Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore [Archive] - Page 2

JetHutek

29th Dec 2014, 00:37

Satellite, mesh network, whatever nonsense people wish to dream up, the answer is the same.....

Given the limited number of scenarios in which it would be useful, and the rarity of the scenarios, how on earth do you think the manufacturers are going to convince the airlines to (a) pay for the equipment and its installation it across entire fleets (b) Continue paying operational costs to keep the equipment running just incase some rare event occurs given that there are already other mechanisms in place to monitor aircraft.

Its simple, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. The methods in use today to monitor aircraft are perfectly good for 99.9999999999% of however many flights that take place every year on this planet !

Do you really think there is any point expending an inordinate amount of man-power and significant money for the 0.0000000001% that may or may not encounter an issue ?

I mean seriously, compared to the number of flights globally ever the same period how many untrackable instances have we had over the last 10 years ? 20 years ?

And then there's the obvious questions about electrical faults, mid-air breakups etc. putting a great big spanner in these dreams people are coming up with....

There may well be other areas of aviation safety where money and man-power would be well spent ..... but this aint' one of them !

I have posted on THIS thread and the thread of MH370 several times, a simple way to track aircraft by GPS with updates every minute or less, with an uninterruptable power supply and battery backup all the way to the incident site...and my posts keep getting deleted/moderated. NOT advocating and commercial brand or anything like that.

If you can't post such POSITIVE constructive ideas on this site in reference to these incidents, then what the heck is it worth?

Are we ONLY supposed to speculate what happened? Are we ONLY supposed to parrot and quote news reports? Ridiculous! If I can't post on this site anymore (as in, if THIS post is deleted) I am just going to cancel my account and depart....I am a professional pilot with 20+ years of experience and flying in the region of these incidents....if I can't post on here, WHO can?

andrekik

29th Dec 2014, 00:39

@ island airphoto
All commercial vessels are equipped with AIS (VHF transponder, which automatically transmits position reports) and SSAS (a satellite based reporting system, which can be polled), these systems are in addition to VHF and HF DSC systems.

With reference to the last position wonder if the Ozzie Jindalee OTHR system tracked this flight, provided it was switched on and operational (weekend!). Supposedly they can see and track a Cessna taking off from East Timor.

hogey74

29th Dec 2014, 00:50

@ andrikik - good point methinks, given that in the right wx they can watch aircraft going in and out of HK, Singapore.

Caveats...

1. Being cagey about hinting at performance - this is the region Jindalee is looking at. Lots of people know stuff about various accidents and will never share - part of life in the netherword :-(

2. Wx poor - atmosphere full of moisture and other variables.

3. Perhaps limited info was part of the "help" Australia offered yesterday?

Some great data and ancillary info in this thread - it's been good to check back every hour or two since yesterday. Less trolling that most places :-)

USMCProbe

29th Dec 2014, 00:50

The radar installed on 320 series has an "AUTO" setting that is used almost universally by the Asian pilots I have flown with. I have flown with Vietnamese, Chinese, PI, Thai, Korean, Indonesian, and Malaysian pilots. Every one of them used AUTO.

The problem is AUTO is not accurate a significant amount of time. Over flat terrain and water, maybe 80% accurate or a little higher. Over mountainous terrain maybe 50% or less. It will paint ground terrain as a Tstorm, and when it is doing that, it will not paint any actual weather as the return from the ground is vastly higher than that from any weather. The radar has turned its' gain down automatically because of the high returns from the ground.

Flying over Indonesia using AUTO, it would be very easy to fly right through a huge thunderstorm in an Airbus. I have seen it too many times.

My legacy carrier has a little sticker on the AUTO setting. The sticker says

"INOP"

Rananim

29th Dec 2014, 00:52

Its hard not to speculate that this was weather.A few posts have given some good insight and they need repeating:
a)Never ever try to outclimb a cell
b)Speed margin is critical-hence choice of level
c)Interpretation of wx radar is an art and surprisingly over-looked in training
d)Once in it,enage cws,disengage AT,set turb N1 and fly attitude only

Pay-to-fly crews are common in Asia(no inference here to Air Asia or this crew).However,there are many airlines flying today with FO's neither trained nor allowed to takeoff and land,never mind interpret a wx radar screen and formulate a plan of action to avoid multiple cells.Wouldnt have been a dry cell here so either they didnt know how to use or interpret the wx radar or if they did,their avoidance action was insufficient.

All the Asian airlines(and many others also) use this pay-to-fly or fly free cadet system and its alarming.Ive seen a pilot try to follow the magenta line right into a storm that would tear the plane apart.And they dont land or takeoff yet theyre signed off(ie.theres no safety pilot which begs the question..what if the Captain keels over?).Ive watched in the sim where the pilot cant handle a simple V1 cut yet is always signed off.And these same guys are upgraded to left seat once they get the 3000 hours,all of it on autopilot.Only a while back,we saw the embarassing and sad crash of a 777 at KSFO simply because there was no electronic glideslope and they couldnt fly.We werent allowed to say anything because it wasnt pc or because it was racist.But these accidents cost lives and something must be said.

There is no substitute for airmanship and two experienced pilots upfront who have the healthiest respect for ITCZ weather.They steer well clear and they dont wait for ATC either(very often VHF will be temporarily lost due static and some guys want to keep the magenta line until they get clearance).

stylo4444

29th Dec 2014, 00:54

As others have said, it was NOT dark. Sunrise at local time was 5:15 AM and the aircraft lost contact at around 6:17 AM.

That's not exactly "dark".

There are air disasters where the wreckage was not located for 24-48 hours, some even longer (remember AF447?). Yes the flight is still "missing" despite some unconfirmed reports of wreckage sighting, but people need to think about this a little more logically than come to the conclusion "this is looking a lot like MH370".

slats11

29th Dec 2014, 01:01

Sunrise in Surabaya was about 5:14 local time. The sun was up the whole flight as far as I can tell.

Just checked again - you are correct. Was dawn in the area of last known position at the time of departure, but was daylight an hour later at time plane disappeared.

There have been wreckage found only after extensive searching at the same exact area for months.

You can't have it both ways however. Most scenarios which cause sudden loss of communications will cause lots of debris. Conversely, most scenarios that cause minimal debris imply control and hence communications should be maintained.

Sudden loss of all communications could be due to catastrophic structural failure which would cause lots of debris, or an AF447 like event which also caused fragmentation at impact and lots of floating debris. They found lots of debris fairly quickly (days) with AF447 - even though
i. the initial search was delayed by at least a day
ii. the search area was much larger (they didn't "see" loss of the transponder with 447)
iii. the search area was mid-ocean (severely complicating the search by limiting aircraft time on scene and delaying arrival of ships).
None of that applies here.

There simply are not that many explanations for sudden loss of all communications and no debris - especially in a small area.

First Adm Sigit Setiayana, commander of Indonesia's Naval Aviation Center at Surabaya air force base, says 12 navy ships, five planes, three helicopters and a number of warships are taking part in the search, along with ships and planes from Singapore and Malaysia, the Associated Press reports.

Singapore, Malaysia, and Australian assets also looking.

If nothing is found today, we will need to contemplate other explanations.

aterpster

29th Dec 2014, 01:07

Ranimin:

Its hard not to speculate that this was weather.A few posts have given some good insight and they need repeating:
a)Never ever try to outclimb a cell
b)Speed margin is critical-hence choice of level
c)Interpretation of wx radar is an art and surprisingly over-looked in training
d)Once in it,enage cws,disengage AT,set turb N1 and fly attitude only

All good points. "c" was handled occasionally by U.S. airlines by having ground school by the master, Dave Gwinn. Honeywell used Dave after his life at TWA. Unfortunately, Dave died too young.

Beyond that, I have to think of AF447 and the sidestick controls.

slats11

29th Dec 2014, 01:15

MH370 didn't have very bad weather, important difference I'd say.

MH370 had FIR change. This plane had weather. Both may have served to cause initial confusion. That is the similarity.

How likely is it that a pilot with > 20000 hours flying in equatorial areas suddenly suddenly decided to climb to FL380 due to severe cells?

USMCProbe

29th Dec 2014, 01:23

Dark?

There is more than one kind of "Dark" in aviation in this part of the world. One is when the sun is down. The other is when all cockpit windows are covered by newspapers and blankets while the pilots watch movies or play games on their IPADs.

I have been waiting for this accident to happen. I am only surprised it took so long.

Airbubba

29th Dec 2014, 01:27

All good points. "c" was handled occasionally by U.S. airlines by having ground school by the master, Dave Gwinn. Honeywell used Dave after his life at TWA. Unfortunately, Dave died too young.

I was trained on weather radar years ago by another master, Archie Trammell. His words ring in my ears decades later as I dodge the CB's.

Of course, next time I take the course I want to raise my hand and ask about those no-seeums in the subtropics. :eek:

Some earlier PPRuNe discussion on WX radar training:

Training and use of airborne weather radar [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-376731.html)

WingNut60

29th Dec 2014, 01:28

McNugget

50 years of ongoing, simmering animosity at many levels would probably rule out any such merger.
For any who may not have noticed, the airline is Air Asia Indonesia and the registration is PK = Indonesia.

peekay4

29th Dec 2014, 01:35

There simply are not that many explanations for sudden loss of all communications and no debris - especially in a small area.
What is your definition of a "small area"?

Given a good starting position (e.g., last contact position) SAR computes an initial search area given parameters like flight altitude, cruising speed, prevailing winds, sea surface and underwater currents, etc.

In this case, the initial search area is 120nm by 240nm (28,800 square miles) divided into four sectors.

According to Indonesian media, after reaching the area yesterday, SAR assets were only able to do a preliminary search covering maybe 50 square miles out of this 28,800. A whopping 0.17% coverage!

And today they have decided to expand the initial search area by a further 3 sectors, covering not only waters north and east of Belitung Island, but also land over western Borneo.

Sop_Monkey

29th Dec 2014, 01:41

Slats11

Not very likely in my opinion.

Airlines today in that part of the world are looking for young, therefore likely inexperienced overall, male model looking types and highly educated. More emphasis is placed on stringent medical standards than experience. Nothing too much wrong with that but the real important stuff cannot be learnt in a class room. In my day there was no real substitute for experience and hand flying practice was encouraged (in the right environment, of course.) Not now it ain't, with RVSM etc. I have always maintained, if you can fly an a/c S&L at altitude accurately, then you can do most things you need to do with the aircraft accurately also. It also taught us not to be scared to take over manually if we didn't like the behavior of the A/P for example.

No none of us are perfect of course but these days I don't think the risk management is managed as well as it should be managed. Just my 2 cents worth.

slats11

29th Dec 2014, 01:52

What is your definition of a "small area"?

Vastly smaller than the search area for MH370, where they found nothing.

And significantly smaller than the search area for AF447 where they found lots of stuff fairly quickly - despite the delay initiating search and despite the search area being mid-ocean.

If nothing is found, there will come a point when that has to be considered suspicious rather than normal.

xyze

29th Dec 2014, 01:53

It took 8 days to find the wreckage of Adam Air 574, so it is a while yet before conspiracy theories warrant airing!

CDN_ATC

29th Dec 2014, 02:45

Last known radar return, was roughly 120NM from closest publically known radar site.

If it had PSR at that range you would get some returns but not for long if descending

For SSR It's likely around 15,000 you would start to lose the ability to "see" any SSR returns

Once again sketchy information

I want to know what altitude for certain was last received on radar.

Was this aircraft ADS-B certainly?

caedwa

29th Dec 2014, 02:52

At the very least, WIHH Jakarta, WIPP Palembang, WIIS Semarang, WARR Surabya have coverage in this area as well as some Malaysian stations. Whilst the Indonesian AIP is not currently available on line in English, a quick look at the source data being used by FlightRadar 24 will confirm this assertion - and you will also find a strange radar called TEST1 in operation too - who knows where that one is located.

The TEST1 radar is I think shown as T-EST1, and as far as I know it's actually just an ESTimated (by FR24) position, not an actual receiver. Also, those radar identifiers on FR24 are just to tell you the closest airport to the receiver being used as the source, it doesn't indicate any other connection with the airport or any ATC radar network.

glendalegoon

29th Dec 2014, 03:03

airbubba

I took the archie trammel course too. GREAT WX RADAR expert and teacher.

It changed the way I used radar and if you ain't futzin with it, you aren't gettin' th ewhole picture.

tilt, tilt, gain whatever

you play with it to get a good picture.

sadly I am thinking: RADAR SHADOW/precip radar attenuation. enter, upset, mishandle recovery, boom

oh well.

rh200

29th Dec 2014, 03:14

Experts:ugh:

Missing AirAsia plane: QZ8501 transmitter not working (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/aviation-expert-asks-why-airasia-transmitter-failed-to-activate-on-qz8501/story-fnizu68q-1227169203618)

With experts like this who needs conspiracy theorists.

Yes they will activate on contact with water, if not malfunctioning. But no they don't transmit very well from under water, Something about electromagnetic waves and mediums. Hence you have an acoustic beacon.

Search areas.

From altitude by the time they hit the floor, can give a large search area. Just reinforces how hard it can be to sea search, especially if the weather is sh!t. Depending on impact pattern and type of break up, it may not be conducive to finding.

Satellites and real time.

We can go for the rolls royce system or basic reporting position system.
Yes almost every thing is possible with money. But to what end and what purpose? Most resources goes into prevention. We already have an onboard system that these days can tell almost as much as you want.

Most of what your asking for is not prevention, its convenience, in the odd case of never finding the BB such as MH370 or their damaged, yes real time would be the go. But that requires money.

In this case they think they know where it is, and still can't find it yet, I don't think a real time position report would help if that was the case. If it turns out it is significantly away from where they think it is, then yes it may do.

Communications

Aviate, navigate Communicate.

As my old flying instructor used to say, Fly the F#$% airplane first, instead of trying flap ones trap. If things turned to Sh!t, they may be too busy trying to save themselves and every one else's @rse to boldly announce to the world they are going down.

RF4

29th Dec 2014, 03:14

"It took 8 days to find the wreckage of Adam Air 574, so it is a while yet before conspiracy theories warrant airing!"

Actually the metal objects which they located after 8 days were never identified ,but thought to be instruments which had been deployed to study ocean currents.
The first confirmed wreckage was after 11 days, when a fisherman found the starboard horizontal stabilizer.
I sincerely hope that we are not witnessing the start of another debacle like the Adam Air 574 SAR and investigation/report.

White Knight

29th Dec 2014, 03:28

Quote:
To loose contact so fast suggests mid air break up with no time to declare an emergency ....
Other possibilities are that they ceased to use their working radio after the last communication.

Much information still to be released, like radar returns from altitude to sea floor

Of course, for all the loss of comms/no comms conspiracy crowd I can assure you that if indeed this aircraft hit severe/extreme turbulence it is almost impossible to use the radios. I've hit severe turbulence three times (all clear air) and neither I nor my colleague could even get our radio fingers on the PTT buttons to request a rapid descent... Nor could we even see the PFDs clearly!

CDN_ATC

29th Dec 2014, 03:30

Perhaps something more than severe

I've taken probably over 100 severe turbulence reports, in all instances the crews were able to communicate.

p.j.m

29th Dec 2014, 03:34

AirAsia Flight QZ8501: Search for missing plane resumes (http://www.smh.com.au/world/airasia-flight-qz8501-search-for-missing-plane-resumes-20141229-12exc0.html)

As a press conference, Indonesia's Minister for Transport, Ignasius Jonan, said the flight went missing between Tanjung Pandan and Pontianak, and, on the last contact, it was not far from the shoreline.If true, puts the crash site further north/west than previously thought (but almost bang on the unconfirmed Belitung Island (Tanjung Pandan shoreline) wreckage reports.)

prayingmantis

29th Dec 2014, 03:34

Hi everyone,

I probably should know the answer to this, but how many modern airliners in cruise flight were brought down by catastrophic structural failure after encountering severe weather? And let's exclude accidents where the plane had a previously diagnosed or undiagnosed mechanical problem that contributed to it (you can argue a few weather accidents on those grounds).

Yes, most pilots avoid them. But I can only think of stalls, hail damage, etc, while in cruise, and none where the plane blew apart enough where it was uncontrollable. And uncontrollable to the point where the pilots didn't have time to contact ATC. Here it was over in a matter of minutes.

Not sure if I've heard of a modern airliner with radar and significant over-engineering just catastrophically failing in weather. Not talking about a private pilot who "inadvertently" wanders into a thunderstorm out of stupidity.

Just curious. Seems these planes venture into these situations commonly, doing their best to avoid if at all possible. These pilots were obviously briefed on the weather to expect enroute.

Was wondering. Not that it matters, but I'm still in the purely speculative out-of-envelope stall in horrendous weather, whether or not it was precipitated by some other distraction (such as pitot tube icing deja vu).

This pilot obviously had serious skills (20k+ hours?!) in this part of the world.

I honestly can only think of that semi-modern Mt. Fuji encounter (previously mentioned) that were beyond the plane's limits. But my memory is fading quickly as I age, and those accidents I investigated in the past are slipping my mind!

Just trying to gain some facts from experts with things being so speculative at this point.

Thank you everyone!

Richard C

29th Dec 2014, 03:42

I've taken plenty of turbulence reports too - mostly pilots say "moderate to severe" though. I did take one (just one) report of "extreme" CAT but that was preceded by the three magic words. They did come through it OK.

However, I agree with the pilots here who are saying that talking to ATC is definitely a low priority if clickers horns or synthetic voices are sounding. If an aircraft crashes without a distress call it doesn't prove much other than that the crew had their hands full trying to save it.

xyze

29th Dec 2014, 03:45

Northwest 705 in Florida is one that comes to mind

(though a bit different to the accident near Mt Fuji as pilot control inputs thought to have played a role in the NW accident)

As more details of this accident emerge the chain of events in the NW 705 accident may be quite relevant.

In_Transit

29th Dec 2014, 03:52

I probably should know the answer to this, but how many modern airliners in cruise flight were brought down by catastrophic structural failure after encountering severe weather?

Literally zero

JanetFlight

29th Dec 2014, 03:53

Slats11You can't have it both ways however. Most scenarios which cause sudden loss of communications will cause lots of debris. Conversely, most scenarios that cause minimal debris imply control and hence communications should be maintained.

Sorry, cannot agree...remember LAM Embraer190?

Richard C

29th Dec 2014, 03:59

"for all the loss of comms/no comms conspiracy crowd I can assure you that if indeed this aircraft hit severe/extreme turbulence it is almost impossible to use the radios"

Not disagreeing with your general point but some headsets used to have a PTT switch in the headset lead - if you were a 2nd officer watching the other 2 pilots wrestle with a frighteningly vibrating aircraft you can hit that PTT and get your distress call off. (That was how, back in the 70s, I received a distress call citing extreme turbulence). Modern aircraft with a crew of 2 pilots only are far more likely to stay silent.

Earl

29th Dec 2014, 04:05

Well from experience last 30 years if in severe turbulence and trying to dial in the freq on HF or any radio is challenging.
Ones that have seen this can relate.
Eyes and slams cant match, difficult to do.

paultr

29th Dec 2014, 04:09

Quite extraordinary to wake up to find this plane has not been found even though there has been several hours of daylight in the area.

Disclaimer : rare visitor to this forum but like many others got caught up in the evolving MH370 mystery.

There are many on here (I guess) who are sailors and it is hard for us to understand how a plane can dissappear given the low cost of position reporting equipment these days. I can fully understand the huge costs of retrofitting any equipment to an aircraft with type approval certification etc but how about this for a cheap simple idea to be incorporated into new builds.

Just a simple tube containing a pressure activated transponder with epirb mounted internally near the tail. Maybe 30cm long and 10cm dia. On take off this would be set to auto. On a normal descent it would be deactivated at say 1000m but in a distress situation the pressure sensitive sensor would release a mechanical spring at say 250m which ejects the epirb. The whole thing could cost less than USD10k and have no hazardous potential for the aircraft (apart from the batteries in the epirb).

Apologies to all you guys on here for posting such a Heath Robinson idea but joe public just cannot understand how another plane can go missing in 2014.

Richard C

29th Dec 2014, 04:10

"Unacceptable... With so many flights going over water. Please don't say they are not designed to be picked up in 150' of water. "

OK, I won't say it.

I think the point is that there could be a floating beacon in the fin that is released by a hydraulic pistol at (say 10m) depth. AFAIK, no aircraft are fitted with this. I can think of best part of $200 million that could have been saved by a general fitment.

Richard C

29th Dec 2014, 04:15

"Apologies to all you guys on here for posting such a Heath Robinson idea but joe public just cannot understand how another plane can go missing in
2014.

Pretty close to what I posted at the same time but I'm not going to apologise. It's not new, the idea of crash locator beacons with several independent automatic deployment methods (hydrostatic pressure, g-sensor, heat etc. has been around for years.

onetrack

29th Dec 2014, 04:15

I seem to recall a Captain and 2 x FO's took a very serviceable Airbus from FL380 into the sea after entering TZ turbulence - without transmitting a word to anyone outside the aircraft.
These three "experienced" pilots struggled to understand what was happening to the aircraft, despite thousands of hours of flight time. To me, this AirAsia crash has very similar hallmarks.
There's a subtle difference between "Total Flight Time" and "Experience". The latter involves getting into scrapes, and getting out, with your arse and aircraft intact because you understood, or learnt quickly, what to do.
One must always keep in mind that modern commercial aircraft aren't ripped apart by thunderstorms - they are capable of surviving some major abuse - and that over 90% of air crashes can be sheeted home to pure pilot error.

Richard C

29th Dec 2014, 04:17

"if in severe turbulence and trying to dial in the freq on HF or any radio is challenging."

You shouldn't have to change frequency on a mayday call - you get instant priority on any channel.

letsjet

29th Dec 2014, 04:20

Exactly guys...

Some of us are pilots and boaters... I just went over 2000 miles on my vessel with Epirb equipment that was relatively inexpensive and could pin-point my location anywhere in the world. While I'm not trying to compare the two exactly, I think you get my point.

I know the equip. they put on commercial aircraft are designed to withstand catastrophic accidents. So, the question remains why they seem to be saying they are looking for a needle in a haystack. If they are, changes need to be made....

OverRun

29th Dec 2014, 04:30

Airbubba mentioned some earlier PPRuNe discussion on WX radar training, and that contains a link to another PPRUNE discussion where Archie Trammell, who is considered a bit of a guru when it comes to WX radar, has written an article in a 1987 issue of Business and Commercial Aviation.

For ease of reference (and to enable printing it off or for easy storage), that article is here: Weather Radar (Archie Trammell) (profemery.info/weather_radar.pdf)

Sop_Monkey

29th Dec 2014, 04:32

Onetrack

All true what you state of course.

However the mind set in that part of the world, getting into a scrape could be classed as having an incident. Now past incidents make you unemployable. I certainly would never have ruled out a person who has made a mistake in their past and learn't from it. It is the people that don't make the odd mistake, that worry the hell out of me.

This is when the culture of fear and retribution influences people not to open up so we all learn from it. Instead it makes people clam up, if they think they can get away with it and hoping to keep their jobs. A huge safety issue right there. As "confidential reporting" is not confidential and will never be.

rtpilot1

29th Dec 2014, 04:34

PORTVALE Turns out does not relate to 320-200.

Sheep Guts

29th Dec 2014, 04:47

Port Vale. You correct, this it is the latest from Airbus. Refers to a new OEB issued world wide A319/20/21 and A330/A340. My airline issued it in early December 2014. This is a new directive unrelated to the AOA and Pitot replacements post AF447 in 2009/2010. Lets hope we find out what actually happened, before coming to conclusions and hope the search ends soon for the wreckage. God bless the families.

peekay4

29th Dec 2014, 04:55

I probably should know the answer to this, but how many modern airliners in cruise flight were brought down by catastrophic structural failure after encountering severe weather?

Well, back in the 1980s a Dutch F-28 flew into a tornado, causing it's right wing to detach. :sad: All aboard perished.

But we usually talk about accident chains. Plane flies into severe weather, and in the process of recovery something terribly goes wrong.

The AA587 crash at Belle Harbor is an example. The A300 flew into wake turbulence (could have been any turbulence) and the FO's aggressive use of rudder caused structural failure and separation of the stabilizer.

In 2008, an Air Canada A319 enroute to Toronto almost suffered the exact same fate, after exceeding vertical stabilizer g-limits. Thankfully it was able to make an emergency landing in Calgary.

Several turboprops, including a couple Twin Otters and a USAF HC-130, have been lost over the years after in flight breakup in turbulence.

Perhaps most famously (aside from the Mt. Fuji incident): during the cold war a B-52 carrying two nuclear bombs also lost its rudder during flight in severe turbulence. The crew had to bail out and the bomber crashed into Savage Mountain in Maryland.

The two nuclear bombs were thankfully recovered intact.

training wheels

29th Dec 2014, 04:57

The search areas this morning are being divided up in to 7 sectors.

http://cdn.metrotvnews.com/dynamic/content/2014/12/29/337992/uxTvzl5ir4.jpg?w=668

Source (http://news.metrotvnews.com/read/2014/12/29/337992/pencarian-qz8501-di-selat-karimata-dibagi-ke-dalam-lima-blok)

training wheels

29th Dec 2014, 05:14

p.j.m

29th Dec 2014, 05:21

This video (http://video.metrotvnews.com/play/2014/12/29/337870/kepala-basarnas-pencarian-airasia-dibagi-kedalam-7-sektor) says the search aircraft involved are:

2 C-130s from TNI-AU (Indonesian Airforce)
1 737 from TNI-AU
1 C-130 from Malaysia
1 C-130 from Singapore

add 1x AP-3C Orion from Australia

AirAsia QZ8501: Australia joins search for missing AirAsia flight (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/airasia-qz8501-australia-joins-search-for-missing-airasia-flight-20141229-12exkr.html)

terminus mos

29th Dec 2014, 05:23

NAS 532 "Built" (Assembled) by IPTN in Bandung. Old aircraft now but far better than the NBO 105s of BASARNAS

WingNut60

29th Dec 2014, 05:24

I am not a conspiracy theorist. But I do know a bit about the search area.

It may not be as busy as Hong Kong harbour, but I do find it odd that at early morning, during daylight hours, that no one saw this aircraft in it's final moments.
I know that weather would have caused conditions of limited visibility and it's a big ocean.
And even if seen then, crew on small surface vessels may not have any capability to report until they return to shore.
But it is usually pretty busy with all types of surface activity in that region.

Of course we must just wait and see. But I do find it a bit strange.

slamer.

29th Dec 2014, 05:32

A320 Max Rec alt FL39800'

-low cost carrier checks in 162 soles at Asian weights of 73kg (circa), but more like 100kg each... (after all its Christmas)

-2Hr flight with alternate, maybe distant due SIN Wx.

-Bit of extra fuel added.

-On this day and early in the flight, Max Rec probably about FL385.(but possibly lower)

.... so heavy

-ISA +

-Request for climb FL380 (according to media reports)

-ITCZ activity (normal for this region)

-Probably a couple more slices of Reason cheese.. (late finish, early start,
probes iced up ..or some other factor that we are yet to find out about)

-Some speed brake (Airbus people will understand) use, then ..VLS ... V@prot.. AP disco ..Vmax ...thrust lock... etc

Equals = Classic jet upset probably with incorrect recovery technique.

(A320 does not like going high, near Max Rec)

bille1319

29th Dec 2014, 05:52

There are similarities with the weather case of flight AF447 and QZ8501 but she continued to send HF ACARS engineering data telegrams including cockpit warning codes which were released to the press shortly after her disappearance. It will be interesting to see how this airline inter reacts with the press who will undoubtedly pile huge pressure to release information which could mislead and give false hope to those loved ones in already in despair as we saw in the aftermath of MH370.

cockpitvisit

29th Dec 2014, 05:53

Was there any confirmation that the plane was followed by the primary radar?

Hornbill88

29th Dec 2014, 05:55

Hey WingNut60, considering you live in Balikpapan and "know a bit about the area" I am surprised you don't take account of tropical rainstorms. Here in the middle of Singapore we have been seeing near daily rainstorms for the last week or two where you can't see more than thirty or forty feet in front of your face. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if no-one at sea level saw anything.

Gretchenfrage

29th Dec 2014, 05:56

Interesting.

EMERGENCY AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE 2014-0266-E_1 NOVEMBER 2014

An occurrence was reported where an Airbus A321 aeroplane encountered a blockage of two Angle Of Attack (AOA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. The flight crew managed to regain full control and the flight landed uneventfully.

When Alpha Prot is activated due to blocked AOA probes, the flight control laws order a continuous nose down pitch rate that, in a worst case scenario, cannot be stopped with backward sidestick inputs, even in the full backward position. If the Mach number increases during a nose down order, the AOA value of the Alpha Prot will continue to decrease. As a result, the flight control laws will continue to order a nose down pitch rate, even if the speed is above minimum selectable speed, known as VLS.

This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the aeroplane.

This is not only interesting, but essential, but only if the lower part of that EAD is mentioned:

To address this unsafe condition, Airbus has developed a specific AFM procedure, which has been published in AFM TR 502. For the reasons describe above, this AD requires amendment of the applicable AFM to advise the flightcrew of the emergency procedures for abnormal Alpha Prot.

Although it's early, most contributors would speculate (it's a rumour forum) in some sort of upset scenario in conjunction with CB or icing. So now the multi million question is:

- Were the pilots aware of and trained in this emergency directive?

Another question to ask yourself: Re-read the directive carefully and ask yourself if you would step into your car, if a similar chilling warning about its driving characteristics would be issued.
I guess not! You would rather leave it in the garage and sue the manufacturer.

It begs the question how any public transport machine gets the absolution by the regulators with such emergency directives, especially in regions perfectly prone to such weather phenomena.

White Knight

29th Dec 2014, 05:56

Perhaps something more than severe

I've taken probably over 100 severe turbulence reports, in all instances the crews were able to communicate.

That's why I did put severe/extreme:ugh: You stick to ATCing and I'll stick to flying big airliners... As I said -during MY encounters with severe we were not able to transmit during the event; only after the turbulence had lessened!

peekay4

29th Dec 2014, 05:59

Some new details from AirNav Indonesia (http://www.airnavindonesia.co.id):

06:12

- QZ8501 requests left deviation from airway. Deviation approved.
- Pilot then requests climb from FL320 to FL380
- ATC asks pilot to standby, due to nearby traffic and to coordinate with next sector (Singapore)

06:14

- ATC calls QZ8501 to approve partial climb to FL340
- No response received after 2 or 3 further attempts to contact
- ATC requests help from nearby aircraft to contact QZ8501

06:16

- ATC still cannot reach QZ8501
- Aircraft still observed on radar screen

06:17

- Radar contact lost
- Last reported altitude: FL290

NSEU

29th Dec 2014, 06:08

I have a big red button on my VHF comm radio on my boat and if I press it every vessel within range will have their radio set off a loud alarm and my vessel name and location will be displayed on their radio

Pilots also have the option of doing the same thing with the ELT. There is a red guarded switch in the cockpit for manual activation. However, it wouldn't be difficult to imagine reasons why the pilots wouldn't have had the presence of mind to activate it (if it was part of their procedures) with the buffeting/g-forces, possible decompression, loss of power, wiring damage, manuals (& hot beverages) flying around the cockpit, etc.

Where is the battery for your boat's VHF? Where is the antenna? What happens if the boat overturns or breaks up before you have the chance to push the red button? On a boat, do you put on your life jacket before or after pushing the red button? Sometimes immediate self-preservation takes priority over long term preservation.

SINGAPURCANAC

29th Dec 2014, 06:11

something missing,
Is the area covered by SSR and ADSB?
seems -yes.
If aircraft stalled ,Transponder would work.
There is no info ( other the last post that anyone noticed descent )
If it is SSR covered and aircraft stalled than ATC will see aircraft fall ( albeit I pray to Good to save us of such views ) all the time ,or at least until radar coverage lower limit. Lower limit could be anything but it should be at least FL 100.
So If it was stall, ATC would see FL 330,FL327..... FL100....

If it is desintegration ,intentional turn off comms and transponder than it might happen FL 330,FL327 and than nothing without any frequency warning or similar.

i think that the same is applicable for flightradar and other modern applications ...
:confused:

WingNut60

29th Dec 2014, 06:12

Yes, it's a bit damp here too.

But please read it again.
I did mention regarding the weather and associated difficulties.
Most probable cause of no reports would be because the weather is keeping the ketintings (teng-tengs over your way, I believe) on the beach.

Just because the tops are going through 50,000 ft does not mean that there is anything coming out the bottom.

And there is so much traffic through that area that I am still surprised at lack of reports.
North-South traffic through the Sunda Straits and East-West traffic from Singapore to Kalimantan, etc.

Airbubba

29th Dec 2014, 06:15

Airbubba mentioned some earlier PPRuNe discussion on WX radar training, and that contains a link to another PPRuNe discussion where Archie Trammell, who is considered a bit of a guru when it comes to WX radar, has written an article in a 1987 issue of Business and Commercial Aviation.

For ease of reference (and to enable printing it off or for easy storage), that article is here: Weather Radar (Archie Trammell)

Thanks for sharing this, I remember Archie saying to always look for ground return on the other side of a cell to make sure more weather was not hidden by attenuation. The Southern Air 242 crash had occurred a few years earlier.

There is more than one kind of "Dark" in aviation in this part of the world. One is when the sun is down. The other is when all cockpit windows are covered by newspapers and blankets while the pilots watch movies or play games on their IPADs.

I have been waiting for this accident to happen. I am only surprised it took so long.

And it's not just 'Asian' crews. Some of the folks I fly with still think it is an entitlement to play video games and watch movies on their tablets while at the controls. After NW 188 overflew MSP five years ago and the feds pulled the pilots' tickets some of this stuff died down but now it's getting worse, not better in my observation. The hotwire plug to somehow play the movie sound over the ground interphone channel has resurfaced.

I did a no kidding low vis takeoff in a widebody recently, crosswind, about a light and a half visible on the centerline, sanded ice on the runway. As we start to roll, my coworker in the other seat whips out his iPhone to video the event. I started to say something but it was a long trip ahead and some of these folks act like you've taken away their birthday if you mildly imply that the captain is in command. I guess it's a generational culture thing.

Anyway, I could sure see a scenario where the pilots are distracted by portable electronic devices and realize late in the video game that they need to avoid severe weather.

Bobman84

29th Dec 2014, 06:17

Literally zero

There was a 747 that went down after lightning struck its wing and the wing failed in 1976, although it was after cruise altitude.

YPPH_Dave

29th Dec 2014, 06:18

rampstalker

29th Dec 2014, 06:29

Just for the record airbus have issued three ADs related to replacement of conical plates and sensor as well as ammended test procedures. 2014-0266E being issued to ammend the AFM to cover an inflight upset and what to do.
There is now another AD thats related to flight information collection, that being replacement of pitot probes 2014-0237.

But in this instance of this sad event I would still doubt that any of these could have been responsible for this. Just have to await the out come from the investigation. But my splerb above is for the press to read so they have another angle and story to spout on CNN.

Come on CNN do your best to rag this one out

butterfly68

29th Dec 2014, 06:50

Ex FSO GRIFFO

29th Dec 2014, 06:55

Sydney radio 2GB has just reported that an Aust aircraft in the search area has reported sighting "objects" floating in the search area....

Aust has a P - 3C on task.

More to follow I would imagine....

p.j.m

29th Dec 2014, 07:00

Channel 7 news reporting the same

An "Official" at Surabaya airport says
An Australian plane has spotted wreckage in the sea, as planes search for the missing air asia planeinteresting tech in that Orion
Missing AirAsia plane: the RAAF Orion plane hunting for jet (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/inside-the-hi-tech-raaf-orion-search-plane-australia-has-sent-to-find-the-missing-airasia-plane/story-fnizu68q-1227169238386)

paultr

29th Dec 2014, 07:04

Do not want to denigrate in any way the search assets of any country but the Aussies do seem to be very effective when it comes to SAR. (Assuming this breaking news is true).

Edit: Sadly there will probably not be any AR in this case.

onetrack

29th Dec 2014, 07:19

The ADF is refusing to comment on the claim by an Indo official that the Australian P3 Orion has spotted wreckage this afternoon (Indo time). So, the claim is just as likely to be grandstanding by the official.

GroundScot

29th Dec 2014, 07:23

it is reported however that the item spotted by the Orion is some 700 nm [over 1000kms] away from the last known position....

CISTRS

29th Dec 2014, 07:26

Caygill:
Do we really need change? What has changed, aviation or expectations? Aviation has for sure changed for the better and safer, but so has also the media reality and peoples perception of normal.Due to massive changes in technology, aviation has for sure changed for the better and safer.
For the same reasons, people's expectations have also changed.
It is increasingly intolerable for 100s of souls to be "lost" without trace whilst eyeballs to find them are deployed during daylight only.

onetrack

29th Dec 2014, 07:28

SkyNews Australia has reported ...

"An Indonesian official says Australian planes have spotted objects in the area where an AirAsia flight carrying 162 passengers disappeared.

Jakarta's Air Force base commander Rear Marshal Dwi Putranto says he has been informed that an Australian Orion aircraft had detected suspicious objects near Nangka island, about 160 kilometres southwest of Pangkalan Bun, near central Kalimantan, or 1120 kilometres from the location where the plane lost contact.

'However, we cannot be sure whether it is part of the missing AirAsia plane,' Putranto says, 'We are now moving in that direction, which is in cloudy conditions.' ... "

1120 kms away from LKP of the missing aircraft?? Seems like this bloke is grasping at straws to get himself in the news. :(

peekay4

29th Dec 2014, 07:31

Both of those numbers can't be right. 160 km SW from Pangkalan Bun isn't 1,120 km from the last known position. I mean, from Pangkalan Bun all the way to Jakarta is only ~ 680 km.

WingNut60

29th Dec 2014, 07:35

Or you could take a look for a miss-translation or a typo.

Pangkalanbun is about 300 km EENE of the reported search area.
I doubt that the Orion would be looking 1120km from that area.

onetrack

29th Dec 2014, 07:38

Both of those numbers can't be right. 160 km SW from Pangkalan Bun isn't 1,120 km from the last known position.That's correct. Seems to me like it should have read, "1120kms from Surabaya airport". Pulau Nangka is certainly in the right area for potential wreckage.

The sea security post location where the report came from, is approx 34NM from LKP of the aircraft. It is also reported that local fishermen reported seeing an aircraft coming down and hearing the crash.
However, it appears those fisherman have yet to be officially interviewed.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/search-for-airasia-qz8501/1554532.html

p.j.m

29th Dec 2014, 07:46

Jakarta's Air Force base commander Rear Marshal Dwi Putranto says he has been informed that an Australian Orion aircraft had detected suspicious objects near Nangka island, about 160 kilometres southwest of Pangkalan Bun,

looks like the right general location to me, also lines up with the location of unconfirmed wreckage reported yesterday.

http://i.imgur.com/3zV2Osh.jpg

WingNut60

29th Dec 2014, 07:50

Pulau Nangka (near Belitung) is about 350 km WWNW of Pangkalanbun
Though it is entirely possible that there are multiple "Pulau Nangkas" (Jackfruit Island) in the vicinity

peekay4

29th Dec 2014, 07:57

According to an Air Force spokesman earlier today (Jakarta time), the last known position was bearing 247 degrees, 127nm from Pangkalanbun. So the debris would approximately be in the right area.

Vice President Jusuf Kalla is on TV now saying that they have not been able to confirm the nature of the reported debris.

PT6Driver

29th Dec 2014, 08:01

The aircraft cannot be found instantly, therefore we get demands for all sorts of tracking devices. All of which would not really help in this instance.
Even if there is a locator beacon functioning correctly finding surface wreckage is a painstaking and time consuming task.
Floating debris will move with the currents and tides sometimes very rapidly hence the ever expanding search area.
For debris that is underwater even with functioning locator beacons, you need either helicopter with appropriate equipment or surface assets again appropriately equiped.
All of which again takes time and a painstaking methodical search.
For all the demands for up to the second traking devices not one of the suggestions would in this instance further the search effort beyond the current last known position.

olasek

29th Dec 2014, 08:15

BBC has reported that the aircraft never climbed to FL380 because ATC didn't give the clearence due to traffic..so I can suppose that they were in the "****" already and remained there a couple of minutes too much without the chance to climb immediately.
Pure speculation, you can go around weather, there are other things to do besides climbing. And all this assuming weather had anything to do with it.

IFixPlanes

29th Dec 2014, 08:17

EMERGENCY AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE 2014-0266-E_1 NOVEMBER 2014
Applicability:
Airbus A318-111, A318-112, A318-121, A318-122, A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-215, A320-216, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231 and A321-232 aeroplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.

Ghost_Rider737

29th Dec 2014, 08:27

Bobman84

29th Dec 2014, 08:28

Another West Caribbean Airways Flight 708?

tartare

29th Dec 2014, 08:32

Guys - given the payload - what is the maximum altitude that aircraft could have safely operated at before getting too close to coffin corner?

FlightDream111

29th Dec 2014, 08:41

Aviation losses from lightning:

Aviation Losses from Lightning Strikes - National Lightning Safety Institute (http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lls/avaition_losses.html)

Thunderstorms "severe thunderstorms can destroy aircraft"

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_00-24B.pdf

Somewhat milder Scientific article:

What happens when lightning strikes an airplane? - Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-happens-when-lightni/)

Not a pilot, delete if you will

caa

29th Dec 2014, 08:47

The storm cell was bigger than the crew and aircraft - mother nature wins every time. That's what I suggest! Happened many times before and will again. Rip pax and crew but please prove me wrong even with 1 safe sole.

cozmo

29th Dec 2014, 08:53

john_smith: Well there you have it ladies and gents. No point in having an investigation. cozmo has already cracked it.

Well, as an ATC, I still think that the procedure he was doing to avoid squall line of 100Nm was a very BAD choice. Instead of planning and "hoping" above he was avoiding it too late.

Sadly, he DID stall the aircraft, as I pointed out. He was flying 100KTS slower. At that ALT, this is serious stuff he is doing with an aircraft.

Some rules for avoiding the squall line:

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3X/qe/4bqOxGra/doanddont.jpg

CaptainProp

29th Dec 2014, 09:01

Guys - given the payload - what is the maximum altitude that aircraft could have safely operated at before getting too close to coffin corner?

I would say that depends on fuel load really in this case. Anything around FL370-380 would be "normal" but as they requested to climb to FL390 (?) then I guess they were able to go to FL390.

AN2 Driver

29th Dec 2014, 09:07

ATOW was 63.6 tons, TOF 8.3 tons.

Kementerian Perhubungan Republik Indonesia - Data Pesawat Air Asia QZ 8501 SUB-SIN Beserta Data Penumpang yang hilang kontak (http://www.dephub.go.id/berita/baca/data-pesawat-air-asia-qz-8501-sub-sin-beserta-data-penumpang-yang-hilang-kontak)

lilkim

29th Dec 2014, 09:13

JAKARTA: An object spotted during a sea search for an AirAsia plane was not from the aircraft, Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla said on Monday after reports that an Australian surveillance aircraft had found something.

Object spotted in sea not from AirAsia plane: Indonesian VP - Channel NewsAsia (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/mobile/asiapacific/object-spotted-in-sea-not/1555682.html?cid=TWTCNA&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)

Obie

29th Dec 2014, 09:13

Coffin corner is a left over from yesteryear.
Todays technology has obliterated cc.

If you don't agree, tell us why.

airman1900

29th Dec 2014, 09:13

FYI

NTSB Special Investigation Report
Wing Failure of Boeing 747-131
Near Madrid, Spain
May 9, 1976

http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR78-12.pdf

On May 9, 1976, an Imperial Iranian Air Force Boeing 747-131 crashed as it approached Madrid, Spain. Witnesses observed lightning strike the aircraft followed by fire, explosion, and separation of the left wing. The report includes fire pattern studies, structural failure descriptions, trajectory analysis, fuel flammability calculations, gust loading analysis, and an analytical treatment of several hypotheses.

Elephant and Castle

29th Dec 2014, 09:23

Obie

Coffin corner is a left over from yesteryear.
Todays technology has obliterated cc.

If you don't agree, tell us why.

Utter nonsense. Behind the pretty simbols on the PFD the laws of aerodynamics are the same as ever. You tell us how technology has obliterated CC for subsonic aeroplanes.

JamesGV

29th Dec 2014, 09:26

Confusion abound !

The flight had requested a deviation (due to weather). This was approved.
There was a left turn.

The flight requested a climb (FL320 to FL380). This was not approved.
Subsequently ATC approval was give to FL340
No response was received from the flight.

A radar plot has surfaced in the media showing the flight at FL360 and 353kts.

Clarification please. Is this correct.

Obie

29th Dec 2014, 09:28

Ever heard of something called an FMC?
Or, perhaps an FMGC?

peekay4

29th Dec 2014, 09:29

Yes JamesGV, I posted the latest known timeline a couple of pages ago, per briefing from AirNav Indonesia official.

Jockster

29th Dec 2014, 09:32

yes the most recent EAD regarding "frozen AOA" indicators (resulting in spurious speed decrease to close to or below VLS causing the nose to pitch down in Normal Law) does seem likely to be the cause. Maybe the pilots weren't aware of the new procedure ?!?

You couldn't be more wrong - Two frozen vanes would cause Alpha Prot to erroneously increase up the speed scale. This would cause the stall protection system to kick in and force the aircraft to pitch nose down regardless of any side stick input. In effect the aircraft would be protecting itself from the stall before it needed to - A good thing in the Cb situation but not so good close to the ground.

However, if the pitot tubes became blocked (especially if climbing) then the opposite happens. The aircraft thinks it is going faster than it actually is and either the pilot or autopilot protects itself by pitching up unnecessarily and stalls for real - much worse.

Landflap

29th Dec 2014, 09:33

This event, naturally, attracting numerous posts and I apologise in advance for not reading all of the foregoing. Speculation and comments thereof remain classic Pprune Rumours and News and is pleasingly encouraged. My take is on Command Selection, Training and demonstrated ability. IF this was a weather related event, I would be disappointed with a crew's handling. Faced with a wall of severe weather, why not turn back ? If that was not an option, why not divert to another airfield a wait it out ? Ty and out-climb a CB is lunacy. I am astonished by one media commentator (retired Airline Capt) who claimed that, sometimes, there was no option but to secure the cabin, secure the crew, reduce speed and , not kidding, quote,........"just take it on the chin ".............!!!!!

OLASEK, post 341, Excellent.

OLBIE, can YOU tell us how modern technology has made the CC discussion obsolete ? I can imagine that modern technology simply will not permit flight at or around limits but don't know if that is what you are suggesting. Lovely old days we could do that and even exceed limits. It is what gave us grey hair at an early age and made us old but not bold pilots.

Basil

29th Dec 2014, 09:36

You tell us how technology has obliterated CC for subsonic aeroplanes.
Yes, I'd also be interested to read how subsonic aerodynamics has changed :confused:

hbomb

29th Dec 2014, 09:46

The P2F or not question has been answered at least twice in the negative in this thread.
But one question I haven't seen dealt with is what is the significance of the instant loss of contact at operating height - if that is what the reports mean. If the aircraft stalled, would the transponder continue to signal in descent for a couple of minutes? Isn't that what AF447 did? If that happened, how would it be recorded? If so, when is it likely to be made public. if it didn't, could it mean the aircraft broke up at operating altitude?

JamesGV

29th Dec 2014, 09:55

@Peekay4

Cheers. Seems like they were "in it" (whatever "it" was) pretty quickly then.
And before the approved climb to FL340.

@Truckflyer

If AirAsia (Indonesia) follow the model of AirAsia (Malaysia), then to a Frenchman F/O, there would NOT be a P2F "option" available to him.

PPRuNe Towers

29th Dec 2014, 09:56

The apparent trigger for the narrowbody Airbus AD

Lufthansa A321 near Bilbao on Nov 5th 2014, loss of 4000 feet of altitude | AeroInside (http://www.aeroinside.com/item/4946/lufthansa-a321-near-bilbao-on-nov-5th-2014-loss-of-4000-feet-of-altitude)

Rob

ManaAdaSistem

29th Dec 2014, 09:56

Outclimbing CB...
Not really sure what you guys are talking about here?
If I approach an area of thunderstorms I would like to get as high as possible while maintaing a margin to maximum altitude.
Why? I get a better view. I get the possibility to fly over the weather, rather than trying to pick my way through the weather at 30000 ft.

It's not unusual to climb and it's not unusual to fly in the vicinity of thunderstorms. Sometimes between, sometimes over. Sometimes I need to deviate 50 - 100 NM because i can't do either. I have never turned back or diverted enroute because of thunderstorms.

This flight was turning and wanted to climb. Nothing unusual about this.

This aircraft will be found, and the cause will be found. This is not an alien abduction, it's an accident.

truckflyer

29th Dec 2014, 10:08

Indonesian work permits are not easy to access for foreigners. This was one of the issues EageJet suddenly faced with Lion Air, which is a big P2F customer.

I have personally observed training in Europe of Lion Air pilots, and what their TRI's told them to expect when returning to normal line operations with Lion Air.

It's the elephant in the room, everybody who works with these companies knows about these issues, but nobody stands up and speak out!

portmanteau

29th Dec 2014, 10:08

its a little weird how some people are adamant that nothing can or should be done about tracking of aircraft. the incidence of 447/370/8501 events is rising and joe public must be thinking flying is getting to be a risky business. you can bet that irrational or not, he IS comparing the mobile phone versus aircraft and is not impressed to learn that apparently the desired safety level comes at too high a cost. might not market forces drive a change before long?

Mimpe

29th Dec 2014, 10:08

i deleted this link - with apologies for the inaccurate details

henra

29th Dec 2014, 10:15

Literally zero

And that is no wonder.
When flying at ~260kts IAS (turbulence Penetration Speed) with a clean config 1g stall Speed of ~170 - 180 kts you have a stall margin of ~2g.
With 150% structural margin required you will probably need >4g to make the wings fail structurally. That would be a whopping 350kts+.
Thus the wing will stall loooong before it will break in cruise at altitude.
Only by entering a dive and trying to recover at lower altitudes and high IAS you will theoretically be able to shed feathers.

Carjockey

29th Dec 2014, 10:16

@Landflap
Faced with a wall of severe weather, why not turn back ? If that was not an option, why not divert to another airfield a wait it out ?IF this was a 'weather related' event and if the crew flew this route on a regular basis, it's very likely that they had encountered similar weather conditions on many previous occasions.

After all, monstrous storms are fairly common in this area.

Maybe they just adopted their usual procedure for dealing with what they regarded as a routine situation, but on this occasion luck was just not with them...

training wheels

29th Dec 2014, 10:18

A radar plot has surfaced in the media showing the flight at FL360 and 353kts.

Clarification please. Is this correct.

I posted that radar plot on page one of this thread. There is also traffic UAE 409 at FL360 heading to Kuala Lumpur not too far ahead and left of track on M-635.

Mahatma Kote

29th Dec 2014, 10:29

I can buy an INS for $150 that has integrated GPS and three axis-accelerometer, gyro and magnetometer, along with barometer.

It knows its absolute position within centimetres and its attitude to better than a degree in each axis.

This unit is derived from full scale INS so I ask the question why there is a problem on modern aircraft when pitot tubes and whatever are blocked / misreading?

I understand there is a difference between actual air speed components and true ground-speed, but why is this high precision information source not used? Or if it is, why are things like pitot tubes more important and overriding the absolute measurements? Especially over extended period of seconds to minutes?

log0008

29th Dec 2014, 10:36

So do we actually know what its final altitude was? Reports it was around FL360 but they didn't even have permission to climb to FL340 - as that was giving when they didn't respond.......

cee cee

29th Dec 2014, 10:38

@Mahatma Kote

I am not a pilot, but I can give a guess. Your device cannot measure airspeed, and airspeed is critical as to whether the aircraft stalls. I don't think there is a compact technology (doesn't kill aerodynamics) that can measure airspeed without sticking something small out into the wind (which makes it prone to icing up).

FlightDream111

29th Dec 2014, 10:51

PK-AXC - Indonesia AirAsia - Aircraft info and flight history - Flightradar24 (http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/pk-axc/#5240449)

slats11

29th Dec 2014, 10:56

Joe public must be thinking flying is getting to be a risky business. you can bet that irrational or not, he IS comparing the mobile phone versus aircraft and is not impressed to learn that apparently the desired safety level comes at too high a cost. might not market forces drive a change before long?

Yep. And reinsurers must be thinking that insuring planes is becoming risky. Allianz were the lead reinsurer for MH370 as well as this plane (and also MH17). If this one is not found, they may start to insist on real time tracking. If airlines chose not to implement this, then insurers may chose not to offer cover.

If tracking is possible, then insurers will may not continue to simply accept claims for planes that disappear without trace.

mixture

29th Dec 2014, 11:06

Yep. And reinsurers must be thinking that insuring planes is becoming risky. Allianz were the lead reinsurer for MH370 as well as this plane (and also MH17). If this one is not found, they may start to insist on real time tracking.

Seriously ? :ugh:

Insurers work on statistics my friend.

As I've already highlighted on this thread .... how many flights occur every year ? How many flights have occurred over the last 10 years ? 20 years ?

How many of these millions of flights have been affected by a problem that would be solved by some expensive solution ??

A quick Google suggests the three major passenger airline alliances did a combined total estimated 50,000 flights per day in 2014, that's 18,250,000 fights in 2014 !

So the POTENTIALLY "untraceable" loss of 2 or 3 aircraft, whilst obviously sad, is a mere needle in a haystack at 0.00001643835616438356%. And that's just the number for the "alliances", if you consider the other non-alliance airlines, that percentage becomes even smaller !

Obviously 2014 was a "bad" year,some years you may have no "untraceable" losses at all.

That's why you need to evaluate the risk vs reward in business, and quite frankly the risk just is not sufficient to start running around like headless chickens spending money deploying technology across entire fleets !

I also suggest you go read post #340 from PT6Driver (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553569-air-asia-indonesia-lost-contact-surabaya-singapore-17.html#post8800656) which further reinforces the pointlessness of such tracking solutions.

The only thing the reinsurers would do is laugh your idea out of the room ! The insurers are in the business of dealing with risks !

Aviation remains one of the safest and least risky modes of transport on earth, and the insurers/reinsurers know that !

mmurray

29th Dec 2014, 11:12

So do we actually know what its final altitude was? Reports it was around FL360 but they didn't even have permission to climb to FL340 - as that was giving when they didn't respond.......

Quite a bit of info and related links on the wikipedia page for this flight

Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia_AirAsia_Flight_8501)

slats11

29th Dec 2014, 11:21

The only thing the reinsurers would do is laugh your idea out of the room !

Time will tell I guess.

You can bet that Allianz are not laughing right now.

Communication technology continues to evolve rapidly. What seems expensive or not practical or not justified on a cost:benefit analysis today may (probably will) soon become routine.

Even today there are handheld units that cost a few hundred $ (e.g. Spider tracks) that determine GPS location every minute and transmit it via Iridium at a few cents a message.

phiggsbroadband

29th Dec 2014, 11:23

With 100% Hindsight, should they have routed via Jakata?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Air_Asia_QZ8501_Flight_Path_and_Satellite_Imagery.jpg/525px-Air_Asia_QZ8501_Flight_Path_and_Satellite_Imagery.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Air_Asia_QZ8501_Flight_Path_and_Satellite_Imagery.jpg)

lucille

29th Dec 2014, 11:30

Without any basis of fact I, like everyone else, is "assuming" that this is a weather related incident. Specifically, a possible inadvertent cell penetration.

So here's my pet peeve regarding the serviceability of weather radar.

Most MEL's allows for the weather radar to be unserviceable for 10 days (Category C) albeit with certain exceptions. These exceptions are open to interpretation.

And as we know, whenever there are commercial pressures, interpretation of any exceptions pertaining to safety never ends well for the crews.

The MEL for Radar needs to be changed to Category A. And the exceptions tightened up to minimize a "relaxed" interpretation for commercial reasons.

The thing that really angers me is that in contrast, the CVR, which does absolutely nothing for the immediate safety of the aircraft in which it's installed is allowed to be unserviceable for only 3 days.

training wheels

29th Dec 2014, 11:31

With 100% Hindsight, should they have routed via Jakata?

EK 409 was a few miles ahead, a bit further left of track, but that was a 777.

CISTRS

29th Dec 2014, 11:32

Mixture:
Aviation remains one of the safest and least risky modes of transport on earth, and the insurers/reinsurers know that ! This is not disputed.
All it will take is a Class Action by relatives of victims under US jurisdiction for distress. It is a matter of time, and the industry must and will change its practices. The industry is living in the comfort zone of the (Montreal) past.

mixture

29th Dec 2014, 11:35

You can bet that Allianz are not laughing right now.

Why do you think Allianz is referred to as "lead insurer" ?

That's because aviation insurance involves spreading the risk across a consortium of different insurance companies, that's what Lloyd's does, it provides a market for the insurers to do deals between themselves and package out risk obligations.

Whilst Allianz refuse to comment, when the numbers do emerge you'll probably find their own direct exposure to the two MH instances and this event is only a fraction of the total sums insured !

Lloyd's has been around for 300 years. So whilst insurers are in the business of taking on risk, they're not stupid, they know how to minimise their own risk too !

cee cee

29th Dec 2014, 11:40

Again, I am not a pilot, I am an EE by training.

@Mahatma Kote though why aren't technologies like doppler airspeed used instead of pitot?

Normal radar doppler only reflects off airborne particles like dust, water and ice. It passes right through air, so it cannot directly measure airspeed. If it gets reflected by air, then it would not be able to measure anything at all, as it will get absorbed the instant it leaves the instrument before reaching the air you want to measure. The same reason why those probes protrude out of the fuselage of the aircraft.

I did a google search and found Calibrating airborne measurements of airspeed, pressure and temperature using a Doppler laser air-motion sensor | OpenSky - Providing free and open access to the scholarship of UCAR, NCAR, and the UCP (http://opensky.library.ucar.edu/collections/OSGC-000-000-021-035) which uses laser to measure airspeed, but considering that the paper was only written this year, it is not likely to reach the aircraft for at least a couple of decades, even if it gets there.

bobdxb

29th Dec 2014, 11:41

don't understand what makes diff if B777 or A320?

speaking of my experience in similar situation years back from sin to jkt, you need to act quickly when you hit CB and have very little margin of speed change, not climb but descent (speed tape with vls and max almost touching each other is not a comfortable area to fly in such wx)

rivalino

29th Dec 2014, 11:44

Obie
You are obviously not a pilot or one of the new computer breed that crashed the air France. Fmgc limits are not for flying through storms they are advisory for good conditions. Remember the airbus is an aeroplane and should be flown as such. WE CAN NEVER BEAT THE LAW OF PHYSICS.

GlueBall

29th Dec 2014, 11:50

Most MEL's allows for the weather radar to be unserviceable for 10 days

Huh? I don't care, don't know, and don't even want to know what the MEL says about radar: After 20K+ long haul hours, I still DO NOT depart with inoperative radar. :ooh:

rivalino

29th Dec 2014, 11:57

Well said GlueBall
Airmanship over manuals, a dirty phrase in the modern world but it works.

bobdxb

29th Dec 2014, 12:00

I hope ppl like news reporters will stop comparing flying hrs of a pilot...

eg pilot working and limited to European airspace will never encounter same wx like someone who flies in asia or africa where you have limited resources of info and support

ironbutt57

29th Dec 2014, 12:00

MEL's also have stipulations about convective weather not being present as well..

formationdriver

29th Dec 2014, 12:03

French Press confirms he got his ATPL at the age of 42.
Le copilote français de l'avion disparu débutait sa carrière (http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2014/12/29/01016-20141229ARTFIG00090-le-copilote-francais-de-l-avion-disparu-debutait-sa-carriere.php)

mcdunav

29th Dec 2014, 12:04

Should not the possibility of the plane crashing in the Belitung forests be considered?

brak

29th Dec 2014, 12:09

A quick Google suggests the three major passenger airline alliances did a combined total estimated 50,000 flights per day in 2014, that's 18,250,000 fights in 2014 !

So the POTENTIALLY "untraceable" loss of 2 or 3 aircraft, whilst obviously sad, is a mere needle in a haystack at 0.00001643835616438356%. And that's just the number for the "alliances", if you consider the other non-alliance airlines, that percentage becomes even smaller !

It does not matter in this case how many flights a given plane makes. What matters to insurance is that X airframes out of Y insured are gone. The number of actual planes is a percentage of flights a day, as most are in the air daily and several times. According to Boeing ther were 20000 commercial aircraft in the world in 2012. 3 of those are 0.015%. Perhaps that seems small, but it sure has a lot fewer zeroes past the decimal point.

ManaAdaSistem

29th Dec 2014, 12:11

My MEL says I can't depart with WX RDR u/s if there is any wx that could be detected by radar enroute.

I have no problems flying without radar when the weather is good. I am in the business of transporting passengers from A to B, not finding ways to cancel the flight.

fdr

29th Dec 2014, 12:19

@cee cee...

There are aircraft that do not have pitot tubes...

I carry a nice little unit that displays g, attitude and flight path using a nice kalman filter, it is far better than the 100k i recently spent on an IFSD upgrade. Why do you need airspeed? With extraordinarily accurate att and fpv, i can generate airspeed if it makes you feel better, but tthe sircraft doesnt care, it only knows alpha and g loading. And until we as heavy jet pilots remember that we are going to repeat upsets.

Now for the subject topic of AAsias tragedy, how about letting the experts get on without the static that this forum generates with such ease. Sontoso et al are able to fibd and annalyse such an event with reasonable confidence, let them do their job, and let the families and airline grieve in respectful peace.

PiggyBack

29th Dec 2014, 12:32

GPS works really well in combination with an inertial navigation system to give your current position, speed etc. All of this ends up being rerenced to an earth based coordinate system via the GPS. This is very useful but not if you want the velocity of the aircraft relative to the air surrounding it. In this case you either need an independant measure of the air velocity relative to the ground and this in general seems totally impractical or you need to measure the speed with respect to the aircraft which brings you back to where you started. An INS is no use at all for measuring airspeed. It is perfect for measuring ground speed.

On why they do not use doppler to measure airspeed I am not an engineer working in this area but it may well be because you need to bounce a signal of a known frequency and velocity off something moving wth the air. I imagine there is not always anything there to bounce off. There are lots of ways of measuring gas velocity but I am sure the possible methods, their reliability, operating ranges, failure modes etc have been analysed extensively over the last 7 decades or so and what is used is used for good reasons.

Blacksheep

29th Dec 2014, 12:34

you can bet that irrational or not, he IS comparing the mobile phone versus aircraft and is not impressed to learn that apparently the desired safety level comes at too high a cost. might not market forces drive a change before long? It isn't a cost issue, as I already outlined. It is a political issue. Real time monitoring would require a new aviation band allocation. The international bun fight over allocation of available radio bands favours telecommunications companies seeking profits: Non-proifit, non-military use is pushed aside in the scramble.

As slats11 puts it:
Communication technology continues to evolve rapidly. What seems expensive or not practical or not justified on a cost:benefit analysis today may (probably will) soon become routine.

Even today there are handheld units that cost a few hundred $ (e.g. Spider tracks) that determine GPS location every minute and transmit it via Iridium at a few cents a message. That says it all. Entertainment and other frivoluous use of the limited radio spectrum takes priority over aviation and we have lost so many frequency bands already: there just isn't an available channel for data telemetry - or any other additional aviation communications use.

Hell, we are beginning to have our airspace invaded by uncontrolled UAVs. [Yes they are just big-boys' toys, but still capable of bringing down an aircraft.]

Derfred

29th Dec 2014, 12:35

Mahatma Kote,

This unit is derived from full scale INS so I ask the question why there is a problem on modern aircraft when pitot tubes and whatever are blocked / misreading?

With well trained and experienced pilots in the cockpit, there isn't a problem when pitot tubes are blocked. They know what to do, they understand attitude and thrust.

I understand there is a difference between actual air speed components and true ground-speed, but why is this high precision information source not used? Or if it is, why are things like pitot tubes more important and overriding the absolute measurements? Especially over extended period of seconds to minutes?

High precision ground speed from the 3 IRS's on board is one of the many tools a well trained and experienced pilot can use to determine which airspeed readings are erroneous and which are accurate. But not before securing the aircraft in a safe attitude and thrust setting for the conditions.

Problems arise when airline CEO's start believing that aircraft fly themselves (and indeed fix themselves), and do not believe having well-trained and experienced flight crew is necessary. This is what we call the "race to the bottom", and it doesn't only happen in Asia.

AF447 crashed because the pilots crashed it. I'm not speculating on this incident but merely answering your questions.

Oilhead

29th Dec 2014, 12:42

If a dispatcher presented me with a flight plan that had a course depicted like this one right through the centre of severe to extreme weather, I and no one I work with would dream of accepting it - so how was their flight plan created? Do they have a qualified flight dispatch department? If this is accurately portrayed why would the planners have thought it acceptable to file a course through an area of very heavy weather? Why should a pilot have to get airborne on a route that was clearly not going to work, and then have to start "negotiating"?

joema

29th Dec 2014, 12:43

continuous transmission of all FDR data from commercial aircraft would far exceed available satellite capacity. And extending that capacity to the extent required would be extremely expensive.

If each DFDR produced 100 parameters at 16 bit resolution at once per sec, that would be 200 bytes per sec per a/c. For 2,500 a/c, that would be 500 kilobytes/sec.

NASA's TDRS satellites are designed for receiving and forwarding telemetry, and have a total bandwidth of about about 1.1 gigabit/sec (137 megabytes/sec). Of this bandwidth handling all parameters from all DFDRs from all in-flight commercial a/c would take about 4% of TDRS capacity.

Obviously the primary use TDRS is for NASA but they accept other special users. I'm not saying continuous telemetry from all large commercial a/c is needed, nor that TDRS is the best way, but it illustrates the raw capacity is already there.

totempole

29th Dec 2014, 12:53

There is no substitute for airmanship and two experienced pilots upfront who have the healthiest respect for ITCZ weather.They steer well clear and they dont wait for ATC either(very often VHF will be temporarily lost due static and some guys want to keep the magenta line until they get clearance).

They must have flown very often to 'straya and got hollered at so badly by the very anal ybbb atc that they became psychologically damaged...hence the suicidal propensity to follow the magenta line into cb cells until they get the clearance to deviate!

Ybbb atc strikes great fear into Asian airline companies so much so pilots get severely punished for deviating without clearance!

Sop_Monkey

29th Dec 2014, 12:55

Totem

In other words, it's 100% responsibility and no authority. Another gaping safety issue.

Now why does that not surprise me?!

ironbutt57

29th Dec 2014, 12:58

Ybbb atc strikes great fear into Asian airline companies so much so pilots get severely punished for deviating without clearance!

that's when you make a PAN call and deviate as necessary...no clearance needed then...better than the other options yes?

mixture

29th Dec 2014, 13:00

but it illustrates the raw capacity is already there.

No, it really doesn't. :ugh:

Do you buy an A380 and the leave it on the tarmac and just shout to the world that you've got capacity 400 people ?

No.

Well its the same with satellites.

Satellites cost a lot of money to build, get into space and monitor.

A satellite is in use 24 hours a day, 365 days a year as soon as the satellite reaches space, the operators will already be activating contracts ..... the cost of using satellite transmissions reflects the limited spare capacity available.

A satellite may well have a total transmission capability of X, but you can bet your bottom dollar that most of that capacity has been sold, if not even largely oversold on a contended basis ! The satellite operators would be out of business if that was not the case.

Satellite has always been and will always be more expensive than any form of ground communication, because of all the constraints the technology has, including the technology itself.... once its up there, you can't exactly turn up on site one day and upgrade the kit to newer stuff !

So please guys... ENOUGH of these stupid requests for realtime streaming data from all aircraft .... it just isn't workable. Period.

airman1900

29th Dec 2014, 13:18

FYI

Civil Aeronautics Board
Aircraft Accident Report

Northwest Airlines, Inc.
Boeing 720B, N724US
Near Miami, Florida
February 12, 1963

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/CAB_Aircraft_Accident_Report,_Northwest_Airlines_Flight_705. pdf

Synopsis

Northwest Airlines, Inc., Boeing 720B, N724US, operating as Flight 705, crashed in an unpopulated area of the Everglades National Park, 37 miles west-southwest of Miami International Airport at approximately 1350 e s.t , on February 12, 1963. All 35 passengers and the crew of eight were fatally injured

Flight 705 departed Miami at 1335 e.s.t. Circuitous routing was utilized during the climbout in an effort to avoid areas of anticipated turbulence associated with thunderstorm activity. At 1347 e.s.t , in response to a request for their position and altitude, the flight advised, "We're just out of seventeen five (17,500 feet) and stand by on the DME one." This was the last known transmission from the flight. Shortly thereafter the aircraft entered a steep dive, during which the design limits were exceeded and the aircraft disintegrated in flight.

The Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the unfavorable interaction of severe vertical air drafts and large longitudinal control displacements resulting in a longitudinal upset from which a successful recovery was not made.

Carjockey

29th Dec 2014, 13:19

Missing AirAsia flight QZ8501: Airline magazine bragged that its planes would 'never get lost' - Asia - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/missing-airasia-flight-qz8501-airline-magazine-bragged-that-its-planes-would-never-get-lost-9947868.html)

joema

29th Dec 2014, 13:27

Satellites cost a lot of money to build, get into space and monitor....you can bet your bottom dollar that most of that capacity has been sold, if not even largely oversold on a contended basis !...

My previous post: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553569-air-asia-indonesia-lost-contact-surabaya-singapore-20.html#post8801005

Was talking about NASA TDRS (Tracking and Data Relay Satellites): Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_and_Data_Relay_Satellite_System)

They are already built and flying and mainly just used for telemetry from space launches. They have over 1 gigabit/sec of capacity, so they are vastly over-provisioned for the initial intended use. Consequently NASA sells bandwidth on these to other agencies, including non-governmental entities.

I'm not saying continuous telemetry from commercial DFDRs is needed, nor that TDRS is the best way even if it was needed. I'm just responding to the post that there's no available satellite bandwidth.

RoyHudd

29th Dec 2014, 13:27

If it was Commercial Pilots only contributing here, the thread would stay far more relevant (more or less!).

However it is open to all, so we will get subjected to lots of off-track contributions.(Insurance, telemetry, piracy to cite but 3!). To be fair, 99% of air accidents involve pilots directly, but there are the occasional ones such as the Ukraine shoot-down where the pilots will not have had a clue and were doing their job correctly. (Note I say "involve", not ascribing blame unilaterally)

Speculation can be good; however, as the national reports can take a long time to be issued and in some cases are worthless. And manufacturers need to react quickly if a technical issue crops up, in order to prevent further accidents long before waiting for the national report to be issued.

And officialdom can anyway be hopelessly wrong, or biased. Their "facts" can be as correct as a politician's. The Egyptair 767 mid-Atlantic suicide crash is widely seen as a case in point.

SLFplatine

29th Dec 2014, 13:33

Slats 11:
You can't have it both ways however. Most scenarios which cause sudden loss of communications will cause lots of debris. Conversely, most scenarios that cause minimal debris imply control and hence communications should be maintained.

Sudden loss of all communications could be due to catastrophic structural failure which would cause lots of debris, or an AF447 like event which also caused fragmentation at impact and lots of floating debris. They found lots of debris fairly quickly (days) with AF447 - even though
i. the initial search was delayed by at least a day
ii. the search area was much larger (they didn't "see" loss of the transponder with 447)
iii. the search area was mid-ocean (severely complicating the search by limiting aircraft time on scene and delaying arrival of ships).
None of that applies here.

There simply are not that many explanations for sudden loss of all communications and no debris - especially in a small area.
January 1, 2007 Adam Air Flight KI-574, flying from Surabaya, on Java Island, to Manado, on Sulawesi Island, disappeared in bad weather with 102 people aboard. It took 10 days for any trace of wreckage to be found.

DunnySleeper

29th Dec 2014, 13:39

Perhaps the crew from that EK409 or AWQ504 flights can comment on the conditions experienced rather than the interpretation (or be it misinterpretation) of the data available....

mixture

29th Dec 2014, 13:44

They have over 1 gigabit/sec of capacity, so they are vastly over-provisioned for the initial intended use.

You're still ignoring the issue.

I don't give two hoots what someone's "provisioned capacity" is.

Even your beloved NASA TDRS doesn't have the SPARE capacity for live telemetry from all aircraft. So please, give it a rest !

Here, I'll even quote you a NASA 2014 report (IG-14-018) on the very subject, I have highlighted the key phrase :
The Agency retired two first-generation satellites (TDRSs 1 and 4) in 2009 and 2011, and the remaining four first-generation satellites still in orbit (TDRSs 3, 5, 6, and 7) are showing signs of age-related battery and electronics failures. NASA has predicted that without replacement satellites the Space Network will not have sufficient capacity to service customer missions adequately by 2016. Similarly, a 2013 Aerospace Corporation Study concluded that in order for the Space Network to continue to support anticipated communications, NASA may need to launch TDRS-M by 2016 and require an additional satellite in orbit by 2024.

mcloaked

29th Dec 2014, 14:03

Mcdunav: Should not the possibility of the plane crashing in the Belitung forests be considered?

Start with the known location of loss of comms. Take max possible a/c airspeed, and known fuel reserve to determine the furthest the aircraft could have flown from the LKP, and draw a circle of that radius centre on the LKP. In principle the a/c could have come down "anywhere" in that circle.

Now get as much information from primary radar as possible, and any other credible data source, and narrow down the area within that circle to give a starting area to concentrate the initial searches for the available search resource - if those initial searches fail then widen the search area. Resources are not infinite. Time is important but you have no control over how long the searches will take irrespective of the media clamour for "information". Make sure that you spend your time trying to get results and not wasted on chatting to the media....:)

Lost in Saigon

29th Dec 2014, 14:16

Also, FL360 may not have been available to due crossing traffic ahead.

mcdunav

29th Dec 2014, 14:23

the current search area already extends beyond pulau Belitung so I thought that the search should also be extended to land. I have just read somewhere that this has indeed happened. The search area has now been extended to land.

Fuji Abound

29th Dec 2014, 14:36

Fwiw i just happen to have been on jakarta the day of this accident.

We have had thunderstorms all week but this one which passed overhead us was by far the worst by a significant margin.

Thats is a totally anecedotal comment with no intended necessary relevance to this accident it was just noteworthy that this was a pretty severe thunderstood by local standards.

mary meagher

29th Dec 2014, 14:46

A few pages back, the Indonesian SAR briefing states the following time line:

5.36 Airbus A320 flight 8501 departs Juanda

6.12 contacts Jakarta, requests weather deviation to left of M635 Airway and
climb to FL380

6.16 still observed on radar

6.17 radar contact lost, only ADS-B signal remained.

6.18 all contact lost

Some posters wonder why no distress call was made. The priority of the pilot is to fly the aircraft and if time permits, to call a mayday. Clearly, time did not permit.

Even though it was daylight, the aircraft may have been IMC, the weather radar in the cockpit inadequate, so difficult to dodge what appears to be horrendous CB embedded enroute. How likely is it that if correct measures were taken by the Captain to fly safely through what is common weather in these latitudes, that the aircraft would have broken up?

jehrler

29th Dec 2014, 14:48

Cozmo,

Interesting typo in the third bullet of your slide on thunderstorm penetration do's and don'ts.

"Do maintain constant altitude. Allow the altitude and airspeed to fluctuate."

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553569-air-asia-indonesia-lost-contact-surabaya-singapore-18.html#post8800720

joema

29th Dec 2014, 14:49

Even your beloved NASA TDRS doesn't have the SPARE capacity for live telemetry from all aircraft. So please, give it a rest !

Sorry, I think you mis-read the article. It contains no reference whatsoever to spare capacity, but to replacement satellites to maintain service as the fleet ages. I'm not saying live telemetry is good idea, just that there are already satellites up which could handle that using a tiny fraction of their existing capacity.

SAMPUBLIUS

29th Dec 2014, 15:29

@training wheels
don't understand what makes diff if B777 or A320? :ugh:

In 777 - and most other BA planes, pilot has final authority over computers etc by simply pulling or pushing or turning control wheel- which backdrives other control wheel. And has minimum cable controls when shtf.

Sidearm controllers don t work that way

But at this time not worth speculating . . .

Mr Optimistic

29th Dec 2014, 16:15

As a pax I am somewhat disconcerted that the position of impact hasn't been located after two days. Although improbable, in principle there could be survivors in life rafts waiting for rescue. On radar, transponders working, reasonably busy part of the world. Does give suspicion that reassurances about the adequacy of current location systems may not be sufficient. Surely we should expect better than this? OK the facts may eventually show peculiar circumstances but that a/c was being tracked.

VS-Toga

29th Dec 2014, 16:28

More moronic journalism

» AirAsia CEO Dumped Shares Days Before Flight Disappeared Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! (http://www.infowars.com/airasia-ceo-dumped-shares-days-before-flight-disappeared/)

island_airphoto

29th Dec 2014, 16:56

How hard would it be to have a hydrostatically released ELT? It sure would make finding the wreckage easier. These have been on boats for decades now and IIRC the AAF had something like that on some bombers in the Pacific Theater in WW II.

jumbobelle

29th Dec 2014, 18:02

Forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious but weren't we here a year ago with disappearing aeroplanes? We're perfectly capable of tracking something as large as an airliner but don't learn the lessons. Or perhaps we haven't lost enough aircraft in busy airspace yet ( interesting how when a plane disappears it's over 'miles and miles of ocean' but when I'm flying there I'm fighting for my level!).

continueapproach737

29th Dec 2014, 18:40

38000 feet to ground level is a long time, plenty of time to make a call regardless of the situation at hand

olasek

29th Dec 2014, 18:42

How likely is it that if correct measures were taken by the Captain to fly safely through what is common weather in these latitudes, that the aircraft would have broken up?
Not very likely. Also I watched weather animation on weather channel showing how the systems were moving, the actual weather around this aircraft wasn't as bad as some portray it here on outdated weather photos.

glendalegoon

29th Dec 2014, 18:48

I would like to point out to some of the newer posters...

why can't we track planes? well, I was watching CNN the last two days and they couldn't keep telephone guests online...the phone was invented about 140 years ago or so and we still can't keep a phone line up to allow an interview. SHOULD we spend millions of dollars for better phone lines?

ITS all about money. Are you willing to pay X amount MORE for your ticket if the plane has a 1 percent great chance of being found in 3 days after a crash?

AS to survivors in life rafts waiting for rescue. During WW2, many survived for WEEKS in life rafts before rescue. IT SHOULD BE NOTED that many if not all life rafts may have flare guns, signaling mirrors and ELT transmitter. I certainly am NOT privy to the exact equipment on this airliner, perhaps others can help us on this .

I do not think there are survivors in life rafts as they would be trying to signal if they possibly could.

BUT we may get lucky and find someone. And I am praying that they do.

fa2fi

29th Dec 2014, 18:50

You weren't there. You have no idea what was going on in that flight deck or the situation that they faced.

NigelOnDraft

29th Dec 2014, 18:52

38000 feet to ground level is a long time, plenty of time to make a call regardless of the situation at hand Given the Xpdr etc was lost about FL290, I suspect the radios were not much use.

As others have said, there is no point in making a distress call, unless the person on the other end can act on the info and help your predicament. Contrary to the movies, reaching for the RT switch should be well down the priority list. Apart from anything else, it takes out 1 crew member answering the interminable questions :{

cubemaster

29th Dec 2014, 19:03

Sampublius,

As you say [Airbus] sidearm controllers don't work that way but there are 'active sticks' out there that act like a physically linked pair of sidesticks. The new Gulfstream G500 and G600 will have them. Being new to the civil market there will be a cautious approach to them but I believe there will be increasing pressure for all sidesticks to be active.

underfire

29th Dec 2014, 19:09

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate....

porterhouse

29th Dec 2014, 19:11

You weren't there. You have no idea what was going on in that flight deck or the situation that they faced.
Neither have you. Nobody has a clue what this crew faced but it doesn't help by posting incorrect weather images that are supposed to add 'drama'.

Arguendo

29th Dec 2014, 19:15

"Given the Xpdr etc was lost about FL290"

VHF line of sight range at FL320 is ~219 miles; may have dropped below line of sight?

DCrefugee

29th Dec 2014, 19:15

38000 feet to ground level is a long time, plenty of time to make a call regardless of the situation at hand

AFR447's crew had 3.5 minutes, but never mashed the mic button...

butterfly68

29th Dec 2014, 19:19

Quote:
"38000 feet to ground level is a long time, plenty of time to make a call regardless of the situation at hand"

AF447 crew plummed out of the sky for 4 and half minutes before crashing in the Ocean .. any mayday in a such situation is going to be the last thing the pilots will think about. You fly the plane and try to do the possible and the impossible, it's a powerful instinct, our brain doesn't get stuck in a cognitive process when life is in a such danger.

fa2fi

29th Dec 2014, 19:19

If that was directed at me - I haven't posted a single image. Nothing I say is intended to dramatise or sensationlise this accident. We have enough spotters, simulator gamers and conspiracy theorists on here for that.

Elephant and Castle

29th Dec 2014, 19:23

Many people here, not pilots I may add, think that the priority of emergency procedures in an airliner is to keep people on an internet board informed as soon as possible. The number one priority of the aircraft design, the procedures design and the crew dealing with the emergency is to AVOID a crash. Leaving an information trail is not a priority, that is what the CVR and data recorders are for. When you hit a patch of ice in your car what do you do? Call An ambulance as the car is still moving? Start filming on you mobile? No, you try and drive out of it. Only when you have stopped and assesed if there are any injuries you call an ambulance and only when the ambulance has taken the injured away you take photos for your insurance claim.

Aircraft are not designed by idiots,;beleive it or not they are designed, like all machines with certain compromises, by people that know their stuff.

We will find out what happened here and we will change whatever needs changing to avoid a re-occurrence. Real time sattelite data downlink, not needed. It would not have ovoided the crash and the data will become available when the boxes are found. Calling ATC? At the bottom of list of priorities when your AC is out of control. What can they do to help? Fly the AC for you?

speed2height

29th Dec 2014, 19:37

What we know isn't much but is definately painting a picture

sigmet active for emeded TS to FL500

Deviation requested to the left and climb to FL380 (from FL320) to avoid weather

Last ATC plot was climbing through FL363 with a slow 353kt G/S (aprox 200kts IAS)

p.j.m

29th Dec 2014, 19:39

Forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious but weren't we here a year ago with disappearing aeroplanes? We're perfectly capable of tracking something as large as an airliner but don't learn the lessons. ?????, this aircraft was being tracked, right until what ever happened, happened. Primary and secondary radar.

RoyHudd

29th Dec 2014, 19:43

Phew! Sense at last.

Try calling ATC while actively dealing with a full-on emergency in the simulator and you'll be strictly admonished (b....cked) by the examiner as a matter of course. And rightly so.

And when in the dwang for real, "Mayday" means "m'aidez" = "help me". What help can ATC offer?

Answers on a postcard.......

(When in control having addressed the emergency, and with time allowing, once the actions have been performed, then it is time to let ATC know what you are up to)

jmeagher

29th Dec 2014, 19:55

Lucille, does this mean a plane can be dispatched for a week without operating radar, even in a storm environment as existed in this case?

The MEL for Radar needs to be changed to Category A. And the exceptions tightened up to minimize a "relaxed" interpretation for commercial reasons.

The thing that really angers me is that in contrast, the CVR, which does absolutely nothing for the immediate safety of the aircraft in which it's installed is allowed to be unserviceable for only 3 days.

MPN11

29th Dec 2014, 19:58

Oh, thanks for that, RoyHudd ... so that's my career completely wasted. :(

Although I do completely understand where you're coming from ... Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.
But - does pressing the Tx button involve that much distraction from the acknowledged essentials? Perhaps it does?

I only ever had one airborne emergency, in a Piper Colt, and one of the very first things after "Aviate" was to whimper "Pan". But then I was only a PPL student at the time, and someone in the circuit landed to get an Instructor up to the Tower ... :mad:

mixture

29th Dec 2014, 20:12

I would like to point out to some of the newer posters...

.... THAT THEY SHOULD READ THE WHOLE THREAD BEFORE POSTING THE SAME QUESTIONS AGAIN AND AGAIN.

Ahem, cough, sorry something was stuck in my throat there..... :E

Capt Kremin

29th Dec 2014, 20:22

RoyH is correct. ATC is last priority unless it is an ATC related problem.

On the speculation that this aircraft stalled; discounting wind, the 353knots ground speed equates to approx 167KEAS and 172KCAS.

This is not a stall speed for the A/C weight of approx 59 tonnes and roughly equates to where you would expect the airspeed to be in a high alpha situation being managed by the FMGEC.

There was about a 20 knot tailwind at the altitude the aircraft was flying at. Whether this can be factored in depends on whether the aircraft actually entered a CB, as the local wind speeds in the up draught and down draughts would render the calculation moot.

The 353 knot radar groundspeed (if accurate) probably means that the aircraft was very slow, but not stalled.

eabandit

29th Dec 2014, 20:27

ITS all about money. Are you willing to pay X amount MORE for your ticket if the plane has a 1 percent great chance of being found in 3 days after a crash?

It is indeed about money. But, think about it this way. Governments and businesses have already spent many, many tens of millions of dollars on the MH370 SAR operation [1].

In my opinion, the argument "improved tracking ability would benefit less than 99% of flights, so therefore we shouldn't invest in it" is NOT a strong argument. We can quantify *precisely* how much should be spent on an improved tracking ability because it is a given that some number of planes will be lost.

Even if we only lose a plane once every 5 or 10 years, many millions of dollars are spent on search and rescue by various entities, and we also must include damages and potential losses for airlines, plane manufacturers, related business and industries, etc.

So if the search for lost planes costs $1B per decade, economics dictates we should then simply spend up to $1B per decade on preventing planes from being lost. Even if that investment wouldn't actually save the lives of passengers, it would reduce SAR costs, reduce risk of accidents during SAR operations, reduce grief of affected family, and also have side effects such as bolstering the perception of travel in the media and reduce any public fear of flying.

[1] MH370 search: Australia has spent far more than Malaysia | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/10/mh370-malaysia-has-spent-only-a-fraction-of-what-australia-has)

safelife

29th Dec 2014, 20:28

MMEL says Weather Radar "May be inoperative provided weather reports indicate that no thunderstorm or other harzardous weather condition which can be detected by weather radar exist enroute."

Sailvi767

29th Dec 2014, 20:44

mototopo

29th Dec 2014, 20:55

Whatever category the WX radar would be, no MEL should substitude proper AIRMANSHIP. Especially in that area full of monsters with top higher than many airliners max ceiling.

Last GS was 353kts, maybe the plane wasn't stalling at that time... But what about a few second later, inside the cell, in a shear, turbulence, icing crystal condition...?

Probes blocked by ice maybe, loss of control due to shear very close to rec max alt. And speed tape so narrow, sudden unusual attitude followed by improper recovery technique..

Just my two cents, not speculating but recalling past accidents.. Wishing all the best to the SAR team and condolences to the families..

mototopo

29th Dec 2014, 20:59

...and YES, communicating is last thing and quite useless if you are falling from the sky...

SKS777FLYER

29th Dec 2014, 21:19

Or was the sale of stock by CEO of Air Asia a planned sale of insider stock announced quite some time ago?
On another note, I find it less than amusing; the frequent bashing of posts here of those unwashed and ignorant masses of lowly journalists, PC sim gaming pilots, self loading freight, etc, who dare to post their thoughts or opinions in this lofty realm of "Professional Pilots". To my knowledge, non of those bottom feeders have ever flown perfectly good airliners into terrain or bodies of water, never tried to race thunderstorms to an aerodrome with a full cabin of paying passengers merrily riding along. Non of these disrepected classes of fools have killed a single fare paying passenger with acts of egregious idiocy or outright recklessness. Plenty of sometimes well respected and experienced professional aviators have. There rant over.....:D

Ian W

29th Dec 2014, 21:26

Satellite Available Bandwidth

No, it really doesn't. :ugh:

Do you buy an A380 and the leave it on the tarmac and just shout to the world that you've got capacity 400 people ?

No.

Well its the same with satellites.

Satellites cost a lot of money to build, get into space and monitor.

A satellite is in use 24 hours a day, 365 days a year as soon as the satellite reaches space, the operators will already be activating contracts ..... the cost of using satellite transmissions reflects the limited spare capacity available.

.....{{SNIP}}}........

So please guys... ENOUGH of these stupid requests for realtime streaming data from all aircraft .... it just isn't workable. Period.

It is dangerous in any technology field to say something is impossible.

Check INMARSAT latest offerings for broadband internet to passengers Inmarsat S-band services - Inmarsat (http://www.inmarsat.com/s-band/)
Check their new connectivity for ATM services SwiftBroadband - Inmarsat (http://www.inmarsat.com/service-collection/swiftbroadband/)

Iridium Next is also adding broadband links https://www.iridium.com//About/IridiumNEXT/Technology.aspx including importantly 'short burst data with bandwidth on demand'

Tracking

That brings me to the repeated posts on Tracking. Both INMARSAT and Iridium Next are offering a free tracking service. This is for aircraft carrying ADS-C (that is Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Contract over Satellite links). All widebodies are equipped for this from the factory, even if the operators turn the equipment off it is standard fit. It provides more than ADS-B and is usually transmitted at 4 or 10 minute intervals. After AF447 the French BEA asked for the transmissions to be increased in regularity. This was avoided as beancounters in the operating companies did not want to pay the cost. As the SATCOM companies are providing it FREE there is now no excuse not to regularly pass ADS-C reports (which can contain a lot more data than just position and altitude.

It is mandated in many areas for aircraft to broadcast their position at up to twice a second on Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B Out). This is line of sight transmission to ground systems and other aircraft. In this case the aircraft WAS broadcasting its position. The air traffic unit will have stopped receiving it if the aircraft was below the horizon (below line of sight) or the power failed in the aircraft.

Emergency Location Beacons
These ELTs are carried by large numbers of aircraft both fixed and portable. In most cases the fixed beacons have a g-switch and the portable beacons an immersion switch that activates them. They broadcast mainly to 406Khz and give aircraft ID and position. Note people they already exist. However, if the aircraft sinks and the crew have not deployed life rafts with ELTs then the ELTs will not be able to send radio transmissions through the water. There are several military aircraft that have deployable external ELTs that would float. Needless to say the beancounters have not gone for these on commercial aircraft. Standard response: How many aircraft have been lost at sea that would have been helped by an ELT in the last 10 years? How many flights have there been in the last 10 years? What is the chance of one of our aircraft being one of those 3 or 4 that might crash in the next 10 years? Have you seen how much these things cost and the life-cycle maintenance cost? Go away.

So to sum up-
There IS sufficient satellite bandwidth to send DFDR/CVR data but probably as a short burst when the aircraft thinks it has a problem rather than a continuous download.
There are already tracking systems on aircraft that can provide accurate positions all the way to the surface - but no compulsion for the airlines to switch them on despite the satellite comms providers providing the tracking as a FREE service.
There are already methods of auto deploying ELTs when an aircraft crashes on land or in water, but only the military have fitted them to aircraft.

formulaben

29th Dec 2014, 21:27

Regarding previous posts about techniques other than pitot tubes to measure airspeed (such as doppler) I read about about system being trialled on helicopters right now, using l@sers.
It is said to be so accurate, it can function at speeds below 30 knots.
I'll try and find the reference...

Airbus Completes Flight Tests on Airspeed Sensor System for Helicopters - IHS Engineering360 (http://insights.globalspec.com/article/305/airbus-completes-flight-tests-on-airspeed-sensor-system-for-helicopters)

alph2z

29th Dec 2014, 21:31

From Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-25-52

... due to blocked AOA probes, the flight control laws
order a continuous nose down pitch rate that, in a worst case scenario, cannot
be stopped with backward sidestick inputs, even in the full backward position. If
the Mach number increases during a nose down order, the AOA value of the
Alpha Prot will continue to decrease. As a result, the flight control laws will
continue to order a nose down pitch rate, even if the speed is above minimum
selectable speed, known as VLS.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the aeroplane....

AD – AFM Procedure
• If the Alpha Prot strip (black and amber) completely and permanently hides the VLS strip (amber) in a stabilized wings-level flight path (without an increase in the load factor):

Keep on one ADR.
Turn off two ADRs.

(emphasis mine)

Gesus: this reads a bit like Space Odyssey 2001 where Dave is deactivating HAL. :sad:

training wheels

29th Dec 2014, 21:31

...and YES, communicating is last thing and quite useless if you are falling from the sky...

That goes without saying for anyone who is a professional pilot. Those who question it, really shouldn't be here ...

mixture

29th Dec 2014, 22:25

So to sum up-
There IS sufficient satellite bandwidth to send DFDR/CVR data but probably as a short burst when the aircraft thinks it has a problem rather than a continuous download.

So to sum up .... I'm right. There IS insufficient bandwidth. :E

glendalegoon

29th Dec 2014, 22:32

eabandit

would you rather spend 10 million on tracking or training for pilots to be safer?

you don't have all the money in the world to spend.

And quite frankly , every passenger has a choice on which airline to fly and votes with his pocketbook.

Not that a reservation agent will know, but simply find out. Does your airline, if the route is over significant , non radar covered , bodies of water have tracking?

IF NO, don't fly on them.

I know how I would run an airline and how to allocate resources. And looking back and saying: gee, if we had put gadgets on all the planes we wouldn't have to send out the 7th fleet to find things and think abouthow much money that would save.

It doesn't work that way.

framer

29th Dec 2014, 23:24

But - does pressing the Tx button involve that much distraction from the acknowledged essentials? Perhaps it does?
Like others have said, it is obvious when people posting here are not professional pilots and it creates a situation where there is debate about things ( such as above) that there is no debate about between the pro's. It is a waste of space and moves the conversation further away from where it should be in a professional pilots forum.
If you are using 99% of your brain to try to make sense of what erroneous instrumentation is telling you while at the same time being affected by g forces, now is not the time to allocate 10% of your brain space to making a radio call.

Brenoch

29th Dec 2014, 23:40

Apparently I'll have to rephrase that. What's the point in reiterating "aviate, navigate, communicate" on a forum presumably used by pro's? Most likely it all went pear shaped at aviate for some reason and I'm fairly certain they knew what was next, only they never got to that step in this marvel that is aviation.

DCrefugee

29th Dec 2014, 23:43

If you are using 99% of your brain to try to make sense of what erroneous instrumentation is telling you while at the same time being affected by g forces, now is not the time to allocate 10% of your brain space to making a radio call.

+1. Besides, you're still planning to fix whatever the problem is, so issuing a Mayday call is admitting defeat. And you may not know enough about the problem to verbalize it in the first place. This whole conversation is rather silly...

Hedge36

29th Dec 2014, 23:43

Like others have said, it is obvious when people posting here are not professional pilots and it creates a situation where there is debate about things ( such as above) that there is no debate about between the pro's. It is a waste of space and moves the conversation further away from where it should be in a professional pilots forum.
If you are using 99% of your brain to try to make sense of what erroneous instrumentation is telling you while at the same time being affected by g forces, now is not the time to allocate 10% of your brain space to making a radio call.

I've been addressing this very topic repeatedly today with my non-aviator friends. They simply cannot comprehend the difference between making a radio call containing dubious information - yielding zero result - and a call to 911/999 asking for assistance.

News flash, lurkers: "Ground, 8501, we've departed" will get you

no

help

at all.

truckflyer

29th Dec 2014, 23:44

"due to blocked AOA probes, the flight control laws " From Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-25-52

If this situation is not understood fairly fast, there will be not long time until you have lost full control.

This will depend on the training department, sending out a directive does not necessary mean that this is understood, how the aircraft will behave.

Of course there will be a combination of things colluding at similar time that will confuse the pilots.

Bad weather in combination with this, and the Swiss cheese model can be lined up step by step!

I experienced this scenario in the Sim without being aware of this, and it did not take long time before you sat there fat, dumb and happy, without a clue of what to do!

Because you get conflicting messages and you can not control the aircraft! The time it takes for this to develop is not very long, and before you know it you might be in an unrecoverable state!

peekay4

29th Dec 2014, 23:47

That climb request to FL380 "to avoid weather" has been puzzling me.

(begin speculation)

Now I think the pilots were not overly concerned with the weather, before flying into a developing cell.

Consider, at the time, there were up to seven other planes nearby, including several flying just ahead and just behind QZ8501 on the same airway. According to media, none of the other pilots reported flying through strong turbulence or any other hazardous conditions.

It seems to me that QZ8501 was a routine flight. There was some weather ahead so they requested deviation to the left, like they've done hundreds of times before. From the radar picture you can see Emirates 409 had done the same just ahead. In fact, QZ8501 was joining the track UAE409 had left a few minutes before.

Then they requested climb to FL380 not due to "weather" per se, but because it was routine at this stage of the flight to climb higher (being lighter with less fuel). I've reviewed several other A320 flights on this route and it's not unusual to see flights go to FL360 or FL380 near this spot.

The routine aspect of this climb is what makes me think the crew was not overly concerned about the weather or the situation they were in. If they were seriously concerned, they would have deviated further first, not climb up at that point.

(I can see pilots climbing to better assess what's ahead, and maybe for a smoother ride, but I highly doubt a very experienced Captain from the tropics would try to out-climb a cumulonimbus.)

Yet the radar picture shows QZ8501 at FL363 and climbing (*). Perhaps control was already lost at this point. By deviating left, they inadvertently flew into a newly developing CB with very powerful updrafts. The plane is violently pushed up, nose very high, and quickly rolled to one side; groundspeed rapidly drops.

The pilots tried to recover from the unusual attitude and were not able to do so.

The plane did not "break up in flight", but flight control was lost. Perhaps the rudder or other control surfaces sheared. As the plane was plunging to the ground, below FL290, the ADS-B signal was lost due to line-of-sight distance from the nearest ground station at Pangkalan Bun.

The aircraft was largely intact when it impacted the ocean, perhaps steeply nose-down, creating few debris. The pilots tried to save the airplane all the way down.

(*) also note that ATC FLs are not actually physical altitudes but derived from Mode C pressure transmissions, which may be erroneous.

(end speculation)

touch1337

29th Dec 2014, 23:56

That climb request to FL380 "to avoid weather" has been puzzling me.

This seems to be media speculation rather than fact. The official statement of events says that they dont know why he requested to climb:

According to AirNav, the pilot then asked to take the plane from 32,000ft (9,800m) to 38,000ft but did not explain why he wanted to do so.source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30626734)

Lost in Saigon

30th Dec 2014, 00:40

From what I have been reading, they were initially maintaining 470 knots at FL320 and requested a course deviation and climb to FL380. They never responded to the clearance to climb to FL340 and they were probably out of control as they climbed through FL363 with a groundspeed of only 353 knots. (approx 333 knots TAS) (approx 180 knots IAS)

What was the time of the AirNav Indonesia Radar screen shot showing them climbing through FL363? I assume it was at approx 06:14-06:16 local.

Details from AirNav Indonesia (http://www.airnavindonesia.co.id):

06:12

- QZ8501 requests left deviation from airway. Deviation approved.
- Pilot then requests climb from FL320 to FL380
- ATC asks pilot to standby, due to nearby traffic and to coordinate with next sector (Singapore)

06:14

- ATC calls QZ8501 to approve partial climb to FL340
- No response received after 2 or 3 further attempts to contact
- ATC requests help from nearby aircraft to contact QZ8501

06:16

- ATC still cannot reach QZ8501
- Aircraft still observed on radar screen

06:17

- Radar contact lost
- Last reported altitude: FL290

The Aviation Herald Crash: Indonesia Asia A320 over Java Sea on Dec 28th 2014, aircraft went missing believed to have impacted waters (http://avherald.com/h?article=47f6abc7&opt=0)

A radar screenshot leaked from AirNav Indonesia shows the aircraft had turned left off the airway and was climbing through FL363, the speed over ground had decayed from 470 knots at FL320 to 353 knots however.

On Dec 29th 2014 Indonesia's Ministry of Transport reported the aircraft took off from Surabaya at 05:36L (Dec 27th 22:36Z), at 06:12L contacted Jakarta Center enroute at FL320, Jakarta Center identified the aircraft on radar. The crew requested to climb to FL380 and requested to deviate to the left of M-635 around cloud. The aircraft seemingly was on the radar screen at 06:16L, at 06:17L only the ADS-B signal remained, contact with ATC was lost, at 06:18L the target disappeared from the radar screen. At 07:08L INCERFA was invoked by ATC, at 07:28L ATC declared ALERTFA and at 07:55L DETRESFA was declared by ATC. According to standard operating procedures AirNav Indonesia opened a crisis center under the lead of the director of Civil Aviation at the Tower of Jakarta Airport. All crew with the exception of the first officer (French citizen) were Indonesians. In addition to the 6 crew there were 155 passengers on board of the aircraft.

On Dec 29th 2014 AirNav Indonesia reported that the captain of the flight requested to climb to FL380. AirNav Indonesia coordinated with Singapore, which took not more than two, maybe three minutes. Due to other traffic the aircraft could not get cleared to FL380 instantly and was cleared to FL340 at first. When the aircraft was radioed with the clearance to climb to FL340 at 06:14L, there was no response anymore. At that time the aircraft was still visible on the radar screen, the controller asked other aircraft around QZ-8501 to relay, but neither aircraft received a response from QZ-8501. There were seven aircraft passing through the area at that time at flight levels between 290 and 380, neither of them encountered any difficulties. The radar target of QZ-8501 disappeared from radar screen at 06:18L.

AirNav Indonesia Radar screen shot:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/Photo15/Radar.jpg~original

Chart showing 20 Knot tailwind

http://i.picresize.com/images/2014/12/28/zrxf.gif

727forever

30th Dec 2014, 01:01

Some pilots have been able to call ATC when their aircraft was doomed, the PSA 727 crash comes to mind as a good example. This was after the crew knew they had lost control of the aircraft and they had time to let the tower know. Every situation is different and every crew member is different, if you have time to let ATC know whats happening that's a good thing, but only after you have addressed the priorities as other members on this board have mentioned.

09:01:55 Captain (to Lindbergh tower) Tower, we're going down, this is PSA
09:01:57 Lindbergh tower OK, we'll call the equipment for you
09:01:58 Unknown Whoo!
09:01:58 ((Sound of stall warning))
09:01:59 Unknown Bob!
09:01:59 Captain (to Lindbergh tower) This is it, baby!

WTech

30th Dec 2014, 01:10

Has anyone got any updates/details about whether there are signals from the FDR pinger locator - seems to be ignored in this thread ?!

The FUB

30th Dec 2014, 01:10

Does this A320 variety suffer at all from Ice Crystal Icing? Any operators have first or second hand experience of this on a A320 series?

training wheels

30th Dec 2014, 01:24

That climb request to FL380 "to avoid weather" has been puzzling me.

(begin speculation)By deviating left, they inadvertently flew into a newly developing CB with very powerful updrafts. The plane is violently pushed up, nose very high, and quickly rolled to one side; groundspeed rapidly drops.

(end speculation)

I don't fly the bus so I may have the terminology wrong here, but in normal law, wouldn't the high angle of attack and high angle of bank protection prevent this from happening?

Mad (Flt) Scientist

30th Dec 2014, 01:29

Does this A320 variety suffer at all from Ice Crystal Icing? Any operators have first or second hand experience of this on a A320 series?

There's an EASA proposed AD (PAD 14-139 Date: 09 September 2014) which appears to potentially apply to all A320 series, but the critical factor appears to be which variety of probe is fitted. (The PAD does not specify what the replacement probe is to be, just what is to be removed and is no longer allowed; I seem to recall that at one time there was a suggestion that this was a "Thales/Sextant problem" and some operators were intentionally introducing "mixed" probe configurations (Goodrich mixed with Thales) as a kind of "insurance" again this being a design flaw, but I think there have been Goodrich incidents since, so that theory may have been discredited.

But perhaps a more important point is that practically all pitot probes are vulnerable to the ice crystal phenomenom; until very recently, nothing in the certification of probe addressed it at all, so any robustness one design might have had was as much luck as by design.

Mad (Flt) Scientist

30th Dec 2014, 01:34

I don't fly the bus so I may have the terminology wrong here, but in normal law, wouldn't the high angle of attack and high angle of bank protection prevent this from happening?

Simplistically, not necessarily.

The protections are pretty much fool proof against a pilot induced high aoa/low energy state being achieved - it just won't let you command the plane into trouble (again, simplistic) - but subject the aircraft to a massive external disturbance, and there's not a lot the FBW can do if the disturbance is too big. If full nose down elevator isn't enough to prevent an externally induced pitch up, the FBW is along for the ride, just like a crew of a conventionally controlled plane.

This is where we get the difference between "An airbus cannot be stalled" - which is kind of true, as it implies that this is a "commanded stall", and thus the FBW can simply prevent the pilot from causing the stall - and "An airbus cannot stall" which implies magic aerodynamics that work at 90 degrees AOA, and which neither Toulouse nor anyone else has the ability to create.

etudiant

30th Dec 2014, 01:39

Quote:
Has anyone got any updates/details about whether there are signals from the FDR pinger locator - seems to be ignored in this thread ?!

Probably the plan is to wait for the weather to clear and hopefully have some debris spotted before the acoustic search is begun. At least the search should be fairly flexible because there is no need to stream several miles of cable just to get the fish down close to the bottom.
Still, finding the pinger in a shallow and heavily trafficked strait will not be easy.

mickjoebill

30th Dec 2014, 01:43

I am in favour of reducing the stress and trauma on the thousands of relatives of missing passengers, who themselves are victims.
Apparently many hold out hope, even now, that their loved ones could be alive or injured.

A dozen $400 plbs and a few more eperbs distributed throughout the cabin would if nothing help those left behind come to a more speedy realisation of the prospects of survival of their loved ones.

The relience on one or two ruggedised expensive locator beacons to locate wreckage in water quickly has failed us in this regard.

So the likelyhood of lets say, one in twelve non ruggedised water activated epirbs suviving the chaotic nature of a crash and floating to the surface should now be considered.

A proactive carrier could provide a belt worn plb to cabin crew and stuff one in the survival pouch of every life raft.

A plb holstered above every exit door with instructions on its use in the seat back saftey card would also be a step forward.

In the eyes of the travelling public the aviation industry is making an ass of itself.

peekay4

30th Dec 2014, 01:59

Has anyone got any updates/details about whether there are signals from the FDR pinger locator - seems to be ignored in this thread ?!
Not really ignored but only becoming relevant now with specialized ships capable of detecting them just arriving in the area.

The civilian 37.5 kHz Undewater Locator Beacon (ULB) has a very limited range, usually only about 3 nm, maybe a bit more if sea conditions are favorable.

Mind you, the search area is now over 50,000 square miles -- roughly the same size of Greece! So comparatively you'll almost have to be "on top" of an ULB to hear its ping.

Often ULBs are more useful in locating the "black boxes" after the general crash area has been found by other means (side-scan sonar, debris, oil slick, etc.)

Some military aircraft have low-frequency beacons (8 to 10 kHz) which can be detected from 5 to 10 miles; however, they are not yet standard on civilian aircraft.

The Java sea is shallow, so at least the helps in the logistics of hearing ULBs. (Although there is sometimes more interference in shallow water).

Propduffer

30th Dec 2014, 02:12

A regular poster in another forum who works in some aspect of Indonesian aviation safety has stated that from his inside information, the plane went "from 32000 to 36300 and down again to 24000ft or so (in) just over a minute."

He hints that the people who have looked at the radar data believe that the plane must have broken up or lost control surfaces, quote: "it ain't a pretty picture".

Sheep Guts

30th Dec 2014, 02:12

mickjoebill,

Totally with you on that. 3 deployable EPIRBs which transmit GPS location on impact and or separation from aircraft in the water. One on each wingtip and one in the tail. Technology already available at your local marine supplies shop.

peekay4

30th Dec 2014, 02:14

Sorry gents, those epirbs won't survive the crash in the first place. :ugh:

md80fanatic

30th Dec 2014, 02:33

A regular poster in another forum who works in some aspect of Indonesian aviation safety has stated that from his inside information, the plane went "from 32000 to 36300 and down again to 24000ft or so (in) just over a minute."

16000ft of vertical space in a little over a minute? Could it have been a descent to 34000, instead of 24000? I ask because it seems quite a feat to climb at 4000ft/min at that altitude anyway, much less do so and then drop 12000 feet afterwards in the same time span. Wouldn't it have to manage a 6000+ ft/min climb to FL360 just to have the time to free fall 12000 ft. (assuming a breakup, as stated)?

Sailvi767

30th Dec 2014, 02:44

Those rates of climb would be no problem if caught in the updrafts of a large thunderstorm.

mickjoebill

30th Dec 2014, 02:51

Sorry gents, those epirbs won't survive the crash in the first place.

I hear where you are comming from, but neither you or I know this about any particular crash with 100% certainty.
Accidents are chaotic.
Installing a large number of devices hoping one will survive is not an unreasonable approach. I say this from a backgound of installing cameras in explosive environments, including three aircraft frames that were destroyed.

In any event if an aircraft so fitted goes missing without further contact it serves to reinforce the prospect that passenger survival is remote, which adresses the context of my original post relating to relatives of passengers and crew.

caa

30th Dec 2014, 03:00

Sorry gents, those epirbs won't survive the crash in the first place.

It is amazing what items survive a crash and what does not - any cell/mobile phones working from MH17 after impact?

Those rates of climb would be no problem if caught in the updrafts of a large thunderstorm. Correct it only hurts when spat out of the cell.

Australopithecus

30th Dec 2014, 03:08

While I understand the impulse to come up with a solution to the lost airliner problem, adding more portable ELTs isn't it. The more portable ELTs in the field, the more false alerts.

I believe the industry is heading toward an ejectable floating ELT similar to a distress buoy deployed by submarines, but that will take a couple of years worth of regulation, engineering and retrofitting. Even if the industry had started to get serious about this the day after MH370 there would have been no new beacons installed by now.

On mayday calls: what added information do you think the crew could have reasonably transmitted? The only advantage would have been a faster search, but that should have been almost instant anyway.

peekay4

30th Dec 2014, 03:16

Of course every crash is different. In MH17 for example a lot of lightweight items were thrown out of the plane at altitude, fell at a relatively low terminal velocity, and hence survived.

How much impact forces can a typical EPIRB withstand? 100Gs? 200Gs?

Consider that an airplane hitting the ground at a "mere" 270 kts has an impact force of 3,400 Gs -- which is the basis for blackbox requirements.

caa

30th Dec 2014, 03:31

I specifically asked survival of cell/mobile phones in on or outside MH17 for a reason. Most/many phones are u/s when falling more than 10 feet. many worked after MH17 to the point the death cert was not required to block the phones. As far as ELB/T g force survival on g force there are none but many/most are solid sate. And can withstand a lot (seems except aviation approved hand held ones). I don't know if more on an aircraft would help, but I know here if you wish to carry your own on an airline it is not permitted generally but can get a approval if wanted but about the same as carrying a firearm on an aircraft.

8/8ths Blue

30th Dec 2014, 03:35

Rather than a "Help me please because I'm helpless" call, I'm wondering if one of the ATCO's could let us know if there is a significant difference in initiation timing between an Uncertain Phase and Distress Phase of SAR both with and without a Mayday notification?
It would seem to me that a Mayday call (simultaneously notifying AND declaring an emergency exists) would remove any ambiguity that might possibly exist with observing (e.g. just the loss of txpdr return). In this case perhaps the crew did and the message failed to get out. We shall await the evidence.

mcdunav

30th Dec 2014, 03:49

The high water content ice which is normally associated with convective weather could have caused a engine flame-out . This could have been one of the factor which contributed to the crash

AERO - Boeing Assistance in Airplane Recovery (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_01_10/5/)

http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/HighIWC_Final_Study_Report_4-2011.pdf

WhisprSYD

30th Dec 2014, 03:58

Re: 8/8ths q -

With a mayday call and 7700 squawk you would see a distress phase in place immediately, would mean phonecalls being made, SAR launched, positions noted, and possibly involving nearby aircraft immediately to gather whatever information may help.

With loss of comms in my neck of the woods you are looking at an uncertainty phase within 15 mins of the unanswered call, then upgrading the phase as the situation deteriorates.

I dare say though that if this occurred in my FIR where the loss of comms coincided with loss of radar contact (and if shown to be true) aircraft not maintaining level, then you would jump straight to an alert phase..

Propduffer

30th Dec 2014, 04:01

From available information, a likely scenario is that the wreckage will be found not far from the last reported position - which if I understand things correctly was 24,000 feet altitude at 3°22'1.58"S 109°41'28"E and headed down at many thousand feet per minute. The plane would be expected to have gone below Indonesian primary radar's horizon at about that altitude. So this is about as good as it will get when it comes to knowing where a plane went down in the open ocean. Live satellite streaming of coordinates might not provide better resolution than what we have here.

On the first day's search there was rain and gail force winds at the surface and not many resources were available. No surprise it wasn't found. Yesterday the search was again mostly from the air and the water would have still been murky from the storm. So again, there's no surprise it wasn't found if the hull remained more or less intact limiting the amount of debris.

I suspect that today there will be ships searching the bottom with sonar in a 15 mile or so radius around 3°22'1.58"S 109°41'28"E and that will be how the wreck site will be found - unless miracle of miracles, the ULB functions as it is supposed to and a ship with a 37.5 kHz sonar receiver is available.

If this were a time of calm seas and sunshine, an aircraft would probably have spotted it by now in the 150 foot depths it rests in (this is world class scuba diving territory in good weather.)

There will be capable SAR ships on scene today. I'll be surprised if it isn't found today.

hamster3null

30th Dec 2014, 04:09

Consider that an airplane hitting the ground at a "mere" 270 kts has an impact force of 3,400 Gs -- which is the basis for blackbox requirements.

G-force depends on the specific location inside the airplane and on materials surrounding the object. If you have enough "padding" that braking from 270 kts to zero is spread over the distance of, say, 5 meters, mean g-force over this distance is merely 200G.

As for smartphones, they are usually not designed with shock tolerance in mind. They can fail in all sorts of easily preventable ways, usually with cosmetic damage. Devices which are designed for shock tolerance (so-called "rugged" devices) can handle a lot of stuff that would leave mass-market devices in shreds. A standard test for a rugged laptop/tablet is being able to withstand a drop from 4 foot height onto plywood-covered concrete onto any edge or corner without damage.