Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore

[jolihokistix]

Al Jazeera is using this photo to link to their tail found story. Any ideas?
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSZRpjCxCo1NgEGgIICQwLELCMpwgaPAo6CAISFLUPnQyfFdQ hwAmfDL0JtAygFbYPGiDSknEDHV6YMR3Hqxx69LUpwcXhLW7t1HqQOJAcZGy _1jgwLEI6u_1ggaCgoICAESBCnY7oAM&sa=X&ei=AsutVLLWDoK0mAXamYGACg&ved=0CBsQwg4oAA&biw=1280&bih=685

And the linked story with one other underwater shot:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2015/01/tail-crashed-airasia-flight-found-2015177921222442.html

[xcitation]

To debunk the earlier post regarding the automatics causing max trim the AF447 trim was caused by excessive and prolonged stick back pilot input for a few minutes. It was not HAL taking control. On the contrary the protections were degraded which allowed him to make more mistakes due to his lack of training and bad decisions.
To use a car analogy it is like turning the steering wheel to full lock and then blaming the power steering for making the car skid. Without the driver input the assist would not be in use at all.

[Capn Bloggs]

To use a car analogy it is like turning the steering wheel to full lock and then blaming the power steering for making the car skid. Without the driver input the assist would not be in use at all.
Rubbish. When you let go of the steering wheel, the steering returns to centre/neutral. In an Airbus, the Stab Trim happily stays at the full back trim position. Just what I don't want! Nerds designing features into aeroplanes that shouldn't be there. If you're hand-flying, you should be trimming. Much less likely to manually trim full back into a stall...

[A0283]

There was 1 infant on board. That explains the difference.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there was 1 technician on board (his role is not explained - in other cases he might have been included in the number of passengers, just like 'hitching' flight crew that are not relief crew). The usual reporting is a crew consisting of the pilots and cabin crew. In this case 2 plus 4. Making up a total crew of not 6 but 7.

[DCrefugee]

Al Jazeera is using this photo to link to their tail found story. Any ideas?
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...w=1280&bih=685

From that image, it appears the fuselage separated from the tail near the aft cabin door...

[Australopithecus]

Capt Bloggs is right, although in an Airbus "hand flying" is more akin to "control wheel steering" in most Boeings. ie, its not really manual flying, and there is no realistic control force feedback.

I am an Airbus admirer, but training departments are too influenced by Airbus marketing when it comes to the infallibility of the protections.

[John_K]

Hi guys,

As a holder of only a VFR PPL, I am finding it interesting following this thread as I am always amazed at the type of weather that commercial airliners are prepared to navigate through. BUT, as we are all taught even in very basic MET theory, CB's can pack a very impressive punch.

Has anyone plotted the course of the aircraft (as we know it) over an overlay of detailed weather at the time of the accident including winds, temperatures, gradients by flight level?

In terms of specific commercial pilot training in terms of flying in CB's, what are the training parameters and recommendations for pilots in airlines today? due to tighter and tighter schedules, how have these parameters changed over the years?

Lastly, with all the traffic in the area, I have not seen any info related to comments from other pilots that flew in the area that day - obviously this will come out during the investigation - but this info could provide some clues onto potentially unusual weather in the CB's in the area at the time.

As this appears to be very much a weather related incident related to CB's, this could simply end up being a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time with an unusual recovery (if it was possible) required for the pilots.

[training wheels]

More photos of the tail area are appearing through twitter and a nice analysis of the photo too.

Source: Twitter (https://twitter.com/JoeNemo3/status/553008455041433600/photo/1)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6yuQijCAAEaLL7.png

[Datum]

AWQ8501: "Eight five zero one (registrasi) alpha x-ray charlie parking stand Alpha Niner (A9) destination Singapore POB (passenger on board) one six one, request push and start, wagon air eight five zero one..." - See more at: http://www.tnp.sg/news/leaked-communication-between-airasia-flight-qz8501-and-air-traffic-control#sthash.gTcM1WTj.dpuf (http://www.tnp.sg/news/leaked-communication-between-airasia-flight-qz8501-and-air-traffic-control#sthash.gTcM1WTj.dpuf)

162 total POB made up of 155 passengers and 7 crew?

7 crew: 2 pilots, 4 cabin crew and 1 engineer?

The 155 passengers included 16 children and 1 baby?

The baby should be included in the total POB correct?

Why was an engineer on board?..this is not normal for A320 operations.

Shouldn't the engineer have been reported as a passenger verses an operating crew member?

[fireflybob]

Some operators have engineers on board to perform routine checks/refuelling on the ground. They are counted as crew as they are not revenue passengers - all quite normal

[Datum]

and/or 'non-routine' maintenance..

How often would a LCC on an international sector use a revenue seat for an engineer to faciliate a standard turnaround?..

[Leightman 957]

Ref pics in Post Training wheels
Permalink
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553569-air-asia-indonesia-lost-contact-surabaya-singapore-76.html#post8815363

First four pics: Multiple alternating, relatively parallel fold lines resulting in flattened panel from original curved, suggesting broad area force on fuse bottom 'pushing' up. Last two pics less clear, especially the drawn green fold line on #6 LR. Unclear why panel bearing FLY in #5LL could not be a 45 deg fold/peel aft from AC top center, or foldup/peel from tear running up and aft through window line, ie optical illusion? Need more pics.

Third photo at:
Tail of crashed AirAsia flight found - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2015/01/tail-crashed-airasia-flight-found-2015177921222442.html)
shows skin stripped off fuse frames and stringers, frames retaining their shape, fuselage orientation unclear other than light indicating up is up, unidentified as whether part of other fuselage pics or from a different fuse section.

Might this suggest paper bag (cabin air-only) type explosion blowoff of a large area of skin from flat impact, high vertical velocity? If not what else could cause this?

[xcitation]

Quote:
Originally Posted by xcitation

Rubbish. When you let go of the steering wheel, the steering returns to centre/neutral. In an Airbus, the Stab Trim happily stays at the full back trim position. Just what I don't want! Nerds designing features into aeroplanes that shouldn't be there. If you're hand-flying, you should be trimming. Much less likely to manually trim full back into a stall..

My point was that pulling the stick back for 4 minutes is what took down AF447. The stab trim was a secondary consequence of the stick back. If you know your plane then you are aware of this consequence and can over ride if you chose to. However in some situations this runs the risk of potential damaging the control surface by over loading forces which has happened in boeings.
All that matters is to know your a/c whether it is a boeing, bus or whatever. To your point the Airbus clearly has a complex matrix of flight laws and protection modes which are harder to master than the simplistic boeing model. One could argue that in extremis the extra complication of different modes in airbus overloads the pilot. However they are easier and safer to fly in normal law with protections. It is a trade off. Then again in a bus you can always power off HAL to turn it into a boeing.

[Blake777]

A balloon which can carry up to ten tonnes weight is being used in an endeavour to recover the tail section.

[mmurray]

A balloon which can carry up to ten tonnes weight is being used in an endeavour to recover the tail section.


The Straits Times are talking about using a crane to retrieve the tail section

Divers search wreckage of plane's tail for black boxes (http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asia/south-east-asia/story/airasia-flight-qz8501-divers-search-wreckage-planes-tail-black-boxes)

But maybe an air filled balloon is being used to get it off the bottom and up to the surface.

[hca]

With respect to the ongoing discussion about the aeroplane breaking up mid air.

For what its worth, when the the first victims were recovered there was a tv crew in the helo that winched up a body. I have not seen it mentioned in the forum but that video was broadcast on local tv as the announcement they had found the first victims was made. The video we saw here at the time was raw, subsequent broadcasts were blurred.

The victim was a young woman floating on her back the only clothing left on her were a minimalist pair of briefs and bra. This could indicate she fell to the water losing her clothing in the fall. Its been mentioned on local tv other victims have been found with out clothing.

Another thing I have not heard mentioned is if the victims had water in their lungs. I would have thought with the delay on hard information investigators would be keen to know this.

The may do so and not made it public, post mortem is not a routine procedure here like in western countries. There were not many muslims on this flight but they certainly frown upon post mortem.

[Sky Wave]

I have read discussion deep in a thread that you take both flight computers offline by pulling the breakers. This reverts the flight controls to mechanical law backup. The side stick no longer works. Instead the rudder pedals and trim are used to control the flight surfaces.

Not so.

The FAC's are switched off by using the switches on the overhead panel.

The sidesticks will work perfectly

You'll be in ALTN Law with protections lost. Direct Law with Gear Down. You will NOT be in mechanical back up.

If you were to turn off all ELACs and SEC's you will be in Mechanical Back Up.

[matkat]

Datum, as per your question regarding an engineer taking a revenue seat this simply is not the case if the aircraft is full we would occupy a cockpit jump seat, and I have done in numerous occasions.

[BG47]

“....Signals from the black box of AirAsia Flight 8501 were detected Wednesday near where the plane's tail has been located in the Java Sea, but the pings were later lost, Indonesian Armed Forces Commander General Moeldoko said Thursday. Authorities reportedly said that the recovery of the tail section, where the flight recorders are typically located, is underway...".

[Volume]

I am still struggling to fully understand what we can see in the pictures.
The outside pictures quite obviously do show the fuselage skin forward of the aft pax door, and the VTP (you can see the "i-dot" of "Air").
For the internal picture I am still unsure what we can see.
Does this image help:No, it is an A300 picture...
The item on the left side looks like a bleed air duct wrapped in insulation material (APU bleed line), the milled part is round on the left edge, so it can not be part of the HTP spar box, it looks more like an upper VTP attachment frame, the fitting is too long to be the trim actuator fitting. On the left side it looks like a lot of wires and connectors.

And for the other Airbus discussion...
Without the driver input the assist would not be in use at all.100% correct. The stabilizer trim will never do something without a pilot input (either to the computers or via sidestick or trim switch) triggering this action, however....
the AF447 trim was caused by excessive and prolonged stick back pilot input for a few minutes. This is wrong.
My point was that pulling the stick back for 4 minutes is what took down AF447.This is wrong as well. Please have a look at the available FDR data first. What triggered the trim movement was several short nose up inputs during a time during which the main inputs were left-right. The 4 minutes of stick back (a shorter, but still extremely long time even full back) were applied after the trim had already reached the full nose up stop, when basically all was done already, and the nose was even dropping below the horizon, which can somehow explain why full nose up inputs were given at that time. This does not mean, the systems brought down this plane, of course it was the pilot doing unbelievable errors in understanding the situation and steering the plane ignoring all procedures and hand flying basics. But he was not acting as stupid as it sometimes is stated in an enormously simplified version of the event.

For the time being I can see no link between both cases, except that it happened over water with severe thunderstorm activity in the area. But this time it was early dusk, not pitch dark night. I find it highly unlikely that similar attitude deviations remain unnoticed if you have some outside reference. I find it highly unlikely that a climb was not noticed, when such climb was requested but explicitly disapproved by ATC.

[Roseland]

For the time being I can see no link between both cases,

If hoistop (post 1472) is correct, and the THS is full nose-up, then this would link it with both AF447 and XL Airways Perpignan crash. In both those cases the THS motored full nose up before the a/c switched to Alternate Law and the auto trim was disabled. In neither case (none of the cases?) did the pilots seem to realise the THS setting.

[IcePack]

Those who seem to think reaching up & switching off ADR's FAC's etc in short order have obviously never been caught in a CB. The aeroplane is like a bucking bronco & pulling significant + - G. Getting your hands/ fingers anywhere near the appropriate switch is well at best a challenge or nigh impossible.

[framer]

of course it was the pilot doing unbelievable errors in understanding the situation and steering the plane ignoring all procedures and hand flying basics. But he was not acting as stupid as it sometimes is stated in an enormously simplified version of the event.
I sometimes wonder if the chaps at the front during these kinds of accidents weren't thinking " Holy moly this is a can of worms.....I know how to fly, I know what to do if I'm nose down or stalling......but what the hell is happening? ....I don't know what the truth is here, it's impossible to tell".
By that I mean that it's easy to sit here and feel like you would have behaved differently, and I would like to think that I would be able to fly a pitch and a power until I made sense of things....but would I? Would you? With the g force and the conflicting information I wonder if a mental overload situation is almost inevitable with certain types of failures in the bus.
All I know is that I'm grateful that I'm old enough to have done a fair whack of hand flying transport aircraft and that I'm on a 737 that is pretty basic. If not for those two things I don't know I would be any more able to keep my passengers safe than the folk on AF 447 or Air Asia 8501. It sure is interesting times.

[Blake777]

Prop Duffer

No, balloon idea was reported by Channel News Asia in their blog, however attempts were suspended due to strong currents. More bodies in the water were unable to be retrieved because of currents and poor visibility.

I will be interested to see if there's any mention of the balloon idea in the day's official summary from Indonesian authorities. It is possibly to allow release from mud so that a crane can then be employed.

[Tas62]

Air bags are commonly used for lifting wrecks <100t. EG. SHIP SALVAGE AIRBAGS (http://www.blueoceantackle.com/ship_salvage_airbags.htm)

[Propduffer]

I thought the reference was to blimp type balloons, I know there are people trying to sell the idea but I don't know if they have anything operational. But you're probably right, this is probably about buoyancy devices.

Raising heavy things off the bottom with buoyancy floats is a very tricky business. One major problem is that while you may need a lot of lift to unstick it, once it starts rising, the air in the balloons or whatever expands. So just when you want things to go slow, the natural tendency is for things to speed up to the point of getting out of control.

But if they just wanted to raise the empennage 30 feet or so for divers to be able to get at the data recorder location, that might be doable on short notice. But even that would require experienced experts and equipment that probably doesn't exist in Indonesia.

(There is a very interesting story surrounding the recovery of the US submarine Squalus in 1939. The first time they tried to raise it, it went out of control on the way up and the bow was at least 30 feet in the air before it reversed direction and sank again, breaking all the cables and destroying most of the salvage equipment.)

[mcloaked]

Since not everyone reading this discussion is an Airbus pilot, or even a large jet pilot, it might be useful to make a brief comment about the flight control modes in the Airbus A320. The "Normal law" that is referred to is when the aircraft control computers are applying the maximum software protection to keep the aircraft both stable and within flight envelope safe limits. "Direct Law" offers protections but in a less aggressive way, and there are several "Alternate law" flight modes with little envelope protection. A reasonable summary is in the wiki page at Flight control modes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes). The control system will switch to lower protected flight modes if there are major failures in the current mode, but pilots can also elect to change mode. Current Airbus pilots may wish to add to this for more useful information regarding how this may be related to the current accident scenario.

Also there is a recent BBC report containing a video showing the current plan to retrieve the tail section using airbags as an assist at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30723462

[Datum]

Markat,

Thanks. I've carried plenty of staff in jump seats too.

Was the flight full?

Why was an aircraft engineer needed to conduct a standard aircraft turnaround, or was the engineering support there to carry out non-routine maintenance also?

Did the maintenance action affect flight controls and/or air systems (pitot, static, aoa etc)?

Why was the POB mentioned by crew as 161, which differs to the POB discussed by Indonesian authorities /AirAsia and now the global media at 162?..

What was missed and why?..

All seems to be a non event. I think it may be significant

[Ian W]

For the time being I can see no link between both cases, except that it happened over water with severe thunderstorm activity in the area. But this time it was early dusk, not pitch dark night. I find it highly unlikely that similar attitude deviations remain unnoticed if you have some outside reference. I find it highly unlikely that a climb was not noticed, when such climb was requested but explicitly disapproved by ATC.

This may be a little unfair on the crew. They were well below the tops of the storms that they were in close proximity to. They could have been in IMC in surrounding small cells that may not show on weather radar. They could have been in a dark grey goldfish-bowl with severe turbulence and no visual reference. Add in lightning flashes from below and above and ECAM playing all the alert alarms, possibility that the aircraft dropped out of Normal Law unnoticed with everything else going on - and you have a recipe for complete cognitive overload.

Perhaps someone could use a military style full motion simulator that can give +/- relatively high G, but with modern aircraft cockpits - both A and B - and then put the HF engineers, pilot SMEs and designers in the cockpit and replay some known incidents like AFR447 etc., so that they understand the problems they can cause. There are times when letting multiple subsystems shout urgently to the crew is totally counterproductive.

[BG47]

Sunday (Local time in Indonesia)

5:36 a.m. -- AirAsia Flight 8501 takes off from Surabaya International Airport in Indonesia.

6:12 a.m. -- Pilot asks air traffic control permission to avoid clouds by turning left and ascending to 38,000 feet.

6:16 a.m. -- Flight 8501 is still visible on radar.

6:18 a.m. -- The plane disappears from air traffic control's radar. (AirAsia reports a slightly different time, 6:24 a.m., for when contact with air traffic control was lost).

7:30 a.m. (8:30 a.m. Singapore time) -- This is when Flight 8501 was scheduled to land in Singapore.

7:55 a.m. (8:55 a.m. Singapore time) -- Flight 8501 is officially announced as "missing." Its last known position is in the Java Sea, between Belitung and Borneo.

[Lost in Saigon]

Sunday (Local time in Indonesia)

5:36 a.m. -- AirAsia Flight 8501 takes off from Surabaya International Airport in Indonesia.

6:12 a.m. -- Pilot asks air traffic control permission to avoid clouds by turning left and ascending to 38,000 feet.

6:16 a.m. -- Flight 8501 is still visible on radar.

6:18 a.m. -- The plane disappears from air traffic control's radar. (AirAsia reports a slightly different time, 6:24 a.m., for when contact with air traffic control was lost).

7:30 a.m. (8:30 a.m. Singapore time) -- This is when Flight 8501 was scheduled to land in Singapore.

7:55 a.m. (8:55 a.m. Singapore time) -- Flight 8501 is officially announced as "missing." Its last known position is in the Java Sea, between Belitung and Borneo.

This timeline has some additional important info. Still missing is what time the aircraft was observed to be climbing through FL363 out of control without an ATC clearance.


06:12

- QZ8501 requests left deviation from airway. Deviation approved.
- Pilot then requests climb 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 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

[phiggsbroadband]

There has been some discussion here about what some are calling 'Paint Scrapes', along the middle of the A .


If you look closer at the A, you will see that the lower part of the A is curved inwards, and so is the upper part of the A . This indicates that the whole side of the aircraft has been subjected to some pressure, caused by its impact with the water. The line of no-paint is actually a fold line.


The Aluminium will have actually deflected more than that, but sprung back to its present position, as elastic deformation has taken place.
So the paint surface will have been subjected to much more bend than is currently visible.


Anyone with a knowledge of the yield strength of the actual Aluminium used (possibly Duralumin.) would be able to give the exact figures of how far the panel would have moved, to recover to its present position.

[Blake777]

Can someone with diving/SAR experience comment on the fact that underwater currents of 3-5 knots continue to hamper divers from entering the tail section of the aircraft or proceeding with salvage attempts/body recovery? (Although two bodies were successfully recovered today, others could not be.) It appears that whether the weather is adverse or favourable, the current is not going to change in a hurry. What is the best way forward in this situation?

[Lost in Saigon]

There has been some discussion here about what some are calling 'Paint Scrapes', along the middle of the A .


If you look closer at the A, you will see that the lower part of the A is curved inwards, and so is the upper part of the A . This indicates that the whole side of the aircraft has been subjected to some pressure, caused by its impact with the water. The line of no-paint is actually a fold line.


The Aluminium will have actually deflected more than that, but sprung back to its present position, as elastic deformation has taken place.
So the paint surface will have been subjected to much more bend than is currently visible.


Anyone with a knowledge of the yield strength of the actual Aluminium used (possibly Duralumin.) would be able to give the exact figures of how far the panel would have moved, to recover to its present position.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/Photo15/tail_800.jpg~original

[pumpkin53]

I've dove open circuit to wrecks in varying currents. Max depth for me has been 100 meters. An OC diver can swim about 0.5 kts, with a good scooter, about 1 kt. The high current dives can be arranged by arm over arm with a planted anchor. Moving off the line in 3kts or greater will not allow return to the anchor line. The other technique for OC targeted dives is to be dropped off upcurrent. This saves your arms, but you might end up "flying" by the target at speed. If lucky, you can head for a protected wreck assembly that shields you from the current. Moving upcurrent is essentially not doable above 4 kt current. The issue is the bottom type. Even if sandy, 3kt currents cause "sand storms" at the bottom, limiting visibility.
Wreck diving in high current is brutal. I've had marker buoys 30 inch diameter be dragged all the way to the bottom, collapsed by water pressure, submerged by current.

[BG47]

Phiggsbraodbono...There has been some discussion here about what some are calling 'Paint Scrapes', along the middle of the A .


If you look closer at the A, you will see that the lower part of the A is curved inwards, and so is the upper part of the A . This indicates that the whole side of the aircraft has been subjected to some pressure, caused by its impact with the water. The line of no-paint is actually a fold line.


The Aluminium will have actually deflected more than that, but sprung back to its present position, as elastic deformation has taken place.
So the paint surface will have been subjected to much more bend than is currently visible.


Anyone with a knowledge of the yield strength of the actual Aluminium used (possibly Duralumin.) would be able to give the exact figures of how far the panel would have moved, to recover to its present position.


Just wanted to add the fact that the aircraft was at cruise altitude for approx 30 mins with outside temps somewhere between -30/-40 and the water surface temperatures have been reported around 85 degrees F. These rapid temperature changes will impact the metal expansion/contraction along with the pressure difference between flight altitudes of 30,000 ft plus and 100ft on the sea bed that occurred within mins.

[bbrown1664]

As someone with some ( quite a while ago) aircraft engineering and much more recent diving experience I would agree with a previous poster and say that the "scrape lines" people keep referring to do indeed look like seaweed rather than scrapes on the paint. That said, there is a significant buckle to the aluminium in those photos and suspect that this is due to the impact on the surface of the sea from altitude.


Regarding the body recovery. A 3-5 knot current is quite significant when diving. Great if you want to go long distances with little or no effort but a real bitch if you are trying to swim against (or across) it as they would need to do to get into an opening. There is a real danger that you will get bashed against jagged metal in this case and that is not something you want to happen when you are 100ft under the water.

[Lonewolf_50]

Still missing is what time the aircraft was observed to be climbing through FL363 out of control without an ATC clearance.
Thanks for fleshing out the timeline. A couple of questions.
1. Is the part in italics a known fact, or a best estimate from information so far available? :confused: (That the overall case here is an upset seems a valid baseline).
2. Where in that timeline does the data point of FL 363 fit in? Was it in or around the 06:16 time in the timeline below or before that? I ask with the following possibility in mind: The crew hears the approval to climb to FL340 and initiates climb but is already a bit busy with controlling the aircraft as they are having significant trouble with the weather at this point.
06:12
- QZ8501 requests left deviation from airway. Deviation approved.
- Pilot then requests climb 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 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

[_Phoenix]

The Aluminium will have actually deflected more than that, but sprung back to its present position, as elastic deformation has taken place.
So the paint surface will have been subjected to much more bend than is currently visible.
...
Anyone with a knowledge of the yield strength of the actual Aluminium used (possibly Duralumin.) would be able to give the exact figures of how far the panel would have moved, to recover to its present position.

I doubt that scratches are the result of deformations in elastic range.
Scratches are as large as pitch between two rivets, an elastic deformation of this size is not possible. Metal sheet would give for sure under buckling or shear stresses
I guess scratches are the result of impact dynamics.

[Lost in Saigon]

Thanks for fleshing out the timeline. A couple of questions.
1. Is the part in italics a known fact, or a best estimate from information so far available? :confused: (That the overall case here is an upset seems a valid baseline).
2. Where in that timeline does the data point of FL 363 fit in? Was it in or around the 06:16 time in the timeline below or before that? I ask with the following possibility in mind: The crew hears the approval to climb to FL340 and initiates climb but is already a bit busy with controlling the aircraft as they are having significant trouble with the weather at this point.



The leaked photo of the radar screen does not have a time stamp so we can only guess what the time was as they were observed climbing through FL363. (out of control without an ATC clearance) Somebody knows the time but they have chosen not to tell us.

They probably never heard the clearance to FL340 at 06:14 as they were already fighting severe turbulence.

[hoistop]

Roseland and others, please note that after geting better image I revised my post #1472. THS position could not be determined from that picture. Will try to get in an A-320 tail to have a look and compare.
"Baloon" for lifting is actually a device, used underwater to lift things off the bottom to the surface. It is shaped like something between parachute and hot air baloon and filled with air from the bottom. Cannot lift things out of the water, you need crane for this. This device will change shape, fluff in the stream of water and lose air, so not much use if currents are strong-could even act like parachute and drag the whole thing downstream.
hoistop

[Blake777]

For those interested a very grainy video of this morning's dive efforts to inspect the tail section of the wreckage is available here. The letters PK come into view, but difficult to gain much more information from it.

LIVE BLOG: AirAsia flight QZ8501 crash, Day 12 - Channel NewsAsia (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/live-blog-airasia-flight/1575652.html)

[BG47]

“.....Divers looking for the black boxes on Thursday were unable to make it past currents and 1-meter (3-foot) visibility, said Soelistyo.

He said efforts will be intensified Friday to lift up the tail — either by using lifting balloon or crane.

Ping-emitting beacons in the black boxes still have about 20 days of battery life, but high waves had prevented the deployment of ping locators, which are dragged by ships.

Six ships with ping locators were in the search area in the Java Sea, said Nurcahyo Utomo, an investigator of the National Commission for Transportation Safety.

Based on pictures taken by divers, he believed that the black boxes were still attached to their original location in the plane's tail.

"Once detected, we will try to find and lift up the black boxes as soon as possible," he said...."

[bobdxb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgqiFeEZSqc

[Machinbird]

To all the airbus conspiracy theorists, at the moment we have no link betwean these events other than the fact the 2 aircraft were Airbus.
It is like comparing Boeing 777 to Boeing 737 events.
Because at the moment we have very few fact on which to base our deliberations.
Aside from the fact your use of the words "airbus conspiracy theorists" is overly judgemental with regard to a persons motivations, I concur with your thoughts. This is a different accident than AF447 and the Perpignan accident and it almost certainly happened differently.
We do have a few facts now. The trick is to recognize the difference between facts and speculation.
Some of us feel that the ability of an Airbus to auto-trim nose up after the activation of stall warning (in Alternate Law) needs further examination. I for one will be watching the data like a hawk to see If that is a factor in this accident.

[cats_five]

Can someone with diving/SAR experience comment on the fact that underwater currents of 3-5 knots continue to hamper divers from entering the tail section of the aircraft or proceeding with salvage attempts/body recovery? (Although two bodies were successfully recovered today, others could not be.) It appears that whether the weather is adverse or favourable, the current is not going to change in a hurry. What is the best way forward in this situation?



Michael Phelps managed 47.51 seconds for 100m freestyle. That is fractionally over 4 knots, for 100m only, by a top class athlete in a heated indoor pool.


In human terms it's a powerful, dangerous current.

[island_airphoto]

I am a diver. 3-5 knots is a TON of current. In 3 knots you would have to swim very hard just to hold position. 3 knots is actually over Vne for most divers with all the gear on. I have done a dive called "The Current" near MYEH where the current runs 5-8 knots. It is a total thrill ride and obviously the boat goes to meet you at the other end. You come up on obstacles FAST and trying to work around anything with sharp edges or places that could trap you in that current would be :eek:
In 5 knots it would take a fair amount of strength to just hang on to a line and you would be streaming from it horizontally like a flag.

The flying equivalent would be trying to hover a helicopter in winds at 120 knots gusting to 150.

@Blake777
Can someone with diving/SAR experience comment on the fact that underwater currents of 3-5 knots continue to hamper divers from entering the tail section of the aircraft or proceeding with salvage attempts/body recovery? (Although two bodies were successfully recovered today, others could not be.) It appears that whether the weather is adverse or favourable, the current is not going to change in a hurry. What is the best way forward in this situation?

[md80fanatic]

Not a diver but can understand the difficulties in 3+ knot currents. What is puzzling me, despite the constant droning of the media over how swift these underwater currents are, we are treated with video (like the one graciously posted lower last page) that appears to show the opposite. Divers meticulously poring over the tail section, with silt in the flashlight beams not really moving much at all, their exhausted gases rising vertically, and normal breathing ... in a nutshell it appears to be more similar to a training dive in a pool somewhere. What gives?

[island_airphoto]

It is entirely possible to have a surface current of 5 knots and 0 knots near the bottom. If that is the case, the easiest thing to do is grab the anchor line of the boat you are diving from and follow it to the bottom and reverse process to get back up.

[mini]

Not a diver but can understand the difficulties in 3+ knot currents. What is puzzling me, despite the constant droning of the media over how swift these underwater currents are, we are treated with video (like the one graciously posted lower last page) that appears to show the opposite. Divers meticulously poring over the tail section, with silt in the flashlight beams not really moving much at all, their exhausted gases rising vertically, and normal breathing ... in a nutshell it appears to be more similar to a training dive in a pool somewhere. What gives?

Sites that are subject to strong currents are usually dived at slack tide - when the tide is changing direction - this period may only be minutes in duration. I'm not familiar with tides/currents in the crash site area but I'd hazard a guess that slack time is a limiting factor here. As has been stated before, complex recovery operations in 3-5 knots is not really viable.

[Volume]

I wonder if a mental overload situation is almost inevitable with certain types of failures in the bus. A mental overload is almost inevitable in any type of aircraft if you are flying it in a condition you never did before, never thought about before and never trained in the sim...

If the diver would have switched off the autofocus, there might be actually something to see in the video... This way it is absolutely useless.

[BG47]

Not a diver but can understand the difficulties in 3+ knot currents. What is puzzling me, despite the constant droning of the media over how swift these underwater currents are, we are treated with video (like the one graciously posted lower last page) that appears to show the opposite. Divers meticulously poring over the tail section, with silt in the flashlight beams not really moving much at all, their exhausted gases rising vertically, and normal breathing ... in a nutshell it appears to be more similar to a training dive in a pool somewhere. What gives?

They maybe using scuba "safety stop anchors" to keep then in one place. I have dove in that region of the world and with currents as such. There have been many scuba accidents where the divers were swept out to sea by the currents such as these divers are facing. Another factor is the deep dive air mixture/required surface rest time (these divers typically use different air then a regular diver with those depths so that they can stay down longer) & fatigue for the divers such as cold temps at 100ft/sleep/stress/PTSD which is common for these rescue divers to have to deal with when retrieving bodies, so it is possible they are waiting for the right forecast conditions vs fatiguing their divers. There are 90 navy/commercial/certified rescue divers on this mission, that sounds like a lot of divers but it’s not when you are dealing with a complex mission & required surface rest time.

[SAMPUBLIUS]

Since we can see a few windows - that section is in front of the aft pressure bulkhead. Some of the fittings may be aft( immediately behind the pressure bulkead ) AFIK and willing to stand corrected, the black boxes are typically mounted in structure which is AFT of the bulkhead. Which may mean that the black boxes are NOT on that section or are as suspected buried in the mud.
If on a section detached from the bulkhead, the Boxes could well be a few miles away ??

[Propduffer]

This picture is of the area behind the bulkhead.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6uuKqJCQAE-jnC.jpg

But it may be that the point where the plane broke apart is exactly where the recorders are.

Edit: - Just like AF447

[training wheels]

I don't know whether this photo has been posted before, but I have only just seen this on a Twitter feed. It appears there is not much left of the tail section after if the letter ' Charlie' of the aicraft's registration.

http://i59.tinypic.com/3010m1g.jpg

Source: Twitter

[susier]

It looks as though it broke away just between the rear doors and the last of the windows - roughly where the lavatories are, and around a 'fault line' in the structure according to this diagram:


http://www.spiritaero.com/assets/0/305/307/327/ac58154f-88d0-400e-a46d-7da7b050c731.jpg


though I doubt that is completely to scale.

[Leightman 957]

We have one pic of purported bulkhead with THS by one A320 mechanic, a quite different pic found online purported to be A320 THS bulkhead, one post other than my previous noting the significant differences, and no further comments confirming one or the other. We've had no precise description of the structure on which the FDR is mounted, other than aft of the pressure bulkhead in the unpressurized tail. The FDR is on or near this bulkhead. Resolving the discrepancy should not be difficult given Prune readership.

If as multiply described the tail is resting semi-inverted on vertical fin and right horizontal stab, access to the FDR should not be impeded by mud. The obstacles to investigation/recovery via diving have been ocean 'currents'. Distinctions between 'current', 'tide', and current tidal interactions in the area of search have not been made. Search reports about the process all cite limited visibility and strong currents. The first tail pics came from a time of 'unusual brief current calm', of which there has been little of since. Hi tech remains subservient to mud and currents.

As a pilot, and from pilots I have known, very few of the heavy pilots would say "If I had been in his position I'd be dead now." The self confidence needed to overcome doubt during command too easily condemns those who ended up dead as inadequate in some way. Yet every pilot has in their history instances of 'What he hell is going on".

I find the vociferous arguments between posters here claiming piloting mastery of specific flight control systems, but having completely conflicting views about how things actually work in specific but not impossible situations to be very disconcerting. That is why the issues of specific complex systems and human interface won't go away. If 95% of posters here had the same opinion about how systems work in unusual situations there would be little discord, and a passenger could feel confident that training, experience, ATC and flight control system functionality were working together well.

The claim that flight control automation has saved more lives than it has cost, evidenced by lower accident rates, is an assertion that rides on the shoulders of improvements in component dependability, airframe structures, materials, aerodynamics, and better and more weather reporting. The claim may be true, but the amount of truth may be much lower if the safety improvements delivered by all other advances are removed from the calculation.

[Propduffer]

It looks to me that it broke up behind the pressure bulkhead. Compare this to the picture above. The pressure bulkhead is on the right, the jackscrew mount is on the left. This looks like the same place as the picture above is showing.

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/A330aftBHtail1.jpg

[Propduffer]

There is something I don't understand about the flight condition this aircraft is assumed to have gotten itself into.

From what I've read here and elsewhere it seems that if a transport pilot who is trying to climb finds that he is ascending at a high rate (say 9,000 fpm), with airspeed dropping, the reaction from the pilot (or Hal inthe case of Airbus) is to pull out all the stops and push the yoke or the sidestick forward as far as it will go and even adjust stabilizer trim to get more nose down pitch - right?

It seems to me that any pilot who has flown gliders in the past would just smile ear to ear (and maybe even throw the plane into a sharp turn so as to not lose the updraft) while adding power to ward off any possibility of a stall and wait to kick out of the updraft if it hasn't already dissipated before delivering the craft to an altitude near the max altitude for the type.

Are planes and people being lost in order to stay within ATC assigned altitude?

[island_airphoto]

Leightman 957:
Since no one knows what happened to this airplane yet, I can't see how anyone could say "I could do better than that" since we don't know what THAT even is yet other than the generic stay away from thunderstorms advice.

Propduffer: I was a right seat eyewitness to a plane about to be lost due to convective activity. The left seat PIC/student* was VERY willing to rip the plane up trying not to gain altitude and then managed to get a spiral dive going :eek: I had to take over to bail us out of the situation. Wings level, Va, and "unable to maintain altitude due to convective activity, we'll tell you when we level off" did the trick. 2,000 FPM + at idle power is a ride :) Until you get into ice or lack of O2 or mach limits or something :(

* The student was already comm/ir rated, not a n00b I would expect to do something like that.

[AirScotia]

@propduffer

8501 was in a busy airway, with another a/c at 36,000ft (I think?) coming along less than 15 miles behind, and crossing traffic at higher altitude up ahead. If an updraft was taking him through FL360 with dropping airspeed, he might be concerned about ATC not being able to manoeuvre everything else out of his way in time?

[dash34]

Propduffer, I think your post is a bit cheeky. Us glider pilots are generally a very respectful bunch. The suggestion that the pilot was trying to (or perhaps failing to) thermal his A320 is a bit disrespectful. Whatever happened, the pilots were clearly overwhelmed by the situation.

[jientho]

@dash34 re: Propduffer -- I agree too cheeky in this tragedy, but I think he was (very clumsily) trying to make a different point about possible dangers of an artificially strict adherence to assigned FL (by pilot, but mainly by FMC) in extreme vertical weather. (Gliders seek out and utilize moderate vertical weather; airliners don't.)

Other questions in here about a primitive "fixed (gyro-only) attitude and power mode" for penetrating such weather (i.e. ignoring altitude and airspeed changes (within reason)) are getting at the same question/concern.

I mean there has to be some (rare but sometimes encountered) point where dangers of disorientation and/or FMC-caused extreme attitudes outweigh the danger of encountering another aircraft.

[xcitation]

@Volume

This is wrong as well. Please have a look at the available FDR data first. What triggered the trim movement was several short nose up inputs during a time during which the main inputs were left-right. The 4 minutes of stick back (a shorter, but still extremely long time even full back) were applied after the trim had already reached the full nose up stop, when basically all was done already, and the nose was even dropping below the horizon, which can somehow explain why full nose up inputs were given at that time. This does not mean, the systems brought down this plane, of course it was the pilot doing unbelievable errors in understanding the situation and steering the plane ignoring all procedures and hand flying basics. But he was not acting as stupid as it sometimes is stated in an enormously simplified version of the event.

For the time being I can see no link between both cases, except that it happened over water with severe thunderstorm activity in the area. But this time it was early dusk, not pitch dark night. I find it highly unlikely that similar attitude deviations remain unnoticed if you have some outside reference. I find it highly unlikely that a climb was not noticed, when such climb was requested but explicitly disapproved by ATC.

I recall that the trim works as an averaging function of the pilot inputs. PF on 447 was "mixing the mayonnaise" using the side stick with strong bias to nose up function. If he had mixed mayonnaise totally randomly then trim averaging function would have been zero, no trim.

I find it hard to fathom that it could be the same as AF447. However how can we ignore the coincidences: possible ITCZ CB penetration, possible climb towards the top of the altitude envelope in warm air, possible max trim. At the least I think you will agree there is a high probability of pilot overload as a common factor.

[Propduffer]

I wasn't referring specifically to this incident, we don't even know for sure if my question relates to QZ8501.

My question was about how any or all transport pilots handle a strong updraft scenario. The glider reference was made just to make the point that being caught in an updraft is not a life threatening event. I left unsaid that I think putting a jet airliner in a vertical dive, especially with full power is almost certain to be a life threatening event. So it seems to me that SOP in the transport world is (in this case) far too focused on avoiding stalls while tending to ignore something far worse.

More to the point: Lessons Learned (http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=1&LLID=66&LLTypeID=2)

Dash34
I am a glider pilot. And my point wasn't about "thermaling", is was about heads up seat of the pants flying. Realizing what is dangerous and what is not.

[island_airphoto]

Propduffer:
What I was taught for thunderstorms by an old time airline pilot was what he called "soft ride". Autopilot in wing leveler mode - all heading and altitude controls off - power for Va, and keep wings level. Let the plane ride the up and downdrafts with gentle corrections and ease the plane back to your heading. Sure to drive ATC nuts but keeps stress low.

[Propduffer]

island_airphoto

That makes sense to me.

[poorjohn]

8501 was in a busy airway, with another a/c at 36,000ft (I think?) coming along less than 15 miles behind, and crossing traffic at higher altitude up ahead. If an updraft was taking him through FL360 with dropping airspeed, he might be concerned about ATC not being able to manoeuvre everything else out of his way in time?Is TCAS useful in that situation?

[AirScotia]

Is TCAS useful in that situation?

TCAS would alert other aircraft, of course, but it's a last resort, and other a/c may be equally challenged by the conditions and not well placed to take evasive action.

[physicus]

@propduffer

In all my thermalling in gliders, I never once was in fear of having its wings fall off. That's because the gliders I've flown (ASK25/Discus/Duo Discus/Nimbus) are rated to +6/-3G, plus margin.

You're forgetting that an airliner does not have those limits, they're only rated from +2.5/-1G, a load factor *easily* achieved or exceeded when penetrating or washing out of a hefty CB updraft. That's why in the Airbus flight control computer logic, load limitation ranks supreme to the point of deploying spoilers to decrease lift and positive G moment. Also, you're forgetting that turbulence near the performance envelope's end is a very different story than down low where you have ample reserve to deal with over/under speed situations. At FL360, the A230 has probably 30 odd kts of range between overspeed and onset of the yellow ribbon... that's not much to play with when your coffee goes flying over the dash and into your controls. Speaking of which, there's another theory for the theorists amongst you: avionics malfunction due to spilled coffee in turbulence. >:->

But in terms of flying my 744 into a CB, I will do anything I can to avoid overstressing the old lady, and any equally trained airline pilot will, too. That includes announcing an altitude block to ATC (formally it's a request, but ATC knows there's nothing I can do so they comply).

Perhaps we can just this once exercise restraint at blaming incompetent crew. Just because they're flying for a third world low cost carrier doesn't mean they weren't decent pilots. The only evidence we have thus far is

1) some combination of airframe and cockpit crew was likely responsible for this crash
2) lots of other flights in the vicinity did not encounter problems

hell for all I know they got hit by a meteorite.

[HarryMann]

Yes I think Propduffer was being a bit irreverent... ;)

On the glider pilot /updraught debate it has been my experience that when entering a thermal/updraught things in practice are not necessarily what one might imagine, as far as threat of a stall is concerned.

Because there is a net addition of energy to the aircraft 's frame of reference by buoyant rising warm air airstream, equivalent to an accelerated state, there is little or no danger of stalling... and leaving the pitch state and trim alone is a very reasonable course of action.*

...with the proviso on freedom of altitude change**

The danger is having net aircaft energy (PE + KE) reduced... classic wrong end of windshear
or entering downdraught - what a glider or low wing loading pilot would call 'going over the falls'.
that's when we need to stick forward and keep the a/c flying.

... it is unfortunate that these basic micrometeorology principles seem a world apart from a modern pilots training or experience.

and I think a point worth thinking through.

On another tack... I am reflecting on any part the Maint. Tech may have played if in the cockpit.

** in CB weather / ITCZ regions why are aircraft being vectored with no regard
for prevailing or likely weather/upset. Common sense would dictate much wider margins
And altitude freedoms ?

[Organfreak]

physicus sez: hell for all I know they got hit by a meteorite.

By Jove, that's the first sensible thing said in this whole thread! :8

[EEngr]

A couple of things: Is that the FDR at the bottom of the photo in post #1570 (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553569-air-asia-indonesia-lost-contact-surabaya-singapore-79.html#post8816414) ? And in the photo in post #1567 (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553569-air-asia-indonesia-lost-contact-surabaya-singapore-79.html#post8816368), it appears that we are seeing the from the 'C' in the registration number forward on the left side (PK-AXC, that piece being upside-down). The break being behind that, wouldn't this be the forward section of the plane (or part of it)? Not the tail.

If that is the FDR, actually mounted to the pressure bulkhead, and if this is where the fuselage broke, the recorders could be in the debris between the sections.

And now that the tail (and other parts) have been located, has anyone reported hearing a pinger?

[framer]

From what I've read here and elsewhere it seems that if a transport pilot who is trying to climb finds that he is ascending at a high rate (say 9,000 fpm), with airspeed dropping, the reaction from the pilot (or Hal inthe case of Airbus) is to pull out all the stops and push the yoke or the sidestick forward as far as it will go and even adjust stabilizer trim to get more nose down pitch - right?
Boy it's nauseating reading all the amateur speculation on this thread. What is written above is akin to saying " From what I've read it seems that if a builder who is trying to build a house finds that the walls are falling down, his reaction is to whip out his mobile phone and order the concrete truck to return and then put more concrete in the foundations while using stainless steel brackets to reinforce the internal walls".
Seriously, that's how stupid it sounds to an airline pilot.

[Coagie]

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread, that this crash seemed like the one where the Air New Zealand plane was coming off lease and was being checked, before being returned to Air New Zealand from a German airline. It crashed into the Mediterranean, because both angle of attack sensors froze due to water getting in them, when the plane was pressure washed instead of dusted off. They worked fine at first, then froze at altitude. The computer didn't have the right inputs and didn't realize anything was wrong, and the pilot wasn't able to figure out the problem and take over from the computer in time, because everything happened so quickly. That was in good weather. This Air Asia crash, if it's similar to the Air New Zealand crash, was in bad weather making diagnosis and recovery even harder, so even with the best pilots, they may not have had a chance to recover. All their effort had to go to working the problem, so that may explain why ATC couldn't get them on the radio, even though they still saw them on radar for little while.

[glendalegoon]

woora

the title of the forum is PROFESSIONAL PILOTS...etc

granted a commercial pilot license would qualify too, forgive me comm

do you earn your living as a pilot? if not, at least state it in the body of your post...I won't take the time to look up your profile.

[ana1936]

Translation of some reports regarding the exact location of the tail are here

AirAsia Tail Location Mystery: Solved? (http://jeffwise.net/2015/01/08/airasia-tail-location-mystery-solved/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=airasia-tail-location-mystery-solved)

It is suggested that it is at

-03° 38′ 39″ 109° 43′ 43″ (degrees minutes seconds)

This is about 2.5nm South East of the last SSR/ADS-B location

[mm43]

The color looks right, so is it what they are looking for?

http://i57.tinypic.com/2dmfi49.jpg

[training wheels]

A nice chronology of events mapped out on 3D Google Earth. Not sure how accurate it is, but helps to put things into some perspective.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B64StelCIAAeoRp.jpg

Source: Twitter (https://twitter.com/jlangdale/status/553400377891360769/photo/1)

[training wheels]

The pings from the blackbox have been detected according to this article (http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asia/south-east-asia/story/airasia-flight-qz8501-indonesia-investigator-says-pings-detected-sea).

PANGKALAN BUN (REUTERS) - Indonesia search and rescue teams hunting for the wreck of the missing Indonesia AirAsia passenger jet have detected pings in their efforts to find the black box recorders, Santoso Sayogo, an investigator at the National Transportation Safety Committee, told Reuters on Friday.

He said it appeared that the black box was no longer in the tail.

“We received an update from the field that the pinger locator already detected pings,” he told Reuters. “We have our fingers crossed it is the black box. Divers need to confirm."

"Unfortunately it seems it’s off from the tail. But the divers need to confirm the position,” he said.

- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asia/south-east-asia/story/airasia-flight-qz8501-indonesia-investigator-says-pings-detected-sea#sthash.E18uRxPA.dpuf

[Propduffer]

Here's a summary of all the information I've been able to glean about search locations:


Asia Air LRP ----> from a graphic released by the Indonesians
52.9 miles from RAFIS ----> Training wheels post # 1421
TAIL ----> Suggested by MGS Ship Geo Survey
tail ----> Suggested by Jeff Wise
Blue suitcase ----> From a picture of Debris released by the Indonesians
FR24 LRP 23:12:37 ----> ADS-B Last reported position
sunken boat ----> a finding by sidescan sonar


http://i.imgur.com/W4WKF00.jpg

[EEngr]

refer constantly to "the black box" when (so I thought) everybody knows that there are two.New digital units are often combined units. Both FDR and CVR functions in one 'box'.

Flight recorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_recorder#Combined_units)

[onetrack]

Santoso Sayogo, an investigator at the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee has stated to the media that he has received a report from the field, that their SAR people are now picking up pings from the flight data recorder - and that the pings are some distance from the location of the tail, thus indicating the FDR became detached during the crash.

[_Phoenix]

As per video below, it seems that the black box was separated from tail "a few hundred meters downstream"
BBC News - AirAsia QZ8501: 'Divers in water trying to raise plane' (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30738585)

[p.j.m]

Santoso Sayogo, an investigator at the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee has stated to the media that he has received a report from the field, that their SAR people are now picking up pings from the flight data recorder - and that the pings are some distance from the location of the tail, thus indicating the FDR became detached during the crash.

I wonder exactly what "detected 300 metres from" means. but anyway... good news if they have located them!

Jakarta: "Ping" signals from the black box of downed AirAsia flight QZ8501 have been detected 300 metres from the aircraft's sunken tail section, Indonesian army commander Moeldoko has confirmed.


General Moeldoko said the ping was picked up by Indonesian ship Jadayat well away from the tail, which is the current focus of the search and recovery effort.
AirAsia crash: 'ping' signals from black box detected (http://www.smh.com.au/world/airasia-crash-ping-signals-from-black-box-detected-20150109-12l3zk.html)

[PastTense]

This Air Asia crash, if it's similar to the Air New Zealand crash, was in bad weather making diagnosis and recovery even harder, so even with the best pilots, they may not have had a chance to recover.Coagie:
While the weather situation was much worse for the Air Asia crash than the Air New Zealand crash, the altitude situation was much worse for the Air New Zealand crash: the Air New Zealand pilot did the acceptance tests at low altitude so there was very little time and distance to attempt recovery--while the Air Asia was at high altitude and had a significant amount of time and distance to attempt recovery.


The search and rescue team, on Friday morning, found the bodies of three more victims of the AirAsia QZ8501 flight, Commander of Iskandar Military Airport in Pangkalan Bun Jhonson H. Simatupang stated here on Friday.

"In total, we have found 46 bodies out of the 162 passengers of the plane," stated Jhonson.http://www.antaranews.com/en/news/97275/bodies-of-three-more-airasia-victims-found

[Leightman 957]

Originally Post by onetrack http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553569-air-asia-indonesia-lost-contact-surabaya-singapore-post8817196.html#post8817196)
Santoso Sayogo.....he has received a report.....that the pings are some distance from the location of the tail, thus indicating the FDR became detached during the crash.

Interesting to know how distant. AF447 (below) had ~10,000' for currents to nudge debris yet the FDR module was within maybe 150' of the APU, THS, and CVR (though farther from the FDR chassis). Air Aisa's search depth is only ~100'. The FDR would not have flowed with current, though the tail might have depending on what we find it looks like now. However the distance between FDR and tail, and the heading between, calculated together with the current should be telling about what part touched down first, and what forward speed might have caused the distance.

AF447: Map of the debris field - Flight International (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flight-international/2011/05/af447-map-of-the-debris-field/)

Don't misconstrue. I use AF447 ONLY because despite the huge difference in circumstances between the two, debris field maps don't grow on trees, especially accidents that generate huge interest and lots of valuable images for a hungry media, so there aren't a lot to choose from. And comparisons between the two can be as instructive for their dissimilarities as their similarities.

[Capn Bloggs]

If an updraft was taking him through FL360 with dropping airspeed
An updraft will not in itself reduce airspeed. Updrafts add energy, not reduce it. The first reaction by the autopilot (or PF) would be to try to maintain altitude by putting forward pressure on the stick. This will in effect increase the speed because of the updraft wind vector (and no, I do not subscribe to the previously mentioned theory that the wing will get hit before the tail, so the nose will rise markedly; it all happens too fast for that). Next, the power will come off (ATS) the crew may pull the SB out to keep the speed under control or, as I understand in an Airbus, if an overspeed is going to occur, the AP will raise the nose. The only real problem with convective activity (if the aeroplane doesn't fall apart flying into the updraft in the first place) is the subsequent possible downdraft encounter out the other side. Perhaps with the nose climbing (Airbus) and speed now reducing (no updraft, or potentially a downdraft)... it should still be controllable with full forward stick and full power (which would already be set by the ATS as the speed is below target).

I do not buy the claimed 9000ft/min ROC and massive speed reduction was caused only by an updraft. And that would assume they were actually in a cell. Updrafts are essentially overshoot shear scenarios, and you don't stall in those scenarios.

[Propduffer]

Although we don't know exactly what it was based on - because we were never told what radar had reported this, but in the first few days all the media was reporting that they had been told that the GS for QZ8501 was very low.

Now that we have the ADS-B information we can be sure this low groundspeed couldn't have come from secondary radar so it had to have come from a military primary radar. Or it might have been bogus information, but it has never been retracted afik.


Edit: After a bit of research I've come to the conclusion that the entire basis for the low speed assumptions for QZ8501 have been based on that radar plot which was released on day one of this event and had the numbers 363 which was taken to be the altitude and the number 353 which was taken to be the speed (IAS at FL 36.0).

That's not very solid evidence, that "radar plot" may have been composed for a news release quickly - it may have been mostly eye candy.

[sopwithnz]

It was not an Air New Zealand captain or pilot in the seat for the Perpignan crash. He was a German pilot for the safety checks to return the plane to Air New Zealand. Very sad circumstance ... and nothing the crew could do to save themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJrK-1qr59M

[Derfred]

I do not buy the claimed 9000ft/min ROC and massive speed reduction was caused only by an updraft.

Thank you Bloggs.

This whole "updraft" discussion is completely baseless on the known information.

[autoflight]

In ordinary circumstances, TCAS can be very useful for awareness of other aircraft.

If pilots have their hands full controlling aircraft in severe conditions or possibly eyeball bounce, things become more difficult. I spent a lot of effort avoiding this stuff. Experienced plus and minus 3000 ft in turbulence and iceing with seriously impaired vision in an embedded CB in my early days. There was no such thing as TCAS, but if there had been, it would have been useless, due poor vision.

[bille1319]

The tidal streams seem to have quite a range in the search area, something like a 2-3m range. We're just past Springs or full moon so they should be easing now with neaps on the 13th, the best conditions for diving there.

[training wheels]

That's not very solid evidence, that "radar plot" may have been composed for a news release quickly - it may have been mostly eye candy.

I can assure you catergorically that radar plot I posted on page 1 came from a well respected senior ATC controller at Jakarta whom I know personally.

[chefrp]

Propduffer
It seems to me that any pilot who has flown gliders in the past would just smile ear to ear (and maybe even throw the plane into a sharp turn so as to not lose the updraft)

Not sure anyone would be "smiling ear to ear" faced with the still unknown situation QZ8501 was in...

Furthermore I don't believe the Captain lacked in flying ability...I feel his experience flying fighter jets would attest to this...

Blind speculation is just that at this point... for all we know the Captain went to the toilet and all hell broke loose...it has happened before...

[VR-HFX]

When they find the nose section, it could well look like this:

Oh, Hail! | Aero-News Network (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=dcb0c2ad-ab51-4c2c-be42-fea029d7343d)

Which may also explain the "no comms" due possibly to shredded antennae.

It may also explain the low GS due possibly to flame outs.

Anyone who has a lot of experience in SE Asia has noticed a large increase in "newbies" who believe the glossy brochures and management cost mantra that modern a/c can weather any storm.

For those who have been in one and lived to tell the tale, they never, ever do it a second time.

If the CVR has been located, we shall all know soon enough.

RIP to all those innocent souls:(

[airsound]

New digital units are often combined units. Both FDR and CVR functions in one 'box'.I stand to be corrected, EEngr, but I think you're referring to the ‘enhanced airborne flight recorder’ (EAFR). As I noted in the 787 thread (#2161, 3 Dec), according to the NTSB report on the Boston battery fire, the 787 is the only aircraft so far thatuses the EAFR to record CVR, FDR, and other data. As it happens, the 787 EAFR seems to be problematic, but that's for another thread.

The upshot is that I'm assuming we're talking separate FDR and CVR in PK-AXC.

[mm43]

This appears to be where the search is currently at:-

http://i59.tinypic.com/xmiu8k.jpg

[Flagon]

Any chance you could authenticate those height, heading etc readings or do we just dismiss them?

[TyroPicard]

sopwithnz
and nothing the crew could do to save themselves.
Not true, but this is not the place to discuss it.

[phiggsbroadband]

Just wondering how many more AoA probes have been pressure washed since that 888 accident...

[MrSnuggles]

Did anyone check out the highres picture I linked to here: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553569-air-asia-indonesia-lost-contact-surabaya-singapore-75.html#post8814964 ?

To the right in that picture, looks like it took a hit by a small round thing? OR am I just imagining things? Anyways, it could have happened when the part hit the water!

Just thought about this when I read the post by VR-HFX here http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553569-air-asia-indonesia-lost-contact-surabaya-singapore-81.html#post8817418 .

[Superpilot]

... and nothing the crew could do to save themselves.

I agree they didn't have a lot of time to react but this statement is not strictly true. As an aircrafter tester, the captain should've been aware of how to react in case the aircraft was not responding correctly. He was, after all, well used to pushing the A320 to it's limits (under Normal Law).

[mcloaked]

Replying to the post saying "An updraft will not in itself reduce airspeed. Updrafts add energy, not reduce it. The first reaction by the autopilot (or PF) would be to try to maintain altitude by putting forward pressure on the stick. This will in effect increase the speed because of the updraft wind vector":

There is something simple that can be calculated for the angle of attack instantaneous change due to hitting a sudden upcurrent such as in an active Cb. If the current airspeed is say 500kt and the aircraft is flying horizontally, then if a 50kt updraft is suddenly encountered then there will be an instantaneous change of AoA by an angle equal to arctan(50/500) which is about 5.7 degrees. It the aircraft was flying within a couple of degrees of the stalling angle of attack and encounters a transient strong upcurrent then there is a good chance of reaching the stalling AoA very rapidly. What the aircraft control response to that is will depend on how the fly-by-wire system has been coded to react, or how the pilot will respond if he/she recognises what has happened is not clear despite the various postulated scenarios already discussed. Equally there will be a reverse change to the AoA on exit from the same updraft so the net result will depend on how long the aircraft flies within updraft conditions and the velocity of the air within it. Is that not basic physics?

[BG47]

JAKARTA - Indonesia has suspended 61 flights from five airlines who have been found to have no valid permits to fly from the country, its transport minister Ignasius Jonan said on Friday.

The decision to review flight permits comes in the wake of the tragedy involving AirAsia flight QZ8501 which crashed into the sea while on its way from Surabaya to Singapore.

AirAsia was later found in violation of running the flight on a Sunday without valid permit from Indonesia.

Mr Jonan also said that the ministry has suspended 11 officials for negligence and have audited 5 airports in the country since the ill-fated crash.

[Toruk Macto]

How hard would it to be to have a basic AOA indicator installed in every commercial jet ? Then a basic training package to be included in every endorsement that trains to react in a situation when all hell brakes lose ? Consider it a last resort recall ? They seem to be taking care of passengers with new lounges , upgraded on board entertainment and meals , but in the end passengers may go without if they knew money went to a instrument that could make a difference ? Just a thought .

[Ian W]

Although we don't know exactly what it was based on - because we were never told what radar had reported this, but in the first few days all the media was reporting that they had been told that the GS for QZ8501 was very low.

Now that we have the ADS-B information we can be sure this low groundspeed couldn't have come from secondary radar so it had to have come from a military primary radar. Or it might have been bogus information, but it has never been retracted afik.


Edit: After a bit of research I've come to the conclusion that the entire basis for the low speed assumptions for QZ8501 have been based on that radar plot which was released on day one of this event and had the numbers 363 which was taken to be the altitude and the number 353 which was taken to be the speed (IAS at FL 36.0).

That's not very solid evidence, that "radar plot" may have been composed for a news release quickly - it may have been mostly eye candy.

In modern systems the controller sees a 'track plot' that is made up from multiple surveillance inputs. Way back in the thread it was reported that secondary radar responses were lost first followed by ADS-B responses later. So the system was receiving both.

The speed displayed can be:
* Generated by the ATC system from the distance between successive track positions and the time. Most systems smooth this by taking the distance between for example the latest report and the one 5 reports ago. This is normal with SSR
* Replicated from the ground speed field of the ADS-B report
* Multi-Sensor Comparison with the speed from one source used but validated/corrected by the other source(s)

What will not happen is that the speed will be invented.

The problem with a snapshot is that you do not know the history of the ground speed displayed. Even if the previous update was 450 followed by 353 then that may not be a significant slow down, it may be an effect of going outside the bounds of the smoothing Kalman filter. What is needed is the raw SSR and ADS-B data received (and required to be retained for 28 days by ICAO). What you may be seeing is a replay of the time the incident involved using standard replay tools that are used for local investigations and training it may even be a replay of the data sent to the controller's display rather than reprocessing the input data.

I would not impugn the ATC by claiming they were producing made up 'eye candy'.

[phiggsbroadband]

Sea State and Pings at Tail Crash site.....


BBC News - AirAsia QZ8501: 'Pings' detected in plane search (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30738613)

[Triskel]

Mr Snuggles - thank you for posting link to hi-res pics. From the apparent concave folding of the skin, the pressure hull was probably intact on entering the water (otherwise the water pressure would equalise inside and out). The hull probably broke on contact with the sea floor or perhaps on the way down (if the water was stratified, on encountering layers of different density)?

[PT6Driver]

Triskel
[QUOTE]Mr Snuggles - thank you for posting link to hi-res pics. From the apparent concave folding of the skin, the pressure hull was probably intact on entering the water (otherwise the water pressure would equalise inside and out). The hull probably broke on contact with the sea floor or perhaps on the way down (if the water was stratified, on encountering layers of different density)?/QUOTE]

As we saw in the AF incident and other cases where an intact plane contacts the sea at high vertical speed, the water is about as friendly as concrete. This causes conciderable damage.
I would have thought the main damage would be done on impact with the sea surface and secondary damage as the wreckage was moved by the currents. I doubt there is sufficient depth for density layers to be a factor.
Even the Hudson ditching caused considerable damage with for example a support from the cargo hold being punched up into the cabin injuring a flight attendant.
I would however concur with you opinion that the aircraft wss relatively intact at impact.

[etudiant]

Relatively intact at impact is not the impression that these images transmit.
The tail structure is torn off and the various hull pieces are widely separated, in water shallower than the airplane was long. To me that suggests the airplane may have come apart even before it hit the water.

[susier]

How likely is it for the FDR to have detached from the airframe if the a/c reached the surface intact?

[Lonewolf_50]

How hard would it to be to have a basic AOA indicator installed in every commercial jet ? Then a basic training package to be included in every endorsement that trains to react in a situation when all hell brakes lose ? We discussed this at some length during the marathon AF 447 threads. Some professional pilots do not see it as the answer (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/503662-a320-oeb-blocked-aoa-probes-2.html#post8813256)... the link is to a discussion in PPRuNe Tech Log.

You clearly identified what has to go with an AoA gage in the cockpit: training. When and where it is an aid, and normally an additional scan item, is the key enabler to another instrument being of use in the odd occasions where it would be useful.

The paper linked in that post tells why IFALPA isn't so supportive of it as a solution.
Further that point, and as noted some posts ago: would it have been of use in this incident if the flight deck crew went into a fairly rapid task overload? FDR analysis will clarify, but a small wager is made at this point that the answer is no, not in this case.

[MrSnuggles]

Triskel:

Mr Snuggles - thank you for posting link to hi-res pics. From the apparent concave folding of the skin, the pressure hull was probably intact on entering the water (otherwise the water pressure would equalise inside and out). The hull probably broke on contact with the sea floor or perhaps on the way down (if the water was stratified, on encountering layers of different density)?

Did you look at the right on the highres, just above the hyphen? (It needs to be the picture with the A upside down.) To me it looks like something round hit the airplane - or I need to adjust my medication... *joke* Maybe, just maybe they hit hail of some kind...? Absolutely not explanation in and of itself but might give a hint, possibly?

[The Ancient Geek]

It was not an Air New Zealand captain or pilot in the seat for the Perpignan crash. He was a German pilot for the safety checks to return the plane to Air New Zealand. Very sad circumstance ... and nothing the crew could do to save themselves.

The crash was caused by pilot error - plain and simple.
The pilot was not a qualified test pilot.
Airbus specify that the AOA functional test MUST be carried out above 10000 ft AGL because if the test fails a lot of altitude will be lost in recovery.
He carried out the test at low level with predictable results.

[Machinbird]

Relatively intact at impact is not the impression that these images transmit.
The tail structure is torn off and the various hull pieces are widely separated, in water shallower than the airplane was long. To me that suggests the airplane may have come apart even before it hit the water. Gents, best pull in your horns. This aircraft impacted with significantly less velocity than did AF447. Granted that it is a smaller aircraft and thus a bit harder to tear up into little bits, but the degree of deformation and disassembly was much higher in AF447.

This aircraft hit with very low forward velocity, from all appearances. Perhaps a spin or flat spin. Kinetic Energy goes as the square of the velocity. A spinning aircraft should have lower kinetic energy than a deeply stalled one at terminal velocity.

[AirScotia]

This aircraft hit with very low forward velocity, from all appearances. Perhaps a spin or flat spin. Kinetic Energy goes as the square of the velocity. A spinning aircraft should have lower kinetic energy than a deeply stalled one at terminal velocity.

My physics is rusty, but isn't velocity a product of speed plus direction? A spinning aircraft may not have forward speed, but it does have plenty of changing direction, therefore plenty of velocity. So it will hit the ocean with plenty of energy, I assume?

[Ian W]

Relatively intact at impact is not the impression that these images transmit.
The tail structure is torn off and the various hull pieces are widely separated, in water shallower than the airplane was long. To me that suggests the airplane may have come apart even before it hit the water.

I would think that any breakup could have occurred on impact. The fuselage if the concertina effect is correct would have been crushed from beneath and the hold and passenger cabin filled with water and possibly with engines/wings detached could have sunk fairly rapidly but all the parts would be carried and rolled along by the 4 to 5 knot currents until they embedded sufficiently in the seabed mud in a position that the current no longer moved them that could take from minutes to hours. So parts being miles apart would not be at all surprising. If the entire tail empennage complete with pressure bulkhead was one of the pieces after hitting the sea surface it may well have floated in severe winds for hours or even a day or so. This would drift the tail in a totally different direction to the rest of the aircraft and it could easily be several miles in a random direction before eventually sinking.

Tracking the pieces using winds and currents is possible but all sorts of assumptions have to be made on how long each would float what the sea state, currents and winds were at the time how long to get stuck in the mud etc. The calculation would probably depend more on the assumptions than any data.

[Lonewolf_50]

Gents, best pull in your horns. This aircraft impacted with significantly less velocity than did AF447.
Do you arrive at that provisional conclusion based on the condition of the bits so far found, on the track info available, or both?
This aircraft hit with very low forward velocity, from all appearances. If true, then should not most of the major parts of the wreckage be near to each other?
EDIT: deleted. Ian W explained how it might come about that way.
A spinning aircraft should have lower kinetic energy than a deeply stalled one at terminal velocity.
Note: I will guess that Airbus did not do spin tests on the A320 family. Maybe computer modeling is sufficient to make an informed estimate of what it will do in such a condition. Absent that info (which some people may have seen, but I have not) how an A320 spins is a bit of a guess.
@thecrozier: I can't remember but was 447 in a spin most of the way down or just stalled with a fairly constant heading?The latter, except with slowly changing heading.

FWIW too close a comparisons to AF 447 seems to me premature.

[AirScotia]

@thcrozier

I can't remember but was 447 in a spin most of the way down or just stalled with a fairly constant heading?

I recall that it made a slow, smooth turn. No spinning.

[SAMPUBLIUS]

" susiser said ''How likely is it for the FDR to have detached from the airframe if the a/c reached the surface intact?


IF the aircraft was in a nose up- pitch up attitude when it hit the water, IMO the tail section AFT of the pressure bulkhead would hit first and likely to be torn off- thes has to do with the manufacturing joint/join in this area.

and the FDR/CVR might still be with the fusealege section, or totally separated from both. Add in wind and current and a logical area to look would be between the fuselage and tail debris locations.

I'm sure the experts and pros with details of the exact mounting have done a thourough search - but hampered by waves and weather. I have not yet heard of finding for sure the major fuselage section.

Just have to wait and see . . .:(

[poorjohn]

AirScotia: My physics is rusty, but isn't velocity a product of speed plus direction? A spinning aircraft may not have forward speed, but it does have plenty of changing direction, therefore plenty of velocity. So it will hit the ocean with plenty of energy, I assume?

Linear velocity has a speed and direction component, but they aren't involved in a product that says something about the energy of the system. That would be speed and mass.

Rotational velocity - the rate at which a body is spinning about an axis through its center of gravity - also needs a mass component and its distance from the spin axis to form "angular momentum", which would indicate how badly impacting a fixed object (e.g. the water surface) would damage the rotating body. The accident-investigation experts can pontificate re any signs that occurred here.

[Ian W]

AirScotia:

Linear velocity has a speed and direction component, but they aren't involved in a product that says something about the energy of the system. That would be speed and mass.

Rotational velocity - the rate at which a body is spinning about an axis through its center of gravity - also needs a mass component and its distance from the spin axis to form "angular momentum", which would indicate how badly impacting a fixed object (e.g. the water surface) would damage the rotating body. The accident-investigation experts can pontificate re any signs that occurred here.

I would suspect that a lot of the direction and loading of the impact is already known by the doctors doing the, albeit brief, autopsy checks on the bodies.

I am certain we will be told when it is thought best to tell us.

[Machinbird]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinbird http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553569-air-asia-indonesia-lost-contact-surabaya-singapore-82.html#post8817916)
Gents, best pull in your horns. This aircraft impacted with significantly less velocity than did AF447.

Do you arrive at that provisional conclusion based on the condition of the bits so far found, on the track info available, or both? Primarily from some of the relatively undamaged seat structure and by the lesser accordion action visible on the structure.

[Organfreak]

Ian W sayeth, I would suspect that a lot of the direction and loading of the impact is already known by the doctors doing the, albeit brief, autopsy checks on the bodies.

Not asking argumentatively, and notwithstanding TV shows such as "CIS," would these doctors have any qualifications for judging such things?

[mcloaked]

Just some physics facts about definitions. Terminal velocity is often loosely used to refer to the speed when the force of gravity balances the drag in the opposite direction in freefall. So strictly terminal velocity is a vector in the direction that gravity is pulling, where the magnitude of that vector is the terminal speed that gives a drag force equal numerically to the downward force due to mass of the object being considered.

If you want to consider energy then you can take the linear kinetic energy (mass times the square of the speed) as a major component, but if there is rotation then there is rotational kinetic energy equal to the moment of inertia of the system times the square of the magnitude of the angular velocity. Clearly the rotation of the entire airframe would contribute but also rotation of say, spinning turbines at high speed could also be a component. Rotation axes in different directions could lead to transfer of rotational energy between different modes. Apart from these contributions to total kinetic energy there is also some energy in vibration of massive components as well but likely to be numerically less significant. Of course there is stored energy in unburned fuel that can be released as well.

The various elements of kinetic as well as potential energy can then be dissipated into destructive rupture, distortion and other failure modes on impact (as well as a small amount to heat and sound). This is a physics perspective as a general consideration applying to any accident in the air.

[BG47]

A director from the Indonesian search-and rescue agency said readings detected on Friday suggest the black box may be outside the tail section of the plane. It comes as footage has emerged showing Indonesian military divers investigating the submerged tail of doomed AirAsia flight 8501, as search and rescue teams are hopeful that the black box from the plane's wreckage has been located. Having located the tail of the plane on Thursday, search teams began pressing ahead with their efforts to find the black box and retrieve bodies from the wreckage, and on Friday afternoon reported detecting 'pings' from the flight data recorder.

But Suyadi Bambang Supriyadi, director of operations of Indonesia's search-and-rescue agency, said pings detected about 1km southwest of the wreckage suggest the black box may be located elsewhere, reports Business Spectator. Inside the wreckage: Divers search for AirAsia black box. The underwater searches ended before dusk on Friday, after divers were unable to find the black box Lifting balloons were loaded onto helicopters in preparation of recovery efforts to lift the tail out of the Java Sea, despite worries that the black box may have been separated from the tail during the crash.

Navy ships USS Sampson and USS Fort Worth have deployed helicopters and sonar devices into the Java Sea to aid the recovery operation off the coast of the Indonesian island of Borneo. Only 43 bodies have been retrieved so far, as monsoon rains and winds have caused choppy sea conditions and blinding silt from river run-off, reducing visibility underwater and preventing the removal of large pieces of the wreckage. Many of the other passengers are believed to be inside the wreckage of the plane's main cabin, which has not been located, due to strong currents moving debris around. At two weeks, most corpses will sink, said Anton Castilani, head of Indonesia's disaster identification victim unit, and there are already signs of serious decomposition.

'Divers have reached the tail part but ... the visibility was below one metre so they only managed to retrieve various debris,' said Bambang Soelistyo, chief of Indonesia's search and rescue agency. 'Now we are waiting for the speed of the current to ease. If it gets calmer later, they will go back to do another dive to determine whether the black boxes remained in the tail or were detached,' Mr Soelistyo said on Thursday. Divers travelled by rubber boat from the KRI Banda Aceh warship that was being stationed close to the site of tail wreckage, which Mr Soelistyo said would be lifted off the seabed by retrieval experts on Friday if weather permitted.

Lieutenant. Edy Tirtayasa, commander of Indonesia's navy rescue team, told Channel News Asia they planned to send two contingents to the plane. 'We are going to send down one observation team to take photos. Then two teams will do the recovery process -- to recover bodies if there are any,' he said.
[/B'If not, they will recover the black box for investigation and then other debris from the aircraft, he said.

[B]Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs Indroyono Soesilo told reporters the black box would be analysed by experts in Indonesia when it was located.
It will provide essential information about the plane along with final conversations between the captain and co-pilot, despite the Indonesian meteorological agency indicating that weather was the 'triggering factor' of the crash, with ice likely damaging the engines of the Airbus A320-200. Five other big objects have been found on the floor of the ocean, though no visual confirmation has been obtained yet. Smaller pieces of the plane, such as seats and an emergency door, have been collected from the surface.

[etudiant]

Is there a reason the hours of darkness are not used to search for the pingers?
It should be less noisy than during daytime and the lack of visibility is not a concern.

[Hedge36]

Is there a reason the hours of darkness are not used to search for the pingers?
It should be less noisy than during daytime and the lack of visibility is not a concern.

For every guy in the water, there are several more topside who need decent visibility to properly support them.

[Chronus]

The pieces of the puzzle thus far are:

Convective wx.
Sudden loss of comms.
A number of bodies recovered, of which one of the first two was a flight attendant (possibly rear seat occupant)
Wide dispersed wreckage, of which empennage comprises a large section.
Short rapid climb preceeding loss of comms and ATC SSR/primary radar ident.

Displays hall marks of let`s get out of Dodge fast, in heavy clag and leaving the tail behind. The question is how do you make an A320 go ballistic.

[Lonewolf_50]

The question is how do you make an A320 go ballistic.On take off, JATO booster rockets might be of help. :E (Meant as a joke. A320 airworthiness cert probably does not include JATO takeoffs.)

On high, the FDR when found may provide a few clues if that was what happened.

[Smott999]

Do we have any indication of the actual duration of the steep climb?
3 seconds vs 30 for example, quite a different kettle of fish.

[etudiant]

For every guy in the water, there are several more topside who need decent visibility to properly support them.


Absolutely, so the divers and support people should all be getting rest.
I'm thinking of having some of the ships that drag acoustic arrays work at night, they should be able to triangulate the pingers pretty well, if they are still running.

[uffington sb]

I haven't read all this thread, but has anyone suggested a jet coming out of a CB's?

Red Sprites and Blue Jets (http://elf.gi.alaska.edu)

[etudiant]

Afaik, lightening of whatever type is not a significant threat to airplanes. The bolts travel through the outside of the metal body and the charge is leaked off through trailing wicks.


A terrorist device would be a much more likely explanation, imho.

[xcitation]

Toruk Macto How hard would it to be to have a basic AOA indicator installed in every commercial jet ? Then a basic training package to be included in every endorsement that trains to react in a situation when all hell brakes lose ? Consider it a last resort recall ? They seem to be taking care of passengers with new lounges , upgraded on board entertainment and meals , but in the end passengers may go without if they knew money went to a instrument that could make a difference ? Just a thought
Airbus has AOA protections so having a dedicated AOA instrument is deemed less important by some people. This is a much argued controversy.
The stall warning is the most basic AOA indicator which is carefully designed to help prioritize attention. This topic was argued in depth on the AF447 thread.

BEA Report extract:
In alternate or direct law, the normal law high angle of attack protection is lost but the stall warning is available. It consists of a “STALL, STALL” aural warning, followed by a characteristic cricket sound and the illumination of the Master Warning light. It is triggered by the FWC when the highest of the valid angle of attack values exceeds the threshold set for the flight conditions at that time. If the CAS measurements for the three ADR are lower than 60 kt, the angle of attack values of the three ADR are invalid and the stall warning is then inoperative. This results from a logic stating that the airflow must be sufficient to ensure a valid measurement by the angle of attack sensors, especially to prevent spurious warnings.

[Ian W]

Ian W sayeth,

Not asking argumentatively, and notwithstanding TV shows such as "CIS," would these doctors have any qualifications for judging such things?

warning not for the squeamish

They don't need "qualifications for judging such things". If the passengers recovered:
* show signs of drowning with water in the lungs etc. Then the impact was not sufficiently hard to kill the passengers.
* Show signs of explosive decompression with ruptured ear drums and associated signs of barotrauma it is possible the aircraft decompressed at high altitude
* have compression fractures and broken lower limbs etc. and no signs of drowning Then the impact was probably severe and the aircraft landed flat onto the surface of the water.
* have seatbelt bruising and associated inuries perhaps some with signs of submarining under the seatbelt, then the aircraft had significant forward velocity when it hit the surface.

etc etc. There are more but I don't think I should belabor the point.

Associate these simple observations with any deformation of the seats and airframe and you do not need a DFDR to show what the final seconds were.

[mcloaked]

A number of posts earlier in this discussion have mentioned that an angle of attack instrument would help the pilots make a better assessment of a possible stall condition. I noted with interest that in the AF447 final report that is readily available on the web, in section 4.2.2 it says, "Information on angle of attack is not directly accessible to pilots", and a couple of lines later, "it is essential in order to ensure flight safety to reduce the angle of attack when a stall is imminent. Only a direct readout of the angle of attack could enable crews to rapidly identify the aerodynamic situation of the aeroplane and take the actions that may be required". That seems a clear enough recommendation concerning the A330.

The A330 aircraft type involved in the AF447 accident did have, as standard, angle of attack sensors installed, but may have become blocked in the weather conditions prevailing at the time of that accident.

Does any A320 pilot here know if the situation is similar on the A320 i.e. that AoA sensors are installed, and the data available to the flight control system but not as a direct readout that the pilots have access to? Or was the fitting of AoA sensors not part of the design of the A320?

[Hedge36]

Absolutely, so the divers and support people should all be getting rest.
I'm thinking of having some of the ships that drag acoustic arrays work at night, they should be able to triangulate the pingers pretty well, if they are still running.

I'm sure that any ship operating in the area has their passive gear listening 24/7. Dragging the fish can be done in most weather conditions, sometimes it needs to come in for feeding and a nap. Depending on your gear it may be safer and more efficient to bring said fish aboard while daylight is on your side.

[AirScotia]

No divers were involved in the retrieval of AF447 and its black boxes. Can the same technology not be employed in the Java Sea?

[Organfreak]

A number of posts earlier in this discussion have mentioned that an angle of attack instrument would help the pilots make a better assessment of a possible stall condition. I noted with interest that in the AF447 final report that is readily available on the web, in section 4.2.2 it says, "Information on angle of attack is not directly accessible to pilots", and a couple of lines later, "it is essential in order to ensure flight safety to reduce the angle of attack when a stall is imminent. Only a direct readout of the angle of attack could enable crews to rapidly identify the aerodynamic situation of the aeroplane and take the actions that may be required". That seems a clear enough recommendation concerning the A330.

Having read the entire AF447 thread, if memory serves, AoA gauge was an option on the 330, one that AF didn't buy.

[Linktrained]

Organfreak


Perhaps the BEA was making the point that while the AOA is read and recorded on the aircrafts records... there is/was no display for a pilot to use in flight.
(AF did not fit the BUSS display. Apparently this becomes less useful above FL 25.0.)

[sopwithnz]

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/285810

very small photos, but a couple I have not seen on here thus far. Plus, local TV reporting says one body found strapped in recovered seat is from the cockpit ... so what wreckage have they found ?

and very clear new video:

http://www.kinitv.com/video/14462O8

[aterpster]

edut:

Afaik, lightening of whatever type is not a significant threat to airplanes. The bolts travel through the outside of the metal body and the charge is leaked off through trailing wicks.

TWA sold several of its 747s to the Shaw of Iran circa 1974.

One of them exploded on approach to Madrid. It was determined that it was lightening that hit the wingtip and went into one of fuel tanks through the tip vent.

After that TWA, and I presume other airlines, installed lightening suppressors in all those wing tip vents.

[Prada]

"No divers were involved in the retrieval of AF447 and its black boxes. Can the same technology not be employed in the Java Sea?"

Technically it is possible. But it is much cheaper and efficient to send down human divers. Especially in conditions like that, with strong currents and bad visibility. Relatively shallow depth with plenty of daylight available on the bottom makes it easier for divers.

[MsCaptain]

WSJ article with some updates: Bodies found in wreckage, impact injuries found, pathologist(s) requested analysis of lung contents, autopsies being done on foreigners.


AirAsia Flight 8501: Official Says Black Boxes May Not Be in Tail Section - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/airasia-flight-8501-black-boxes-may-not-be-in-tail-section-1420787692)
Excerpt:
Search teams on Friday also recovered the bodies (http://www.wsj.com/articles/airasia-flight-8501-crash-time-running-out-to-recover-floating-bodies-1420537099) of two victims still in their airplane seats from the tail section, bringing the total number of recovered bodies to 48. The two bodies were the only ones to be found so far in the wreckage.

Autopsies carried out on several victims from AirAsia Flight 8501 have revealed impact injuries such as broken legs, but no burns, early clues that may help investigators figure out what happened in the crash.

Air-safety experts said that means there likely wasn’t any fire or explosion that tore through the plane on its way down, and the jet probably hit the water at a shallow angle.

“It was most likely a flat impact,” according to Michael Barr, a senior accident-investigations instructor at the University of Southern California. Based on four decades of experience, Mr. Barr said, “the flatter the impact, the less trauma damage to the body.”

The impact of a vertical or near-vertical descent, according to Mr. Barr and other experts, probably would result in the plane breaking into smaller pieces than the wreckage suspected of being on the bottom. The broken legs of victims are more consistent with a scenario of a plane pancaking into the water, Mr. Barr said, which likely would have resulted in the fuselage or seat assemblies buckling or breaking apart. That, in turn, could transfer huge stresses to the limbs of passengers strapped in their seats.

Lung samples from the first few autopsies have been sent to an Indonesian laboratory for signs of seawater and plankton following a request from pathologists, said Budiyono, the commander of East Java’s disaster-victims identification service, who goes by only one name.

“If there’s sea water or plankton in their lungs, then we can say that they were still alive when the plane crashed into the sea,” he said.
Pathologists have been able to speed up their investigation after more bodies have been recovered during the past few days.

They are focusing on trying to conduct post mortems on foreigners who don’t have the same cultural sensitivities to the procedures as many Indonesians, Mr. Budiyono said. Indonesian authorities have decided to conduct autopsies on all foreigners recovered from the crash, unless families expressly reject the procedures.

[tdracer]

Several regulations were added in the 1970s and on regarding lightning protection (at least one in direct response to the 707 accident barit1 listed). In the 1980s, flight critical avionics were pretty new and novel (FBW and FADEC) - on the 747-400 the FAA issued a special condition for lightning (and HIRF) protection of the FADEC systems (later codified into FAR 25.1316). I presume the A320 had similar JAA requirements for the FADEC and FBW systems.


To the best of my knowledge, it's been several decades since a commercial jetliner has been lost due to lightning. While weather may well have been a factor in the loss of Air Asia, it's unlikely to be directly lightning related.

[mikecsboats]

I don't believe that lightning can be dismissed as a possible factor in this accident. As a glider pilot, I am well aware of the inherent danger of flying into or near thunderstorms, and the following report from the AAIB on the loss of a glider is of interest, particularly, as recommendations are made in the final paragraph regarding the degree of lightning strike protection in commercial aircraft.
See http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_500699.pdf

[Plumb Bob]

sopwithnz posted a link of a remarkable short video today (Saturday Jan. 10) 00:48 GMT in (permalink) http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/553569-air-asia-indonesia-lost-contact-surabaya-singapore-83.html#post8818649.

The Youtube link for that short but remarkable video is http://youtu.be/-ATg1APGVYM .
What you see is divers entering the opening of the RH aft full-size door (normally used as a service door). This part of the structure appears to be laying more or less on its left side.
Clues (at t = 6s) for which door opening it is are the rain gutter above the aft top corner of the door cut-out, as well as the dark external paint on which the last letter of the large “AirAsia” fin and tailcone decoration can just be seen.
At t = 27 s the camera is panning around the door post (or possibly the open door) with what seems to be the typical handgrip that you grab to not lose your footing when handling the door (which rests parallel to the fuselage in the open position).

What this area may look like on an A320 in maintenance:
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/26/3506/1024/7D2D6993-01.jpg looking across and aft, galley removed
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/26/3506/1024/7D2D6832-01.jpg looking aft, galley installed.

[mcloaked]

There have been a number of speculations about breakup of the fuselage at the point of impact with the sea surface, or whether the aircraft would have remained largely intact if it had not broken up prior to hitting the sea. It is possible to do some ball park calculations that help understand the impact conditions. If the aircraft was descending at 5000 feet per minute, and impacted the sea in a near level attitude, and if the floor area containing the seat mountings in the fuselage area came to a halt uniformly in a distance of 2.5 metres vertically then one can work out the deceleration. Using very basic mechanics the deceleration is the square of the speed divided by twice the deceleration distance. Converting the initial vertical speed to metres per second gives 25m/s, and this leads to a deceleration of a little over 12G. It is quite possible that the deceleration happened in rather less than 2.5 metres and if it was 1 metre this gives deceleration loads of 30G. That is unlikely to be survivable. In addition this implies that the forces on component parts during impact are over ten times the normal forces under 1G loading. Hence deformation and failure of any parts of the structure are highly likely.

Given this kind of consideration it is not surprising that the most likely outcome is to find separated sections of the aircraft. The analysis of the debris field would of course need to include some estimates of the effect of sea currents both during the descent from the surface as well as post accident strong currents in the area. It is positive news today that the tail section has now been lifted from the sea onto a ship.

[henra]

The Youtube link for that short but remarkable video is http://youtu.be/-ATg1APGVYM .


Interesting Video!
It almost looks as if the entire lower and left half of the fuselage are missing/open, whereas the right side looks rather intact and the intact/remaining on the upper/right half part appears to stretch pretty far forward.
Somewhat weird wreckage pattern. The apparent missing of the lower half (if I saw it correctly) really strikes me as strange in a pancake type of arrival.

[Ian W]

So now we are back in the 'can-we-find-the-ULB-before-the-cheap-batteries-run-down' game again. All this extra work being proposed for streaming DFDR data is because the existing DFDRs are poorly designed their location systems are only useful in an inland lake or river (and perhaps not even then).

In the 'old days' before solid state memory there were all sorts of survivability issues; but with fast solid state memory with significant capacity this is not a problem. The real problem is the use of batteries that just do not have the power driving ULBs that are unsuitable for crashes in the ocean. Obviously, the beancounters at airlines are not interested, but it is time for an international mandate to have ULBs that actually work.

I would suggest that the ULBs requirements are:
Detection Range At least 25 nautical miles in open ocean
Battery Life At least 6 months, possibly by reducing number of pulses and using smart transponder that does not go into regular short location signals until it receives a search request sonar signal
Encoded Location Signals The signals from the ULBs should be encoded with airframe ID, their position (last GPS position of the aircraft) and their depth in the water.

These requirements appear to be asking too much and all that is being offered is a slightly longer life battery.

[daikilo]

Comparing the photo of the fin/rudder and the video taken in the rear door area suggests that at least 2 large sections have been found. Concerning the video, it does rather look as if part of the lower shell may be missing in the area under the main cabin, although the diver could be standing on it, the cabin floor being absent. Interesting to note that the overhead bins stop just ahead of a large hole in the skin, which appears not to be the door. Isn't that where a lavatory would normally be?

[NigelOnDraft]

I would suggest that the ULBs requirements are:
Detection Range At least 25 nautical miles in open ocean
Battery Life At least 6 months, possibly by reducing number of pulses and using smart transponder that does not go into regular short location signals until it receives a search request sonar signal
Encoded Location Signals The signals from the ULBs should be encoded with airframe ID, their position (last GPS position of the aircraft) and their depth in the water.Current Range seems ~2.5NM, 30days.

So you asking for something that lasts 6times as long (maybe a bit less due being "smart"), and is 1000x as powerful? So needing say battery capacity 2000x current kit?

That is a "major" change, and bearing in mind the 'g' / depth / other strict requirements I suspect unrealistic. NB just stuffing big batteries into autonomous kit is hardly flavour of the month right now (787 LHR fire).

Bear in mind these things do not directly save any lives, and assuming they find the Air Asia DFDR / CVR soon, just save some search effort.

[Blake777]

Henra

FWIW: Add to the musings a report yesterday or the day before that authorities believed then that the aircraft entered the water in a left hand roll, based on what they had inspected at that point.

Also a report a couple of days back that bodies found to that point represented passengers seated in various different parts of the cabin.

[BJ-ENG]

Slightly bigger photo on this site plus a bit more info.


AirAsia Flight 8501: Tail Recovered - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/airasia-flight-8501-tail-recovered-1420878809)


The compression damage just forward of the tail section suggests an initial impact on the port side.


With regard to injury damage correlated to G, the US Navy aircraft accident manual gives the following:

Injury sustained Deceleration
Nose - fracture 30G
Vertebral body - compression 20-30G
Fracture dislocation of C1 on C2 20-40G
Mandible - fracture 40G
Maxilla - fracture 50G
Aorta - intimal tear 50G
Aorta – transection 80-100G
Pelvis – fracture 100-200G
Vertebral body – transection 200-300G
Total body fragmentation >350G

[Boomtown]

Bear in mind these things do not directly save any lives, and assuming they find the Air Asia DFDR / CVR soon, just save some search effort.


Salvage operations are expensive of course. The AF447 recovery cost around $42 million. More than $100 million has already been spent searching for MH370, making it the most expensive on record.

Source: How crashed planes like AirAsia flight QZ8501 are salvaged | News.com.au (http://mobile.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/how-crashed-planes-like-airasia-flight-qz8501-are-salvaged/story-fnizu68q-1227170958546)

[Ian W]

Current Range seems ~2.5NM, 30days.

So you asking for something that lasts 6times as long (maybe a bit less due being "smart"), and is 1000x as powerful? So needing say battery capacity 2000x current kit?

That is a "major" change, and bearing in mind the 'g' / depth / other strict requirements I suspect unrealistic. NB just stuffing big batteries into autonomous kit is hardly flavour of the month right now (787 LHR fire).

Bear in mind these things do not directly save any lives, and assuming they find the Air Asia DFDR / CVR soon, just save some search effort.


Not necessarily a 1000 times more powerful - choice of a different frequency could easily increase the range. Apparently the frequency was chosen as it was not a 'natural' frequency. Encoding would provide the same 'not natural' effect so the frequency could be one that has longer range in water.

The rate of transmission could be as low as once every 3 minutes instead of (I believe) around once every half second.

BEA also put forward a request for this type of improvement (from the BEA report on search operations for AFR 447 http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/sea.search.ops.af447.05.11.2012.en.pdf ):

B.3.1 Enhanced battery life
The use of ULB beacons with 90 days(14) autonomy would have made it possible to
extend the search for the ULB beacons in this vast area. The BEA recommended that
EASA and ICAO extend the regulatory transmission time of ULBs (from 30 to 90 days)
B.3.2 Additional ULB
Using beacons capable of transmitting on lower frequencies (for example between
8.5 kHz and 9.5 kHz) would have facilitated the detection of the wreckage. Indeed,
military resources, typically deployed in the early days to take part in SAR operations,
are equipped with sonar suited to the detection of low frequency signals, and
in addition the use of lower frequencies increases the detection distance. The
BEA has recommended that EASA and ICAO make it mandatory for aeroplanes
performing public transport flights over maritime areas to be equipped with a lowfrequency
beacon.

[Radix]

Tail section being raised.

How can they ever say they 'hope' to find the black boxes in the tail. Of course they're not in the tail. They would've detected the pings if they were.

[Blake777]

On the pings from Channel News Asia:

FRUSTRATING TWIST

But the search took a frustrating twist when authorities realised the pings were likely coming from elsewhere than the tail, and the boxes appeared to be buried deep into the sea floor.

"Last night, our divers had opened the door of the tail cabin, searched around but found nothing," Supriyadi told AFP on Friday morning. "But the boat above detected faint ping sounds believed to be from the black boxes about one mile (1.6km ) southeast of the tail ... and covered in mud."

Supriyadi said the divers, from an elite Marines unit, returned on Saturday morning to the area believed to be where the pings were emanating from.

"They are searching within a radius of 500m from where the pings are emitted. The challenge is that these sounds are very faint. If a ship passes by, the sounds will be drowned out. So we really need calm waters," he said. "So far, our divers still have not been able to determine the coordinates of the black box."

[Smott999]

Does it appear we have VS and a bit of upper fuselage?
No HSs/tail cone and so on?

[daikilo]

As far as I can make out, the DFDR and CVR should be in the section in the video on YouTube and roughly where the divers feet are, which is not good news.

[Oryx77]

Here are some bigger Pictures of the Tail Section for You all to watch.
Note that all the Lower Part of the Airframe is missing:

http://abload.de/thumb/1628x1471vau1y.jpg (http://abload.de/image.php?img=1628x1471vau1y.jpg)

http://abload.de/thumb/2628x24716juog.jpg (http://abload.de/image.php?img=2628x24716juog.jpg)

http://abload.de/thumb/2628x2471219u9b.jpg (http://abload.de/image.php?img=2628x2471219u9b.jpg)

[aterpster]

IAN W:

Obviously, the beancounters at airlines are not interested

The bean counters have never been interested in such things.

[Sikpilot]

So now we are back in the 'can-we-find-the-ULB-before-the-cheap-batteries-run-down' game again. All this extra work being proposed for streaming DFDR data is because the existing DFDRs are poorly designed their location systems are only useful in an inland lake or river (and perhaps not even then).

In the 'old days' before solid state memory there were all sorts of survivability issues; but with fast solid state memory with significant capacity this is not a problem. The real problem is the use of batteries that just do not have the power driving ULBs that are unsuitable for crashes in the ocean. Obviously, the beancounters at airlines are not interested, but it is time for an international mandate to have ULBs that actually work.

I would suggest that the ULBs requirements are:
Detection Range At least 25 nautical miles in open ocean
Battery Life At least 6 months, possibly by reducing number of pulses and using smart transponder that does not go into regular short location signals until it receives a search request sonar signal
Encoded Location Signals The signals from the ULBs should be encoded with airframe ID, their position (last GPS position of the aircraft) and their depth in the water.

These requirements appear to be asking too much and all that is being offered is a slightly longer life battery.


The technology already exists and is being used. My cousin said he routinely sends devices 6000 meters down in oceans and they will answer him back only after he transmits to them. The batteries last over a year.

[snowfalcon2]

Here is a video of the recovered tail section, presumably taken from the same helicopter as the photo in BJ-ENG's post. Good view at the 20-30 secs position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG8iUQKVtAc&feature=youtu.be

The size of the fuselage wall section is remarkably large (several windows) suggesting that the CVR and FDR were originally in that part of the plane. But it has broken up pretty badly IMHO from the point of view of finding the recorders.

PS: I think the fuselage has split along the bottom, and in the picture it is lying upside down on the ship's deck.

[Livesinafield]

Be really interested to see close up the leading edge of the vertical stab

[_Phoenix]

But the boat above detected faint ping sounds believed to be from the black boxes about one mile (1.6km ) southeast of the tail ... and covered in mud.

DFDR weighs about 20 lb. It would sink faster than tail and it should not be pushed by the current .
I think it could be in the opposite of where the tail was found ie northwest

[Capn Bloggs]

Bear in mind these things do not directly save any lives, and assuming they find the Air Asia DFDR / CVR soon, just save some search effort.
That is one of the more ridiculous statements I have read on this thread but typical of a naysayer. Here we are, almost half way through the ping life, and there is no clue where these things are. They didn't even find some of the big bits until a couple of days ago. This jet pranged in a populous part of the world in 100ft of water, but because of the archaic gear on board (as with every other modern aircraft), the event is still a mystery. This is beyond a joke.

[peekay4]

I would suggest that the ULBs requirements are:
...
Collectively the industry has been working for years to revise the ULB standard.

It's not as "easy" as just switching the frequency as there are many tradeoffs involved (power vs. range vs. frequency vs. rate of transmission vs. size vs. weight vs. cost vs. crash survivability, etc.)

SAE did a ton of analysis and in 2012 produced a new LF-ULB standard (AS6254), specifying 8.8 kHz for 30 days, with an assumed detection range of 5.8nm in normal conditions.

This standard has already been incorporated into FAA TSO C200, and accepted by ICAO in 2012 (Annex 6 Amendment 36) which mandates LF-ULB on all aircraft with MTOW > 27,000 kg starting from January, 2018.

ICAO mandate aside, in practice we will basically have two types of ULBs:

- Standard frequency 37.5 kHz ULB capable of operations for 90-days

- Low-frequency 8.8 kHz ULB capable of operations for 30-days

For shallow water recovery not far from shore (like this AirAsia crash), LF-ULB doesn't matter as much and 37.5 kHz will continue to be used for many years.

For deep sea recovery, aside from MH370 consider that in the past 20 years there have only been 6 airline accidents with wreckage submerged in 1000m depth or deeper. Of those, 100% of the FDRs and CVRs were successfully recovered using existing technology.

The FAA and EASA will likely require LF-ULB only for transoceanic flights (> 180nm from shore) starting in 2018 or 2019.

[Ian W]

But it was not 'the industry' that paid those extended recovery costs. 'The industry' was getting a free ride on the taxpayers of the location of the crash. In the same way that MH370 searches are being largely funded by Australian taxpayers.

Perhaps if 'the industry' or rather the airline and the manufacturer were billed for the costs of the recovery process, we would see a significant jump in the eagerness to get DFDR/CVR that could be rapidly recovered, as the cost to the Airline would be unsupportable. Attempts to insure against these recovery costs would result in the insurers demanding a better DFDR/CVR location system - or no insurance.

[A0283]

plumbrob, henra, smott999 - tail recovery

First impression is that we see part of the aft top fuselage panels down to the underside of the left and right exit doors. With 5 windows on each side. And 6 frames clearly identifiable, and upto 5 stringers under the windows. I have not seen floorbeams yet.
All lying upside down on the weather deck of the Crest Onyx of course.

The vertical tail looks suprisingly good. But a small part of the lower part of the rudder is torn away. Speculation - that might have happened when the tail with THS and APU were torn away.

On one of the recent pictures is a part that looks like the front end of the fuselage to wing fairing. Which looked pretty good. No information if it was recovered floating or underwater. First impression is floated.

[peekay4]

But it was not 'the industry' that paid those extended recovery costs. 'The industry' was getting a free ride on the taxpayers of the location of the crash. In the same way that MH370 searches are being largely funded by Australian taxpayers.
And you would be wrong on both counts.

While governments initially fund searches, in many cases (such as MH370) extended operating costs will be charged back to the airlines, which in turn pay the charges from their insurance policy.

In the case of MH370, Malaysia Airlines has a $2.25 billion per crash liability policy with no caps for Search and Rescue. The Australian government has already reached out to Malaysia to seek reimbursement from this insurance fund (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/business/air-insurers-worry-after-malaysia-airlines-latest-crash.html?_r=0).

In the case of AF447, Air France and Airbus directly funded the search for the blackboxes. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/world/europe/31plane.html?_r=1)

More relevant to this case (in Indonesia), Adam Air directly paid for the search and recovery the Adam Air 574 black boxes (http://news.aviation-safety.net/2007/05/26/adam-air-nears-black-box-salvage-deal/).

No doubt similarly AirAsia (and their insurer) must absorb / reimburse a large portion of the SAR costs.

For more "routine" recovery operations, governments typically do not charge back the airlines, but that's because the airlines and flying public already pay billions in taxes each and every year for routine government services (which include SAR).

[Machinbird]

But it was not 'the industry' that paid those extended recovery costs. 'The industry' was getting a free ride on the taxpayers of the location of the crash. In the same way that MH370 searches are being largely funded by Australian taxpayers.

Perhaps if 'the industry' or rather the airline and the manufacturer were billed for the costs of the recovery process, we would see a significant jump in the eagerness to get DFDR/CVR that could be rapidly recovered, as the cost to the Airline would be unsupportable. Attempts to insure against these recovery costs would result in the insurers demanding a better DFDR/CVR location system - or no insurance. An excellent summation of the problem Ian. Of course, the present arangement has evolved from International treaties that should probably be re-examined in light of present technology.

Hmmmm....Peekay4 refutes Ian's assertion, with the qualifier, in many cases the operating costs will be charged back to the airlines,
I suppose when the price gets to be real money, the chargebacks occur. What happens when the uncapped Search and Rescue costs bankrupt the insurer? Do the bankruptcies flow down the chain of re-insurance?


As an interim measure, why don't we instead clone some of this dfdr/cvr data and store it in additional locations on the aircraft in hardened memory modules. Locations like the wing tips and vertical stabilizer tips would be good choices. If imbeded into lightweight cushioning/floatable material, possibly also equiped with a water activated ELT & pinger, we have upped our chances for swiftly locating crash scenes and recovering the data. Design the component to have a high probability of being released under crash loads and the problem will be significantly mitigated, without having to re-negotiate the international agreements.

Meanwhile, lets hope the pingers are still bolted onto the black boxes. It would be very discouraging to recover a solitary pinger with no reward.

[Leightman 957]

Fewer comments since tail raising on shape of debris than on search methods and batteries. More than anything the tail section looks like a paper bag popped open except for the fuselage face that impacted the surface which fragmented. Pics/vids in situ showed the section retaining some shape which has largely been lost in raising and under gravity out of the water. If other fueselage sections split similarly the large skin sections would have acted like sails in the current while sinking. I've looked at a lot of accident debris (though many fewer with water impact) and such large contiguous skin sections of 8501 laid open seem rare. Question whether the next section forward is found to be similar. Whether a flat belly flop, or a nose-first air compression of aft fueselage, or any other impact attitude still very unclear.

BJ-ENG's post on G's vs human body damage applied to public pics so far suggest lower end of G scale.

[A0283]

Cannot remember ever seeing damage like this. Perhaps someone has an example.

More common to see a separated "complete tail-section", or separated "vertical tail plus rudder".

Pure speculation. To imagine getting something like this, using an aircraft model, you would grab the "front fuselage and wing" with your left hand and hold it tight. Then with the other hand grab the horizontal stabilizer and rotate it till "it" breaks off.
This would also give an idea about why, more forward, the top fuselage panel was torn from the stiffer lower section. The remaining top part then rotates with the heavy tail down and the panels flatten when hitting the water. The remaing top part has more 'lift' than the lower section. So could move further.
Wonder where that lower section is. The why and how of this scenario ... has to wait for far more data and photos.

As far as I know the span of the horizontal stabilizer is 12.45 m and the distance from the top of the fuselage to the top of the vertical tail is about 5.87 m. If someone wants to make a 'torsion' calculation.

[Radix]

The technology already exists and is being used. My cousin said he routinely sends devices 6000 meters down in oceans and they will answer him back only after he transmits to them. The batteries last over a year.
That's all great and well if you know where to look. It also adds the requirement for equipment on board of a ship/land that can transmit a (powerful) pulse on yet another frequency, rather than just listening with any device.

What we really need is longer lasting batteries AND a stronger pulse. The arbitrary spec requirement from the past has well and truly been proven inadequate. Fix it!

[HarryMann]

http://www.pprune.org/members/440631-a0283
AO283


I think you are confused...

Spittfire tails did not come off. Perhaps you mean Hawker Typhoon
or Tempest? (which did lose tails during development).

the Spitfire in all it's guises over a 10 year development period
was considered incredibly strong and it had to be, having the highest
Critical Mach No of any piston/prop powered fighter, demonstrated repeatedly
post war from altitudes as high as 50,000.

[phiggsbroadband]

From the picture of the tail section, it is obvious that the heavy APU was torn out of its position. Maybe it caused the nibble to the lower part of the rudder.
Are the black boxes bolted to the pressure hull, forward of the unpressurised tail section?

[Smott999]

The exit door frame appears almost completely doubled over. Wonder about the forces needed.

[Leightman 957]

No one has mentioned it yet, but it appears that the various in situ photos included both left and right side registration numbers. Comparison of all in situ regis# photos to date suggest there are differences between letters re bends/folds. The raising of the tail section also shows that many clues as to shape and event sequence observable underwater will be lost when raised, with the raised debris having been further deformed and then flattened during recovery into more of an origami puzzle.

[SAMPUBLIUS]

CVR and FDR were originally in that part of the plane

Normally they are AFT of the pressure bulkhead. I have yet to see a photo of the bulkhead or fragments. It seems to be pobable that the location of the CVRFDR is/was on the bottom aft of the bulkhead and was torn off at the same time. Which does raise a question as to why near the bottom which hits first normally instead of near top of bulkhead ?

[NSEU]

I'm surprised that the CVR/DFDR is exposed to the elements outside the pressure bulkhead like that (temperate extremes, hydraulic fluid, moisture, etc). Of course, I'm talking about the electronics external to the fireproof section.

Is this common for Airbus?

[ventus45]

The water is reportedly only about 100 feet / 30 metres deep.
The currents are reportedly only up to about 6 knots.

If one assumed that the aircraft pancaked, or even broke up attempting to ditch, you would expect that the remainder of the aircraft, particularly all the concentrated mass components, ie, the dense and heavy bits, like engines, apu, mlgs, nlg, and if they separated from their mounting trays, the cvr, fdr etc, and the other larger major components like ths, outboard wing panels, and centre section, would be, indeed must be, immediately proximate, regardless of currents.
So far, that does not seem to be the case.

There is no evidence, at this stage, of any other major component wreckage, anywhere, let alone anywhere near the location of the tail.

It has been reported that a suspected pinger is over a mile away.

The reported condition of the recovered bodys (at this stage less than one third) suggests relatively low "g" conditions.

The leaked mode "s" data showed high rod at much below cruise level.

Taken together therefore, these observations suggest strongly to me, the high probability of an in flight breakup, not a whole aircraft experiencing surface induced structural disruption.

My viewing of the recovered upper empenage and fin, and lower rudder, suggests to me, that the ths, and it's mounting structure (including apu mounting structure and apu) most likely separated from the upper empenage by downward bending with pitch down torsion.
If that is the case, it would have taken tremendous downward ths loading of the support structure to do that, which suggests to me, probable breakup during pull-up, attempting recovery from a significantly pitch down attitude, at high speed (high dynamic pressure), probably at a relatively low altitude, ie, between FL200 - FL100.

Under such conditions, if the ths separated first, with the aircraft otherwise still "whole at that instant", the remainder of the aircraft would immediately, and violently, "tumble in the pitch down direction", with high angular velocity. The weakened empenage would "immediately" tear off, and the remaining fuselage aft of the wing, and the fuselage forward of the wing, would then both rapidly separate from the wingbox, probably before the pitch axis had even passed through the vertical. In the same timeframe, the pylons would fail, the engines would separate, and the outboard wing sections would fail in downward bending and torsion overload, and separate, probably at or just outboard of the pylons.

The schredded wreckage would then descend.

If that be the case, the greater the altitude of the breakup, the greater the dimensions of the resulting debris field.

The foreward section of the fuselage, and the remaing aft section of the fuselage, may have remained relatively intact, and may still contain most of the occupants.

[rondun]

If you've seen a video of the tail section being pulled onto the ship, I doubt there's very little you can deduce from any photos of the retrieved wreckage

[AirScotia]

Can anyone hazard a guess as to what would happen if a small explosive went off in the rear toilet?

[lomapaseo]

But it was not 'the industry' that paid those extended recovery costs. 'The industry' was getting a free ride on the taxpayers of the location of the crash. In the same way that MH370 searches are being largely funded by Australian taxpayers.

Perhaps if 'the industry' or rather the airline and the manufacturer were billed for the costs of the recovery process, we would see a significant jump in the eagerness to get DFDR/CVR that could be rapidly recovered, as the cost to the Airline would be unsupportable. Attempts to insure against these recovery costs would result in the insurers demanding a better DFDR/CVR location system - or no insurance.


Just who decides the level of recovery and investigation and for what reason?

The answer is the public decides, that's why the funding should come from the pubic sector.

If it was the industry alone, their needs only need to satisfy the regulator along the lines of continued airworthiness of their part of the product, be it design/manufacture, operation or maintenence.

The major barrier has always been the inability or unwillingness of the public to pay for questions to be answered. If it was left to some portions of the public, nothing would be done and only speculation would result.

It's really neither black nor white, but only a gentlemens handshake in the end as to who pays.

[_Phoenix]

It looks like a belly flop. The horizontal stabilizer hit the sea surface, then under the impact force the tail is torn apart like a banana peeling.
See in imagine below: half of the pressure bulkhead is compressed, the accordion skin aft of LHS door, buckled structure at the bottom of leading edge of the vertical stabilizer
http://abload.de/image.php?img=2628x2471219u9b.jpg

[bille1319]

I would suggest that the ULBs requirements are:
Detection Range At least 25 nautical miles in open ocean
Battery Life At least 6 months, possibly by reducing number of pulses and using smart transponder that does not go into regular short location signals until it receives a search request sonar signal
Encoded Location Signals The signals from the ULBs should be encoded with airframe ID, their position (last GPS position of the aircraft) and their depth in the water.

These requirements appear to be asking too much and all that is being offered is a slightly longer life battery.:oh:

Well then you will need a unit that's about 4 times as large to give more power output and longivity. But 25NM range: dream on unless you're talking of equipment capable of transmitting to submarines which is massive i.e Rugby.

[ventus45]

http://www.mediafire.com/view/grguqyb67g0gj4g/Pressure-Bulkhead.pnghttp://www.mediafire.com/view/grguqyb67g0gj4g/Pressure-Bulkhead.png

[Leightman 957]

RE Phoenix pic...thanks for the higher res. Previous searcher comments were of impact as left wing low. But pic shows greatest impact force to left of center (looking aft) on the bulkhead meaning right wing low. Large impact on tail bottom (and probably fwd of that as well) with the bulkhead shearing bottom skin in tension seems suggested. Still nothing that clearly disallows pre-impact airframe failure.

[SAMPUBLIUS]

10th Jan 2015, 14:43 #1704 (permalink)
ventus45

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 22
http://www.mediafire.com/view/grguqy...e-Bulkhead.png

That photo is excellent. Note the little white rectangular strips, tabs around the periphery - which when taken with the major ' folds" and the ' grey" color looks to me more like insulation blanket(s) on the aft side of the aft bulkhead rather than bent aluminum. ON the outer ' rim" of the " [ bulkhead or blanket] " I also note the impression of rivet heads or buttons. This also leads me to infer what is seen is a blanket- since with that amount of deformation, rivets would be sheared or torn from the surrounding formed or extruded " ring " structure. [ e.g a circular "stringer" ]

In either case, it does look like a major downword force on the empenage/tail bending the whole mess upwords **perhaps* due to a nose high position at impact. :confused:

[AirScotia]

@ventus45

Thanks for the excellent photo. If we're looking at the aft side of the pressure bulkhead, are we also looking at the place where the FDR/CVR should be mounted? Or is the mounting on the bottom section which seems to be missing?

http://www.mediafire.com/view/grguqyb67g0gj4g/Pressure-Bulkhead.png

[onetrack]

Machinbird's suggestions have merit. There are already inflatable slides in aircraft. Perhaps toughening the material in them, and adding the supplementary recording/pinger devices to them, and ensuring they break free and inflate upon impact, could be one way of adding further location-finding assistance?

[Ranger One]

The water is reportedly only about 100 feet / 30 metres deep.
The currents are reportedly only up to about 6 knots.

Not a scuba diver I guess?

100ft isn't significantly deep, but 'only' 6 knots? That's a *ripping* current.

[Lazerdog]

Some good perspective in this news story video.

BBC News - AirAsia QZ8501: Plane tail is lifted from the sea bed (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30761981)

[JSmithDTV]

@NSEU

I'm surprised that the CVR/DFDR is exposed to the elements outside the pressure bulkhead like that (temperate extremes, hydraulic fluid, moisture, etc). Of course, I'm talking about the electronics external to the fireproof section.

Is this common for Airbus?

They are completely sealed units designed for massive G load, water, fire etc.

It is normal for these to be located here in many Airbus and Boeing planes;

http://asasi.org/papers/2007/The_Evolution_of_Flight_Data_Analysis_Neil_Campbell.pdf

[glendalegoon]

I am amazed at how many great ideas are coming out of people who know nothing about planes.

They insist things should be different, yet they don't cough up the money, or actually design stuff. They don't make prioritization decisions like...spend billion dollars on new gadgets when it might be better to spend money on avoiding the situation in the first place.

Most planes are pretty good. Stuff happens. IF you want to prevent all accidents are you prepared to pay 4 times current ticket prices to get even half a percent safer travel?

[Teddy Robinson]

this used to be a forum for considered analysis of known facts from an industry perspective, all awaiting official data.
This changed and we have to read through hundreds of posts from ms flight-sim users and press trolls to read any relevant posts.
We signed on to prune to escape redtop mentality, yet here we have knee jerk after knee-jerk filling the pages.

Yes you can track an object to the fri**ing moon and back but it will not provide the answers which are, quite probably :

1) handing the management of flight ops to the accounts department on a plate
2) treating recruitment as a revenue source) see point 1)
3) denuding simulator sessions to the bare minimum required to stay legal, again see point 1

These apply even more so in developing aviation environments around the ITCZ. Companies for example drafting in pilots from temperate climes without a sim check / OPC, and minimal line training.

None of these apply to the airline in question here unless proven otherwise, however, flight sim users and hacks take note

[WingNut60]

Not pertinent at all to the incident cause, but does anyone know who has the other 51% of Indonesia Air Asia?

Yes, I know the early history of the company and "possible" owners but current ownership seems to be very difficult to confirm.
This in itself suggests sensitivity over majority ownership which further suggests some VERY high flyer(s) who wish to remain out of the limelight when, in fact, they should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Tony Fernandez.

[onetrack]

Glendalegoon, the best approach is a two-pronged attack. Yes, try to ensure the situation can't happen in the first place - but also try to ensure the wreckage can be found promptly, and with adequate surviving flight records to enable accurate findings, as to the cause of the crash.
We are faced with ever-bigger mysteries in many recent air crashes, and it's obvious the FDR and pinger areas need to be uprated and improved.

It doesn't take billions, it doesn't need entirely new "back-to-basics" gadgets - all it takes is some clever thinking to modify current systems.
I've no doubt the naysayers were out in their tens of thousands as well, when FDR's were first proposed.
"They'll never be able to get them to survive a crash! They'll cost more than the aircraft! They won't provide any worthwhile information! They'll never be able to find them!"

The same thing applied to airbags in motor vehicles when they were first mooted. They were laughed off scornfully as "fantasyland stuff" - yet some dedicated designers persisted, and I'll wager you now purchase your new vehicle based on its crash safety ratings, and the amount of airbag protection it features.

[Capn Bloggs]

Most planes are pretty good. Stuff happens. IF you want to prevent all accidents are you prepared to pay 4 times current ticket prices to get even half a percent safer travel?
Oh come on. Say that to the thousands of relatives of those killed recently. AF447 and virtually every other recent prang has been caused by Loss of Control. If you're quite happy for this to continue, good for you. I suspect that most of the travelling public wouldn't be but they accept it because of total ignorance. Chuck a extra couple of dollars onto every ticket to pay for more Sim training. Nobody could care less about the increased cost. Will air travel be decimated? Of course not.

Teddy is partially right: "1) handing the management of flight ops to the accounts department on a plate" but that is a natural consequence of regulators that are obviously happy to accept the status-quo.

[ana1936]

Very recent new tweet reporting on possible "detection" of black box.

From Jackson Board
"International Reporter & Producer @ChannelNewsAsia's digital newsroom."

"Jackson Board ‏@JackBoard 16m16 minutes ago
Unconfirmed reports specialist search team BPPT has detected #QZ8501 black box at depth of 30 metres, could be lifted today"

https://twitter.com/JackBoard/status/554103967450275840

[p.j.m]

"Jackson Board ‏@JackBoard 16m16 minutes ago
Unconfirmed reports specialist search team BPPT has detected #QZ8501 black box at depth of 30 metres, could be lifted today"[/URL]

[URL]http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/black-boxes-detected-from-crashed-flight/story-e6frfkui-1227181176546 (https://twitter.com/JackBoard/status/554103967450275840)

"THREE ships equipped with ping detector beacons received pings from the same location," said Ridwan Djamaluddin, from the Agency for the Application of Technology, whose ship was involved in the search on Sunday.
He said the ping came from a location about one to four kilometres from where the aircraft's broken tail section was retrieved on Saturday.

[Organfreak]

RE: are you truly amazed?

1) handing the management of flight ops to the accounts department on a plate
2) treating recruitment as a revenue source) see point 1)
3) denuding simulator sessions to the bare minimum required to stay legal, again see point 1

Teddy Robinson, sounds like you've settled on pilot error, LOC, and poor training as the cause. (Not that I'd be surprised.) :suspect:

[Almostfamous]

I found this picture of the recovered tail section, it shows the deformation from a different angle and the accordion like ripples in the skin.

http://media.themalaysianinsider.com/assets/uploads/articles/airasia-qz8501-tail-seabed-lifted-AFP-100115.jpg

[Coagie]

"THREE ships equipped with ping detector beacons received pings from the same location," said Ridwan Djamaluddin, from the Agency for the Application of Technology, whose ship was involved in the search on Sunday.
He said the ping came from a location about one to four kilometres from where the aircraft's broken tail section was retrieved on Saturday."

Hopefully it's the black boxes and not that one of the ships left their ping detector's test tone on!

[_Phoenix]

Leightman 957,
See imagine at better resolution and personal presumed forces of impact with sea
http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/27f9/weqc928vb2la6auzg.jpg

[NSEU]

They are completely sealed units designed for massive G load, water, fire etc.

Re the CVR/DFDR

The plugs and wiring at the back of the unit appear to be still exposed. Looking at the type of unit fitted to the A320, only the recorded data section is fire/G-/crashproof. The processing stuff and power supply are in the rectangular section at the rear of the unit (which would still go through extremes of heat and cold). If you see the plugs on engine electronic components in uncompressurised areas, you'll see that, eventually, the rubber plug-seals let fluids in.

It is normal for these to be located here in many Airbus and Boeing planes;

On the contrary, (modern) Boeing boxes are all inside the pressure bulkhead (747-400, 737NG, 777, 767,...) away from the elements during normal operation.

[WingNut60]

Answering my own question, the majority ownership (51 per cent) is split Pin Harris (20 per cent), Sendjaja Widjaja (21 per cent - and former President Director of PT AWAIR International) and PT Fersindo Nusaperkasa (10 per cent)

[BlankBox]

Qatar pushes for live aircraft data streaming | Avionics content from ATWOnline (http://atwonline.com/avionics/qatar-pushes-live-aircraft-data-streaming)

...and more to come most likely... :p

[EEngr]

He said the ping came from a location about one to four kilometres from where the aircraft's broken tail section was retrieved on Saturday.

One to four kilometers is still quite a bit of territory to search. Particularly if the FDR is no longer attached to a large piece of the fuselage. Visibility on the bottom appears to be no more than a few meters.

Do the divers have any directional hand held hydrophones they can use when they get nearby?

[Boomtown]

For those asking about the ownership of Air Asia Indonesia it is 49% owned by AirAsia Berhad (which is the Malaysian AirAsia entity) and 51% owned by PT Fersindo Nusaperkasa (the Indonesian shareholders). Under Indonesia law, all carriers must be at least 51% owned by Indonesians. This 51% rule applies to other industry sectors as well such as mining.

The CEO of PT Fersindo Nusaperkasa is Dharmadi. He was previously the CEO of AirAsia Indonesia. I have not been able to find any information regarding the shareholders of PT Fersindo but note the following:

The airline was established as Awair (Air Wagon International) in 1999 by Abdurrahman Wahid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdurrahman_Wahid), former chairman of the Nahdlatul Ulama Muslim organisation. He had a 40% stake in the airline which he relinquished after being elected president of Indonesia in October 1999. Source: Indonesia AirAsia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia_AirAsia)

Last month, a local business daily reported that AirAsia scrapped its IPO plans for its Indonesian affiliate due to poor financial results. Indonesia AirAsia reported a net loss of RM102.35 million last year, compared with a net profit of RM52.5 million the year before, despite higher revenue. Source: AirAsia: No more IPOs for affiliates | theSundaily (http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1137962)

[PastTense]

Indonesian search teams believe a sonar scan has detected the fuselage of an AirAsia airliner that crashed two weeks ago with the loss of all 162 people on board and divers were on Sunday checking the find, a senior official said....

Supriyadi, operations coordinator for the National Search and Rescue Agency, said a sonar scan had revealed an object measuring 10 metres by four metres by 2.5 metres on the sea floor."They suspect it is the body of the plane. There is a big possibility that the black box is near the body of the plane," Supriyadi told Reuters in the town of Pangkalan Bun, the base for the search effort on Borneo.
"A team of divers has already been sent to prove this data. The diving operation has started," he said.

Indonesian searchers believe crashed AirAsia's fuselage found | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/11/uk-indonesia-airplane-idUKKBN0K601G20150111)

[dash34]

Is may be reasonable at this point to assert that the aircraft entered the sea intact based on the following logic: the tail structure that was recovered, had it fallen from altitude, would have oriented itself with the relatively heavy vertical stabilizer on the bottom and the draggy fuselage wreckage on top. The vertical fin would have hit the water first and show damage at the top of the fin. It does not.

[_Phoenix]

Indonesian searchers believe crashed AirAsia's fuselage found
Searchers have also been hearing pings, believed to be from the aircraft's black box flight recorders, near where the tail of the Airbus A320-200 aircraft tail was raised on Saturday.
Supriyadi, operations coordinator for the National Search and Rescue Agency, said a sonar scan had revealed an object measuring 10 metres by four metres by 2.5 metres on the sea floor.
"They suspect it is the body of the plane. There is a big possibility that the black box is near the body of the plane," Supriyadi told Reuters in the town of Pangkalan Bun, the base for the search effort on Borneo.
"A team of divers has already been sent to prove this data. The diving operation has started," he said.

[xcitation]

Bear in mind these things do not directly save any lives, and assuming they find the Air Asia DFDR / CVR soon, just save some search effort.

Consider the fact that military aviators and others have been rescued quickly with such technology. If it saved the life of one person it would be worth it. Do a trial period of say 5 years, if it is useless then drop it.
A sanity check is to put oneself in the position that a loved one was on an unfortunate flight. Let's bring these people home and return them to their loved ones. Surely the time has come for commercial aviation to catch up with other aviators that already use the technology e.g. military and oil services a/c.

[Sheep Guts]

Excitation,
The technology is all ready in use in the US NAVY. Getting civilian airliners the same technology has been periodically blocked in Congress since 1999.

[neville_nobody]

I don't think that Qatar's idea of recording cockpit voices then saving in a company controlled data centre is really going to do much other than get more pilots fired. Not hard in today's world of big data to scan everything flight conversation.

It's the beginning of the end IMHO.

[oldchina]

"Can anyone hazard a guess as to what would happen if a small explosive went off in the rear toilet?"

It happened twice to the same BAC 1-11 of Philippine Airlines. Both times it just carried on flying.

[bud leon]

Capn Bloggs

Oh come on. Say that to the thousands of relatives of those killed recently. AF447 and virtually every other recent prang has been caused by Loss of Control. If you're quite happy for this to continue, good for you. I suspect that most of the travelling public wouldn't be but they accept it because of total ignorance. Chuck a extra couple of dollars onto every ticket to pay for more Sim training. Nobody could care less about the increased cost. Will air travel be decimated? Of course not.

I think this is such an incredibly pertinent point. If loss of control caused this incident I hope the industry leaders respond to what is obviously becoming a critical issue in aviation safety. In such a technologically advanced human-machine-environment interface these failures should not be considered acceptable. Airbus and Boeing could join together and demand high minimum standards to operate their equipment, and perhaps review and admit interface flaws. Some soul searching is needed.

[Msunduzi]

"Is may be reasonable at this point to assert that the aircraft entered the sea intact based on the following logic: the tail structure that was recovered, had it fallen from altitude, would have oriented itself with the relatively heavy vertical stabilizer on the bottom and the draggy fuselage wreckage on top. The vertical fin would have hit the water first and show damage at the top of the fin. It does not."






It would have just tumbled randomly

[BlankBox]

http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/394686696.jpg

quite a wrinkle is this...

[Ber Nooly]

https://irishweatheronline.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/indonesia-air-asia-8501-a-meteorological-analysis/I have updated my analysis of the conditions durinig the last moments.

I think a real possibility is icing at FL320, climb to higher followed by engine(s) shutting down from ice crystal-ingestion and subsequent loss of control. Pure educated speculation, of course.

[Mr Optimistic]

Re condition of airframe on impact. AF447 fin sheared on impact and floated free. Here, if there is substantial fuselage structure attached, this implies to me a more energetic event. Also, the location of the engines relative to each other will be a good indication of that part of the airframe at impact as the engines will not be subject to much drift during fall through the water. Just need to find them....

[HarryMann]

It would have just tumbled randomly


Yes agree...

Please stop pretending some of you have any idea about fluid
mechanics or flight crash dynamics...

[HarryMann]

... and yes, agree again!

It is important to find the engines and the hull...

THEN some SENSIBLE deductions can start :rolleyes:

[squeaker]

That last picture is a door from a bar trolley. Assuming they were stowed in the galley (presumably rear galley) due to turbulence, the picture suggests a big impact from below, if it was the right way up of course.

[marchino61]

Quote:
But it was not 'the industry' that paid those extended recovery costs. 'The industry' was getting a free ride on the taxpayers of the location of the crash. In the same way that MH370 searches are being largely funded by Australian taxpayers. endquote:


And you would be wrong on both counts.

While governments initially fund searches, in many cases (such as MH370) extended operating costs will be charged back to the airlines, which in turn pay the charges from their insurance policy.

In the case of MH370, Malaysia Airlines has a $2.25 billion per crash liability policy with no caps for Search and Rescue. The Australian government has already reached out to Malaysia to seek reimbursement from this insurance fund (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/business/air-insurers-worry-after-malaysia-airlines-latest-crash.html?_r=0).

In the case of AF447, Air France and Airbus directly funded the search for the blackboxes. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/world/europe/31plane.html?_r=1)

More relevant to this case (in Indonesia), Adam Air directly paid for the search and recovery the Adam Air 574 black boxes (http://news.aviation-safety.net/2007/05/26/adam-air-nears-black-box-salvage-deal/).

No doubt similarly AirAsia (and their insurer) must absorb / reimburse a large portion of the SAR costs.

For more "routine" recovery operations, governments typically do not charge back the airlines, but that's because the airlines and flying public already pay billions in taxes each and every year for routine government services (which include SAR). Wow, talk about selective quoting! And I don't understand why. Who are you trying to defend? :=

Your source states:

"By tradition, governments do not seek reimbursement from an airline for search-and-rescue costs. As a result, the airlines do not typically need to ask their insurers to cover these costs; the insurers cover only so-called commercial costs, though their contracts do allow governments to seek reimbursement."

Which I believe was largely what the first poster was trying to say, albeit he has turned out to be wrong in 2 specific cases.

[Ian W]

I would suggest that the ULBs requirements are:
Detection Range At least 25 nautical miles in open ocean
Battery Life At least 6 months, possibly by reducing number of pulses and using smart transponder that does not go into regular short location signals until it receives a search request sonar signal
Encoded Location Signals The signals from the ULBs should be encoded with airframe ID, their position (last GPS position of the aircraft) and their depth in the water.

These requirements appear to be asking too much and all that is being offered is a slightly longer life battery.:oh:

Well then you will need a unit that's about 4 times as large to give more power output and longivity. But 25NM range: dream on unless you're talking of equipment capable of transmitting to submarines which is massive i.e Rugby.

You are thinking in straight lines.

Change the frequency - Remember this is not radio this is sonar a lower frequency in water has a lot more range.
Change the pulse recurrence frequency so that there is one pulse every minute or even every 3 minutes by charging a capacitor bank then discharge that for a greater power output
Encode the signal with the last position from the DFDR/GPS and the aircraft ID

None of these would necessarily require anything 'special' just a little bit of engineering thought. As I said in a previous post I am not alone in asking for this

BEA also put forward a request for this type of improvement (from the BEA report on search operations for AFR 447 http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....11.2012.en.pdf (http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/sea.search.ops.af447.05.11.2012.en.pdf) ):

B.3.1 Enhanced battery life
The use of ULB beacons with 90 days(14) autonomy would have made it possible to
extend the search for the ULB beacons in this vast area. The BEA recommended that
EASA and ICAO extend the regulatory transmission time of ULBs (from 30 to 90 days)
B.3.2 Additional ULB
Using beacons capable of transmitting on lower frequencies (for example between
8.5 kHz and 9.5 kHz) would have facilitated the detection of the wreckage. Indeed,
military resources, typically deployed in the early days to take part in SAR operations,
are equipped with sonar suited to the detection of low frequency signals, and
in addition the use of lower frequencies increases the detection distance. The
BEA has recommended that EASA and ICAO make it mandatory for aeroplanes
performing public transport flights over maritime areas to be equipped with a lowfrequency
beacon. Everyone ends up paying for these extended searches because these devices were designed to work in inland waters or rivers where everyone knew where the aircraft was it was only a case of finding the box in the wreckage. The requirement is now totally different and the longer 'thin' oceanic routes and extended ranges of narrow bodies (A319s fly scheduled transatlantic services) are making it more likely that crashes will occur out in the ocean.

[davionics]

Bud leon

Agree totally! Especially about AF447 - always thought it was a strange concept in design to have no synchronous control stick feedback between pilots! Technology and flight envelope has been progressing at a staggering rate over the last century, but the interface to technology will never be a panacea on the assumption that the aircraft is operated within a flight envelope that it was not capable of. My point being - flight into an active tropical TC (or extreme weather) would hardly be considered 'safe' in terms of historic accident statistical analysis. Simply put, an executive decision to turn back based on refused clearance to alter FL would have been all that was needed to avert mass loss of life given the current synopsis.

[ana1936]

Blackbox in the wrong direction?

Steve Herman
@W7VOA

5 minutes ago

MT @ChiefofNavy: #QZ8501: Black Box localised 0.5nm E of tail. Confirmed by the 3 searching vessels. Divers are verifying finding.


https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/554225160148901888

[Ian W]

Qatar pushes for live aircraft data streaming | Avionics content from ATWOnline (http://atwonline.com/avionics/qatar-pushes-live-aircraft-data-streaming)

...and more to come most likely... :p

This is not just a 'call for action', Akbar Al Baker is saying that Qatar Airways are doing it, they are not asking someone else to create it.

From the article:

Qatar Airways CEO Akbar Al Baker said the carrier is trialing the use of constant data uploads from flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders, aka black boxes, of its aircraft.
Speaking at the recent customer launch of the first Airbus A350 (http://atwonline.com/airlines/qatar-airways-unveils-first-airbus-a350-doha), Al Baker said, “We want to … introduce full-time black box data uploads across all our aircraft,” he said, adding that the airline’s management was convinced it should be a mandatory technology across all IATA-compliant carriers.
Note the present tense. So much for the claims that it is impossible to do.
This could be an embarrassment to the aviation industry bureaucrats who no doubt had whole sets of technical interchange meetings in a 'roadmap' running to 2030 to discuss 'feasibility', 'nascent standards' and 'rule making' - and an airline is actually doing it already!

[bud leon]

davionics

Agree totally! Especially about AF447 - always thought it was a strange concept in design to have no synchronous control stick feedback between pilots! Technology and flight envelope has been progressing at a staggering rate over the last century, but the interface to technology will never be a panacea on the assumption that the aircraft is operated within a flight envelope that it was not capable of. My point being - flight into an active tropical TC (or extreme weather) would hardly be considered 'safe' in terms of historic accident statistical analysis. Simply put, an executive decision to turn back based on refused clearance to alter FL would have been all that was needed to avert mass loss of life given the current synopsis.

Well we have to wait for the incident investigation to get to the point at which a reasonable understanding of causes is achieved. But there seem to be practices in the aviation industry which would not currently be considered acceptable in other industries. In most industries contemporary safety management supports decisions to stop operations when risks might possibly be entering into uncontrollable territory. The rights of individuals to declare an unsafe situation are sacrosanct. The safety of everyone is the first priority. Training and competencies are top priorities. Technology providers actively seek to eliminate interface deficiencies (as a safety progressional I see obvious interface errors in aspects of glass cockpits and it's time pilots stopped defending their favourite aircraft's flaws).

In any other industry the public would challenge an operator's public licence to operate. The aviation industry does not seem to be exposed to that level of stakeholder pressure. The aviation industry seems to be falling behind the current safety state of the art.

All of the Sopwith Camel ace pilot dialogue is old fashioned and should not enter the debate. The (mainly laughable) perceptions of Asian cultural elements should not dominate the debate.

if this incident turns out to be obviously avoidable, the airline industry should embrace this incident as an opportunity to be leaders in safety again.

[Blake777]

Ian W

"Those who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

[AirScotia]

Technology and flight envelope has been progressing at a staggering rate over the last century, but the interface to technology will never be a panacea on the assumption that the aircraft is operated within a flight envelope that it was not capable of. My point being - flight into an active tropical TC (or extreme weather) would hardly be considered 'safe' in terms of historic accident statistical analysis. Simply put, an executive decision to turn back based on refused clearance to alter FL would have been all that was needed to avert mass loss of life given the current synopsis.

This triggers a question in my mind. The airways over the Java Sea were very busy that day, as presumably is the case most days. QZ8501 was at FL320 because there was so much other traffic, both behind and crossing, at higher altitudes. The flight in front and the one following were both closer than the required separation distance at the same altitude.

Yet all those flights were picking their way through the ITCZ and it was likely to be necessary for flight crews to dodge and dart their way round CBs. This was not a zone where crews could stick dutifully to assigned flight levels.

Wouldn't it therefore be sensible for ATC to space the flights out, to give crews adequate room to get out of trouble quickly without worrying too much about asking permission? Shouldn't that be a sensible precaution when crossing the ITCZ in any part of the world?

[Ian W]

I don't think that Qatar's idea of recording cockpit voices then saving in a company controlled data centre is really going to do much other than get more pilots fired. Not hard in today's world of big data to scan everything flight conversation.

It's the beginning of the end IMHO.

You are concerned too much. Most people are more concerned with ensuring that other pilots do not get involved in crashes they do not walk away from due to some aircraft technical or training shortcoming.

Anyway - welcome to the world of continuous open mike recording with remote supervisor watchers and listeners and instant replay that ATC has had for decades. So controllers never know when all their actions and talk are being watched/listened to by their supervisors.

[DaveReidUK]

If it saved the life of one person it would be worth it. Do a trial period of say 5 years, if it is useless then drop it.
A sanity check is to put oneself in the position that a loved one was on an unfortunate flight.

Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way. Safety is always a tradeoff against cost.

[BG47]

PANGKALAN BUN/JAKARTA (Reuters) - Indonesian search teams believe they have found the fuselage of an AirAsia airliner that crashed in the Java Sea two weeks ago, and divers hope calmer waters on Monday will allow them to retrieve the black box flight recorders.

Searchers have also been hearing pings, believed to be from the aircraft's two black boxes near where the tail of the Airbus A320-200 aircraft tail was raised on Saturday.

Supriyadi, operations coordinator for the National Search and Rescue Agency, said on Sunday a sonar scan had revealed an object measuring 10 meters by four meters by 2.5 meters on the sea floor.

"They suspect it is the body of the plane. There is a big possibility that the black box is near the body of the plane," Supriyadi told Reuters in the town of Pangkalan Bun, the base for the search effort on Borneo.

"If it is the body of the plane then we will first evacuate the victims. Secondly we will search for the black box.” Strong winds, currents and high waves have been hampering efforts to reach other large pieces of suspected wreckage detected by sonar on the sea floor. Three vessels involved in the search have detected pings about 4 km (two miles) from where the plane's tail was raised on Saturday, in water about 30 meters (yards) deep.

"Three ships have (recorded) the pings so we can confirm the coordinates of the location of the black box," Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee investigator Santoso Sayogo told Reuters.

If weather conditions are conducive, "hopefully they will recover the black box tomorrow morning," Santoso said. "The coordinates show the bottom of the sea (in that location) is sand so the divers should easily be able to see it."

If and when the recorders are found and taken to the capital, Jakarta, for analysis, it could take up to two weeks to download data, investigators said, although the information could be accessed in as little as two days if the devices are not badly damaged.

[Ian W]

This triggers a question in my mind. The airways over the Java Sea were very busy that day, as presumably is the case most days. QZ8501 was at FL320 because there was so much other traffic, both behind and crossing, at higher altitudes. The flight in front and the one following were both closer than the required separation distance at the same altitude.

Yet all those flights were picking their way through the ITCZ and it was likely to be necessary for flight crews to dodge and dart their way round CBs. This was not a zone where crews could stick dutifully to assigned flight levels.

Wouldn't it therefore be sensible for ATC to space the flights out, to give crews adequate room to get out of trouble quickly without worrying too much about asking permission? Shouldn't that be a sensible precaution when crossing the ITCZ in any part of the world?

ATC do precisely that.
In areas subject to large numbers of convective storms (called by some controllers 'popcorn thundershowers') Flow management may put significant limits on the number of aircraft allowed through the airspace. In areas where aircraft are confined to fixed air routes the flow managers will normally put on an extended 'Miles In Trail' limit to reduce the numbers of aircraft. Controllers in sectors that start becoming difficult to work will give the surrounding sectors a maximum number of aircraft they can accept in a time period - to reduce workload and make working the aircraft in their sector safer.

It will vary by control unit, but it is not uncommon to have the pilot and controller working together with their different weather sensors to negotiate a safe track for the aircraft. This takes time and at sector boundaries the controller has to liaise continually with the neighboring sector(s) at every change in level or track. Inevitably this has a knock-on effect and flow restrictions are imposed on aircraft outside those sectors or centers, often leading to extended ground holds.

There are systems in place such as 'Collaborative Trajectory Options' where airlines can put in a prioritized list of potential tracks and profiles (trajectories) for their flight, and the flow managers clear the flight onto the trajectory that will get the least delay. Future Concepts of Operations will allow even more flexibility to avoid weather. However, on short flights such as this AirAsia flight there are not really a lot of options and the ITCZ goes all around the equator, you have to cross it somewhere.

[Boomtown]

With regards to the twisted and crushed metal we are seeing - early reports cited gale force winds and waves up to 5 meters high. Is anyone able to comment what those sort of storm conditions would do to a (temporarily) floating airframe?

Are those loads capable of tearing apart what is an otherwise largely intact airframe?

[AirScotia]

ATC do precisely that.
In areas subject to large numbers of convective storms (called by some controllers 'popcorn thundershowers') Flow management may put significant limits on the number of aircraft allowed through the airspace. In areas where aircraft are confined to fixed air routes the flow managers will normally put on an extended 'Miles In Trail' limit to reduce the numbers of aircraft. Controllers in sectors that start becoming difficult to work will give the surrounding sectors a maximum number of aircraft they can accept in a time period - to reduce workload and make working the aircraft in their sector safer.

@Ian W, many thanks. Can I ask if you know how many Miles In Trail would be thought sensible in a popcorn-thunderstorm area that's likely to have a lot of traffic?


BTW, when I googled 'Miles in Trail', I was startled to see that your own post in this thread, from half an hour ago, was one of the top results. Google's ability to track us in real time could give the airlines a lesson.

[Ancient-Mariner]

Re bille1319
Quote/...Well then you will need a unit that's about 4 times as large to give more power output and longivity. But 25NM range: dream on unless you're talking of equipment capable of transmitting to submarines which is massive i.e Rugby." .../unquote.


You may have mixed up audio, albeit of high frequency, such as a pinger, bat or dog whistle makes; with electromagnetic radiation, which is radio.


The Rugby installation of aerials for GBR on 16 kHz was for electromagnetic ie radio transmission. Initially for long distance communication (before short wave was used) and more recently submarine communication.


Cheers!

[Blake777]

Channel News Asia quotes Indonesia's Directorate General of Marine Transport as confirming that the location of the black box has been determined. Retrieval will be attempted tomorrow morning.

Additional Edit: A further clarification by Channel News Asia says that the black box is believed to be wedged between pieces of wreckage. If divers cannot free it then the balloon method will also be employed to shift the wreckage.

[Jedo_03]

I'm not an aviator - but have flown many times in the right-hand-seat of the Australian RFDS (as an invited passenger - I'm a clinician)...
First flights in the late 80's were in a GAF Nomad (the famous Mike Sierra Foxtrot... then to the sophisticated Beechcraft King-Airs with (phew...) pressurised cabins...
Have followed PPruNe since MH370 - and now AF5801...
Great to see the input of professional people in the various spheres of aviation... Putting the pieces together much more informatively than the gung-ho media reporters in these sad times...
Well Done blokes... and Thank You...

[G0ULI]

Boomtown

Quote:
With regards to the twisted and crushed metal we are seeing - early reports cited gale force winds and waves up to 5 meters high. Is anyone able to comment what those sort of storm conditions would do to a (temporarily) floating airframe?

Are those loads capable of tearing apart what is an otherwise largely intact airframe?

The short answer is no. Most damage is done when waves push an object against rocks or grind it against a rocky seabed. A loose collection of objects floating offshore can also be ground against one another by wave action causing damage primarily around the edges, but not tearing and compression damage of the sort seen in the pictures currently circulating. All the indications are that the damage was done by a high velocity impact with the sea surface.

[Gretchenfrage]

Airbus and Boeing could join together and demand high minimum standards to operate their equipment, and perhaps review and admit interface flaws

bud, keep on dreaming ....

Did Audi and Toyota join together to resolve the "sudden acceleration" problem? Never. It took the pressure from many lawsuits to have both companies redesign their products. No regulators were involved, just the lawsuits and dwindling sales, because the customers no longer bought their products due to the flaws.
In aviation there are similarities, like impotent regulators, but even more differences. Mainly because there are not many choices to buy, factually a duopoly, and because it's never the direct user (pilot/passenger) who buys the product, but some remote beancounter who rarely expose his bum to the product. He only cares about the price tag and for a lesser one takes cynically into consideration some losses.

Redesign of known flaws happen very rarely in aviation. Mostly these glitches are simply handled with some badly written bulletins to pilots, thus cheaply handing the responsibility down the food chain.

There needs to be a hell of a lot more pressure from passenger associations via lawsuits, the press and their chosen politicians before anything changes.
But then again: Those same politicians nominate the regulators .....

[CISTRS]

BBC reporting that "Black Box" has been located but not yet retrieved owing to being buried in wreckage.
Not stated whether FDR or CVR.

[ATC Watcher]

Ian W and Air Scotia :ATC do precisely that.

Maybe in the USA where there is an old " CB avoidance" culture and ATFM ( Flow management) organised through a single command centre which has direct access to the US Air Force areas .
Europe is also equipped with an advanced centralized ATFM system , but does not have the same weather pattern as in the equator/tropics or continental US. and there are 40+ airforces around to deal with.

A totally different picture that what is going on the rest of the world unfortunately , and definitively in South East Asia , where each Sate has its own air force and where countries are suspicious of one another and do not cooperate.

ATC is there to separate aircraft from one another also aircraft from penetrating reserved or restricted areas, and to comply with restrictions and demands made by teh next sectors( control centres) .

There is no standard " Miles in trail " separation applied by all. They vary depending on location and surveillance capabilities. , it can be 5 NM . can be 100 Miles (15 minutes) . It can be 5 NM in one sector , and 10 minutes at the transfer point for the next sector in a different Control Centre no equipped with same capabilities. Once established controllers have to follow that.

But, once again , the pilot has the decision on weather avoidance, not ATC . The pilot(s) can see in real time what the actual weather is , ATC cannot. If a request for deviation ( laterally or vertical ) cannot be approved by ATC ( due e.g. restricted or dangerous areas penetration or simply other traffic ) the PIC can deviate on his own bu just declaring on the R/T , " unable, turning or climbing now ". This then becomes an emergency situation , and ATC will help clearing the way. The PIC is always ultimately responsible for the safety of his flight.

To come back to this Air Asia case, I have seen no indication so far that the Pilot of this flight did not jut do that, but he did not tell ATC, so for me I think there must be something else, or the initial request to deviate came much too late.

[peekay4]

Which I believe was largely what the first poster was trying to say, albeit he has turned out to be wrong in 2 specific cases
Which happened to be the two specific cases (AF447, MH370) most relevant to this crash, yes -- in addition to the Adam Air accident which showed an actual precedent for SAR funding in Indonesia (funding which was central to recovering the black boxes). And addressing the larger point he was trying to make, re-read my last paragraph.