Posted on 01/29/2015 2:30:21 PM PST by Java4Jay
Cruising at 32,000 feet amid stormy weather, about 11:12 p.m. UTC the pilot asked control whether it could ascend to 38,000 feet. They then ascended to 37,400 feet in about 30 seconds in a steep climb. Commercial planes are not designed to ascend so quickly, it may have been climbing at a rate twice as fast as it could and should.
The stall warnings -- which blare the words "Stall, Stall" -- went on as the plane started the steep climb and continued until it crashed, according to information on the flight data recorder.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Severe updraft.
* Such as frozen pitot heads, a known past problem with Airbus.
The computers would override pilot inputs, putting the a/c into a dive with increased speed. At over 32k’ there is plenty of time for a stall recovery.
If it’s getting good data and it’s pitot tubes are not full of ice feeding wrong speeds etc.
was it a weather induced stall? The boxes should tell the whole story.
I read that the system will return the plane to manual control if the plane exceeds it’s stated capabilites while under computer control. The pilots may not have realized quickly enough that they were in control of the plane.
Why does this remind me so much of this...
They should program it to blare "Allahu Ahkbar."
The quality and training of the crew will become the focus of this investigation .
Sum Ting Wong.
Not sure what you meant, but even a momentary transition to Alternate Law or Alternate Law caused by upset would never return to Normal Law for the duration of the flight.
In the case of Alternate Law caused by upset (Abnormal Attitude Law), the aircraft still retains stall protection. With landing gear up, only Alternate Law (or Mechanical Backup) will permit a stall.
As for autoflight, neither autopilot or autothrust reengage without positive action my the pilot. Once either is off, the pilot must reengage or they stay off.
My thinking is the updraft from the storm was so powerful the electronics couldn’t cope. Same like what happened to that Airbus that went down a few years ago. I don’t like that fly-by-wire because you don’t get control feedback as they do in Boeing planes.
My money is on the pitot tubes and has been from day one. We may never know because if it is a flight sensor/pitot problem Airbus has a huge issue and will need a cover-up.
follow-on articles:
headline: Pilots Disabled Critical Computers Moments Before AirAsia Crash
headline: French co-pilot flying AirAsia jet before crash-investigators
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/29/us-indonesia-airplane-idUSKBN0L20BD20150129
now, the reuters article is a little funny, in that the headline is the Frenchy was flying, but down the article it says, “Captain Iriyanto, 53, an Indonesia air force veteran with about 20,000 flying hours logged, was believed to have taken over control of the aircraft from the less experienced Plesel when it started to ascend and then descend..”
So who was riding the plane down?
Hopefully the tapes will tell the tail plus the flight deck CVR.
Deep stall with full up elevator, like the Air France plane that went into the Atlantic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.