NASBWI
Posts: 971
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:12 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:07 pm

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 148):
The root cause to me seems to be the fault with the rudder limiter, that despite occurring more on and more frequently was not fixed. When it occurred 4 times in a few minutes, it is no wonder that the crew failed to cope with the situation

Even if the root cause is attributed to a fault with the aircraft, there are contributing factors involved. There are few incidents where the root cause is the sole culprit in the end result. Such examples would be a bombing/shoot-down, or a catastrophic failure of the airframe. Neither happened in this case.

United 232 taught a very valuable lesson not only to United Airlines, but to airlines across the grid. Situations may occur, and through proper training, and a lot of instinct, there may be a viable solution. In the case of Air Asia, the failure of a computer shouldn't have prevented the pilots from flying the plane. I don't want to throw them under the proverbial bus, but as it turns out, the situation *could* have been averted, had there been better training on handling an automated aircraft - when automation fails.
Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:19 pm

IMO, severe lack of Crew Training. Not surprised either.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3439
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:55 pm

How much actual flying does a flight officer do in an 18 hours segment. From what I read it can be just minutes. Has anyone considered providing pilots with experience in small high performance planes? I could see senior pilots and aerodynamic engineers finding specific analogies with a commercial plane at the very edge, even over the edge, and recovery techniques. Many pilots in prior times had a lot of experience on war planes flown at the edge of control. How do we duplicate that sort of experience? It seems to me we should be looking. I suspect pilots would like that sort of training.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9695
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:59 pm

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 152):
How much actual flying does a flight officer do in an 18 hours segment. From what I read it can be just minutes. Has anyone considered providing pilots with experience in small high performance planes? I could see senior pilots and aerodynamic engineers finding specific analogies with a commercial plane at the very edge, even over the edge, and recovery techniques. Many pilots in prior times had a lot of experience on war planes flown at the edge of control. How do we duplicate that sort of experience? It seems to me we should be looking. I suspect pilots would like that sort of training.

It's not necessary to go that far, but maybe more extensive sim sessions every 6 months, plus encouragement to fly with autopilot off and autothrust off on calm days at least to maintain basic skills should be sufficient.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:02 pm

I would be interested to know what the arguments are, against joining the sticks movements together?

Ruscoe
 
hivue
Posts: 2019
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 149):
over the outer wing on the inboard side

Say what?

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 154):
I would be interested to know what the arguments are, against joining the sticks movements together?

Read this whole thread.

[Edited 2015-12-01 13:09:55]
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9615
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:51 pm

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 153):
plus encouragement to fly with autopilot off and autothrust off on calm days at least to maintain basic skills should be sufficient.

Well the typical A.Net response would be that one should have faith in the automation in good or bad weather. A perfectly working a/c should not have to suffer due to the deficiencies of the flight crew.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 154):

I would be interested to know what the arguments are, against joining the sticks movements together?

No need to find arguments, just accept the reality that 30+ years the authorities will not allow the automation nor its integrity to be questioned. We have thousands of aircraft flying around with the tech, even outside of the USA can you imagine the law suits if even a hint of a suggestion is made, beside, when has the automation "officially" been identified as the cause of any accident?
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2352
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:56 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 156):
We have thousands of aircraft flying around with the tech, even outside of the USA can you imagine the law suits if even a hint of a suggestion is made, beside, when has the automation "officially" been identified as the cause of any accident?

The automation was not the cause of this accident.

A lack of ability by the crew to fly the airplane with the automation partially disabled is what caused this accident.

Properly flown, this airplane would not have crashed, even with the issues at hand.

Airbus (and Boeing, and every other manufacturer) cannot design or be faulted for incompetence by the operator and/or crew.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:02 pm

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 10):
You do not know what you would do faced with an emergency situation. Often you are not thinking logically.

True...yet, in the modern age where the planes fly themselves from 200 ft off of the runway until stopping at the other end, the job of the pilot is exactly to know what to do in an emergency situation.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 23):
Not handling? I said sometimes experienced pilots will make the wrong decisions during an emergency situation, no matter how much total time and training they have.

Again, which means they failed at the precise reason they are in the cockpit in the first place; the very rare chance than an emergency will take place that the aircraft can't handle on its own.

Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 26):

How do you put an aircraft that is stalled with a developed bank in a glide?

Level the wings, forward stick is probably part of it.

Quoting airtechy (Reply 28):

Actually, a steep bank should have hastened the entry into a nose down attitude...if there was no up pilot command.

A steep bank can also turn into a spiral dive in a heartbeat....or a spin...or from one to the other.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 38):
It is not inappropriate to use the rudder if it performs the most important action of all - reducing your AoA.

That would only be as a last resort if pitch inputs couldn't do the job.

Quoting 76er (Reply 48):
For the Airbus bashers, let's not forget the TK crash at AMS (A/T system failure induced crew error) and OZ at SFO (who fell into the infamous Flight Level Change trap). The latest being a design flaw imho.

This accident was an aircrew problem, not a sidestick problem. Whether or not linked sticks might have made a difference is a debate I don't want to wade into but what the pilots should have been doing is clearly communicating. They should have known who was in command by talking and clearly designating a pilot flying and the other pilot should get his mitts off of the stick.

Quoting MMO (Reply 52):
Since you are not a pilot, do you know how a full aft stick stall differs from a normal stall? Do you know what to look for?

In a jet, there are stick shakers, right? So while the airframe buffeting might not be obvious, the stick shaking should be, as should the warnings. Regardless, any main wing stall will be as a result of a too high angle of attack and the indications will be displayed on the attitude indicator, airspeed indicator, stick shaker, altimeter, rate of climb indicator, angle of attack indicator....and at least part of the solution is always to pitch down.

Quoting MMO (Reply 52):
I didn't think so. Believe me do some research and them come back on here and voice your opinion! But to everyone else on here a full aft stick stall, on a swept wing aircraft is characterized by the lack of buffett, a very high descent rate (in excess of 6000 fpm) and possible wing rocking, although the wings can remain lever. Compare that with a normal stall which has buffetting and the loss of ailerons proceeds from the wing tip towards the wing root (swept wing aircraft). Until you have seen one or been in one you wouldn't know until it bit you in the ass!

There are plenty of stall indicators in modern jets...the the differences in how swept wing jets stall as compared to straight wing props is moot in this case, since these pilots were allegedly trained on how to recognize and recover from stalls in the aircraft they were flying.

Whatever kind of plane you're flying, recovery from a stall always requires a nose down action.

Quoting zeke (Reply 55):
Initially they looks like they were in a steep turn, that developed into a spiral dive with control inputs. Being at a high angle of bank, if you retain the bank (no additional control input) and let the nose drop below the horizon airflow will develop quicker over wings (dramatic angel of attach change) to unstall the aircraft before rolling wings level. Common recovery technique on a lawn dart.

Unfortunately, they continued to pull back on the stick which, if in a spiral dive, will result in an accelerated stall and very likely a spin. It looks like to me that they were in an incipient spin, and recovered wings level. That's when they should have used nose down pitch, (and whatever power techniques are prescribed...I'm assuming low power settings until flying speed is recovered),

Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 57):

My first type was a BAE prop where the stall recovery procedure included the use of full engine power. The manual said something along the lines of propwash improving airflow over the wing and thus a potential aid in recovery. Those guidelines are at odds with the recovery procedure in most jets. Have a look at A300/A310 stall events and the 737 stall into BOH to see what happens when you apply TOGA at stall.

My prop experience is pitch down and power off until the nose is below the horizon, recover flying speed, smoothly start to pull up, when nose is at the horizon, add power and recover altitude.

Quoting hivue (Reply 83):
Plus (a) there are not supposed to be two pilots controlling the airplane at the same time and (b) flight controls are not flight instrumentation so why engineer them to pretend like they are.

That's what CRM is for. No matter what the control configuration, pilots working at crossed purposes will always be able to defeat perfectly thought out controls.

Quoting zeke (Reply 85):
Many people use Bernoulli to explain the physics of lift, when it is the wrong. A cylinder with the same curvature on the upper and lower sides can generate lift.

Bernoulli is still completely valid as an explanation for air velocity differences causing pressure differentials...but what it doesn't do is explain the entire story of how wings work.

Quoting zeke (Reply 99):
Ask me again in 20 years when we understand what they have found. It does not matter what techniques you use, you cannot predict aerodynamics with 100% precision, there are always assumptions.

True, but in this case, I don't think we need interpretations of exotic aerodynamic theory to conclude that this accident was caused more by pilot actions/inactions than the aerodynamics of the aircraftt.

Quoting hivue (Reply 104):
Both sticks have a priority button. It just boils down to two guys trying to control one airplane at the same time. Same thing happens on Boeings.

....which was exacerbated by a lack of clear communication and task assigning.

From the report, it seems that control is decided by whomever pushes the button last. I don't know what happens if both pilots are pushing their buttons at the same time.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 110):
Differential input was fully tested. Bottom line is that these two accidents had nothing to do with sidestick design and function and everything to do with CRM and training.

I agree. If there was something inherently dangerous with the Airbus stick design, planes would be falling out of the sky like snowflakes. Whether or not linked sticks may have helped the crew recover, will never be agreed on.

What we do know is that these pilots weren't communicating and that added to the confusion and the lack of the coordination interfered with their ability come up with a plan to recover.
What the...?
 
mmo
Posts: 1851
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:31 pm

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 148):
The root cause to me seems to be the fault with the rudder limiter, that despite occurring more on and more frequently was not fixed. When it occurred 4 times in a few minutes, it is no wonder that the crew failed to cope with the situation

The root cause is the fact there was no CRM in play in the cockpit. The crew attempted to recycle the C/Bs because the Captain had seen an engineer do it on the ground! If they had followed the QRH, landing with the fault is not a big deal. And, more importantly, we would not be having this discussion.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 149):
Not the same as a deep stall... where all controls are ineffective, which is what you alluded to earlier.

In this instance, if the pilot had released the stick, the aircraft would likely have recovered itself from stall.

I think you are the one who is confused. A deep stall involves a T tail aircraft. In a conventional aircraft, like the 320, the stall will develop into a fully developed stall. NOT A DEEP STALL.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 149):
You've a fundamental misunderstanding of what deep stall is. Its impossible to mask the elevators of an A320 due to the wings stalling.

A T-tail is much more susceptible to deep stall, even then, AoA has to be fairly silly but unfortunately not ridiculous enough to stop it from happening to a few poor unfortunates.

You seem to be contradicting your self. The AOA was between 40 and 50. Did you even read the entire accident report? It would appear not!

You need to also review the stall characteristics are in a low mounted horizontal stab swept wing aircraft before you start showing just what you don't know.

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 149):
You have incorrectly assumed that once stalled, an aircraft in a sliding bank will always reattach from root to tip. In a 50deg uncoordinated bank, that will almost certainly not be the case.

Again, you have not answered the question about relative wind. You need to see understand that and the characteristics of a swept wing

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 158):
In a jet, there are stick shakers, right?

Not in every jet. The military does not have them in high performance fighters/trainers.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 158):
since these pilots were allegedly trained on how to recognize and recover from stalls in the aircraft they were flying.

Whatever kind of plane you're flying, recovery from a stall always requires a nose down action.

Pilots are not trained in the simulator to recover from fully developed stalls. There is no flight dynamic data available to program the simulator to accurately simulate the condition. The sim is only required to replicate "normal flight"
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
hivue
Posts: 2019
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:34 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 156):
just accept the reality that 30+ years the authorities will not allow the automation nor its integrity to be questioned.

It's called progress. I don't believe commercial aircraft can safely be operated in our RVSM RNP world manually.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:53 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 160):
I don't believe commercial aircraft can safely be operated in our RVSM RNP world manually.

Of course they can. We let pilots handfly CatIII approaches with appropriate eqipument to provide guidance. That level of precision is plenty for RNP.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9695
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 10:53 pm

Quoting MMO (Reply 159):
Pilots are not trained in the simulator to recover from fully developed stalls. There is no flight dynamic data available to program the simulator to accurately simulate the condition. The sim is only required to replicate "normal flight"

Hence why every student at my pilot school had to complete an aerobatics course in the US as part of the training to become airline pilots. We all did recoveries from deep stalls in Pitts, Marchettis, Super Decathlon, etc.

[Edited 2015-12-01 14:54:09]
 
hivue
Posts: 2019
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:01 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 161):
Of course they can.

Thanks, Mir. Is it "legal" for a pilot a commercial airliner to do a leg from, say, DFW to MCO at FL 380 flying the airplane all the way by hand? If so, maybe periodically requiring that would be a way to give pilots more experience handling airplanes at altitude.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
caoimhin
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:30 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:02 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 143):
The Airbus side stick architecture and functionality was not listed in the report as a contributing factor in this accident. I don't recall it being listed for AF447 either.

Please cite an example where it was.

Absence from the reports does not mean that it wasn't a contributing factor in fact, and I don't think that you can say in any meaningful way that it wasn't. If both members of the flight crew are aware that they're giving contrary inputs, there is a prompt for communication that might otherwise not happened. Left seat instantly realises he's acting against right seat, he says "I have control" and the dual input is quickly abolished as an issue. The feedback is physical and it can't be ignored like an aural warning.

You can make many "but for" arguments about causation in an aviation incident. But for the fact that the aircraft didn't have a 200 meter parachute, passengers wouldn't have died. But for the fact that the aircraft was made out of metal and not rubber, it was destroyed on impact and didn't float on the water.

But, if we can say that the incident would have been avoided had this one feature been different, it's reasonable--and necessary--to investigate ways to improve that feature. Anything less is absolutely reckless. We can't practically engineer a 200 meter parachute that will work that way. We can't design a rubber aircraft. But we can explore those questions until we reason that there's no sense in going any further.

This is also true in the case of control inputs. If there is a possibility that more accidents would be avoided with a control yoke than a side stick, that possibility should be fully explored. Discussion of it shouldn't be pushed aside. Some arguments here say, "That's the way Airbus makes planes, and it's fine. Other aircraft have accidents too. Leave it alone, stop talking about it." That's a dangerous approach. Of course aircraft of all types have accidents. And every practical step that can be taken to reduce accidents in those cases is explored. This should be no different. The inertia of having done something a certain way for 30 years is not reason enough to dismiss the possibility that there may be a better way.

[Edited 2015-12-01 15:40:03]

[Edited 2015-12-01 15:41:32]
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1704
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:22 pm

Quoting kurtverbose (Reply 96):

A lot of debate over the wrong question.

Here the pilot was not trying to recover from a stall. He didn't know he was in a stall.

This isn't the first time. It seems to happen with depressing regularity.

Why?

Truer words have not been spoken on this thread.

Quoting airtechy (Reply 117):
Every time I see that Airbus fly into the trees, I wonder if an additional .1 or .2 degrees of pitch up would allowed him to clear the trees.

Do you see many airplanes flying into the trees?

Also, the other side of the equation is whether an aircraft is flying into the trees wings level, or nose first or one wing falling or ... with many other possible upsets that might have been caused by the accidental stall. The ONE case of an Airbus flying into the trees the protections probably saved the passengers, as they allowed the flight to softly descend given its low energy state, rather than abruptly crash. YMMV.

Anyway, back on topic and some comments.

I agree with Zeke that the report feels substandard somehow. Just quoting SOPs doesn't make an accident report. I think they said what they needed to say, but I wish they had said more about, e.g., why the crew didn't diagnose the problem.

"Pull down" Never heard of equally bad sounding statement. Just wow.

Was curious to see that both the AF and this incident involved French pilots. Just a random coincidence, I guess.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:31 pm

Quoting goosebayguy (Reply 86):
I don't get it. A stall warning means push the stick forwards. How difficult is that? Yet time after time pilots are pulling back. Its a very very basic manoevre.

Apparently not so basic to some AF & QZ pilots.

Quoting DUSdude (Reply 97):
Sorry, humble question here: with respect to the A v. B argument here regarding inconsistent control inputs, I seem to recall that the Egyptair 767 that crashed off Nantucket had a similar issue where the (presumptively suicidal) copilot was actively putting the plane into a dive while the captain who returned to the cockpit was trying to pull up. So isn't it the case that even in a Boeing the difference in control architecure doesn't in and of itself the problem of inconsistent control inputs canceling each other out? Thanks.

One difference was that despite the Ethiopian plane being a Boeing, one pilot was intentionally trying to crash it and had a head-start on the other pilots' recovery attempts. With the AF & QZ Airbus crashes we can assume that both pilots were trying to recover the plane, despite a lack of communication and mind boggling control inputs...

If AF447 and QZ8501 were Boeings, the end result might have been different if one pilot saw what the other pilot was wrongly doing with the controls and figured out what was happening sooner...

Quoting Classa64 (Reply 135):
As per the report ....

Maintenance
41. The maintenance records showed that there were 23 Rudder Travel Limiter problems starting from January 2014 to 27 December 2014.

42. The Reliability Report November 2014 recorded 4 pilot reports regarding the RTLU problem.

43. On 19 December 2014, the repetitive RTLU problem was inserted to MR2. After completing the scheduled flight, the maintenance personnel performed Auto Flight System (AFS) and the MR2 was considered closed.

44. On 21 December to 27 December 2014, the MR1 recorded 2 pilot reports on 25 December 2014 and on 27 December 2014 related to RTLU while the FDR recorded at least 9 problems


... So twice a month there was a problem and it was not looked into further !? This part baffles me, I would think as critical as the rudder and controls are that after a few times they would have started digging more into this.

Very worrying indeed.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 140):
Which one? AirAsia or AF?

5th grade comprehension.

Quoting warren84 (Reply 9):
(the PIC had had this problem on this specific aircraft before on a previous flight and returned to the gate where he observed a line engineer do the same thing to resolve the issue)

Sad to read. The same plane got him in the end. Shame on QZ maintenance...
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: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:33 pm

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 165):
"Pull down" Never heard of equally bad sounding statement. Just wow.

Don't forget we're reading a translation.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:50 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 161):

Quoting hivue (Reply 160):
I don't believe commercial aircraft can safely be operated in our RVSM RNP world manually.

Of course they can. We let pilots handfly CatIII approaches with appropriate eqipument to provide guidance.

You cannot compare flying a cat III manual with a cruise at high altitude.
The first oçne is a dynamic, changing parameter trajectory, the second is by nature straight and level : after a very few minutes, any pilot would become -nervously - tired and less and less accurate.
Even taking advantage of the stick free 1g feature on an Airbus, by experience I know I can trust myself on up to eight to ten minutes.... On a 737 ? just forget it. I know by experience.

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 164):
Absence from the reports does not mean that it wasn't a contributing factor in fact

Yes it does. This is a technical / factual report and smart legalities have nothing to do with it.The contributing factors are well listed in the report. What is not in the list is not one.

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 164):
The inertia of having done something a certain way for 30 years is not reason enough to dismiss the possibility that there may be a better way.

Your argument is the most dangerous one I've seen for ages, because under the guise of unbiased position, it is very sneakily revertinjg the proposition : How about changing it to :"THE INERTIA OF DOING THE SAME THING FOR 105 YEARS IS NOT REASON ENOUGH TO DISMISS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE MAY BE A BETTER WAY
...that way both history and the logic of the argument would have been restored.
(and BTW, we'd still be using flight controls invented here as the B planes are using a French invention by Bréguet in 1910... so it was time to see something new 75 years later... something the Europeans put on the A320).
Contrail designer
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:51 pm

In AF447 and this, as soon as the auto pilot disengaged the FO seems to have panicked and lost situational awareness. That should not happen. They should be trained to cope with this.
 
User avatar
caoimhin
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:30 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:12 am

Quoting Pihero (Reply 168):
Yes it does. This is a technical / factual report and smart legalities have nothing to do with it.The contributing factors are well listed in the report. What is not in the list is not one.

I don't agree with that. If we can say that an accident would not have occurred but for X, then X is a contributing factor. As to why it isn't identified as such in the report, I can't say. But I can say that where there is an opportunity to remove an element of confusion because that confusion will result in loss, that opportunity should be taken.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 168):
because under the guise of unbiased position

There's nothing remotely unbiased about my position. The independent sidestick design is suspect and should be scrutinised. This opinion is biased to the extent that I believed it before the creation of this particular thread.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 168):
we'd still be using flight controls invented here as the B planes are using a French invention by Bréguet in 1910... so it was time to see something new 75 years later... something the Europeans put on the A320

I applaud the innovation and ingenuity that goes into these control systems. But when "something new" can be improved, its beyond me why there would be such resistance to admitting its imperfection.

[Edited 2015-12-01 16:34:42]
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:21 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 166):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 140):
Which one? AirAsia or AF?

5th grade comprehension.

I see you missed the point of my question.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 12:41 am

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 170):
I don't agree with that.

Tough ! You are injh no position, especially as an attorney to go against this sort of report.

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 170):
There's nothing remotely unbiased about my opinion.

A least some honesty. But it dopesn't make your bias and agenda any more acceptable or repectable;

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 170):
I applaud the innovation and ingenuity that goes into these control systems.

I don't believe it for one millionth of a second.
What do you know about flight controls ?
What do you know about FBW architecture ?
What do you know about control laws ?
What do you know about failures / jammed / blocked control surfaces ?
What do you know about jammed / failed / blicked flight controls ?
What do you know about SOPs / CRM and flight operation ?
When did you fly an Airbus last ?
When you have completed the above questions, we could have a meaningful argument.
Until then, you're just one of the B fanboys, the ones who've never flown an Airbus. Funny that on this site, very very few guys who've done so have anything against the 'Bus.

Isn't that funny ?
Contrail designer
 
User avatar
caoimhin
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:30 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:09 am

Quoting Pihero (Reply 172):

I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but I don't think that fact means I'm lying when i say that I applaud someone who is. As to this issue, although not an engineer, I still see things through the lens of trying to manage and minimise risk.

I am not the first to say that an independent sidestick creates an environment where miscommunication can occur. When enough people, including some who do fly that type of aircraft, raise the issue, it's persuasive. It isn't an indictment of Airbus as a company in any way. Any modifiable condition that has contributed in any way to an incident, on ANY type of aircraft, should be modified so it will not contribute to future incidents. This isn't a shameful position to take.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:25 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 171):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 166):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 140):
Which one? AirAsia or AF?

5th grade comprehension.

I see you missed the point of my question.

No.

I got the point of your half-witted question but I see that you missed the point of my reply, which does not surprise me...
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
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:31 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 174):
I got the point of your half-witted question but I see that you missed the point of my reply, which does not surprise me...

Oh brother.  

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
Classa64
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:40 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:33 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 166):
Very worrying indeed.

Does Air Asia do there own maint. or do they hire to do it?

I believe this whole chain of events started with the ignorance of not taking care of the RTLU problem in the first place, as someone said farther up Ctrl/Alt/Delete ( for lack of a better term) and maybe it will go away, 23 Times!!

As per the report;

48.
Evaluation of the maintenance data showed that the maintenance action
following the RTLU problems were mostly by resetting computer by either
resetting the FAC push button and followed by AFS test or resetting the
associated CBs




There are a lot of other factors in the end result but it started with the RTLU problem and that's what needs to be dealt with first as I see it. And in the report under contributing factors was;

49.
The examination of the RTLU found electronic module shown the evidence of cracking of solder on both channel A and channel B.
The crack could generate loss of electrical continuity and led to RTLU failure.

May they all RIP
"Freedom is the miles i'm rolling on"
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:42 am

Every accident can be blamed on the people. The possibilities range from deliberate act to failures in concept or design. It is important in every accident to look at other contributing factors, and even if not contributing, to look for ways, to modify hardware, software, procedures etc to help save pax and crew, then they should be looked at and implemented, if practicable.


While it may be that their was crew failure, and the situation was recoverable, they didn't.
Isn't it Airbus philosophy, and a characteristic of the 320 that it has these laws to protect the aircraft from incorrect inputs and procedures from the pilots, but Airbus decided in the case of the side sticks. to not tie there movements together.
They must have had a reason, and it might be a very good one, but it is not obvious to me. So does anyone know what that reason or reasons were? Just saying it is not necessary if the pilots follow procedure, is not a good enough reason imo.
It is a perfectly reasonable question, considering what went on in the cockpit.


It is not a matter of the 320 being "unsafe" it is a matter of making it safer. It is not about A v B, this time it was A and more than pilot performance needs to be considered.

Ruscoe
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:53 am

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 177):
but Airbus decided in the case of the side sticks. to not tie there movements together.
They must have had a reason, and it might be a very good one, but it is not obvious to me. So does anyone know what that reason or reasons were?

I too would like to know the Airbus reason for this. Not the A fanboy reason that sometimes appears on a.net, but the actual Airbus reason...
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
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:55 am

Has any mentioned the lack of CRM in this accident, or is it just American flags blaming sidesticks?
Q300/ATR72-600/737-200/-300/-400/-700/-800/A320/767-200/-300/757-200/777-300ER/
747-200/-300/-400/ER/A340-300/A380-800/MD-83/-88/CRJ-700/-900
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3359
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:56 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 141):
Yeah, I'm not advocating changing it now. I'm just trying to reach an understanding of why they did it this way in the first place.

Added complexity to the system that was not needed, extra cost of cetifying and maintaining the added features. This could also be another problem that could be a grounding item if so equipped.

Quoting MMO (Reply 142):
IIRC, in the supplemental procedures, there is a matrix of C/Bs that can be pulled and reset if you really have to have the affected system restored. That's not one of them. The days of troubleshooting is long over for pilots.

  

There are some circuit breakers that are harmless to pull on the ground, but have a effect that might not be wanted in air mode.

The Air Asia pilot obviously did not know what would happen if he pulled and reset that circuit breaker in flight. added complications to the flight.
You are here.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:16 am

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 179):
Has any mentioned the lack of CRM in this accident, or is it just American flags blaming sidesticks?

How about:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 177):
So does anyone know what that reason or reasons were?

Australia flag

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 178):
I too would like to know the Airbus reason for this.

Australia flag

Not to mention the "American flags" that absolve the aircraft and blame the CRM specifically.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
wingman
Posts: 3824
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:19 am

Quoting coolian2 (Reply 179):
Has any mentioned the lack of CRM in this accident, or is it just American flags blaming sidesticks?

About every 10th post, or one for every point of 10 out of 10 for the inanity of your "American is idiot" post.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9615
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:48 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 178):
I too would like to know the Airbus reason for this. Not the A fanboy reason that sometimes appears on a.net, but the actual Airbus reason...

I get the question but I would respond by asking why, and why the answer has any relevance.
Even if they said we made a mistake or it was an oversight, then what, personally I do not see Airbus making any change unless and until some authority suggest or mandate a change, and since no accident report has ever listed them as a cause, the response will be like those seen in all accident threads.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 168):
This is a technical / factual report and smart legalities have nothing to do with it.The contributing factors are well listed in the report. What is not in the list is not one.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:52 am

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 173):

I am not the first to say that an independent sidestick creates an environment where miscommunication can occur. When enough people, including some who do fly that type of aircraft, raise the issue, it's persuasive. It isn't an indictment of Airbus as a company in any way. Any modifiable condition that has contributed in any way to an incident, on ANY type of aircraft, should be modified so it will not contribute to future incidents. This isn't a shameful position to take.

A linked control column did not stop Ethiopian 409 from being crashed. The pilot fighting the controls and preventing the autopilot from being engaged may have made the difference with a side stick. We will never know. Side stick vs column and wheel is a debate with no perfect answer. Back driven controls and tactile feedback and interconnects is a debate as well with no real answer. In an Airbus you need to focus on the instruments to tell you what is going on without the tactile feedback. On Boeing you will have back driven controls with the autopilot and cross connected controls from the other pilot. Both designs work.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2487
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:57 am

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 173):
I am not the first to say that an independent sidestick creates an environment where miscommunication can occur.

Birgenair 301 and Korean Air Cargo 8509 indicate that if the flight crew are sufficiently confused or out of sync/not communicating, it doesn't make an ounce of difference what the input is, because they're confused and not communicating, and that means an individual pilot making a mistake mightnot realise it until it's too late. The Airbus system may have contributed, but 'an environment where miscommunication can occur is an aircraft problem, not an Airbus problem.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:09 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 178):
I too would like to know the Airbus reason for this. Not the A fanboy reason that sometimes appears on a.net, but the actual Airbus reason...

For the avoidance of doubt, what is the "fanboy reason"?
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:38 am

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 128):
Not tracking or verifying history, but as above, if a circuit breaker reset removes the fault, it is okay to go, according to Airbus documentation.

In this case it was not Ok according to the end result.

Having 24 faults on a component is beyond reasonable, if my car had to go 24 times to fix anything I would punch the mechanic, and I am not a violent person but I guess after like 15 times I would lose it, in this case it was probably the first link on a chain of events that led to the crash.

Somehow we got to the old same sidestick is the invention of the devil, and should be changed/banned/redesigned. There are millions of flights of airbus products with sidesticks and they are not dropping off the sky like rain....so I guess statistically is not even significant.

But heck fire away, the sidestick is THE Invention of the DEVIL.

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 4:09 am

Quoting loalq (Reply 67):
I have never ever seen anything being reported and probably somehow improperly dealt with 23 times in any type of equipment, that's really excessive and brings questions about AirAsia's maintenance standards.
Quoting Classa64 (Reply 176):
I believe this whole chain of events started with the ignorance of not taking care of the RTLU problem in the first place, as someone said farther up Ctrl/Alt/Delete ( for lack of a better term) and maybe it will go away, 23 Times!!

The question is, who is the one "further up?"

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 73):
Like a Boeing? If one pilot is pushing and the other pulling, you get the same result - at least until the link breaks.

The worrying thing to me is that unwillingness or lack of awareness to use the sidestick priority button on the Airbus FBW...

Quoting pvjin (Reply 77):
It's rather possible these pilots didn't even receive any extra/special training after the AF447 case, it's Indonesia after all.

I did have a conversation with Indonesia Air Asia on this subject between 2009 and 2011... they devised training to cover aspects that caused AF447... however, if I remember correctly, this was overidden "from outside the company"... Sad...

The issue remains, recognition of a stall at high altitude... or perhaps Airbus needs to have a cockpit foghorn as a stall warning (activates when AOA is approaching the critical AOA, and the radio altimeter knows you're nowhere near the ground), and tells pilots to just get the friggin' nose down when the foghorn blows...

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 89):
Again since it was intermittent and likely not happening on the ground they could get away with this. Most regulatory authorities require airlines to have a chronic or repetitive defect list to catch problems like this. Air Asia may or may not have been addressing this. I would hope they get better maintenance oversight because this could easily happen again.

Not sure if this was in the report, but early on in the day, Indonesia Air Asia engineers asked "higher ups outside the company"... only to be told, "reproduce the fault on the ground, if not, just follow the TSM"... Greater autonomy on maintenance for Indonesia Air Asia within the Air Asia group should be made. Same with flight ops... (see above)

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 119):
If the crew don't establish a clear chain of command, thats a bad failure on their part. But they can be helped resolve this mistake before it becomes a fatal one by a more tacit control system.

Please read:

Quoting awthompson (Reply 101):
Pulkovo flight 612 Tupolev Tu-154
Colgan Air flight 3407 Dash-8-400Q
West Caribbean Airlines flight 708 MD82
Air France flight 447 Airbus A332
Air Asia flight 8501 Airbus A320

These account for 770 fatalities.

There are likely many more in the archives if I could remember them.

The Pulkovo Tu-154 and the West Caribbean Airlines MD82 accidents prove that the phenomenon under discussion is not exclusive to side stick controlled aircraft.

Let's not forget NWA6251 or something of that number...

Quoting MMO (Reply 112):
For someone who isn't a pilot, you sure do think you know an awful lot. That's dangerous!

Not being a pilot and knowing a lot is NOT dangerous. But being a pilot and knowing a lot, with that kind of attitude is...

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 136):
Airbus and Boeing should put an acelerometer and a gps interlinked that checks the parameters of pitch, speed and altitude to assess if a stall or dangerous condition is going on.

Or simply put in an AoA gauge... *shock! Horror!*

Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 149):
In this instance, if the pilot had released the stick, the aircraft would likely have recovered itself from stall.

Really? How so? Please enlighten us with your knowledge  
Quoting MMO (Reply 159):
I think you are the one who is confused. A deep stall involves a T tail aircraft. In a conventional aircraft, like the 320, the stall will develop into a fully developed stall. NOT A DEEP STALL.

For an engineer to say deep stall, is enough for me, thanks. (Goes to laughing chamber)...

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 185):
Birgenair 301 and Korean Air Cargo 8509 indicate that if the flight crew are sufficiently confused or out of sync/not communicating, it doesn't make an ounce of difference what the input is, because they're confused and not communicating, and that means an individual pilot making a mistake mightnot realise it until it's too late. The Airbus system may have contributed, but 'an environment where miscommunication can occur is an aircraft problem, not an Airbus problem.

This is a problem that the industry has failed to address so far, with or without attempts to do so, the result is clear... we haven't solved it.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 4:24 am

Quoting hivue (Reply 163):
Is it "legal" for a pilot a commercial airliner to do a leg from, say, DFW to MCO at FL 380 flying the airplane all the way by hand? If so, maybe periodically requiring that would be a way to give pilots more experience handling airplanes at altitude.

It is, sort of. It's legal to do it if the autopilot is functional (but not engaged), not legal if the autopilot is inoperative. That's an RVSM requirement, so you could go up above RVSM airspace and handfly all the way. But as Pihero said, it will eventually get tiring, and doing it for short periods of time is all you really need to remember what it's like to fly by hand. Once I did about an hour of cruise at a time by hand - I honestly don't think it did me any more good than five minutes would have.

Even just handflying in level flight at an intermediate level-off helps - that's what I normally do these days. A few minutes of that and then I can put the autopilot on and let it do the monotonous stuff. It doesn't take much to maintain proficiency. But it does take a willingness to not put the autopilot on at 1000' and take it off at 200' on the way back down again.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 168):
You cannot compare flying a cat III manual with a cruise at high altitude.

Obviously the autopilot is going to be better at maintaining altitude for an extended period of time, and that's one thing it's good to use it for. My point was really more about how more advanced navigation capabilities do not necessarily mean that autopilot use will have to decrease - humans are just as capable of navigating the airplane precisely as a computer is if given appropriate tools to do so.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
Classa64
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:40 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 4:30 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 188):
The question is, who is the one "further up?"
Quoting lutfi (Reply 43):
Hmm. Sounds like they were doing the equivalent of ctrl alt del (pulling the CBs) to reset, rather than fixing the damn part...

Sorry I was referring to this posters comment in my reply, should have quoted them.


Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 187):
Having 24 faults on a component is beyond reasonable, if my car had to go 24 times to fix anything I would punch the mechanic, and I am not a violent person but I guess after like 15 times I would lose it, in this case it was probably the first link on a chain of events that led to the crash.

As a guy who gets those lights to go out its more like 3 times   and yes first link.

C
"Freedom is the miles i'm rolling on"
 
JHwk
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:11 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:00 am

Quoting PanAm1971 (Reply 145):

I know the mantra here is aviate, navigate, communicate... but the reality is most people are prone to panic. It is much better to start with stop-think-act before trying to "fix" a problem with muscle memory and get yourself into a real panic.

For things that are routine, it is as simple as... oops, I am stalling the plane. I should stop doing that.

Other things get more complicated, and it might be worth taking one or two seconds if you can't get the plane flying level instinctively.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:08 am

"Not sure if this was in the report, but early on in the day, Indonesia Air Asia engineers asked "higher ups outside the company"... only to be told, "reproduce the fault on the ground, if not, just follow the TSM"... Greater autonomy on maintenance for Indonesia Air Asia within the Air Asia group should be made. Same with flight ops... (see above)"

Who would be an authority from outside the company who could make this call? The only one that I can think of is Airbus itself.

The hardest problems to debug are the intermittent ones. However, in this case, it appears the "higher ups" are effectively calling for the plane to be grounded till the problem can be replicated. Is that the case?

[Edited 2015-12-01 21:10:21]
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:12 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 178):
I too would like to know the Airbus reason for this. Not the A fanboy reason that sometimes appears on a.net, but the actual Airbus reason...

An earlier reply said it was the pilots who tested the various possible configurations.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:32 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 188):
Or simply put in an AoA gauge... *shock! Horror!*

I don't think this would have helped. It took the pilot 9 seconds to respond to the auto pilot drop out. By then the plane was already something like 60 degrees off level flight. It was daytime and the weather was fine. He was in a blind panic with no way of getting out of it himself. The only way out was for the captain to take control decisively. As I already asked, could this even involve physical force?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9085
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 5:55 am

Quoting hivue (Reply 134):
You should read the report:

"Note: In the event of simultaneous input on both sidesticks (2° deflection off the neutral position in any direction) the two green SIDE STICK PRIORITY lights on the glare shield come on and “DUAL INPUT” voice message is activated."

That is a solution that is there to stop different inputs, but still it means that the pilot not flying has no idea how the other is pressing the stick. Imho it is very easy to have the stick move synchronous with small electric motors providing the movement just like force feedback controllers on game consoles.

With the big growth of air travel and so many new airlines exploding in size in areas with not much of a safety culture, I think every bit helps. Especially if the bit is so easy to implement.
 
CO953
Posts: 520
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:28 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 78):
Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 3):
Pilot flying maintains full back stick to end of recording.

Wow.

Where have we seen that before?

Quoting ahmetdouas (Reply 6):
I believe that the sticks being independent of each other in the Airbus unlike the Boeing is dangerous and has contributed to AF 447 and this accident.

Normally, I'd say that it's a feature of the plane that is well known, and like other systems av or non-av, thus should be trained. But it is troublesome to hear full back stick in a stall all the way to the sea on an Airbus again. In both cases, a pilot made a mistake (it happens!) that the other pilot was not able to see and consequently fix.

Let me ask at it this way: what is the design reason to not have the two sidesticks tied to each other?

Being a non-pilot, I know my technical opinion comes last.

Being an avid aviation reader for many years, I at least as a logical observer feel I can draw a broad inductive opinion from reading about this latest iteration of this type of accident which seems to be becoming a repeated factor in Airbus incidents:

To use a financial term applied to large banks whose policies have too much impact upon the markets to significantly revamp:

TBTF = "Too Big To Fail."

I'm afraid I take the cynical, realist view of corporate macro-behavior: At this point, Airbus, as a profitable corporation, would/can never, ever admit a flaw with the independent sidestick design. Any such admission would put them on the hook for too many deaths. Just because they are an aviation corporation, I have no more confidence that Airbus would exhibit any more saintliness than an automobile manufacturer, a la Ford Pinto.

Blame the pilots all you want, but it's time for an independent, clear-eyed assessment of whether the sidestick system adds unacceptable ambiguity to the pilot-aircraft interface in a flight-envelope emergency. The "hidden action" trait of independent sidesticks seems, in several incidents now, a detriment/delay to coordinated action by pilots. It requires of the PNF additional monitoring effort during an emergency, relying on proactive verbal questioning instead of upon reactive physical feedback. The system of timed input-lockouts/overrides seems sort of insane, when one backs way off on it - seems like a real "kludge" which interferes with instantaneous input by the other pilot, even if such instantaneous input were to consequently produce pilot-input conflict and immediate addressing of such conflict.

Again, I've never flown a Boeing or Airbus, but based upon my reading there seems to be a common emergent trait here that doesn't take a pilot to recognize.
 
mmo
Posts: 1851
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 7:16 am

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 188):
Quoting MMO (Reply 159):
I think you are the one who is confused. A deep stall involves a T tail aircraft. In a conventional aircraft, like the 320, the stall will develop into a fully developed stall. NOT A DEEP STALL.

For an engineer to say deep stall, is enough for me, thanks. (Goes to laughing chamber)...

Having a B.S in Aero myself, the term is factually incorrect. It should referred to as a "fully developed stall", not a deep stall. The deep stall is ONLY associated with T tail aircraft.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 9:08 am

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 194):
I don't think this would have helped.

You missed the sarcasm. If pilots refuse to accept that they have stalled despite the stall warning, yes, the AOA gauge wouldn't have helped. (Sarcasm comes through the '*shock! horror!*' and those who followed the discussion post final report of the AF447 accident would know what I mean)  
Quoting MMO (Reply 197):
Having a B.S in Aero myself, the term is factually incorrect. It should referred to as a "fully developed stall", not a deep stall. The deep stall is ONLY associated with T tail aircraft.

I know, I'm waiting for you to join us at the laughing chamber... The engineer I was referring to was not you...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2547
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Air Asia Crash: Final Report Released - Part 1

Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:03 am

Quoting hivue (Reply 155):
Say what?

Sorry, outer wing on the dropped wing side.

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