Air Asia Flight Flight No: Qz7605 Almost Crashes

[PhilHarries]

It was in 1984

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Real...worthiness.html

Thanks for the link cdnvic. 1984, crikey how time flies. My time on the project was mid to late '70's, I left the RAE October '78 and we were monitoring the effects of gas turbine engines ingesting fuel of varying percentages AMK under increasing power settings. In those days many aircraft had rear mounted engines and during a crash they would likely ingest fuel, particularly AMK, causing a power surge. Even though I left the project I kept in touch with developements and clearly remember the film footage of the "crash".

[Levent]

Working for the airlines and in the same area as Air Asia I just checked with one of the managers in crew scheduling regarding this particular flight. QZ7605 was not 7 hours late but 20 minutes late and other than that showed no incidents for this flight. All data from every flight is input for FAA and for customer complaints or any incidents on board no matter how small. Data shows QZ7605 scheduled for departure from KUL(LCCT) at 2115 and arrivial at JKT at 2215. Doors closed at 2140 and the air at 2151. Time was made up during the flight due to light traffic and arrived at JKT at 2235. This is what the computer shows. Go figure???

This response overlooks the fact that Air Asia could have cancelled this ladies flight and maybe two or three others , a not uncommon practice ( according to the taxi driver who picked me up from an on time flight to Phuket I had waited six hours to board) of Air Asia.

How could an industry professional not address this possibilty............go figure!

What on earth are you talking about? Flightcrew1 stated that the flight was 20 minutes late landing in Jakarta, as shown in the computer system. What is this about 'Air Asia could have cancelled the flight'? Did you experience this yourself?

Edit to add that I was giving the most probable cause of TWA 800 going down. The official report says something "may" have happened, but what is most probable is a rocket from a U.S. Navy ship. This has happened before such as when a U.S. Navy ship accidentally brought down a Middle Eastern airline from Iran or Jordan I think (in waters of the Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean). Accidents happen, even with the military. The solution in this case, though, was that the plane went down in U.S. waters so they were able to cover it up.

You are referring to the Iran Air Airbus A300 that was shot down by a US military ship over the Persian Gulf. The aircraft was travelling from Iran to Dubai. The ship's systems mistook the A300 for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat. The 'sophisticated' ship did not have the equipment to communicate with civilian air traffic, so the Iran Air pilots could not be contacted. The captain, not the computer, decided to fire a missile at it. Despite this terrible error, the US never apologised for the incident and on top of that the crew of the ship was given medals for their actions

[cdnvic]

It was in 1984

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Real...worthiness.html

Thanks for the link cdnvic. 1984, crikey how time flies. My time on the project was mid to late '70's, I left the RAE October '78 and we were monitoring the effects of gas turbine engines ingesting fuel of varying percentages AMK under increasing power settings. In those days many aircraft had rear mounted engines and during a crash they would likely ingest fuel, particularly AMK, causing a power surge. Even though I left the project I kept in touch with developements and clearly remember the film footage of the "crash".

If/when Youtube is available you can see the footage here.

[jamesc2000]

Jet fuel isn't explosive like gasoline...

Remember the TWA flight that exploded over Long Island (I think shortly after 9/11)? In addition to the theory that a terrorist might have brought down the jet with a hand-held rocket launcher, wasn't the other theory that some kind of electrical spark/ignition in the wing's electrical circuits blew up the fuel and brought down the jet? Witnesses recounted seeing a fireball in the sky. How does that theory mesh with your above statement? Help me here.

No, I believe that this crash was due to rudder failure, attributed to incorrect training to pilots on how to correct turbulance caused by flying in another aircraft.s wake...

Yup I saw this on Air Crash Investiagtion on the National Geographic and I think they said the pilot pressed the pedals to hard and broke the rudder! I know it may sound silly but thats what they said!

[cdnvic]

Jet fuel isn't explosive like gasoline...

Remember the TWA flight that exploded over Long Island (I think shortly after 9/11)? In addition to the theory that a terrorist might have brought down the jet with a hand-held rocket launcher, wasn't the other theory that some kind of electrical spark/ignition in the wing's electrical circuits blew up the fuel and brought down the jet? Witnesses recounted seeing a fireball in the sky. How does that theory mesh with your above statement? Help me here.

No, I believe that this crash was due to rudder failure, attributed to incorrect training to pilots on how to correct turbulance caused by flying in another aircraft.s wake...

Yup I saw this on Air Crash Investiagtion on the National Geographic and I think they said the pilot pressed the pedals to hard and broke the rudder! I know it may sound silly but thats what they said!

Scroll up, we've dealt with this already, that was a totally different incident.

[Levent]

Yup I saw this on Air Crash Investiagtion on the National Geographic and I think they said the pilot pressed the pedals to hard and broke the rudder! I know it may sound silly but thats what they said!

It may sound silly but it is true. The aircraft was caught in the wake turbulence of a 747 and in an effort to regain control of the plane, the co-pilot manipulated the pedals in such a way that the rudder and vertical stabiliser were stressed too much. They broke off the fuselage, making the aircraft completely uncontrollable.

[old wanderer]

No, I believe that this crash was due to rudder failure, attributed to incorrect training to pilots on how to correct turbulance caused by flying in another aircraft.s wake...

I am a senior intructor for Boeing, and working in Bangkok helping a Thai airline at this moment. That "finding" was the biggest politcal sellout to Airbus that I ever heard by the USA NTSB.

All aircraft were designed with rudder limiters to prevent overstressing of the rudder at full application. As a senior pilot with thousands of hours of experience, it has alway been the criteria: "Fly the Airplane" which simply translates into put what ever input into the controls that are necessarry to controlt he aircraft.

When the copilot of the AA flight put ruddr force into the old Airbus to control the roll from the wake turbulance of the preceddeing aircraft, the rudder failed, and over 200 people paid with thier lives.

Airbus in a clasic CYA move claimed "pilot error" and instead of fixing the problem with good engineering, instated new pilot training requirements, so that what was normal and natural in every other aircraft in the world, was not prohibited in the Airbus....

Classic politics vs engineering....

[billp]

You think possibly just a "hard" landing?

Yesterday, I landed at Khon Kaen (Thai Airlines). Although the weather was clear, the turbulence approaching the airport was pretty bad. When we reached the landing strip, we seemed at an unnaturally high altitude, and then it felt like someone cut the elevator (lift) cables. Dropped like a rock.

We hit the tarmac so hard, I thought my knees were going to knock out my teeth. The aircraft actually bounced back up into the air and came down hard again. We passed the terminal building going at breakneck speed, and then the pilot then did a major braking job that made me feel like my seat belt was going to sever my body in half. A few yelps from other passengers confirmed I wasn't hallucinating that I had boarded a roller coaster.

Now, I believe I could have labeled that harrowing experience as "almost crashed." Maybe discount airlines don't have all the monopoly on "near death" experiences?

Sounds like every landing when I used to fly on military transport. 3 bounces was par for the course. It was especially fun on a "milk run" with 5 or so landings and takeoffs before destination. They were pretty good pilots though. They could land those big C130s on a dime and only had one crash in something like three decades.