AirAsia Airbus 320 flight missing

[Minder]

Some analysts have suggested that it stalled because it was travelling too slowly or climbing too steeply.

Didn't think it was possible to stall an Airbus, the fly-by-wire isn't supposed to let you pull up too steeply or slowly.

"We can only find out from the black box," said Mr Sudibyo.

Can't believe we're still using local data storage in this day and age, instead of beaming everything into the cloud as the flight progresses.

The Air France flight from Brazil was an Airbus

[Eamonnca1]

Can't say I agree with that, Orangeman.  A lot of simulator work is required before getting an endorsement  and then from that there is line training which  involves flying with the experienced captain which culminates in being "checked to line".  I'm no longer in the aviation game but am still in touch with many who are and I find it very hard to believe that pilot error led to this. 

I'm no insider but I've heard reports from American pilots who went to Asian airlines to help with their training and were a bit shocked by what they saw. A lot of Asian education systems are all about rote learning rather than critical or creative thinking, and apparently this mentality makes its way into flight training. They're great at memorizing what to do with the systems, but as soon as they have to get on the stick and fly a plane manually, they're not so good at it because they don't have enough hours accrued. Apparently if you take off and land manually but sit for 1000 miles on autopilot, you get the credit for flying hours of the whole flight. Makes me wonder why they don't track the number of manual and autopilot hours separately.

[muppet]

Some analysts have suggested that it stalled because it was travelling too slowly or climbing too steeply.

Didn't think it was possible to stall an Airbus, the fly-by-wire isn't supposed to let you pull up too steeply or slowly.

"We can only find out from the black box," said Mr Sudibyo.

Can't believe we're still using local data storage in this day and age, instead of beaming everything into the cloud as the flight progresses.

There are at least two problems with the way this claim has evolved.

Firstly, engineers have designed aircraft not to stall and then sell this great claim to the world. Then of course some instruments or computers fail and the fly-by-wire is downgraded and no longer able to provide the advertised protections. Thus like any aircraft it can stall.

Secondly, by having claimed to have designed an un-stallable aircraft the engineers will inadvertently have downgraded pilot training in that area and also pilots' perception of that as a real live threat or risk, and thus may not have the appropriate response instantaneously ready in their minds.

Thus David Learmount, in the article above, is guilty of over-simplifying everything by blaming it on pilot skills deficiencies.

[TabClear]

Some analysts have suggested that it stalled because it was travelling too slowly or climbing too steeply.

Didn't think it was possible to stall an Airbus, the fly-by-wire isn't supposed to let you pull up too steeply or slowly.

"We can only find out from the black box," said Mr Sudibyo.

Can't believe we're still using local data storage in this day and age, instead of beaming everything into the cloud as the flight progresses.

Muppet, Aerlik why is this? Is it technically not possible to do this or is it some other reason?. I'm assuming it is possible given they can tell what is happening with the mars rover in real time?

[armaghniac]

Real time data from aircraft is possible and some do, but it cost money and airlines have to choose to spend the money.

[muppet]

Some analysts have suggested that it stalled because it was travelling too slowly or climbing too steeply.

Didn't think it was possible to stall an Airbus, the fly-by-wire isn't supposed to let you pull up too steeply or slowly.

"We can only find out from the black box," said Mr Sudibyo.

Can't believe we're still using local data storage in this day and age, instead of beaming everything into the cloud as the flight progresses.

Muppet, Aerlik why is this? Is it technically not possible to do this or is it some other reason?. I'm assuming it is possible given they can tell what is happening with the mars rover in real time?

Cost, cost, cost.

Would anyone pay extra to fly with an airline that did this?

[Itchy]

Some analysts have suggested that it stalled because it was travelling too slowly or climbing too steeply.

Didn't think it was possible to stall an Airbus, the fly-by-wire isn't supposed to let you pull up too steeply or slowly.

"We can only find out from the black box," said Mr Sudibyo.

Can't believe we're still using local data storage in this day and age, instead of beaming everything into the cloud as the flight progresses.

Muppet, Aerlik why is this? Is it technically not possible to do this or is it some other reason?. I'm assuming it is possible given they can tell what is happening with the mars rover in real time?

Cost, cost, cost.

Would anyone pay extra to fly with an airline that did this?

No cos youd be dead anyway do why would you care where the data is saved

[Eamonnca1]

If it's left up to airlines then it won't happen. They'd have to be forced to do it by regulations.

[Eamonnca1]

There are at least two problems with the way this claim has evolved.

Firstly, engineers have designed aircraft not to stall and then sell this great claim to the world. Then of course some instruments or computers fail and the fly-by-wire is downgraded and no longer able to provide the advertised protections. Thus like any aircraft it can stall.

Secondly, by having claimed to have designed an un-stallable aircraft the engineers will inadvertently have downgraded pilot training in that area and also pilots' perception of that as a real live threat or risk, and thus may not have the appropriate response instantaneously ready in their minds.

Thus David Learmount, in the article above, is guilty of over-simplifying everything by blaming it on pilot skills deficiencies.

Is it just me or is take-off in an Airbus a lot steeper than in a Boeing? Any time I'm in an Airbus I feel like I'm in a rocket. That and the quieter cabin.

[muppet]

There are at least two problems with the way this claim has evolved.

Firstly, engineers have designed aircraft not to stall and then sell this great claim to the world. Then of course some instruments or computers fail and the fly-by-wire is downgraded and no longer able to provide the advertised protections. Thus like any aircraft it can stall.

Secondly, by having claimed to have designed an un-stallable aircraft the engineers will inadvertently have downgraded pilot training in that area and also pilots' perception of that as a real live threat or risk, and thus may not have the appropriate response instantaneously ready in their minds.

Thus David Learmount, in the article above, is guilty of over-simplifying everything by blaming it on pilot skills deficiencies.

Is it just me or is take-off in an Airbus a lot steeper than in a Boeing? Any time I'm in an Airbus I feel like I'm in a rocket. That and the quieter cabin.

That will be down to a load of factors such as the engines used (and on the day) weight, altitude & temperature. The engines are not manufactured by either Airbus or Boeing and some engines appear on both manufacturers models (e.g. CFM56 can be used on both A320s & B737s).

If you are the only passenger on a flight (thus a low weight) and they use full power (say due to snow or other weather issues) it will accelerate like a rocket. But usually the power used is lowered to save engine wear.

[DennistheMenace]

It's usually a combination of factors that lead to the a crash like this.

You hear people say why didn't the pilot communicate any issues to the tower but this is his least priority in a dangerous system with his main objective being, aviating, then navigating and finally communicating. If you are in your car and in danger of crashing, your least concern is to call an ambulance. Simplistic anaolgy but gets the point across when explaining to some.

[muppet]

It's usually a combination of factors that lead to the a crash like this.

You hear people say why didn't the pilot communicate any issues to the tower but this is his least priority in a dangerous system with his main objective being, aviating, then navigating and finally communicating. If you are in your car and in danger of crashing, your least concern is to call an ambulance. Simplistic anaolgy but gets the point across when explaining to some.

That is true normally Dennis.

But there are two pilots. When you suddenly can't maintain your altitude, for example, one pilot must send a distress call so ATC can route other traffic away from your position, above and below. Otherwise you may recover control of the aircraft, but risk a fatal mid-air collision. Also, when you are about to crash your car the impact is just a second or two away. When you are in an aircraft at over 30,000' the impact is minutes away.

The lack of a distress call could hint at major confusion, just like AF447, whereby the crew were unable to comprehend what was happening, but at the moment that is just speculating.

[DennistheMenace]

It's usually a combination of factors that lead to the a crash like this.

You hear people say why didn't the pilot communicate any issues to the tower but this is his least priority in a dangerous system with his main objective being, aviating, then navigating and finally communicating. If you are in your car and in danger of crashing, your least concern is to call an ambulance. Simplistic anaolgy but gets the point across when explaining to some.

That is true normally Dennis.

But there are two pilots. When you suddenly can't maintain your altitude, for example, one pilot must send a distress call so ATC can route other traffic away from your position, above and below. Otherwise you may recover control of the aircraft, but risk a fatal mid-air collision. Also, when you are about to crash your car the impact is just a second or two away. When you are in an aircraft at over 30,000' the impact is minutes away.

The lack of a distress call could hint at major confusion, just like AF447, whereby the crew were unable to comprehend what was happening, but at the moment that is just speculating.

Muppet I think it's something very similar to AF447, they had minutes to send a mayday to ATC when the plane had stalled and had 3 pilots in the cockpit for the latter part of the crash. in the end though it's the least priority to them. Anyway the black boxes should be found relatively easily in this instance in comparison to AF447 which took 2 years IIRC..

[DennistheMenace]

They found the tail so it should be a matter of days before they retrieve the black box which will be crucial in finding out exactly what happened. Preliminary report in a month with the finalised report likely in a year.

[Tony Baloney]

They found the tail so it should be a matter of days before they retrieve the black box which will be crucial in finding out exactly what happened. Preliminary report in a month with the finalised report likely in a year.

Flight data recorder in the bag and it is believed they have located the voice data recorder but have yet to reach it.