Final Report on Air Asia QZ8501

http://kemhubri.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_home/ntsc.htm

Depressing read as it’s very similar to AF447.

Quick summary:

  • Equipment failure leads to change from Normal Law to Alternate Law (Protections lost).

  • Pilot flying (FO) initially corrects rudder that induced left roll but also pitched up 15 degrees.

  • Aircraft climbs rapidly to FL380, stall warning followed by stall.

  • Pilot flying maintains full back stick to end of recording.

  • Stall upset recognised by Captain but no clear transfer of control.

  • Dual stick inputs for the most part.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

1 Like

That was exactly my thought. Don’t get me wrong now, especially Aernout, I think after AF447 there’s no excuse for pilots anymore to play the “panic card” to pull the stick back when a Stall warning occurs.

This didn’t come easy off my lips.

2 Likes

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

4 Likes

True. Sad thing is that the PIC made the right inputs but it wasn’t clear who had controls, so they both kept on pulling and pushing.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

1 Like

Very sad for my favorite aircraft’s safety record, give it 6 months and Air crash investigation will have an episode for it!

Whats dual input?

1 Like

I have by no means real world flying experience but you think with a ton of hours in a cockpit that when a stall horn goes off u either drop the nose or roll off the lift vector because no matter what that planes doing once u roll off the lift vector that nose will come down.

Keep in mind the maintenance department did NOT repair the faulty part properly, leading to this failure. Not saying human error didn’t play a big role, just saying the maintenance department failed big time in not diagnosing the cracked solder and instead elected for the “turn it off and back on again” fix. But at the same time, 15 degrees AOA at FL320 isn’t much better on the fail-o-meter.

Dual Input is when both sidesticks are enabled … and the seven computers, in-between the pilots and the control surfaces, are digested by a special algorithm to aviate and navigate during extreme environments … So when applying that to the accidents being discussed what you have is a pushme pullme situation whereas one voids the other and practically nothing good happens. The dual input switch is just to the left I believe of the main upper center panel, could be wrong. Hope this helps.

From my understanding, the command override button is only to be pressed if there is something obstructing the movement of the other stick. In a push/pull situation, using the button might lead to the other pilot pushing their button and reverting to the push/pull. There needs to be a call of “My aircraft” and for control to be transferred.

1 Like

I didn’t word it very well, the pilots mentioned in the article above were doing that, one was pulling the stick back and the other was pushing forward, all the while one Pilot didn’t know the other was doing the opposite, which is what I was trying to address staying on topic and explaining to the gentleman what Dual Input meant … In an extreme environment dual input is enabled to aviate and navigate out of the extreme environment and attitude of the aircraft, with both pilots view of both sides they can work together to stabilize, and this is coordinated by the computers I mentioned. 😎

One more thing, it’s a distinct difference between Airbus philosophy and Boeing philosophy, Boeing does not do this, as far as I know, could be wrong as changes occur constantly.

guys, unless you happen to be a QUALIFIED Commercial Airbus pilot with an appropriate ATPL, of which I am currently only aware of one member of this forum is, then please be careful in condemning professional pilots and what YOU would have done better.

It is an emotive subjective as many people died, yes there are sad parallels to AF477 and as always lessons to be learnt. Please keep it respectful, thanks.

1 Like

We totally are and I agree. But Stall training is basic aviating, something which is learned during the first 10 flight hours and even a C-172 pilot should know instinctly that stall=nose down. The fact that it had happend before to AF447 makes it even more sad. Maybe one of the pilot should have just turned their head to see what his colleague is doing. I think the lesson should have been learned by now how exactly NOT do to it…

The Boeing controls are linked, it is physically impossible to have dual input.

Those poor passengers and crew. As much as we can analyse clinically what went wrong in retrospect, I feel so, so sorry for those up front.

The confusion and sheer terror they may have experienced in those last moments when they knew they weren’t going to make it - how awful.

Rip QZ8501

1 Like

Indeed! The Airbus avionics are fly by wire and so allow a digital connection whereas one Pilot could control wing level and the other Pilot could control flight level … again, intended for extreme conditions. I’m not an engineer or anything close to it, however I can read and have found this interesting before there was a post about it. I wouldn’t argue about any of it. My only intention was to help the gentleman that asked what is dual input and saw the amount of time that the question sat unanswered. If one desires more info there’s Wikipedia, YouTube, Airbus, Boeing, all of which have made public there design features and how it works videos.

Hope everyone has a groovy Wednesday 😎

If only it was that simple for commercial pilots being able to pick and choose which airframe as they wish! Generally pilots will be type ratted for one particular aircraft and they will only be able to fly a different type after a lot of training on to the new type of aircraft.