Air Asia Crash report
- Thread starter supton
- Start date
- Status
It's sad to think that when an automated system fails and the pilot is forced to take control that the pilot fails to control the airplane resulting in a crash.
Air France 447, at its root, was the same thing - airplane failed, and the pilot was unable to fly the failed airplane.
I'll give the whole report a read later. Thanks for the link.
I'll give the whole report a read later. Thanks for the link.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: supton
Root cause was failed solder joints; see pg 66 of the report (pg68 of the pdf).
Aircraft accidents are almost always the result of a chain of failures, some mechanical, others by the pilot(s).
The inability of pilots to maintain control of complex aircraft after relatively minor equipment failures is something I have found more and more disconcerting. It seems that a fair number of professional pilots fail to spend adequate time flying simpler aircraft, where recognizing and reacting to unusual flight attitudes is ingrained.
Taking manual control of an aircraft after automatic flight systems have failed is really the main purpose of having an experienced pilot on board. Some aircraft manufacturers and major airlines have lost sight of this point.......To the flying public's peril.
Root cause was failed solder joints; see pg 66 of the report (pg68 of the pdf).
Aircraft accidents are almost always the result of a chain of failures, some mechanical, others by the pilot(s).
The inability of pilots to maintain control of complex aircraft after relatively minor equipment failures is something I have found more and more disconcerting. It seems that a fair number of professional pilots fail to spend adequate time flying simpler aircraft, where recognizing and reacting to unusual flight attitudes is ingrained.
Taking manual control of an aircraft after automatic flight systems have failed is really the main purpose of having an experienced pilot on board. Some aircraft manufacturers and major airlines have lost sight of this point.......To the flying public's peril.
Supton - That's a specious conclusion.
A failed solder joint brings down the airplane?
I would have been dead thirty years ago if a systems anomaly was a valid reason for airplane crashes.
Compensating for the system failure is what pilots do. When they fail in that task, airplanes crash.
A failed solder joint brings down the airplane?
I would have been dead thirty years ago if a systems anomaly was a valid reason for airplane crashes.
Compensating for the system failure is what pilots do. When they fail in that task, airplanes crash.
Last edited:
Today's pilots get less and less "stick time" as more and more automation comes out.
So when the automation goes off line....you have a "newbie" at the controls.
which is why when I see some gray hair in the cockpit...I feel better about my flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2A194yTWoQ
So when the automation goes off line....you have a "newbie" at the controls.
which is why when I see some gray hair in the cockpit...I feel better about my flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2A194yTWoQ
Last edited:
Electronic malfunctions resulting in airframe loss seems to be all too common with Airbus products over the past 30 years.
Boeing isn't immune to electrical and electromechanical flight control system problems (rudder reversals on 737's back in the 90s comes to mind) but it seems to be the exception. Everytime I see a report of an Airbus crash, I immediately look to see if it was an A320, and then to see if it might have been flight control software in the wrong mode or another electronic assist system gone wrong causing the pilot to lose situational awareness.
And I agree, a big part of that is the fact that pilots no longer are required to even HAVE full situational awareness from wheels-up to wheels-down like they used to. So when the automation fails, they have no idea what was really going on when it failed, or even if its telling them the right things. Its a huge industry-wide problem.
Boeing isn't immune to electrical and electromechanical flight control system problems (rudder reversals on 737's back in the 90s comes to mind) but it seems to be the exception. Everytime I see a report of an Airbus crash, I immediately look to see if it was an A320, and then to see if it might have been flight control software in the wrong mode or another electronic assist system gone wrong causing the pilot to lose situational awareness.
And I agree, a big part of that is the fact that pilots no longer are required to even HAVE full situational awareness from wheels-up to wheels-down like they used to. So when the automation fails, they have no idea what was really going on when it failed, or even if its telling them the right things. Its a huge industry-wide problem.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Supton - That's a specious conclusion.
A failed solder joint brings down the airplane?
I would have been dead thirty years ago if a systems anomaly was a valid reason for airplane crashes.
Compensating for the system failure is what pilots do. When they fail in that task, airplanes crash.
I will grant you your comment, as I'm not a pilot and cannot comment; but would otherwise hope a single fault would not bring down a plane. I was tipped off to the report from an electronics reflector, where the solderjoint issue was pointed out.
Supton - That's a specious conclusion.
A failed solder joint brings down the airplane?
I would have been dead thirty years ago if a systems anomaly was a valid reason for airplane crashes.
Compensating for the system failure is what pilots do. When they fail in that task, airplanes crash.
I will grant you your comment, as I'm not a pilot and cannot comment; but would otherwise hope a single fault would not bring down a plane. I was tipped off to the report from an electronics reflector, where the solderjoint issue was pointed out.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Supton - That's a specious conclusion.
A failed solder joint brings down the airplane?
I would have been dead thirty years ago if a systems anomaly was a valid reason for airplane crashes.
Compensating for the system failure is what pilots do. When they fail in that task, airplanes crash.
Little failures can cause really big consequences:
"The Apollo 13 malfunction was caused by an explosion and rupture of oxygen tank no. 2 in the service module. The explosion ruptured a line or damaged a valve in the no. 1 oxygen tank, causing it to lose oxygen"
"The consensus of the Commission and participating investigative agencies is that the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger was caused by a failure in the joint between the two lower segments of the right Solid Rocket Motor. The specifc failure was the destruction of the seals that are intended to prevent hot gases from leaking through the joint during the propellant burn of the rocket motor."
Supton - That's a specious conclusion.
A failed solder joint brings down the airplane?
I would have been dead thirty years ago if a systems anomaly was a valid reason for airplane crashes.
Compensating for the system failure is what pilots do. When they fail in that task, airplanes crash.
Little failures can cause really big consequences:
"The Apollo 13 malfunction was caused by an explosion and rupture of oxygen tank no. 2 in the service module. The explosion ruptured a line or damaged a valve in the no. 1 oxygen tank, causing it to lose oxygen"
"The consensus of the Commission and participating investigative agencies is that the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger was caused by a failure in the joint between the two lower segments of the right Solid Rocket Motor. The specifc failure was the destruction of the seals that are intended to prevent hot gases from leaking through the joint during the propellant burn of the rocket motor."
Normal and Alternate Law.
Research and you'll understand why Airbus crashes happen with slightly more frequency, especially the A320.
That and bad aviating by the pilots.
Research and you'll understand why Airbus crashes happen with slightly more frequency, especially the A320.
That and bad aviating by the pilots.
I read the report through several times and I'm still confused. As I understand the report, the pilot still had an aircraft that could be controlled around all three axis. The report didn't say the rudder control system failed. The warning was meant to tell the pilot not to make a large rudder input( re: New York City Airbus crash in about October of 2001) because the system that prevented such inputs was not operative.What caused the forty degree pitch up? That is a stabilator function that controls movement around the horizontal axis. This isn't the first instance of an Airbus crash where the pilots had a perfectly flight worthy aircraft but didn't know enough about the aircraft to fly it. I seem to remember that the Air France Airbus crash in the Atlantic had the co pilot making a large stabilator input even as the pilot tried desperately to get the aircraft out of a stall not realizing that guy in the right seat was holding that ridiculous little joy stick all the way back. That never would have happened with a Boeing product that uses a design that is almost as old as aviation itself..Pilots please give us your input.(that's a joke boy)
Not going to wade into the A vs B wars. I fly on either without reservations.
While the chain of events that followed was initially caused by the bad solder joints, as Astro pointed out it is the job of the pilot to fly the plane when there is a system issue.
Seems to be a disturbing trend of pilots that are unable to hand fly a plane when the plane leaves "normal" conditions.
While the chain of events that followed was initially caused by the bad solder joints, as Astro pointed out it is the job of the pilot to fly the plane when there is a system issue.
Seems to be a disturbing trend of pilots that are unable to hand fly a plane when the plane leaves "normal" conditions.
Bottom line: All pilots make mistakes, unfortunately some are fatal.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Supton - That's a specious conclusion.
A failed solder joint brings down the airplane?
I would have been dead thirty years ago if a systems anomaly was a valid reason for airplane crashes.
Compensating for the system failure is what pilots do. When they fail in that task, airplanes crash.
When you've got "fly by wire" it's a risk. Several 737s went in because of bad hydraulic rudder controllers, though, so it isn't just electronics.
Supton - That's a specious conclusion.
A failed solder joint brings down the airplane?
I would have been dead thirty years ago if a systems anomaly was a valid reason for airplane crashes.
Compensating for the system failure is what pilots do. When they fail in that task, airplanes crash.
When you've got "fly by wire" it's a risk. Several 737s went in because of bad hydraulic rudder controllers, though, so it isn't just electronics.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Supton - That's a specious conclusion.
A failed solder joint brings down the airplane?
I would have been dead thirty years ago if a systems anomaly was a valid reason for airplane crashes.
Compensating for the system failure is what pilots do. When they fail in that task, airplanes crash.
When you've got "fly by wire" it's a risk. Several 737s went in because of bad hydraulic rudder controllers, though, so it isn't just electronics.
If pure mechanical systems were perfect, no DC-3 would have ever crashed, right?
The 737 problem was also partly a cost-reduction problem: there was no longer a split/redundant rudder. It was pointed out at the time that the same failure could happen in one of the rudder controllers on a 727, but it wouldn't have brought down the plane because the rudder was split and the other half could have compensated for the failed half. The 737 had a single non-redundant system.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Supton - That's a specious conclusion.
A failed solder joint brings down the airplane?
I would have been dead thirty years ago if a systems anomaly was a valid reason for airplane crashes.
Compensating for the system failure is what pilots do. When they fail in that task, airplanes crash.
When you've got "fly by wire" it's a risk. Several 737s went in because of bad hydraulic rudder controllers, though, so it isn't just electronics.
If pure mechanical systems were perfect, no DC-3 would have ever crashed, right?
The 737 problem was also partly a cost-reduction problem: there was no longer a split/redundant rudder. It was pointed out at the time that the same failure could happen in one of the rudder controllers on a 727, but it wouldn't have brought down the plane because the rudder was split and the other half could have compensated for the failed half. The 737 had a single non-redundant system.
For 5 years I flew in just the opposite environment in Alaska and Canada as a bush pilot 30 or so years ago. We had no automatic systems except a basic autopilot in some of the planes and were flying the planes most of the time. So if a system we did not have might be a problem we never had that problem.
Several of these high tech plane crashes have been because the pilot did not follow a basic rule that we lived by every day up north. First fly the plane, then navigate and last, communicate. A few of these planes crashed while the pilots were searching though the manuals and the computer read outs and were not flying the airplane. What's worse, the recovery needed was nothing more than basic piloting skills.
Today's pilots have become system managers and that process lets people that are not really pilots advance through the system. But when it comes time to exercise some real piloting skills there's nothing there.
There are examples of real pilots facing problems. One of those real pilots, Captain Sully landed a big jet airliner loaded with passengers and cargo on a river after losing both engines to bird strikes. He followed the first rule, fly the airplane. Next was navigation. He could not make an airport and made the decision to make a water landing, his only possible choice. Then he communicated his situation and immediately went back to flying the airplane. He made a hands on dead-stick approach to a water landing, something not covered in the manual or the flight simulator in training. This real pilot figured it all out on the fly and nailed the landing, saving everyone on board exercising nothing more basic flying skills.
Several of these high tech plane crashes have been because the pilot did not follow a basic rule that we lived by every day up north. First fly the plane, then navigate and last, communicate. A few of these planes crashed while the pilots were searching though the manuals and the computer read outs and were not flying the airplane. What's worse, the recovery needed was nothing more than basic piloting skills.
Today's pilots have become system managers and that process lets people that are not really pilots advance through the system. But when it comes time to exercise some real piloting skills there's nothing there.
There are examples of real pilots facing problems. One of those real pilots, Captain Sully landed a big jet airliner loaded with passengers and cargo on a river after losing both engines to bird strikes. He followed the first rule, fly the airplane. Next was navigation. He could not make an airport and made the decision to make a water landing, his only possible choice. Then he communicated his situation and immediately went back to flying the airplane. He made a hands on dead-stick approach to a water landing, something not covered in the manual or the flight simulator in training. This real pilot figured it all out on the fly and nailed the landing, saving everyone on board exercising nothing more basic flying skills.
I really wanted to be a pilot, but vision and heart issues said otherwise. However in what training I had from experienced pilots they all said that you can have the most advanced avionics, but the most important thing is stick and rudder.
Originally Posted By: Doog
Today's pilots get less and less "stick time" as more and more automation comes out.
So when the automation goes off line....you have a "newbie" at the controls.
which is why when I see some gray hair in the cockpit...I feel better about my flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2A194yTWoQ
This. I had a friend that went to fly in India. His First Officers were all very low time, some with as little as 200 hours. He said their knowledge was good, and they were heck on wheels programming the flight systems.
But if they had to fly by hand or perform a visual approach (basically land in good weather without electrical guidance) that they were really unsafe, and he had to talk them through it - coaching them like a beginner student, and in many cases take the controls from them.
In the US, we are rquired to have a minimum of 1500 hours' worth of flight experience before transporting passengers at an airline. There is a world of difference in skill and experience between a 200 hour pilot and a 1500 hour pilot.
Today's pilots get less and less "stick time" as more and more automation comes out.
So when the automation goes off line....you have a "newbie" at the controls.
which is why when I see some gray hair in the cockpit...I feel better about my flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2A194yTWoQ
This. I had a friend that went to fly in India. His First Officers were all very low time, some with as little as 200 hours. He said their knowledge was good, and they were heck on wheels programming the flight systems.
But if they had to fly by hand or perform a visual approach (basically land in good weather without electrical guidance) that they were really unsafe, and he had to talk them through it - coaching them like a beginner student, and in many cases take the controls from them.
In the US, we are rquired to have a minimum of 1500 hours' worth of flight experience before transporting passengers at an airline. There is a world of difference in skill and experience between a 200 hour pilot and a 1500 hour pilot.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
....did not follow a basic rule that we lived by every day up north. First fly the plane, then navigate and last, communicate. A few of these planes crashed while the pilots were searching though the manuals and the computer read outs and were not flying the airplane. What's worse, the recovery needed was nothing more than basic piloting skills
.....One of those real pilots, Captain Sully landed a big jet airliner loaded with passengers and cargo on a river after losing both engines to bird strikes. He followed the first rule, fly the airplane. Next was navigation. He could not make an airport and made the decision to make a water landing, his only possible choice. Then he communicated his situation and immediately went back to flying the airplane. He made a hands on dead-stick approach to a water landing, something not covered in the manual or the flight simulator in training. This real pilot figured it all out on the fly and nailed the landing, saving everyone on board exercising nothing more basic flying skills.
Bingo...exactly! I had an uncle who was both an old-school A&P and a stick & rudder man. He would wax on about the importance of FLYING THE AIRPLANE, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS and never stop. Period.
....did not follow a basic rule that we lived by every day up north. First fly the plane, then navigate and last, communicate. A few of these planes crashed while the pilots were searching though the manuals and the computer read outs and were not flying the airplane. What's worse, the recovery needed was nothing more than basic piloting skills
.....One of those real pilots, Captain Sully landed a big jet airliner loaded with passengers and cargo on a river after losing both engines to bird strikes. He followed the first rule, fly the airplane. Next was navigation. He could not make an airport and made the decision to make a water landing, his only possible choice. Then he communicated his situation and immediately went back to flying the airplane. He made a hands on dead-stick approach to a water landing, something not covered in the manual or the flight simulator in training. This real pilot figured it all out on the fly and nailed the landing, saving everyone on board exercising nothing more basic flying skills.
Bingo...exactly! I had an uncle who was both an old-school A&P and a stick & rudder man. He would wax on about the importance of FLYING THE AIRPLANE, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS and never stop. Period.
- Status
Similar threads
