Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Airasia Flight Qz8501...looks Like Pilot Error
http://
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 ?
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 ?
Answers
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 disintegrate
17:50 Tue 20th Jan 2015
-- answer removed --
>>>Do we have any aviation experts here on AB that can tell me that how much "too fast" that rate of climb was please ?
Isn't that in your link? It suggests that a commercial aircraft wouldn't normally climb at above a rate of about 2000 feet per minute but it was actually climbing at 6000 feet per minute.
It strongly suggests instrument malfunction, leading the pilots not to realise just how fast they were actually climbing. That's how the crew of Air France flight 447 ended up stalling it, killing all 228 people on board, in 2009. Icing on the pitot tubes meant that the onboard computer received incorrect information about their airspeed and shut down the auto-pilot. If the crew had simply left everything as it was the plane would have continued normally but they tried to correct the airspeed (which didn't need correcting anyway) and ended up stalling the plane.
Isn't that in your link? It suggests that a commercial aircraft wouldn't normally climb at above a rate of about 2000 feet per minute but it was actually climbing at 6000 feet per minute.
It strongly suggests instrument malfunction, leading the pilots not to realise just how fast they were actually climbing. That's how the crew of Air France flight 447 ended up stalling it, killing all 228 people on board, in 2009. Icing on the pitot tubes meant that the onboard computer received incorrect information about their airspeed and shut down the auto-pilot. If the crew had simply left everything as it was the plane would have continued normally but they tried to correct the airspeed (which didn't need correcting anyway) and ended up stalling the plane.
From Airbus's website
// ...the control system monitors pilot commands to ensure the aircraft is kept within the flight protection envelope. As a result, the pilot always can get the maximum performance out of the aircraft without running the risk of exceeding safety margins. //
According to the manufacturers, this accident should not happen due to pilot error.
// ...the control system monitors pilot commands to ensure the aircraft is kept within the flight protection envelope. As a result, the pilot always can get the maximum performance out of the aircraft without running the risk of exceeding safety margins. //
According to the manufacturers, this accident should not happen due to pilot error.
Buenchico...thanks...just the technical info that I was looking for.
Bit there is a huge difference between a climb rate of 1000-2000 feet per minute, and 6000 feet per minute. Even if the instruments were giving a false reading, would it not have been obvious from other factors, such as the planes "handling" that it was much too great ?
This may not be a very good analogy, but if the speedo in my car said 50 MPH, but I was actually travelling at 150 mph plus, I am sure I would notice.
Bit there is a huge difference between a climb rate of 1000-2000 feet per minute, and 6000 feet per minute. Even if the instruments were giving a false reading, would it not have been obvious from other factors, such as the planes "handling" that it was much too great ?
This may not be a very good analogy, but if the speedo in my car said 50 MPH, but I was actually travelling at 150 mph plus, I am sure I would notice.
I find the storm updraught theory highly plausible. Airbusi have a computer between the joystick and the control surfaces, preventing 'insane' pilot inputs.
My fighter jet knowledge isn't great but 6000'/min would be slightly anaemic for an interceptor, in this day and age. F16 show-offs can sustain a near vertical climb (ground to 10,000'+).
I would rate myself as an enthusiast, non-expert.
My fighter jet knowledge isn't great but 6000'/min would be slightly anaemic for an interceptor, in this day and age. F16 show-offs can sustain a near vertical climb (ground to 10,000'+).
I would rate myself as an enthusiast, non-expert.
//This may not be a very good analogy, but if the speedo in my car said 50 MPH, but I was actually travelling at 150 mph plus, I am sure I would notice. //
Yes , but dont forget that when you are up there there is no references outside of the airplane to indicate an idea of the speed .
Whereas , in your car you have buildings/ trees / the road itself etc , which gives you a sense of speed .
Yes , but dont forget that when you are up there there is no references outside of the airplane to indicate an idea of the speed .
Whereas , in your car you have buildings/ trees / the road itself etc , which gives you a sense of speed .
-- answer removed --
…and I need to type faster (sorry, Gromit)
@Mikey,
the reason instrument flying is so difficult is that, when cut off from visual clues, by cloud, your balance organs play tricks on you. Untrained pilots have been known to turn their plane upside down while trying to maintain sensations of 'right side up'.
You don't get to meet many who broke their licence limits and lived, put it like that.
@Mikey,
the reason instrument flying is so difficult is that, when cut off from visual clues, by cloud, your balance organs play tricks on you. Untrained pilots have been known to turn their plane upside down while trying to maintain sensations of 'right side up'.
You don't get to meet many who broke their licence limits and lived, put it like that.
The plane climded at 6,000 feet per minute, and the article states that not even jet planes ascend that fast.
That would appear to be untrue. The Lockeed F-16 climbs at 50,000 feet per minute. Other planes can climb at 65,000 per minute.
http://
That would appear to be untrue. The Lockeed F-16 climbs at 50,000 feet per minute. Other planes can climb at 65,000 per minute.
http://
Valdric...your comments are entirely unnecessary. I started this thread as a way of finding out more about this subject, and everybody on here has been very informative. If you have nothing positive to add to this discussion, why give your acid tongue an outing ? I am not very surprised, as you have done this before.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.