Pilots, why didn't Air Asia QZ8501 just change altitude?

[cmdrpiffle]

duplicate post

[Magiver]

@cmdrpiffle

Ex air traffic controller here, Oakland ARTCC, as well as a licensed ATP (air transport pilot)

Lot’s of blah blah blah in this thread.

My opinion is that the aircraft went into an extreme attitude, (probably weather induced) from which the 2 pilots were unable to recover.

The “ice in the engines” may or may not be anything. If the aircraft did ‘lose’ both engines, the plane is still capable of flying normally at its best engine(s) out glide speed. Engines don’t make aircraft point straight down.

Hopefully they’ll recover the data recorders and be able to find out more. The crew would have had available thunderstorm cell activity and intensity on their wx radar.

There won’t be anything definitive until the recovery of the recorders

There is no indication that the crew was climbing and the plane fell off the radar soon after the last transmission. The bodies are being found strapped to their seats but separated from the plane so it didn’t flat spin. It was either torn apart at altitude or went in at a steep angle. I suspect the vertical stabilizer was ripped off the plane and it went down hill from there.

[cmdrpiffle]

@Magiver

There is no indication that the crew was climbing and the plane fell off the radar soon after the last transmission. The bodies are being found strapped to their seats but separated from the plane so it didn’t flat spin. It was either torn apart at altitude or went in at a steep angle. I suspect the vertical stabilizer was ripped off the plane and it went down hill from there.

Planes don’t fall off the radar. The flight was over water, if there was radar coverage, it was secondary (transponder) returns, not a skin paint (primary radar) Radar is only effective about 200 miles off shore.

Be careful what you believe/repeat from the popular media.

Cheers!

[JRDelirious]

@Magiver

There is no indication that the crew was climbing and the plane fell off the radar soon after the last transmission. The bodies are being found strapped to their seats but separated from the plane so it didn’t flat spin. It was either torn apart at altitude or went in at a steep angle. I suspect the vertical stabilizer was ripped off the plane and it went down hill from there.

The v-stab itself was still attached to a large piece of rear fuselage when they first fished it out of the sea (Picture. Later they cut it apart to store and transport it); but we can see the whole rearmost piece of the tailcone containing the h-stabs and the APU was not, and the insides of the section mosly seem to have been gutted (no seats, no interior panelling). From other pictures one could see that on the right side the piece went as far forward as the last 5 window openingspast the registration numbers.

[Magiver]

@cmdrpiffle

Planes don’t fall off the radar. The flight was over water, if there was radar coverage, it was secondary (transponder) returns, not a skin paint (primary radar) Radar is only effective about 200 miles off shore.

Be careful what you believe/repeat from the popular media.

Cheers!

:dubious: 2 things, the plane was never more than 150 miles from any shoreline and transponder information is displayed on… radar sets.

[Magiver]

@JRDelirious

The v-stab itself was still attached to a large piece of rear fuselage when they first fished it out of the sea (Picture. Later they cut it apart to store and transport it); but we can see the whole rearmost piece of the tailcone containing the h-stabs and the APU was not, and the insides of the section mosly seem to have been gutted (no seats, no interior panelling). From other pictures one could see that on the right side the piece went as far forward as the last 5 window openingspast the registration numbers.

Shot that guess down. Could it have buckled like the Russian SST in a negative G move and torn at the door line.

[Morgenstern]

I’m not sure people understand what a thunderstorm does to an aircraft, let alone a severe thunderstorm. Thunderstorms can easily go up to 60,000 feet, way above the ceiling of a commercial airliner. I really don’t know that a pilot would choose to fly over a cell instead of flying around it. That part makes no sense to me.

[Richard_Pearse]

@Morgenstern

I’m not sure people understand what a thunderstorm does to an aircraft, let alone a severe thunderstorm. Thunderstorms can easily go up to 60,000 feet, way above the ceiling of a commercial airliner. I really don’t know that a pilot would choose to fly over a cell instead of flying around it. That part makes no sense to me.

There’s no evidence yet that they were trying to climb over one. Maybe they were maybe they weren’t. They asked for a climb but there are lots of reasons for climbing.

[cmdrpiffle]

@Magiver

:dubious: 2 things, the plane was never more than 150 miles from any shoreline and transponder information is displayed on… radar sets.

Perhaps you’d care to enlist your investigative expertise to the local authorities then!
After all, you’ve got it nearly figured out on an internet thread

[JRDelirious]

Bumping and updating – report issued, investigators say: flight control computer glitches at the worst possible time, pilots do the wrong thing to recover.

AirAsia QZ8501: Pilot response to equipment malfunction caused crash (warning autoplay video in page)

OK so pilots are supposed to know what to do to recover from upset, but… holy wack, a known hardware malfunction that had recurred 23 times before and with increasing frequency?? What the heck would it take to pull the blasted thing?

[Quartz]

Thanks for the update.