AirAsia QZ8501 Missing
Discussion
I remember reading about the Air France atlantic one a few years ago, that the plane switched to manual control due to the failure or disrepancies in the flight data... would that have to happen here to cause that sort of climb and stall, i.e. would the plane normally let the pilots stall it in that manner?
BBC said:
Ignasius Jonan told a parliamentary hearing in Jakarta that flight QZ8501 had ascended at a speed of 6,000ft (1,828m) per minute.
No passenger or fighter jet would attempt to climb so fast, he said.
total nonsense..No passenger or fighter jet would attempt to climb so fast, he said.
consider the Eurofighter can do some 62,000ft/min what credibility does this report have?
(even the old Lightning could exceed 50,000ft/min).
Gliders have managed 4,000+ ft/min
BBC said:
Ignasius Jonan told a parliamentary hearing in Jakarta that flight QZ8501 had ascended at a speed of 6,000ft (1,828m) per minute.
No passenger or fighter jet would attempt to climb so fast, he said.
Citing radar data, Mr Jonan said: "The plane, during the last minutes, went up faster than normal speed... then it stalled."
"I think it is rare even for a fighter jet to be able to climb 6,000ft per minute," he told a House of Representatives commission.
6000ft per minute is childs play for a fighter aircraft. How about 8 times that climb rate and higher.No passenger or fighter jet would attempt to climb so fast, he said.
Citing radar data, Mr Jonan said: "The plane, during the last minutes, went up faster than normal speed... then it stalled."
"I think it is rare even for a fighter jet to be able to climb 6,000ft per minute," he told a House of Representatives commission.
The A320 has a climb rate of 3000 ft per minute + when pushed and depending on weight and local conditions.
6000 ft per minute is excessive for an airliner but radar data isn't really what should be being used when they have the flight recorders in their hands.
6000 fpm unexpected in an Airbus with a change of Outside Air Temperature? Not at all impossible indeed its happened before.
pprune said:
For 18 seconds after the autopilot disengaged the aircraft remained within 200 feet altitude of FL
360 but once AoA law was invoked at 14:21:50 hrs, the aircraft's attitude began to pitch nose-up.
The pitch-up trend continued for 17 seconds reaching a peak of 15° nose-up shortly before the first
nose-down sidestick command was applied.
Throughout this phase the aircraft climbed rapidly (reaching a peak rate of about 6,000 ft/min) due to the increase in lift created by the flight control system's capture of alpha prot.
The aircraft reached its apogee at FL 384 at 14:22:28 hrs where the
airspeed had decayed to 205 KIAS and 0.67 Mach even though full thrust had been applied.
Throughout the turbulence encounter, the normal g fluctuations were between 0.5g and 1.5g. The
recorded wind direction remained within 20° of the mean of 240° but the wind speed varied
between 67 kt and 108 kt and the static air temperature fluctuated between -42° C and -52°C. There
were 7 cycles of temperature change, the second cycle being the most severe. The mean air
temperature before the AIRPROX event was -46.5° C and afterwards it was -44.5°C. The crew
subsequently descended back to FL 360 and successfully re-engaged the autopilot and autothrust
systems.
Source: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553569-air-asia...360 but once AoA law was invoked at 14:21:50 hrs, the aircraft's attitude began to pitch nose-up.
The pitch-up trend continued for 17 seconds reaching a peak of 15° nose-up shortly before the first
nose-down sidestick command was applied.
Throughout this phase the aircraft climbed rapidly (reaching a peak rate of about 6,000 ft/min) due to the increase in lift created by the flight control system's capture of alpha prot.
The aircraft reached its apogee at FL 384 at 14:22:28 hrs where the
airspeed had decayed to 205 KIAS and 0.67 Mach even though full thrust had been applied.
Throughout the turbulence encounter, the normal g fluctuations were between 0.5g and 1.5g. The
recorded wind direction remained within 20° of the mean of 240° but the wind speed varied
between 67 kt and 108 kt and the static air temperature fluctuated between -42° C and -52°C. There
were 7 cycles of temperature change, the second cycle being the most severe. The mean air
temperature before the AIRPROX event was -46.5° C and afterwards it was -44.5°C. The crew
subsequently descended back to FL 360 and successfully re-engaged the autopilot and autothrust
systems.
KTF said:
6000 fpm unexpected in an Airbus with a change of Outside Air Temperature? Not at all impossible indeed its happened before.
Transport Minister Jonan said:
At 6:17 a.m. on Dec. 28, three minutes after air traffic control unsuccessfully tried to make contact and asked nearby aircraft to try to locate QZ8501, the A320 turned to the left and it began to climb from its altitude of 32,000 ft (9,750 meters), Jonan told a parliamentary hearing.
The rate of the climb increased rapidly within seconds to 6,000 ft a minute, before accelerating further to 8,400 ft a minute and finally 11,100 ft. The aircraft reached 37,600 ft just 54 seconds after it began to climb before it appeared to stall.
The aircraft began to fall at 6:18 a.m., dropping 1,500 ft in the first 6 seconds before reaching a rate of descent of 7,900 ft per minute until it reached 24,000 ft, at which point it disappeared from the radar.
Which is quite different...
Just a quick update, lifting bags are about to be used to bring the largest piece up off the sea floor.
69 of those on-board have now been recovered.
A previous attempt with the lifting bags failed when the fuselage was raised to just below the surface before sinking again when the strapping attaching one of the bags snapped.
There's bad weather in the area again but they hope the latest attempt will begin again on Sunday.
Had there been any news on the Flight recorder playback yet? I haven't seen anything in the news.
69 of those on-board have now been recovered.
A previous attempt with the lifting bags failed when the fuselage was raised to just below the surface before sinking again when the strapping attaching one of the bags snapped.
There's bad weather in the area again but they hope the latest attempt will begin again on Sunday.
Had there been any news on the Flight recorder playback yet? I haven't seen anything in the news.
MitchT said:
This morning's news is that it failed again. They got it to the surface before a rope snapped (again) and it sunk once more.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/25/asia/airasia-dis...A body floated free of the fuselage as it was being recovered and was retrieved also.
They really are making a meal out of this, it says in the CNN article the military are carrying out the recovery. Perhaps they should put their hands in their pockets and pay for a professional outfit to help them out now?
Edited by Blaster72 on Sunday 25th January 11:04
In terms of determining the cause of the crash, I suppose that the information contained in the recovered black boxes will be sufficient? In which case recovery of the fuselage isn't necessary from an investigation point of view but is mainly to assist with recovering passenger remains. I hope that that's the case, because repeatedly lifting the fuselage to the surface and dropping it back to the seabed isn't going to make the crash investigators job any easier!
RYH64E said:
In terms of determining the cause of the crash, I suppose that the information contained in the recovered black boxes will be sufficient? In which case recovery of the fuselage isn't necessary from an investigation point of view but is mainly to assist with recovering passenger remains. I hope that that's the case, because repeatedly lifting the fuselage to the surface and dropping it back to the seabed isn't going to make the crash investigators job any easier!
It may well not be necessary, but they won't know until the data is completely interpreted, which often takes months; in the mean time these bozos are merrily destroying what might be the only physical evidence of what caused it to crash.hidetheelephants said:
It may well not be necessary, but they won't know until the data is completely interpreted, which often takes months; in the mean time these bozos are merrily destroying what might be the only physical evidence of what caused it to crash.
Possibly, but if I were a betting man my money would be on them already knowing exactly what happened and the recovery exercise being of little interest to the crash examiners.I don't think the flight recorder is the answer to all the questions. If it turns out to be a crew error due to loss of instrument data in the thunderstorm, I'd imagine they'll want to recover all the components of the air data system to examine whats left thoroughly.
They also need to know if the crew were intoxicated, had medical problems etc... for that they still need to recover the bodies which I believe are still with the cockpit section as yet not found or recovered.
They also need to know if the crew were intoxicated, had medical problems etc... for that they still need to recover the bodies which I believe are still with the cockpit section as yet not found or recovered.
Looks like they're giving up attempting to bring it up 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2929237/Ai...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2929237/Ai...
hornetrider said:
Looks like they're giving up attempting to bring it up
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2929237/Ai...
Can't see the families of the dead being too happy if that's actually the decision that's been made!http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2929237/Ai...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff