that?

No... but I would hazard to guess that a draft final report has been distributed to Air Asia, Airbus and BEA for comments.

As an aside, I know some members of the Indonesian safety commission felt burned by the US NTSB during the SilkAir 185 investigation and some things which happened regarding the issuance of the final report. They felt the NTSB acted inappropriately if not unethically in that case -- perhaps in deference to Boeing (subject for another thread).

So I think in this case the Indonesians are (rightfully) being careful in their consultations with the other parties. Unfortunately there are always various pressures at play, especially in countries like Indonesia.

Trouble is the amount of money involved is so much that safety takes second place. Several parties will be trying to mitigate any part that they may have played in this tragedy. IMHO the Indonesians are no different in this respect than the NTSB AAIB or BEA. They all have to temper the facts to placate interested parties. Brave New World = Money

Transparancy
 

We probably learn most from actually being involved in an investigation. And the main purpose of any investigation is to learn.

We do not have the opportunity to be involved. So how can we learn and understand a little bit more without disturbing the proper flow of the investigation?

In my view, one of the contributing solutions can be an OBLIGATION under Annex13 to publish the date of the start of the round of comments of parties involved. Preferably with a list of the main parties. That dates and lists would give the (professional) outside world an indication of the relative complexity of the respective investigations. And roughly where the issues are or might be. And might signal important trends over time.

Any news about the final report?

French copilot and French BEA involved isn't ?

Yea it's been released but it's only available to the investigation team

??????
 

Maybe a misuse of the term 'released'.

Perhaps it has been signed and distributed for comment, but until it is officially published and made generally available, I don't think we can call it 'released.'

ICAO PROCEDURES
 

Assuming that the NTSC published their Draft accident report to the comment chain at the end of August, then there is a 60 day comment period. The comments would then be incorporated into the final report before we can see the collective result.

ICAO accident investigation outline here:http://clacsec.lima.icao.int/Reunion...ssion%2011.pdf

I think we will have to wait a couple of months more before we actually see the results.

I sure hope they address the dynamics of the loss of control, not just the ingredients that went into it.

Tick tock.

Time marches on and no sign of a report?

AirAsia QZ8501 Final Report to be completed 'This Month'

BeritaSatu News via Google Translate:

Hope he is right as he will look pretty Bodoh if not,

Looks like they are taking it down to the wire.
Nothing here yet:
NTSC

Having used this airline many times I have been quite keen to see the report published and can't quite believe that we are now on the brink of November and still nothing of it despite it being promised many months ago. When is the date that the investigation results MUST be published by?

Another month goes by and another Airbus falls from the sky.

An interesting time to release the report.:sad:

Do you u want a report that is accurate, complete and one that contains accurate conclusions, or do you want one that is rushed and inaccurate because it was promised by a certain date.

No doubt the rushed report would then be torn apart by the wannabe AAIB armchair investigators that now infest PPrune.

Floyd3593:
There is no deadline. The ICAO Annex 13 calls for a Final Report to be published within one year of the accident (so by December), if possible. Otherwise, an Interim Report should be released on each anniversary of the accident.

However in practice, it's rare to see a formal Interim Report, and the Final Report might only come out years after the accident -- if ever. This is true not just for the Indonesians but also for the US NTSB, etc.

Having said that, I don't think they will delay this particular accident report too much longer.

Icarus2001:
They have a saying over there: "jam karet" (rubber time). Indonesians can be flexible with time; sometimes it's like the entire archipelago is operating on Island Time. "Sabar, tenang!" (patience, relax) they'd say.

But once again the Minister of Transportation Ignatius Jonan is over-promising and under-delivering. Simply not professional on his part.

Skeleton:
I'm doubtful the delays have anything to do with accuracy.

For a high profile major investigation like this one, no doubt Indonesia's KNKT is closely collaborating with experts from the various parties (including BEA, Airbus, etc.) and will reach good conclusions. But sometimes the production quality of the actual reports they release leave much to be desired, with basic editorial mistakes, etc.

Yes.

No, an interim FACTUAL report at this stage is acceptable, not a FINAL report.

Rushed? The accident occured 11 months ago. Do you consider this "rushed" to have a solid, factual, interim report out by now?

I see you are from the ACT? Government employee? Must not RUSH these things.:confused:

Having lived in Indonesia for a while about 20 years ago, there is another saying that is probably relevant. It translates something like:
"When the rice is ready, we will pick it"
So, when the report is ready, they will release it :E
They've gotten better, but the Indonesian culture does not readily lend itself to rigid schedules :rolleyes:

We can be reasonably certain that crew action / inaction significantly contributed to the loss of control. With an Indonesian PIC and a French FO there must have been some interesting crew dynamics before / during the upset. Under such circumstances it is quite natural for different parties to the investigation to form culturally biased conclusions, and it is a rather lengthy process to prepare a wording that is acceptable to all, especially in a culture where seeking consensus and avoiding loss of face for everyone involved is paramount.

As a reminder, the SilkAir report took three years to produce, and contained no definite conclusions (though the factual information was there, allowing everyone to draw their own).

How many major accidents reports ,especially complicated ones have been published after 11 months?
So a bit of patience.
Looking at the Sukhoi SSJ100 final report published by the NTSC , the independance and the quality and of its concluions were quite good.
I trend to trust them more than some of the ( older ) French BEA reports. :E

"the Indonesian culture does not readily lend itself to rigid schedules"

absolutely correct - everyone will have to agree before it goes out

of course sometimes, just to confound the foreigners, they do something earlier than expected................... part of the fun of the place

If only Asian countries did everything like the west everything would be perfect wouldn't it?

The ethnocentricity on this forum is on full display again.

not so Bud - I go to Indonesia often and have spent quite some time there - I really like the place and the people

but you would be crazy not to recognise that there are very valid cultural differences - and I'm not saying which is best note - there's a lot to be said for the family values and consensus approach of the Javanese - especially when you compare it to say the USA.

We can point at any country and note "strange" behaviour and I sure as hell don't exempt the UK from that - it's just different that's all

Heathrow Harry my comment wasn't really aimed at you.

There are cultural differences. Whether they are better or worse is a relativistic question, as you note. :ok:

some with experience on a320 might understand it more than me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8agL0N9Hcvs

It's a hoax, definitely not from QZ8501.

That recording first surfaced in connection with the Adam Air 737-300 crash in 2007, although at that time Indonesian authorities dismissed the recording as not authentic.

If only all Asians across all of Asia were all the same and did everything in the same way (and, chuck in Aussies, Kiwis, Europeans - even Brits, Africans, Los Americanos, Middle East and FSU nationals, etc. across the big earth), all would be lovely. ;)

And, if everyone had the same family values and consensus approach as some, certainly far from all, of the Javanese - especially when you compare it to say the UK, we could all happily sing kumbaya and wouldn't need to sit around smoking peace pipes. Charming!

Meanwhile back in reality land, we can all hopefully, and patiently, await more findings and eventual results of a quality investigation. We are the world ...

upsss. any idea from which accident is that?

The QZ8501 final report will be released on November 25th, according to Soerjanto Tjahjono, head of Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee.

Indonesia to Announce AirAsia Crash Probe Results on November 25

QZ8501 PK-AXC crash report
 

It was supposed to be out in August.
JAKARTA (AFP) - Indonesia will release the final report on last year's AirAsia plane crash by August, the transport minister told AFP this week.
The Airbus 320-200 went down in the Java Sea on Dec 28 in stormy weather with 162 people on board, during what was supposed to be a short trip from the Indonesian city of Surabaya to Singapore.
"(The NTSC) promised (the final report) will be released by August," transport minister Ignasius Jonan told AFP in an interview, referring to the National Transportation Safety Committee which is conducting the investigation.
The NTSC reports to the president and coordinates with the transport ministry.
Mr Jonan said that the parties involved in the investigation, including plane manufacturer Airbus and AirAsia, must accept the committee's findings and not interfere in the inquiry. "I have instructed the NTSC that the report must be as independent as possible," he said.
ICAO has stated the investigation should aim at preventing future accidents, not apportioning blame or liability.
The minister refused to reveal anything further about the investigation, pending publication of the final report.


Now it is to be on 25 Nov 2015.

QZ8501
 

Surely an accurate and fully completed report in November is better than an incomplete one in August ?

August would seem too soon. Reports from the major countries seem to take at least a year.

Plus the Indonesians have a lot of current investigations going on at present if all the other recent accidents and incidents are being investigated.

And the BEA is involved too (F/O French nationality), itself involved in many foreign reports

Observance of the independence of the investigation will be the key to the quality of the investigation. The longer these things take to publish, the more I worry about special interests having a sway in the report.

The core of the "what happened" should be available mostly from the flight recorders.
The interpretation of why the accident happened requires some careful study of how the systems functions and how humans respond.
Hopefully we will learn something new about flying the Airbus that can be used to prevent future accidents.

Machinbird, agree with you but, (and I know you know this, but for the sake of the discussion), there's a difference between the expertise required of all parties, and their particular "interests" in a "favourable-to-them" outcome.

Also, I think the requirement that everyone must agree prior to the release of the report, (which may have contributed to the new release date), is not prime requisite for a good report. In reality, there is never full concurrence in such matters, and dissent is important for understanding.

Dissent always exists of course but how it is handled differs between cultures. I think in such work dissent should be assessed for what it offers, (assuming it comes from equal levels of expertise and not mere politics or 'face').

I agree with you also that the human factors will be of interest, particularly, as you say, how the crew was interacting. IIRC, I believe it was the F/O who was flying?

NTSC now says the Final Report will not be released until December 1, 2pm Jakarta time.

PACTA SUNT SERVANDA]...:-(

Is EASA AD 2014-0217R1 Relevant ??
 

“EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0217R1, dated February 26, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ''the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition.The MCAI states: During design reviews that were conducted following safety recommendations related to in-service incidents and one accident on another aircraft type, it has been determined that, in specific flight conditions, the allowable load limits on the vertical tail plane could be reached and possibly exceeded.This condition, if not corrected, could lead, in the worst case, to detachment of the vertical tail plane in flight and consequent loss of the aeroplane.To prevent such a possibility, Airbus has developed modifications within the flight augmentation computer (FAC) to reduce the vertical tail plane stress and to activate a conditional aural warning within the flight warning computer (FWC) to further protect against pilot induced rudder doublets.”
“Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0217to require installation and activation of the stop rudder input warning (SRIW) logic. In addition, that [EASA] AD required, prior to or concurrent with modification of an aeroplane with the activation of the SRIW, upgrades of the FAC and FWC, to introduce the SRIW logic and SRIW aural capability, respectively. After modification, the [EASA] AD prohibited installation of certain Part Number (P/N) FWC and FAC.”
“Since that [EASA] AD was issued, an additional previously-published Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) was identified, and a new SB was published, for the concurrent requirement to replace the FAC with a unit having a P/N as listed in Table 3 of Appendix 1 of the AD.”
Source; Referenced in FAA AD 2015-23-13.All A-318, 319, 320, and A321 series airplanes.Allowable load limits on the vertical tail plane could be reached and possibly exceeded. Exceeding allowable load could result in detachment of the vertical tail plane.
SUMMARY:“This AD was prompted by a determination that, in specific flight conditions, the allowable load limits on the vertical tail plane could be reached and possibly exceeded. Exceeding allowable load could result in detachment of the vertical tail plane. This AD requires modification of the pin programming flight warning computer (FWC) to activate the stop rudder input warning (SRIW) logic; and an inspection to determine the part numbers of the FWC and the flight augmentation computer (FAC), and replacement of the FWC and FAC if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent detachment of the vertical tail plane and consequent loss of control of the airplane.Effective December 29, 2015.”Compliance within 48 months.
“We estimate that this AD affects 953 airplanes of U.S. registry.We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $243,015, or $255 per product.”
FAA ADLink >http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/41103a24e0131b2286257f0700529ecf/$FILE/2015-23-13.pdf
ALSO REFERENCED IN THIS FAA AD.
NTSB SAFETY RECCOMMENDATIONS A-04-56 through -62.Letterto FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey, dated November 10, 2004 addressed the loss of American Airlines Flight 587 on Nov 12, 2001.NTSB Letter Link> http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A04_56_62.pdf

Thank you Data guy : very important posts in both threads ! (Singapore ans Sinaï)