Investigators: Crew action blamed for AirAsia crash

[aro]

I'm pretty sure there would be enough redundancy and computer power to do this without additional devices. E.g. when everything is working the computer knows your airspeed and AOA so it can deduce the weight. If you lose airspeed, it should be able to know the last good weight (correcting for fuel burn) and deduce approximate airspeed from AOA.

 

If there's enough information for a pilot to fly on the instruments, the computer/autopilot should be able to do a passable job.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Er, Uneventful Dutch ?....... Bob.

Yeah I only picked up that typo after the edit window had already passed. I was hoping everyone would re-interpret it the way I meant it!

 

But if the autopilot has disengaged and the aircraft changed to alternate law, it also suggests that something has happened that might also destabilize the aircraft.

I'd generally disagree with that.

The autopilot and autothrust disconnection is purely a function of the reversion to alternate law as the computers reconfigure themselves. They get booted out at the time, but they can be re-engaged (usually). Aside from the loss of both engines which would be pretty obvious, alternate law reversion occurs when certain air data failures, inertial reference failures, or sensor failures happen. In other words, the plane says "hey I've lost some information, so I'm not 100% sure where I'm at here". However it still keeps flying normally if you sit there and do absolutely nothing. It's still attitude stabilised by the flight control computers, even in alternate law.

 

A bit simplistic, but: Given that there have been suspect pitot/static inputs involved in some Airbus incidents - could pilots make use of a simple device like a Dynon D2 unit - where it is flying ground speed and GPS altitude? ...........There must be a simpler way to fly the aircraft when the computer misbehaves? happy days,

There's more than enough info available, including groundspeed still displayed on the nav displays and getting the GPS altitude from the FMC displays is a simple matter. Yes there's a simple way to fly the plane when the computer misbehaves like this: don't touch it!

The flying pilot in AF447 inexplicably decided to mess with it after everything disconnected and pulled the nose up. It took him less than 60 seconds to stall it. If he had just sat there, it would've largely sat there too. True, it was in turbulence and it did roll around a little, but if he did nothing else but keep the wings roughly level and maintain the pitch attitude (or if the other guy had taken over and done the same), we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

If they'd done the "unreliable speed" emergency memory actions which Airbus pilots are trained for, again we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

I should add the Air Asia flying pilot did exactly the same thing. He pulled the nose up at high altitude while it was in alternate law.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Would it not be fair to say

 

They did not continue to aviate, when a problem arose.

 

Sure there was a problem and they did pull the circuit- but they failed to recognise a stall and then did the exact opposite of what is required to safely correct the planes attitude.

 

The PIC and 2nd officer where both non english speakers (first language) and had trouble communicating in a emergency.

 

Apparently the PIC said "Pull down" not push down, so they ended up doing opposites of eachother. And fought the controls all the way to the ocean.

 

So a PIC giving the wrong word combination, the 2 nd officer carrys out a illogical command for both the language and flight needs.

 

The PIC then tries to push down but does not take control from the 2nd officer.

 

What a screw up.

 

These seem like rooky mistakes and hard to imagine possible for two well trained pilots.

 

A good crew of actual pilots rather than drivers of a flying computer bus- is the answer.

 

You should not in my opinion be able to get to fly such airlines without lots of air time in small aircraft- starting with gliders. Then move up the ranks. And you should have to remain current in light aircraft- all at the airlines expense.

 

The physics of flight do not care- stalling a aircraft and not correcting it is always fatal. Aircraft may differ but fundamentals do not.

 

A tragedy that should never have occurred.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Would it not be fair to sayThey did not continue to aviate, when a problem arose.

Yes that would be absolutely true in both cases.

Presumably (certainly in the Air France case, and most likely in the Air Asia case), when these guys did basic flying training in a small plane before they joined an airline they were reasonably competent.

 

One must ask what happened in the meantime. Yes there is a loss of basic aviation skills in line flying to a degree due to increasing automation, but the training system can mitigate and compensate for that. Ours certainly does.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Dutch,

 

I can see how better training systems can be a great benefit, especially in adverse event and unusual attitude recovery training. I would definitely feel safer knowing my pilots had great training and were encouraged to fly the pants off the simulator etc.

 

I would also like those pilots in a well a maintained aircraft and that is a given.

 

But no matter the training I can't help feel a necessity for the bus driver to regularly be a small aircraft pilot.

 

A currency in small aircraft should be a necessary part of currency and training for the big stuff. No amount of simulator and book time can substitute a small aircraft in keeping the basic skills always at the forefront of the mind. Not somewhere in a check list on page 235. It needs to be instinctive what to do for the most basic aviation needs. Aviate, Aviate................

 

So I reckon a best practice might be to have a minimum amount of hrs currency in small stuff. How much ? A minimum of 100 hrs a year including advanced stuff like basic aero, stalls, spins.

 

And make it available at no cost from the airline, as a mandatory requirement of continued certification.

 

Yes it would cost a bit on the ticket but really maybe a dollar a seat.

 

A small price to save a incident of mass death.

 

 

[Downunder]

Weren't you saying in a post somewhere Dutch, that airlines don't like pilots flying small aircraft?

 

 

[facthunter]

You can use some of your available flight hours up. and Airlines want you to fly when they want you. Miscommunicating in the cockpit Basic CRM won't be changed by doing aeros at weekends, (or whatever spare time is there) but there has been a recognition that flying sport/recreational planes in certain regimes could/would be beneficial. I've always found it strange that most high time senior pilots have never spun a plane. A lot can be done in a simulator though, because the simulators are magnificent really and if the training programme is well done, upsets could be covered. Most upsets will use something like 15,000 feet to recover depending on the nature of the entry to it.

 

Jets in cruise have a very small air/ Mach speed % margin to fly in. It could easily be only 8 knots and as a % that's not much. You frequently have NO horizon as reference. If you lose a motor your available cruise altitude drops about 10,000 feet and you don't have long to do something about. You can't stay where you are.

 

When you have malfunctions in this stuff the load on the crew can get very high. There's a lot of evidence of inappropriate/ not enough training found in examination of accidents. Unless you are very across the plane's systems logic you get a lot of "what is this Fxxxx thing doing now". Nev.

 

 

[planet47]

So is there more info on the part that was fixed 23 times before over 12 months?