Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
hivue
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:57 pm

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 46):
and we 'know' from reports to the media

That strikes me as a contradiction in terms.

Quoting cat3appr50 (Reply 48):
(while these constant critics literally know nothing about an individuals/members direct relevant degrees, formal education, long term professional experience, knowledge, etc. of engineering, meteorology, management, and direct aviation knowledge and experience, etc.)

Likely correct. But they do know what the poster says in his post, and the poster is going to be judged on that.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
jollo
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:24 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:03 pm

Quoting namezero111111 (Reply 28):
A spin, even fully developed, is a relatively low-G maneuver.

Quite right. The overspeed that is likely to develop in the dive following spin recovery, however, can rip parts off your aircraft even at 1 g.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8468
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:12 pm

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 47):
Citing radar data, Mr Jonan said: "The plane, during the last minutes, went up faster than normal speed... then it stalled."

Again, that is an SSR transmission subject to corruption if on-board electronics are compromised.

This happened about ~200 nm from Pontianak radar station (with 90 nm PSR and 240 nm SSR range) ie., outside PSR coverage area.

Investigators have to look at other corroborating evidence to prove it really climbed that fast or just erroneous data.

So minister shouldn't be making any statements now, wait for investigators to complement their work.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15291
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:20 pm

Quoting s5daw (Reply 39):
The only generic definition of deep stall is: A Deep Stall, sometimes referred to as a Super Stall, is a particularly dangerous form of stall that results in a substantial reduction or loss of elevator authority making normal stall recovery actions ineffective.

HOW elevator authority is lost is not important, and t-tail is just one common way.

I touched on this in reply 30, modern aircraft have horizontal stabilizers which have a large range of movement which in effect is a surface which can interfere with the effectiveness of the elevator.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 40):

AirAsia flight QZ8501: Plane climbed at speed 'beyond normal' then stalled, minister says

I am going to dismiss that until we have the prelim report.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
4holer
Posts: 2776
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2002 1:47 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:29 pm

Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I am not suggesting that the following is the cause of this accident, but the circumstances put the thought in my head to consider from a "is it possible?" standpoint. So I am not shouting the theory from the grassy knoll from atop my chemtrail spouting UFO piloted by bigfoot...

Early in the story, it was reported that a large number of passengers on the flight were from a particular church. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE that if a church/cult/cell decided to go "Heaven's Gate/Jonestown" and meet their maker, they could at once rush to the rear of the plane and shift the CoG to the rear and cause a National 102 type upset?

Again, not only am I not suggesting this happened, but I can state without doubt that it did NOT happen. I know nothing about flying and am curious about if it is possible.
Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
 
rusti999
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:56 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:41 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 25):
Wasn't there previously confusion about that name? I believe it's nowhere near as far away as you're suggesting.

If you just do a simple Google search for "Sembilan island", you'll probably get the one in Malaysia. Here is the relevant Sembilan Island on Google Map, you can measure the distance yourself.
 
hivue
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:44 pm

Quoting 4holer (Reply 54):
they could at once rush to the rear of the plane and shift the CoG

I have never been on an airliner where a bunch of people in an aisle can rush to do anything.  
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
namezero111111
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:05 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:48 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 41):
One has to define low-G. It depends on the rate of thurn and could be quite high.

Forgive my probe, but how can you over-G in a stalled condition?
We you referring to the recovery, as jollo noted in reply #51?

Quoting jollo (Reply 51):
Quite right. The overspeed that is likely to develop in the dive following spin recovery, however, can rip parts off your aircraft even at 1 g.

Yes, that is the second problem then (although it should only be a problem at high altitude).

Quoting s5daw (Reply 44):
Well, one example -albeit not the best- of deep stall could be National Airlines Flight 102

Give it up. National 102 did not "deep stall".
Deep stalls occur when the wake of a stalled wing shadows the H-stab and renders it ineffective.
It has nothing to do with exceeding control authority due to load shift, icing, etc...

Quoting 4holer (Reply 54):
Again, not only am I not suggesting this happened, but I can state without doubt that it did NOT happen. I know nothing about flying and am curious about if it is possible.

If enough load (people) is shifted to the back, you could possibly induce control problems. But it'd have to be a large group of people. At 80kg per person, 12.5 ppl = 1 ton. I'm sure you'd need at least 30 people far aft.
Someone with A320 load data could do some math here maybe.
 
smallRED
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:16 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:07 pm

Hi world.
A-net is a reflection of the world...all types, all views, all personalities - impatient as well as saintly, critical as well as pacifying, literal, idiotic, playful, and ... well all sorts... and that's what makes A-net so rich and enriching... would be boring without all the back n forth, between stubborn and rude, against angry and self-righteous... lets accept that some posters will rile others, will hurt others due to their being insensitive, even stupid... but that's the people of the world...let them say their piece... ignore or move on, or patiently explain again, and again.... its life!
So to one and all... quoting from Star Wars Part III? : Be patient, my friend!

To provide some entertainment, from this lay person, here's a view of what happened - take it as a fictional story of how the crash unfolded - using the info we know (yeah, yeah, its not fact, its not proven, its hearsay even if its leaked..blah blah):

1. Aircraft ran into Turbulence Extremis, unheard of before, but maybe, its only now that we have extreme weather caused by climate change...
2. Aircraft was swept by an air mass (updraft?), up several thousands of feet, then slam-dunked down even more thousands of feet (refer to Mandala's first leak of radar info)...
3. This slam-dunk of the aircraft causes the left wing to deform (structural integrity is lost), bending upwards resulting in the left wing "stalling". Centre line through left engine is now 15 degrees up relative to fuselage... Horizontal stabilisers(?) are snapped off....
4. The plane starts to bank left due to lift on right wing... and also noses up due to bent left wing and engine hauling it upwards...after a slow turn of nearly 180 degrees, the nose is pointing 45 degrees up relative to horizontal, and the right wing also stalls. Pilots attempt to control the aircraft [i am surprised anyone is still conscious enough to do this, as i had expected the slam dunk to knock all dead or unconscious...perhaps pilots are made of sterner stuff; more on people later]
5. The aircraft now appears to execute a tight "turn" (pirouette?) on its tail while speed drops to zero...
6. Aircraft falls like a stone, tail first...but the deformed wing luckily (??) produces drag and slows the descent..a little
7. Plane hits tail first, and tail cone snaps off; this produces a pivot moment snapping the nose down towards the water, converting some vertical energy into horizontal force, at the same time, the rear end of the fuselage entering the water also creates a bow wave in the water, that carries the front of the fuselage, literally surfing the fuselage forward away from the broken off tail...drifting of the tail causes further separation of the wreckage.
8. People from the rear of the cabin fall out with the tail... many are from the front of the cabin, as these are the ones who were not properly strapped in when the slam dunk hit, and when the plan turned onto its tail, they fell to the rear of the cabin, to be thrown out with the tail section when it snapped off....
9. If anyone were still alive after the mid-air slam dunk, they would have died on the final slam into the water...

RIP all. May the families and friends find strength, and closure.
 
cpqi
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:07 pm

Quoting nav30 (Reply 5):

I have to say that the report is a mumbled set of incoherent comments. Because there was "no threat on the voice recording so it is not terrorism". Why would that be so ? I am more likely to believe it isnt because no one has claimed responsibility

"We heard no gunfire nor explosions". So what about a small explosion at the aft of the plane which would cause an upward movement ? That would not be heard in the cockpit either ?

"It is unlikely there was an explosion. If there was we would definitely know." so is it unlikely or definitely not ????

A load of jumbled wishwash just to get air time.
I hate turbulence
 
nm2582
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:15 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:09 pm

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 36):
Wouldn't Airbus want that data? Could they recover it on their own?

If the FDR/CVR don't yield conclusive results, and there remains safety questions, my hope is that the international community/governments/Airbus/whomever would (publicly and/or behind closed doors) persuasively "encourage" the recovery of the card in order to retrieve the data from it.



[Edited 2015-01-20 09:14:49]
 
nm2582
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:15 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:21 pm

Quoting cpqi (Reply 59):
A load of jumbled wishwash just to get air time.

It's still too early. If there had been an obvious explosion (example: a loud, audible event correlated by a loss of cabin pressurization and the pilots talking about said explosion) then yes they would definitely know due to strong positive indicators. Instead, what they are telling us is that there has been no obvious explosion indicators and that they don't believe there was an explosion. But you can't completely rule it out until much more of the aircraft is found and the investigation has ran its course.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:36 pm

Quoting namezero111111 (Reply 57):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 41):
One has to define low-G. It depends on the rate of thurn and could be quite high.

Forgive my probe, but how can you over-G in a stalled condition?

Some aircraft develop quite high rates of rotation in a spin. If you're seated a fair distance from the center of that spin (as the pilots would be on a tube-and-wing style airliner), you can have substantial G forces.
 
namezero111111
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:05 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:47 pm

Quoting rwessel (Reply 62):

Ok, fair enough. Just making sure we're not talking about aerodynamically induced G forces but centrifugal ones.
 
bellancacf
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:51 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:00 pm

Quoting smallRED (Reply 58):
take it as a fictional story of how the crash unfolded

You left out the part about the very few survivors taking off their then-waterlogged clothes after hours in the water, but other than that, yeah, you could shoot a movie from your camera directions. The tail-first strike is ingenious.
 
hivue
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:00 pm

Quoting namezero111111 (Reply 57):
Quoting jollo (Reply 51):Quite right. The overspeed that is likely to develop in the dive following spin recovery, however, can rip parts off your aircraft even at 1 g.

Yes, that is the second problem then (although it should only be a problem at high altitude).

Not correct. Aerodynamic forces, if strong enough, can cause structural failure at any altitude. See AA587 -- not just the tail fin but the engines as well.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
namezero111111
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:05 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:06 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 65):

I meant that at lower altitudes there likely is enough control authority and airspeed range to recover from the ensuing dive before exceeding Vmo.
 
jollo
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:24 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:27 pm

Quoting namezero111111 (Reply 28):
A spin, even fully developed, is a relatively low-G maneuver.
Quoting rwessel (Reply 62):
Some aircraft develop quite high rates of rotation in a spin. If you're seated a fair distance from the center of that spin (as the pilots would be on a tube-and-wing style airliner), you can have substantial G forces.

Namezero *did* say "... relatively low-g ...". I believe he was talking about vertical (as experienced by the crew) acceleration: that's what is generally referred to when talking about "this is a X g maneuver" or "this aircraft ir rated to Y g".

Centrifugal acceleration in a fully developed spin can be subjectively high (depending on how far from the axis of rotation you're sitting), but that's generally not what rips an airframe apart. I think we can safely say that an incipient spin per se would not pose an immediate threat to the structural integrity of an airliner... but pulling up too forcefully from the dive after spin recovery would!

Anyway, the general consensus seems to be that QZ8501 hit the water more or less in one piece, so this point is moot.
 
flightsimer
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:51 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 4):
Most crashes these days are CFIT, be they at take-off, landing, or in cruise. I don't think the brand of airplane has proved a significant factor in most.

AF447 happened to an Airbus, but pilots losing instruments and the autopilot at cruise happened to all brands, the main difference being the reaction of the pilots. Had the pilots done nothing AF447 would probably have been fine.

AF447 was hardly CFIT.
Commercial / Airline Pilot
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:15 pm

Quote:
The Airbus Group N.V. A320 jet turned left away from its assigned flight path en route from Surabaya to Singapore, climbed over 8,000 feet per minute, descended and finally disappeared within three minutes, Jonan said, citing data from the plane’s automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast, or ADS–B, system.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/air...-normal-before-crashing-2015-01-20
 
LH707330
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:19 pm

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 47):
Ignasius Jonan told a parliamentary hearing in Jakarta that flight QZ8501 had ascended at a speed of 6,000ft (1,828m) per minute.

No passenger or fighter jet would attempt to climb so fast, he said."

Mig 29s and Eurofighters are good for 60,000 FPM at sea level, so this guy doesn't look like he knows what he's talking about.

Quoting 4holer (Reply 54):
Early in the story, it was reported that a large number of passengers on the flight were from a particular church. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE that if a church/cult/cell decided to go "Heaven's Gate/Jonestown" and meet their maker, they could at once rush to the rear of the plane and shift the CoG to the rear and cause a National 102 type upset?

No, it wouldn't make a big difference. The plane was mostly full, so even 30 passengers (3 tons) moving from the nose to near the tail (they'd clog the aisle) would get you ~20 meters of displacement of that average, so your overall CG in a ~65 ton system wouldn't shift much.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:21 pm

Well, was it 6Kfpm or 8Kfpm?
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4189
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:46 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 52):
So minister shouldn't be making any statements now, wait for investigators to complement their work.

I think he shouldn't make any Statements like this:

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 47):
"I think it is rare even for a fighter jet to be able to climb 6,000ft per minute," he told a House of Representatives commission."The average speed of a commercial aircraft is probably between 1,000 and 2,000ft per minute because the aircraft is not designed to soar so fast."

Come on, he is a Minister. Why doesn't he leave such kind of things to the experts.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 70):
Mig 29s and Eurofighters are good for 60,000 FPM at sea level, so this guy doesn't look like he knows what he's talking about.

That's what I mean
 
PacificBeach
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:13 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:02 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 72):
Come on, he is a Minister. Why doesn't he leave such kind of things to the experts.

Well, maybe he also believes that his words carry "equal weight" with the experts'.
 
therealswede
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:51 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:05 pm

One can imagine the transitions between steady flight, climb, descent and possibly a decrease in descent speed before hitting the water should've made the passengers aware that something bad was going on.
Not nice!
 
AIRWALK
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:33 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:41 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 72):
I think he shouldn't make any Statements like this

Agreed. Our prime minister made a statement on the 11/04/14 regarding the pings that were heard on the search for MH370s recorders saying that they were very confident the pings heard were from the black boxes even though the search team had made no such assertions. Terrible thing for the families to have to hear and to be given false hope. Leave it to directly involved professionals
I'm sure this thread will take off soon
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:55 pm

Quoting jollo (Reply 67):
Centrifugal acceleration in a fully developed spin can be subjectively high (depending on how far from the axis of rotation you're sitting), but that's generally not what rips an airframe apart. I think we can safely say that an incipient spin per se would not pose an immediate threat to the structural integrity of an airliner... but pulling up too forcefully from the dive after spin recovery would!

Generally is a good word ... but there are exceptions.

AA191 is a good example of pylon stress/strain under abnormal lateral g-loads. In this case abnormal is simply 1-g, in a direction not designed for.



I don't think it would take much of a spin rate at all to eject wing-mounted engines.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8468
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:11 pm

Quoting PacificBeach (Reply 73):
Well, maybe he also believes that his words carry "equal weight" with the experts'.

Definitely his words carry equal or more weight with "his" experts. There are these crazy ones called freelance experts, who may do some math and prove it is not possible on earth to lift such heavy object 6000 ft in a minute, may be only on Mars.

I am still amazed how much confidence world has on accuracy of electronic sensors and transmitters. Information transmitted from SSR and/or ADS-B need not be a valid, its not a primary radar return.
All posts are just opinions.
 
Rivet42
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:26 pm

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 76):
AA191 is a good example of pylon stress/strain under abnormal lateral g-loads. In this case abnormal is simply 1-g, in a direction not designed for.

Eh? That's not what happened there.There was no 'spin', the plane rolled over due to asymmetric wing trim that the pilot no longer had control over and fell out of the sky.
Or are you about to say that conclusion was a cover-up...?

Riv'
I travel, therefore I am.
 
hivue
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:30 pm

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 76):

The investigation into this accident produced no evidence that the right engine separated from the airplane.

Why do you seem to think there was a significant lateral 1g outboard load on that engine? Any g loading (ignoring aerodynamic loading) in that roll would likely be inboard (toward the ground).
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:32 pm

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 78):
There was no 'spin',

He was not saying spin for 191. Just using it as an example of abnormal loads.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1587
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:40 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 79):
The investigation into this accident produced no evidence that the right engine separated from the airplane.

Well, there's that...
 
Rivet42
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:46 pm

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 80):
He was not saying spin for 191. Just using it as an example of abnormal loads.

What abnormal loads? Engine #1 separated due to faulty maintenance, engines 2 and 3 stayed in place until impact.
It's completely unrelated to the discussion above.

Riv'
I travel, therefore I am.
 
flightsimer
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:53 pm

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 76):

You posted this in a previous thread, but I let it go as no one else seemed to notice it... But the right engine on that DC-10 is perfectly normal. I don't know why you think it turned, as if it had, it would have separated from the wing just as the first engine did.

What you are trying to say is the side of the engine facing out wards is actually the bottom side of the nacelle being illuminated by the sun. The engine nacelle is not circular nor uniform in shape.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 80):

He has brought this up at least twice now in these reads and is indeed trying to say the engine on the DC-10 turned.
Commercial / Airline Pilot
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:20 pm

The interim report is supposed to be released at the end of January.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:23 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 40):
AirAsia flight QZ8501: Plane climbed at speed 'beyond normal' then stalled, minister says:

- That point was discussed by Miami and others just one day after the accident. So what is new ?
Just another political show off.
That climb was fast, yes, but well within the capability of an airliner 7 000 ft below its ceiling.

Quoting cat3appr50 (Reply 48):
Thank you KarelXWB for your post #40, regarding posting what really matters here and which is key information regarding relevant, critical investigative information direct from the Indonesian Transport Minister.

If you can derive a meaningful conclusion from that declaration, well, good on you.
LTC8K6, Miami, Rwessel have done a lot more study on that aspect.
You are of course free to discard their findings.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 62):
Some aircraft develop quite high rates of rotation in a spin. If you're seated a fair distance from the center of that spin (as the pilots would be on a tube-and-wing style airliner), you can have substantial G forces.

these lateral G-forces apply to the aircraft as well. With dire consequences (see X-15 destruction in 1967)

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 77):
I am still amazed how much confidence world has on accuracy of electronic sensors and transmitters. Information transmitted from SSR and/or ADS-B need not be a valid, its not a primary radar return.

Well, as modern air traffic control is based on these very same electronic sensors and transmitters and they have been safely done their job, I do not see a valid reason for distrusting them. Thousands of pilots', millions of passengers' lives rely on their accuracy in very, very crowded skies.
Contrail designer
 
cat3appr50
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:44 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:30 pm

A similar sized commercial aircraft, e.g. a B737-800 (and the Airbus accident aircraft) can certainly attain a 6,000 fpm + V/S/CLB at CRZ altitude. Assuming flying at FL350 at around M.785/270 KIAS, manually disconnect the A/P and A/T and with N1 thrust manually set to the thrust value prior to A/P disengagement, pull back the yoke (or sidestick) to a pitch up of around 10 deg. and in a very short time a 6,000 fpm climb is attained, while sacrificing airspeed for altitude. Even higher rates of climb are possible with further pitch up, eventually getting into buffet and stall, and a reversal of V/S to negative rates. But it certainly can be done....certainly attainable but not desired/not normal.
And I would hate to be in battle in an F-16 or F-22 at CRZ levels, and with a potential around 50K service ceiling and be limited to only around 6,000 fpm climb as the Indonesian authorities quote seems to be indicating regarding "fighter" aircraft. Makes no sense for either Boeing or Airbus commercial aircraft or "fighters", as all can certainly attain 6,000 fpm + climb rates at CRZ if needed....again not desirable and not normal (for commercial aircraft), but certainly attainable.
So, I'm assuming the Indonesian authorities quote may have not been translated properly in the context he was trying to assert, which was probably more likely of asserting that the 6,000 fpm climb was "abnormal" but never implying that it was not attainable.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3576
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:41 pm

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 77):
I am still amazed how much confidence world has on accuracy of electronic sensors and transmitters. Information transmitted from SSR and/or ADS-B need not be a valid, its not a primary radar return.

It does need to be valid - it is what our next generation ATC system is based on. ADS-B is far more accurate than primary radar. It also broadcasts far more frequently than a primary radar sweep. It's basically GPS data being broadcast once per second.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
rugger
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 9:03 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:49 pm

If you read the crash report for NW 705 it is hauntingly similar to what they are saying about this crash. Right before 705 fell out of the sky it achieved a vertical climb rate which far exceeded 6,000 fpm. I don't think the Air Asia pilots put the aircraft in a steep climb, I think localized updrafts did. After all both Air Asia pilots were very experienced.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:03 am

Quoting tailskid (Reply 14):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 12):

Quoting CO953 (Reply 11):
I can't remember as fundamentally ill-tempered a thread as this twelve-parter in maybe 10 years of reading.

The MH370 thread?

ummm what are the commonalities between these threads?

Ummm the 'fundamentally ill-tempered' nature -(referring to the current Reply 10 that was Reply 11 at the time I quoted it)...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:05 am

Quoting Rugger (Reply 88):
If you read the crash report for NW 705 it is hauntingly similar to what they are saying about this crash.

It was a mid-air breakup. Nothing we know so far about QZ8501 pints to a similar breakup.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 77):
I am still amazed how much confidence world has on accuracy of electronic sensors and transmitters. Information transmitted from SSR and/or ADS-B need not be a valid, its not a primary radar return.

We get that you're fixated on this. Please point to one accident or incident caused by invalid ADS-B data.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 85):
Well, as modern air traffic control is based on these very same electronic sensors and transmitters and they have been safely done their job, I do not see a valid reason for distrusting them. Thousands of pilots', millions of passengers' lives rely on their accuracy in very, very crowded skies.

  
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:41 am

Look folks, if you insist of commenting on my post, why can't you engage your higher intellect first (not counting LTC8K6, he/she appears to have understood where I was going with it). For those who immediately see my moniker and think conspiracy ... well shame one you.   

I have never posted ANYTHING about AA191 on this thread, or other parts of this discussion relating to this accident. If you saw a post from "me" regarding it, you must have been dreaming it.   

Now then, back to thread ... Can you contemplate a force (from an acceleration downward) being placed on the engine pylon? The image I posted shows it in full detail (can't be argued against, it's a fact). Under many more g's (which a spin would generate) .... IMHO the engines would NOT stay attached.

Is that good enough?
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1810
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:46 am

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 91):
I have never posted ANYTHING about AA191 on this thread, or other parts of this discussion relating to this accident.
Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 76):

AA191 is a good example of pylon stress/strain under abnormal lateral g-loads.

Huh????
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:47 am

Quoting hivue (Reply 79):
Why do you seem to think there was a significant lateral 1g outboard load on that engine?

Picture .... look at it please (with your glasses on this time)

Quoting hivue (Reply 79):
Any g loading (ignoring aerodynamic loading) in that roll would likely be inboard (toward the ground).

Umm, the picture doesn't show that at all, quite the opposite.

Quoting Rivet42 (Reply 82):
What abnormal loads? Engine #1 separated due to faulty maintenance, engines 2 and 3 stayed in place until impact.
It's completely unrelated to the discussion above.

Can you actually perceive 3D? I ask because if you look close to the shading on the nacelle (literally a tapered cylinder) you can easily see that the engine is canted along the axis of my red line, based upon the shadow the sun is casting on it (clue ... compared shaded side to that of the fuselage ... which the engine is supposed to be parallel with). Again, I never said number 2 separated, that was you my friend.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 83):
But the right engine on that DC-10 is perfectly normal.

Sure, totally agree. Most manufacturers point their engines 45 degrees outward with regard to the fuselage. C'mon.
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:50 am

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 92):
Huh????

Seriously?

That is the post (my first) you said was my second on the topic regarding AA191. Sorry, I'm trying to be patient but you guys/gals make it quite the challenge. Maybe it's a language thing? [Edited 2015-01-20 16:51:55]

[Edited 2015-01-20 17:03:23]
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:02 am

One last thing on that photograph. I think people are assuming the plane is flying a vector pointing forward as usual, but it's actually slipping hard toward the ground. You can see the hydraulic fluid coming from the left wing, and it traces a path that the aircraft is flying ... which is hard toward the ground. The fluid is hitting the left side of the fuselage, over the top and into the center engine for goodness sake, that plane is no longer flying actually, it's falling with some forward momentum only.

Apologies for being short with you guys ... some people may not be able to see and understand the physics involved in a still photo. I can though (it's a gift/curse).

[Edited 2015-01-20 17:04:32]
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8468
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:04 am

Quoting Pihero (Reply 85):
Well, as modern air traffic control is based on these very same electronic sensors and transmitters and they have been safely done their job, I do not see a valid reason for distrusting them. Thousands of pilots', millions of passengers' lives rely on their accuracy in very, very crowded skies.
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 87):
It does need to be valid - it is what our next generation ATC system is based on. ADS-B is far more accurate than primary radar. It also broadcasts far more frequently than a primary radar sweep. It's basically GPS data being broadcast once per second.
ADS-B is one piece of modern air traffic control system. NextGen likes are called Satellite/Local Based Augmentation Systems(SBAS), depends on whole bunch of other systems to achieve the accuracy.

ADS-B broadcasting its own data doesn't give situational awareness, NextGen calculates everything else and sends back to SBAS receiver on the plane. And there is ADS-C to send instructions from ATC.

ADS-B may be reasonably reliable under normal circumstances, not for a plane under duress.

BTW, what is proposed SOP if one plane goes rouge in NextGen, every other plane in the neighborhood goes back to good ole separation rules.

If the requirement is just ADS-B transmitters, why FAA need to spend $45 Billion and wait until 2027, both numbers are based on best case scenario.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 90):
We get that you're fixated on this. Please point to one accident or incident caused by invalid ADS-B data.

Question is when was the last time an accident mystery got solved based on ADS-B data. Somehow for this investigation it became a focal point.

Even N900KN, which was tracked for 3+ hours on all sorts tracking services, didn't end exactly where ADS-B data showed, Jamaica still has to search for it.

ADS-B transmitters and a teenagers with ADS-B receivers are good enough for FR24 to draw an estimated nice smooth line and animation. That's about it.

[Edited 2015-01-20 17:19:49]
All posts are just opinions.
 
hivue
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:05 am

Quoting md80fanatic (Reply 93):
Can you actually perceive 3D?

Not in a 2D photo. But I could imagine 3D...  

I get it now. You're just yanking everyone's chain.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15291
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:53 am

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 84):

The interim report is supposed to be released at the end of January.


Should be within 30 days of the accident, the DFDR already has told the story of what happened, no reason that factual information cannot be released. The why it happened will take a longer..
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 12708
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 12

Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:53 am

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 96):
BTW, what is proposed SOP if one plane goes rouge in NextGen, every other plane in the neighborhood goes back to good ole separation rules.

Every other plane stays in the colors they're painted in. Sorry couldn't help it   
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos