Airasia Flight Qz8501...looks Like Pilot Error

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30902237

Apparently the aircraft was climbing at a rate of 6,000 feet per minute. Do we have any aviation experts here on AB that can tell me that how much "too fast" that rate of climb was please ?

[Gromit]

^ meant fighter jet planes above.

[wolf63]

If this wasn't in the serious news section I could mention "Men drivers/Pilots".

But it is and I won't.

I hope that the pilot is not tarnished by the description of Pilot error if he is completely innocent.

[Baldric]

The info you requested was covered in your link, had you read it you would have known!
In the other thread your OP was just inaccurate, probably for the same reason.

[bhg481]

JNO - Attitude of an aircraft is the direction it's pointing ie, nose up/nose down etc

[Prudie]

Using trigonometry, physics and a right angled triangle you could show that the angle of the plane climbing 6000 feet a minute would be really steep (as if scaling the hypoteneuse). I think that's what 237 means by attitude

[mikey4444]

I shall ignore you from now on Baldric. Stew in your own juice !

[237SJ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator

[Baldric]

Oh No! ;-(

[jno]

thanks, bhg. But perhaps the suggestion is that the aircraft was in effect partly lifted up by the storm rather than sucked or pushed almost straight up?

[TonyV]

Mikey do you really you would know difference between 50 and 150 mph on a dark night without instruments and no points of reference?

[bhg481]

I think the suggestion is that, rather than flying up the hypoternuse of a triangle, the aircraft was pushed/sucked up fairly vertically by the storm cloud. Most people who have flown have experienced turbulence and I think they are suspecting a very extreme version of this.

[jno]

what I meant was that, in that case, the attitude wouldn't be so obvious - ie, everyone wouldn't be heading straight up with their backs flat on their seats; the climb might appear bumpy but not necessarily impossibly steep?.

[mikey4444]

Tonyav...I think the high-pitched screaming noise would be a bit of a giveaway....me screaming that is !

[bhg481]

That's it JNO. If you think of the aircraft as being perfectly horizontal it would normally be maintaining a steady height but, in this case, it's actually climbing. All the instruments, except the altimeter, think it's maintaining a steady height because it's in straight and level flight but, in fact, it's climbing because the storm is pushing it upwards. The altimeter and black box recorder will notice this.

[Gromit]

The Airbus 320 maximum possible climb rate is supposed to be 3,000 feet/minute, and it now appears it actually climbed at 8,000 feet/minute.

It sounds more likely that the plane was pull up by a huge updraft at such a speed that the plane disintegrated.

// // An AirAsia pilot said the normal rate of climb of an A320 jet is between 1,000 feet per minute and 1,200 feet per minute and planes rarely climb at rates more than 1,500 feet per minute on their own. The steep rate of ascent could likely be explained by the aircraft getting caught in an updraft of air in bad weather, the pilot said on condition he not be identified.

The Airbus Group N.V. A320 jet turned left away from its assigned flight path en route from Surabaya to Singapore, climbed over 8,000 feet per minute, descended and finally disappeared within three minutes, Jonan said, citing data from the plane’s automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast, or ADS–B, system.

“The plane may have climbed at the last minutes at the speed beyond normal limit. After that it stalled. Why did it stall? I don’t know,” Jonan told reporters, elaborating on his earlier statement in a hearing with the parliament. //

[mikey4444]

The wealth of experience on AB never ceases to surprise and delight me...thanks to most of you that have added to my meagre knowledge about this subject !

[Hypognosis]

For an approximate true airspeed of 400knots = 40,480 ft/minutes in the forward direction, 8,000 ft of climb is a gradient of 1 in 5

Doesn't sound all that steep but you can't make sudden moves at that speed without massive structural stress and unpleasant G-force affects on the passengers. Pilots would not perform stunts like that voluntarily.

Note the part about air traffic control denying them an altitude change (or vectors around the storm) due to conflicting traffic *nearby*. Why were these other planes not thrown around in the same way?

Still doesn't quite add up but there's nothing we can do but wait for the investigation to pan out. Speculation may be entertaining but it is idle entertainment and I get no joy from being an "I told you so".

[237SJ]

"Why were these other planes not thrown around in the same way" Turbulence can vary hugely in a matter of a few thousand feet. You can be flying along at 37,000 and be OK and the people above you at 40,000 could be thrown around all over the place.

[New Judge]

Just for interest (and since the comparative performance of fighter/interceptors has been mentioned) the English Electric (BAC) Lightning operated by the RAF in the 1960s, 70s and 80s had remarkable performance. Its ideal rate of climb (to achieve the optimum time to operational height) was a sustained 20,000 feet/minute. It could attain a rate as high as 50,000 feet/minute though this resulted in a trade-off of airspeed for altitude. It displayed an exceptional “time to climb”. Following a scramble it would be off the ground in under 500 yards and could reach 36,000 feet (the normal cruising altitude for passenger jets) in well under three minutes from “brakes off”. Its showpiece (usually reserved for air shows as it was an inefficient way of gaining altitude at the optimum rate) was to get about 50 feet above the runway then rotate to a near vertical attitude before climbing away, with its two afterburners lighting up the exhausts. In terms of raw performance the Lightning was probably the finest aircraft produced by the UK and even today its performance remains exceptional. It did, however, suffer from chronic shortage of range due to low fuel capacity and legend has it that Lightning pilots never ran out of fuel when driving their car as they spent their working lives constantly looking for an aerial tanker or somewhere to land!

In the late 60’s I had the privilege to be given a flight in a two seater training version of one of these beasts (among many other RAF aircraft I was lucky enough to fly in). It truly lived up to its name of “Frightning Lightning”. The pilot put it through its paces, achieved his objective to scare the life out of me, and so forever made travelling by airliner for me a very tame affair!

[mikey4444]

Thanks NJ...another very interesting post !