Air Asia Black Box info

AdamZ

AdamZ

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
14,866
Location
Montgomery County PA
Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
Probably not a sustained climb but I'm sure momentum could carry it at 6,000 fpm for a short time.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Probably not a sustained climb but I'm sure momentum could carry it at 6,000 fpm for a short time.
Click to expand...

Agreed....

It will be interesting what the nose up angle was during the 6000fpm excursion.
 
AdamZ said:
Reports say Air Asia climbed at 6000 fpm then stalled. I would not think that a commercial jet could climb at that rate absent being caught in some serious updraft in a very close to mature TS. Be interested to hear what the guys flying commercial jets have to say.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/airasia-jet-climbed-fast-then-stalled-minister/ar-AA8nMMY
Click to expand...

Please note that the alleged climb rate is NOT from the flight recorder:

"radar data showed the Airbus A320-200 appeared at one point to be climbing at a rate of 6,000 feet...."

Nothing has been released yet on the flight recorder data.
 
Maybe he flies F16s for air force reserves for that country and go confused of what airplane he was flying. Just a educated guess. Well uneducated that is.
 
We could wait until a more detailed report comes out but I'm gonna go ahead and say alien tractor beam.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Please note that the alleged climb rate is NOT from the flight recorder:

"radar data showed the Airbus A320-200 appeared at one point to be climbing at a rate of 6,000 feet...."

Nothing has been released yet on the flight recorder data.
Click to expand...

Seems odd that this was announced before the flight recorder data were available.
 
cowman said:
We could wait until a more detailed report comes out but I'm gonna go ahead and say alien tractor beam.
Click to expand...

The same beam that took the Air Asia flight that disappeared. No one has disproved this theory yet! :dunno:
 
cowman said:
We could wait until a more detailed report comes out but I'm gonna go ahead and say alien tractor beam.
Click to expand...


Do ya think the aliens wanted a little snack of canned and freeze dried humans and the can just wasn't strong enough?
 
AdamZ said:
Reports say Air Asia climbed at 6000 fpm then stalled. I would not think that a commercial jet could climb at that rate
Click to expand...

Apparently it can't.
 
It can definitely stall, though. Air France had forgotten about that, and then reminded us all.
 
AdamZ said:
Reports say Air Asia climbed at 6000 fpm then stalled. I would not think that a commercial jet could climb at that rate absent being caught in some serious updraft in a very close to mature TS. Be interested to hear what the guys flying commercial jets have to say.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/airasia-jet-climbed-fast-then-stalled-minister/ar-AA8nMMY
Click to expand...

That's just 100 fps. I could see a climb (read severe turbulence) of that magnitude lasting a couple of seconds. If you did the math on the g loads it would likely help explain the apparent subsequent failure of the airframe.

I say "failure of the airframe" based on reports of the distance between major parts located.

It's all speculation , YMMV, etc.
 
3393RP said:
That's just 100 fps. I could see a climb (read severe turbulence) of that magnitude lasting a couple of seconds. If you did the math on the g loads it would likely help explain the apparent subsequent failure of the airframe.

I say "failure of the airframe" based on reports of the distance between major parts located.

It's all speculation , YMMV, etc.
Click to expand...

There was a report that one out of the first seven bodies recovered was wearing a life jacket. That suggests time enough to make preparations. It doesn't seem consistent with a sudden major airframe failure in flight, though it doesn't exclude other in-flight damage.

I noticed that the authorities say a preliminary report due the ICAO will NOT be made public:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/21/us-indonesia-airplane-idUSKBN0KU09X20150121
 
Jim Logajan said:
There was a report that one out of the first seven bodies recovered was wearing a life jacket. That suggests time enough to make preparations. It doesn't seem consistent with a sudden major airframe failure in flight, though it doesn't exclude other in-flight damage.

I noticed that the authorities say a preliminary report due the ICAO will NOT be made public:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/21/us-indonesia-airplane-idUSKBN0KU09X20150121
Click to expand...

And that report was later corrected to say the body was found near the life jacket, not wearing it.
 
3393RP said:
That's just 100 fps. I could see a climb (read severe turbulence) of that magnitude lasting a couple of seconds. If you did the math on the g loads it would likely help explain the apparent subsequent failure of the airframe.

I say "failure of the airframe" based on reports of the distance between major parts located.

It's all speculation , YMMV, etc.
Click to expand...

Especially when you think of that inertia, then you think about it going through the sheer into the mirror counter current. My $10 says that's where the wings snapped.
 
Henning said:
Especially when you think of that inertia, then you think about it going through the sheer into the mirror counter current. My $10 says that's where the wings snapped.
Click to expand...

When I used to fly hang gliders off of Sandia Peak it wasn't the entry into a 2000 fpm thermal that bothered me, it was getting tossed out the other side.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Please note that the alleged climb rate is NOT from the flight recorder:

"radar data showed the Airbus A320-200 appeared at one point to be climbing at a rate of 6,000 feet...."

Nothing has been released yet on the flight recorder data.
Click to expand...



NoHeat said:
Seems odd that this was announced before the flight recorder data were available.
Click to expand...


Mildly interesting that it follows the TWA 800 press leak playbook.
 
NoHeat said:
Seems odd that this was announced before the flight recorder data were available.
Click to expand...

Why? What does radar data have to do with the flight recorder information?
 
Yes, and they threw it back, as the can was not labelled as Genetically Modified Organisms.

Give alien consumers what they demand!

Clark1961 said:
Do ya think the aliens wanted a little snack of canned and freeze dried humans and the can just wasn't strong enough?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Just a thought... The 6,000ft climb data is coming from "radar data" although to be more specific they would mean transponder returns from the transponders altimeter since radar alone doesn't provide altitude.

The transponder simply returns pressure info from the transponders altimiter, which is always set to 29.98. Computers on the ground take that pressure data from the plane and the local actual pressure from the ground and calculate an altitude. If the plane flew right into a storm that would cause a rapid drop in pressure which, to the computer on the ground, would look like a rapid increase in altitude. Even the onboard altimiter could be impacted by this so really they need GPS data to know for sure what the plane was really doing.

Just a thought. Pressure inside an intense storm can drop like crazy.
 
Clark1961 said:
Do ya think the aliens wanted a little snack of canned and freeze dried humans and the can just wasn't strong enough?
Click to expand...

Nah, the alien operating the tractor beam saw a squirrel and got distracted, accidentally turned the beam off.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
Just a thought... The 6,000ft climb data is coming from "radar data" although to be more specific they would mean transponder returns from the transponders altimeter since radar alone doesn't provide altitude.

The transponder simply returns pressure info from the transponders altimiter, which is always set to 29.98. Computers on the ground take that pressure data from the plane and the local actual pressure from the ground and calculate an altitude. If the plane flew right into a storm that would cause a rapid drop in pressure which, to the computer on the ground, would look like a rapid increase in altitude. Even the onboard altimiter could be impacted by this so really they need GPS data to know for sure what the plane was really doing.

Just a thought. Pressure inside an intense storm can drop like crazy.
Click to expand...

Make that 29.92.....
 
Henning said:
Inside a T-Storm he could be nose down going up 6000fpm.
Click to expand...

Been there... Done that... Got the Tee shirt.......

Closest I ever got to getting killed in a plane was east of KLAL in my Warrior...

Once I saved it.. and landed, I literally got out and kissed the ground...
 
rocketflyer84 said:
Just a thought... The 6,000ft climb data is coming from "radar data" although to be more specific they would mean transponder returns from the transponders altimeter since radar alone doesn't provide altitude.

The transponder simply returns pressure info from the transponders altimiter, which is always set to 29.98. Computers on the ground take that pressure data from the plane and the local actual pressure from the ground and calculate an altitude. If the plane flew right into a storm that would cause a rapid drop in pressure which, to the computer on the ground, would look like a rapid increase in altitude. Even the onboard altimiter could be impacted by this so really they need GPS data to know for sure what the plane was really doing.

Just a thought. Pressure inside an intense storm can drop like crazy.
Click to expand...

True, but pressure drops have a direct correlation to air movement. If he took a 6000' pressure hit, he took a hard hit.
 
So what does A320 do if the autopilot is trying to hold altitude and you hit an updraft in a thunderstorm? An updraft in a strong thunderstorm can easily exceed 6000 fpm...

On a MUCH smaller scale not long after I got my IR I was on a trip flying into a busy airport on a summer afternoon and ATC brought me in on an altitude that had me going in and out of some building cumulus clouds. No precipitation and they were small mostly. I was using the autopilot and going through one of them I hit an updraft that was quite significant and wasn't paying attention (fat, dumb and happy), the autopilot tried to keep me at my altitude and I picked up speed and went well into the yellow before I noticed. I got a huge scare and corrected and never did that again. On a much bigger scale I'm wondering what would happen with a lot more workload in the A320 if something like this happened? Would the AP kick off or would it let the plane get very fast?
 
I heard about that 6000 fpm jump some time ago. But decided to ignore for the time being because I've seen enough Flight Aware tracks with one really strange altitude data point to realize that a single data point is not really reliable. Now, if the flight recorder had supported that information, it would be more reliable. But, it is still very unlikely. Impossible? I'm not knowledgeable enough to know. Anyway, the fact that someone has tried to link the radar anomaly with the recovery of the recorder, without actually having the information from the recorder, just piques my skepticism meter.

Let's just wait until the data and voice recorder data are available.
 
For the ATPs:

In an airliner, like the Airbus, what are the typical stall characteristics? Does it happen suddnely? Is there a rolling tendency? How much altitude is generally lost? The only experience I have is with the basic Pipers, Cessnas, and the like.
 
Autopilots kick off for multitude of reasons, nudging the yoke, incorrect instrument readings, icing, etc. if something goes amiss, it's when the pilots earn their keep
 
teejayevans said:
Autopilots kick off for multitude of reasons, nudging the yoke, incorrect instrument readings, icing, etc. if something goes amiss, it's when the pilots earn their keep
Click to expand...


Yeah, and when George says "Your plane! Here it is back at ya with full aft trim and 20 lbs of back pressure needed. You ARE holding the yoke aren't you?", you know you're in for some fun times.

;)
 
Matthew said:
For the ATPs:

In an airliner, like the Airbus, what are the typical stall characteristics? Does it happen suddnely? Is there a rolling tendency? How much altitude is generally lost? The only experience I have is with the basic Pipers, Cessnas, and the like.
Click to expand...


Pretty good pitch and roll control even after a stall is developed. Aircraft will settle into a slightly nose low attitude with a high AoA. Nose down movement of the elevator and most likely nose down elevator trim will be needed to break the stall. Expect a **** ton of altitude loss if high up.

Approach to stall recoveries at low altitude are more of a "power out of it" type maneuver.


As the flying qualities go, AF447 was stalled the entire way down and they were able to keep control of it. Heck, they are the ones that stalled it and kept it stalled the entire way down, while maintaining control throughout the descent.
 
Rex Kramer said:
Pretty good pitch and roll control even after a stall is developed. Aircraft will settle into a slightly nose low attitude with a high AoA. Nose down movement of the elevator and most likely nose down elevator trim will be needed to break the stall. Expect a **** ton of altitude loss if high up.

Approach to stall recoveries at low altitude are more of a "power out of it" type maneuver.


As the flying qualities go, AF447 was stalled the entire way down and they were able to keep control of it. Heck, they are the ones that stalled it and kept it stalled the entire way down, while maintaining control throughout the descent.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, AF447 did not have AoA, which shoulda woulda coulda prevented the whole thing, right? That's what confuses me...

I always thought AoA was standard on most airliners. Is that not true? What % of airliners would you guess have AoA? Curious.
 
Rex Kramer said:
Pretty good pitch and roll control even after a stall is developed. Aircraft will settle into a slightly nose low attitude with a high AoA. Nose down movement of the elevator and most likely nose down elevator trim will be needed to break the stall. Expect a **** ton of altitude loss if high up.

Approach to stall recoveries at low altitude are more of a "power out of it" type maneuver.


As the flying qualities go, AF447 was stalled the entire way down and they were able to keep control of it. Heck, they are the ones that stalled it and kept it stalled the entire way down, while maintaining control throughout the descent.
Click to expand...

Not just maintained! The dude in the left seat even recovered the wings level after the guy in the right finally realized he was actually about to die and let his hand move.
 
petrolero said:
If I recall correctly, AF447 did not have AoA, which shoulda woulda coulda prevented the whole thing, right? That's what confuses me...

I always thought AoA was standard on most airliners. Is that not true? What % of airliners would you guess have AoA? Curious.
Click to expand...

That's a bit misleading, the Airbus does have an AOA, the information is fed into the Flight Computers and the information is sent to the PFD and is interpreted in a number of ways.

In the event of unreliable airspeed data, there is a system called BUSS ( back up speed system) that basically turns the airspeed tape into a AOA indicator.

If you are talking in terms of an old fashion stand alone AOA, then you are correct, it doesn't have such an instrument.
 
Last edited:
petrolero said:
If I recall correctly, AF447 did not have AoA, which shoulda woulda coulda prevented the whole thing, right? That's what confuses me...

I always thought AoA was standard on most airliners. Is that not true? What % of airliners would you guess have AoA? Curious.
Click to expand...


The particulars of the airbus design has the stall prevention system shut off if there is an unreliable airspeed situation, which there was at the beginning of AF447's icing encounter. It also shuts the autopilot off.

Basically it goes into an alternate law where the plane will try to recover (lower the nose), but the pilot can override it (incidentally, this alternate law is the normal law for boeing designs). If the pilot had just let go of the stick and/or pushed forward, the plane would have recovered.

Regarding an AOA display, most airliners don't have them switched on, but the AoA is used by the computers to computer all sorts of information, the most obvious being the stall speed (red/black band) on the airspeed indicator.

The one large transport category fleet I've seen with an AoA display is Delta's 777 fleet. I'm sure there are others, of course, but it's not that common right now.
 
RotorAndWing said:
That's a bit misleading, the Airbus does have an AOA, the information is fed into the Flight Computers and the information is sent to the PFD and is interpreted in a number of ways.

In the event of unreliable airspeed data, there is a system called BUSS ( back up speed system) that basically turns the airspeed tape into a AOA indicator.

If you are talking in terms of an old fashion stand alone AOA, then you are correct, it doesn't have such an instrument.
Click to expand...

Great info. In the AF447 situation I believe the AP switched off and kicked the computers over to alternate law, no?

In that situation does it display AoA as raw data or does it interpret AoA based on weight & balance and display as some kind of fake airspeed or %Vs1?

I have ~3 hours in United's A320 sim. About 1 hour of that was goofing around flying under the golden gate or up the Potomac or trying to do an aileron roll with all the "laws" supposedly disabled (I couldn't do it - it would cease the roll well before going inverted and the nose would just fall off the horizon). But then we did some real world stuff (ILS to Cat 1 minima, LLWS, V1 cut, etc) but we never iced the tube to see what it does - much less how it behaves at high altitude. Curious.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top