Air Asia (Java Sea) Accident report

[Boac]

'Promised' on November 25th.

[Slasher]

Ha!

Nothin.

[Boac]

Well - it is out, and YET AGAIN an Airbus dives into the sea fully stalled due to pilot mishandling. So much for the 'magic' aeroplane you cannot crash.

Report pdf here. http://kemhubri.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/Final%20Report%20PK-AXC.pdf

It's ok, folks - you don't need to train for Unusual attitudes in an Airbus because the wonderful flight control system will not allow these....................

Airbus have a lot to answer for.

[Cave Canem]

The investigation concluded that contributing factors to this accident were: The cracking of a solder joint of both channel A and B resulted in loss of electrical continuity and led to RTLU failure. The existing maintenance data analysis led to unresolved repetitive faults occurring with shorter intervals. The same fault occurred 4 times during the flight. The flight crew action to the first 3 faults in accordance with the ECAM messages. Following the fourth fault, the FDR recorded different signatures that were similar to the FAC CB‟s being reset resulting in electrical interruption to the FAC‟s. The electrical interruption to the FAC caused the autopilot to disengage and the flight control logic to change from Normal Law to Alternate Law, the rudder deflecting 2° to the left resulting the aircraft rolling up to 54° angle of bank. Subsequent flight crew action leading to inability to control the aircraft in the Alternate Law resulted in the aircraft departing from the normal flight envelope and entering prolonged stall condition that was beyond the capability of the flight crew to recover.

Seems that this airline has both a maintenance question and a training question to answer. Reading the report it appears that the Rudder Travel Limitation Unit had indicated an error state earlier in the month (presumably due to the solder cracking issue that the report notes).

In the case of the accident, (if I have read the report correctly) should the crew have reset the circuit breakers that resulted in the electrical interruption to the Flight Augmentation Computers?

Should the crew have been able to fly the aircraft in Alternate Law? The answer is "yes" surely!

Not an Airbus driver so leave it to someone who knows the answer to these questions.

[ian16th]

With the crash being partially contributed to a cracked soldered joint, are we about to hear a case being made for the return of lead to solder?

[rgbrock1]

One of the interesting parts of the accident report was the part about Air Asia's Airbus flight crews not being trained in "unusual upsets" as they were told the aircraft won't allow that. Gee, where have we heard that one before? Yes, Airbus has an awful lot to answer for.

[Boac]

What I completely fail to understand is that both these pilots were not 'rookies', the Captain particularly having significant 'real aeroplane' experience - but put them in the electric jet and any basic flying ability seems to 'disappear'.

Forget 'Alternate Law', forget the Airbus instilled psyche 'it cannot crash', forget the perceived lack of need for Unusual attitude/upset training for this wonderful machine (refer 'Pilots' Notes') and ask how, with VSI pointing UP, altimeter spinning upwards and speed and Mach spinning backwards, no-one seemed to do anything about it (refer also AF447)? What is it that happens when a pilot converts to AB? What happens to the 'protect my little pink bum' philosophy that should be ingrained?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

With some airlines at least, the people in the front cockpit are now electronic systems managers. Do not kid yourself that they know how to fly.
What do people expect for a $50 air fare anyway?
AF447 presented the crew with a similar electronic system failure, and they crashed the aircraft the same way as this.
I have experienced both the Air Asia and the AF447 problems airborne, and both are a total non-event to a pilot. Power, attitude, trim. End of.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Detailed hypothesis.
P2 (handling pilot) is a Frenchie with 2,000 hrs. Check the AF447 accident report (http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090 ... 601.en.pdf), which has a similar P2.
These junior guys do not know how to fly. There is nowhere near enough real handling on their training courses.

Clearly neither of them expected the autopilot to trip out on pulling the second CB. It was nine seconds before they noticed the aircraft at 54 degrees left bank. Poor systems knowledge.
Wouldn't be surprised if one of them was partly or completely out of seat operating the CB (panel is behind the crew),and the other was watching him or concentrating on the checklist
Handling pilot panicked, huge pitch input and bank all over the place.
Captain can't speak English - instructed P2 to "Pull Down". P2 responds to first word.
Later on, we get "Pull", "Pull down" and "Pull Up". At no point is there a "Push down"
The two pilots are opposing each other on the sticks, and the airbus takes the average (how stupid is that?!).
There is, of course,no cross-feedback like mechanical sticks - I bet the P2 was unaware the Captain is inputting.
At no point does the Captain state he is taking control verbally. He's reverted to type and, with a combination of single seat time and the Asian authority gradient, isn't communicating effectively to the P2.

Like Af447, this goes on for 3 and a half minutes plus.

Absolutely no one in the aviation system is going to admit the entire training process is f#cked, because they like the profits and this kind of thing happens rarely enough that the punters don't care, but that's the reality.