Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://news.yahoo.com/airasia-plane-climbed-speed-beyond-normal-then-stalled-002608063.html

Been a little swallowed in other news.

It appears that the pilots attempted to climb above the storm, but did so too fast and ascended above the normal altitude and stalled out.

Data shows that at one point they were climbing at 6,000 feet per minute.

That would be a really stupid thing to do, to the point that it's hard to imagine how anyone with even basic pilot training could think that it's a good idea. You'd be climbing purely on inertia, which is great if you need a small amount of altitude as quickly as possible (dodging another plane, for example), but once you slow down and run out of speed you're done climbing. To get above weather and get a lot of altitude in the minimum time you'd need to use a much lower sustained climb rate. The much more likely explanation (IMO) is that the plane got caught in a major updraft and lost control, which is one of the reasons why you're not supposed to fly through thunderstorms. And this longer article seems to agree: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/20/airasia-jet-climbed-too-fast/22041981/

Looks like my pop owes me $20.

That came out way more dickish than I intended it to. What I mean is that it was fairly obvious that this was the case from pretty much the word go. Still very sad, though.

Now Im curious if theyll put it down to pilot error. If the crash is really just from stalling, thats a horrible error by the pilots. Surely the pilots knew the plane could stall as well as how to recover from a stall if necessary.

They would have had a bit of time to recover at that altitude, right?

If the blackboxes fail to show any other leads, I hope there's an inquiry into the pilot training pilots are receiving.

 Grey Templar wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/airasia-plane-climbed-speed-beyond-normal-then-stalled-002608063.html

Been a little swallowed in other news.

It appears that the pilots attempted to climb above the storm, but did so too fast and ascended above the normal altitude and stalled out.

Data shows that at one point they were climbing at 6,000 feet per second.

That can't be right. Thats about 3,600 miles an hour-vertical. You need something big going orbital for that. That plane sure couldn't do it.

Agreed though. It sounds like they got hit with an updraft, stalled or important things broke and down they went.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK its 6,000 a minute. Agreed that would still stall them out very quickly, but its more plausible.

"Earlier at a parliamentary hearing, he said radar data showed the Airbus A320-200 appeared at one point to be climbing at a rate of 6,000 feet (1,800 metres) a minute before the crash. There were several other planes in the area at the time."

Like Frazzled I was struck by how quickly this thing was moving. Thought it might have been aliens.

6000 feet per second? That's just over a mile every second. Which would mean that they were travelling at 4000 miles per hour...

The articles states per minute sadly

Even that speed means it could only do it for a very short bit until intertia/gravity stopped it. It also still fights with an updraft or even that they were fighting to get out of one.

Maybe they were trying to get out of a downdraft. Fliers are generally more worried of hitting the bottom than the top of the sky.

Derp, I meant minute

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe they were trying to get out of a downdraft. Fliers are generally more worried of hitting the bottom than the top of the sky.

Actually, updrafts are just as bad. They can take a plane up beyond the point where it can normally fly, and they can be step 1 in the kind of severe turbulence that turns airplanes into bits of aluminum scattered across a hundred mile radius. Also, trying to get out of a severe downdraft by climbing is suicide. You (usually) can't out-climb one, the best escape option is to fly out of it horizontally. And you certainly can't out-climb one at a rate that far exceeds the sustainable climb rate of the plane, trying to go up at 6000 fpm while in a downdraft would mean pointing the nose of the plane straight up, dropping speed to zero very quickly, and stalling. End result: you've just lost altitude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dropbear Victim wrote:
If the crash is really just from stalling, thats a horrible error by the pilots.

It would be, but it doesn't seem likely. Most stall accidents are the result of carelessness at a time when the plane is near stall speed (landing, for example), the pilot lets the plane get a bit slow and tries to hold the nose up a bit too long without realizing that they're about to stall. Pulling up into a 6000 fpm climb at cruising altitude would make it immediately obvious to everyone in the cockpit that something is very wrong, even if the pilot was stupid enough to get anywhere near that point without realizing it's a bad idea.

Surely the pilots knew the plane could stall as well as how to recover from a stall if necessary.

The theory of how to recover from a stall? Yes, you learn that (and demonstrate it) well before you're allowed to make your first solo flight in a small plane. How to recover from a stall in the middle of severe turbulence that just threw your plane into a 6000 fpm updraft and stalled it? Good luck with that.

They would have had a bit of time to recover at that altitude, right?

Possibly. Stalling a big jet like that is the kind of thing you never do voluntarily, even in training, because the minimum altitude required to recover is extremely high. This isn't a small plane that can stall and recover in under 500' and a few seconds. Then add on the weather issues and it's questionable whether the pilots would be able to regain control of the plane before it's either too low or has suffered too much damage.