Indonesian investigators: Crashed AirAsia flown by co-pilot

[webfact]

Indonesian investigators: Crashed AirAsia flown by co-pilot
By NINIEK KARMINI

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) — Indonesian investigators announced Thursday the co-pilot of the crashed AirAsia jet was in control when he struggled to recover the aircraft as stall warnings sounded.

The Airbus A320-200 crashed into the Java Sea Dec. 28, halfway from Indonesia's city of Surabaya to Singapore. All 162 people on board were killed.

Chief investigator of the National Transportation Safety Committee Marjono Siswosuwarno said that the cockpit voice recording indicated that the co-pilot, French national Remi Emmanuel Plesel, was flying the plane while Indonesian Capt. Iriyanto was monitoring.

Iryanto, who like many Indonesians uses a single name, was a former fighter pilot with more than 20,500 flying hours, while less experienced Plesel had about 6,000 hours.

Siswosuwarno said the black boxes retrieved from the seabed provided a pretty clear picture of what went wrong in the last moments of AirAsia Flight 8501, as the plane was struggling to recover and stall warnings sounded until the end of the recording.

"However, we are still examining many other things on the issues," Siswosuwarno told a news conference.

Another investigator, Ertata Lananggalih, said that based on the voice recorder, the captain was monitoring and communicating with air traffic control while Plesel was flying the plane.

"But it is normal practices, both pilots can exchange their roles with each other," said Lananggalih.

Investigators concluded that the plane was in airworthy condition prior to the crash.

Both flight and cockpit data recorders showed that the jet was stabilized cruising at the height of 32,000 feet before the pilot contacted ground control saying they were turning left, and a minute later sought permission to climb to 38,000 feet. The ATC at Jakarta's Sukarno-Hatta airport asked them to stand by.

Siswosuwarno said that the weather satellite images at the time showed a formation of storm clouds reaching up to 44,000 feet. He added that flight data showed that the jet was in a dangerously fast climb and stalled before going down slowly into the last position of 24,000 feet high recorded on the radar.

He said investigators were still looking into whether turbulence or updrafts contributed to the plane's drastic climb as repeated stall warnings were heard clearly on the cockpit recording within four minutes until the end of the recording since the plane reached more than 8 degrees of its pitch angle.

Indonesia Minister of Transportation Ignasius Jonan has said previously that radar data showed the Airbus A320 was climbing at an abnormally high rate, about 6,000 feet a minute before it disappeared.

"In many cases, the engine is not strong enough to fly in this high angle," Siswosuwarno said.

Indonesian rescuers have retrieved 72 bodies, with the last two were found drifting Wednesday off Sulawesi island. Unconfirmed reports said another body was discovered Thursday about 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) east of the crash scene.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-01-30

[715]

"In many cases, the engine is not strong enough to fly in this high angle," Siswosuwarno said.

Holy crap, this guy is the Chief Investigator of the National Transportation Safety Committee?

The engine doesn't care what angle it's at, the wing surely does though.

[HeijoshinCool]

"In many cases, the engine is not strong enough to fly in this high angle," Siswosuwarno said.

Holy crap, this guy is the Chief Investigator of the National Transportation Safety Committee?

The engine doesn't care what angle it's at, the wing surely does though.

.

He's saying that a commercial airliner does not have the power for the rate of climb recorded.

[SiSePuede419]

I work in the avionics industry, but don't know everything about every manufacturer's flightdeck, so you Airbus A320 Engineering "experts" correct me if I'm wrong...

It doesn't matter whether the copilot or the pilot is flying. Both pilot and copilot controls are active, at all times.

The flight computer sums both inputs. So even if the copilot pulled up, the pilot could push down and the FMC (Flight Management Computer) would average the two inputs and fly level.

The only exception is if the Pilot chooses to "lock out" the copilot controls. The Copilot cannot lock out the Pilot controls.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-stick

The statement that the copilot was in control is a logical "red herring" and means nothing.

[kinmaew]

and the CEO of Air Asia Indonesia just after the accident on TV "Thank you I will NOT be taking questions"

Speaks volumes about aviation standards and accountability in Indonesia. I will stick to the train if I go there again.

[whaleboneman]

"In many cases, the engine is not strong enough to fly in this high angle," Siswosuwarno said.

Holy crap, this guy is the Chief Investigator of the National Transportation Safety Committee?

The engine doesn't care what angle it's at, the wing surely does though.

I believe all wings are carefree.

[NeverSure]

"In many cases, the engine is not strong enough to fly in this high angle," Siswosuwarno said.

Holy crap, this guy is the Chief Investigator of the National Transportation Safety Committee?

The engine doesn't care what angle it's at, the wing surely does though.

You're picking nits. It says the engines.

If the engine is pitched up too steep it doesn't have enough power to maintain the needed airspeed over the wings.

It's just the (clumsy) way he worded it but it doesn't make him wrong.

[Jay Sata]

All I can say from my 30 plus years of flying is that there is only one winner when you enter a fully developed storm cell and it is not the aircraft.

[rickirs]

You don't fly into storms and this aircraft should have never left the airport, especially lacking a weather report during the worst part of the season for violent storms. The aircraft got caught in a vertical cyclonic wind shear. Not only was the aircraft forcibly pushed up, it was pushed from behind as well. The result was a sudden and rapid steep climb beyond engine capability. The aircraft had neither sufficient engine power nor aerodynamic solutions to regain control until the aircraft stalled out of the convective forces. At that point recovery will be impossible no matter who is at the controls.

[Jay Sata]

Excellent synopsis Rick.

One can ask why they did not route around the cells?

[Kudzu]

http://youtu.be/9uJHIzXQWXk

PULKOVO 612 Tupolev Tu-154 85185 crash simulation 08/22/06 WEATHER RADAR ATTENUATION EFFECT

[pattayasnowman]

I work in the avionics industry, but don't know everything about every manufacturer's flightdeck, so you Airbus A320 Engineering "experts" correct me if I'm wrong...

It doesn't matter whether the copilot or the pilot is flying. Both pilot and copilot controls are active, at all times.

The flight computer sums both inputs. So even if the copilot pulled up, the pilot could push down and the FMC (Flight Management Computer) would average the two inputs and fly level.

The only exception is if the Pilot chooses to "lock out" the copilot controls. The Copilot cannot lock out the Pilot controls.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-stick

The statement that the copilot was in control is a logical "red herring" and means nothing.

In the case of the crash of AirFrance 447 the 2nd officer continued pulling back on the sidestick throughout the descent despite stall warnings. A 'gut' reaction from fear seeing the plane contiue to loose height, being disorientated and maybe not believing the computer warning. AF447 crashed still in a stall nose up.

My 'guess' is that the pilot(s) dialed into the computer a new height as they had requested from ATC. The computer was performing this maneuver when the aircraft was caught in a fierce updraft due to the storm. As a consquence the aircraft sensors may have caused the computer to display erroroneous or conflicting data.

Seeing the rate of climb to be so great the pilot(s) may have throttled back to decrease the rate of ascent causing the aircraft to stall . Probable disorientated by the storm and perhaps not wanting to believe the computer warnings (not uncommon) the pilots kept the aircraft in a nose up position trying to make the plane climb thus failing to correct the stall.

A stall at 38,000 ft should be easily correctable, unless the storm for some reason prevented this.

My guess is that the outcome of the enquiry into the crash will be pilot error.

[Basil B]

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?

[cookee68]

You don't fly into storms and this aircraft should have never left the airport, especially lacking a weather report during the worst part of the season for violent storms. The aircraft got caught in a vertical cyclonic wind shear. Not only was the aircraft forcibly pushed up, it was pushed from behind as well. The result was a sudden and rapid steep climb beyond engine capability. The aircraft had neither sufficient engine power nor aerodynamic solutions to regain control until the aircraft stalled out of the convective forces. At that point recovery will be impossible no matter who is at the controls

So very true

[khaosai]

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.

[Liquorice]

Seems very coincidental that they asked for permission to climb, which was refused, then it was forcibly pushed up by wind sheer?

[NeverSure]

Seems very coincidental that they asked for permission to climb, which was refused, then it was forcibly pushed up by wind sheer?

If the climb had been deliberate in defiance of ATC, the plane wouldn't have maintained that rate of climb for very long. Something else was wrong whatever it was. This wasn't a normal climb from normal and proper pilot input.

[krisb]

How many here that have flown with Air Asia got a please come back and fly with us again email from Tony the CEO? We did.

No thanks Tony. You'll not be seeing us again.

Unreal 2 pilots with that many hours stuffed up so badly.

[Chicog]

Definite shades of AF447...

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.thehindu.com/news/international/airasia-captain-left-seat-before-jet-lost-control-sources/article6842044.ece

[harrry]

He was apparently trying to disconect the protections that stop the plane following pilots commands if they are outside an envelope. This is the fix given by airbus for the 777 after the Air France crash.

[Farma]

AIRASIA has refused to verify reports the pilots on board QZ8501 cut power to a critical computer system before the A320 plunged into the Java Sea.

<snip>

But Fairfax has reported people close to the investigation have claimed the pilots cut power to the computer systems in order to fly the plane manually, after striking severe weather.

What happened next is thought to have resulted in the crash, with the aircraft placed into a steep climb which led to its stalling.

Airbus advises against disconnecting power to computer systems because they are closely interconnected.

From a news story yesterday http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/unconfirmed-reports-are-circulating-that-the-airasia-pilots-cut-power-to-a-critical-computer/story-fnh81fz8-1227202311311

Edited January 31, 2015 by Farma

[harrry]

AIRASIA has refused to verify reports the pilots on board QZ8501 cut power to a critical computer system before the A320 plunged into the Java Sea.

<snip>

But Fairfax has reported people close to the investigation have claimed the pilots cut power to the computer systems in order to fly the plane manually, after striking severe weather.

What happened next is thought to have resulted in the crash, with the aircraft placed into a steep climb which led to its stalling.

Airbus advises against disconnecting power to computer systems because they are closely interconnected.

From a news story yesterday http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/unconfirmed-reports-are-circulating-that-the-airasia-pilots-cut-power-to-a-critical-computer/story-fnh81fz8-1227202311311

Until recently there was no FCOM technique to "force" the aircraft to a "basic law" - albeit much debate here and in cockpits about "how" to. The recent OEB alters this, and covers an unlikely (but not impossible) scenario where protections inappropriately kick in. It requires 2 PBs pressed to cause the required downgrade. IIRC in the incident triggering this the downgrade happened anyway, but presumably the boffins have now found a scenario that might not. The actions required are to turn off 2 of 3 ADRs.

This is from Prune discussing new instructions regarding the 777. This was not a 777 but he may have been trying to do the same thing.

[Jangot]

He was apparently trying to disconect the protections that stop the plane following pilots commands if they are outside an envelope. This is the fix given by airbus for the 777 after the Air France crash.

I don't think Airbus are going to be giving fixes for a 777

[harrry]

He was apparently trying to disconect the protections that stop the plane following pilots commands if they are outside an envelope. This is the fix given by airbus for the 777 after the Air France crash.

I don't think Airbus are going to be giving fixes for a 777

neither do I. Freudian slip as I ws looking at the PMDG 777 for fsx and wondering if I should put out the money when I made that post.

Of

[F430murci]

He was apparently trying to disconect the protections that stop the plane following pilots commands if they are outside an envelope. This is the fix given by airbus for the 777 after the Air France crash.

I dunno. Lets see if leak was true. If plane out if control, unstrapping, getting out if seat and pulling FAC CBs might be last thing in mind or ability to do. Who knows what's up it what's the real sequence of events with all if these so called leaks.

[Jay Sata]

Given the circumstances the captain who was an ex fast jet pilot would have been a better pair of hands flying than the co,pilot.

Modern pilots are not given full spin training and recovery. Trying to recover from unusual attitudes inside cloud is extremely difficult.

I was trained on an old fashioned panel and would not want to attempt a recovery using an electronic display.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Jay Sata

[NanLaew]

Given the circumstances the captain who was an ex fast jet pilot would have been a better pair of hands flying than the co,pilot.

Modern pilots are not given full spin training and recovery. Trying to recover from unusual attitudes inside cloud is extremely difficult.

I was trained on an old fashioned panel and would not want to attempt a recovery using an electronic display.

By the same token, F16 power, steering and response to command is probably a lot different from the Airbus. Agree that fighter jets are hands-on and there's too much reliance on automation on commercial aircraft.

[Basil B]

Obviously the only training for "stall and spin" would in a flight simulator.

[harrry]

Obviously the only training for "stall and spin" would in a flight simulator.

It seems with the airbus they cannot as there is no spin data.

[Liquorice]

Because there is no recovery from a flat spin, only ejection, and that isn't available on a commercial jet.