SQ325 From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1437 posts, RR: 8 Posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1508 times:
I know the text on airdisaster.com
But I still have no idea why this Aircraft crashed. I know why they made a go around but why crashed they with about 280kts in the Gulf.
It would be very nice if somebody could give me some detailes informations about what happened in that night.
thanks in advance
Backfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1489 times:
Crew bodged the initial approach to Bahrain and asked to perform an orbit to stabilise the aircraft. The orbit itself was a mess and failed to achieve the desired stabilisation, so the A320 then opted to go-around.
During the go-around the aircraft headed out towards the sea. It is presumed that the combination of full-power acceleration and the lack of visual cues from outside the aircraft caused a degree of spatial disorientation (the 'somatogravic' illusion whereby the brain mistakenly interprets acceleration as increasing pitch-up because of the similar effects which both motions have on the ear canals).
This false 'pitch-up' sensation probably prompted the captain to push the nose of the aircraft downwards, leading him to send the aircraft unintentionally into a dive at full power. The final error was the crew's failure to respond adequately and quickly to the GPWS warning as the jet headed for the sea.
Failure to follow standard operating procedures, basically. And pretty poor airmanship all round.
SQ325 From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1437 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1472 times:
Is there any CVR script, where we can read the last conversations between F/O and Cpt.
I wonder if both made the fatal mistake in desregarding their instruments.
Anyway thank you Bacfire!
Mt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6354 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1301 times:
I read the CVR transcript, Why does ATC ask for the number of "souls" aboard? is this standard procedure?
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1282 times:
Didn't these guys nearly stall the airplane before they dove it into the ocean? I thought I read that somewhere. It seems like that it would be really difficult to do that considering the A320/330/340 have safeguards to prevent stalls, excessive banks, and other features. They must have put the aircraft into "direct law" (?) for it to push it that far.
Pilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 13 Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1239 times:
>>Why does ATC ask for the number of "souls" aboard? is this standard procedure?
This is standard procedure. ATC wants to know this information in order to scramble the requsite amount of firefighting equipment.
Backfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1219 times:
The aircraft did not stall. In fact it reached a speed in excess of 185kts while climbing during the go-around and an alarm prompted the first officer to issue an overspeed warning.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, RR: 59 Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1117 times:
It is presumed that the combination of full-power acceleration and the lack of visual cues from outside the aircraft caused a degree of spatial disorientation (the 'somatogravic' illusion whereby the brain mistakenly interprets acceleration as increasing pitch-up because of the similar effects which both motions have on the ear canals).
This false 'pitch-up' sensation probably prompted the captain to push the nose of the aircraft downwards, leading him to send the aircraft unintentionally into a dive at full power.
I read the same explanation in Aviation Week's review of the final crash report Backfire. Although, the report did state that there were a number of contributing factors (in addition to the above).
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1114 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
why did they have two go arounds? Was there a sand storm?
Backfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1001 times:
There were not two go-arounds. The pilot carried out a 360-degree orbit during initial approach in an attempt to stabilise the flight path. But the aircraft was, by then, too close to the runway to make a safe approach and the pilot took the decision to go-around and try again.
It was during this first go-around that the accident occurred.
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1437 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2000, 5265 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6354 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
