Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 10

32andBelow · Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:21 pm

Quoting Trin (Reply 149):
Much more likely will be a VERY similar scenario to AF447. As I have said since day 1 of this investigation.

This was a former fighter jet pilot in the left seat. It is not two young cruise pilots on a long haul flight. That needs to be taken into account.

Trin · Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:32 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 150):
This was a former fighter jet pilot in the left seat. It is not two young cruise pilots on a long haul flight. That needs to be taken into account.

Are fighter jets prone to pitot tube icing and high-altitude stalls? I don't doubt the crew's expertise for one second.....but you can only draw so many comparisons.

LTC8K6 · Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:34 pm

Quoting airtechy (Reply 147):
Hard to disagree with that. Now what it they find the two engines a half mile apart or more?

It's been reported that at least one engine is next to the fuselage.

lancelot07 · Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:37 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 150):
This was a former fighter jet pilot in the left seat. It is not two young cruise pilots on a long haul flight. That needs to be taken into account.

I would be frightened if this were AF 447 all over again.

LTC8K6 · Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:38 pm

Quoting Trin (Reply 149):
Much more likely will be a VERY similar scenario to AF447. As I have said since day 1 of this investigation.

A repeat of AF447 would be terrible. I hope not. I hope lessons were learned and this is different. Wishful thinking.

spacecadet · Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:39 pm

Quoting Trin (Reply 142):
No. I wouldn't exactly call it "taking care", either, to have taken a blowtorch to the remains.

Would a circular saw work better for you?

It's not really that unusual for wreckage to be cut up before transport. Presumably investigators are already on board the ship and will have looked at the wreckage prior to it being cut up. (It would be shocking if they weren't.)

And as I've pointed out to you before, any trained investigator is going to be able to tell the difference between an intentional cut and either pre-crash or crash damage anyway. It's just not going to affect the investigation. These people aren't as stupid as you seem to think.

32andBelow · Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:42 pm

Quoting Trin (Reply 151):
Are fighter jets prone to pitot tube icing and high-altitude stalls? I don't doubt the crew's expertise for one second.....but you can only draw so many comparisons.

I would expect a military pilot with over 10,000 hours of times would know when his A/C is in a stall. Which by the way the captain of AF447 knew they were in a stall immediately when he returned to the cockpit, but it was too late.

bond007 · Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:56 pm

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 155):
It's not really that unusual for wreckage to be cut up before transport. Presumably investigators are already on board the ship and will have looked at the wreckage prior to it being cut up. (It would be shocking if they weren't.)

Maybe I'm just ignorant of crash investigations, but it just seems common sense to me. Investigators may well be on board, but they don't know what caused the crash yet ....which is the key point here.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 155):
And as I've pointed out to you before, any trained investigator is going to be able to tell the difference between an intentional cut and either pre-crash or crash damage anyway. It's just not going to affect the investigation. These people aren't as stupid as you seem to think.

I'm not implying they're stupid, but if they have to investigate mechanical issues, they now have the added task of determining what was cut up on the ground, versus in the air ... which might sound very easy for the major parts, but they may well have sliced through the one small part that caused the crash.

Jimbo

hivue · Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:03 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 156):
Which by the way the captain of AF447 knew they were in a stall immediately when he returned to the cockpit, but it was too late.

What evidence do you have for that?

The BEA report (English, p182) states regarding the captain: "Subsequently, his interventions showed that he had also not identified the stall: the multiple starts and stops of the stall warning certainly contributed to make his analysis of the situation more confused. He then seemed to have based himself on the pitch attitude and thrust parameters to analyse the flight path."

CO953 · Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:05 pm

The weather/icing discussions from threads 3 or 4 now come back to mind. Who yet knows what happened, but if indeed the aircraft could have ended up in a stall or other unrecoverable attitude from sudden and unusual weather, then maybe this one + 447 can put together a larger puzzle regarding Airbus pilot/computer/sensor interactions. And maybe not. Maybe it had nothing to do with those interactions. Either way, I hope the families will have their loved ones back as soon as possible now, after hard work by the SAR folks. Prayers for their grief, and thanks and strength for SAR.

airtechy · Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:09 pm

Where the heavy parts ended up will tell the investigators a lot. Engines and the APU don't float far. Also, even if they separated from the airframe at altitude, they would basically fall straight down. I note also that the location of the horizontal stabilizers hasn't been mentioned in the reports yet.

Kaiarahi · Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:16 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 156):
Which by the way the captain of AF447 knew they were in a stall immediately when he returned to the cockpit,

Rubbish. You should at least read the report before retailing garbage.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 150):
It is not two young cruise pilots on a long haul flight.

Rubbish again. The PM on AF447 actually had more experience than the captain.

32andBelow · Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:19 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 158):
What evidence do you have for that?

The BEA report (English, p182) states regarding the captain: "Subsequently, his interventions showed that he had also not identified the stall: the multiple starts and stops of the stall warning certainly contributed to make his analysis of the situation more confused. He then seemed to have based himself on the pitch attitude and thrust parameters to analyse the flight path."

On the CVR, the captain returns tells them to stop climbing which would regain their speed, but they were too low...

02:13:40 (Robert) Climb... climb... climb... climb...
02:13:40 (Bonin) But I've had the stick back the whole time!

[At last, Bonin tells the others the crucial fact whose import he has so grievously failed to understand himself.]

02:13:42 (Captain) No, no, no... Don't climb... no, no.
02:13:43 (Robert) Descend, then... Give me the controls... Give me the controls!

[Bonin yields the controls, and Robert finally puts the nose down. The plane begins to regain speed. But it is still descending at a precipitous angle. As they near 2000 feet, the aircraft's sensors detect the fast-approaching surface and trigger a new alarm. There is no time left to build up speed by pushing the plane's nose forward into a dive. At any rate, without warning his colleagues, Bonin once again takes back the controls and pulls his side stick all the way back.]

eisenbach · Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:32 pm

Quoting Trin (Reply 139):
So what we are hearing from the pattern of debris that has been found is sounding more and more like the plane was largely intact when it hit the ocean. Highly unlikely that this is an in-flight breakup. Given the fact that the entire tail section would be one of the most liable to break off during impact with the water as the rest of the plane splashed-down, and remembering the horrendous weather conditions at sea level during that timeframe, I think it is pretty plausible to imagine that the plane was intact when it came into contact with the water, and the tail section broke off and floated away amidst heavy seas and high winds for a day or so. 1-2km of drift should be entirely feasible under those sort of conditions.

Quoting trnswrld (Reply 146):
Obviously I don't know anymore than anyone se here, but I'm thinking this plane impacted the water 100% intact like AF447. As far as the reasoning behind the distances between the main wreckage and the tail section I don't know, but I would imagine there is a good chance that with the inflated slide, all the composite materials, and a good current, that would be plenty of explanation as to why they were separated so much.

I agree, I think as well the plane did impacted intact.

aklrno · Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:35 pm

Quoting airtechy (Reply 160):
Also, even if they separated from the airframe at altitude, they would basically fall straight down.

Newton's laws of motion have not been repealed. If the aircraft had any forward momentum when the engines separated they will continue moving in that direction until air resistance, water resistance or ground resistance counters that momentum. I could even imagine a scenario where the engines actually fall further from the point of separation then the fuselage if they come off in the air. Imagine that the fuselage ends up so that it is pointing down, offering maximum air resistance. The fuselage will slow faster than the engines which have a lower surface area to weight ratio.

I am not suggesting I know what happened, just that when things come apart it wood be very hard to predict the outcome. It is easier to work the problem backwards. Once the parts and cause of the incident are found you can then figure out why the debris ended up where it is.

md80fanatic · Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:43 pm

IMHO, this plane hit the water with zero forward velocity, as the trailing edge pieces lie on the sea floor almost exactly where they'd be attached normally. It looks like the inboard flap is actually sitting somewhat atop another piece of debris which is itself sitting atop the wing.

The inboard slats look like they were stowed, if considering any forward flyable airspeed at all prior to the water. Looking at Sully's plane the leading edge didn't fare this well ... and I assume the flaps were ripped away on contact.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ns/1/14/N106US_aviation_museum.jpg

The outboard slats (on 8501) look to be missing, but they could be lying in the silt and the wing could be blocking the view. I'm hoping for some better images soon.

EDIT: With the submersible heading reading showing ~320 degrees for the fuselage, at least one complete left turn had to be made, from it's initial flight planned course to Singapore.

[Edited 2015-01-14 14:56:37]

hivue · Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:44 pm

Quoting aklrno (Reply 164):
I could even imagine a scenario where the engines actually fall further from the point of separation then the fuselage if they come off in the air.

In the Space Shuttle Columbia accident (admittedly an extreme example) virtually all of the debris was spread across East Texas but the main engines wound up in west Louisiana.

kaneporta1 · Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:55 pm

I have refrained from making any comments in any of the threads as it is still to early to speculate about anything.

However from what I understand to be accurate information:

There was bad weather and the aircraft was trying to deviate around it.
There was a rapid climb.
Followed by a rapid descend.

...All the above is eerily similar to Pulkovo flight 612:

From http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20060822-0

Quote:
Pulkovo flight 612 departed Anapa (AAQ) for St. Petersburg (LED) at 15:05. The Tu-154M climbed to the cruise altitude of 35,100 feet (10.700 m). Because of storm cells ahead, the pilot decided to change course laterally by 20 km and attempted to climb over the storm cells. However, the thunderstorm front was unusually high, extending up to 15 km (49,000 feet). The Tu-154 entered an area of severe turbulence, pushing up the airplane from 11.961 m to 12.794 m within just 10 seconds. The angle of attack increased to 46 degrees and the airspeed dropped to zero. It entered a deep stall from which the crew could not recover. The plane crashed and burned in a field.

It could be merely a coincidence but it's certainly food for thought.

cyloncat · Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:56 pm

Do we know who was PF at the last radio contact? The captain's experience is noted, but I've seen little about the first officer, who may have been flying at the time of the incident. The CVR will answer the "why" questions.

s5daw · Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:56 pm

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 165):
MHO, this plane hit the water with zero forward velocity,

Uhmmm… no. Just no.

Zero "forward" velocity, you mean zero velocity paralel to the surface of the sea? You can not bleed all the momentum you have. From cruising ground speed -which can be as we've recently seen over 1200 km/h - you just can't stop to 0. Rememeber, when hitting the ground, GS matters, not air speed!

md80fanatic · Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:00 pm

Quoting s5daw (Reply 169):
Zero "forward" velocity, you mean zero velocity paralel to the surface of the sea? You can not bleed all the momentum you have. From cruising ground speed -which can be as we've recently seen over 1200 km/h - you just can't stop to 0. Rememeber, when hitting the ground, GS matters, not air speed!

You can ... if you aren't shaped like an intact airplane with working engines.

Tradewinds · Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:07 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 162):

If you read the full transcript prior to that section you see that there was actually some time between when the captain arrived in the cockpit and when the plane crashed where even he was very confused. It seems that he only understood what was happening when Bonin told him the stick was "back the whole time" -- then it clicked.

Kaiarahi · Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:09 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 162):

You really should read the whole report, including the DFDR data plots, instead of excerpting bits of the CVR which, by the way, are translations. Hivue even laid out one of the more relevant parts for you.

RickNRoll · Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:11 pm

Quoting Trin (Reply 149):
Exactly my thinking there. Most folks seem to want to go with the more evocative images of the plane falling to earth in multiple parts - but highly unlikely, IMO. Much more likely will be a VERY similar scenario to AF447. As I have said since day 1 of this investigation.

There is no evidence it has anything to do with AF447. Tony Fernandes has already stated unstable and extreme weather was the cause. He would have the best information available. The plane was turning to avoid unexpected bad weather. It looks like it could not escape it and was caught in a situation for which it was not designed and pilots are taught to avoid.

Kaiarahi · Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:13 pm

Quoting Tradewinds (Reply 171):
Bonin told him the stick was "back the whole time"

Except it wasn't. You need to read his words in context (preferably in French), along with the DFDR data plots. It's hard to believe people are still retailing these complete misconceptions.

s5daw · Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:16 pm

Quoting kaneporta1 (Reply 167):
All the above is eerily similar to Pulkovo flight 612:

Wow, this is huge… I was under the impression the common believe is that "turbulence can't bring down an airplane". The description of events fits perfectly! Even though, the term "turbulence" here should probably be "updraft".

But how could airspeed drop to zero, even in an updraft!?

And one important difference, Tu-154M is T-tail, which is prone to deep stall

[Edited 2015-01-14 15:18:39]

Kaiarahi · Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:19 pm

Quoting kaneporta1 (Reply 167):
It entered a deep stall

Do you understand what a "deep stall" is? Hint - the TU154 is a t-tail, the A320 not so much.

David L · Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:29 pm

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 156):
Which by the way the captain of AF447 knew they were in a stall immediately when he returned to the cockpit, but it was too late.

Then why didn't he say so? Why didn't he say "We're stalled - get the nose down and the airspeed up"?

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 162):
On the CVR, the captain returns tells them to stop climbing which would regain their speed, but they were too low...

02:13:40 (Robert) Climb... climb... climb... climb...
02:13:40 (Bonin) But I've had the stick back the whole time!

[At last, Bonin tells the others the crucial fact whose import he has so grievously failed to understand himself.]

02:13:42 (Captain) No, no, no... Don't climb... no, no.
02:13:43 (Robert) Descend, then... Give me the controls... Give me the controls!

[Bonin yields the controls, and Robert finally puts the nose down

Robert had been telling Bonin the same thing earlier yet he never mentioned a stall either. The bottom line is that they were confused by the events and not working well together. The reasons for that have been studied and discussed extensively.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 174):
Except it wasn't. You need to read his words in context (preferably in French), along with the DFDR data plots. It's hard to believe people are still retailing these complete misconceptions.

There was a whole lot more to the accident than that one single sentence, which is often cited to the exclusion of all else in the report.

777Jet · Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:27 am

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 156):
I would expect a military pilot with over 10,000 hours of times would know when his A/C is in a stall. Which by the way the captain of AF447 knew they were in a stall immediately when he returned to the cockpit, but it was too late.

Wrong.

The AF447 Captain did not "immediately" know that the plane was in a stall when he returned to the cockpit.

When asked by Robert:

"(Robert) Qu'est-ce que tu en penses? Qu'est-ce que tu en penses? Qu'est-ce qu'il faut faire?
What do you think? What do you think? What should we do?"

Captain replied:

(Captain) Alors, là, je ne sais pas!
Well, I don't know!

It took the Captain some time to work out what was happening...

Quoting hivue (Reply 158):
Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 156):
Which by the way the captain of AF447 knew they were in a stall immediately when he returned to the cockpit, but it was too late.

What evidence do you have for that?

The BEA report (English, p182) states regarding the captain: "Subsequently, his interventions showed that he had also not identified the stall: the multiple starts and stops of the stall warning certainly contributed to make his analysis of the situation more confused. He then seemed to have based himself on the pitch attitude and thrust parameters to analyse the flight path."

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 161):
Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 156):
Which by the way the captain of AF447 knew they were in a stall immediately when he returned to the cockpit,

Rubbish. You should at least read the report before retailing garbage.

Quoting David L (Reply 177):
Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 156):
Which by the way the captain of AF447 knew they were in a stall immediately when he returned to the cockpit, but it was too late.

Then why didn't he say so? Why didn't he say "We're stalled - get the nose down and the airspeed up"?

Exactly.

Then why did he reply "Well, I don't know!" when first asked "What do you think? What do you think? What should we do?"

Answer: Because the Captain did not immediately know that the plane was in a stall. It took him some time to work it out.

[Edited 2015-01-14 16:29:17]

32andBelow · Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:32 am

My initial point was had the captain been in the cockpit the event probably would have been avoided from the start. In this case there was a very experienced captain in the cockpit the entire flight since it was a shorter flight.

Kaiarahi · Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:40 am

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 179):
My initial point was had the captain been in the cockpit the event probably would have been avoided from the start.

You must have missed my post (161). The PM (left seat) actually had more experience than the captain. You reallyshould read the BEA report - all of it, before retailing nonsense.

Rivet42 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:55 am

Returning to the photos, something is quite striking: if you look carefully at the fuselage, it appears to be flattened, and split wide open from underneath. If that's the case, what chance is there that a significant amount of the interior is in the same place? Given the seat map posted above showing the distribution of passenger remains recovered (some distance away) to date, some of which are from the section of fuselage found, how certain can we be that a significant number will be recovered from this wreckage? I hope they've not abandoned the aerial search yet of the initial search area, it may well be that there are a large number of bodies still out there...

Riv'

SimonDanger · Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:09 am

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 181):
I hope they've not abandoned the aerial search yet of the initial search area, it may well be that there are a large number of bodies still out there...

I questioned this eleven days ago on thread 7 but haven't seen anything mentioned about current tracking with 8501.

From the BAE Final Report on AF447:

"Release of Drift Measuring Buoys
The release of drift measuring buoys by the first aircraft to arrive over the zone would have made it possible to better understand the drift of floating debris in the first few hours. This would have facilitated modelling of the currents and thus the reverse- drift calculations to estimate more precisely the localisation of the site. Consequently, the BEA recommends that:

ICAO amend Annex 12 on search and rescue operations so as to encourage Contracting States to equip their search aircraft with buoys to measure drift and to drop them, when these units are involved in the search for persons lost at sea. [Recommendation FRAN-2012-056]"

kaneporta1 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:33 am

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 176):
Do you understand what a "deep stall" is? Hint - the TU154 is a t-tail, the A320 not so much.

Sigh. Where I come from there is a saying "You see the tree but you miss the forest". Did you even read anything before and after the phrase "deep stall"?

What happened to the QZ8501 is most probably different to the Pulkovo accident but there are some rather striking similarities.

AR385 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 2:11 am

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 173):
Tony Fernandes has already stated unstable and extreme weather was the cause.

Then it´s all done. Let the investigators go home. Let´s stop speculating. Fernandes already knows. Let him start writing the final report.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 173):
He would have the best information available

And why would that be?

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 173):
It looks like it could not escape it and was caught in a situation for which it was not designed and pilots are taught to avoid.

Think about why the other planes in the area did not crash then. What would be a situation for which an A320 would not have been designed for and pilots not taught to avoid? As you´ve read, very, very few airliners have been brought down by a storm. Turbulence or any of the things encountered in such type of weather.

md80fanatic · Thu Jan 15, 2015 2:46 am

Quoting AR385 (Reply 184):
Think about why the other planes in the area did not crash then. What would be a situation for which an A320 would not have been designed for and pilots not taught to avoid? As you´ve read, very, very few airliners have been brought down by a storm. Turbulence or any of the things encountered in such type of weather.

Exactly. Going by the odds, the greatest chance of a truly historic storm with up and down drafts able to destroy a plane would more likely be found not in the region of ITCZ, where thunderstorms are an hourly thing. Although the CB tops can be quite high, that does not necessarily equate to strength in linear terms, as it would over the plains of Kansas. Intercell rotation rates are not as high near the equator due to minimum Coriolis force, which is the type rotation that contributes greatly to supercell formation. Areas of highest chance for tornadoes are above and below the tropics where temperatures and angular momentum are both maximized.

Necessarily the speed of updraft/downdrafts will also be greatest in these areas, on average. These are areas where a destructive encounter between storm and aircraft are most likely. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen here, just far less likely (especially when other nearby flights reported nothing unexpected).

LTC8K6 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 3:11 am

Latest official information is that both recorders were found under the right wing and/or right wing/fuselage combination.
Latest official information states that only the right wing was located.
Officials have not provided information on the left wing, the cockpit, or the second engine. Spotting the first engine was mentioned earlier. But there is no mention of actual location yet.

From a pprune poster.

RickNRoll · Thu Jan 15, 2015 4:28 am

Quoting AR385 (Reply 184):
Think about why the other planes in the area did not crash then. What would be a situation for which an A320 would not have been designed for and pilots not taught to avoid? As you´ve read, very, very few airliners have been brought down by a storm. Turbulence or any of the things encountered in such type of weather.

I am reading here that pilots do not fly into severe storms but always fly around them.

LovesCoffee · Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:05 am

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 187):
I am reading here that pilots do not fly into severe storms but always fly around them.

Right, they don't fly into storms. What would make us think that this highly experienced pilot did? Just one day, suddenly, forget all of his training and fly right into a severe storm. I think he did his best to avoid the weather, based on communications with ATC and some of the radar plots of the AC track and the weather in the area.

[Edited 2015-01-14 21:09:38]

RickNRoll · Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:18 am

Quoting LovesCoffee (Reply 188):
Right, they don't fly into storms. What would make us think that this highly experienced pilot did? Just one day, suddenly, forget all of his training and fly right into a severe storm. I think he did his best to avoid the weather, based on communications with ATC and some of the radar plots of the AC track and the weather in the area.

I'm saying is that possibly he was trying to avoid one, but due to rapidly changing local weather, could not. If you get enough planes flying through enough extreme weather, the roll of the dice will come up badly for someone sooner or later.

CO953 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:30 am

Quoting LovesCoffee (Reply 188):
Right, they don't fly into storms. What would make us think that this highly experienced pilot did?

Michi said last week that he doesn't feel comfortable giving storms a narrow berth, but he's seen other pilots cut it closer and leave less distance, and it's personal preference. With crowded airspace and an active storm lineup across the flight path, could it be that he was pretty close to some unkind air, still using his experience, but got caught out with a fast-developing cell.

LovesCoffee · Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:33 am

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 189):
I'm saying is that possibly he was trying to avoid one, but due to rapidly changing local weather, could not. If you get enough planes flying through enough extreme weather, the roll of the dice will come up badly for someone sooner or later.

I would take it a little further and say he was trying to avoid one but be open to the possibility that some either new or extremely rare weather phenomena occurred. The thread is currently either looking hard at new data about the wreckage or obsessed with AF447. I still wonder what happened in the first 30-45 seconds that looks to have caused an A320 to climb faster than is supposedly possible for the AC type, weight and altitude.

comorin · Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:33 am

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 189):

I would be very concerned as an insurer, passenger or shareholder if commercial aviation was based on best efforts! - "..he was trying to avoid one.." and "..."the roll of the dice will come up badly for someone sooner or later..." assumes a level of risk taking that I find hard to believe occurs in aviation today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but every accident I can think of in the last decade was due to human error.

Cheers

RickNRoll · Thu Jan 15, 2015 6:03 am

Quoting comorin (Reply 192):
I would be very concerned as an insurer, passenger or shareholder if commercial aviation was based on best efforts! - "..he was trying to avoid one.." and "..."the roll of the dice will come up badly for someone sooner or later..." assumes a level of risk taking that I find hard to believe occurs in aviation today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but every accident I can think of in the last decade was due to human error.

Tropical areas have severe weather, this one has a very high population. Just look at the other crashes in the area that are weather related. TF has stated the weather for this flight had "some very unique weather conditions" .

md80fanatic · Thu Jan 15, 2015 6:06 am

Quoting comorin (Reply 192):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but every accident I can think of in the last decade was due to human error.

That's pretty broad, don't you think?

UPS 747, Lithium battery overrun in the hold - fire
Cargo 747, cargo shift on takeoff - CoG
BA 777, adulterated fuel - dual flameout
Sully's A320, birdstrike - dual flameout

to name just four. I suppose you could call two of these human error, such as choosing to fly proven dangerous batteries, or improperly securing armored vehicles ... but none were the faults of the flight crew.

[Edited 2015-01-14 22:19:12]

[Edited 2015-01-14 22:20:08]

lancelot07 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:40 am

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 193):
TF has stated the weather for this flight had "some very unique weather conditions" .

TF is an interested party. I would take his comments with a grain of salt.

F9Animal · Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:07 am

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 150):
This was a former fighter jet pilot in the left seat. It is not two young cruise pilots on a long haul flight. That needs to be taken into account.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 156):
would expect a military pilot with over 10,000 hours of times would know when his A/C is in a stall. Which by the way the captain of AF447 knew they were in a stall immediately when he returned to the cockpit, but it was too late.

Interesting thoughts, but, I think the captain had enough time outside of flying fighters to be considered senior enough to know his Airbus.

However, I recall several Grand Canyon crashes that were attributed to newer pilots fresh out of the military. Like one case where the aircraft lost am engine, and the PIC making maneuvers similar to a fighter, causing the plane to stall. Back in the 70's and 80's, the Grand Canyon outfits were hiring fighter pilots, and not properly training them to handle twin props. I am too tired to dig up all of that on Google.

Again, what I said above is what I learned many years ago, so please forgive my hazy scenarios. Back on topic, I seriously doubt that this tragedy was because of anything like that. The 2 up front on this Air Asia flight were very seasoned commercial pilots. I am hopeful the cause is determined quickly. Whatever happened, I can promise you that both pilots gave it all they had to save that aircraft. I also hope that a cause will lead into clues to help avoid a similar tragedy.

liquidair · Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:36 am

Quoting LovesCoffee (Reply 191):

I'm probably wrong on this, but didn't Pihero look at the climb and say it was possible?

I have a question for pilots- when trying to avoid an object, emergency manoeuvre type stuff, what is standard practice? Could such a sharp pull up have been commanded due to collision avoidance?

And no, I'm not referring to UFOs! But perhaps one of the instruments on board might malfunction in such a manner?

idlewildchild · Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:41 am

Quoting michi (Reply 128):
Here is a drift model of the floating debris:

http://twitter.com/JoeNemo3/status/555376328305037312/photo/1

I do not know how accurate it is. It says the model is from reuters.

Thanks, Michi. This makes the most sense I've seen from anything. With hitting the water likely tail section first, would that be the normal angle for an aircraft that had a stall of the nature many are talking?

As we get closer to reality here my stomach is sinking with thinking of what those people went through. I pray they were out of it way before hitting the water, but I fear not.

Rivet42 · Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:57 am

Quoting idlewildchild (Reply 198):
With hitting the water likely tail section first, would that be the normal angle for an aircraft that had a stall of the nature many are talking?

Would this also explain why the area of the tail where the horizontal stabiliser has separated shows very 'quick' or short trauma (it looks almost like a large 'bite' mark), whereas the other areas of separation exhibit a slower trauma, more like ripping...? Or do they suggest different traumatic events altogether?

Riv'

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net