AirAsia Flight QZ8501 Missing

[poteroo]

What possessed them to do this, and why they then stalled it, and why they failed to recover from the stall, is still a bit of a mystery.

What backup,(completely independent), attitude presentation is available with Airbus? Surely one exists - which would allow even the least experienced F/O to hand fly the aircraft out of an extremely steep climb, or even a fully stalled condition? Would an instrument as simple and cheap as a Dynon D1 or D2 - which is run on its own power and incorporates an ADHRS compass and a GPS - be adequate? Curious. happy days,

 

 

[dutchroll]

A fully independent "ISIS" (integrated standby instrument system) is located on the left-side centre instrument panel. It's a little bigger than a 3 1/8 instrument. It looks to me like they had full instrumentation available anyway. There's nothing so far to indicate any instrument or air data failure, which makes it even more perplexing as to why they stalled it and why they didn't recover. I'm strongly suspecting the "startle factor" with a mish-mash of misunderstanding what the systems were telling them, weather/turbulence distractions, distractions with the rudder/yaw issue (whatever that actually was) and simple failure (like AF447) to actually recognise they were in a stall or failure to apply the correct recovery actions.

 

And you don't ever reset more than one Airbus flight control computer in the air at a time. There's a big warning against it in the books. It seems to me that they must have done this for it to get into Alternate Law and lose the stall protection.

 

 

 

[Bennyboy320]

My opinion only but "I love the mini bus & have total faith in it," being an air test pilot in my company I get to see everything from hi speed to low speed protections, engine shutdowns & relights in flight & depresurization & over pressurizing the cabin etc, until the Air France accident we even turned off both FAC's & were required to check Vsw (aural stall warning) in both alternate & direct law, yes the Airbus is very computerized & you have to know what you are doing, but at the end of the day its still just an a/c.

 

Waiting for the FDR info to be released.

 

 

[dutchroll]

That's all well and good (though it didn't help them on GXL888T out of Perpignan) however being prepared and well briefed on a test flight in a canned setup (I used to do post maintenance test flights involving fully developed stalls on large transport aircraft in my previous life) I think is a bit different to the situation facing line pilots who might have varying attention/fatigue levels, competencies, training, company pressures, and inflight distractions they're dealing with all simultaneously.

 

I mean, the A330 is a good aircraft too in most respects. But when you have an OEB just out a few weeks ago on a jet which has been in service for > 20 years with memory items requiring you to force it into an alternate flight control regime by deliberately crippling the triple redundancy of its air data systems in the event that it gives an uncommanded pitch up or pitch down which cannot be overridden by either pilot......

 

Well I think they (Airbus) need to sit down and have a serious think about the man-machine interface and/or training, which is mostly driven by them. :)

 

 

[poteroo]

Well I think they (Airbus) need to sit down and have a serious think about the man-machine interface and/or training, which is mostly driven by them. :)

There's been a lot of speculation about pilots needing more fundamental power x attitude recurrent training. Is this possible on existing Airbus simulators? happy days,

 

 

[Bennyboy320]

Yes, unreliable airspeed very easy to practice in the sim, at the end of a session if time available I usually give the crews a quick practice, if you follow the memory items very survivable, power plus attitude works. As for the German crew that crashed the A320 in NZ livery, they were not air test qualified, had they done the correct AOA check they would not of attempted the maneuver, also they conducted the test at 3000ft AAL rushing it prior to an approach. Flying can be very unforgiving to mistakes.

 

 

[dutchroll]

There's been a lot of speculation about pilots needing more fundamental power x attitude recurrent training. Is this possible on existing Airbus simulators? happy days,

Yes it's possible as Benny said, but until recently our sim sessions were quite ridiculously packed with CASA matrix assessment items giving little opportunity for "training", as opposed to box-ticking assessment items one after the other. There seems to have been a shift very recently and the "training" component is increasing with the box-ticking reducing. This at least is a healthy training direction to be heading, but I can't speak for other airlines.

The Airbus "Unreliable Speed" procedure does give some basic attitude vs power practice, however I'd suggest the Airbus stalling accidents in recent times have much more complex roots than simply attitude v power techniques, and Airbus themselves design the system interfaces and drive much of the training so they have to take some blame here. Flight path awareness and recovery techniques have, I believe, suffered over the years - especially when it comes to high altitude stalling. Couple that with lack of systems understanding and some interface design issues and, well you see the result.

 

What do I think of the Bus after 14 years on Boeings? Well, I really love the Airbus fold out tray-table.

 

Seriously though, it's not "bad". It's just "different". Yeah it still ultimately flies like a plane, but I really do understand the old Airbus pilot joke:

 

Inexperienced Airbus pilot: "What the **** is it doing now?"

 

Experienced Airbus pilot: "Yeah sometimes it does that."

 

 

[Rotorwork]

From ABC News

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-03/airasia-flight-qz8501-search-crews-find-seven-victims/6064548

 

Indonesian divers have found another seven victims of the AirAsia plane crash, taking to 84 the number of bodies retrieved since the accident in late December.

 

Two bodies were found inside the fuselage of the plane on Monday, while another four were located near the wreckage on the bottom of the Java Sea, AirAsia said in a statement.

 

Another body was located on Sunday as Indonesia's national search and rescue agency BASARNAS resumed operations.

 

Divers had taken a two-day break after searching at sea for weeks in poor weather conditions.

 

"To date, BASARNAS has confirmed to have recovered a total of 84 remains of which 64 remains have been identified by [the Disaster Victim Identification Police Department Republic of Indonesia], 13 remains are still being identified and seven remains have yet to arrive at Bhayangkara Hospital, Surabaya," the statement said.

 

The mission is continuing to search for the bodies of the remaining 78 people aboard flight QZ8501, which went down in stormy weather during what was supposed to be a short trip from the Indonesian city of Surabaya to Singapore.

 

The search and rescue operation using vessels, sea riders and inflatable boats is focused on the area around the Karimata Strait and the Java Sea.

 

"[search and rescue] vessels and sea divers were deployed in order to locate more passengers and plane debris around the area," AirAsia said in the statement.

 

The Indonesian military, which has provided the bulk of personnel and equipment for the operation, withdrew from the search last week.

 

Civilian search and rescue agency BASARNAS is expected to re-evaluate whether to continue their search mission over the coming days.

 

The agency said the main aim of the operation was to find more bodies, not to lift the plane's fuselage, which has split in two

 

 

[PA.]

The Indonesian military, which has provided the bulk of personnel and equipment for the operation, withdrew from the search last week.

Yet Australia is still looking for the needle in the haystack down in the Southern Ocean.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Abbott needs something to show for doubling the deficit.

 

 

[facthunter]

A lot of politics in THAT search. Pretty poor really. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

While both are fly by wire and manufactured by the same people (Honeywell) the logic of a system varies with Airbus attempting to make the plane fly itself out of trouble or keep it out of trouble and make it "pilot proof" more than the Lazy "B" models which most pilots appear to prefer, from the flight management viewpoint. You have to anticipate everything that is ever likely to happen if you go down this track. It's still not coping with environmental and component serviceability issues. As stated .. You don't always easily determine what it is actually doing.. With this and the new Multicrew licence I see the potential for more accidents where a serviceable Aeroplane falls out of the sky. Management are sold on the idea of planes that don't need servicing, and lower crew training costs with a plane that flys itself . You still need a person who knows about about what is happening. Maybe it can be done from the ground, but that's another story, and I'm not advocating it especially it seems that many airlines don't know where their planes are or where they went. Nev

 

 

[poteroo]

Management are sold on the idea of planes that don't need servicing, and lower crew training costs with a plane that flys itself

Yes, flight crew are no longer considered 'airmen' in the true sense of the word. Nowdays they've become systems managers. The distractions these create are possibly instrumental in the accidents with 'fly-by-wire airliners. It takes time and money for aircrew to achieve and retain high manual flying skills in whichever aircraft they fly. (No different to we mere GA/RAAus mortals). Management clearly see no benefit in this, hence SOP's that limit 'manual flying' to very short intervals - if at all. Dutch Roll and Bennyboy give good explanations in the thread on Air Asia. happy days,