Airflight QZ8501 missing.

What a horrible way to go, at least with the one that got shot down, death would have been near instant and no time to think or panic.
 
Nymins said:
Wonder why they made such a fast climb.
Click to expand...

The sinister option? Because the pilot wanted to bring an end to things. The less sinister option? Either a mistake was made (by man or machine) during a much lower incline, or the storm perhaps altered things?

On the 28th we should know a bit more...
 
Redgie said:
The sinister option? Because the pilot wanted to bring an end to things. The less sinister option? Either a mistake was made (by man or machine) during a much lower incline, or the storm perhaps altered things?

On the 28th we should know a bit more...
Click to expand...

Surely you'd dive down into the ocean if you were going to crash an airplane?
 
MooMoo444 said:
Almost 2km climb per min - what sort of angle is that?

Steep enough to make the passengers think something was a bit shady?
Click to expand...

2km per minute. I think they might notice. If they had control, you have to wonder why the pilots didn't.

Edit: Air France 447 had climbed at 7000ft (2.1km) per minute. Hmm.
 
Last edited:
Dunks said:
Surely you'd dive down into the ocean if you were going to crash an airplane?
Click to expand...

More than likely yes, and I suppose the earlier statement about there being no yelling in the cockpit denounces any theory on this being done intentionally, as the co-pilot would surely have spoken up...
 
Ignasius Jonan told a parliamentary hearing in Jakarta that flight QZ8501 had ascended at a speed of 6,000ft (1,828m) per minute. No passenger or fighter jet would attempt to climb so fast, he said.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a load of BS, a fighter jet which can only climb 6,000ft/min would be rubbish, these things once taken off can climb almost vertically?
 
This is more than likely to be the main culprit, a stall situation

Looking at the main fuselage under water is kind of mood dampening :( are they going in for any body recovering? assuming that they can recover bodies which are now likely to be decomposed or will they crane lift sections of what they have found?
 
MooMoo444 said:
Fighter jet being quoted might just be bad reporting.
Click to expand...


What you have to remember is fighter jets are typically lighter, and have I would imagine more thrust to weight ratio, and more aerodynamically designed to pull of high angle climbs at a fast rate, without loosing air speed.

Thats what they were designed to do, commercial airlines are not
 
Wonder if this will be another case of indicated airspeed discrepancies causing conflicting warnings etc. like AF447? From what I remember in the Air France crash, Pitot tubes iced up, air speed indicator became un reliable, AP disengaged, erroneous stall warning/AOA warnings, pilots confused pulled back on the stick and then it entered a stall and fell out of the sky.
 
VaderDSL said:
Wonder if this will be another case of indicated airspeed discrepancies causing conflicting warnings etc. like AF447? From what I remember in the Air France crash, Pitot tubes iced up, air speed indicator became un reliable, AP disengaged, erroneous stall warning/AOA warnings, pilots confused pulled back on the stick and then it entered a stall and fell out of the sky.
Click to expand...


Another reason to have GPS backup instruments
 
mattyg said:
Another reason to have GPS backup instruments
Click to expand...

Yeah it does baffle me they don't have one. I imagine the shock of going from fly by wire computer controlled environment to suddenly all automated systems turning off due to your air speed suddenly dropping a few hundred knots is a bit dis orientating.

But as you say, I imagine if they had a backup GPS speed indicator they could see the primary fail, switch to GPS set the throttle for the appropriate conditions and focus on working through the check lists like I imagine maintaining vision with the artificial horizon, making sure wings level, AOA etc. that way even if the computer starts telling you you;re in stall or overspeed you can at least reference your GPS speed sensor.

But obviously, I have no knowledge to back up my words. The BEA report and sequence of event however is frightening at how quickly it all unravelled.

 
Sounds like a very similar situation to what happened with the Airfrance flight. So I would say pilot error is the most likely casue.

From googling; while 6k per minute climb is greatly above the 'recommened' climb rate, the aircraft should have been easily capable of producing that at its crusing altitude and speed.
 
rubberduck said:
Sounds like a very similar situation to what happened with the Airfrance flight. So I would say pilot error is the most likely casue.

From googling; while 6k per minute climb is greatly above the 'recommened' climb rate, the aircraft should have been easily capable of producing that at its crusing altitude and speed.
Click to expand...

It was already close to its ceiling altitude. That climb was rather on the keen side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom