Retrieving wreckage from AirAsia Flight To Singapore- no survivors recovered #3

[SouthAussie]

(Reuters) - The captain of the AirAsia jet that crashed into the sea in December was out of his seat conducting an unorthodox procedure when his co-pilot apparently lost control, and by the time he returned it was too late to save the plane, two people familiar with the investigation said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...dType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter

It had been suffering maintenance faults with a key flight control computer for over a week, and one person familiar with the matter said the captain had flown on the same plane with the intermittently faulty device just days before the crash.

Reuters reported this week that maintenance problems on the Flight Augmentation Computer (FAC), and the way the pilots reacted to them, were at the heart of the investigation.

After trying to reset this device, pilots pulled a circuit breaker to cut its power ....

The circuit breakers are on a wall panel immediately behind the co-pilot and hard or impossible to reach from the seated position on the left side, where the captain sits, according to two experienced pilots and published diagrams of the cockpit.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150131/jsp/frontpage/story_10942.jsp#.VMzPyGiUceg

 

[CARIIS]

(Reuters) - The captain of the AirAsia jet that crashed into the sea in December was out of his seat conducting an unorthodox procedure when his co-pilot apparently lost control, and by the time he returned it was too late to save the plane, two people familiar with the investigation said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...dType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter

My little brain is smoking.

-think the word “unusual” might be fairer than “unorthodox”!


-Like I have said this stuff becomes fascinating as we learn what second by second is going on the cockpit.


-When Airbus launched fly by wire (computer in lot more control) there were basically, from flight crews, two “teams” for lack of a better description. There were guys that remained loyal to Boeing, and I “I want to be in control of my aircraft” and folks that thought the glass cockpit was a good idea.


- I will try to find out, but logically it seemed the more seasoned folks used to flying by the seat of their pants preferred Boeing basic sentiment in design, while younger more “tech” age flight crew folks found Airbus stuff “neat”


Remember that Airbus aircraft are flown by a little joystick, just like video games, the wheel is totally gone. It makes sense that those of us used to steering wheels for 15 years would really not feel all that conformable driving a car by a little joystick, while younger folks would not find that as bag a change.


My reason for going here, is, IMO, it makes sense that the military (important here) captain, in all likelihood, in what was becoming a treacherous situation, might feel very comfortable in pulling the system as the aircraft is approaching very threatening, non es capable weather activity.


Add in the fact that apparently this system, on this aircraft, had been having problems, makes IMO his decision to cut it understandable and could have been wise.


If you car heater had been problematic recently and it was acting up as you drove on it might make some sense to kill it in order to reducer likelihood of it being added to your growing problems.


My biggest question at this moment in time – I would like to know the amount of turbulence the aircraft was experiencing in 10 minutes BEFORE the requested deviation. Was it getting real bad, to where this captain he was going to need to be able to do some seat of your pants flying in the near future because they had no way “out” of weather?


UT, on the other hand, the stem was out, so we cant say the system did any flight inputs which means one of two things. Either the copilot instated the nose high pull back (I have always voted intense updraft)

But there are oddities here. The notion that captrain got back to his seat, when the aircraft is climbing like an F-16 seems a bit of an impossibility, no? So there must have been some time between killing the system and the steep ascent.


Pusshingan aircraft past design tolerances can result in some structural failures, and it shall be interesting to learn if the steep assent did impact some control surfaces, further complicating everything or actually being the primary cause of inability to regain control after the stall.


Deep stalls also stress the heck out of structures, so this poor bird was getting quite beat up during the accident sequence. The real clues here are going to come from what was going on before the requested derision, and what there on board radar was painting.


I promised ya all fascinating stuff huh – and as you see, it is, – and much more nuance has to be coming because we must learn, what was influencing captains decision to completely kill the system.


But the way it was written, it struck me like they were trying to “bad pilot” it – when in fact if they system had been doing some naughty things on earlier segments, it makes sense to try and remove one more element of what was obviously becoming a flight from hell..........

 

[CARIIS]

... the differences between planes designed by Boeing and those designed by Airbus, and what pilots think of these differences.



. Airbus and Boeing have different control systems, and most pilots strongly prefer one over the other. (The Explainer isn't aware of a poll, and so has no way of knowing which manufacturer pilots favor overall.) Modern Airbus planes employ a "fly-by-wire" system. The pilot controls the plane by manipulating a joystick next to the main console and a set of pedals. The movement of the joystick and pedals is translated into electrical signals, which switch on and off machines that move the plane's flaps, slats, ailerons, and rudder.

Most Boeing jets don't have a joystick, but a more traditional yoke. (The 777 is Boeing's first fly-by-wire plane.) When a pilot yanks back on the yoke, he's actually pulling cables that move the plane's control surfaces with the help of some hydraulic systems. In short, there's less electronic mediation between the pilot and the machinery in a Boeing aircraft. Some pilots think this gives them a better "feel" in flying the plane, while others prefer the video-gamelike quality of the electronic interface.

Airbus also places more restrictions on how far the pilot is able to push the aircraft. All planes, no matter the manufacturer, must fly within certain limits, known as the "flight envelope," or risk mechanical failure. For example, if a pilot attempts too steep a climb, the wings may stall. * Airbus aircrafts won't allow that to happen because they are programmed to ignore the pilot's instructions if the plane's computers think they would lead to catastrophe. The system is called "flight envelope protection," and the pilot has a limited ability to override it by changing its default limits.





The pilot of a Boeing jet has somewhat more freedom to push the envelope. (..... For the most part, the flaps and rudder will obey the pilot's commands, even if those commands might lead to mechanical failure. It's not easy to get to that point, though. A pilot would have to pull back with significant force to bring the plane into a potentially stall-inducing climb.



It's not clear whether flight envelope protection makes air travel safer.



The problem with flight envelope protection is that pilots occasionally have to take unorthodox actions in desperate situations. Opponents of the system point to the near-crash of China Airlines flight 006 in 1985, in which the pilot managed to recover after an uncontrolled descent of nearly 30,000 feet. It's possible, though, that a flight protection system would have prevented the descent altogether.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/07/boeing_vs_airbus.html

 

[sherlockh]

Only after the captain messed with the system the troubles began. Co-pilot startled because the captain cut the power, pulls the stick, sharp climb, stall. At least, that is how I understand the article mentioned earlier. Why they couldn't recover is still unknown.

Shortly afterwards the junior pilot pulled the plane into a sharp climb from which investigators have said it stalled or lost lift.

”It appears he was surprised or startled by this,” said a person familiar with the investigation, referring to the decision to cut power to the affected computer.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150131/jsp/frontpage/story_10942.jsp#.VMzqSCzQPrB

 

[itzkatiex0]

I still don't place blame with either captain.. They seemed to do all they could. If the plane itself malfunctioned, that's not the captain's fault.

 

[Boodles]

We'll see. Maybe since France will now conduct a criminal investigation, more info will come out. I don't have faith in the Indonesians being transparent (pride, corruption and all that). Maybe the French will attempt to retrieve the (now battered to bits by Indonesian 'lift and drop' methods) wreckage from the bottom of the Java sea.

 

[SouthAussie]

Indonesia AirAsia had been having problems with the augmentation computers. The Singapore Straits Times reported there were nine write-ups in the plane's technical log for issues with those computers last year alone.

Disconnecting the augmentation computers removed a host of features, including the critical cockpit speed warnings and protections.

It also makes the A320 "harder to fly", according to an A320 check and training captain, who did not wish to be named.

"It is highly likely that the French co-pilot, Remi Plesel, who was flying the A320, was preoccupied with the computer problems and not paying attention to the radar and missed the severity of the weather ahead," the A320 pilot said.

These types of crashes are termed in the industry "light-bulb crashes", referring to the fact a simple malfunction that distracts all the crew can lead to the loss of the plane.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/26161092/computer-glitch-distracted-airasia-pilot/

 

[SouthAussie]

When the A320 flew into the storm's updraft, it soared at up to 6000ft a minute before stalling and then turning to the left and spiralling down at up to 24,000ft a minute.

It was thought the G-forces would have rendered passengers unconscious, but pilot experts have said they "would have been conscious through the ordeal until impact".

Ertata Lananggalih, an investigator with Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee, said the "pilots were conscious when the manoeuvres happened".

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/26161092/computer-glitch-distracted-airasia-pilot/

 

[sherlockh]

I still don't place blame with either captain.. They seemed to do all they could. If the plane itself malfunctioned, that's not the captain's fault.

Yeah, but not turning around and trying to fix the problem himself by getting up and removing all protection at the worst possible moment in flight is his decision. I think "light-bulb crash" is the right word for what happened here. A bit like Adam Air 574. It's scary to see how fast things can get bad when pilots don't pay attention.

 

[panthera]

I kind of think here the truth is after a violent impact, sitting in sea water, and the destruction that does to human beings, and then being dragged about, i think there are no other bodies is actually "code" for no bodies in any condition to be "remains" as oppossed to peieces, I think that is the sad reality IMO

Sadly I must agree that there are probably no intact remains left to be brought up, and my belief is in part that it is due to the unsuccessful attempts to retrieve the fuselage, along with the water, currents, etc. Perhaps if recovering the fuselage had been successful on the first attempt more bodies would have been found.

My thoughts and prayers for the families of those yet to be found....



MOO

 

[Dr. Know?]

Here's a tweeter who is with the SAR groups. Interesting tweets. Hope they continue along their rescue attempts & wish them good luck.

https://twitter.com/SabretoothLion/with_replies

 

[sherlockh]

Sadly I must agree that there are probably no intact remains left to be brought up, and my belief is in part that it is due to the unsuccessful attempts to retrieve the fuselage, along with the water, currents, etc. Perhaps if recovering the fuselage had been successful on the first attempt more bodies would have been found.

My thoughts and prayers for the families of those yet to be found....



MOO

Very sad indeed. The last bodies found were a 1,000 kilometers away (from the crash location) and "little more than skeletal remains with a few articles of clothing".
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/video/2015-01/31/c_133961398.htm

 

[emirates1957]

My little brain is smoking.

-think the word “unusual” might be fairer than “unorthodox”!


-Like I have said this stuff becomes fascinating as we learn what second by second is going on the cockpit.


-When Airbus launched fly by wire (computer in lot more control) there were basically, from flight crews, two “teams” for lack of a better description. There were guys that remained loyal to Boeing, and I “I want to be in control of my aircraft” and folks that thought the glass cockpit was a good idea.


- I will try to find out, but logically it seemed the more seasoned folks used to flying by the seat of their pants preferred Boeing basic sentiment in design, while younger more “tech” age flight crew folks found Airbus stuff “neat”


Remember that Airbus aircraft are flown by a little joystick, just like video games, the wheel is totally gone. It makes sense that those of us used to steering wheels for 15 years would really not feel all that conformable driving a car by a little joystick, while younger folks would not find that as bag a change.


My reason for going here, is, IMO, it makes sense that the military (important here) captain, in all likelihood, in what was becoming a treacherous situation, might feel very comfortable in pulling the system as the aircraft is approaching very threatening, non es capable weather activity.


Add in the fact that apparently this system, on this aircraft, had been having problems, makes IMO his decision to cut it understandable and could have been wise.


If you car heater had been problematic recently and it was acting up as you drove on it might make some sense to kill it in order to reducer likelihood of it being added to your growing problems.


My biggest question at this moment in time – I would like to know the amount of turbulence the aircraft was experiencing in 10 minutes BEFORE the requested deviation. Was it getting real bad, to where this captain he was going to need to be able to do some seat of your pants flying in the near future because they had no way “out” of weather?


UT, on the other hand, the stem was out, so we cant say the system did any flight inputs which means one of two things. Either the copilot instated the nose high pull back (I have always voted intense updraft)

But there are oddities here. The notion that captrain got back to his seat, when the aircraft is climbing like an F-16 seems a bit of an impossibility, no? So there must have been some time between killing the system and the steep ascent.


Pusshingan aircraft past design tolerances can result in some structural failures, and it shall be interesting to learn if the steep assent did impact some control surfaces, further complicating everything or actually being the primary cause of inability to regain control after the stall.


Deep stalls also stress the heck out of structures, so this poor bird was getting quite beat up during the accident sequence. The real clues here are going to come from what was going on before the requested derision, and what there on board radar was painting.


I promised ya all fascinating stuff huh – and as you see, it is, – and much more nuance has to be coming because we must learn, what was influencing captains decision to completely kill the system.


But the way it was written, it struck me like they were trying to “bad pilot” it – when in fact if they system had been doing some naughty things on earlier segments, it makes sense to try and remove one more element of what was obviously becoming a flight from hell..........

I agree Cariis it would be extremely difficult for the Capt to get out of his seat during this climb. Instruments, circuit breakers should all be in an ergonomic position. I have never heard of a Pilot having to actually remove himself from his seat. Many A/C will have their faults and still fly perfectly. Ex husband was a LAME with Qantas for 37 years. I can only talk from this neck of the world. Not one engineer I have known would sign out an A/C with a severe fault. Hopefully our A320 Engineer will be in tomorrow. Will run it by him. Conducting an unorthodox procedure ???? hmm.

 

[Hatfield]

These newer automatic flight systems I think unfortunately work so well most of the time that pilots do not get enough experience manually flying a plane in terrible conditions when something really bad happens.

Like if the plane automatically shut off its autopilot due to the stall OR if the pilot had to turn off the autopilot, then the pilots did not have good enough manual flying skills to try to get the plane out of a terrible stalling situation.

Just think about how tough it would be if the plane got sucked vertically upwards, the engine stalled, its pitch black, auto-pilot is off, wind is terrible, rain pouring down and maybe ice, and then plane begins to go nose down.

I just wonder if the pilots could not overcome that since 95% of the time they are used to flying with auto-pilot on. Its almost like due to our own technical achievements we have reduced manual flying skills down to almost nothing.

Maybe they need to have once a month required flying drills where pilots are forced to takeoff, fly 20 miles, and land one of these big boys all manually. No autopilot allowed.

 

[Hatfield]

We'll see. Maybe since France will now conduct a criminal investigation, more info will come out. I don't have faith in the Indonesians being transparent (pride, corruption and all that). Maybe the French will attempt to retrieve the (now battered to bits by Indonesian 'lift and drop' methods) wreckage from the bottom of the Java sea.

When I saw on the news that the Indonesia teams were going to give up on trying to raise the plane and just look for last bodies, I could not believe what I was hearing.

In the US and most other countries, you dont just give up. I am convinced that other more capable countries would have had that fuselage raised a long time ago by now.
I still cannot believe they did not ask for more help when they knew they were struggling.

This is unacceptable the way it has been handled and the critisism is very valid.
Even as early as when the tail section was raised and beat up on the way up to the boat, most of us realized this is not right what they are doing. Ruining chances to tell what happened to the plane as they beat up the tail section.

And then we saw footage where they were cutting wires and using blow torches and saws to cut the metal to make it easier to transport. Just incredibly irresponsible.

 

[Hatfield]

(Reuters) - The captain of the AirAsia jet that crashed into the sea in December was out of his seat conducting an unorthodox procedure when his co-pilot apparently lost control, and by the time he returned it was too late to save the plane, two people familiar with the investigation said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...dType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter

This is incredible. I can just see it now.

Copilot: You go ahead and try to fix it Captain. Ive got the controls. No problem for me.

Then all heck breaks loose as the updraft shoots the plane upwards, the pilot gets slammed into the wall and maybe hits his head, the copilot cant figure out how to get engines restarted as they start a nose dive death spiral to the ground.

I wont be surprised if we learn the captain could not make it back to his seat since he was probably pinned up against the wall of the cabin with his feet off the ground as the plane was nosing straight down toward the ground.

 

[Snoods]

But the pilots were very aware of the severe weather ahead, as they had just made a request to fly above it. I know this isn't an Indonesian official saying this, but still...

"It is highly likely that the French co-pilot, Remi Plesel, who was flying the A320, was preoccupied with the computer problems and not paying attention to the radar and missed the severity of the weather ahead," the A320 pilot said.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/26161092/computer-glitch-distracted-airasia-pilot/[/QUOTE]

 

[SouthAussie]

Wonder if one of our map specialists could give us a radius of where 600 miles would be from the crash site and how the currents would flow?

I'm no specialist, but I took a look at the flow of the currents at this time of year, and found a scale of the 600m/1000km distance where the bodies have been found floating, and I came up with this.

Red X = approx crash site
Green X = approx 600m/1000km away

http://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers09-06/42768.pdf


Here is a Google map of the same thing, minus the currents at this time of year.

 

[Snoods]

Why did the experienced pilot not take back control (?) of the plane when it started ascending at a rapid rate? Would it have been the g-forces or something that did not allow him to get near the controls again?

I remember seeing an Air Crash Investigations episode once where that happened - the pilot could physically not get to the controls due to the angle/forces so the co-pilot was left hanging onto a shuddering steering wheel and manning the few controls that he could reach from there.

I've seen that Air Crash episode SA, "Kid in the Cockpit" correct? The captain had his son "flying" the plane and the boy accidentally disengaged the autopilot, sending the plane into a near vertical dive. That's another example of a co-pilot manning the controls of a plane that crashed. I believe the captain was able to eventually get to his seat, but it was too late.

Air France, another example of a co-pilot at the controls, American Airlines Flight 587 crash, also the co-pilot flying the plane.

Does this happen to anyone else? I look up one thing and that brings me to another article of interest and then that leads me to another and then I have like 854 tabs open lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

 

[emirates1957]

At this critical point in time the Pilots would or should have referred to a checklist. Maybe the Capt with 20,000 hours of flying time may have pulled out all stops to a non procedural option i.e. pulling a circuit breaker. Sorry forum members, these Pilots would know how to fly an A/C should system failures occur. Seat of your pants flying is the basic of basic in aviation standards and competency, lift, drag, thrust and weight.