Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
BreninTW
Topic Author
Posts: 1701
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:31 pm

AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:43 am

Hi everyone,

Last night I read the BBC's report on the AirAsia crash, in which it is stated:

Quote:
Investigators said the plane ascended sharply before dropping, rising from 32,000ft (9,750m) to 37,400ft within 30 seconds

That's a 10,800 fpm climb rate. Is the A320 even capable of that sort of climb rate? In earlier reports a climb rate of ~6,000 fpm was claimed, with the statement that not even fighter jets climb at that rate.

Or does this indicated climb rate instead point to a different problem?

Source.

EDIT: Grammar/syntax correction.

[Edited 2015-01-29 18:00:41]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14987
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:52 am

Yes, suggests a pitch increase of around 13 degrees.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12577
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:19 pm

Quoting BreninTW (Thread starter):
~6,000 fpm was claimed, with the statement that not even fighter jets climb at that rate.

Fighter jets can easily surpass 6,000 fpm, especially using zoom climbs (accelerating then using kinetic energy to increase your climb rate).

Quoting zeke (Reply 1):
Yes, suggests a pitch increase of around 13 degrees.

I'd imagine it wouldn't be able to maintain a 10,800 fpm climb at 30,000+ feet, right? Ought to slow down and stall pretty quickly.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
mmo
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:24 pm

Quoting BreninTW (Thread starter):
Is the A320 even capable of that sort of climb rate?

You could get that rate of climb for about one second. Then the results are exactly what the Air Asia flight demonstrated. In reality, at the altitude the flight was operating at, you might see about 1300fpm rate of climb as a sustainable climb rate. As you go higher, the rate of climb will decrease, assuming a constant MN climb.

Quoting zeke (Reply 1):
Yes, suggests a pitch increase of around 13 degrees.

Actually, a 13.78 degree pitch change (assuming .78M cruise)

[Edited 2015-01-30 14:20:41]
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6266
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:29 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 2):
I'd imagine it wouldn't be able to maintain a 10,800 fpm climb at 30,000+ feet, right? Ought to slow down and stall pretty quickly.

Which is what happened - both with this flight and AF447.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
LU9092
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:09 am

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:05 am

The statement that fighter jets would struggle to maintain that rate of climb is bogus. The F-22, for instance, can climb at least 50,000 fpm - the precise number varied with the sources I found, but all were 55,000 fpm or higher. An F/A-18E can do 48,000 fpm.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3409
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:13 am

Quoting BreninTW (Thread starter):
That's a 10,800 fpm climb rate. Is the A320 even capable of that sort of climb rate? In earlier reports a climb rate of ~6,000 fpm was claimed, with the statement that not even fighter jets climb at that rate.

Well,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uiv6UvYnf3s
You are here.
 
Dehowie
Posts: 1072
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Sat Jan 31, 2015 6:26 am

The highest ROC i have seen on the A-320 at high level was around 7000'/minute around the 30000' mark.
However that was transitioning into a decent Jetstream and in that scenario you must disengage the A-320's AP to enable the aircraft to pitch down quickly enough to preserve your speed.
The negative G limit on the Airbus family is very low meaning pitch downs are very very slow.
However you do not get strong jetstreams around that part of Asia so any high ROC would not be related to that.
2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4902
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:07 pm

It apperars according to CNBC that the crew lost the Flight augmentation Computers and pulled the Breakers VU49 B3,B4
and the 121 panel M18 and M19 to depower the FACs, This put the airplane into Direct Law and caused the F/O to lose control of the airplane as there is NO flight envelope protections as the FACS do ALL the Flight Envelope calculations which includes
Auto-thrust and Auto-pilot. No wonder why they crashed. What a REALLY BAD MOVE!! We can onlt reset those Breakers ON the Ground in Flight Phase 1 with the enmgines SHUT DOWN !! Pulling those Breakers in flight ?? Shakey at Best and Fatal at worst. they should have turned that Crate around and went back HOME!! That's Not something you do in a thunderstorm..
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14987
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:23 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 8):

No, the pilots were not out of their seat. You are also wrong on airbus flight control laws and what happens with the loss of both FACs. They still have load factor, pitch attitude, and low speed stability protections

What you have posted is not only highly inaccurate, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which is "AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question".

This is tech ops, where we have factual discussions.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mmo
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:01 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 8):
Reply 8,

I am not sure where you are getting your information from, but as Zeke said, it's all wrong!

The FAC controls rudder, rudder trim and yaw damper inputs. It computes data for the flight envelope and speed functions. It also provides low energy warning and wind shear warning. With a FAC 1+2 failure, the aircraft will go to Altn Law until landing gear extension at which time it will go to Direct Law.

Loss of both FACs is not a big deal at all. If the crew can't fly without auto pilot and auto throttle then there are much bigger issues that have to be addressed.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4902
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:08 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 9):

Dude!! you have NO Idea what you're talking about!! I DO THIS FOR A LIVING!!
For the Captain to even Pull the M18 and M19 breakers he HAD to get out of the seat.
You can't do it either!! Why are you making Excuses?? Do you even KNOW what "flight phase 1" is??
It's the period between electrical power ip and first engine Start!! Had he cycled the fac switches on the overhead panels he might STILL have had some protections But he de-powered the FACS !! So I guess CNBC is Lieing TOO?!?
Where do yiu think I got the Story??
http://cnb.cx/1tIvOLC
Read and Learn !!! And tell me what airline YOu work for because if YOU'RE their Technical Expert??
 
mmo
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:56 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 8):
This put the airplane into Direct Law and caused the F/O to lose control of the airplane as there is NO flight envelope protections as the FACS do ALL the Flight Envelope calculations which includes
Auto-thrust and Auto-pilot. No wonder why they crashed.

If the C/Bs were pulled or not isn't the issue. The loss of FAC 1/2 should not have resulted in the loss of control, TRW or not! Your statement about going into Direct Law is just wrong. The a/c will not go into direct law until the landing gear is extended.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 11):
Dude!! you have NO Idea what you're talking about!! I DO THIS FOR A LIVING!!

If you do this for a living and you are putting out such wrong information, I don't know what to say. I have a very good friend of mine who is the VP Flight Ops at your company.....I just might pass this along to him and see if he gets a laugh out of it!!!!
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4902
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Sun Feb 01, 2015 4:19 pm

Did you see the CNBC report?? Look at it then Tell me what's up!! Is he an airbus pilot? If BNOt then tell him to look at the QRH Page 40.2 aqbout the loss of BOTH FACS. Matter of fact? Tell him to come to the TOMC Airbus desk with his concerns and I'll tell him Myself, I'll be here all WEEK!! On Day Shift no Less!! 27th floor Willis Tower!!
you picked the WRONG person to challeng on this, slick!
You obviously didn't read the article OR?? You're making some sort of Excuse for BAD airmanship!!
There's no WAY that captain could have gotten NOT gotten out of his seat and PULLED the breakers. Too many articles already said He did and this article said what he did was completely risky. I would NEVER have told ANY crew to pull the FAC Breakers in flight. Because once you reset them? The FAC will NOT resume calculations for the EFCS.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14987
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:24 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 11):
Dude!! you have NO Idea what you're talking about!! I DO THIS FOR A LIVING!!

For those of us that actually do, and have read this post and others you have made in the past have genuine cause for concern. I have had a double FAC fault in flight, not a big deal.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 11):
For the Captain to even Pull the M18 and M19 breakers he HAD to get out of the seat.
You can't do it either!! Why are you making Excuses??

Right, I have been polite.

For the last time, the pilots did not leave the seats. Two ways to turn the FACs off, the only way permitted by the pilots is with the push buttons, which is what the investigators are saying. They followed ECAM, FACs were turned off using the push buttons. No circuit breakers were pulled, no leaving their seats.

The investigations have come and said that news channels and the associated slime that are beating this up saying they left their seat are not being factual (i.e. lying) about what happened.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 11):
Do you even KNOW what "flight phase 1" is??

That is the phase before the first engine is started, at zero airspeed, and zero g, where a lazy mechanics armed with a pen can sign off faults by not following the AMM by pulling a breaker and making a fault disappear.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 13):
If BNOt then tell him to look at the QRH Page 40.2 aqbout the loss of BOTH FACS

No 40.2 in the QRH, there is a 4.02. landing distance without auto-brake config 3. The FAC single or double failure is not a QRH procedure, it is ECAM. It is alternate law, not direct (until gear down).
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mandala499
Posts: 6593
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:30 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 11):
For the Captain to even Pull the M18 and M19 breakers he HAD to get out of the seat.

The head investigator yesterday stated none of the pilots left their seats.

Bloomberg pulled this rabbit out of the hat, Reuters fed it... I know one of the journos writing the Reuters article, sent her the investigator's comments, she went "oh ****", and we had a long discussion on Bloomberg may have misunderstood the leak of switching the FACs off to removing power from the FAC circuit... the source likely never said the captain left his seat.

The procedure for the pilot faced with dual FAC faults is to reset each FACs, if fault persists, leave it off. No need to get out of your seat to the circuit breakers.

And... in case you don't believe mmo, zeke, or me... here's the ECAM procedure (from an old FCOM3)


Read and learn that the media can make mistakes... especially on language issues discussing technical matters. I know because they call me to ask what the heck do the technical stuff mean... yes, even Bloomberg, Reuters, AFP, Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 11):
And tell me what airline YOu work for because if YOU'RE their Technical Expert??

Please enlighten us which airline you work for then... oh... hang on... let me ask MMo... :p

[Edited 2015-02-01 09:35:03]
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
mmo
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:38 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 13):
Did you see the CNBC report?? Look at it then Tell me what's up!! Is he an airbus pilot?

Well, slick....if you are referring to the person in the video, no he is not a pilot. He is a journalist for Flightglobal. So, slick unless there is another video/article you are referring to, you, sir are wrong!

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 13):
You obviously didn't read the article OR?? You're making some sort of Excuse for BAD airmanship!!

I did real the CNBC article and to be honest, it doesn't say a lot. I quoted you what was in the FCOMs I have and in the QRH I have. Unless, Airbus has redesigned the system architecture loss of both FACs is not a big deal. Again, I am not taking about the C/Bs being pulled or not. Until, I see the actual report, CNBC, CNN and yourself can state whatever you want but it's pure guess work as to the status of the C/Bs.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 13):
There's no WAY that captain could have gotten NOT gotten out of his seat and PULLED the breakers. Too many articles already said He did and this article said what he did was completely risky. I would NEVER have told ANY crew to pull the FAC Breakers in flight. Because once you reset them?

Again, slick, I think you might want to go back and re-read my posts. You are arguing about something I have not addressed and will not address until I see the final accident report. But your lack of systems knowledge is appalling. I suggest you have a look at FCOM 3.02.22. What I wrote previously is exactly what you lose. You don't get Direct Law, in spite of what you write until you extend the gear. The world does not end wit the failure of 2 FACs.

As I wrote above, I am NOT addressing the allegations of C/Bs being pulled. I am challenging you on your dramatic lack of systems knowledge.

[Edited 2015-02-01 10:07:18]
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14987
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:45 pm

Quoting mmo (Reply 16):
He is a journalist for Flightglobal. So, slick unless there is another video/article you are referring to, you, sir are wrong!

The interview is also not recent, just look at the captions, it was made before the CVR/DFDR was recovered (looking for pings etc). He made no reference to the pilot leaving the seats or pulling breakers. I found it very balanced, unlike the printed text in that link.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
wingscrubber
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 1:38 am

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:36 pm

Personally I wonder if this was another case of flying full back stick in alternate law like AF447. I personally disagree with full back stick flight protection philosophy precisely because of the risk encountered when the pilot, who is used to envelope protection, suddenly loses it upon entering altnate/direct law but continues to fly full back stick in the psychological mindset that he cannot induce stall, potentially leading directly to an accident. It's still too soon to draw conclusions I know but that's my two cents.

http://www.airbus.com/support/public...tx_maglisting_pi1%5BdocID%5D=17429
Resident TechOps Troll
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3409
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: AirAsia Crash: Climb Rate Question

Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:43 pm

Quoting BreninTW (Thread starter):
That's a 10,800 fpm climb rate. Is the A320 even capable of that sort of climb rate? In earlier reports a climb rate of ~6,000 fpm was claimed, with the statement that not even fighter jets climb at that rate.

The report of fighters not being able to climb at that rate shows a ignorance of aircraft performance, commercial or military. Used to watch F-15 do max gate climbs all the time at USAF AFBs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USYW2hNCnpg

Quoting BreninTW (Thread starter):
Or does this indicated climb rate instead point to a different problem?

Does indicate something was wrong with that kind of climb rate at that altitude, unless the pitots were clogged and giving erroneous readings, have to see what the investigation reveals.

"Pitot tube drain blocked first; then ram air blocked; static port remains unobstructed.

Effect: If the Pitot tube drain gets blocked, initially there is little difference until the ram air port gets blocked as well. At that moment pressure gets trapped inside the Pitot tube ram air chamber. If the aircraft remains at the same altitude where the two blockages occurred the airspeed indicator will remain at the same airspeed indication regardless of any actual changes in the aircraft's airspeed. If the aircraft descends that airspeed indication will decrease regardless of the aircraft's airspeed. If the aircraft climbs the airspeed indication will increase regardless of the aircraft's airspeed. Basically the airspeed will have an altimeter like behavior, increasing and decreasing with altitude. Of the blockage scenarios this one can be one of the most dangerous. The pilot is used to the airspeed increasing if he/she pushes the yoke forward and decreasing if he/she pushes back on the yoke. The exact opposite happens in this scenario. Â The pilot pushes back on the yoke and because the altitude will increase momentarily, the airspeed will show an increasingly higher indication. The pilot may continue to pull back on the yoke and decrease power thinking that the indicated airspeed will decrease, not realizing that the aircraft is slowing and possibly reaching its stall speed. In the opposite direction, if the pilot pushes the yoke forward the aircraft will start to descend and because of this the airspeed indication will decrease due to the blockages, the pilot then may apply more forward pressure on the yoke and perhaps add more power causing the aircraft to go faster and overspeed or get out of control into the ground. This is particularly hazardous when there are no outside references in IFR. If you notice that the air speed decreases when the nose of the aircraft goes down and increases when the nose goes up this failure scenario should be considered."
You are here.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ChairmanRobbo and 30 guests

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