khaosai

Some fairly large storms in the area at the time which would warrant a deviation off track. The deviation in a perfect world would be upwind with a lateral distance from the thunderstorm of at least 20 nautical miles.

Ice and hail are far less reflective that water thus the weather radar onboard modern aircraft does pose some limitations. On occasion in cruise flight you might need to go from the automatic tilt setting to the manual tilt setting and adjust the radar downwards to get an accurate picture of what's ahead by picking up the water content in the cloud.

The same challenge occurs when flying over sea compared to flying over land. The thunderstorms over the ocean are generally a lot less reflective than storms over the land thus a good understanding is required.

This may well have been an encounter in the actual cloud or perhaps flying below the anvil in what may look like clear air until it's too late.

One of the real threats associated with significant radome damage is that it can lead to unreliable airspeed indications.

Glad the aircraft landed safely.

For a Very plausible explanation for the MH370 disappearance until if or when the aircraft and black boxes are found Details are here : http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/mh370/An_MH370_Analysis-of-Likelihoods.htm

But to summarize it is based on two previous incidents :

1.A Destructive B777 oxygen-initiated cockpit fire accident at the departure gate at Cairo on 29 July 2011. (see attached photo)

2 The Helios 737 ghost-flight from Cyprus to Athens. B737 14 August 2005 MH370 suffered an airborne depressurization that could of been caused by the sort of oxy-blowtorch rupture of a pressurized hull - like the holing that was seen on SU-GBP This would be a self extinguishing fire lasting less then a minute once the Hull is breached but causing extensive damage to the flight-deck including circuit breakers accounting for the lost of VHF and the transponder. But apparently not the ACARS . The origination of the fire in the case of SU-GBP was an electrical short circuit in the stiffening wire of the FO Low pressure oxygen supply hose. In the case of MH370 This may have occurred if the Capt was about to leave the Flight Deck . The FO is required to put on the emergency Oxygen Mask. The FO would have been totally incapacitated by this. The Capt also would be in pretty bad shape both probable suffering sever lung searing and going into hypoxia due to the sudden decompression. The Capt or the surviving officer had probably enough time to instinctively perform a turn back and hearing the decompression alarms push the Yoke forward to descend. The descent to 10000ft would not have been completed due to the PF passing out due to hypoxia. On releasing the Yoke and the aircraft not being re-trimmed would climb back to its previous cruising altitude. Apparently the B777 can fly level wings for hrs even when not in Auto Pilot. So the aircraft now flew on as a ghost plane, all the passengers having peacefully succumbed hypoxia and an asphyxia death, until fuel depletion and crashing into the Southern Indian Ocean. The observed course changes are explained by the aircraft entering storm cells in the Malacca Straits and the southern Andaman Sea and being "spat out" in a new heading - courtesy of the B777 highly redundant and unique Active Flight Control System. After the Cairo SU-GBP incident the FAA issued an Airworthiness Directive for several Boeing aircraft for "Oxygen Hose Replacement " within 36 Months This AD is effective September 23, 2014. Subsequent to MHH370 disappearance A new AD effective June 5, 2014. was issued specifically for Boeing Company Model 777F series airplanes for "Oxygen Hose Replacement " oxgen flare fire B777.jpgSU-GBP Cairo on 29 July 2011

The picture of that B777 with the hole in the fuselage is indeed a scary thought but the article itself has lots of inconsistencies in it.

Those turns were deliberate and in no way caused by being "spat out" by weather.

It could be slight over controlling on the part of the pilot, but could equally be due to the effects of turbulence. It's a stable aircraft to fly, and crosswind landings up to 45 knots are challenging but perfectly manageable for a well trained crew.

As an observation, some crews who are new to type do over control in gusty conditions. Roll rate, for a large aircraft is fairly responsive.

Not actually sure what the crosswind component was on this occasion, but when it's more than approximately 30 to 35 knots you don't want land in a side slip (wing low) condition.

Overall a job well done.

Nosebleeds? Fainting? From descending too fast??

Ever been in that situation? No, I thought not.... Maybe you can give us some insight on what has happened during your attempts to replicate this. Does the brain sort of lose focus on your knowledge of everything?

Right, what would I know about flying... Silly me..

Nice pics. Is it a C130 your sitting in ?

From the Boeing 777 Flight Crew Training Manual. An aircraft may be stalled in any attitude or any airspeed.

Regarding the Orient Thai incident. A definitive answer will be apparent once the investigation is complete and made public.

From the pictures it's apparent that the oxygen masks have deployed. They may have deployed due to a cabin altitude exceedance or the pilots may have selected them to deploy manually.

It's not uncommon to legally depart with certain aircraft components unserviceable. On occasion that may well be a part of the pressurisation system. If inflight you then suffer a failure of the other part of the system then the aircraft may start to depressurise. That failure might be a valve, bleed air switch or the engine which will affect all of the components. It's common to see it in the simulator, not so common on the aircraft.

The aircraft departed Thailand, headed for its destination in China but had to divert en route due to a technical malfunction of some sorts. Landed safely which is great news. The investigation will then decide if all aspect of the flight were correct and legal.

This is the rabbit. It's a series of strobe lights on towers that flash in a sequence to get the pilot's attention and direct him to the runway. The red lights to either side are prismatic and are green if the glide slope is correct, and are red if the plane is too low. In this approach the plane is a bit low.

Often on instrument approach when visibility isn't great, the rabbit is the first thing the pilot sees. They hammered it.

Lucky folks for sure. Fairly demanding approach to that runway. Non instrument landing system approach in snowy conditions possibly creating an optical illusion would be a challenge for most crews. Time for the airport authorities to consider an upgrade to a full precision approach (ILS)

The approach lighting system does not change colour to green to indicate on profile, they are always red. The threshold lights are however green as seen in the video. The approach lighting system will generally show red lights out to 300 metres. The type of approach lighting will vary in size depending on the airfield and surrounding topography. Some airfields have none, others have 210, 420, 720 metres or greater.

The 4 lights to the right side of the runway will show if the aircraft is on profile vertically by indicating two white and two red lights and will basically ensure the aircraft touches down approximately 300 metres beyond the runway threshold. Four white lights would indicate very high, four red lights would indicate very low.

What the hell no keyhole to gain entry for any cabin crew that need to talk to the pilot or co pilot, heard of cost cutting but that is ridiculous.

The cockpit is inaccessible by international law since 911.

There is a keyhole.

According to Telegraph, the axe is in the cockpit.

So, the captain must have taken it out.

Mysterious flight indeed.

Interesting point as I am not aware of an axe in the passenger cabin of the aircraft I fly. Different airlines and aircraft I guess means different requirements.

Guess you're one of those who believe that mental diseases are not curable.

Clearly not cured in the case of this pilot..........

To operate a high tech aircraft and be responsible for 150 human lives, I would expect the flight deck would comprise four crew, an engineer, a navigator, chief pilot and co pilot but obviously the flying public has been short changed and the aircraft industry has been exposed for what they are, an ever growing rabble of cost savers where money and profits over rule safety and commonsense, Screw you all !

What a load of nonsense, when was the last time you were in the cockpit of an aircraft, 1959?

Oh, so now the pilot is a qualified engineer is he ? Marine law requires a dedicated navigator and engineer onboard what's so different with aircraft ?

Hi,

Modern aircraft flight decks no longer require a flight engineer. The engineers panel is now pretty much incorporated into the overhead panel above the pilots.

All that's generally needed is to select the required switches to the on position and then leave things alone unless intervention is required during a non normal situation or for instance to switch off a fuel pump due to no more fuel in that particular tank.

Completely legal and completely practical based on today's technology. It was however a sad day when the poor old engineer was made redundant as an extra set of experienced eyes and ears within the flight deck was of huge value.

Edited to add F4U beat me to it with a good explanation.

Yes, there are certainly some open questions to be answered!

I still hold that 600 hours is not enough to be left in charge of a passenger jet.

Also this screwing down on pilot's pay and conditions is a bad move...

How many hours is enough to be in charge of a passenger jet ?

Anonymous quote on the aviation herald website, I quote from http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558654-airbus-a320-crashed-southern-france-26.html

CVR data has been read. It seems structural failure (windshield? not determined yet)..It was quick... sound of cracks,but crew initiated emergency descent by autopilot and then they weren't heard anymore. Autopilot was on during whole descent, but disconnected automatically shortly before impact when GPWS alerts appeared.

As an anonymous quote it should be treated with caution, but the scenario makes sense.

I wonder if the pilots were still inside the plane when it crashed.

I'm thinking the same thing, if it was a structural failure in the cockpit all they had time for was to turn on the auopilot before they were sucked out of the plane. Maybe only the cockpit was damaged so the passengers would have been alive during the 8 minute descent.

yes - can any pilot here tell if pilots are required to keep their seatbelts on and if said seatbelts are designed to prevent someone from being sucked out?

Hi,

Take off and landing requires the 5 point harness to be worn. When the seatbelt signs go off then most crew will leave on only the lap strap unless it is turbulent. Others will choose to wear the 5 point harness until top of climb and back on from top of descent. I have never flown with any pilot who wears the full harness for the whole flight whilst in the seat.

Hi NeverSure,

you may well be right but I have never seen an oxygen mask on a modern day airliner drop down within the flight deck.

I personally have never been required to wear an oxygen mask above 35000ft unless of course the aircraft has suffered an uncontrollable pressurisation problem. Some airlines may mandate that as a policy but I would be confident that most don't at that sort of flight level.

Thoughts with all affected by this tragedy.

Sounds a bit like the aerodynamic stall that brought down Air France 447.

MJP, such a stall should bring it down hard and fast without staying in the air so long, going so far, or showing such a "normal" descent rate.

I don't know what happened.

If as has been mentioned it lost cabin pressure, the oxygen masks should have dropped down to the pilots and passengers automatically. The pilots should have had visual and audible warnings. The pilots have a minute or two before they lose consciousness which is plenty of time to see and hear the warnings and to don the masks which should be already hanging in front of them.

Also if the plane was climbing or level, the trim might have kept it from going into such a descent even without pilots. Usually it takes some muscle, trim change, or autopilot to get the nose down like that especially under power. I dunno?

Nothing makes sense to me yet, but I suppose the news will continue to be corrected and more will become available.

Oxygen masks don't drop down to the pilots.

The pilot needs to remove the oxygen mask from its secure location by his/hers side and then put it on properly. That is the first and most important step if a rapid depressurisation occurs.

Which would beg the question there may well have been some very confusing information going on within the flight deck for 3 experienced guys to have been unable to process it properly. Will make for sad but interesting reading when the findings are published.

3 guys on Transasia or DC-10 ?

On the DC-10 simulator we gave them a derated take off at about 240 Tons on a nice long runway. Engine fire after V1. They would shut down the correct engine, but more often than desired, forgot to push the remaining engines up to full thrust.

Would still hit V2, rotate, lift off a bit, but not enough power, so would bounce down the runway and u would see them in panic trying to figure out what was going on. Many of these had been either captains on Airbus, or co pilot on ie 747. Not freshies

Transasia.

Left/Right, #1/#2 Engine, Port/Starboard... must be pretty confusing particularly when things go wrong.

Yep, thats why they are usually drilled excessively on this topic ( obviously not Trans Asia ). Used to help in new crew training in DC-10 simulator, engine failure after V1 was standard... And after that experience i always say a prayer on take off with anything less than 4 engines as i have seen even senior captains bouncing down the runway unable to take off ( derated take off - forget to push up remaining engines ). In the simulator was funny to watch.... Boink, Boink, Boink, Boink, crash

General procedure is

1.Fly the aircraft

2.Full power (Both throttle levers)

3.Identify dead foot = dead engine

4.Verify effected engine throttle. confirm with both pilots by pointing to the effected engine and slowly bring to idle (While cross checking with N1 or RPM to see its not dropping)

5.confirm fuel selector with both pilots then cut off.

Just looking at them pulling both throttles back is already weird

Which would beg the question there may well have been some very confusing information going on within the flight deck for 3 experienced guys to have been unable to process it properly. Will make for sad but interesting reading when the findings are published.

This is a real good vid. It clearly shows that the plane was level past the buildings, cleared the buildings, and then dropped hard to port over the roadway. It also has some excellent footage of rescuing people including perhaps the toddler.

The last article may say different, but this plane stalled port wing first and dropped like a rock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DszvxPpIWt8#t=17

Dropped like a rock due to pilot error. Hero ???? BS The plane is made to run on one engine on take off even and pilots are all trained how to continue to proceed with an engine failure on take off. All aviation analyst are saying the same thing. There was no need for this crash. The pilot panicked and failed to follow engine out procedure.

Where did I say pilot error? I said the left wing stalled. It may have been the lessor of two evils to try to stretch the glide and risk a stall rather than hitting buildings or even structural parts of the roadway. I don't know why that decision to approach stall speed was made.

I simply say that the plane was gliding, the left wing stalled rolling the plane onto its left side, and then left side and therefore the whole plane dropped hard. That was apparent from the very first video we saw.

Cheers

2 points

1 - the job of shutting down the bad engine is often done by the pilot who is not actually flying. He has to rely on instrumentation.

2. - the aircraft was already very low on airspeed and the pilot elected to try a left turn - presumably to avoid obstacles. In the turn the inner (left in this case) wing loses lift.

"He has to rely on instrumentation."

This is the deal killer for me. You've never flown a twin. They were in VFR conditions. The props would go out of sync giving them the first and audible notice that an engine was slowing. The plane would next begin to yaw hard which they could see through the windscreen as they saw the horizon. They would instinctively straighten and level it because they've done it so many times for other reasons including crosswinds.

"Dead foot, dead engine," and feather the prop on the dead engine. They don't need instruments for any of that. Yes they might glance at the engine instruments to verify what they already know, but they do already know it.

The one who is actually flying the plane be it left or right seat is going to feather that dead engine because he's going to be the first one to know which engine failed. From his foot. From his foot. He's going to want to reduce the drag from the windmilling prop ASAP and he'll just do it.

Alternatively, the one who wasn't flying the plane killed the good engine because he didn't have the feedback from the rudder pedals. That would be epic fail.

Instrumentation plays a very large part in flying and managing an engine failure on commercial aircraft even in VFR conditions.

Yes you will recognise and engine failure primarily by heading change due to the yaw that occurs. That recognition could be by looking outside but more likely by seeing the change of heading via the aircraft instrumentation.

This yaw will be counteracted by applying the correct rudder to stop the yaw. This could be achieved by looking outside but far more likely by looking at the primary flight display and ensuring the turn and slip indicator is approximately centralised with the wings approximately level.

You will most likely have to adjust the pitch attitude to ensure you do not allow the speed to decay to an unsafe level. This could be by looking outside but far more likely by setting an appropriate pitch attitude on the primary flight display.

The main objective is to ensure you have the aircraft under control, first and foremost. Identification whilst very important is secondary to flying the aircraft safely.

Speed is very much your best friend at this stage. Do not allow the aircraft to get below the take off safety speed. If performance is compromised then advance the thrust levers to ensure appropriate performance.

The next thing to address is the engine out procedure. It may well be a fairly complicated one or very straight forward.

Once it's all under control and to help with proper identification of the failure between both crew members then it would be prudent to engage the autopilot.

Take your time. Assessment will consist of looking at the crew alerting system to highlight a problem. From there you will look at the engine indications. Prior to taking any action you must ensure that you get confirmation from the other crew member on proper identification.

Who moves what control or switch will depend on the manufacturers guidance and possibly the individual operator.

Human nature, human factors and a bad day at the office for whatever reason will continue to pose risks to aviation that end sadly.

These aircraft don't need to descend if only one engine stops - they are designed to maintain altitude on one engine.

Probably true and that's why I keep hedging with "lost power or reduced power," the more tapes I see.

However, it was shortly after takeoff and we don't know if he had trouble gaining altitude and if so how much he gained. We don't know if he was at gross weight or what the density altitude was. We simply don't know why or how the plane lost power but it's apparent that it did.

Terrible accident and sad to watch that footage. Remarkable that there are any survivors.

Don't think density altitude is a factor here.

May be a stall but I would be more inclined to say that the aircraft reduced speed below the minimum control speed in the air as the roll rate was fairly quick.

the head line as stated "Crashed AirAsia flown by co-pilot" there seems to be a lot of emphasis put on the fact the co-pilot was flying, this is really at this stage of the investigation to be of very little consequence, probably more to the point he was not Indonesian...

The captain is the senior pilot and at any stage could have just said "I have Control" and taken control, there is no suggestion that he did so, certainly not on the CVR recording unless the Indonesians are hiding things.

I wonder who is responsible for monitoring the weather radar? Pilot flying or Pilot monitoring?

Both would be responsible for monitoring the weather radar. Weather can be selected on the Captains and First Officers navigation display.

This crash was caused by

1. Sensor failure

2. Pure Pilot error

3. Pilot error linked to (1.)

4. Auto pilot error linked (1.)

or a very unlikely mechanical failure - although in saying that - it is interesting to note that several reports have already indicated an urgent call to revise maintenance procedures which could be a hint that they already know why the aircraft got out of control

So with this statement you've ruled out what, alien abduction?

if you want to go with that up to you

One thing that I mentioned a couple of weeks ago was that this may prompt a rethinking of the use of the AP to make altitude/course adjustments during severe weather, punching numbers into a screen instead of flying the plane may no longer be recommended, I'm actually and always have been convinced that this was caused by the AP and pilots having too much confidence in it's capabilities especially in adverse weather, so I'll add one more 5. Auto pilot trying to fly the plane outside of it's program capabilities and pilots unable to recover the error in time

You don't punch numbers into a screen to avoid weather.

It's a simple task in the flight deck carried out by a pilot engaging the heading select switch with the autopilot remaining engaged throughout the maneuvre unless pilot intervention is required. What is important is a healthy respect is maintained for thunderstorm activity and ensure adequate lateral deviation, not vertical deviation as has been mentioned.

Autopilots and flight director systems on modern aircraft are exceptionally good, however they need proper monitoring and a good understanding. If they are not performing as expected then early pilot intervention will be required.

Looks similar to a 787 but with a380's noisy flap actuators

I was waiting for it to stall because of its faulty pitot tubes.

Airbus passengers are either clapping at the end of the ride because they're surprised they made it OR THEY are screaming in sheer terror whilst their pilots fight the planes computer for control.

?

You show a real lack of class sir.

Hopefully they find the flight data and cockpit voice recorder soon so to get a definitive answer on what caused an experienced crew to come unstuck. I don't have the answers and can speculate like everyone else. What I can offer is a professional input with as much accurate information as possible on the job and potential threats involved.

Weather may have played a part in the accident. Other aircraft in the region were close on 100 miles off track.

You can get ice crystal icing which is a fairly new phenomenon and is still not fully understood. It can happen in any part of the world but is more prevalent in tropical regions. The ice does not stick to the aircraft structure in any real form but can affect the temperature probes on the aircraft and also affect the parts of the engines which are not heated and protected by engine anti ice. This can lead to engine issues and/or total air temperature (TAT) probe issues. This may prevent the auto throttle of being able to maintain the desired speed. On the aircraft I fly we now have a specific checklist to cover this encounter.

You also have the potential for severe turbulence which may be related to thunderstorm activity or could occur in clear air. Pilots have a specific procedure on how to manage a severe turbulence encounter. If the aircraft is mishandled it could lead to loss of control. A high altitude stall could occur and needs a positive input to ensure recovery. The emphasis needs to be on a reduction of the angle of attack first and foremost.

Why no pan or mayday call ? It has all the hallmarks of something that developed quickly. Time will tell.

In an ideal world you would get the met briefing package from flight dispatch. If you know that might be a problem based on departure time then some prior prep at home via the Internet would give you an idea of the weather conditions to be expected. I can personally download the up to date flight plan, weather and Notam package I will need onto my ipad prior to leaving home.

Another source of information would be via air traffic control who will be able to provide at the very least the actual conditions at destination.

You also have the crews experience, particularly the captain who spent a career flying in that region and who would have a good awareness of the en route and destination weather to be expected for that time of the year.

Lastly, and assuming it's working, you have the onboard weather radar which gives you a real time picture of the weather up to 320 miles ahead of the aircraft.

people keep going on about the weather having caused this and to a certain extent that might be true, but I still say that modern aircraft can pretty much deal with what ever any weather can throw out there unless extreme or close to the ground, diverting - altering - changing is purely in the interests of passenger comfort, it is quite possible that in trying to find a less bumpy ride through a cloud formation so nobody spills their coffee that a pilot might look for a less turbulent path (radar)

- the key here is how he performs that task and the reliance of the systems on the plane to carry out possible course changes

- I'm still with the opinion that this was an autopilot error were the pilot relied on the computer to make some simple course changes that went wrong for whatever reason, it could be that in the future pilots should turn the auto pilot off in adverse weather and take manual control.

As I said in an earlier post on this thread - it is very easy to punch a few figures in on a screen to get the computer to do your bidding and make flight adjustments but you are not actually flying the plane - the computer is, when there's a problem in the sensors or some sort of mechanical problem with the plane (which I very much doubt unless someone forgot to tighten a nut somewhere during maintenance) it then becomes a race for the pilot to drop his comfort zone and realise there is something not right and do something about it, by that time (seconds) it is probably too late and the plane is already well out of control with the AP having made a serious - next..........

after that the very experienced pilot tries to regain control but does or doesn't quite make it and either way the plane hits the water hard (or soft depending how you look at it) breaching the hull which causes the plane to take on water very quickly, some people may have been able to open emergency doors (under very traumatic conditions) as it was sinking but were unable to actually exit because of the inrush of water so they were trapped, once filled with water and sinking fast the plane now filled with water and sinking reached a depth of more than 20 meters or 60 feet (probably less) at a depth which nobody can exit and swim to the surface and survive - some may have tried

That is what I think went on here - the ultimate blame IMO is with training and not understanding the limitations of systems and computers to fly aircraft in adverse conditions and also the fact that older pilots might be a little too reliant on modern technology without understanding it has limitations

My recommendation - if you are flying into weather - turn the autopilot off and fly the plane until the danger is passed

Just thinking out loud

We don't actually know what has happened to these poor souls.

Modern aircraft are very strong but there will only be one winner if one is foolish enough to fly through severe weather. Pilots deviate from weather for flight safety reasons, not for comfort.

Assuming no weather radar failure then the weather threat is depicted on your navigation display. The task of deviating to the left or right of that weather is a very simple task. Engage the heading mode and turn it left or right.

Most turbulence encounters will be manageable with the autopilot remaining engaged. That combined with the auto throttle do a very good job on most occasions. If severe turbulence is encountered and if required you would then disconnect the autopilot and set the appropriate thrust level and fly the correct pitch attitude first and foremost.

I don't fly the Airbus 320 aircraft but on the aircraft I fly we have 4 ELT's onboard. 2 are located in the door slide/raft, one forward and one aft of the aircraft. They will work when the door slide/raft comes into contact with water. 2 more are located in stowage areas, one forward and one aft of the aircraft.

We also have a fuselage mounted ELT. It is located in the top centre of the fuselage overhead the passenger cabin area and transmits on frequencies 121.5, 243, and 406 MHz. It will automatically transmit when it senses a high deceleration or when the switch is positioned to on.

@ArvinTunas they said Air Asia flew more than it was permitted to and didnt ask for changes or extra flights."

http://twitrpix.com/c7pmu

If they took off without filing a flight plan and getting permission, I'd say they are screwed. I hope that isn't true.

Based on my experience If you call air traffic control for your departure clearance and there is no flight plan filed then it be will highlighted to the crew who will then have to contact their flight dispatch to get it filed/re filed.

I can't imagine being cleared to cross borders to a major international city with fair paying passengers.

I would think that if there was any sort of control over the aircraft in the final stages then a mayday call would have been made.